New changes have been made to the new automatic emergency braking (AEB) rules in the United States, prompting Australian law makers to take note.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has made changes to its new AEB rule after consideration of feedback from four OEM groups including one from the Alliance for Automotive Innovation (Auto Innovators).
Whereas, in Australia, all new vehicles have been mandated to have AEBs since March 2023, while all vehicles on sale will be required to have AEBs fitted from March 2025.
AAA’s study concluded that AEB technology had improved significantly and was performing in line with expectations.
The Standard
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 ( 100km/h) 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 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
- “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.”