# Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards: Automatic Emergency Braking Systems for Light Vehicles > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2023-11863 ## Record - **Collection:** Federal Register - **Document type:** Proposed Rule - **Published:** June 13, 2023 - **Citation:** 88 FR 38632 ## Text DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 49 CFR Parts 571 and 596 [Docket No. NHTSA-2023-0021] RIN 2127-AM37 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards: Automatic Emergency Braking Systems for Light Vehicles AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: This NPRM proposes to adopt a new Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard to require automatic emergency braking (AEB), including pedestrian AEB (PAEB), systems on light vehicles. An AEB system uses various sensor technologies and sub-systems that work together to detect when the vehicle is in a crash imminent situation, to automatically apply the vehicle brakes if the driver has not done so, or to apply more braking force to supplement the driver's braking. The AEB system proposed in this NPRM would detect and react to an imminent crash with a lead vehicle or pedestrian. This NPRM promotes NHTSA's goal to equip vehicles with AEB and PAEB, and advances DOT's January 2022 National Roadway Safety Strategy that identified requiring AEB, including PAEB technologies, on new passenger vehicles as a key Departmental action to enable safer vehicles. This NPRM also responds to a mandate under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law directing the Department to promulgate a rule to require that all passenger vehicles be equipped with an AEB system. DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 14, 2023. Proposed compliance date: Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, four years after the publication date of a final rule, would be required to meet all requirements. Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, three years after the publication date of a final rule, but before September 1, four years after the publication date of a final rule, would be required to meet all requirements except that lower speed PAEB performance test requirements specified in S5(b) would apply. Small-volume manufacturers, final-stage manufacturers, and alterers would be provided an additional year (added to those above) to meet the requirements of the final rule. Early compliance is permitted but optional. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments to the docket number identified in the heading of this document by any of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. • Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. • Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call 202-366-9332 before coming. • Fax: 202-493-2251. Regardless of how you submit your comments, please provide the docket number of this document. Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public Participation heading of the Supplementary Information section of this document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its decision-making process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.transportation.gov/privacy. In order to facilitate comment tracking and response, the agency encourages commenters to provide their name, or the name of their organization; however, submission of names is completely optional. Whether or not commenters identify themselves, all timely comments will be fully considered. Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to www.regulations.gov, or the street address listed above. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call 202-366-9332 before coming. Follow the online instructions for accessing the dockets. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues: Markus Price, Office of Crash Avoidance Standards (telephone: 202-366-1810). For legal issues: David Jasinski, Office of the Chief Counsel (telephone: 202-366-2992, fax: 202-366-3820). The mailing address for these officials is: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Executive Summary II. Safety Problem A. Overall Rear-End Crash Problem B. Rear-End Crashes by Vehicle Type C. Rear-End Crashes by Posted Speed Limit D. Rear-End Crashes by Light Condition E. Rear-End Crashes by Atmospheric Conditions F. Pedestrian Fatalities and Injuries G. Pedestrian Fatalities and Injuries by Initial Point of Impact and Vehicle Type H. Pedestrian Fatalities and Injuries by Posted Speed Limit Involving Light Vehicles I. Pedestrian Fatalities and Injuries by Lighting Condition Involving Light Vehicles J. Pedestrian Fatalities and Injuries by Age Involving Light Vehicles K. AEB Target Population III. Data on Effectiveness of AEB in Mitigating Harm IV. NHTSA's Earlier Efforts Related to AEB A. NHTSA's Foundational AEB Research 1. Forward Collision Warning Research 2. AEB Research To Prevent Rear-End Impacts With a Lead Vehicle 3. AEB Research To Prevent Vehicle Impacts With Pedestrians 4. Bicycle and Motorcycle AEB B. NHTSA's New Car Assessment Program 1. FCW Tests 2. Lead Vehicle AEB Tests 3. PAEB Test Proposal C. 2016 Voluntary Commitment D. Response To Petition for Rulemaking V. NHTSA's Decision to Require AEB A. This Proposed Rule Is Needed To Address Urgent Safety Problems B. Stakeholder Interest in AEB 1. National Transportation Safety Board Recommendations 2. Consumer Information Programs in the United States 3. Petition for Rulemaking on PAEB Performance in Dark Conditions C. Key Findings Underlying This Proposal 1. Impact Speed Is Key to Improving AEB's Mitigation of Fatalities and Injuries 2. Darkness Performance of PAEB Is Highly Important 3. NHTSA's 2020 Research on Lead Vehicle AEB and PAEB Performance Show the Practicability of Higher Speed Tests a. Lead Vehicle AEB Performance Tests b. PAEB Daytime Performance Tests c. PAEB Darkness Performance Tests d. PAEB Darkness Performance Tests With Overhead Lighting 4. This Proposed Standard Complements Other NHTSA Actions VI. Proposal To Require Automatic Emergency Braking A. Lead Vehicle AEB System Requirement B. Forward Collision Warning Requirement 1. FCW Modalities 2. FCW Auditory Signal Characteristics 3. FCW Visual Signal Characteristics 4. FCW Haptic Signal C. Lead Vehicle AEB—Performance Test Requirements 1. Stopped Lead Vehicle Scenario Test Speeds 2. Slower-Moving Lead Vehicle Scenario Test Speeds 3. Decelerating Lead Vehicle Scenario Test Speeds 4. Subject Vehicle Brake Application D. PAEB System Requirement E. PAEB—FCW Requirement F. PAEB—Performance Test Requirements 1. PAEB Scenario Descriptions 2. Overlap 3. Vehicle and Pedestrian Surrogate Travel Speeds 4. Crossing Path Scenario Testing Speeds 5. Stationary Scenario Testing Speeds 6. Along Path Scenario Testing Speeds 7. PAEB Darkness Testing G. Alternatives to No-Contact Performance Test Requirement H. False Activation Requirement 1. Steel Trench Plate False Activation Scenario 2. Pass-Through False Activation Scenario 3. Potential Alternatives to False Activation Requirements I. Malfunction Detection Requirement J. AEB System Disablement K. AEB System Performance Information VII. AEB Test Procedures A. AEB System Initialization B. Travel Path C. Subject Vehicle Preparation D. Subject Vehicle Tolerance Specifications E. Lead Vehicle Test Set Up and Tolerance F. Test Completion Criteria for Lead Vehicle AEB Tests G. PAEB Test Procedures and Tolerance H. False Positive AEB Test Procedures I. Environmental Test Conditions J. Test Track Conditions K. Subject Vehicle Conditions VIII. Test Devices A. Pedestrian Test Mannequins 1. Background 2. Mannequin Appearance 3. Color and Reflectivity 4. Radar Cross Section 5. Other Considerations B. Vehicle Test Device 1. Description and Development 2. Specifications 3. Alternatives Considered IX. Proposed Effective Date Schedule X. Summary of Estimated Effectiveness, Cost, and Benefits A. Target Population B. Lead Vehicle AEB System Effectiveness C. PAEB System Effectiveness D. Fatalities Avoided and Injuries Mitigated E. Costs F. Cost-Effectiveness G. Comparison of Regulatory Alternatives XI. Regulatory Notices and Analyses XII. Public Participation XIII. Appendices to the Preamble I. Executive Summary In 2019, there were 6,272 pedestrian fatalities in motor vehicle crashes, representing 17 percent of all motor vehicle fatalities. 1 This represents the continuation of the recent trend of increased pedestrian deaths on our nation's roadways. 2 A further 76,000 pedestrians were injured in motor vehicle crashes. In addition, there were nearly 2.2 million rear-end police-reported crashes involving light vehicles, which led to 1,798 deaths and 574,000 injuries. Deaths and injuries in more recent years are even greater. However, the agency's analysis of the safety problem focuses on the calendar year 2019 because it is the most recent year without the prominent effect of the COVID-19 pandemic. 1 https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813079 Pedestrian Traffic Facts 2019 Data, May 2021. 2 Id., Table 1 Pedestrian fatalities 2010—4,302, 2019—6,272. This NPRM proposes to address this significant safety problem by proposing a new Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) to require automatic emergency braking (AEB) systems on light vehicles that are capable of reducing the frequency and severity of both rear-end and pedestrian crashes. This proposed action represents a crucial step forward in implementing DOT's January 2022 National Roadway Safety Strategy (NRSS) to address the rising numbers of transportation deaths and serious injuries occurring on this country's streets, roads, and highways, including actions to protect vulnerable road users, including pedestrians. 3 3 https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2022-01/USDOT_National_Roadway_Safety_Strategy_0.pdf. The Department's Safe System Approach emphasizes that multiple, complementary safety interventions to prevent crashes are critical to improving safety and protecting people. Through the NRSS, the Department is focusing on advancing initiatives that will significantly enhance roadway safety. These initiatives include infrastructure design and interventions along with proposed vehicle regulations such as this one. The Department is advancing support for the implementation of Complete Streets policies to help transportation agencies across the United States plan, develop, and operate roads, streets, and networks. Complete Streets policies prioritize safety, comfort, and connectivity to destinations for all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, those who use wheelchairs and mobility devices, transit riders, micro-mobility users, shared ride services, motorists, and freight delivery services. NHTSA is providing technical assistance to States to encourage the adoption of a safe system approach with emphasis on partnering with State Departments of Transportation and Emergency Medical Service agencies to comprehensively address various roadway issues including those affecting those who walk, bike and roll. NHTSA awards annual formula grants to the States to conduct lifesaving highway safety programs and is also assisting States as they conduct meaningful public engagement to ensure that affected communities are involved in program planning and implementation. The crash problem that can be addressed by AEB is substantial. 4 For example, 60 percent of fatal rear-end crashes and 73 percent of injury crashes were on roads with posted speed limits of 60 mph or below. Similarly, most of these crashes occurred in clear, no adverse atmospheric conditions—72 percent of fatal crashes and 74 percent of injury crashes. Also, about 51 percent of fatal and 74 percent of rear-end crashes involving light vehicles resulting in injuries occurred in daylight conditions. In addition, 65 percent of pedestrian fatalities and 67 percent of pedestrian injuries were the result of a strike by the front of a light vehicle. Of those, 77 percent, and about half of the pedestrian injuries, occur in dark lighting conditions. This NPRM proposes to adopt a new FMVSS to require AEB systems on light vehicles that are capable of reducing the frequency and severity of both lead vehicle and pedestrian collisions. 5 AEB systems employ sensor technologies and sub-systems that work together to sense when the vehicle is in a crash imminent situation, to automatically apply the vehicle brakes if the driver has not done so, and to apply more braking force to supplement the driver's braking. Current systems primarily use radar- and camera-based sensors, while there are also emerging systems that use lidar and thermal sensors. These systems can reduce both lead vehicle rear-end (lead vehicle AEB) and pedestrian crashes (PAEB). Importantly, this proposal would require that systems are able to avoid pedestrian crashes in darkness testing conditions. AEB systems have reached a level of maturity such that they will be able to reduce the frequency and severity of crashes and are thus ready to be mandated on all new light vehicles. 4 The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) estimates a 50 percent reduction in front-to-rear crashes of vehicles with AEB (IIHS, 2020) and a 25 to 27 percent reduction in pedestrian crashes for PAEB (IIHS, 2022). 5 For the purpose of this NPRM, “light vehicles” means passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs), trucks, and buses with a gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less. This proposal is issued under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, the Secretary of Transportation is responsible for prescribing motor vehicle safety standards that are practicable, meet the need for motor vehicle safety, and are stated in objective terms. The responsibility for promulgation of FMVSSs is delegated to NHTSA. This rulemaking addresses a statutory mandate under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), codified as the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), 6 which added 49 U.S.C. 30129, directing the Secretary of Transportation to promulgate a rule requiring that all passenger motor vehicles for sale in the United States be equipped with a FCW system and an AEB system. 6 Public Law 117-58, 24208 (Nov. 15, 2021). The decision to mandate AEB builds on decades of research and development, which began in the 1990s, with initial research programs to support development of AEB technologies and methods by which system performance could be assessed. NHTSA began testing AEB systems as part of New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) in 2010 and reporting on the respective research and progress surrounding the technologies shortly thereafter. 7 These research efforts led to the incorporation of AEB into incentive programs designed to raise consumer awareness of AEB, such as NCAP. NHTSA included FCW systems as a “recommended advanced technology” in NCAP in model year 2011, and in November 2015, added crash imminent braking (CIB) and dynamic brake support (DBS) technologies to the program with assessments of these technologies to begin in model year 2018. 8 Most recently, NHTSA proposed upgrades to the lead vehicle AEB test in its March 2022 request for comment on NCAP. 9 Separate from NCAP, in March 2016, NHTSA and Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) announced a commitment by 20 manufacturers representing more than 99 percent of the U.S. light vehicle market to equip low-speed AEB as a standard feature on nearly all new light vehicles not later than September 1, 2022. As part of this voluntary commitment, manufacturers would include both FCW and a CIB system that would reduce a vehicle's speed in certain rear-end crash-imminent test conditions. 7 77 FR 39561 (Jul. 2, 2012). 8 80 FR 68604 (Nov. 5, 2015). 9 87 FR 13452 (Mar. 9, 2022). See www.regulatinos.gov, docket number NHTSA-2021-0002. NHTSA also conducted research to understand the capabilities of PAEB systems beginning in 2011. This work began with an assessment of the most common pedestrian crash scenarios to determine how test procedures could be designed to address them. As part of this development, NHTSA also looked closely at a potential pedestrian mannequin to be used during testing and explored several aspects of the mannequin, including size and articulation of the arms and legs. This work resulted in a November 2019 draft research test procedure providing the methods and specifications for collecting performance data on PAEB systems for light vehicles. 10 This procedure was expanded to cover updated vehicle speed ranges and different ambient conditions and included in a March 2022 request for comments notice proposing to include PAEB, higher speed AEB, blind spot warning and blind spot intervention into NCAP. 11 10 84 FR 64405 (Nov. 21, 2019). 11 87 FR 13452 (Mar. 9, 2022). While these actions have increased market penetration of AEB systems, reduced injuries, and saved lives, NHTSA believes that mandating AEB systems that can address both lead vehicle and pedestrian crashes is necessary to better address the safety need. NHTSA incorporated FCW into NCAP beginning in model year 2011 and AEB into NCAP beginning in model year 2018. This has achieved success, with approximately 65% of new vehicles meeting the lead vehicle test procedures included in NCAP. 12 Similarly, the voluntary commitment resulted in approximately 90 percent of new light vehicles having an AEB system. 12 Percentage based on the vehicle manufacturer's model year 2022 projected sales volume reported through the New Car Assessment Program's annual vehicle information request. However, the test speeds and performance specifications in NCAP and the voluntary commitment would not ensure that the systems perform in a way that will prevent or mitigate crashes resulting in serious injuries and fatalities. The vast majority of fatalities, injuries, and property damage crashes occur at speeds above 40 km/h (25 mph), which are above those covered by the voluntary commitment. NCAP and, even more so, other voluntary measures are intended to supplement rather than substitute for the FMVSS, which remain NHTSA's core way of ensuring that all motor vehicles are able to achieve an adequate level of safety performance. Thus, though the NCAP program provides valuable safety-related information to consumers in a simple to understand way, the agency believes that gaps in market penetration will continue to exist for the most highly effective AEB systems. NHTSA has also observed that, in the case of both electronic stability control and rear visibility, only approximately 70 percent of vehicles had these technologies during the time they were part of NCAP. Thus, while NCAP serves a vital safety purpose, NHTSA also recognizes its limitations and concludes that only regulation can ensure that all vehicles are equipped with AEB that meet the proposed performance requirements. These considerations are of even greater weight when considering whether to require a system that can reduce pedestrian crashes. Pedestrian fatalities are increasing, and NHTSA's testing has established that PAEB systems will be able to significantly reduce these deaths. 13 Manufacturers' responses to adding lead vehicle AEB and other technologies into NCAP suggests that it would take several years after PAEB is introduced into NCAP before the market began to see significant numbers of new vehicles that would be able to meet a finalized NCAP test. Moreover, as pedestrian safety addresses the safety of someone other than the vehicle occupant, it is not clear if past experiences with NCAP are necessarily indicative of how quickly PAEB systems would reach the levels of lead vehicle AEB, if pedestrian functionality that would meet NCAP performance levels was offered as a separate cost to consumers. NHTSA believes that there can be a significant safety benefit in NCAP providing consumers with information about new safety technologies before it is prepared to mandate them, but this is not a requirement. 13 The accompanying PRIA estimates the impacts of the rule. A final factor weighing in favor of requiring AEB is that the technology is a significantly more mature level than what it was at the time of the voluntary commitment or when it was introduced into NCAP. NHTSA's most recent testing has shown that higher performance levels than those in the voluntary commitment or the existing NCAP requirements are now practicable. Many model year 2019 and 2020 vehicles were able to repeatedly avoid impacting the lead vehicle in CIB tests and the pedestrian test mannequin in PAEB tests, even at higher test speeds than those prescribed currently in the agency's CIB and PAEB test procedures. These results show that AEB systems are capable of reducing the frequency and severity of both lead vehicle and pedestrian crashes. Mandating AEB systems would address a clear and, in the case of pedestrian deaths, growing safety problem. To wait for market-driven adoption, even to the extent spurred on by NCAP, would lead to deaths and injuries that could be avoided if the technology were required, and would be unlikely to result in all vehicles having improved AEB. Thus, in consideration of the safety problem and NHTSA's recent test results, and consistent with the Safety Act and BIL, NHTSA has tentatively concluded that a new Federal motor vehicle safety standard requiring AEB systems that can address both lead vehicle and pedestrian collisions on all new light vehicles is necessary to address the problem of rear-end crashes resulting in property damage, injuries, and fatalities. The proposed lead vehicle AEB test procedures build on the existing FCW, CIB, and DBS NCAP procedures, but include higher speed performance requirements. Collision avoidance is required at speeds up to 100 km/h (62 mph) when manual braking is applied and up to 80 km/h (50 mph) when no manual braking is applied during the test. Based on data from the 2019 and 2020 research programs, NHTSA believes that it is practicable to require this higher level of system performance. Performance at these speeds would address the injuries and fatalities resulting from rear-end crashes. As part of this proposal, NHTSA is including testing under both daylight and darkness lighting conditions. In the darkness testing condition, NHTSA is proposing testing with both lower beam and upper beam headlamps activated. NHTSA believes darkness testing of PAEB is necessary because more than three-fourths of all pedestrian fatalities occur in conditions other than daylight. The proposed standard includes four requirements for AEB systems for both lead vehicles and pedestrians. First, vehicles would be required to have an AEB system that provides the driver with a FCW at any forward speed greater than 10 km/h (6.2 mph). NHTSA is proposing that the FCW be presented via auditory and visual modalities when a collision with a lead vehicle or a pedestrian is imminent. Based on NHTSA's research, this proposal includes specifications for the auditory and visual warning components. Additional warning modes, such as haptic, would be allowed. Second, vehicles would be required to have an AEB system that applies the brakes automatically at any forward speed greater than 10 km/h (6.2 mph) when a collision with a lead vehicle or a pedestrian is imminent. This requirement would serve to ensure that AEB systems operate at all speeds above 10 km/h (6.2 mph), even if these speeds are above the speeds tested by NHTSA and provide at least some level of AEB system performance in those rear-end crashes. An AEB system active at any speed above 10 km/h (6.2 mph) will be able to mitigate collisions at high speeds through, at a minimum, speed reduction. Third, the AEB system would be required to prevent the vehicle from colliding with the lead vehicle or pedestrian test mannequin when tested according to the proposed standard's test procedures. These track test procedures have defined parameters that will ensure that AEB systems prevent crashes in a controlled testing environment. There are three general test scenarios each for testing vehicles with a lead vehicle and four scenarios for testing vehicles with a pedestrian test mannequin. These test scenarios are designed to ensure that AEB systems are able to perform appropriately in common crash scenarios. In particular, the agency has proposed that pedestrian tests be done in both daylight and darkness. The proposed requirements also include two false positive tests (driving over a steel trench plate and driving between two parked vehicles) in which the vehicle would not be permitted to brake in excess of 0.25g in addition to any manual brake application. The final proposed requirement is that a vehicle must detect AEB system malfunctions and notify the driver of any malfunction that causes the AEB system not to meet the minimum proposed performance requirements. Malfunctions would include those attributable to sensor obstruction or saturation, such as accumulated snow or debris, dense fog, or sunlight glare. The proposal only includes a specification that the notification be visual. To ensure test repeatability that reflects how a subject vehicle—that is the vehicle under test, would respond in the real world, this proposal includes specifications for the test devices that NHTSA would use in both the lead vehicle and pedestrian compliance tests, relying in large part on relevant International Organization for Standardization standards. This proposal would require that all of the AEB requirements be phased in within four years of publication of a final rule. All vehicles would be required to meet all requirements associated with lead vehicle AEB and all daylight test requirements for PAEB within three years. With respect to darkness testing, there are lower maximum test speed thresholds that would have to be met within three years for some specified test procedures. All vehicles would have to meet the minimum performance requirements with higher darkness test speeds four years after the publication of a final rule. Small-volume manufacturers, final-stage manufacturers, and alterers would be provided an additional year of lead time for all requirements. NHTSA has issued a Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis (PRIA) that analyzes the potential impacts of this proposed rule. The PRIA is available in the docket for this NPRM. The proposed rule is expected to substantially decrease the safety problems associated with rear-end and pedestrian crashes. NHTSA's assessment of available safety data indicates that between 2016 and 2019, there were an average of 1.12 million rear-impact crashes involving light vehicles annually. These crashes resulted in an approximate annual average of 394 fatalities, 142,611 non-fatal injuries, and an additional 1.69 million damaged vehicles. Additionally, between 2016 and 2019, there were an average of approximately 23,000 crashes that could potentially be addressed by PAEB annually. These crashes resulted in an annual average of 2,642 fatalities and 17,689 non-fatal injuries. AEB systems meeting the requirements of this proposed rule would have a dramatic impact on risks associated with rear-end and pedestrian crashes, even beyond the benefits assumed to occur due to NCAP and other voluntary industry adoption. In order to determine the benefits and costs of this rulemaking, NHTSA developed a baseline, which reflects how the world would look in the absence of regulation. This baseline includes an assumption that all new light vehicles will have some AEB system and that approximately 65 percent of these vehicles will have systems meeting the NCAP test procedures. Thus, the impacts of this rule are less than the impacts of AEB as a technology, as it only accounts for marginal improvements over the baseline. Accordingly, NHTSA projects that this proposed rule would reduce fatalities by 362 (124 rear-end and 238 pedestrian) annually and reduce injuries by 24,321 (21,649 rear-end and 2,672 pedestrian) annually. 14 In addition, lead vehicle AEB systems would likely yield substantial benefits over the lifetime of the vehicle in property damage avoided. Further, when calculating benefits, the agency excluded many scenarios where AEB systems are still likely to lead to safety benefits but where the agency has not conducted sufficient research to quantify those benefits, including crashes involving impacts into the rear of heavy vehicles. Further, the agency excluded calendar years 2020 and 2021 from its analysis of the safety problem, as those years may be atypical, but did include a sensitivity case in the RIA, which shows greater benefits. 14 A breakdown of the severity of the injuries that would be reduced by this proposed rule can be found in Section 4.3 of the accompanying PRIA. With regard to costs NHTSA anticipates that systems can achieve the proposed requirements through upgraded software, as all vehicles are assumed to have the necessary hardware. Therefore, the incremental cost associated with this proposed rule reflects the cost of a software upgrade that will allow current systems to achieve lead vehicle AEB and PAEB functionality that meets the requirements specified in this proposed rule. The incremental cost per vehicle is estimated at $82.15 for each design cycle change of the model. 15 When accounting for design cycles and annual sales of new light vehicles, the total annual cost associated with this proposed rule is approximately $282.16 million in 2020 dollars. 15 The agency includes a higher potential cost value in the RIA for “disruptive” software changes, which could also serve as a proxy for potential additional costs, including hardware costs. However, as discussed in the RIA, that value represents a less-likely higher end assumption, while the value used here represents the agency's main assumption. Importantly, though, even under the higher assumption, benefits still greatly exceed costs. Table 1 summarizes the finding of the benefit-cost analysis. The projected benefits of this proposed rule greatly exceed the projected costs. The lifetime monetized net benefit of this proposed rule is projected to be between $5.24 and $6.52 billion with a cost per equivalent life saved of between $500,000 and $620,000, which is far below the Department's existing value of a statistical life saved, which is currently calculated as $11.8 million. Table 1—Lifetime Summary of Benefits and Costs for Passenger Cars and Light Trucks (Millions 2020$), Discount Rate 3% Discount rate 7% Discount rate Benefits Lifetime Monetized $6,802 $5,518 Costs Lifetime Monetized 282.16 282.16 Net Benefits Lifetime Monetized 6,520 5,235 Table 2—Estimated Quantifiable Benefits Benefits Fatalities Reduced 362 Injuries Reduced 24,321 Table 3—Estimated Installation Costs Costs (2020$) System installation per vehicle per design cycle $82.15 Total Fleet per year 282.16 M Table 4—Estimated Cost Effectiveness Cost per Equivalent Life Saved AEB Systems $0.50 to $0.62 million * * The range presented is from a 3% to 7% discount rate. NHTSA seeks comments and suggestions on all aspects of this proposal and any alternative requirements that would address this safety problem. NHTSA also requests comments on the proposed lead time for meeting these requirements, and how the lead time can be structured to maximize the benefits that can be realized most quickly while ensuring that the standard is practicable. Summary of Technical Terms The following is a brief explanation of terms and technologies used to describe AEB systems. More detailed information can be found in Appendix A to this preamble. Radar-Based Sensors Many AEB systems employ radar sensors. At its simplest, radar is a time-of-flight sensor technology that measures the time between when a radio wave is transmitted and when its reflection is received back at the radar sensor. This time-of-flight sensor input is used to calculate the distance between the sensor and the object that caused the reflection. Multiple or continuous sampling can also provide information about the reflecting object, such as the speed at which it is travelling. Camera Sensors Cameras are passive sensors in which optical data are recorded and then processed to allow for object detection and classification. Cameras are an important part of many automotive AEB systems and are typically mounted behind the front windshield near the rearview mirror, sometimes in groups of two or more. Cameras at this location provide a good view of the road and are protected by the windshield from debris, grease, dirt, and other contaminants that could obstruct the sensor. Some systems that use two or more cameras can see stereoscopically, allowing the processing system to better determine range information along with detection and classification. Forward Collision Warning A forward collision warning (FCW) system uses sensors that detect objects in front of vehicles and provides an alert to the driver. An FCW system is able to use the sensors' input to determine the speed of an object in front of it and the distance between the vehicle and the object. If the FCW system determines that the closing distance and velocity between the vehicle and the object is such that a collision may be imminent, the system is designed to induce an immediate forward crash avoidance response by the vehicle operator. FCW systems may detect impending collisions with any number of roadway obstacles, including vehicles and pedestrians. Warning systems in use today provide drivers with a visual display, such as an illuminated telltale on or near the instrument panel, an auditory signal, or a haptic signal that provides tactile feedback to the driver to warn the driver of an impending collision so the driver may intervene. FCW systems alone do not brake the vehicle. Electronically Modulated Braking Systems Automatic actuation of a vehicle's brakes requires more than just technology to sense when a collision is imminent. In addition to the sensing system, hardware is needed to apply the brakes without relying on the driver to depress the brake pedal. The automatic braking system relies on two foundational braking technologies—electronic stability control to automatically activate the vehicle brakes and an antilock braking system to mitigate wheel lockup. Not only do electronic stability control and antilock braking systems enable AEB operation, these systems also modulate the braking force so that the vehicle remains stable while braking during critical driving situations where a crash with a vehicle or pedestrian is imminent. AEB Perception and Decision System The performance of each AEB system depends on the ability of the system to use sensor data to appropriately detect and classify forward objects. The AEB system uses this detection and classification to decide if a collision is imminent and then avoid or mitigate the potential crash. Manufacturers and suppliers of AEB systems have worked to address unnecessary AEB activations through techniques such as sensor fusion, which combines and filters information from multiple sensors, and advanced predictive models. Lead Vehicle Automatic Emergency Braking A lead vehicle AEB system automatically applies the brakes to help drivers avoid or mitigate the severity of rear-end crashes. Lead vehicle AEB has two similar functions that NHTSA has referred to as crash imminent braking and dynamic brake support. Crash imminent braking (CIB) systems apply automatic braking when forward-looking sensors indicate a crash is imminent and the driver has not applied the brakes. Dynamic brake support (DBS) systems use the same sensors to supplement the driver's application of the brake pedal with additional braking when sensors determine the driver has applied the brakes, but the brake application is insufficient to avoid an imminent crash. This NPRM does not split the terminology of these CIB and DBS functionalities, but instead considers them both as parts of AEB. When NHTSA first tested implementation of these systems, NHTSA found that DBS systems operated with greater automatic braking application than CIB systems. However, more recent testing has shown that vehicle manufacturers' CIB systems provide the same level of braking as DBS systems. Nevertheless, the proposed standard includes performance tests that would require an AEB system that has both CIB and DBS functionalities. Pedestrian Automatic Emergency Braking PAEB systems function like lead vehicle AEB systems but detect pedestrians in front of the vehicle. PAEB systems intervene in crash imminent situations in which the pedestrian is either directly in the path of a vehicle or entering the path of the vehicle. Current PAEB systems operate primarily when the vehicle is moving in a straight line. Sensor performance is defined by sensing depth, field of view, and resolution. However, performance may be degraded during low light conditions. This NPRM proposes requiring PAEB system performance in darkness conditions using the vehicle's headlamps for illumination. “AEB” as Used in This NPRM When this NPRM refers to “AEB” generally, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, it refers to a system that has: (a) an FCW component to alert the driver to an impending collision with a forward obstacle; (b) a CIB component that automatically applies the vehicle's brakes if the driver does not respond to the FCW; and (c) a DBS component that automatically supplements the driver's brake application if the driver applies insufficient manual braking to avoid a crash. Furthermore, unless the context indicates otherwise, reference to AEB includes both lead vehicle AEB and PAEB. Abbreviations Frequently Used in This Document The following table is provided for the convenience of readers for illustration purposes only. Table 5—Abbreviations Abbreviation Full term Notes AEB Automatic Emergency Braking Applies a vehicle's brakes automatically to avoid or mitigate an impending forward crash. ADAS Advanced driver assistance system CIB Crash Imminent Braking Applies automatic braking when forward-looking sensors indicate a crash is imminent and the driver has not applied the brakes. CRSS Crash Report Sampling System A sample of police-reported crashes involving all types of motor vehicles, pedestrians, and cyclists, ranging from property-damage-only crashes to those that result in fatalities. DBS Dynamic Brake Support Supplements the driver's application of the brake pedal with additional braking when sensors determine the driver-applied braking is insufficient to avoid an imminent crash. FARS Fatality Analysis Reporting System A nationwide census providing annual data regarding fatal injuries suffered in motor vehicle crashes. FCW Forward Collision Warning An auditory and visual warning provided to the vehicle operator that is designed to induce an immediate forward crash avoidance response by the vehicle operator. FMVSS Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard IIHS Insurance Institute for Highway Safety IIJA Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act Public Law 117-58 (Nov. 15, 2021). ISO International Organization for Standardization Lead Vehicle AEB Lead Vehicle Automatic Emergency Braking An AEB system that is capable of avoiding or mitigating collisions with a lead vehicle. MAIS Maximum Abbreviated Injury Scale A means of describing injury severity based on an ordinal scale. An MAIS 1 injury is a minor injury and an MAIS 5 injury is a critical injury. NCAP New Car Assessment Program PAEB Pedestrian AEB Activates when a crash imminent situation occurs between the equipped vehicle and a pedestrian in the forward path. RFC Request for Comments VTD Vehicle Test Device A test device used to test AEB system performance. II. Safety Problem There were 38,824 fatalities in motor vehicle crashes on U.S. roadways in 2020 and early estimates put the number of fatalities at 42,915 for 2021. 16 This is the highest number of fatalities since 2005. While the upward trend in fatalities may be related to increases in risky driving behaviors during the COVID-19 pandemic, 17 agency data show an increase of 3,356 fatalities between 2010 and 2019. 18 Motor vehicle crashes have also trended upwards since 2010, which corresponds to an increase in fatalities, injuries, and property damage. 16 https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813266 , https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813283. 17 These behaviors relate to increases in impaired driving, the non-use of seat belts, and speeding. NHTSA also cited external studies from telematics providers that suggested increased rates of cell phone manipulation during driving in the early part of the pandemic. 18 NHTSA's Traffic Safety Facts Annual Report, Table 2, https://cdan.nhtsa.gov/tsftables/tsfar.htm#. Accessed March 28, 2023. A. Overall Rear-End Crash Problem This NPRM proposes a new FMVSS to reduce the frequency and severity of vehicle-to-vehicle rear-end crashes and to reduce the frequency and severity of vehicle crashes into pedestrians. NHTSA uses data from its Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) and the Crash Report Sampling System (CRSS) to account for and understand motor vehicle crashes. As defined in a NHTSA technical manual relating to data entry for FARS and CRSS, rear-end crashes are incidents where the first event is defined as the frontal area of one vehicle striking a vehicle ahead in the same travel lane. In a rear-end crash, as instructed by the 2020 FARS/CRSS Coding and Validation Manual, the vehicle ahead is categorized as intending to head either straight, left or right, and is either stopped, travelling at a lower speed, or decelerating. 19 19 https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813251 Category II Configuration D. Rear-End. In 2019, rear-end crashes accounted for 32.5 percent of all crashes, making them the most prevalent type of crash. 20 Fatal rear-end crashes increased from 1,692 in 2010 to 2,363 in 2019 and accounted for 7.1 percent of all fatal crashes in 2019, up from 5.6 percent in 2010. Because data from 2020 and 2021 may not be representative of the general safety problem due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the following discussion refers to data from 2010 to 2020 when discussing rear-end crash safety problem trends, and 2019 data when discussing specific characteristics of the rear-end crash safety problem. While injury and property damage-only rear-end crashes from 2010 (476,000 and 1,267,000, respectively) and 2019 (595,000 and 1,597,000, respectively) are not directly comparable due to the difference in database structure and sampling, the data indicate that these numbers have not significantly changed from 2010-2015 (NASS-GES sampling) and 2016-2019 (CRSS sampling). 20 https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813141 Traffic Safety Facts 2019, Table 29. 21 Compiled from NHTSA's Traffic Safety Facts Annual Report, Table 29 from 2010 to 2020, https://cdan.nhtsa.gov/tsftables/tsfar.htm#. Accessed March 28, 2023. Table 6—2010-2020 Rear-End Crashes All Vehicle Types by Crash Severity 21 First harmful event Rear-end crash severity Fatal Number Injury Number Property- damage-only Number Total rear-end Number 2010 1,692 476,000 1,267,000 1,745,000 2011 1,808 475,000 1,245,000 1,721,000 2012 1,836 518,000 1,327,000 1,847,000 2013 1,815 503,000 1,326,000 1,831,000 2014 1,971 522,000 1,442,000 1,966,000 2015 2,225 556,000 1,543,000 2,101,000 2016 2,372 661,000 1,523,000 2,187,000 2017 2,473 615,000 1,514,000 2,132,000 2018 2,459 594,000 1,579,000 2,175,000 2019 2,363 595,000 1,597,000 2,194,000 2020 2,428 417,000 1,038,000 1,457,000 Table 7 presents a breakdown of all the crashes in 2019 by the first harmful event where rear-end crashes represent 7.1 percent of the fatal crashes, 31.1 percent of injury crashes and 33.2 percent (or the largest percent) of property damage only crashes. Table 7—2019 Crashes, by First Harmful Event, Manner of Collision, and Crash Severity 22 First harmful event Crash severity Fatal Number Percent Injury Number Percent Property damage only Number Percent Collision with Motor Vehicle in Transport Angle 6,087 18.2 531,000 27.7 956,000 19.9 Rear-end 2,363 7.1 595,000 31.1 1,597,000 33.2 Sideswipe 917 2.7 138,000 7.2 739,000 15.4 Head On 3,639 10.9 91,000 4.7 86,000 1.8 Other/Unknown 150 0.4 8,000 0.4 69,000 1.4 Collision with a Fixed Object Collision with Object Not Fixed 9,579 28.6 281,000 14.7 657,000 13.7 7,826 23.4 214,000 11.2 648,000 13.5 Non-collision 2,870 8.6 58,000 3.0 54,000 1.1 The following paragraphs provide a breakdown of rear-end crashes by vehicle type, posted speed limit, light conditions and atmospheric conditions for the year 2019 based on NHTSA's FARS, CRSS and the 2019 Traffic Safety Facts sheets. 22 NHTSA's Traffic Safety Facts Annual Report, Table 29 for 2019, https://cdan.nhtsa.gov/tsftables/tsfar.htm# . Accessed March 28, 2023. B. Rear-End Crashes by Vehicle Type In 2019, passenger cars and light trucks were involved in the vast majority of rear-end crashes. NHTSA's “Manual on Classification of Motor Vehicle Traffic Accidents” provides a standardized method for crash reporting. It defines passenger cars as “motor vehicles used primarily for carrying passengers, including convertibles, sedans, and station wagons,” and light trucks as “trucks of 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight rating or less, including pickups, vans, truck-based station wagons, and utility vehicles.” 23 The 2019 data show that crashes where a passenger car or light truck is a striking vehicle represent at least 70 percent of fatal rear-end crashes, 95 percent of crashes resulting in injury, and 96 percent of damage only crashes (See Table 8). 24 23 https://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/help/terms.aspx. 24 https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813141 Traffic Safety Facts 2019. Table 8—Rear-End Crashes With Impact Location—Front, by Vehicle Type, in 2019 25 Vehicle body type, initial impact-front Fatal Injury Property damage only Passenger Car 888 329,000 906,000 Light Truck 910 245,000 642,000 All Other 762 31,000 57,000 C. Rear-End Crashes by Posted Speed Limit When looking at posted speed limit and rear-end crashes, data show that the majority of the crashes happened in areas where the posted speed limit was 60 mph (97 km/h) or less. Table 9 shows the rear-end crash data by posted speed limit and vehicle type from 2019. About 60 percent of fatal crashes were on roads with a speed limit of 60 mph (97 km/h) or lower. That number is 73 percent for injury crashes and 78 percent for property damage-only crashes. 25 Generated from FARS and CRSS databases ( https://www.nhtsa.gov/file-downloads?p=nhtsa/downloads/FARS/2019/National/, https://www.nhtsa.gov/file-downloads?p=nhtsa/downloads/CRSS/2019/, accessed October 17, 2022). Table 9—2019 Rear-End Crashes Involving Passenger Cars, MPVs, and Light Trucks With Frontal Impact by Posted Speed Limit 26 27 Vehicles by posted speed limit Passenger cars, light trucks, by crash severity Fatal Number Percent Injury Number Percent Property-damage-only Number Percent 25 mph or less 16 1 28,000 5 103,000 7 30 30 2 24,000 4 78,000 5 35 95 5 91,000 16 267,000 17 40 87 5 66,000 11 175,000 11 45 223 12 129,000 22 373,000 24 50 99 6 19,000 3 58,000 4 55 401 22 55,000 10 122,000 8 60 133 7 12,000 2 31,000 2 65 and above 684 38 75,000 13 153,000 10 All other 30 2 75,000 13 187,000 12 Total 1,798 100 574,000 100 1,547,000 100 D. Rear-End Crashes by Light Condition Slightly more fatal rear-end crashes (51 percent) occurred during daylight than during dark-lighted and dark-not-lighted conditions combined (43 percent) in 2019. However, injury and property damage-only rear-end crashes were reported to have happened overwhelmingly during daylight, at 76 percent for injury rear-end crashes and 80 percent for property-damage-only rear-end crashes. Table 10 presents a summary of all 2019 rear-end crashes of light vehicles by light conditions, where the impact location is the front of a light vehicle. 26 Generated from FARS and CRSS databases ( https://www.nhtsa.gov/file-downloads?p=nhtsa/downloads/FARS/2019/National/, https://www.nhtsa.gov/file-downloads?p=nhtsa/downloads/CRSS/2019/, accessed October 17, 2022). 27 Total percentages may not equal the sum of individual components due to independent rounding throughout the Safety Problem section. 28 Generated from FARS and CRSS databases ( https://www.nhtsa.gov/file-downloads?p=nhtsa/downloads/FARS/2019/National/, https://www.nhtsa.gov/file-downloads?p=nhtsa/downloads/CRSS/2019/, accessed October 17, 2022). Table 10—2019 Rear-End Crashes With Light Vehicle Front Impact, by Light Condition 28 Light condition Crash severity Fatal Percent Number Injury Percent Number Property Damage-only Percent Number Daylight 925 51 436,000 76 1,232,000 80 Dark—Not Lighted 438 24 28,000 5 59,00060,767 4 Dark—Lighted 349 19 86,000 15 192,000 12 All Other 86 5 24,000 4 65,000 4 Total 1,798 100 574,000 100 1,547,000 100 E. Rear-End Crashes by Atmospheric Conditions In 2019, the majority of rear-end crashes of light vehicles were reported to occur during clear skies with no adverse atmospheric conditions. These conditions were present for 72 percent of all fatal rear-end crashes, while 14 percent of fatal rear-end crashes were reported to occur during cloudy conditions. Similar trends are reported for injury and property damage only crashes. A brief summary of 2019 rear-end crashes of light vehicle with frontal impact by atmospheric conditions is presented in Table 11. 29 Generated from FARS and CRSS databases ( https://www.nhtsa.gov/file-downloads?p=nhtsa/downloads/FARS/2019/National/, https://www.nhtsa.gov/file-downloads?p=nhtsa/downloads/CRSS/2019/, accessed October 17, 2022). Table 11—2019 Rear-End Crashes Involving Light Vehicles With Frontal Impact, by Atmospheric Conditions 29 Crashes atmospheric conditions Crash severity Fatal Percent Number Injury Percent Number Property damage-only Percent Number Clear, No Adverse 1,295 72 426,000 74 1,113,000 72 Cloudy 247 14 87,000 15 245,000 16 All Other 256 14 61,000 11 189,000 12 Total 1,798 100 574,000 100 1,547,000 100 F. Pedestrian Fatalities and Injuries While the number of fatalities from motor vehicle traffic crashes is increasing, pedestrian fatalities are increasing at a greater rate than the general trend and becoming a larger percentage of total fatalities. In 2010, there were 4,302 pedestrian fatalities (13 percent of all fatalities), which has increased to 6,272 (17 percent of all fatalities) in 2019. The latest agency estimation data indicate that there were 7,342 pedestrian fatalities in 2021. 30 Since data from 2020 and 2021 may not be representative of the general safety problem due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the following sections refer to data from 2010 to 2020 when discussing pedestrian safety problem trends, and 2019 data when discussing specific characteristics of the pedestrian safety problem. While the number of pedestrian fatalities is increasing, the number of pedestrians injured in crashes from 2010 to 2020 has not changed significantly, with exception of the 2020 pandemic year. In Table 12, the number and percentage of pedestrian fatalities and injuries for the 2010 to 2020 period is presented in relationship to the total number of fatalities and total number of people injured in all crashes. 30 https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813298 Early Estimates of Motor Vehicle Traffic Fatalities And Fatality Rate by Sub-Categories in 2021, May 2022. 31 https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813079 Pedestrian Traffic Facts 2019 Data, May 2021, https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813310 Pedestrian Traffic Facts 2020, Data May 2022. Table 12—2010-2020 Traffic Crash Fatalities and Pedestrian Fatalities, and Injured People and Pedestrians Injured 31 Year Total fatalities 1 Pedestrian fatalities 1 Number Percent of total fatalities Total people injured 2 Pedestrian injured 2 Number Percent of total injured 2010 32,999 4,302 13 2,248,000 70,000 3 2011 32,479 4,457 14 2,227,000 69,000 3 2012 33,782 4,818 14 2,369,000 76,000 3 2013 32,893 4,779 15 2,319,000 66,000 3 2014 32,744 4,910 15 2,343,000 65,000 3 2015 35,484 5,494 15 2,455,000 70,000 3 2016 37,806 6,080 16 3,062,000 86,000 3 2017 37,473 6,075 16 2,745,000 71,000 3 2018 36,835 6,374 17 2,710,000 75,000 3 2019 36,355 6,272 17 2,740,000 76,000 3 2020 38,824 6,516 17 2,282,015 55,000 2 1 Data source: FARS 2010-2019, 2020 Annual Report (ARF). 2 Data source: NASS GES 2010-2015, CRSS 2016-2019. The following sections present a breakdown of pedestrian fatalities and injuries by initial impact point, vehicle type, posted speed limit, lighting condition, pedestrian age, and light conditions for the year 2019. G. Pedestrian Fatalities and Injuries by Initial Point of Impact and Vehicle Type In 2019, the majority of pedestrian fatalities, 4,638 (74 percent of all pedestrian fatalities), and injuries, 52,886 (70 percent of all pedestrian injuries), were in crashes where the initial point of impact on the vehicle was the front. When the crashes are broken down by vehicle body type, the majority of pedestrian fatalities and injuries occur where the initial point of impact was the front of a light vehicle (4,069 pedestrian fatalities and 50,831 pedestrian injuries) (see Table 13). 32 32 As described previously, passenger cars and light trucks are the representative population for vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 lbs.) or less. 33 NHTSA's Traffic Safety Facts Annual Report, Table 99 for 2019, https://cdan.nhtsa.gov/tsftables/tsfar.htm#Accessed March 28, 2023. Table 13—2019 Pedestrian Fatalities and Injuries, by Initial Point of Impact Front and Vehicle Body Type 33 Vehicle body type, initial impact—front Crash severity Pedestrian fatalities Number Percent Pedestrian injuries Number Percent Passenger Car 1,976 43 30,968 59 Light Truck 2,093 45 19,863 38 All Other 569 12 2,055 4 Total 4,638 100 52,886 100 H. Pedestrian Fatalities and Injuries by Posted Speed Limit Involving Light Vehicles In 2019, the majority of pedestrian fatalities from crashes involving light vehicles with the initial point of impact as the front occurred on roads where the posted speed limit was 45 mph or less, (about 70 percent). There is a near even split between the number of pedestrian fatalities in 40 mph and lower speed zones and in 45 mph and above speed zones (50 percent and 47 percent respectively with the remaining unknown, not reported or lacking). As for pedestrian injuries, in a large number of cases, the posted speed limit is either not reported or unknown ( i.e., about 34 percent of the sampled data). In situations where the posted speed limit is known, 57 percent of the pedestrians were injured when the posted speed limit was 40 mph or below, and 9 percent when the posted speed limit was above 40 mph. Table 14 shows the number of pedestrian fatalities and injuries for each posted speed limit. 34 The accompanying PRIA estimates the impacts of the rule based on the estimated travel speed of the striking vehicle. This table presents the speed limit of the roads on which pedestrian crashes occur. Table 14—2019 Pedestrian Fatalities and Injuries Involving Light Vehicles, by Posted Speed Limit 34 Posted speed limit Crash severity Pedestrians fatalities Number Percent Pedestrian injuries Number Percent 5 mph 3 0.07 185 0.36 10 mph 7 0.17 287 0.56 15 mph 10 0.25 865 1.70 20 mph 14 0.34 479 0.94 25 mph 346 8.50 9,425 18.54 30 mph 325 7.99 4,254 8.37 35 mph 765 18.80 9,802 19.28 40 mph 551 13.54 3,703 7.28 45 mph 821 20.18 3,094 6.09 50 mph 177 4.35 302 0.59 55 mph 463 11.38 546 1.07 60 mph 105 2.58 130 0.26 65 mph 199 4.89 241 0.47 70 mph 103 2.53 105 0.21 75 mph 19 0.47 4 0.01 80 mph 2 0.05 25 0.05 Not Reported 118 2.90 15,017 29.54 Unknown 16 0.39 176 0.35 No Statutory Limit/Non-Trafficway Area 25 0.61 2,191 4.31 Total 4,069 100 50,831 100 I. Pedestrian Fatalities and Injuries by Lighting Condition Involving Light Vehicles The majority of pedestrian fatalities where a light vehicle strikes a pedestrian with the front of the vehicle occurred in dark lighting conditions, 3,131 (75 percent). There were 20,645 pedestrian injuries (40 percent) in dark lighting conditions and 27,603 pedestrian injuries (54 percent) in daylight conditions. 35 Generated from FARS and CRSS databases ( https://www.nhtsa.gov/file-downloads?p=nhtsa/downloads/FARS/2019/National/, https://www.nhtsa.gov/file-downloads?p=nhtsa/downloads/CRSS/2019/, accessed October 17, 2022). Table 15—2019 Pedestrian Fatalities and Injuries Involving Light Vehicles, by Lighting Condition 35 Light condition Crash severity Pedestrian fatalities Number Percent Pedestrian injuries Number Percent Daylight 767 19 27,603 54 Dark-Not Lighted 1,464 36 4,551 9 Dark-Lighted 1,621 40 15,996 31 Dark-Unknown Light 46 1 98 0 All Other 171 4 2,583 5 Total 4,069 100 50,831 100 J. Pedestrian Fatalities and Injuries by Age Involving Light Vehicles In 2019, 646 fatalities and approximately 106,600 injuries involved children aged 9 and below. Of these, 68 fatalities and approximately 2,700 injuries involved pedestrians aged 9 and below in crashes with the front of a light vehicle. As shown in Table 16, the first two age groups (less than age 5 and 5 to 9) each represent less than 1 percent of the total pedestrian fatalities in crashes with the front of a light vehicle. These age groups also represent about 1.5 and 3.8 percent of the total pedestrian injuries in crashes with the front of a light vehicle, respectively. In contrast, age groups between age 25 and 69 each represent approximately 7 percent of the total pedestrian fatalities in crashes with the front of a light vehicle, with the 55 to 59 age group having the highest percentage at 10.9 percent. Pedestrian injury percentages were less consistent, but distributed similarly, to pedestrian fatalities, with lower percentages reflected in children aged 9 and below and adults over age 70. 36 Generated from FARS and CRSS databases ( https://www.nhtsa.gov/file-downloads?p=nhtsa/downloads/FARS/2019/National/, https://www.nhtsa.gov/file-downloads?p=nhtsa/downloads/CRSS/2019/, accessed October 17, 2022). 37 https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2019/demo/age-and-sex/2019-age-sex-composition.html, Table 12. Table 16—2019 Pedestrians Fatalities and Injuries in Traffic Crashes Involving Light Vehicles by Initial Point of Impact Front 36 and Age Group 37 Age group United States population (thousand) Percent of population Pedestrian fatalities Light vehicle front-impact ped. fatalities Percent of total pedestrian fatalities in light vehicle front-impact crashes Pedestrians injuries Light vehicle front-impact ped. injuries Percent of total pedestrian injuries in light vehicle front-impact crashes <5 19,736 6.1 37 0.9 770 1.5 5-9 20,212 6.2 31 0.8 1,907 3.8 10-14 20,827 6.4 58 1.4 2,830 5.6 15-20 20,849 6.4 159 3.9 5,673 11.2 21-24 21,254 6.6 173 4.3 3,190 6.3 25-29 23,277 7.2 287 7.1 4,394 8.6 30-34 21,932 6.8 315 7.7 3,735 7.3 35-39 21,443 6.6 316 7.8 3,636 7.2 40-44 19,584 6.0 277 6.8 2,812 5.5 45-49 20,345 6.3 294 7.2 2,745 5.4 50-54 20,355 6.3 350 8.6 3,311 6.5 55-59 21,163 6.5 442 10.9 3,678 7.2 60-64 20,592 6.3 379 9.3 3,469 6.8 65-69 17,356 5.4 303 7.4 2,594 5.1 70-74 14,131 4.4 207 5.1 1,724 3.4 75-79 9,357 2.9 172 4.2 1,136 2.2 80+ 11,943 3.7 252 6.2 1,127 2.2 Unknown 17 0.4 2,103 4.1 Total 4,069 100 50,831 100 K. AEB Target Population AEB technology is not expected to prevent all rear-end crashes or pedestrian fatalities. In order to determine the portion of the rear-end and pedestrian fatality population that could be affected by AEB, NHTSA used the FARS and CRSS databases to derive a target population. Fatality data were derived from FARS and data on property damage vehicle crashes and injuries were derived from CRSS. The agency computed annualized averages for years 2016 to 2019 from fatalities and injuries. For lead vehicle AEB, NHTSA first applied filters to ensure the target population included only rear-end crashes, excluding crashes other than those resulting from a motor vehicle in transport and only including crashes where the striking vehicle had frontal damage and the struck vehicle had rear-end damage. NHTSA conservatively excluded crashes with more than two vehicles because two-vehicle crashes most closely mirror the test track testing which includes a single lead vehicle. NHTSA only included crashes where a light vehicle struck another light vehicle. The striking vehicle was limited to light vehicles because this proposal would only apply to light vehicles. The struck vehicle was limited to light vehicles because the specifications for the lead vehicle in testing were derived exclusively from light vehicles. The crash population was further limited to cases where the subject vehicle was traveling in a straight line and either braked or did not brake to avoid the crash (excluding instances where the vehicle attempted to avoid the crash in some other manner). These exclusions were applied because AEB systems may suppress automatic braking when the driver attempts to avoid a collision by some other action, such as turning. Finally, the crash scenarios were limited to those where the lead vehicle was either stopped, moving, or decelerating along the same path as the subject vehicle. Other maneuvers, such as crashes in which the vehicle turned prior to the crash, were excluded because current sensor systems have a narrow field of view that does not provide sufficient information to the perception system regarding objects in the vehicle's turning path. For PAEB, the target population was also identified based on reported fatalities (in FARS data) and injuries (in GES and CRSS data). Each of the estimated target population values were based on a six-year average (2014 through 2019). NHTSA applied filters such that only crashes involving a single light vehicle and pedestrians where the first harmful event was contact with the pedestrian are considered in the analysis. Further, the impact area was restricted to the front of the vehicle because the performance proposed in this rule is limited to forward vehicle movement. Additionally, the vehicle's pre-event movement ( i.e., the vehicle's activity prior to the driver's realization of the impending crash) was traveling in a straight line and the pedestrian movement was determined to be either crossing the vehicle's path or along the vehicle's path to match the track testing being proposed. After applying these filters, NHTSA has tentatively concluded that AEB technology could potentially address up to 3,036 fatalities (394 lead vehicle and 2,642 pedestrian), 160,309 injuries (142,611 lead vehicle and 17,698 pedestrian), and 1,119,470 property damage only crashes (only lead vehicle). These crashes represent 15 percent and 14 percent of fatalities and injuries resulting from rear end crashes, respectively and 43 percent and 28 percent of fatalities and injuries from pedestrian crashes. These crashes also represent 8.4 percent of total roadway fatalities, 5.9 percent of total roadway injuries, and 23 percent of property damage only crashes. NHTSA has restricted the target population to two-vehicle crashes although FCW and AEB would likely provide safety benefits in multi-vehicle crashes even when the first impact would be completely avoided with FCW and AEB. 38 NHTSA also limited the target population to light vehicle to light vehicle crashes because NHTSA does not have data on how AEB systems would respond to other vehicle types such as heavy vehicles or motorcycles. NHTSA is currently researching light vehicle AEB performance in these situations. 38 As discussed in the PRIA for this NPRM, NHTSA decided not to include multi-vehicle crashes in the target population because it would be difficult to estimate safety benefits for occupants in the second and or third vehicles due to limited data. III. Data on Effectiveness of AEB in Mitigating Harm Forward collision warning systems were among the first generation of advanced driver assistance system technologies designed to help drivers avoid an impending crash. 39 In 2008, when NHTSA decided to include ADAS technologies in the NCAP program, FCW was selected because the agency believed (1) this technology addressed a major crash problem; (2) system designs existed that could mitigate this safety problem; (3) safety benefit projections were assessed; and (4) performance tests and procedures were available to ensure an acceptable performance level. At the time, the agency estimated that FCW systems were 15 percent effective in preventing rear-end crashes. More recently, in a 2017 study, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) found that FCW systems may be more effective than NHTSA's initial estimates indicated. 40 IIHS found that FCW systems reduced rear-end crashes by 27 percent. 39 ADAS technologies use advanced technologies to assist drivers in avoiding a crash. NCAP currently recommends four kinds of ADAS technologies to prospective vehicle purchasers—forward collision warning, lane departure warning, crash imminent braking, and dynamic brake support (the latter two are considered AEB). https://www.nhtsa.gov/equipment/driver-assistance-technologies. In a March 2, 2022 request for comments notice, infra, NHTSA proposed to add four more ADAS technologies to NCAP. 40 Cicchino, J.B. (2017, February), Effectiveness of forward collision warning and autonomous emergency braking systems in reducing front-to-rear crash rates, Accident Analysis and Prevention, 2017 Feb;99(Pt A):142-152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2016.11.009. When FCW is coupled with AEB, the system becomes more effective at reducing rear-end crashes. A limitation of FCW systems is that they are designed only to warn the driver, but they do not provide automatic braking of the vehicle. From a functional perspective, research suggests that active braking systems, such as AEB, provide greater safety benefits than corresponding warning systems, such as FCW. In a recent study sponsored by General Motors (GM) to evaluate the real-world effectiveness of ADAS technologies (including FCW and AEB) on 3.8 million model year 2013-2017 GM vehicles, the University of Michigan's Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI) found that, for frontal collisions, camera-based FCW systems produced an estimated 21 percent reduction in rear-end striking crashes, while the AEB systems studied (which included a combination of camera-only, radar-only, and fused camera-radar systems) produced an estimated 46 percent reduction in the same crash type. 41 Similarly, in a 2017 study, IIHS found that vehicles equipped with FCW and AEB showed a 50 percent reduction for the same crash type. 42 41 The Agency notes that the FCW effectiveness rate (21%) observed by UMTRI is similar to that observed by IIHS in its 2019 study (27%). Differences in data samples and vehicle selection may contribute to the specific numerical differences. Regardless, the AEB effectiveness rate observed by UMTRI (46%) was significantly higher than the corresponding FCW effectiveness rate observed in either the IIHS or UMTRI study. 42 Cicchino, J.B. (2017, February), Effectiveness of forward collision warning and autonomous emergency braking systems in reducing front-to-rear crash rates, Accident Analysis and Prevention, 2017 Feb;99(Pt A):142-152, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2016.11.009. NHTSA has found that current AEB systems often integrate the functionalities of FCW and AEB into one frontal crash prevention system to deliver improved real-world safety performance. Consequently, NHTSA believes that FCW should now be considered a component of lead vehicle AEB and PAEB, and has, in fact, developed a test in NCAP that assesses FCW in the same test that evaluates a vehicle's AEB and PAEB performance. 43 43 87 FR 13486 March 9, 2022, proposed update to NCAP's FCW testing. Not only are AEB systems proving effective, data indicate there is high consumer acceptance of the current systems. In a 2019 subscriber survey by Consumer Reports, 81 percent of vehicle owners reported that they were satisfied with AEB technology, 54 percent said that it had helped them avoid a crash, and 61 percent stated that they trusted the system to work every time. 44 44 Consumer Reports, (2019, August 5), Guide to automatic emergency braking: How AEB can put the brakes on car collisions, https://www.consumerreports.org/car-safety/automatic-emergency-braking-guide/. However, NHTSA is aware of data and other information indicating potential opportunities for AEB improvement. The data indicate the potential of AEB to reduce fatal crashes, especially if AEB systems performed at higher speeds. While AEB systems on currently available vehicles are highly effective at lower speed testing, some such systems do not perform well in tests done at higher speeds. IV. NHTSA's Earlier Efforts Related to AEB NHTSA sought to provide the public with valuable vehicle safety information by actively supporting development and implementation of AEB technologies through research and development and through NHTSA's NCAP. NHTSA also sought to incentivize installation of AEB and PAEB on vehicles by encouraging the voluntary installation of AEB systems by automakers through a voluntary industry commitment, resulting in participating automakers committing to installing an AEB system that met certain performance thresholds on most light duty cars and trucks by September 1, 2022, and on nearly all light vehicles by September 1, 2025. A. NHTSA's Foundational AEB Research NHTSA conducted extensive research on AEB systems to support development of the technology and eventual deployment in vehicles. There were three main components to this work. The agency conducted early research on FCW systems that warn drivers of potential rear-end crashes with other vehicles. This was followed by research into AEB systems designed to prevent or mitigate rear-end collisions through automatic braking. Later, NHTSA evaluated AEB systems designed to prevent or mitigate collisions with pedestrians in a vehicle's forward path. 1. Forward Collision Warning Research NHTSA's earliest research on FCW systems began in the 1990s, at a time when the systems were under development and evaluation had been conducted primarily by suppliers and vehicle manufacturers. NHTSA collaborated with industry stakeholders to identify the specific crash types that an FCW system could be designed to address, the resulting minimum functional requirements, and potential objective test procedures for evaluation. 45 In the late 1990s, NHTSA worked with industry to conduct a field study, the Automotive Collision Avoidance System Program. NHTSA later contracted with the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center (Volpe) to conduct analyses of data recorded during that field study. 46 From this work, NHTSA learned about the detection and alert timing and information about warning signal modality (auditory, visual, etc.) of FCW systems, and predominant vehicle crash avoidance scenarios where FCW systems could most effectively play a role in alerting a driver to brake and avoid a crash. In 2009, NHTSA synthesized this research in the development and conduct of controlled track test assessments on three vehicles equipped with FCW. 47 45 This research was documented in a report, “Development and Validation of Functional Definitions and Evaluation Procedures for Collision Warning/Avoidance Systems,” Kiefer, R., et al., DOT HS 808 964, August 1999. Additional NHTSA FCW research is described in Zador, Pub. L., et al., “Final Report—Automotive Collision Avoidance System (ACAS) Program,” DOT HS 809 080, August 2000; and Ference, J.J., et al., “Objective Test Scenarios for Integrated Vehicle-Based Safety Systems,” Paper No. 07-0183, Proceedings of the 20th International Conference for the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, 2007. 46 Najm, W.G., Stearns, M.D., Howarth, H., Koopmann, J., and Hitz, J., “Evaluation of an Automotive Rear-End Collision Avoidance System,” DOT HS 810 569, April 2006 and Najm, W.G., Stearns, M.D., and Yanagisawa, M., “Pre-Crash Scenario Typology for Crash Avoidance Research,” DOT HS 810 767, April 2007. 47 Forkenbrock, G., O'Harra, B., “A Forward Collision Warning (FCW) Program Evaluation, Paper No. 09-0561, Proceedings of the 21st International Technical Conference for the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, 2009. Because FCW systems are designed only to warn the driver and not to provide automatic braking for meaningful speed reduction of the vehicle, NHTSA continued to research AEB systems. 48 48 Some FCW systems use haptic brake pulses to alert the driver of a crash-imminent driving situation, but the pulses are not intended to slow the vehicle. 2. AEB Research To Prevent Rear-End Impacts With a Lead Vehicle NHTSA's research and test track performance evaluations of AEB began around 2010. The agency began a thorough examination of the state of forward-looking advanced braking technologies, analyzing their performance and identifying areas of concern or uncertainty, to better understand their safety potential. NHTSA issued a report 49 and a request for comments notice seeking feedback on its CIB and DBS research in July 2012. 50 Specifically, NHTSA wanted to enhance its knowledge further and help guide its continued efforts pertaining to AEB effectiveness, test operation (including how to ensure repeatability using a target or surrogate vehicle), refinement of performance criteria, and exploring the need for an approach and criteria for “false positive” tests to minimize the unintended negative consequences of automatic braking in non-critical driving situations. 49 The agency's initial research and analysis of CIB and DBS systems were documented in a report, “Forward-Looking Advanced Braking Technologies: An analysis of current system performance, effectiveness, and test protocols” (June 2012). https://www.regulations.gov, NHTSA 2012-0057-0001. 50 77 FR 39561. NHTSA considered feedback it received on the RFC and conducted additional testing to support further development of the test procedures. The agency documented its work in two additional reports, “Automatic Emergency Braking System Research Report” (August 2014) 51 and “NHTSA's 2014 Automatic Emergency Braking (AEB) Test Track Evaluations” (May 2015), 52 and in accompanying draft CIB and DBS test procedures. 53 51 https://www.regulations.gov, NHTSA 2012-0057-0037. 52 DOT HS 812 166. 53 https://www.regulations.gov, NHTSA 2012-0057-0038. In the follow-on tests, NHTSA found that CIB and DBS systems commercially available on several different production vehicles could be tested successfully to the agency's defined performance measures. NHTSA developed performance measures to define the performance CIB and DBS systems should attain to help drivers avoid or at least mitigate injury risk in rear-end crashes. The agency found that systems meeting the performance measures have the potential to reduce the number of rear-end crashes as well as deaths and injuries that result from these crashes. NHTSA used the research findings to develop NCAP's procedures for assessing the performance of vehicles with AEB and other crash-avoidance technologies 54 and for testing vehicles at higher speeds. The findings also provided the foundation to upgrade NCAP's current AEB tests, as discussed in NHTSA's March 9, 2022, request for comments notice, 55 and the development of this NPRM. 54 NCAP recommends forward collision warning, lane departure warning, crash imminent braking and dynamic brake support (AEB) to prospective vehicle purchasers and identifies vehicles that meet NCAP performance test criteria for these technologies. 55 87 FR 13452, March 2, 2022. 3. AEB Research To Prevent Vehicle Impacts With Pedestrians NHTSA began research on PAEB systems in 2011. 56 The agency worked on a project with Volpe and the Crash Avoidance Metrics Partnership (CAMP) 57 to develop preliminary PAEB test methods. The goal of the project was to develop and validate minimum performance requirements and objective test procedures for forward-looking PAEB systems intended to address in-traffic, pedestrian crash scenarios. 56 At that time, the agency used the term “pedestrian crash avoidance and mitigation (PCAM)” research. 57 The participating companies that worked on this project included representatives from Continental, Delphi Corporation, Ford Motor Company, General Motors, and Mercedes-Benz. As part of this work, Volpe conducted an analysis of available crash data and found four common pedestrian pre-crash scenarios. These are when the vehicle is: 1. Heading in a straight line and a pedestrian is crossing the road; 2. turning right and a pedestrian is crossing the road; 3. turning left and a pedestrian is crossing the road; and 4. heading in a straight line and a pedestrian is walking along or against traffic. Understanding the pre-crash factors associated with pedestrian crashes led to the development of the draft research test methods, a set of test equipment requirements, a preliminary evaluation plan, and development of a 50th percentile adult male mannequin made from closed-cell foam. The culmination of this work was documented in a research report, “Objective Tests for Forward Looking Pedestrian Crash Avoidance/Mitigation Systems: Final Report” (June 2014). 58 58 Carpenter, M.G., Moury, M.T., Skvarce, J.R., Struck, M. Zwicky, T.D., & Kiger, S.M. (2014, June), Objective Tests for Forward Looking Pedestrian Crash Avoidance/Mitigation Systems: Final report (Report No. DOT HS 812 040), Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. NHTSA continued to refine the CAMP test procedures in pursuit of objective and repeatable test procedures using production vehicles equipped with PAEB systems. In doing so, NHTSA evaluated adult, child, non-articulating and articulating mannequins, walking and running speed capabilities, mannequin radar cross section characteristics, and mannequin position accuracy and control. 59 The evaluated mannequins and their characteristics represented the largest portion of the crash problem. NHTSA also updated its real-world pedestrian crash data analysis in 2017. 60 59 Albrecht, H., “Objective Test Procedures for Pedestrian Automatic Emergency Braking Systems,” SAE Government/Industry Meeting, January 25-27, 2017. 60 Yanagisawa, M., Swanson, E., Azeredo, P., Najm, W., “Estimation of Potential Safety Benefits for Pedestrian Crash Avoidance/Mitigation Systems, DOT HS 812 400, April 2017. In November 2019, NHTSA published a draft research test procedure that provided the methods and specifications for collecting performance data on PAEB systems for light vehicles. 61 The test procedures were developed to evaluate the PAEB performance in the two most frequent pre-crash scenarios involving pedestrians: where the pedestrian crosses the road in front of the vehicle and where the pedestrian walks alongside the road in the path of the vehicle. NHTSA focused its 2019 draft research test procedures on these two scenarios because a 2017 crash data study suggested they collectively represented 90 percent of pedestrian fatalities (64 percent and 28 percent, respectively). In contrast, the study found that the turning right and turning left scenarios were found to only account for 1 percent and 4 percent of pedestrian fatalities, respectively. NHTSA further focused the 2019 test procedures on PAEB-addressable crashes. PAEB systems offered at the time were not offering a wider field of view necessary for detection and braking in the turning scenarios. These two scenarios present different challenges due to the relative angles and distances between subject vehicle and pedestrian and could require additional hardware resulting in added cost. NHTSA's consideration of including the turning scenarios is further discussed in the PRIA accompanying this NPRM. The draft test procedures described in this document rely on the use of pedestrian mannequins for testing purposes. 61 https://regulations.dot.gov, Docket No. NHTSA-2019-0102. 4. Bicycle and Motorcycle AEB NHTSA is actively conducting research to characterize the performance of AEB systems in response to bicycle and motorcycles in the same scenarios as NHTSA's lead vehicle AEB testing, in both daylight and darkness conditions. NHTSA tested five vehicles with bicycle and motorcycle AEB and also tested with a vehicle surrogate as a control for AEB system performance. In addition to characterizing the performance of the five vehicles, this testing also allows NHTSA to refine its test procedures to determine whether any changes would be needed to test bicycle or motorcycle AEB. Preliminary results suggest that the lane position of the test device, the lighting conditions, the positioning of a lead vehicle, and speed all have a significant effect on the performance of AEB systems relative to bicycles and motorcycles. However, there is no discernable pattern across vehicles tested, suggesting that performance is dependent upon specific test scenario definition. Further, preliminary testing has raised issues with the design of the bicycle and motorcycle surrogates and their impact on the vehicles under test. This report is expected to be completed by the end of 2023. The results from this research, and other future research, may lead to efforts to define test procedures, refine the bicycle and motorcycle surrogate devices, and characterize AEB system performance in response to additional test devices (scooters, mopeds, wheelchairs, or other assisted walking devices). B. NHTSA's New Car Assessment Program 1. FCW Tests In 2007, based on the research discussed above, NHTSA issued a notice requesting public comment on including rear-end crash warning/avoidance systems in NCAP. 62 The technology under consideration at the time included forward vehicle sensing with warning or braking. In 2008, based upon feedback and further agency analysis, NHTSA published a final decision notice announcing its intent to include FCW in NCAP as a recommended technology and identify for consumers which vehicles have the technology. 62 72 FR 3473 (January 25, 2007). NHTSA published a report in conjunction with this notice titled, “The New Car Assessment Program (NCAP); Suggested Approaches for Future Enhancements.” To ensure that NCAP identified only vehicles that had FCW systems that satisfied a minimum level of performance, NHTSA adopted specific performance tests and thresholds and time-to-collision-based alert criteria that a system had to satisfy to be distinguished in NCAP as a vehicle equipped with the recommended technology. NCAP informs consumers that a particular vehicle has a recommended technology when NHTSA has data verifying that the vehicle's system meets the minimum performance threshold set by NHTSA for acceptable performance. If a vehicle's system meets the performance threshold using the test method NHTSA specifies, NHTSA uses a checkmark to indicate on the NCAP website that the vehicle is equipped with the technology. 63 63 The March 2022 request for comments notice discusses, among other things, NHTSA's plan to develop a future rating system for new vehicles based on the availability and performance of all of the NCAP-recommended crash avoidance technologies. That is, instead of a simple checkmark showing the vehicle has a technology (and it meets the applicable performance test criteria), vehicles would receive a rating for each technology based on the systems' performance test criteria in NHTSA's tests. 87 FR 13452 (March 9, 2022). The performance tests chosen for NCAP consisted of three scenarios that simulated the most frequent types of light vehicle rear-end crashes: crashes where a vehicle ahead is either stopped, suddenly starts braking, or is traveling at a much lower speed in the subject vehicle travel lane. The scenarios were named “lead vehicle stopped,” “lead vehicle decelerating,” and “lead vehicle moving,” respectively. 64 In each scenario, the time needed for a driver to perceive an impending rear-end crash, decide the corrective action, and respond with the appropriate mitigating action is prescribed. If the FCW system fails to provide an alert within the required time during testing, the professional test driver applies the brakes or steers away to avoid a collision. 64 73 FR 40016 (July 11, 2008). https://regulations.gov. Docket No. NHTSA-2006-26555-0118. 2. Lead Vehicle AEB Tests NHTSA incorporated AEB technologies (CIB and DBS) in NCAP as recommended crash avoidance technologies in 2015, 65 starting with model year 2018 vehicles. NHTSA adopted performance tests and thresholds that a system must meet for the vehicle to be distinguished in NCAP as a vehicle with the recommended technology. The AEB performance tests consisted of test scenarios and test speeds that were derived from crash statistics, field operational tests, and NHTSA testing experience, including experience gained from development of the FCW performance tests already in NCAP. 66 In the NCAP recommended crash avoidance technologies program, vehicles receive credit for meeting the agency's performance tests for CIB and DBS separately. 65 80 FR 68604. 66 Id. at 68608. For AEB assessment, NCAP uses four test scenarios: lead vehicle stopped, lead vehicle decelerating, lead vehicle moving, and the steel trench plate test. 67 Each test scenario is evaluated separately for CIB and DBS. The only difference is that, in the DBS tests, manual braking is applied to the subject vehicle. For the first three test scenarios, the subject vehicle must demonstrate a specific speed reduction attributable to AEB intervention. The fourth scenario, the steel trench plate test, is a false positive test, used to evaluate the propensity of a vehicle's AEB system to activate inappropriately in a scenario that would not present a safety risk to the vehicle's occupants. For each of the scenarios, to receive NHTSA's technology recommendation through NCAP, the vehicle must meet the minimum specified performance in at least five out of seven valid test trials. 67 NHTSA. (2015, October). Crash imminent brake system performance evaluation for the New Car Assessment Program. https://www.regulations.gov. Docket No. NHTSA-2015-0006-0025. Lead Vehicle Stopped Tests In the NCAP lead vehicle stopped test scenario, the subject vehicle encounters a stopped lead vehicle on a straight road. The subject vehicle travels in a straight line, at a constant speed of 40 km/h (25 mph), approaching a stopped lead vehicle in its path. The subject vehicle's throttle is released within 500 milliseconds (ms) after the subject vehicle issues an FCW. In the DBS test, the subject vehicle's brakes are manually applied at a time-to-collision of 1.1 seconds (at a nominal headway of 12.2 m (40 ft)). To receive credit for CIB, the subject vehicle speed reduction attributable to CIB intervention must be ≥15.8 km/h (9.8 mph) before the end of the test. To receive credit for DBS, the subject vehicle must not contact the lead vehicle. Lead Vehicle Decelerating Tests In the lead vehicle decelerating test scenario, the subject vehicle encounters a lead vehicle slowing with constant deceleration directly in front of it on a straight road. For this test scenario, the subject vehicle and lead vehicle are initially both driven at 56.3 km/h (35 mph) with an initial headway of 13.8 m (45.3 ft). The lead vehicle then decelerates, braking at a constant deceleration of 0.3g in front of the subject vehicle, after which the subject vehicle throttle is released within 500 ms after the subject vehicle issues an FCW. In the DBS testing, the subject vehicle's brakes are applied at a time-to-collision of 1.4 seconds (at a nominal headway of 9.6 m or 31.5 ft). To receive credit for passing this test scenario for CIB, the subject vehicle speed reduction attributable to CIB intervention must be ≥16.9 km/h (10.5 mph) before the end of the test. To receive credit for passing this test for DBS, the subject vehicle must not contact the lead vehicle. Lead Vehicle Moving Tests In the lead vehicle moving test scenario, the subject vehicle encounters a slower-moving lead vehicle directly in front of it on a straight road. For this test scenario, two test conditions are assessed. For the first test condition, the subject vehicle and lead vehicle are driven at a constant speed of 40 km/h (25 mph) and 16 km/h (10 mph), respectively. For the second test condition, the subject and lead vehicle are driven at a constant speed of 72.4 km/h (45 mph) and 32.2 km/h (20 mph), respectively. In both tests, the subject vehicle throttle is released within 500 ms after the subject vehicle issues an FCW. In the DBS tests, the subject vehicle's brakes are applied at a time-to-collision of 1 second (at a nominal headway of 6.7 meters (22 ft)). To receive credit for passing the first CIB test, the subject vehicle must not contact the lead vehicle during the test. To receive credit for passing the second CIB test, the subject vehicle speed reduction attributable to crash imminent braking intervention must be ≥15.8 km/h (9.8 mph) by the end of the test. To receive credit for either DBS test, the subject vehicle must not contact the lead vehicle. Steel Trench Plate Tests In the steel trench plate test scenario, the subject vehicle is driven towards a steel trench plate (2.4 m × 3.7 m × 25.3 mm or 7.9 ft × 12.1 ft × 1 in) on a straight road at two different speeds: 40 km/h (25 mph) in one test and 72.4 km/h (45 mph) in the other. The subject vehicle throttle is released within 500 ms of the warning. For CIB tests, if no FCW is issued, the throttle is not released until the test is completed. For DBS tests, the throttle is released such that it is completely released within 500 ms of 2.1 seconds time-to-collision (at a nominal distance of 12.3 m (40.4 ft) or 22.3 m (73.2 ft) from the trench plate, depending on the test speed). The brake pedal is then applied at 1.1 s time-to-collision. To pass these tests for CIB, the subject vehicle must not achieve a peak deceleration equal to or greater than 0.5 g at any time during its approach to the steel trench plate. To pass the DBS test, the subject vehicle must not experience a peak deceleration that exceeds 150 percent of the braking experienced through manual braking alone for the baseline condition at the same speed. 3. PAEB Test Proposal NHTSA conducted research and published several NCAP RFC notices on the inclusion of PAEB systems. In the 2013 NCAP request for comments notice, NHTSA noted that PAEB systems capable of addressing both low-speed front and rear pedestrian impact prevention were already in production for some vehicle models. 68 The agency acknowledged that different technologies were being implemented at the time and different test procedures were being developed worldwide, although some test procedure complexities still existed. An additional complexity was the need for a crash avoidance test dummy that would provide a radar and/or camera recognition signature that would approximate that of a human and would be durable enough to withstand any testing impacts. NHTSA requested comments on methods of addressing and resolving these complexities. 68 78 FR 20597 at 20600. In 2015, the agency announced its plan for several major NCAP program enhancements, including NHTSA's intention to implement a new 5-star rating system to convey vehicle safety information in three major areas—crashworthiness, crash avoidance, and pedestrian protection. 69 The agency proposed that PAEB be included in the pedestrian protection rating, along with rear automatic braking and pedestrian crashworthiness. At the time, NHTSA noted that the agency was still refining the pedestrian test scenarios for PAEB systems. Specifically, three different types of apparatus concepts were identified for transporting a test mannequin in a test run. These included two overhead gantry-style designs and one moving sled arrangement. 69 80 FR 78522 at 78526. In November 2019, NHTSA published a Federal Register notice that sought comment on draft confirmation test procedures for PAEB, among other technologies (84 FR 64405). 70 It included the two most fatal scenario types: Pedestrian crossing path and pedestrian along or standing in path. For the crossing path scenario (S1), the draft included seven specific test procedures (Table 17). The maximum subject vehicle traveling speed specified was 40 km/h (25 mph) in all cases. 70 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (2019, April), Pedestrian automatic emergency brake system confirmation test (working draft). Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document/NHTSA-2019-0102-0005. EP13JN23.009 In the first three scenarios (S1a-b-c), a subject vehicle approaches an adult test mannequin starting on the right-hand side of the lane of travel and moving toward the left-hand side. The point on the vehicle at which the subject vehicle will strike the test mannequin without automatic braking, or overlap, is 25, 50, and 75 percent from the passenger side of the subject vehicle, respectively. In the fourth scenario (S1d), the subject vehicle approaches a crossing child test mannequin running from behind parked vehicles from the right-hand side of the travel lane toward the left-hand side with the point of impact at a 50 percent overlap. In the fifth scenario (S1e), the subject vehicle approaches an adult test mannequin running from the left side of the travel lane toward the right with a 50 percent overlap point of impact. The sixth and seventh crossing path scenarios (S1f and S1g) are false positive tests. In the sixth scenario, the subject vehicle approaches an adult test mannequin, which begins moving from the right-hand side of the roadway but safely stops short of entering the subject vehicle's lane of travel. In the seventh scenario, the adult test mannequin also crosses from the right-hand side of the road toward the left-hand side, but safely crosses the lane of travel completely. The false positive scenarios are used to evaluate the propensity of a PAEB system to inappropriately activate in a non-critical driving scenario that does not present a safety risk to the subject vehicle occupants or pedestrian. NHTSA's research test procedures also consisted of three along path (S4) test scenarios in which a test mannequin is either standing or traveling along the vehicle's lane of travel (Table 18). The maximum subject vehicle traveling speed specified was 40 km/h (25 mph) for all procedures. EP13JN23.010 In the first scenario the stationary test mannequin is facing away from the vehicle (S4a) and in the second, it is facing toward the vehicle (S4b). In third scenario, a subject vehicle encounters an adult test mannequin walking in front of the vehicle on the nearside of the road away from the vehicle (S4c). In all three procedures, the stationary test mannequin is positioned with a 25 percent overlap from the passenger side of the vehicle. NHTSA used the test procedures to conduct performance evaluations of model year 2019 and 2020 vehicles, which were used to support a March 9, 2022, request for comments notice proposing to include PAEB tests in NCAP. 71 In addition to PAEB, the RFC notice proposed including blind spot detection, blind spot intervention, and lane keeping support performance tests in NCAP. It further proposed strengthening the existing performance tests for FCW, AEB (CIB and DBS), and lane departure warning. It also proposed new rating criteria and provided a roadmap for future upgrades to the program. 71 87 FR 13452. C. 2016 Voluntary Commitment On March 17, 2016, NHTSA and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) announced a commitment by 20 automakers representing more than 99 percent of the U.S. light vehicle market to make lower speed AEB a standard feature on virtually all new light duty cars and trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 3,855 kg (8,500 lbs.) or less no later than September 1, 2022. 72 Participating manufacturers needed to ensure their vehicles had an FCW system that met NHTSA's FCW NCAP requirements for both the lead vehicle moving and lead vehicle decelerating performance tests. The voluntary commitment does not include meeting NHTSA's FCW NCAP requirements for the stopped lead vehicle scenario. The voluntary commitment includes automatic braking system performance (CIB only) able to achieve a specified average speed reduction over five repeated trials when assessed in a stationary lead vehicle test conducted at either 19 or 40 km/h (12 or 25 mph). To satisfy the performance specifications in the voluntary commitment, the vehicle would need to achieve a speed reduction of at least 16 km/h (10 mph) in either lead vehicle stopped test, or a speed reduction of 8 km/h (5 mph) in both tests. Participating automakers also committed to making the technology standard on virtually all trucks with a GVWR between 3,856 kg (8,501 lbs.) and 4,536 kg (10,000 lbs.) no later than September 1, 2025. 72 Audi, BMW, FCA US LLC, Ford, General Motors, Honda, Hyundai, Jaguar Land Rover, Kia, Maserati, Mazda, Mercedes-Benz, Mitsubishi Motors, Nissan, Porsche, Subaru, Tesla Motors Inc., Toyota, Volkswagen, and Volvo Car USA—representing more than 99 percent of the U.S. new light vehicle market. D. Response To Petition for Rulemaking In 2017, NHTSA denied a petition for rulemaking from Consumer Watchdog, Center for Automotive Safety, and Public Citizen which requested that NHTSA initiate a rulemaking to require FCW, CIB, and DBS on all light vehicles. 73 NHTSA denied the petition after deciding that NCAP, the voluntary commitment, and the consumer information programs of various organizations would produce benefits substantially similar to those that would eventually result from the petitioner's requested rulemaking. Accordingly, the agency did not find evidence of a market failure warranting initiation of the requested rulemaking. 74 NHTSA further stated that the non-regulatory activities being undertaken at the time would make AEB standard on new light vehicles faster than could be achieved through a regulatory process and would thus make AEB standard equipment earlier, with its associated safety benefits. NHTSA stated that it would monitor vehicle performance in NCAP and the industry's voluntary commitment, and initiate rulemaking if the need arose. 73 82 FR 8391 (January 25, 2017). 74 Section 1(b) of E.O. 12866 requires agencies to assess the failures of private markets to address the problem identified by the agency. V. NHTSA's Decision To Require AEB A. This Proposed Rule Is Needed To Address Urgent Safety Problems NHTSA announced its intention to propose an FMVSS for AEB light vehicles in the Spring 2021 Unified Regulatory Agenda. 75 In making the decision to initiate this rulemaking, NHTSA recognized that the non-regulatory measures leading up to this NPRM had been key to an increased and more rapid fleet penetration of AEB technology but decided that rulemaking would best address the rise in motor vehicle fatalities. In addition, NHTSA found that AEB could perform effectively at higher speeds than the systems included in the voluntary agreement and NCAP and that PAEB in darkness has become technologically possible. 75 https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=202104&RIN=2127-AM37. NHTSA initiated this rulemaking to reduce the frequency of rear-end crashes, which is the most prevalent vehicle crash type, and to target one of the most concerning and urgent traffic safety problems facing the U.S. today—the rapidly increasing numbers of pedestrian fatalities and injuries. Rear-end crashes are very common, although most are not deadly. Nevertheless, approximately 2,000 people die in rear-end crashes each year, making up 5 to 7 percent of total crash fatalities. Pedestrian crashes are deadly and have been increasing in recent years. They tend to happen at night and at higher speeds. About half of fatal pedestrian crashes happen on roads with a speed limit of 40 mph or lower and half on roads with a speed limit of 45 mph and higher. The non-regulatory approaches of the past were instrumental in developing AEB and encouraging manufacturers to include and consumers to purchase AEB in most passenger vehicles sold today. With AEB sensors and other hardware installed in the fleet as a result of NCAP and the voluntary commitment, regulatory costs to equip new vehicles are reduced. However, an FMVSS is needed to compel technological improvement of AEB systems, and to ensure that every vehicle will be equipped with a proven countermeasure that can drastically reduce the frequency and severity of rear-end crashes and the safety risks posed to pedestrians. NHTSA is aware of data and other information indicating potential opportunities for AEB improvement. A recent IIHS study of 2009-2016 crash data from 23 States suggested that the increasing effectiveness of AEB technology in certain crash situations is changing rear-end crash scenarios. 76 IIHS's study identified rear-end crashes in which striking vehicles equipped with AEB were over-represented compared to those without AEB. For instance, IIHS found that striking vehicles involved in the following rear-end crashes were more likely to have AEB: (1) where the striking vehicle was turning relative to when it was moving straight; (2) when the struck vehicle was turning or changing lanes relative to when it was slowing or stopped; (3) when the struck vehicle was not a passenger vehicle or was a special use vehicle relative to a passenger car; (4) on snowy or icy roads; or (5) on roads with speed limits of 70 mph relative to those with 64 to 72.4 km/h (40 to 45 mph) speed limits. Overall, the study found that 25.3 percent of crashes where the striking vehicle was equipped with AEB had at least one of these over-represented characteristics, compared with 15.9 percent of impacts by vehicles that were not equipped with AEB. IIHS found that in 2016, nearly 300,000 (15 percent) of the police reported two-vehicle rear-end crashes involved one of the rear-end crashes mentioned above. 76 Cicchino, J.B. & Zuby, D.S. (2019, August), Characteristics of rear-end crashes involving passenger vehicles with automatic emergency braking, Traffic Injury Prevention, 2019, VOL. 20, NO. S1, S112-S118 https://doi.org/10.1080/15389588.2019.1576172. These results suggest that the metrics used to evaluate the performance of AEB systems by NHTSA's NCAP, the voluntary industry commitment, and other consumer information programs have facilitated the development of AEB systems that reduce the crashes they were designed to address. However, the results also indicate that AEB systems have not yet provided their full crash reduction potential. While they are effective at addressing some of the lower speed rear-end crashes, they are less effective at fully addressing the safety need. These data also indicate the potential of AEB to reduce fatal crashes, especially if test speeds were increased. Accordingly, NHTSA has issued this NPRM to drive AEB performance to maximize safety benefits, assess practicability limits, and ensure that AEB technology is incorporated in all vehicles to the extent possible. This NPRM is issued to reach farther than NCAP to expand the availability of AEB technologies to all vehicles—not just to those whose manufacturers were incentivized to add such systems or whose purchasers were interested in purchasing them. By ensuring the universal implementation of AEB, this NPRM would best achieve equity in the safety provided across vehicles and the safety provided to the communities on whose roads they operate. This NPRM would improve the capability of AEB systems beyond that of the low-speed AEB systems contemplated by the voluntary commitment, increasing safety benefits. The NPRM also would require PAEB, while the voluntary commitment does not address PAEB. Requiring AEB systems under an FMVSS would ensure that manufacturers design and produce vehicles that provide at least the minimum level of safety mandated by the standard or face consequences for not doing so, including recalling the vehicle and remedying the noncompliance free of charge. These positive outcomes could not be achieved by a voluntary commitment alone. Further, this NPRM responds to Congress's directive that AEB be required on all passenger vehicles. On November 15, 2021, President Biden signed the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, codified as the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. 77 Section 24208(a) of BIL added 49 U.S.C. 30129, directing the Secretary of Transportation to promulgate a rule to establish minimum performance standards with respect to crash avoidance technology and to require that all passenger motor vehicles for sale in the United States be equipped with a forward collision warning system and an automatic emergency braking system. 78 The FCW and AEB system is required to alert the driver if the vehicle is closing its distance too quickly to a vehicle ahead or to an object in the path of travel ahead and a collision is imminent, and to automatically apply the brakes if the driver fails to do so. 77 Public Law 117-58, 24208 (Nov. 15, 2021). 78 Section 24208 also directs DOT to require a lane departure warning and lane-keeping assist system that warns the driver to maintain the lane of travel; and corrects the course of travel if the driver fails to do so. BIL requires that “all passenger motor vehicles” be equipped with AEB and FCW. This NPRM would require AEB and FCW on all passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses with a GVWR of 10,000 lbs. or less. NHTSA believes that the scope of this NPRM includes all vehicles required be equipped with AEB by section 24208 of the IIJA. BIL further requires that an FCW system alert the driver if there is a “vehicle ahead or an object in the path of travel” if a collision is imminent. Accordingly, NHTSA has defined an AEB system as one that detects an imminent collision with a vehicle or with an object. NHTSA does not read this provision as mandating a particular level of performance regarding the detection of vehicles and objects. More specifically, NHTSA does not interpret this provision to require passenger vehicles to detect and respond to imminent collisions with all vehicles or all objects in all scenarios. Such a requirement would be unreasonable given the wide array of harmless objects that drivers could encounter on the roadway that do not present safety risks. NHTSA also does not interpret section 24208 to mandate AEB performance to avoid any specific objects or to mandate PAEB. Instead, NHTSA interprets section 24208 as broadly requiring AEB capable of detecting and responding to vehicles and objects while leaving to NHTSA the discretion to promulgate specific performance requirements. Following this interpretation, NHTSA's proposal, if implemented, would require light vehicles to be equipped with FCW and automatic emergency braking, and the proposal defines AEB as a system that detects an imminent collision with vehicles, objects, and road users in or near the path of a vehicle and automatically controls the vehicle's service brakes to avoid or mitigate the collision. NHTSA has authority and discretion to promulgate requirements that go beyond those contemplated under Section 24208. Pursuant to its authority at 49 U.S.C. 30111, NHTSA is proposing that all light passenger vehicles be required to have PAEB. B. Stakeholder Interest in AEB 1. National Transportation Safety Board Recommendations This NPRM is responsive to several National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) recommendations. In May 2015, the NTSB issued a special investigation report, “The Use of Forward Collision Avoidance Systems to Prevent and Mitigate Rear-End Crashes.” 79 The report detailed nine crash investigations involving passenger or commercial vehicles striking the rear of another vehicle, and concluded that collision warning systems, particularly when paired with active braking, could significantly reduce the frequency and severity of rear-end crashes. As a result, the NTSB issued several safety recommendations to NHTSA, including the following: 79 https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-studies/Documents/SIR1501.pdf. • H-15-04: Develop and apply testing protocols to assess the performance of forward collision avoidance systems in passenger vehicles at various velocities, including high speed and high velocity-differential. In September 2018, the NTSB issued another special investigation report, “Pedestrian Safety.” 80 This report examined the past 10 years of pedestrian crash data, described NTSB pedestrian safety investigations, and summarized issues raised in a public forum. As a result, the NTSB issued several safety recommendations to NHTSA, including the following: 80 https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-studies/Documents/SIR1803.pdf. • H-18-41: Develop performance test criteria for vehicle designs that reduce injuries to pedestrians. • H-18-42: Develop performance test criteria for manufacturers to use in evaluating the extent to which automated pedestrian safety systems in light vehicles will prevent or mitigate pedestrian injury. 2. Consumer Information Programs in the United States In the United States, in addition to NHTSA's NCAP, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety also tests AEB systems in vehicles for the purpose of informing consumers about their performance. Both programs test AEB systems in response to a stationary lead vehicle test device, but IIHS only performs tests to assess crash imminent braking system performance, while NCAP AEB evaluations also test DBS responses and assess system performance for both slower-moving and decelerating lead vehicle scenarios. NCAP also tests for false positive AEB activation by having subject vehicles drive over a steel trench plate. NCAP provides pass/fail results based on speed reduction and crash avoidance in DBS tests attributed to AEB, while IIHS awards points based only on speed reduction. 81 Both programs are considering upgrades to their AEB performance tests. On March 9, 2022, NHTSA issued a request for comments notice proposing increased test speeds in its DBS and CIB test protocols. On May 5, 2022, IIHS announced its intention to test six vehicles equipped with AEB at higher speeds, up to 72.4 km/h (45 mph), to better align with reported crashes. 82 81 The March 9, 2022, request for comments notice also asks for public comment on NHTSA's plan to develop a future rating system for new vehicles based on the availability and performance of all the NCAP-recommended crash avoidance technologies. 87 FR 13452. 82 https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/iihs-eyes-higher-speed-test-for-automatic-emergency-braking. IIHS further conducts PAEB tests in two scenarios like those proposed in the NPRM. In the first scenario, an articulated test mannequin crosses the subject vehicle's path; this condition is tested with both the articulated child surrogate (Perpendicular Child) and the articulated adult surrogate (Perpendicular Adult). In the second scenario, an adult test mannequin without articulation is standing in a vehicle's path, offset 25 percent from center (Parallel Adult). Both test scenarios are conducted during daylight conditions. Points are awarded in the IIHS test based on vehicle speed reduction. Other consumer information groups have also invested effort into supplying customers with information regarding AEB. Since 2016, Consumer Reports has been awarding “bonus” points to its overall score for vehicles that come equipped with AEB and FCW as standard features across all trim levels of a model. 83 83 https://www.consumerreports.org/car-safety/where-automakers-stand-on-automatic-emergency-braking-pledge/. 3. Petition for Rulemaking on PAEB Performance in Dark Conditions On March 22, 2022, IIHS and the Highway Loss Data Institute petitioned NHTSA to require, through rulemaking, that passenger vehicles be equipped with AEB that responds to pedestrians in all light conditions. The petitioners stated that research from IIHS estimates that PAEB systems reduce pedestrian crash risk by an estimated 32 to 33 percent in daylight or dark conditions with street lighting but does not reduce pedestrian crash risk in the dark without street lighting. The petitioners stated that over a third of pedestrian deaths occur in dark, unlit conditions, and that requiring PAEB systems that function in those conditions will lead to a greater reduction in fatalities than only requiring those systems that function in daylight. When NHTSA received the petition from IIHS, the agency had already announced in the Fall 2021 Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions 84 that it had initiated rulemaking on PAEB. The agency announced that it would issue a proposal to require and/or standardize performance for light vehicle AEB, including PAEB. NHTSA's Agenda entry further announced that this rulemaking would set performance requirements for AEB systems and would specify a test procedure under which compliance with those requirements would be measured. Given this context, NHTSA denied the petition as moot because NHTSA had already commenced rulemaking on the requested action and was, and remains, deeply immersed in developing the rule. Although NHTSA has denied the petition, NHTSA has considered its points as suggestions for this rulemaking. A copy of the petition has been placed in the docket for this rulemaking. 84 https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaMain; See RIN 2127-AM37, titled, “Light Vehicle Automatic Emergency Braking (AEB) with Pedestrian AEB.” C. Key Findings Underlying This Proposal 1. Impact Speed Is Key To Improving AEB's Mitigation of Fatalities and Injuries As described in the section II of this NPRM, 79 percent of property-damage-only crashes, 73 percent of injuries, and 60 percent of fatalities in rear-end crashes involving light vehicles occur on roads where the posted speed limit is 60 mph (97 km/h) or less. However, the majority of those crashes are skewed towards the higher end of that range. Only 3 percent of fatalities, 9 percent of injuries, and 12 percent of property-damage-only crashes occur at posted speeds below 30 mph (48 km/h). NHTSA believes that most of the safety need exists at speeds greater than 30 mph (48 km/h). In light of these data, this NPRM seeks to address a safety need at a speed well above that found in the voluntary commitment, which has a maximum test speed of 40 km/h (25 mph). The data show that speeds higher than those proposed in the 2022 NCAP request for comments notice 85 (with a maximum testing speed of 80 km/h (50 mph)) are also required to address the safety need. 86 In fact, the data demonstrate the safety need for AEB systems to activate at as high a speed as can practicably be achieved. 85 87 FR 13452. 86 In 2019, 67 percent of fatalities within the target population occur where the posted speeds are above 50 mph, and 29 percent of the fatalities occur at posted speeds of 55 mph and 60 mph. 2. Darkness Performance of PAEB Is Highly Important Out of the 4,069 pedestrian fatalities in 2019 resulting from being struck by the front of a light vehicle, about 77 percent occurred in dark conditions and about 50 percent of all pedestrian fatalities occurred at posted speeds of 40 mph (64 km/h) or less. Forty percent of all pedestrian injuries, regardless of how a pedestrian is struck, occur in dark conditions and 57 percent of them occur at posted speeds of 40 mph (64 km/h) or less. Based on these data, the agency tentatively concludes that performance testing under various lighting conditions and at higher speeds is necessary. During 2020 agency research testing using model year 2019 and 2020 vehicles, observed AEB performance was not consistent for some of the proposed lighting conditions and speeds. During PAEB testing, 5 out of 11 vehicles avoided collision in at least one test at speeds up to 60 km/h (37.3 mph) in daylight when an adult pedestrian test mannequin crossed the path of the vehicle from the right; absent PAEB intervention, the front middle section of the vehicle would have hit the test mannequin. For the same scenario, 5 vehicles out of 11 avoided impact with the test mannequin in at least one test at speeds up to 40 km/h (25 mph) when testing using the vehicle's lower beam headlamps in dark conditions. Only 1 of 11 vehicles could consistently avoid impact in every test trial in each of the daylight and dark lower beam headlamp conditions at these speeds. For tests involving a stationary pedestrian test mannequin situated toward the right side of the road, but within the path of the vehicle, 3 vehicles out of 11 consistently avoided impact at speeds up to 50 km/h (31.1 mph) in daylight conditions, and one avoided impact in five out of six tests at 60 km/h (37 mph). In dark conditions, using only the lower beam headlamps, one vehicle avoided collision at all speeds up to 50 km/h (31.1 mph) and in four out of five tests at 55 km/h (34.2 mph). However, other tested vehicles contacted the test mannequin at all speeds above 16 km/h (10 mph) in the same darkness condition. NHTSA has tentatively concluded that the performance achieved by the better performing vehicles in dark lighting conditions can be achieved by all vehicles given an adequate phase-in period. This is consistent with recent testing performed by IIHS, which found that existing systems can perform in darkness conditions regardless of their IIHS headlamp ratings. 87 The agency tentatively concludes that AEB system performance is improving, and the latest AEB systems are already able to perform much better than previous systems. Concurrent with the development of this proposed rule, NHTSA performed PAEB testing on model year 2021 and 2022 vehicles using the proposed performance requirements and test procedures. The results of this testing are detailed in the PAEB report docketed with this proposed rule. 87 IIHS dark light press release: https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/pedestrian-crash-avoidance-systems-cut-crashes--but-not-in-the-dark. 3. NH [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2023-11863. Public record. Not legal advice.