ID: nht93-3.21

DATE: April 26, 1993

FROM: Donald J. Crane -- ARVIN, Calspan Corporation

TO: Mary Versailles -- Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-25-93 from John Womack to Donald J. Crane (A41; Std. 207).

TEXT: Recently, a customer of Calspan Corporation inquired whether or not their vehicle was exempt from the test requirements in S4.3.2.2, Acceleration of Standard No. 207; Seating Systems. This test subjects the restraining device to an acceleration of 20 g., in the longitudinal direction opposite to that in which the seat folds. The seat types exempt from this requirement are a passenger seat in a bus or a seat having a back that is adjustable only for the comfort of its occupant.

A summary of the seat types and vehicle type for Calspan's customer are in the following table.

Front Seat (Drv. & Pass.) Rear Seat (Bench Seat)

Seat Back Angle 24 degrees 26 degrees

Reclining Angle * Forward: 39 degrees 30' +/- 3 degrees No

Rearward: 58 degrees +/- 2 degrees

Sliding Distance 220 mm No

Folding Forward No Split Seat Back folded

Vehicle Type 4-Door Sedan

* 24 degrees + 58 degrees = 82 degrees

With this information, can you please provide a written interpretation of S4.3.2.2 of Standard 207. Also, is this a full-flat seat? What would the interpretation be if the vehicle was a 2-door type?

I thank you for your attention and assistance in this inquiry. Please call me at (716)631-6854 if you have any questions.

ID: nht93-3.22

DATE: April 26, 1993

FROM: Shintaro Nakatsuka -- Vice President, Environment & Safety, Mazda (North America), Inc.

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: Barry Felrice -- Associate Administrator for Rulemaking

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/29/93 from John Womack to Shintaro Nakatsuka (A41; Std. 102; Std. 114)

TEXT:

Mazda, like many other manufacturers, is relying more and more upon the use of electronics in the development of future vehicles. In the course of examining some applications of these technologies, we discovered some ambiguity between the requirements of FMVSS 102 and FMVSS 114. There appears to be an unintended inconsistency between the two regulations.

We believe that it is possible to interpret the provisions of FMVSS 102 along with the provisions of FMVSS 114 so as to eliminate this ambiguity. We are requesting that you consider the possible interpretations discussed herein and advise us whether we are correct.

In 1989, NHTSA amended FMVSS 102 in order to permit the use of electronic gear shift sequence displays. The agency replaced the requirement that the gear shift sequence be PERMANENTLY displayed with a requirement that it be displayed only when the ignition is in a position where the transmission can be shifted or when the transmission is not in park (49CFR102 S3.1.4.1).

In 1991, NHTSA amended FMVSS 114 to accommodate electrical transmission shift lock systems. Here the standard was amended to allow override systems to be incorporated in vehicles that permitted the transmission to be shifted out of park in the case of a power failure. The amendment that was added permits the transmission to be shifted out of park in the case of a power failure provided that the key is removed and the vehicle cannot be steered (49CFR114 S4.2.2(b)(1)). This permits towing when the vehicle is otherwise disabled.

In the course of examining electrical systems for future vehicle programs, we encountered some ambiguity between the two provisions discussed above. There appears to be what can best be described as unintended inconsistency between the two provisions. The agency clearly contemplated power failures and the need to deal with them when it added the override provisions to FMVSS 114. This standard permits the incorporation of features in a vehicle that allows the transmission to be moved out of park, provided first, that the key is not in the ignition so as to prevent vehicle operation, and second, that the vehicle cannot be steered.

These safeguards assure that moving the transmission out of park does not inadvertently present an unsafe situation.

However, when we turn to the requirements of FMVSS 102, that standard does not explicitly address the situation where the transmission has been moved out of park in the case of a power failure (as contemplated under the provisions of FMVSS 114). It is the safeguards that are incorporated in FMVSS 114 that allow a manufacturer to design and sell a vehicle with an electrical shift lock system.

We presume that reading FMVSS 102 alongside FMVSS 114 allows a similar situation with respect to electronic shift sequence displays. We believe that the provisions of S3.1.4.1(b) of FMVSS 102 would not have to be satisfied in a vehicle equipped with an electronic gear shift sequence display were that vehicle to suffer the same power failure that necessitated the application of the shift lock override provision of FMVSS 114, provided that the same safeguards pertained, minimizing any possible safety risk.

An alternative interpretation of this issue may be equally valid. Under this interpretation, we advance the position that the agency never intended that the provisions of FMVSS 102 would apply in situations where a manufacturer elected to use an electronic transmission shift sequence display and there was a power failure.

It is clear that the 1989 amendments were promulgated only to permit manufacturers to offer electronic displays. In amending the regulation to allow those types of displays, the agency clearly recognized that its requirements could not be satisfied under conditions where there was a power failure. Thus, compliance testing was never intended to be conducted in such a situation.

In fact, only where the agency has a particular safety concern in cases where there is a power failure, such as those conditions addressed by FMVSS 114, does NHTSA explicitly establish requirements that apply in such a situation. The absence of any such requirements in FMVSS 102 is a further indication that the standard is not meant to apply when there is no power.

We would appreciate an early response to this request for interpretation. If NHTSA does not believe that there is a suitable interpretation that permits FMVSS 102 to be read consistently with FMVSS 114, we respectfully request that this letter be treated as a petition for rulemaking and that it receive expedited treatment.

Please feel free to contact me or Mr. M. Ishibashi of this office should you have any questions.

ID: nht93-3.23

DATE: April 27, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TO: Raymond S. Byers -- Engineering Manager, Research, Testing, and Certification, Utilimaster Motor Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-1-92 from Raymond S. Byers to Administrator, NHTSA (OCC 8258)

TEXT: This letter responds to your inquiry regarding the alternate placement of a vehicle certification label in your "Aeromate" van. I apologize for the delay in responding.

As you noted in your letter, 49 CFR S567.4 requires that a motor vehicle manufacturer affix a certification label to each vehicle it makes, and permits the manufacturer to place the label in any one of the places listed in that provision. If none of the listed locations is practicable, S567.4 directs the manufacturer to suggest an alternate position for the affixed label, and to request National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) approval for that position.

You explain in your letter that in your "Aeromate" vehicle, the driver's door slides between an inner and outer metal panel, thus making it impossible to affix the label to the hinge pillar, door-latch post, or the door edge that meets the door-latch post. Based on the photographs you included with your letter, affixing the label to the inside of the driver's side door would be unacceptable because, when opened, the door slides between the two metal panels. Thus, when the door is in the open position, the label would be obscured from the view of any observer. You propose installing the label on the inner metal panel in front of the driver's side door opening, to the left of the driver's legs under the instrument panel, and include photographs showing the label affixed to the proposed position. You state, and your photographs appear to confirm, that the location would be visible from the driver's position, and for inspection by officials.

In directing a manufacturer to put its certification label in those places set out in S567.4, NHTSA's purpose is to make these labels easy to see and read. Based on the information you supplied, the agency determines that for this particular vehicle design, installing the certification label as you propose will facilitate seeing and reading the label. On the other hand, placing the label as specified in S567.4 may not be practicable and might interfere with unobstructed viewing of the label. Therefore, on the condition that your company's label complies in all other respects with S567.4, NHTSA grants your request to install the certification label on the inner metal panel in front of the driver's door opening as shown in the photographs that you provided to us.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, feel free to contact David Elias of my office at the above address or by phone, at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht93-3.24

DATE: April 27, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TO: John B. White -- Industry Standards & Government Regulations, Michelin

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1-13-93 from John B. White to General Counsel, NHTSA (OCC 8292)

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to clarify our certification procedures for the information of some of your customers. Specifically, you stated that some customers believe that you are required to test your tires for compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) and the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQGS), and that this agency then certifies your tires after reviewing and evaluating your test results.

Those impressions are incorrect. All new tires sold in the United States for use on passenger cars must be certified by the manufacturer as complying with FMVSS 109, NEW PNEUMATIC TIRES, found at 49 CFR 571.109, while all new tires sold for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars must be certified as complying with FMVSS 119, NEW PNEUMATIC TIRES FOR VEHICLES OTHER THAN PASSENGER CARS, found at 49 CFR 571.119. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. S1381, ET SEQ. (Safety Act) establishes a self-certification procedure applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment, which includes tires. This means that the tire manufacturer, and not a governmental agency such as NHTSA, certifies that its tires comply with applicable FMVSSs. Each new tire must be certified as meeting the applicable FMVSSs regardless of whether the tire meets an equal or higher standard in another country.

The UTQGS are set forth in 49 CFR 575.104. Those standards do not require certification in the same manner as the FMVSSs. The UTQGS require that manufacturers mold onto or into the sidewalls of their tires the comparative ratings of those tires for treadwear, traction, and temperature resistance for the use and benefit of consumers. Again, that is the manufacturers' responsibility and NHTSA neither reviews nor approves the ratings prior to their assignments by the manufacturers.

Neither the Safety Act nor NHTSA standards and regulations require that a manufacturer base its certifications on any specific tests, any number of specified tests or, for that matter, any tests at all. A manufacturer is only required to exercise due care in certifying its tires. It is the responsibility of each tire manufacturer to determine initially what test results, computer simulations, engineering analyses, or other information it needs to enable it to certify that its tires comply with applicable Federal safety standards. Once a manufacturer has determined that its tires meet all applicable Federal safety standards, it certifies such compliance by molding the letters "DOT" onto at least one sidewall of each certified tire. If manufacturers conduct any tests, they are not required by Federal law or regulation to release their test results to the public.

This agency does not perform any pre-sale testing, approval, or certification

of tires, whether of foreign or domestic manufacture, before introduction into the U.S. retail market. Similarly, NHTSA does not approve or certify manufacturers' test results. Rather, NHTSA randomly tests certified tires to determine whether the tires do, in fact, comply with applicable standards. For such enforcement checks, NHTSA purchases tires "off the shelf" from retail tire dealers and tests those tires according to the procedures specified in the standards. If the tires pass the tests, no further action is taken. If they fail the tests and are determined not to comply with any applicable standard or standards, the manufacturer is responsible for recalling the tires and remedying the noncompliance without charge to the consumer. Government compliance test results are available to the public upon request from the NHTSA Technical Reference Division (NAD 52), 400 Seventh Street SW, Room 5108, Washington, D.C. 20590; (202) 366-2768.

I hope this information will assist you in clarifying tire certification requirements to the satisfaction of your customers. If you have any further questions or desire further clarification, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht93-3.25

DATE: April 27, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TO: Lawrence Hufstedler -- Kesler Research Enterprises, LTD.; Raymond Kesler -- Kesler Research Enterprises, LTD.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-9-93 from Lawrence Hufstedler and Raymond Kesler to John Womack (OCC 8517)

TEXT: This responds to your letter inquiring about the field-of-view requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111, REARVIEW MIRRORS; (49 CFR S571.111; copy enclosed) applicable to what you refer to as "passenger vehicles" weighing under 10,000 pounds. You requested a written interpretation explaining the Standard's requirements in situations where such vehicles have a left side and an interior mirror that comply with the field-of-view requirement. In particular, you wanted confirmation that in such situations a manufacturer may equip a vehicle's passenger side with any supplemental mirror or no mirror at all. You also asked whether the vehicle owner may equip a vehicle in this manner.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. Along with a copy of Standard No. 111, I am enclosing the final rule that states the agency's decision to permit the use of convex mirrors on the exterior passenger side of passenger cars. (47 FR 38698, September 2, 1982). This notice explains the agency's regulations applicable to such convex mirrors in various situations.

By way of background, NHTSA is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA is not authorized to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with the FMVSS's. Instead, under the Safety Act, each manufacturer of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

NHTSA issued Standard No. 111 to establish performance requirements for mirrors installed in each new vehicle. Section S5 of Standard No. 111 specifies the requirements applicable to mirrors installed on passenger cars. S5 requires that passenger cars be equipped with an inside rearview mirror of unit magnification and a driver's side outside rearview mirror of unit magnification that provide the field-of-view specified in S5.1.1. If the inside rearview mirror meets the field-of-view requirements of S5.1.1, then a mirror on the passenger side is not required. Please be aware that in such a situation a manufacturer could voluntarily install any type of exterior passenger side mirror, which the agency would permit as a supplemental mirror.

If the inside rearview mirror of a passenger car does not meet the field-of-view requirements of S5.1.1, then a mirror of unit magnification or a convex mirror must be installed on the passenger side. If a convex mirror is installed on the passenger side to meet the field-of-view requirements, then that convex mirror must meet certain additional requirements that are set forth

in section S5.4. These additional requirements address the convex mirror's permissible radius of curvature and an informational message that must be marked onto the mirror.

Section S6 specifies the requirements applicable to mirrors installed on multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV's), trucks, and buses other than school buses, with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. Such vehicles would comply with the standard if they are equipped with mirrors that conform to the requirements (expressed in the previous two paragraphs) that are applicable to passenger cars. Alternatively, MPV's, trucks and buses would comply with the standard if they are equipped with outside mirrors of unit magnification, each with not less than 19.5 square inches of reflective surface, on both sides of the vehicle.

Please note that the requirements of Standard No. 111 apply to new, completed vehicles and do not apply to mirrors installed as aftermarket equipment. The only limitation on aftermarket installations is set forth in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, which prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable safety standard. The rearview mirror system in a vehicle is a device installed in compliance with an applicable safety standard. If the installation of an aftermarket mirror system resulted in a vehicle no longer complying with Standard No. 111, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business performing the work would have rendered inoperative a device (i.e., the mirror system) installed in the vehicle in compliance with Standard No. 111, in violation of 108(a)(2)(A).

In addition to the foregoing, you should be aware that manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, such as vehicle mirrors, are subject to the requirements in 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If you or NHTSA determines that a safety defect exists, you must notify purchasers of your product and remedy the problem free of charge. (Note that this responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which the mirror is installed on a new vehicle by or with the express authorization of that vehicle manufacturer.) Any manufacturer that fails to provide notification of or remedy for a defect may be subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation.

Please note that the Safety Act does not establish any limitations on an individual vehicle owner's ability to alter his or her own vehicle. Under Federal law, individual vehicle owners can install any mirror system they want on their own vehicles, regardless of whether that mirror system renders inoperative the vehicle's compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 111. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to tamper with vehicle safety equipment if the modification would degrade the safety of the vehicle.

I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information.

Attached to Federal Register, 49 CFR, Part 571, re: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standards; Rearview Mirror Systems, Final Rule, dated September 2, 1982.

(Text omitted.)

ID: nht93-3.26

DATE: April 27, 1993

FROM: Scott R. Dennison -- Vice President-Production, Excalibur Automobile Corporation

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/27/93 from John Womack to Scott R. Dennison (A41; VSA Sec. 102 (illegible)

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter of April 19 in response to my fax to Mr. Robert Helmuth. I apologize if I misled my intentions of the letter. I am fully aware that the Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1972 is quite clear and concise. I am also proud of the fact that Excalibur Automobile Corporation has been one of the manufacturers to comply with the Act as a specialty car, low volume manufacturer.

The point of my letter is that as one of the most well known specialty car manufacturers, I am constantly contacted by other low volume manufacturers and builders, as an "expert," who ask questions regarding compliance with both the FMVSS and EPA. My response is always the standard that if a person builds a vehicle to enter into commerce in the U.S., it must comply with the current standards in effect as of the year of manufacture. The most difficult area to offer more advice and direction is the treatment of FMVSS with regards to a '23 T-Bucket Hot Rod for instance. This is a car that would never comply yet there is a demand and someone will build one to sell.

My goal in all of this is to help all of the people in our industry comply with the standards and stay in business. It is just that at times I do not feel I have the right answers for some of these manufacturers and I would like to have some additional direction from Mr. Helmuth's office. Many of these builders, of course, will call me or someone like me, because they are afraid to call you for fear of reprisal. I would appreciate any advice you may have for me to pass one.

The "debate" I refer to in my letter is perhaps a misnomer but refers to the development of policy as currently being pursued by the National Hot Rod Association (NHRA) lobbyists and the Specialty Equipment Market Association (SEMA) regarding hot rods, muscle cars, and replicars. The debate appears to be more of can a new, more specific policy be developed which will allow these builders to produce an authentic replica and stay within the standards?

I would reference the policy which was developed by the U.S. EPA in order to allow specialty car builders the ability to utilize previously certified engine systems and not have to go through the expensive and intricate certification procedure. I have enclosed a copy of this policy for your review.

After you have had an opportunity to reflect on the situation that I face with these builders and manufacturers, please let me know your thoughts and any advice that you might offer me. I thank you for your time and effort

and hope that my requests do not place an undo burden on you or your department.

Enclosure (EPA KIT CAR POLICY) omitted.

ID: nht93-3.27

DATE: April 28, 1993

FROM: Thomas Luckemeyer -- SWF Auto-Electric GMbH

TO: Taylor Vinson -- Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Subject: Multiple Turn Signal Lamp

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-28-93 from John Womack to Thomas Luckemeyer (A41; Std. 108)

TEXT: During our investigations in the field of a new rear lamp development, we have the following two questions:

1) Is it allowed to split the turn signal lamp in two parts with the dimensions given in the sketch on the next page, where the bigger part (4.5 sq. in.) is on the body of the car. The distance does not exceed 22 in.

2) Is it allowed to use the combination of the two lamps to meet the photometric requirements.

As we urgently need this information, could you PLEASE SEND IT BY FAX. Our address is:

SWF Auto-Electric GmbH Attn.: Dr. Thomas Luckemeyer/Dept. VER/LB Stuttgarter StraBe 119

W - 7120 Bietigheim-Bissingen

Telephone: 07142 / 73 23 80 Fax: 07142 / 73 28 95

Thank you in advance for your help.

Attachments: - Sketch of turn signal lamp - 5 copies of same invoice re: "Letter requesting an information" (Text omitted.)

ID: nht93-3.28

DATE: April 28, 1993

FROM: Frank Millar

TO: John Womack -- Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/1/93 from John Womack to Frank Millar (A41; Std. 105)

TEXT:

I have posed the following questions to Mr. Duane Perrin of NHTSA and he has been kind enough to give me answers over the telephone. Since I would like to get the answers in writing, Mr. Perrin has suggested I contact your office.

1. Would you please, for the record, document the spelling of your name, your phone number, fax number, and your position at NHTSA?

2. What is the significance, if any, of SAE J201, "In service Brake Performance Test Procedure, Passenger-Car and Light Duty Truck", subtitled SAE Recommended Practice Reaffirmed May 1989", to manufacturers and consumers?

3. What is the significance, if any, of the NHTSA's standard S571.105 to manufacturers and consumers?

4. As I read in the NHTSA standard S571.105, Paragraph S5.2.1 says that the parking brake of a Toyota Camry with a standard (stick shift) transmission must hold the car stationary on a hill with a 30% grade in both forward and reverse directions for 5 minutes. Is my interpretation correct?

Affidavit

To the best of my knowledge, all of the answers to the above questions on all 3 pages are true and correct.

Signature: Date: Printed Name:

Signature Witness: Date Witness name:

Please initial each page and fax your answers as well as return the originals by mail. If this is impractical in any way, please let me know.

I appreciate your time spent answering these questions. Thank you very much.

ID: nht93-3.29

DATE: April 29, 1993

FROM: Bob Jones -- Director of Engineering, Independent Mobility Systems, Inc. (IMS)

TO: Mary Versailles -- Federal Transit Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

COPYEE: C. Flanigan; G. Anesi; R. Dumas

TITLE: Re: Compliance to FMVSS 220 with a Raised Roof Minivan

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-18-93 from John Womack (Signature by Ken Weinstein) to Bob Jones (A41; Std. 220)

TEXT: Although School Bus Rollover Protection does not apply to minivans, many states and/or municipalities are including this requirement in their bids for vehicles which are equipped to serve the handicapped.

We have tested and met the requirement with the OEM roof; however we are now faced with a new challenge as we are being asked to make available a raised roof model. We know how to build the roof, how to reinforce it with a cage, but what we don't know is how to do a FMVSS Bus Rollover Test.

I am enclosing a drawing of our prototype roof, including its steel cage support system and a photo copy of an installed roof. As you can see from the drawing, the raised roof starts at the 'A' Pillar with a plus 2.0 inches, builds up to 4.0 inches then 9.0 inches and finally at the 'D' Pillar it is plus 12.563 inches.

I have included excerpt pages from the FMVSS 220 Laboratory Test Procedure which, I believe, demonstrates our need for an interpretation as to how we should meet the legislation with this raised roof configuration.

Because we are less than 10,000 pounds GVW, our force plate will be 5 inches longer and 5 inches wider than the van roof. We must keep the force plate transverse axis level and make contact with the roof at not less than two points. The longitudinal axis of the force application plate may deviate from the level or horizontal position; however, deflection readings are to be taken as close to the four corners of the force application plate as possible and then extrapolated to provide corner readings.

When we evenly distribute the vertical force, we are going to get an unusual load path. The compression is going to be in the 41 inches to the rear of the 'B' Pillar. We would almost need a complete collapse of the roof before the load cylinders located at the front outboard positions on the plate register.

After reviewing the enclosed material, we would be most appreciative if you would offer us your interpretation of how we can satisfy this standard in a meaningful way.

I will be out of the country from May 4 to May 25. In my absence, you can address any questions or correspondence to Mr. Rocky Dumas at our New Mexico headquarters.

I thank you for your consideration and look forward to discussing the subject with you upon my return.

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.