\n<\/p>\n
A new rule<\/a> requiring all vehicles to have automatic emergency braking is \u201cflawed\u201d and should be repealed, a new lawsuit<\/a> filed by the auto industry\u2019s main lobbying group says. <\/p>\n<\/div>\n The suit was filed in US Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit\u00a0by the Alliance of Automotive Innovation, which represents most of the major automakers, including Ford, General Motors, Stellantis, Hyundai, Volkswagen, and Toyota. The group is asking the court to overturn the new rule, which was finalized last year, requiring all vehicles to have automatic emergency braking (AEB) by 2029. <\/p>\n<\/div>\n But after the rule was finalized, the alliance petitioned NHTSA to \u201creconsider\u201d it<\/a>, arguing that current technology was insufficient to meet the high standards outlined by the regulation. The group also claimed that its suggestions were rejected during the rulemaking process, and urged NHTSA to reconsider several key provisions in order to make it more achievable by the target date.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n But NHTSA denied the group\u2019s petition, stating that the requirements were \u201cpracticable\u201d and that the overall aim is to \u201cforce\u201d the industry to adopt new technology in order to meet the goals of saving lives and preventing injuries. <\/p>\n<\/div>\n \u201cNHTSA acknowledged that the final rule is technology-forcing\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n \u201cNHTSA acknowledged that the final rule is technology-forcing,\u201d the agency said in its response<\/a>, \u201cbut emphasized that the standard is practicable and no single current vehicle must meet every requirement for an FMVSS to be considered practicable under the Safety Act.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n The auto alliance says that it has spent \u201cmore than a billion dollars\u201d developing AEB over the years, but doesn\u2019t want this lawsuit to be interpreted as an opposition to its own technology. <\/p>\n<\/div>\n \u201cThis litigation by Alliance for Automotive Innovation\u00a0should not<\/em>\u00a0be interpreted as opposition to AEB, a lack of confidence in the technology, or an objection to AEB\u2019s widest possible deployment across the U.S. vehicle fleet,\u201d the group says in a press release<\/a>. \u201cRather, this litigation is about ensuring a rule that maximizes driver and pedestrian safety and is technologically feasible.\u201d\t<\/p>\n<\/div>\n But safety advocates aren\u2019t buying it. <\/p>\n<\/div>\n \u201cThe AEB Rule is the most impactful regulation for roadway safety issued in years,\u201d said Cathy Chase, president of Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, in a statement. \u201cConsidering that automaking is America\u2019s largest manufacturing sector, employs 10 million Americans, generates five percent of the U.S. GDP and drives $1 trillion into the economy annually, it is remarkable that it would be unable to meet the requirements in the AEB Rule by September 2029.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n