Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Antilock Brake Systems for Light Vehicles |
---|
Topics: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
|
Barry Felrice
Federal Register
January 4, 1994
[Federal Register: January 4, 1994] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 49 CFR Part 571 [Docket No. 93-94; Notice 1] 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. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Authorization Act of 1991 directs this agency to initiate rulemaking to consider the need for any additional brake performance standards for passenger cars, including antilock brake standards. Pursuant to this mandate, the agency is issuing this notice to obtain responses to questions regarding the braking performance of passenger cars and other light vehicles and the need to require antilock brake systems on these vehicles. This notice poses questions about the desirability of a requirement that light vehicles be equipped with antilock brake systems (ABS), including questions about such a requirement's anticipated safety benefits, potential regulatory approaches and anticipated performance requirements and test procedures, the requirement's applicability, its schedule for implementation, and the anticipated costs. DATES: Comments on this notice must be received on or before March 7, 1994. ADDRESSES: All comments on this notice should refer to the docket and notice number and be submitted to the following: Docket Section, room 5109, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590 (Docket hours 9:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.) FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. George Soodoo, Office of Crash Avoidance, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590 (202) 366-5892. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Background A. Existing and Proposed Standards B. Statutory Mandates C. Antilock Brake Systems D. Current Size of ABS Market II. NHTSA Activities Related to Braking Performance III. Issues for Possible Agency Action A. Overview of the Issues B. Safety Need C. Regulatory Approaches to Improving the Lateral Stability and Control of Light Vehicles D. Test Procedures E. Test Conditions F. Varieties of ABSs Permissible Under Potential Proposals G. Implementation H. Costs Associated with Potential Proposals IV. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices A. DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures B. Executive Order 12612 (Federalism) I. Background A. Existing and Proposed Standards Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems, specifies requirements for vehicles equipped with hydraulic brake systems. (49 CFR 571.105). Standard No. 105 applies to all vehicles except motorcycles that are equipped with hydraulic brakes. It has specific requirements which apply to passenger cars and to vehicles other than passenger cars with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) (1) equal to or less than 10,000 pounds and (2) greater than 10,000 pounds.\1\ The Standard's purpose is to ensure safe braking performance under normal and emergency conditions. The Standard includes a variety of performance requirements that evaluate a vehicle's service brake system in terms of stopping distance, partial failure, fade and recovery, water recovery, and spike stops. It also sets forth requirements related to a vehicle's parking brake performance. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\This document will refer to passenger cars and other vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less (e.g., light trucks and vans and multipurpose passenger vehicles) as ``light vehicles.'' Where necessary to refer to passenger cars, ``passenger cars'' will be used, and where necessary to refer to vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less other than passenger cars, ``other light vehicles'' will be used. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- None of NHTSA's safety standards currently mandates the installation of antilock braking systems (ABS) on light vehicles or specifies performance requirements intended to ensure the proper functioning of an ABS voluntarily installed on a light vehicle. A light vehicle equipped with an ABS is required to meet the same stopping distance requirements as a non-ABS-equipped light vehicle. In addition, a light vehicle with a failed ABS must be capable of meeting the stopping distance requirements for partial failure of the service brake system, as follows: passenger cars are required to stop within 456 feet and other light vehicles must stop within 517 feet when traveling at 60 mph on a high coefficient of friction surface. (See section S5.5 of Standard No. 105). NHTSA has proposed requirements for functioning and failed ABSs. NHTSA is currently reviewing comments to a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) that proposes to establish a new standard, Standard No. 135, Passenger Car Brake Systems, which would replace Standard No. 105 as it applies to passenger cars. (56 FR 30528, July 3, 1991). The rulemaking to establish the new standard resulted from NHTSA's efforts to harmonize its safety standards with international standards. The agency anticipates the next regulatory action related to Standard No. 135 will be issued in early 1994. In the SNPRM, NHTSA proposed requirements for functioning antilock systems, which include straight line stops on high and low coefficient of friction surfaces, a high coefficient of friction to low coefficient of friction surface transition test, and a low coefficient of friction to high coefficient of friction surface transition test. A high coefficient of friction surface, such as dry asphalt, is one that is relatively sticky and thus provides higher levels of braking force and better lateral stability and control during braking. Conversely, a low coefficient of friction surface, such as wet or icy pavement, is one that is relatively slippery and thus provides lower levels of braking force and poorer lateral stability and control during braking. These surfaces are referred to as high mu and low mu surfaces, respectively. The agency also proposed requirements for failed antilock systems, which are more stringent than Standard No. 105's antilock failure requirements. For an antilock functional failure, the agency proposed a stopping distance of 85 meters (279 feet) from 100 kilometers per hour (62 mph). B. Statutory Mandate Sections 2500 through 2509 of the ``Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991'' are called the ``National Highway Traffice Safety Administration Authorization Act of 1991'' (``Authorization Act''). Among other things, the Authorization Act directs NHTSA to initiate rulemaking on a number of safety matters, including brake performance standards for passenger cars. Today's ANPRM initiates the rulemaking required by section 2507 of the Authorization Act. That section provides that, not later than December 31, 1993, an advance notice of proposed rulemaking be published, in accordance with the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, to consider the need for any additional brake performance standards for passenger cars, including ABS standards. The Act also directs the agency to ``consider any such [antilock brake system] adopted by a manufacturer'' to facilitate and encourage innovation and early application of economical and effective antilock brake systems for all such vehicles. Section 2507 requires the rulemaking action to be completed not later than 36 months from issuance of the ANPRM. Under sections 2507 and 2052(b)(2)(B)(ii), the action will be considered completed when the agency either promulgates a final rule or decides not to promulgate a rule. C. Antilock Brake Systems The primary benefit of an ABS is its ability to prevent loss-of- control accidents caused by wheel lockup during braking. This allows the driver to maintain steering control and lateral stability even in panic braking situations. In addition, vehicles equipped with an ABS typically have enhanced braking efficiency and as a consequence usually have shorter stopping distances, particularly on low mu surfaces, compared to the same vehicle without an ABS. ABSs help prevent braking induced loss-of-control situations by automatically controlling the amount of braking pressure applied to a wheel. Current antilock braking systems include wheel speed sensors that measure wheel speeds and transmit signals to an Electronic Control Unit (ECU). The ECU monitors wheel speeds, and changes in wheel speeds, based on electrical signals transmitted from sensors located at the wheels or within the axle housings. If the wheels start to lock, the ECU signals a modulator control valve to actuate, thereby holding constant or reducing the amount of braking pressure applied to the wheel or axle that is nearing lockup. This continuous feedback cycle of sensing, controlling, modulating, and sensing prevents wheel lockup, and results in improved vehicle stability and steering control during braking on all types of road surface conditions. There are two primary types of ABS configurations that are currently available for most light vehicles: all-wheel systems and rear-wheel-only systems. An all-wheel ABS directly controls all the wheels on the vehicle, typically by using individual wheel control for the front axle wheels and either individual wheel control or select low control for the rear axle wheels. (Select low control provides the same brake pressure modulation to both wheels of an axle whenever either wheel on that axle approaches lockup.) A vehicle equipped with an all- wheel ABS is able to maintain steering control, even during hard braking on wet surfaces. Because maintaining steering control can be a key factor in accident avoidance, a vehicle equipped with an all-wheel ABS would be expected to experience better lateral stability and control during hard braking, particularly on wet or slippery road surface conditions. Rear-wheel-only ABSs directly control only the rear wheels of the vehicle, using the select low method of control. A vehicle equipped with a rear-wheel-only ABS may still experience front wheel lockup during braking, since the front wheels are not controlled by the ABS. Rear-wheel-only systems have relatively less accident reduction potential than all-wheel systems, because front wheel lockup could result in a vehicle losing steering control. In a crash-threatening situation, maintaining steering control can be a critical factor in accident avoidance. D. Current Size of ABS Market ABSs are currently available on over 130 models of passenger cars and other light vehicles (light trucks and vans (LTVs), and sport utility vehicles). ABSs are offered as standard equipment on almost all top-of-the line models and as standard equipment or an option on an increasing number of mid-priced and low-priced models. For instance, the Chevrolet Cavalier with a manufacturer's suggested retail price of under $10,000 offers an ABS as standard equipment. Manufacturers of ABSs currently available on vehicles sold in the United States include Bendix, Bosch, Dewandre-WABCO, GM-Delco, Honda, Kelsey-Hayes, Nippondenso, Sumitomo, and Teves. In 1992, 2,682,218 of the passenger cars sold in the United States were equipped with an ABS. This represented approximately 32 percent of all passenger cars sold in this country during that year. Passenger cars that are equipped with an ABS typically have an all-wheel ABS that permits steering control since the system modulates the brake force at each wheel. That same year, approximately 3,600,000 of the other light vehicles sold in the United States were equipped with an ABS, and approximately 3,100,000 of those vehicles were equipped with a rear- wheel-only ABS. While rear-wheel-only systems provide benefits (e.g., improved stability during braking) for light trucks that frequently experience a wide range of loading levels, a rear-wheel-only ABS provides no ABS control to the front wheels. These nearly 6,300,000 ABS-equipped passenger cars and light trucks represented 49 percent of the 12.8 million light vehicles sold in the United States in 1992. Based on reports from industry, NHTSA estimates that over 75 percent of all new passenger cars and other light vehicles will be equipped with an ABS by 1996. II. NHTSA Activities Related to Braking Performance Over the years, NHTSA has studied the effectiveness of ABSs in avoiding crashes and reducing their severity. The agency conducted the Tri-Level Study of the Causes of Traffic Accidents, (DOT HS 801-631, Final Report, June 1975) to determine the effectiveness of ABSs. While this is not a recent study, its conclusions might still be relevant. Among these conclusions are that (1) rear-wheel-only ABSs had an accident reduction potential of one to four percent, (2) four wheel ABSs provide the greatest safety benefits and could reduce accidents by eight to 15 percent, (3) an ABS's ability to maintain control was found to be a more important safety attribute than its ability to improve stopping distance performance. NHTSA has also conducted test track evaluations of ABS equipped light vehicles. (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.) The December 1991 report describes tests conducted on ten light vehicles to evaluate the improvement in braking performance and vehicle stability and control resulting from each vehicle's ABS. The test program's purpose was to show the degree to which an ABS improves a given vehicle's brake performance, not to compare vehicles or similar ABSs to one another. Therefore, each vehicle was tested with the ABS ``on'' and with the ABS ``off'' or disabled. Eight of the ten vehicles were equipped with an all-wheel ABS. Each vehicle was run through a set of eighteen separate test conditions, using both panic stops and driver-best-effort stops in both the empty and loaded condition at speeds of 35 mph and 60 mph. Braking maneuvers consisted of straight line stops on a uniform surface, straight line stops on a split mu surface, stops in a 500 foot curve, and stops involving lane changes. The tests were conducted at 35, 45, 50, and 60 mph, at both the empty and loaded weight conditions. The tests were conducted on a variety of surfaces, including wet Jennite, gravel, and dry concrete. Among the findings in the December 1991 report were that (1) each ABS, and especially the all-wheel systems, improved the vehicle's lateral stability during panic braking; (2) the all-wheel systems shortened stopping distances on most hard paved surfaces, with improvements of up to 25 percent on wet concrete and up to 50 percent on wet Jennite; (3) each ABS lengthened the vehicle's stopping distances in panic stops on gravel, with increases exceeding 25 percent in some cases; and (4) the rear-wheel system enhanced the vehicle's lateral stability but did not reduce stopping distances in most panic brake applications. The May 1992 report describes tests conducted on eight light vehicles to evaluate how the ABS influenced vehicle stopping distance and lateral stability and control on various surfaces. This evaluation supplements the December 1991 program by testing different vehicles on more slippery test surfaces, although it only used straight line maneuvers. Among the report's findings were that (1) with one exception, the seven vehicles with all-wheel systems were under complete directional control during the tests with the ABS ``on,'' (2) the vehicle with a rear-wheel-only ABS generally provided improved, but not complete, lateral stability and control, (3) ABSs improved stopping performance on all surfaces, except that stopping distance worsened on dry gravel surfaces, and (4) no vehicle experienced problems in the high to low mu transition testing with the ABS operational. NHTSA has recently published two proposals related to the braking performance of medium and heavy vehicles (hereinafter referred to as ``heavy vehicles''). On February 23, 1993, the agency proposed reinstating stopping distance requirements for these vehicles. (58 FR 11003). In addition, on September 28, 1993, the agency published a proposal that would require heavy vehicles to be equipped with an ABS to improve the lateral stability and control of these vehicles during braking. (58 FR 50738). The ABS requirement would be supplemented by a 30 mph braking-in-a-curve ``check'' test conducted on a low coefficient of friction surface using a full, panic brake application. Some of the issues raised in these rulemakings, such as the test surface and the proposed definition of ``ABS,'' are relevant to this rulemaking. III. Issues for Possible Agency Action A. Overview of the issues This ANPRM discusses whether the agency should propose to require ABS for light vehicles, pursuant to the mandate in ISTEA. While manufacturers are equipping an increasingly large number of light vehicles with ABS, it appears that it would be quite a few years, if ever, before all light vehicles would voluntarily be equipped with such devices. Based on the agency's review of comments to this notice and its review of additional accident data and other information, NHTSA will determine whether it should propose to require that all light vehicles be equipped with ABSs. This ANPRM also makes a number of requests for data and information. The agency wishes to emphasize that since this is an ANPRM, no rule will be issued on this specific subject without first issuing an ANPRM to provide further opportunity to comment. In commenting on a particular matter on responding to a particular question, interested persons are requested to provide any relevant factual information to support their conclusions or opinions, including but not limited to, testing, statistical, and cost data, and the source of such information. The agency seeks comments about the following topics: (a) The anticipated safety benefits from requiring light vehicles to be equipped with ABSs; (b) Potential regulatory approaches to improve the lateral stability and control of light vehicles during braking, including a requirement for an ABS and any anticipated performance requirements and test procedures; (c) The types of light vehicles to which these requirements would apply and whether all vehicles should be required to be equipped with an all-wheel ABS; (d) A schedule for implementing the ABS requirements to maximize their benefits at reasonable costs; and (e) The costs of requiring light vehicles to be equipped with antilock braking systems that would comply with the anticipated requirements. For ease of reference, the questions below are numbered consecutively. The agency requests that commenters identify each answer they give by the number of each question being answered. B. Safety Need The threshold issue in deciding whether to amend an existing safety standard concerns the requirement's safety need. NHTSA is reviewing accident data, including information from the Fatal Accident Reporting System (FARS), NHTSA's General Estimates System (GES), the National Accident Sampling System (NASS), and State accident data files. This review focuses on the benefits achieved by equipping light vehicles with an ABS in a variety of different crash modes. Among the crash modes being studied are (1) single vehicle run-off-the-road crashes in which skidding or spinning was the vehicle's pre-crash stability condition, (2) multi-vehicle crashes resulting from a vehicle's loss- of-control or inability-to-stop-in-time, and (3) crashes in which a vehicle strikes pedestrians, animals, or road objects. Initial data from these sources indicate that braking induced loss- of-control crashes and inability-to-stop-in-time crashes are frequent types of crashes that warrant further study. Such crashes are especially prevalent on wet or slippery roads, a condition in which ABSs would be effective. Eleven percent of all fatal crashes in 1991 occurred on wet or slippery roads, and 18 percent of property-damage- only crashes occurred under such conditions. NHTSA's research test findings indicate that equipping light vehicles with an ABS would be beneficial to safety. The primary benefit with equipping light vehicles with an ABS is that a driver is better able to maintain vehicle stability and steering control during crash- threatening braking situations. A secondary, but still important benefit with an ABS, is that a vehicle's stopping ability is improved on some surfaces. NHTSA's preliminary evaluation of rear-wheel antilock brake systems indicates that such ABSs on light trucks are particularly effective in reducing the number of run-off-road crashes. Analyses of State accident files found that rear-wheel ABS was effective in reducing the risk of such nonfatal rollovers (and side and frontal impacts with fixed objects) for almost every type of truck, under any type of road condition. Reductions of rollovers were typically in the 30-40 percent range, reductions of side impacts with fixed objects in the 15-30 percent range, and reductions in frontal impacts with fixed objects in the 5-20 percent range. The risk of collisions with pedestrians, animals, bicycles, trains, or on-road objects was also significantly reduced, by about 5-15 percent. A copy of this preliminary evaluation is available in the public docket. NHTSA is continuing to analyze the data and a comprehensive report of the findings will be published at a later date. In the meantime, the agency requests additional information on braking induced loss-of- control crashes and inability-to-stop-in-time crashes from rental fleets, corporate fleets, insurance companies, police officers, and others. This information would assist the agency in its efforts to quantify the benefits from ABSs. Accordingly, the agency requests comments from these organizations and others about their experiences in which drivers of light vehicles have lost control during braking or been unable to stop before a crash. With these considerations in mind, the agency poses the following questions. 1. Based on the available data, what safety benefits would result from the issuance of requirements to prevent or minimize the effect of braking induced loss-of-control crashes or inability-to-stop-in-time crashes? In what types of crashes would these benefits occur? Please provide estimates in terms of accidents, injuries, and fatalities prevented. The agency also requests quantitative estimates of reductions in property damage. 2. What additional injury and non-injury data and other information exist about real-world crashes and near crashes involving drivers of light vehicles who skidded or otherwise lost control? 3. At the time of loss-of-control or inability-to-stop-in-time crashes, what were the driving conditions and weather environment? At what speed was the vehicle traveling? Was the roadway dry, wet, or icy? To what degree did these adverse driving conditions contribute to the crash and its severity? Did the crash occur on an interstate, secondary highway, or residential road? What, if any, crash avoidance maneuver precipitated the crash? 4. With respect to loss-of-control or inability-to-stop-in-time crashes known to the commenter, would equipping the vehicle with an ABS or a more effective ABS (e.g., an all-wheel system instead of a rear- wheel-only system) have helped in avoiding any of the crashes or reducing their severity? 5. With respect to fleets that have switched or begun switching to ABS-equipped light vehicles, have the ABS-equipped light vehicles had a lower crash rate than the non-ABS-equipped light vehicles? If there has been a reduction in crashes, please quantify the reduction in terms of lives saved, injuries prevented, and property damage reduced. C. Regulatory Approaches to Improve the Lateral Stability and Control of Light Vehicles If NHTSA were to propose amending its braking safety standards to improve the lateral stability and control of light vehicles during braking, the amendment would have to meet the Vehicle Safety Act's criteria that the requirement be practicable and be stated in objective terms (section 103(a)). Any rulemaking addressing antilock would also be guided by the findings in PACCAR v. NHTSA, 573 F.2d 632 (9th Cir. 1978) cert. denied 439 U.S. 862 (1978). Even though PACCAR concerned air braked vehicles subject to a different safety standard, some of that decision's concerns about testing brake systems are relevant to proposing to require ABSs on light vehicles. PACCAR held that at the time of their implementation, parts of Standard No. 121 were not reasonable nor practicable. The court held that objective test methods and more probative and convincing data evidencing the reliability and safety of vehicles that are equipped with antilock and in use must be available before the agency can enforce a standard requiring its installation. 6. In the NPRM addressing lateral stability and control for heavy vehicles, NHTSA proposed that each heavy vehicle be equipped with an antilock braking system that satisfies the agency's proposed definition of ``ABS.'' In addition, as a ``check'' on the performance of the ABS, the agency proposed that a heavy vehicle would have to comply with a braking-in-a-curve test. The agency tentatively concluded that this approach would ensure that heavy vehicles would be able to significantly improve their lateral stability and control during braking. NHTSA is considering applying this approach to light vehicles by proposing both a requirement mandating the installation of ABSs on light vehicles and road tests that serve as a check on the performance of the ABS. The agency requests comments about the possible benefits and shortcomings of using this approach for light vehicles. 7. In developing the proposed definition for ``ABS'' in the heavy vehicle rulemaking, NHTSA referred to the definitions of ``ABS'' adopted by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) and the Economic Commission for Europe's (ECE) Regulation 13, Annex 13 (1988). Based on these definitions and other considerations, the agency proposed the following definition of ``antilock brake system'' in the heavy vehicle rulemaking: a portion of a service brake system that automatically controls the degree of rotational wheel slip during braking by: (1) sensing the rate of angular rotation of the wheels; (2) transmitting signals regarding the rate of wheel angular rotation to one or more devices which interpret those signals and generate responsive controlling output signals; and (3) transmitting those controlling signals to one or more devices which adjust brake actuating forces in response to those signals. Under this definition describing fundamental and necessary performance aspects that any braking system must have to be considered an ABS, the agency believes that any ABS would be permitted, provided that it is a ``closed loop'' system that ensures feedback between what is actually happening at the tire-road surface interface and what the device is doing to respond to impending wheel lockup. The agency requests comments about whether to apply to light vehicles the approach proposed to improve the lateral stability and control of heavy vehicles. Is it necessary and appropriate to supplement the combination of a definition of ``ABS'' and an equipment requirement with one or more ``check'' tests to ensure the lateral stability and control of light vehicles? Is the definition of ``ABS,'' as proposed in the heavy vehicle NPRM, appropriate for light vehicles? What are the advantages or disadvantages of a requirement expressly mandating an ABS instead of taking the more indirect approach of adopting dynamic tests? Notwithstanding the agency's tentative conclusion that the proposed definition for heavy vehicle ``ABS'' is sufficiently broad to allow a variety of ABSs, the agency welcomes comment about the use of this definition for light vehicles. Would it ensure suitable stopping distances and cover all appropriate brake designs, while not unnecessarily prohibiting brake systems that effectively prevent wheel lockup in a sufficiently wide variety of circumstances? D. Test Procedures 8. In the heavy vehicle ABS rulemaking, NHTSA proposed that such vehicles would have to comply with a braking-in-a-curve test, but decided not to propose additional tests such as a split mu test or a lane change test. The agency believed that such additional tests would be impracticable for heavy vehicles given the criteria set forth in PACCAR. Notwithstanding the agency's tentative decision in the heavy vehicle ABS rulemaking to propose only a braking-in-a-curve test, the agency is seeking comment on whether to require that light vehicles be capable of stopping without loss-of-control in the following test maneuvers: (a) While turning on a low mu surface; (b) While stopping on a straight line split mu surface; (c) While in transition from a high mu surface to a low mu surface; and (d) While in transition from a low mu surface to a high mu surface. NHTSA is considering additional tests for light vehicle antilock systems for three reasons. First, ABS requirements on passenger cars were originally developed in proposals for Standard No. 135, Passenger Car Brake Systems, which are based on the effort to harmonize braking standards with EEC and ECE requirements. These proposals included split mu tests and surface transition tests. Second, the agency believes that light vehicle ABS may need to have a higher level of capability for some aspects of performance than heavy vehicle ABS. For instance, the antilock systems on heavy vehicles do not have to be as quick as the systems on light vehicles in responding to impending wheel lock. The wheel lockup allowed by light vehicle antilock systems available today is about 0.2 seconds, compared with a lockup duration closer to one second for heavy vehicle systems. This is so because heavy vehicles typically have a longer wheel base than light vehicles, and a high vehicle moment of inertia about the vertical axis. On these vehicles, yaw movement during braking with ABS on a split mu surface or during a braking-in-a-curve maneuver takes place at a relatively slower rate than on light vehicles, primarily because of the higher vehicle moment of inertia. Third, in contrast to testing light vehicles, the availability of test facilities and the safety of the tests would make more extensive testing impracticable for heavy vehicles because such vehicles are larger and more prone to rollover than light vehicles. For the above reasons, the split mu and surface transition tests might be appropriate additions to the braking-in-a-curve test for light vehicles. The agency anticipates that each of these tests would be conducted at 30 mph using a full pedal application (200 pounds pedal force applied within 0.2 seconds) and that the vehicle would be required to stay within a 12-foot lane. There would be no stopping distance requirement as part of these tests. (The issue of separate tests for stopping distance is discussed below in connection with question 13.) 9. As mentioned above, NHTSA is considering whether to propose a ``braking-in-a-curve test'' in which a light vehicle's braking would be evaluated at a relatively slow speed on a slippery surface. This test is designed to evaluate the capability of a vehicle to be controlled while braking in a curve. The test could be conducted on a 500-foot radius curve on a surface with a peak friction coefficient (PFC) of 0.5 or less. What benefits would be obtained from such a braking-in-a-curve test? What problems, if any, would be associated with this maneuver? Would this testing approach be a sufficient indicator of the lateral control and stability expected from an ABS equipped light vehicle? How would rear-wheel-only antilock systems perform under this test procedure? 10. NHTSA is considering whether to propose another type of test, possibly as an alternative to the braking-in-a-curve test. This test is known as a ``split coefficient of friction test'' (or split mu test) and is designed to evaluate a vehicle's ability to be controlled when one side of a road is slick and the other side is much stickier. If NHTSA were to propose such a test, it probably would be conducted on a straight lane surface with the high mu part of the surface having a PFC equal to or greater than 0.5 and the low mu part of the surface having a PFC of less than or equal to one-half the PFC of the high mu surface. An alternative way to describe the test surface would be to specify the PFCs for both parts of the surface (e.g., the high mu part would be 0.9 or greater and the low mu part would be 0.45 or less). The test lane would be split down the centerline along its length, so that the wheels on one side of the vehicle are on the high friction surface and the wheels on the other side of the vehicle are on the slick surface. What benefits would be obtained from testing on such a split mu surface? What problems, if any, would result from such a surface? Would this test be a sufficient indicator of the lateral stability and control expected from an ABS-equipped vehicle? How would rear-wheel-only antilock systems perform under this test procedure? What is the best way to specify the test surface? 11. NHTSA is also considering whether to propose a ``low to high mu surface transition test.'' This test is designed to evaluate the capability of an antilock system to modulate brake pressure to achieve a high level of deceleration after the vehicle makes a transition to the high mu surface. NHTSA anticipates that if it proposes such a test, the high mu surface would have a PFC equal to or greater than 0.5, and the low mu surface would have a PFC of less than or equal to one half the PFC of the high mu surface. The agency is considering whether to propose requiring that the vehicle achieve at least 95 percent of the deceleration of the uniform coefficient deceleration on the high mu surface within one second. What benefits would be obtained from such a transition test? What problems, if any, would be associated with this test maneuver? Would this test be a sufficient indicator of the modulation capability expected from an ABS-equipped light vehicle? Would the suggested way of specifying test surfaces be appropriate? The agency requests comments about whether to specify the time needed to achieve a specific deceleration and to specify a maximum lockup duration during the transition. How would rear-wheel only antilock systems perform under this test procedure? 12. NHTSA is considering whether to propose a ``high to low mu surface transaction test.'' This test is designed to evaluate the response for the ABS when the vehicle begins braking on a high mu surface then experiences a change to a low mu surface. This type of surface is discussed in the previous question. The agency is considering whether to require that the vehicle's wheels not lock for more than 0.2 seconds, with wheel lock defined as 100 percent slip. What benefits would be obtained from such a surface transition test? What problems, if any, would be associated with this test maneuver? Would this test be a sufficient indicator of the modulation control and the response to impending wheel lock expected from an ABS-equipped light vehicle? How would rear-wheel only antilock systems perform under this test procedure? 13. The efficiency of an ABS affects a vehicle's stopping distance performance with the ABS cycling. Consistent with the agency's decision in the heavy vehicle ABS rulemaking not to propose stopping distance requirements with tests involving low mu surfaces, NHTSA does not anticipate proposing, at this stage of this rulemaking, stopping distance requirements with the curve, split mu, or transaction tests because of the variability of vehicle stopping distance performance on low mu surfaces. Do commenters agree with the agency's tentative decision not to propose stopping distance requirements with tests involving low mu surfaces? Notwithstanding this tentative decision, NHTSA believes that a measurement of efficiency might provide consumers with information to compare the relative overall performance of various ABSs. In its evaluations, the agency has calculated ABS efficiency by dividing vehicle decelerations (g's) by the peak friction coefficient measured with the vehicle's tire. The agency notes that an ABS efficiency value could provide consumers with a means of comparing the ABS performance capability since no stopping distance requirements are being considered for the tests mentioned in this notice to evaluate ABS performance. Each antilock system achieves a certain level of efficiency based on design factors such as the wheel deceleration rate threshold at which ABS cycling begins, the control algorithm, and the modulator valves. In general, the higher the ABS efficiency, the shorter the stopping distance should be with the ABS operational. NHTSA's light vehicle ABS testing has shown that the improvements in braking performance provided by an ABS varies, in some cases considerably, from system to system and from vehicle to vehicle. Hence, simply setting a standard that requires all-wheel ABS would not necessarily mean that the performance of these systems would be similar. The agency therefore request comments on what would be an appropriate method for measuring ABS efficiency, and whether ABS efficiency would be a meaningful indicator of a system's overall performance. 14. The current requirements in Standard No. 105 for vehicles with failed antilock systems including stopping distance requirements from 60 mph of 456 feet for passenger cars and 517 feet for other light vehicles with a GVWR of not more than 10,000 pounds. This test is designed to ensure that the vehicle has adequate braking if the ABS fails. These distances may be overly generous for an ABS failure on some vehicles, given that the service brake system is generally still intact. NHTSA anticipates proposing ABS failure requirements for Standard No. 105 similar to those proposed for Standard No. 135. In that rulemaking, the agency proposed a stopping distance of 279 feet from a test speed of 62 mph on a surface with a PFC of 0.9. What problems, if any, would be associated with such a requirement? Should the standard allow an ABS that experiences a large degradation of stopping performance if the ABS fails? What is the best method for disabling an ABS for a failed system test? Should performance requirements for integrated ABSs be any different from the requirements for add-on ABSs, in the failed condition? If so, why? Should the failed ABS stopping distance be one absolute value for all vehicles, or should it be based on the performance relative to the stopping distance performance when each vehicle's ABS is in the ``on'' position? E. Test Conditions 15. As explained in the previous section, NHTSA anticipates specifying the test surfaces used in the test procedures in terms of peak friction coefficient. While the braking-in-a-curve test would have a PFC of 0.5, the split mu and transition tests would have the surface specified based on the relative PFC of each of the two portions of the surface. The braking-in-a-curve test surface represents a wet secondary road in poor condition, and the split mu and transition test surface represent roads with different coefficients of friction such as those with ice patches. What practicability concerns, if any, are raised by conducting tests on surfaces with both low and high coefficients of friction? 16. Two different methods of applying brakes can be used when testing ABSs (and braking systems in general). One method is a ``full pedal'' application typical of how a driver might apply the brake pedal in reaction to a crash-threatening situation. This type of brake application can precipitate wheel lock-up and loss-of-control if the vehicle is operating on a slippery surface. A second method is a modulated ``driver-best-effort'' application in which the driver modulates the brake in an attempt to maintain stability and lateral control. This method enables stops that are as quick and short as possible while still maintaining stability and steering control. As with the heavy vehicle ABS rulemaking, the agency anticipates proposing a full pedal application because it is more representative of a typical driver's response to a real world crash-threatening situation. In addition, such an application is more objective and repeatable. In specifying the amount of brake application force in this test procedure, the agency anticipates that a pedal force of 200 pounds in 0.2 seconds would adequately represent a full pedal application for light vehicles. The agency requests comments about the best way to specify the brake application provisions. F. Varieties of ABS Permissible under Potential Proposals 17. Agency testing indicates that all-wheel antilock systems provide full steering control and lateral stability during braking. Real-wheel-only antilock systems do not ensure steering control during braking, but provide some measure of vehicle stability during braking. Should the proposed requirements be drafted so that light vehicles must be equipped with systems that provide ABS control on all wheels, or should the requirements be drafted to allow rear-wheel-only systems as well? What are the differences in benefits between rear-wheel-only and all-wheel systems? 18. If NHTSA were to propose its braking standards to improve the lateral stability and control of light vehicles during braking, all light vehicles would have to be equipped with lateral stability and control devices to achieve the new performance requirements. As mentioned above, all-wheel ABSs were installed on 2,700,000 passenger cars and on 470,000 other light vehicles in 1992. While another 3.1 million light vehicles were equipped with rear-wheel-only ABSs, vehicles are increasingly being equipped with all-wheel systems rather than rear-wheel-only systems. How many vehicles would need to be equipped with ABSs to comply with the requirements discussed in this notice? Would it be necessary to equip a vehicle with an all-wheel ABS to comply with the requirements discussed in this notice or would rear- wheel-only systems be adequate? 19. The ECE currently uses three categories to classify antilock systems by their performance capabilities. While the ECE mandates the most sophisticated Category I systems for heavy vehicles, ABS installation remains voluntary for light vehicles. Nevertheless, if a manufacturer decides to equip a light vehicle with ABS, then it must inform the government approving body about the Category of ABS being installed on a given light vehicle. After being reviewed by the government, the manufacturer may market its system to consumers as that category of ABS. NHTSA is considering whether to propose a classification system like the ECE's in which there would be categories of increasingly stringent performance criteria instead of a minimum requirement for all antilock systems. The performance criteria, if proposed, might include the following factors: Category I--Braking efficiency of the vehicle equal to or greater than 75 percent on all road surfaces, including split mu. Meets braking-in-a-curve or split mu test requirements for stability. Meets low mu to high mu surface transition requirement of achieving 95 percent of the uniform coefficient deceleration within a specified time period. Meets high mu to low mu surface transition requirements for lockup duration. Wheels on all axles must be directly controlled by ABS. Category II-- Braking efficiency of the vehicle equal to or greater than 75 percent on all road surfaces except split mu. Meets braking-in-a-curve or split mu test requirements for stability. Meets low mu to high mu surface transition requirements of achieving 95 percent of the uniform coefficient deceleration within a specified time period. Meets high mu to low mu surface transition requirements for lockup duration. Wheels on each axle must be directly controlled by ABS. Category III-- Braking efficiency of each axle having at least one directly controlled wheel equal to or greater than 75 percent, on all road surfaces except split mu. Meets low mu to high mu surface transition requirements of achieving 95 percent of the uniform coefficient deceleration within a specified time period. Meets high mu to low mu surface transition requirements for lockup duration. The agency anticipates that most, but not all, of the all-wheel ABSs would satisfy the criteria for Category I systems and that poorer performing all-wheel ABSs and rear-wheel only ABSs would satisfy the less stringent criteria of either Category II and Category III. Specifying categories would permit simpler antilock braking systems to comply with the standard, without lowering the requirements for the higher capability systems. It would also serve to inform consumers that not all ABSs have the same performance capabilities. However, the agency notes that there might be significant drawbacks to specifying categories, since such an approach might result in unnecessary complexity and permit the manufacture and installation of poorer performing systems that do not provide steering control and other significant safety benefits. The agency invites comments about whether the standard should specify categories of ABSs. G. Implementation NHTSA's goal in initiating rulemaking to require light vehicles to be equipped with an ABS is to determine whether significant improvements in braking performance can be achieved at a reasonable cost to manufacturers and consumers. There are a number of different approaches that the agency could take in scheduling the implementation of the potential proposals. One approach would be to apply the requirements to passenger cars first and then to all other light vehicles. A second approach would be for the agency to apply the ABS standards to all light vehicles at the same time. 20. While the Authorization Act requires NHTSA to initiate rulemaking on brake performance for passenger cars, NHTSA is contemplating using its general authority under the Vehicle Safety Act to broaden this mandate to include trucks, vans, sport utility vehicles, and buses under 10,000 pounds GVWR. The agency is considering this approach because it believes that ABS has more potential benefits for vehicles which have a greater disparity between their unloaded and fully loaded weights. These latter type vehicles fall into this category. The agency notes that the market appears to agree with this position as ABS is more prevalent in light trucks than passenger cars. NHTSA seeks comment on its tentative decision to include these vehicles. 21. At this stage in the rulemaking, NHTSA is inclined to propose an effective date of two years after the final rule, for passenger cars, and three years after the final rule for light vehicles other than passenger cars (i.e., trucks). The agency believes that this would give the industry sufficient leadtime to develop the production capacity needed to supply the market with antilock systems. The agency expects that an increasing number of light trucks will be offered with all-wheel antilock systems, particularly if the proposed requirements cannot be met with rear-wheel-only systems. If this is the case, then manufacturers of light trucks with these systems might need more leadtime than manufacturers of passenger cars to comply with the proposed requirements. Would this implementation schedule be appropriate? Would it be reasonable to accelerate or delay any portion of it? Should the agency apply requirements for ABSs to some light vehicles but not others? H. Costs Associated with Potential Proposals 22. NHTSA estimates that this rulemaking's potential cost would be approximately $1.04 billion per year. This cost consists of ABS 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 would be about $450. This price is 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 assumes that all-wheel ABS would be required on all light vehicles. It projects that all-wheel ABS would be voluntarily installed as standard equipment in 85 percent of model year 1999 passenger cars, the first model year that would be affected if a final rule were issued in 1996 and a 2-year leadtime for compliance were provided. The remaining 15 percent or about 1.4 million vehicles would be equipped only as a result of a requirement. The cost estimate also projects that all light trucks would be voluntarily equipped with ABS by model year 1999/2000, 75 percent of them having all-wheel systems. Thus, 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 incrementally higher (about $200 more), as compared to those for rear-wheel systems. How much would it cost per vehicle to equip all light vehicles with all-wheel ABSs? How much would it cost per vehicle to equip these vehicles with rear-wheel-only ABSs? What would be the likely costs to a final purchaser for either of the two types of antilock systems? 23. Each light vehicle manufacturer is requested to provide, with respect to model year 1994, and for each of the following types of vehicles, passenger cars, light trucks, and light MPVs: the total number of the vehicles it will produce; the vehicles it will equip with rear-wheel-only ABSs; and the vehicles it will equip with all-wheel ABSs. With respect to each of model years 1995-1999, and for each of the following types of vehicles, passenger cars, light trucks, and light MPVs, what percentages of vehicles do you expect to voluntarily equip with a rear-wheel-only ABS? With an all-wheel ABS? Do you expect to install all-wheel ABSs on all of your passenger cars? If so, when? On all of your light trucks? On all of your light MPVs? 24. NHTSA notes that some insurance companies currently offer discounts for antilock equipped passenger cars, light trucks and light MPVs. Which insurers provide such a discount? How large is the discount offered by each of those insurers? What is the basis for such discounts? IV. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices A. DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures and Executive Order 12866 NHTSA has considered the potential burdens and benefits associated with this advance notice. NHTSA has determined that this advance notice is a significant rulemaking action under the Department of Transportation's Regulatory Policies and Procedures and an economically significant notice under Executive Order 12866. The advance notice would have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. It concerns a matter in which there is substantial public interest. Further, there is a potential for significant safety benefits if effective requirements can be developed to address braking stability and control of light vehicles. The preliminary Assessment of Economic Significance for this advance notice addresses preliminary estimates of the costs and benefits of potential countermeasures that the agency is considering in this action. Those estimates are summarized below. NHTSA believes that ABS is effective in preventing, and reducing the severity of many inability-to-stop-in-time and loss-of-control crashes. The previously mentioned 1975 Tri-Level study found ABS to be effective. Also, a preliminary agency evaluation of more current data found rear-wheel ABS on light trucks to be effective in preventing certain types of crashes. The agency is continuing to analyze the on- road experience of ABS-equipped vehicles as compared to those with standard braking systems. At this time, the agency does not have sufficient data to estimate the safety benefits of requiring mandatory installation of ABS on all light vehicles types. In this advance notice, the agency is requesting information on ABS effectiveness and the safety benefits that could be expected from a requirement for mandatory installation of the technology. In assessing the cost- effectiveness of any requirement for mandatory installation of the technology, benefits accruing to vehicles on which ABS would not have been voluntarily installed would be estimated and compared to the costs associated with equipping those vehicles with ABS. In the case of light trucks, depending on the extent and type of ABS voluntarily installed and the type of ABS required, the benefits at issue might be those that would be realized from all-wheel ABS as compared to rear-wheel systems. NHTSA estimates that the annual consumer cost of requiring antilock brake systems on light vehicles to be $1,040 million: $710 million for passenger cars and $330 million for light trucks. This assumes that all-wheel systems would be required. Estimated ABS hardware cost would be $920 million, installation costs would be $80 million, and increased fuel costs (due to a small increase in vehicle weight) about $40 million. B. Executive Order 12612 (Federalism) NHTSA has analyzed this action under the principles and criteria in Executive Order 12612. The agency had determined that this advance notice does not have sufficient Federalism implication to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment. No State laws would be affected. The agency welcomes comment on this issue. Comments NHTSA invites comments from interested persons on the questions presented in this advance notice and on other relevant issues. It is requested but not required that 10 copies be submitted. Comments must not exceed 15 pages in length. (49 CFR 553.21). Necessary attachments may be appended to these submissions without regard to the 15-page limit. This limitation is intended to encourage commenters to detail their primary arguments in a concise fashion. If a commenter wishes to submit certain information under a claim of confidentiality, three copies of the complete submission, including purportedly confidential business information, should be submitted to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the street address given above, and seven copies from which the purportedly confidential information has been deleted should be submitted to the Docket Section. A request for confidentiality should be accompanied by a cover letter setting forth the information specified in the agency's confidential business information regulation. 49 CFR Part 512. NHTSA will consider all comments received before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated in the ``Dates'' caption of this advance notice. To the extent possible, the agency will consider comments filed after the closing date. Comments on the advance notice will be available for inspection in the docket. After the closing date, NHTSA will continue to file relevant information in the Docket as this information becomes available, and recommends that interested persons continue to examine the Docket for new material. Those persons desiring to be notified upon receipt of their comments in the rules docket should enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the envelope with their comments. Upon receiving the comments, the docket supervisor will return the postcard by mail. A regulatory information number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes their Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. The RIN contained in the heading of this document can be used to cross reference this action with the Unified Agenda. List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571 Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, Rubber and rubber products, Tires. (15 U.S.C. 1392, 1401, 1407; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8) Issued on: December 29, 1993. Barry Felrice. Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. [FR Doc. 93-32106 Filed 12-29-93; 3:35 pm] BILLING CODE 4910-59-M