Interpretation ID: nht93-3.3

DATE: April 15, 1993

FROM: Howard M. Smolkin -- Acting Administrator, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TO: David L. Boren -- United States Senator

COPYEE: Washington Office

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-30-93 from David L. Boren to Howard Smolkin

TEXT: Thank you for your recent letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Thomas D. Price of Norman, Oklahoma. Mr. Price is concerned that this agency has not tested his product as part of its research activities relative to heavy vehicle braking stability and control.

By way of background, the heavy vehicle stability and control research of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) was undertaken in response to a court case involving a NHTSA Regulation. In 1978, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals set aside the stopping distance test requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121 (FMVSS No. 121), which the agency had established in 1975. PACCAR, INC. V. NHTSA, 573 F.2d 632, (9th Cir. 1978). As a practical consequence, the stopping distance requirements had the effect of requiring antilock brake systems (ABS) on many heavy vehicles. The Court based its ruling, in part, on a determination that the agency had not established that reliable ABS systems were available which could meet these requirements. The court held that "more provative (sic) and convincing data evidencing the reliability and safety of vehicles that are equipped with antilock and in use must be available before the agency can enforce a standard requiring its installation." 573 F.2d at 643. This ruling effectively precluded the agency from establishing ABS requirements for heavy vehicles without first establishing such a record.

Throughout the early 1980's, the agency conducted an extensive series of tests of ABS systems at our Vehicle Research and Test Center in Ohio. We followed these tests with field tests of ABS systems, beginning in 1988. That work is nearly completed. The field tests were to evaluate the reliability, maintainability, and durability of current generation ABS systems on heavy vehicles.

In selecting the items to be tested, the agency chose the latest available versions of the types of ABS systems that had been at issue in the 1978 court decision. I note that, given our limited research budget, it is not possible for us to test every automotive safety-related piece of equipment that is introduced into the marketplace.

As we stated in our October 5, 1992, letter to Senator Nickles, who had written the agency on behalf of Mr. Price, the purpose of our research in this area is to determine the availability of reliable and practical hardware systems that enhance the stability and control of heavy vehicles while braking. A report on the tractor portion of this research, "An In-Service Evaluation of the Reliability, Maintainability, and Durability of Antilock Braking Systems (ABS) for Heavy Truck Tractors," was published in March of 1992. The report concluded that reliable and practical hardware is available to the heavy vehicle manufacturing and user industry. A report on the trailer portion of

this research is expected to be published in the late summer or early fall of this year.

As Mr. Price is aware, in June 1992, NHTSA published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking information about the stability and control performance of heavy vehicles. This notice was issued, in part, in response to a provision of the Motor Carrier Act of 1991 which directed the Secretary of Transportation to initiate rulemaking about, among other things, ABS systems on new commercial vehicles.

NHTSA is reviewing the comments to that notice, including one submitted by Mr. Price, and we expect to make a decision soon about whether to proceed to a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Any such notice would provide an opportunity for public comment, and we would carefully consider all comments before issuing a final rule. We encourage Mr. Price to continue to follow this rulemaking and, if a notice of proposed rulemaking is published, to submit any comments that he might have on the proposed requirements.

We appreciate your continued interest in our programs.