Interpretation ID: nht93-7.50

DATE: November 3, 1993

FROM: Thomas D. Price -- President, Strait-Stop Manufacturing Co., Inc.

TO: Senator David Boren

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/23/93 from Howard M. Smolkin to David L. Boren (A41; Std. 121); Also attached to letter dated 4/13/93 from Howard M. Smolkin to David Boren

TEXT:

In August, 1992, I wrote to inform you of our noncomputerized antilock brake system and to enlist your aid in monitoring the activities of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration during the amendment process for FMVSS 105, and FMVSS 121. Since then, and on several occasions, we have communicated our views and our concerns to the Agency as to the possible discrimination which might be employed by NHTSA regarding a definition of ABS. Our requests that the Agency become familiar with the Strait-Stop system before they reach final decisions have regularly ignored or rejected.

Meanwhile, our system has continued to prove itself as an effective antilock device that also significantly reduces maintenance expense for the vehicle operator. Whereas, the computerized systems only activate when lockup is imminent, the Strait-Stop ABS actuates almost every time the driver applies the brakes. In NHTSA's own final report on a two year test of computerized ABS on trucks, they concluded the systems activated 1.4 times per 10,000 brake applications or 1.1 times per 10,000 miles traveled. Our system activates 7.000 times more often than theirs. It is an aid with which the drivers can become familiar. It is a constant approach to maintaining enhanced stability and controlled braking, not a dire emergency, last minute device.

This brings me to the extreme concern of the moment and my purpose in approaching you. On September 28, 1993, NHTSA published in the Federal Register two NPRMs relating to FMVSS 105, and FMVSS 121. Included therein is the following proposed definition of ABS to be included both at S571.105, S4 and at S571.121, S4:

Braking System means a portion of a service brake system that automatically controls the degree of rotational wheel slip during braking by:

1. Sensing the rate of angular rotation of the wheels; 2. Transmitting signals regarding the rate of wheel angular rotation to one or more devices which interpret those signals and generate responsible controlling out put signals; and 3. Transmitting those controlling signals to one or more devices which adjust brake actuating forces in response to those signals.

This definition is absolutely restrictive and discriminatory to the benefit of only one technology. It not only excludes the Strait-Stop ABS, but also precludes the development of any future technology which might be even more effective in achieving brake safety. Although NHTSA persists in the position that they never approve nor disapprove equipment, they are, very effectively, attempting to prescribe one specific technology. The defense for such a biased

opinion is the three year testing of only one technology, which DID NOT demonstrate an irreproachable, overwhelming body of evidence that the computerized ABS is the only solution to vehicle stability and control problems. Since they have not completed nor even entertained a comparison of the computerized versus the noncomputerized technologies, one can only conclude NHTSA is proposing an arbitrary restraint favoring one vested interest.

The antilock brake industry will be a multibillion dollar business and we resent what we believe to be an overt attempt to exclude our opportunity to compete. In addition, there are several segments of the transportation market which can only use the Strait-Stop technology to their benefit. One of those segments is transit buses. The computerized systems can never be anything but an unmitigated cost, whereas, the noncomputerized system has proven it can substantially reduce operating and maintenance expense.

We will continue in our response to NHTSA's NPRMs and in our attempts to rally other transportation industry participants to our views. We desperately need immediate political intervention to avoid an economic catastrophe for our company and a deprivation of the transportation industry of a viable aid to safety and the right of self-determination as to how to best meet their needs. We are the smallest of a minority now, but we can grow to be a significant contributor to the economic welfare of Oklahoma in general and Cleveland County in particular.

Please lend us your immediate knowledgeable support in this very critical battle.

Enclosure:

ABS DEFINITION

The NHTSA is doing precisely what it has said all along it would not do. Instead of limiting itself to requiring performance standards for stopping distance, steering control and maintaining vehicle lateral stability, it is proposing a definition for ABS that adopts ONLY ONE antilock braking system technology currently available and may very well preclude the utilization of existing and future alternative, more effective systems.

ABS is an acronym for antilock braking system, which is a compound term of four words having the following meanings:

anti - opposing in effect or activity (as by inhibiting, curing, neutralizing or combating)

lock - to hold fast or inactive; to make fast by the interlacing or interlocking of parts

braking - arresting the motion of a mechanism, usually employing friction; slowing down or stopping movement or activity

system - a group of interacting bodies under the influence of related forces

Therefore, generically, ABS is defined as, "a group of interacting bodies (components) opposing (inhibiting) loss of activity capability necessary to arrest the motion of vehicle by employment of friction".

More specifically, ABS could be defined as, "a group of mechanical and/or electronic components, which inhibits the nullification of frictional forces employed in arresting the longitudinal and lateral motion of a motor vehicle".

Any ABS, so defined would be required to meet or exceed the performance standards for stopping, control and stability. The only elements lost by the above definition are (1) the propensity of the Agency staff to consider computerized technology as the only viable approach to ABS and (2) the economic compulsion of Rockwell/WABCO, Midland/Grau, Bendix/Knorr and Robert Bosch to limit the scope of competition, via Federal mandate, in the United States.

- - - -

The following letter transmits Mr. Price's letter to the NHTSA:

November 15, 1993

Howard Smolkin, Acting Administrator NHTSA 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Smolkin:

I have again been contacted by my constituent, Mr. Thomas Price, of ABAS Marketing concerning his anti-locking braking system. Mr. Price is concerned that the proposed rule-making by the NHTSA is discriminatory and by definition would exclude his braking system from being considered for future use.

Enclosed is his most recent letter to me raising these issues and his concerns about them. In an effort to be helpful to Mr. Price, I would appreciate your review of his letter and a response that I can share with him.

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration. I will look forward to hearing from you. Please send your response to my Oklahoma City office, to the attention of Jim Hopper.

Sincerely,

David L. Boren United States Senator