The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has made changes to its new automatic emergency braking (AEB) rule after consideration of feedback from four OEM groups including one from the Alliance for Automotive Innovation (Auto Innovators). Auto Innovators contends its petition was “effectively denied.”

NHTSA’s new Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard, FMVSS 127, will require AEB and pedestrian AEB to come standard by September 2029 on all passenger cars and light trucks weighing up to 10,000 pounds.

By then, AEB must stop and avoid rear-end crashes at up to 62 miles per hour and detect pedestrians in daylight and at night.

The standard will require AEB to engage at up to 90 mph when a collision with a lead vehicle is imminent, and up to 45 mph when a pedestrian is detected.

In a written statement in response to NHTSA’s decision, Auto Innovators President and CEO John Bozzella said, “What a waste. A 10-year partnership with policymakers that put this lifesaving automotive technology in almost all new vehicles was just tossed aside.

“Wrong on the merits. Wrong on the science; really a disastrous decision by the nation’s top traffic safety regulator that will endlessly — and unnecessarily — frustrate drivers, will make vehicles more expensive, and at the end of the day ..won’t really improve driver or pedestrian safety.”

In a June 24 letter to Congress, Auto Innovators President and CEO John Bozzella said the speed requirements are “practically impossible with available technology” and would result in more rear-end collisions.

NHTSA received petitions for reconsideration from the Alliance for Automotive Innovation (Auto Innovators) and automakers Toyota Motor North America, Volkswagen Group of America, and Scuderia Cameron Glickenhaus.

NHTSA also received a letter from Hyundai Motor Group styled as a “supplemental comment” that the administration says it considered in its response to the petitions.

According to NHTSA, the changes made are, in summary:

• • “NHTSA is amending the language in the performance test requirement to remove reference to ‘imminent’ from the performance test requirement for lead vehicle AEB to clarify that the performance test does not evaluate AEB activation timing. NHTSA is not providing a definition for ‘operate’ because the definition of ‘automatic emergency braking system’ in the final rule sufficiently describes how an AEB system operates. NHTSA is not providing a definition for ‘imminent’ because the term is used consistent with its plain meaning.
  • “FMVSS No. 127 contains a test scenario that, when tested with very narrow vehicles at the extreme of the tolerances allowed by the test condition, resulted in a stringency beyond that intended by NHTSA. This final rule amends the test scenario to ensure the correct level of stringency.
  • “FMVSS No. 127 contains specifications for the FCW [forward collision warning] visual signal location. Petitioners requested additional clarity. This final rule amends the regulatory text to clarify these specifications.
  • “FMVSS No. 127 contains requirements for the FCW audio signal, including that in-vehicle audio must be suppressed when the FCW auditory signal is presented. Petitioners expressed several concerns about the clarity and objectivity of these requirements as well as test conditions. This final rule clarifies these requirements by stating the location of the microphone, additional vehicle conditions under which testing will occur, and amending the definitions to simplify the requirement for suppression.”

NHTSA’s summary of requests it denied include:

• • “The performance requirement for both lead vehicle and pedestrian AEB testing is collision avoidance (referred to throughout the final rule and this document as ‘no contact’). Petitioners requested relaxation of this requirement to allow contact at low speeds, specifically requesting 10 km/h (6.2 mph). NHTSA is rejecting this request because the no contact requirement is practicable and meets the need for safety.
  • “Petitioners requested that multiple test runs be allowed to achieve the no contact performance requirement (for example, that vehicles must pass on 5 out of 7 test runs) to account for variability. Petitioners noted that FMVSS No. 135, which regulates light vehicle brake systems, allows multiple test runs to meet some of the performance requirements. NHTSA is rejecting this request because FMVSS No. 127 testing is distinct from FMVSS No. 135 testing such that not allowing multiple test runs in FMVSS No. 127 is practicable and meets the need for safety.
  • “FMVSS No. 127 test scenarios state that the vehicle can be driven for any amount of time. Additionally, it does not place a cap on the number of tests that could be run on any given subject vehicle. Petitioners expressed concern that this standard would allow excessive driving or testing of vehicles to wear out components such that they can no longer meet the performance required by the standard. NHTSA finds further specification is unnecessary because the test does not evaluate the endurance or durability of wear parts and will not be used in such a manner.
  • “FMVSS No. 127 requires that vehicles illuminate a malfunction identification lamp (MIL) upon detection of a malfunction or if the AEB system adjusts its performance such that it is below the performance required by the standard. Petitioners requested additional specificity regarding the terminology in this requirement as well as a test procedure. NHTSA is rejecting this request because the requirement meets the Safety Act as written.
  • “FMVSS No. 127 does not permit installation of a manual control with the sole purpose of deactivating the AEB system. It does contain a provision allowing automatic deactivation in certain situations. Petitioners requested permission to install a manual deactivation control, as well as modifications to the automatic deactivation provision. NHTSA is rejecting this request because the final rule already addresses petitioners’ concerns.
  • “Petitioners stated that NHTSA did not fully consider costs associated with compliance. No change is needed in response to this request because the final rule fully considered the costs associated with compliance.
  • “Volkswagen requested additional specifications for the brake pedal robot used in testing with manual brake application. NHTSA is rejecting this request for the reasons stated in the May 9, 2024 final rule.
  • “Petitioner Glickenhaus requested the AEB requirements not be applicable to vehicles with manual transmission. NHTSA is rejecting this request because vehicles equipped with manual transmissions and AEB are widely available.
  • “Petitioner Glickenhaus requested additional flexibility for very small volume manufacturers. NHTSA is rejecting this request because AEB systems are available for purchase and, in the case that a manufacturer is unable to acquire systems, the exemption processes in the Safety Act may provide relief.”

Auto Innovators is on board with AEB, calling it “a game-changing safety technology” developed by automakers but in a Nov. 12 letter to President-elect Donald Trump wrote that the final rule “mandates technology that is inconsistent with regulations implemented in other parts of the world and likely to result in aggressive and unpredictable braking that will frustrate drivers.”

Auto Innovators urges Trump to re-open the AEB rule and “foster a collaborative and solutions-oriented approach to roadway safety.”

In 2016, automakers voluntarily committed to installing AEB in all new vehicles by 2025 and have already met that commitment, Auto Innovators said. It also noted the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) reported in December 2023 that it “…expects this voluntary commitment to prevent 42,000 crashes and 20,000 injuries by 2025.”

In October, AAA shared the results of its recent AEB tests. When tested at speeds up to 35 mph, 2024 model year vehicles equipped with AEB avoided all forward collisions, according to AAA.

In comparison, 2017 and 2018 models avoided collisions 51% of the time, according to AAA.

AAA, in partnership with the Automobile Club of Southern California’s Automotive Research Center, conducted research in a closed-course, simulated environment to evaluate the performance progression of AEB systems on the older model vehicles compared to the 2024 models. Vehicles tested included 2017 and 2024 Jeep Cherokees, 2018 and 2024 Nissan Rogues, and 2018 and 2024 Subaru Outbacks.

Old and new test vehicles of the same make and model were evaluated at three common speeds (12 mph, 25 mph, and 35 mph) to see how well they performed in a forward collision.

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) said on Wednesday that, based on its recent survey data, one way to get drivers to use ADAS more is to keep them engaged by designing systems that allow cooperative steering.

“Partial automation systems designed this way let the driver make minor adjustments within the travel lane without deactivating,” IIHS said. “Most drivers believe that’s the way their own system works, whether or not that’s the case, the new IIHS study shows. But those whose vehicles really do allow shared control are 40%-48% less likely than the others to say they would keep their hands off the wheel in situations that would make most drivers nervous.”

Alexandra Mueller, a senior IIHS research scientist and the lead author of the study, concluded that cooperative steering may influence whether drivers are willing to take crash-prevention action when the situation calls for it, regardless of how they think their ADAS is designed.

Images

Featured image credit: Zeybart/iStock