Home Page About Us Contribute




Escort, Inc.



Tweets by @CrittendenAuto






By accessing/using The Crittenden Automotive Library/CarsAndRacingStuff.com, you signify your agreement with the Terms of Use on our Legal Information page. Our Privacy Policy is also available there.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Antilock Brake Systems for Light Vehicles

American Government Special Collections Reference Desk

American Government Topics:  Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Antilock Brake Systems for Light Vehicles

Barry Felrice
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
March 8, 1994


[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 45 (Tuesday, March 8, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-5189]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: March 8, 1994]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. 93-94; Notice 2]
RIN 2127-AE47

 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Antilock Brake Systems 
for Light Vehicles

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking; notice to extend comment 
period.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In response to a petition submitted by Advocates for Highway 
and Auto Safety, this notice extends the comment period for an advance 
notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) that seeks comments about the 
need to require antilock brake systems on passenger cars and other 
light vehicles. NHTSA believes that commenters need more time to 
formulate their responses given the complexity of the issues and the 
agency's delay in docketing the Preliminary Economic Assessment (PEA). 
Accordingly, the agency has decided to extend the comment period from 
March 7, 1994 to April 6, 1994.

DATES: Comments on the advance notice of proposed rulemaking, Docket 
93-94, Notice 1, must be received on or before April 6, 1994.

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to Docket No. 93-94, Notice 1 and be 
submitted to: Docket Section, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20590. Docket hours are 9:30 to 4 p.m. Monday through 
Friday.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. George Soodoo, Office of Rulemaking, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20590 (202-366-5892).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On January 4, 1994, NHTSA published an 
advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) in the Federal Register 
(59 FR 281). The notice requested comments regarding the braking 
performance of passenger cars and other light vehicles and the need to 
require antilock brake systems (ABS) on these vehicles. The ANPRM posed 
questions about the desirability of a requirement that light vehicles 
be equipped with ABS, including questions about such a requirement's 
anticipated safety benefits, potential regulatory approaches and 
anticipated performance requirements and test procedures, the 
requirement's applicability, its schedule for implementation, and the 
anticipated costs. The notice specified that comments had to be 
submitted on or before March 7, 1994.
    Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates) petitioned the 
agency to extend the comment period an additional 30 days. Advocates 
stated that they needed additional time to respond to the rulemaking in 
a timely manner since the preliminary economic assessment (PEA) had yet 
to be submitted to the public docket when it contacted the agency in 
late January.
    After reviewing the petition, NHTSA agrees with the petitioner that 
extending the comment closing date is desirable, given that a variety 
of complex issues are raised in the notice addressing whether the 
agency should propose to require that light vehicles be equipped with 
antilock brake systems. In addition, the agency believes that the 
petitioner and other commenters need more time to review the PEA since 
many questions in the ANPRM address the costs and benefits of this 
rulemaking. An extension of the comment period will allow the 
petitioner and other commenters more time to better address the issues 
raised in the ANPRM.
    Based on the above considerations, the agency concludes that there 
is good cause to extend the comment period an additional 30 days and 
that this decision is consistent with the public interest. Accordingly, 
the agency has decided to extend the comment period until April 6, 
1993.


    Issued on: March 2, 1994.
Barry Felrice,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 94-5189 Filed 3-7-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-M

Connect with The Crittenden Automotive Library

The Crittenden Automotive Library at Google+ The Crittenden Automotive Library on Facebook The Crittenden Automotive Library on Instagram The Crittenden Automotive Library at The Internet Archive The Crittenden Automotive Library on Pinterest The Crittenden Automotive Library on Twitter The Crittenden Automotive Library on Tumblr
 


The Crittenden Automotive Library

Home Page    About Us    Contribute