Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Antilock Brake Systems for Light Vehicles

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. 93-94; Notice 3]

RIN 2127-AE47

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Antilock Brake Systems

for Light Vehicles

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM); Deferral of

rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document defers a rulemaking proceeding in which the

agency is considering whether to require light vehicles (those with a

gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) equal to or less than 10,000 lbs.)

to be equipped with antilock braking systems (ABS). This rulemaking

proceeding was mandated by the National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration Authorization Act of 1991, which directed the agency to

consider the need for any additional brake performance standards for

passenger cars, including antilock brake standards. The agency believes

it would be inappropriate at this time to require ABS for light

vehicles for the following reasons: Most studies that have analyzed the

accident involvement experiences of ABS-equipped light vehicles have

found mixed patterns, with a reduction in accidents in some crash modes

and an increase in accidents in other crash modes; even without a

Federal requirement, a significant majority of light vehicles will be

voluntarily equipped with ABS; and requiring ABS on those light

vehicles that will not be equipped with ABS would result in significant

costs that, on balance, cannot be justified at this time.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For non-legal issues: Mr. Robert M. Clarke, Office of Crash

Avoidance, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh

Street, SW., Washington, D.C. 20590 (202) 366-5278.

ipped with ABS; and requiring ABS on those light

vehicles that will not be equipped with ABS would result in significant

costs that, on balance, cannot be justified at this time.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For non-legal issues: Mr. Robert M. Clarke, Office of Crash

Avoidance, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh

Street, SW., Washington, D.C. 20590 (202) 366-5278.

For legal issues: Mr. Marvin L. Shaw, NCC-20, Rulemaking Division,

Office of Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, D.C. 20590 (202)

366-2992.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background

A. Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Comments to that

Notice

B. NHTSA Evaluation of the Performance of Light Vehicles

Equipped with ABS

C. Other Studies about the Effectiveness of Light Vehicle ABS

II. NHTSA's Decision to Defer Rulemaking

A. Studies Evaluating the Accident Involvement of Light Vehicle

ABS

B. Market Trends

C. Cost Implications

I. Background

A. Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Comments to That Notice

This rulemaking proceeding to consider the need for any additional

brake performance standards for passenger cars, including antilock

brake standards, was mandated by the National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration Authorization Act of 1991 (Public Law 102-240, December

18, 1991). On January 4, 1994, the National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration (NHTSA) issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking

(ANPRM), soliciting comments about whether rulemaking was warranted to

require that all light vehicles (i.e., those with a gross vehicle

weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 lbs. or less) be equipped with antilock

braking systems (ABS) (59 FR 281)

-240, December

18, 1991). On January 4, 1994, the National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration (NHTSA) issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking

(ANPRM), soliciting comments about whether rulemaking was warranted to

require that all light vehicles (i.e., those with a gross vehicle

weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 lbs. or less) be equipped with antilock

braking systems (ABS) (59 FR 281). The ANPRM also posed a number of

questions relative to the regulatory approaches that might be employed

if requirements were imposed; the types of performance tests that might

be used; varieties of ABSs that might be appropriate; and regulatory

implementation strategies and schedules that might be employed if

requirements were established.

NHTSA received over 140 comments in response to the docket, the

majority of which were from private citizens relating their experiences

with ABS-equipped light vehicles. Other commenters included vehicle

manufacturers (American Honda, BMW, Chrysler, Ford, General Motors,

Mazda, Mitsubishi, Nissan, Porche, Subaru of America, Toyota, and

Volkswagen) and brake manufacturers (AlliedSignal, ITT Teves of Germany

(ITT Teves), ITT Automotive, and ABS Tech Sciences). Other

organizations that commented included Advocates for Highway and Auto

Safety (Advocates), the American Automobile Association (AAA), the

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), the National School

Transportation Association (NSTA), and the American Coalition for

Traffic Safety.

Commenters expressed differing opinions about whether all light

vehicles should be equipped with ABS. Toyota, ITT Teves, AlliedSignal,

AAA, the NSTA, Edge Diagnosis Systems, and approximately 35 percent of

the private citizen respondents stated that light vehicles should be

required to be equipped with ABS

ool

Transportation Association (NSTA), and the American Coalition for

Traffic Safety.

Commenters expressed differing opinions about whether all light

vehicles should be equipped with ABS. Toyota, ITT Teves, AlliedSignal,

AAA, the NSTA, Edge Diagnosis Systems, and approximately 35 percent of

the private citizen respondents stated that light vehicles should be

required to be equipped with ABS. Nissan, Honda, Chrysler, Mitsubishi,

Ford, Subaru, Volkswagen, Mazda, and IIHS, and approximately 65 percent

of the private citizen respondents believed that equipping light

vehicles with ABS should remain an optional choice for consumers. GM

and BMW stated that they were not opposed to a requirement for ABS but

indicated that additional information should be obtained before the

agency made such a decision.

Commenters supporting a requirement that light vehicles be equipped

with ABS offered the following reasons:

Equipping light vehicles with ABS would increase vehicle

safety and enhance correct brake usage.

Equipping light vehicles with ABS would improve lateral

stability and steerability, and enhance braking performance.

A requirement would eliminate an indefinite transition

period for light vehicles to ABS. They believed that a protracted

transition period would create the possibility of increased risks to

drivers, especially for those who operate light vehicles with and

without ABS brake systems.

Additionally, 31 private citizens commented about their positive

experience with ABS-equipped light vehicles, such as near-miss crashes.

Commenters opposing a requirement that light vehicles be equipped

with ABS offered the following reasons:

Consumer demand for advanced safety systems including ABS

is sufficient to encourage manufacturers to offer the systems.

Equipping light vehicles with ABS should not be required

until data conclusively demonstrate that ABS-equipped light vehicles

are involved in fewer and less severe crashes

enters opposing a requirement that light vehicles be equipped

with ABS offered the following reasons:

Consumer demand for advanced safety systems including ABS

is sufficient to encourage manufacturers to offer the systems.

Equipping light vehicles with ABS should not be required

until data conclusively demonstrate that ABS-equipped light vehicles

are involved in fewer and less severe crashes.

The costs associated with requiring that all light

vehicles be equipped with ABS would increase the costs associated with

purchasing new light vehicles. This added cost might discourage

potential buyers of new light vehicles from purchasing other, optional

improved safety features of new vehicles.

Not all consumers need their light vehicles to be equipped

with ABS, based on either their driving habits or the types of roads

and/or road conditions they typically encounter.

Twenty-four private citizens submitted comments citing unfavorable

experiences with their ABS-equipped light vehicles. These incidents

typically involved braking on surfaces with low coefficients of

friction. It appears that the drivers incorrectly assumed the ABS would

help them stop in shorter distances. These commenters cited additional

reasons why they think ABS on light vehicles should remain optional,

including concerns that:

A requirement would add significant costs, thereby

lowering the affordability of less expensive vehicles. This would

create an incentive for consumers to keep their older, potentially less

safe, vehicles longer.

Insurance industry studies showing no reductions in the

number of insurance claims or costs per claim for ABS-equipped light

vehicles, compared to non-ABS-equipped light vehicles, do not support a

requirement for ABS on such vehicles.

Repairs of ABS on light vehicles could be expensive which

could result in some consumers deciding not to repair these systems.

There are too few instances where equipping a light

vehicle with ABS would be useful

he

number of insurance claims or costs per claim for ABS-equipped light

vehicles, compared to non-ABS-equipped light vehicles, do not support a

requirement for ABS on such vehicles.

Repairs of ABS on light vehicles could be expensive which

could result in some consumers deciding not to repair these systems.

There are too few instances where equipping a light

vehicle with ABS would be useful.

The brake pedal pulsation and system noise, evident when

some systems activate, could frighten or distract drivers.

Average drivers lack the skill to capitalize on the main

benefit of ABS, the ability to execute aggressive crash-avoidance

steering maneuvers.

B. NHTSA Evaluations of the Performance of Light Vehicles Equipped With

ABS

The January 1994 ANPRM referenced test track evaluations of ABS-

equipped light vehicles,1 including a December 1991 report which

describes tests conducted on ten light vehicles to evaluate the

improvement in braking performance and vehicle stability and control

resulting from ABS. The test program's purpose was to show the degree

to which an ABS improves a light vehicle's braking performance. Among

the principal findings in the

report were that each ABS, and especially all-wheel systems, improved

the light vehicle's lateral stability during panic braking, and that

the all-wheel systems shortened stopping distances on most hard paved

surfaces, with improvements of between 25 to 50 percent on wet

surfaces.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ Hiltner, Arehart, and Radlinski, ``Light Vehicle ABS

Performance Evaluation,'' DOT HS 807 813, December 1991; and ``Light

Vehicle ABS Performance Evaluation--Phase II,'' DOT HS 807 924, May

1992.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

between 25 to 50 percent on wet

surfaces.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ Hiltner, Arehart, and Radlinski, ``Light Vehicle ABS

Performance Evaluation,'' DOT HS 807 813, December 1991; and ``Light

Vehicle ABS Performance Evaluation--Phase II,'' DOT HS 807 924, May

1992.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A May 1992 report described tests conducted on eight light vehicles

to evaluate how the ABS influenced vehicle stopping distance and

lateral stability and control on various surfaces. Among the report's

principle findings were that seven of the eight vehicles were under

complete directional control during the tests with ABS ``on,'' and that

ABSs improved stopping performance on all surfaces, except for stops on

dry gravel surfaces.

In 1994, NHTSA issued a third report evaluating ABS

performance.2 On February 9, 1995, NHTSA published a notice

requesting comments about this report. (60 FR 7814). The report

evaluated the accident rates of ABS-equipped cars currently on the road

and compared them to the accident rates of similar cars without ABS.

The principal findings of and conclusions of this report were that (1)

ABS reduced the involvements of passenger cars in multi-vehicle crashes

on wet roads by 14 percent and reduced those involving fatalities by 24

percent, (2) ABS had little effect on multi-vehicle crashes on dry

roads, (3) ABS reduced the risk of fatal collisions with pedestrians by

27 percent in ABS equipped passenger cars, (4) run-off-road crashes

(e.g., rollovers, side and front impacts with fixed objects) increased

by 19 percent for nonfatal crashes and 28 percent for fatal crashes,

and (5) the overall, net effect of light vehicle ABS on both fatal and

nonfatal accidents was close to zero.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

by

27 percent in ABS equipped passenger cars, (4) run-off-road crashes

(e.g., rollovers, side and front impacts with fixed objects) increased

by 19 percent for nonfatal crashes and 28 percent for fatal crashes,

and (5) the overall, net effect of light vehicle ABS on both fatal and

nonfatal accidents was close to zero.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ Kahane, C. Preliminary Evaluation of the Effectiveness of

Antilock Brake Systems for Passenger Cars (DOT Rep. No HS 808 206).

Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

(1994)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NHTSA received comments about this study from Volkswagen, the

American Automobile Manufactures Association (AAMA), the National

Automobile Dealers Association (NADA), General Motors, and Advocates.

The commenters generally believed that the NHTSA study should not be

considered definitive until additional studies and analysis have been

conducted. Volkswagen, NADA, GM, Toyota, and Advocates supported

NHTSA's efforts to conduct additional research and to educate the

driving public on the advantages and limitations of ABS. GM, Toyota,

and NADA agreed with several hypotheses presented by NHTSA to explain

why ABS, which clearly improves vehicle performance in controlled

maneuvers, appeared to have minimal effect in reducing overall crash

rates. In contrast, Advocates disagreed with the agency's risk

compensation and driver error hypotheses as possible explanations for

why ABS-equipped cars have more run-off-the-road crashes. Advocates

also stated that these findings indicate that vehicle platforms need to

be redesigned to prevent rollover crashes, since ABS often will not

prevent such crashes.

C. Other Studies About the Effectiveness of Light Vehicle ABS

disagreed with the agency's risk

compensation and driver error hypotheses as possible explanations for

why ABS-equipped cars have more run-off-the-road crashes. Advocates

also stated that these findings indicate that vehicle platforms need to

be redesigned to prevent rollover crashes, since ABS often will not

prevent such crashes.

C. Other Studies About the Effectiveness of Light Vehicle ABS

In addition to NHTSA's efforts, several other organizations have

evaluated the effectiveness of light vehicle ABS. Studies conducted by

the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), which compared

insurance claims for 1991 and 1992 model year cars with and without

ABS, showed no reduction in claims for cars equipped with ABS.3

Another study 4 based its conclusions on the same set of data

collected by HLDI, yielding similar findings.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ Highway Loss Data Institute. Collision and Property Damage

Liability Losses of Passenger Cars With and Without Antilock Brakes.

(Research Report HLDI A41). Arlington, VA (1994, January).

4 Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. (1994,

January). ``Antilocks May Not Make the Difference That Many

Expected.; What Antilocks Can Do, What They Cannot Do.'' Status

Report, 29(2), 1-5, Arlington, VA

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Another study 5 by Evans demonstrated that, although benefits

associated with ABS-equipped light vehicles may not be seen in general,

ABS does have a positive effect in reducing certain types of accidents,

while possibly being associated with increases in others.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ Evans, L. (1995). ABS and Relative Crash Risk Under

Different Roadway, Weather, and Other Conditions. SAE Paper 950353.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Braking Systems, Failure

Analysis Associates, Inc., Menlo Park, CA, January 1996.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. NHTSA's Decision to Defer Rulemaking

After reviewing the available information, NHTSA has decided to

defer indefinitely its decision about whether to require equipping

light vehicles with antilock braking systems until a later date. The

agency believes it would be inappropriate to currently mandate such a

requirement for the following reasons: (1) most studies that have

analyzed the accident involvement experiences of ABS-equipped light

vehicles have found mixed patterns, with a reduction in accidents in

some crash modes but an increase in accidents in other crash modes, (2)

even without a Federal requirement, a significant majority of light

vehicles will be voluntarily equipped with ABS, (3) and requiring ABS

on those light vehicles that will not be equipped with ABS would result

in significant costs that, on balance, cannot be justified at this

time.

In a separate rulemaking, NHTSA decided to require that medium and

heavy vehicles be equipped with ABS (60 FR 13216, March 10, 1995). The

agency emphasizes that its decision not to require that light vehicles

be equipped with ABS is applicable only to light vehicles and not to

medium and heavy vehicles, and therefore should not be interpreted as

being inconsistent with this earlier decision. The two rulemakings are

readily distinguishable. The studies discussed in today's notice only

studied the accident involvement patterns of ABS on light vehicles;

they did not evaluate the accident involvement patterns of ABS on

medium or heavy vehicles. Tractor trailer combinations are more prone

to loss of stability and control including jackknifing, given that they

have an articulation point. ABS provides more potential benefits for

vehicles, such as medium and heavy ones, which have a greater disparity

between their lightly loaded and fully loaded weights

d not evaluate the accident involvement patterns of ABS on

medium or heavy vehicles. Tractor trailer combinations are more prone

to loss of stability and control including jackknifing, given that they

have an articulation point. ABS provides more potential benefits for

vehicles, such as medium and heavy ones, which have a greater disparity

between their lightly loaded and fully loaded weights. An out-of-

control medium or heavy vehicle (that can weigh 10,000 to 80,000

pounds) is more dangerous in collisions with other vehicles than an

out-of-control light vehicle.

A. Studies Evaluating the Accident Involvement of Light Vehicle ABS

NHTSA believes that the increased involvements in some crash modes

with ABS equipped light vehicles, especially single vehicle run-off-

road crashes, may be due to a lack of driver knowledge rather than the

performance attributes of ABS. This is consistent with track test

results, conducted by professional drivers, indicating that ABS-

equipped light vehicles have better stability and control than non-ABS

equipped light vehicles. NHTSA believes that the ability of an ABS-

equipped light vehicle to reduce crashes is linked closely to a

driver's ability to use its performance capabilities. The agency plans

to conduct further analyses to evaluate how driver behavior and

performance affect how well light vehicle ABS reduces crashes.

One possible explanation for the increase in single vehicle run-

off-road accidents may be due to driver steering behavior rather than

the functioning of a light vehicle's ABS

s linked closely to a

driver's ability to use its performance capabilities. The agency plans

to conduct further analyses to evaluate how driver behavior and

performance affect how well light vehicle ABS reduces crashes.

One possible explanation for the increase in single vehicle run-

off-road accidents may be due to driver steering behavior rather than

the functioning of a light vehicle's ABS.

NHTSA notes that typical panic steering in non-ABS light vehicles

is often characterized by a three-stage maneuver: (1) a large steering

input to avoid a collision with the obstacle; (2) a reverse steering

input to stop lateral deviation and correct for vehicle heading, and 3)

an attempt to regain vehicle control by returning to an appropriate

lane.7 ABS-equipped light vehicles allow drivers the opportunity

to maneuver around an obstacle, while keeping the vehicle under

control, but having such capability does not guarantee a potential

crash will be avoided.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ Weirwille, W.W., ``Driver Steering Performance,'' in

Automotive Engineering and Litigation, Volume 1, G.A. Peters and

B.J. Peters, Eds., New York, Garland Publishing Co., 1984

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NHTSA has considered certain hypotheses to explain why some drivers

of ABS-equipped light vehicles may leave the road: (1) Some drivers are

unaware of how ABS functions, (2) some drivers do not know how to react

properly to crash threats, and (3) some drivers may drive more

aggressively with ABS.

NHTSA believes that drivers of ABS-equipped light vehicles may

``pump'' their brake pedals in crash-imminent situations, thereby

defeating the purpose of the ABS. Also, when activated, some ABS

systems emit a chattering noise or cause the brake pedal to pulsate,

which could confuse drivers into thinking their brakes have failed

eats, and (3) some drivers may drive more

aggressively with ABS.

NHTSA believes that drivers of ABS-equipped light vehicles may

``pump'' their brake pedals in crash-imminent situations, thereby

defeating the purpose of the ABS. Also, when activated, some ABS

systems emit a chattering noise or cause the brake pedal to pulsate,

which could confuse drivers into thinking their brakes have failed.

Other drivers have reported their belief that the ABS-equipped light

vehicle is stopping poorly, because tires on such vehicles do not

squeal.

Some drivers may be oversteering their vehicles in an attempt to

avoid a crash threat, thereby causing the vehicles to lose control and

spin out. Other drivers may purposely steer off the road in crash-

imminent situations, either because they incorrectly see no other

option or because they decide this is their best option. Further, light

vehicle ABS performance in situations where drivers make evasive

maneuvers on loose surfaces such as gravel or grass could exacerbate

drivers' lack of skill when executing extreme braking and steering

maneuvers.

Some drivers may be driving more aggressively because they think

that their ABS equipped light vehicle can stop better. This has been

termed ``risk compensation'' or ``risk homeostasis.''

NHTSA is continuing its efforts to review crash data sets,

individual crash case histories, and other information to evaluate

these hypotheses. Also, the agency has established a sub-group of its

motor vehicle safety research advisory committee to specifically

address this problem. Meanwhile, conclusions regarding the

effectiveness of ABS-equipped light vehicles which are based on the

analysis of currently available accident databases should be viewed

with caution. Given increased driver knowledge and experience with ABS-

equipped light vehicles, the agency believes that the number of crashes

involving such vehicles may decline

ttee to specifically

address this problem. Meanwhile, conclusions regarding the

effectiveness of ABS-equipped light vehicles which are based on the

analysis of currently available accident databases should be viewed

with caution. Given increased driver knowledge and experience with ABS-

equipped light vehicles, the agency believes that the number of crashes

involving such vehicles may decline. In addition, more precise crash

database analysis techniques may shed additional light on these

questions.

B. Market Trends

As for the marketplace, NHTSA notes that there is a strong trend

among vehicle manufacturers to voluntarily equip light vehicles with

ABS in response to significant consumer demand for this technology.

As the data in Table 1 indicate, the percentage of new passenger

cars equipped with four-wheel antilock systems has grown from 3.7

percent in 1989 to 57 percent in 1995. Most manufacturers have publicly

indicated plans to offer ABS as either standard or optional equipment

on nearly all of their passenger car lines within the next three years.

TABLE 1.--Percentage of Passenger Cars Sold in the U.S., Equipped with ABS \1\

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Domestic cars % Import cars %

4WABS 4WABS Total cars % ABS

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1989................................................... 3.7 13.6 6.5

1990................................................... 7.6 21.4 11.1

1991................................................... 14.1 26.0 17.1

1992................................................... 32.2 32.2 32.2

1993................................................... 42.3 37.0 41.2

1994................................................... 57.3 47.6 55.5

1995................................................... 57.1 ................. ................

...... 7.6 21.4 11.1

1991................................................... 14.1 26.0 17.1

1992................................................... 32.2 32.2 32.2

1993................................................... 42.3 37.0 41.2

1994................................................... 57.3 47.6 55.5

1995................................................... 57.1 ................. .................

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ Source: Wards Automotive, 1990-1995.

Similar data for light trucks, as shown in Table 2, indicate even

stronger trends in this regard, with ABS installation rates growing to

84.3 percent by 1994.

Table 2.--Percentage of Light Trucks Sold in the U.S., Equipped With ABS \1\

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Import truck % Domestic truck % Domestic truck %

Model year ABS RWAL \2\ 4WABS Total truck % ABS

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1989................................ -- 59.5 -- --

1990................................ 10.2 77.3 2.1 71.4

1991................................ 41.5 77.1 6.2 77.8

1992................................ 51.6 71.5 11.4 80.1

1993................................ 67.9 52.2 31.9 83.0

1994................................ 66.6 53.0 32.4 84.3

1995................................ ................. 34.7 56.2

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ Source: Wards Automotive, 1990-1995.

\2\ RWAL=Rear Wheel Antilock System.

.... 51.6 71.5 11.4 80.1

1993................................ 67.9 52.2 31.9 83.0

1994................................ 66.6 53.0 32.4 84.3

1995................................ ................. 34.7 56.2

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ Source: Wards Automotive, 1990-1995.

\2\ RWAL=Rear Wheel Antilock System.

Based on this information, NHTSA continues to believe that a

significant majority of the light vehicle fleet will be equipped with

ABS, regardless of whether there is a Federal mandate for such systems.

As a result, light vehicles will benefit from the stability and control

characteristics obtained by equipping such vehicles with ABS.

Accordingly, the agency's decision not to require light vehicles to be

equipped with ABS is based in part on the wide scale voluntary

installation of ABS.

C. Cost Implications

In the January 1994 ANPRM, NHTSA estimated that requiring all light

vehicles to be equipped with ABS would cost approximately $1.04 billion

annually to equip those vehicles that would not voluntarily be

equipped. That notice stated that this cost consists of ABS hardware

costs of $920 million, installation costs of about $80 million, and

increased fuel costs of about $40 million due to a small increase in

vehicle weight. The average retail price of an ABS system to the

consumer was estimated to be $450. This price was based on a cost study

of seven ABS systems entitled ``Evaluation of Costs of Antilock Brake

Systems'' and a markup factor of 1.51. The agency's cost estimate

assumed that all-wheel ABS would be required on all light vehicles. It

projected that all-wheel ABS would be voluntarily installed as standard

equipment in 85 percent of model year 1999 passenger cars. The

remaining 15 percent, or about 1.4 million vehicles, would be equipped

only as a result of this regulatory requirement

ake

Systems'' and a markup factor of 1.51. The agency's cost estimate

assumed that all-wheel ABS would be required on all light vehicles. It

projected that all-wheel ABS would be voluntarily installed as standard

equipment in 85 percent of model year 1999 passenger cars. The

remaining 15 percent, or about 1.4 million vehicles, would be equipped

only as a result of this regulatory requirement. However, since the ABS

installation rate for 1995 model year domestic passenger vehicle cars,

as reported in Table 1, was little different from 1994, it appears that

this projected 85 percent voluntary installation rate by 1999 could be

somewhat optimistic. A voluntary installation rate of possibly as low

as 70 percent by 1999 could occur, in which case the remaining 30

percent, or about 2.8 million passenger cars, would be equipped only if

there were a regulatory requirement. Such a higher involuntary ABS

installation rate would increase the estimated annual cost of a

requirement for passenger cars from $710 million to $1,420 million. If

this were to occur, the estimated annual cost for all light vehicles

would increase to $1.75 billion.

The cost estimate also projected that all light trucks would be

voluntarily equipped with ABS by model year 1999/2000, 75 percent of

them having all-wheel systems. Thus, an additional 25 percent of new

light trucks or about 1.5 million vehicles, would be involuntarily

equipped with all-wheel ABS if the agency issued a final rule requiring

this. In this case, all- wheel ABS hardware and installation costs

would be about $200 more than those for rear-wheel systems.

NHTSA believes that the significant costs associated with

manufacturers having to equip approximately 4.3 million additional

vehicles with all-wheel ABS further justifies the agency's decision not

to require light vehicles to be equipped with all-wheel ABS at this

time. The studies discussed above do not support such a Federal

requirement at this time

more than those for rear-wheel systems.

NHTSA believes that the significant costs associated with

manufacturers having to equip approximately 4.3 million additional

vehicles with all-wheel ABS further justifies the agency's decision not

to require light vehicles to be equipped with all-wheel ABS at this

time. The studies discussed above do not support such a Federal

requirement at this time. NHTSA emphasizes that the costs and benefits

associated with light vehicle ABS contrasts sharply with the analyses

the agency conducted for medium and heavy ABS, which determined that

ABS was highly beneficial for such vehicles.

For the reasons set forth above, NHTSA has decided to defer this

rulemaking action indefinitely.

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117 and 30166;

delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8.

Issued on: July 5, 1996.

Barry Felrice,

Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 96-17750 Filed 7-11-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P