Rule2022-02451
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, Adaptive Driving Beam Headlamps
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
February 22, 2022
Effective
February 22, 2022
Issuing agencies
Transportation DepartmentNational Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Abstract
This document amends NHTSA's lighting standard to permit the certification of adaptive driving beam (ADB) headlamps. ADB headlamps utilize technology that actively modifies a vehicle's headlamp beams to provide more illumination while not glaring other vehicles. The requirements adopted today are intended to amend the lighting standard to permit this technology and establish performance requirements for these systems to ensure that they operate safely. ADB has the potential to reduce the risk of crashes by increasing visibility without increasing glare. The agency initiated this rulemaking in response to a petition for rulemaking from Toyota Motor North America, Inc.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 87 Issue 35 (Tuesday, February 22, 2022)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 35 (Tuesday, February 22, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 9916-10026]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02451]
[[Page 9915]]
Vol. 87
Tuesday,
No. 35
February 22, 2022
Part V
Department of Transportation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
49 CFR Part 571
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Lamps, Reflective Devices, and
Associated Equipment, Adaptive Driving Beam Headlamps; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 9916]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. NHTSA-2022-0013]
RIN 2127-AL83
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Lamps, Reflective
Devices, and Associated Equipment, Adaptive Driving Beam Headlamps
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document amends NHTSA's lighting standard to permit the
certification of adaptive driving beam (ADB) headlamps. ADB headlamps
utilize technology that actively modifies a vehicle's headlamp beams to
provide more illumination while not glaring other vehicles. The
requirements adopted today are intended to amend the lighting standard
to permit this technology and establish performance requirements for
these systems to ensure that they operate safely. ADB has the potential
to reduce the risk of crashes by increasing visibility without
increasing glare. The agency initiated this rulemaking in response to a
petition for rulemaking from Toyota Motor North America, Inc.
DATES:
Effective date: The effective date of this final rule is February
22, 2022. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed
in the rule was approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of
February 6, 2012.
Compliance date: The compliance date for the amendments in this
final rule is February 22, 2022.
Petitions for reconsideration: Petitions for reconsideration of
this final rule must be received not later than April 8, 2022.
ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration of this final rule must refer
to the docket and notice number set forth above and be submitted to the
Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Note that all petitions
received will be posted without change to <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>,
including any personal information provided.
Privacy Act: Please see the Privacy Act heading under Rulemaking
Analyses and Notices.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Markus Price, NHTSA Office of
Crash Avoidance Standards. Telephone: 202-366-1810; Email:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9cd1fdeef7e9efb2cceef5fff9dcf8f3e8b2fbf3ea"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="713c10031a04025f210318121431151e055f161e07">[email protected]</span></a>; or Mr. John Piazza, Office of Chief Counsel.
Telephone: 202-366-2992; Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d298bdbabcfc82bbb3a8a8b392b6bda6fcb5bda4"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a9e3c6c1c787f9c0c8d3d3c8e9cdc6dd87cec6df">[email protected]</span></a>. You may send mail
to these officials at: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
II. Background and Safety Need
III. NHTSA's Statutory Authority
IV. ADB Rulemaking Mandate in the Infrastructure, Investment and
Jobs Act
V. Summary of the NPRM
VI. Overview of Comments
VII. NHTSA Research and Testing
VIII. Final Rule and Response to Comments
A. Summary of the Final Rule and Modifications to the NPRM
B. Interpretation of FMVSS No. 108 as Applied to ADB Systems
C. Track Testing Requirements and Procedures
1. Practicability of Proposed Test Scenarios
2. Test Fixtures vs. Stimulus Vehicles
3. Justification for Testing on Curves and General Approach for
Scenario Selection
4. Maximum Illuminance Criteria (Glare Limits)
5. ADB Adaptation Time
6. Test Fixture Specifications
7. Test Fixture Placement
8. Test Scenarios
a. Scenario 1: Oncoming Straight
b. Scenario 2: Oncoming Small Left Curve
c. Scenario 3: Oncoming Medium Left Curve
d. Scenario 4: Oncoming Large Left Curve
e. Scenario 5: Oncoming Medium Right Curve
f. Scenario 6: Oncoming Large Right Curve
g. Scenario 7: Preceding Straight
h. Scenario 8: Preceding Medium Left Curve
i. Decision Not To Include Oncoming Short Right Curve Scenario
9. Other Test Parameters and Conditions
a. Radius of Curvature
b. Test Vehicle Speed and Acceleration
c. Headlamp Aim
d. Road Surface
e. Ambient and Reflected Light
f. Superelevation
g. Lane Divisions
h. Hills
10. Data Acquisition and Measurement
a. Photometers
b. Sampling Rate
c. Noise and Filtering
d. Allowance for Momentary Glare Exceedances
e. Vehicle Pitch
11. Repeatability
D. Laboratory (Component-Level) Testing
1. Need for Laboratory Testing
2. Definitions of Areas of Reduced and Unreduced Intensity
3. Requirements for Area of Reduced Intensity
4. Requirements for Area of Unreduced Intensity
5. Transition Zone
6. Veiling Glare
E. Minimum Activation Speed
F. Operator Controls, Indicators, Malfunction Detection, and
Operating Instructions
G. Accommodation of Different Technologies
H. Requirements for Semiautomatic Beam Switching Devices Other
Than ADB and Applicability of Compliance Options
I. Physical Test Requirements
J. Other Requirements
K. Information Reporting
L. Aftermarket Compliance
M. Exemption Petitions
N. Compliance Date
O. Regulatory Alternatives
P. Overview of Benefits and Costs
IX. Appendix to FMVSS No. 108 (Table of Contents)
X. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
Appendix A. Comparison of Oncoming Glare Limits to Table XIX Right-
Side Photometric Maxima
Appendix B. Example of Laboratory Photometric Testing of Adaptive
Driving Beam
Appendix C. ADB Performance With Motorcycle Test Fixture
Appendix D. List of Comments Cited in Preamble
I. Executive Summary
This final rule amends Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS
or Standard) No. 108, ``Lamps, reflective devices, and associated
equipment,'' to enable the certification of adaptive driving beam (ADB)
headlighting systems on vehicles sold in the United States. NHTSA is
issuing this final rule under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle
Safety Act (Safety Act), 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, Motor Vehicle Safety
(49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.).
Glare, Visibility, and Adaptive Driving Beam Technology
Adaptive driving beam headlamps utilize technology that actively
modifies the headlamp beams to provide more illumination while not
glaring other vehicles. The requirements adopted today are intended to
amend FMVSS No. 108 to permit this technology and ensure that it
operates safely.
Vehicle headlamps must satisfy two different safety needs:
Visibility and glare prevention. The primary function of headlamps is
to provide forward visibility for drivers. At the same time, there is a
risk that intense headlamp illumination may be directed towards
oncoming or preceding vehicles. Such illumination, referred to as
glare, can reduce the ability of other drivers to see and can cause
discomfort. Headlighting has therefore traditionally entailed a
tradeoff between long-distance visibility and glare prevention. This is
reflected in Standard No. 108's requirement that
[[Page 9917]]
headlighting systems have both upper and lower beams. The existing
headlamp requirements regulate the beam pattern (photometry) of the
upper and lower beams; they ensure sufficient visibility by specifying
minimum amounts of light in certain areas on and around the road, and
prevent glare by specifying maximum amounts of light in directions that
correspond to where oncoming and preceding vehicles would be.
ADB systems are an advanced type of headlamp technology that
optimizes beam patterns without driver action. Semiautomatic beam
switching technology was first introduced on vehicles in the United
States in the 1950s and has become increasingly popular in the last few
decades. The semiautomatic beam switching technology currently
available in the United States (commonly referred to as ``auto hi-
beam'' or ``high beam assist'') automatically switches between the
lower and upper beams. This provides safety benefits because research
has shown that most drivers underutilize the upper beams, and
semiautomatic beam switching facilitates increased upper beam use in
situations where drivers of other vehicles will not be glared.
ADB systems are an improvement over ``auto hi-beam'' technology
currently available in the United States because they are capable of
providing more illumination than a lower beam without increasing glare.
When operating in automatic mode, instead of simply switching between
the upper and lower beams, an ADB system is able to provide a dynamic,
adaptive beam pattern that changes based on the presence of other
vehicles or objects, providing less illumination to occupied areas of
the road and more illumination to unoccupied areas of the road. ADB
systems can therefore provide more illumination than existing lower
beams without glaring other motorists (if operating correctly). ADB
systems achieve this enhanced performance by utilizing advanced
sensors, data processing software, and headlamp hardware.
ADB systems are available in foreign markets but are not currently
offered on vehicles in the United States. This final rule amends FMVSS
No. 108 to permit ADB systems on vehicles in the United States and
ensure that they operate safely. ADB, like other headlamp technologies,
implicates the twin safety needs of visibility and glare prevention.
This final rule does three main things that, taken together, allow ADB
systems and ensure that they meet these safety needs.
First, it amends FMVSS No. 108 to allow ADB systems. It amends,
among other things, the existing headlamp requirements so that ADB
technology is permitted.
Second, this final rule adopts requirements to ensure that ADB
systems do not increase glare to other motorists beyond current lower
beams. ADB systems are capable of providing a variable, adaptive beam
in the presence of other vehicles that provides more illumination than
the currently allowed lower beam. However, if ADB systems do not
accurately detect other vehicles on the road and shade them
accordingly, other motorists will be glared.\1\ The rule addresses this
safety need by including vehicle-level track-test requirements
specifically tailored to evaluate whether an ADB system functions
safely and limits glare for other motorists.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ NHTSA is sensitive to concerns about glare due to the
numerous complaints from the public it has received and its own
research (prompted, in part, by these complaints and a 2005
Congressional mandate to study the risks from glare).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third, it adopts component-level laboratory-tested requirements
related to both glare and visibility, as well as a limited set of other
system requirements, such as requirements for manual override and fail-
safe operation.
In drafting this final rule, NHTSA considered two major regulatory
alternatives. One was the Economic Commission for Europe (ECE)
regulations that apply to ADB systems, including a vehicle-level test
on public roads. However, the ECE road test is not appropriate for
adoption as an FMVSS because it does not provide sufficiently objective
performance criteria. We also considered a Society for Automotive
Engineers (SAE) recommended practice, J3069 JUN2016, Surface Vehicle
Recommended Practice; Adaptive Driving Beam, as well as the updated
version of this practice (published in March 2021). The final rule
follows SAE J3069 in many significant respects, but also differs from
it in significant ways.
NHTSA published the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) preceding
this final rule on October 12, 2018 (83 FR 51766). Many industry
comments to the NPRM urged closer harmonization with SAE J3069. These
comments focused primarily on costs from dis-harmonization due to the
resulting need for market-specific hardware and components. In response
to the comments, NHTSA conducted additional vehicle-level testing to
validate modifications to the proposal to harmonize more closely with
SAE J3069 while still retaining sufficient realism. As a result, NHTSA
has changed some aspects of the proposal. The final rule more closely
conforms to SAE J3069 in a number of respects but continues to deviate
from it for reasons discussed in detail in this preamble.
Differences Between This Final Rule and the Proposal
The following discussion highlights the more noteworthy differences
between the final rule and the NPRM. All changes from the proposal are
discussed in the appropriate sections of this preamble.
Vehicle-Level Track Test To Evaluate Glare
Stimulus test fixtures instead of stimulus vehicles. The final rule
specifies test fixtures instead of stimulus vehicles. This change will
result in a less complex test that is more closely harmonized with SAE
J3069, while still ensuring that ADB systems operate safely. While the
test fixture specifications follow SAE J3069 with respect to the
locations of the photometers and stimulus lamps, the final rule
requires the use of more real-world representative lighting in the
compliance test by specifying original equipment vehicle headlamps and
taillamps.
More efficient test scenarios. The final rule simplifies the number
and complexity of test scenarios. The final rule continues to differ
from SAE J3069 by specifying test scenarios with actual curves because
this is necessary to evaluate how an ADB system would perform in the
real world. We have, however, modified many of the curved-path test
scenarios. NHTSA believes that the final scenarios meet the need for
motor vehicle safety by containing a broad range of realistic road
geometries and vehicle interactions.
Data measurement and allowances. The final rule changes how NHTSA
will measure and evaluate ADB system illuminance. This includes an
added specification for a data filter and replacing the proposed
International Roughness Index parameter with an explicit adjustment for
vehicle pitch.
Component-Level Laboratory Photometric Testing
The final rule retains, in modified form, the proposed requirements
for component-level laboratory testing.
Defining ``adaptive driving beam'' as a new beam type. The final
rule defines a new beam type, ``adaptive driving beam.'' The final rule
also provides manufacturers flexibility to determine when to provide an
area of reduced or unreduced intensity (subject to several requirements
or constraints, such as the
[[Page 9918]]
track test that evaluates glare). This will enable systems to provide
an area of reduced intensity not only to prevent glare to oncoming or
preceding vehicles, but also in other situations in which reduced
intensity would be beneficial.
Requirements for areas of reduced intensity. The final rule follows
the NPRM and specifies the existing lower beam photometric test points
(both minima and maxima). The minima are important because the final
rule does not include any ``false positive'' tests to ensure that an
ADB system does not mistakenly dim the beam in the absence of other
vehicles, and the maxima are necessary to help ensure that other
motorists are not subject to glare beyond that experienced with lower
beams.
Requirements for areas of unreduced intensity. The final rule
follows the NPRM and specifies the existing upper beam photometric test
points (both minima and maxima). Requiring a minimum level of
illumination is important to ensure a minimum level of visibility. The
final rule does not adopt the higher ECE upper beam maxima.
Transition zone. The final rule allows for a 1-degree transition
zone between an area of reduced intensity and an area of unreduced
intensity. The lower and upper beam photometric test points will not
apply within a transition zone (except for the upper beam maximum at H-
V, which still applies). Manufacturers essentially will be free to
determine the areas of reduced and unreduced intensity and, therefore,
the boundaries of the transition zone.
Other System Requirements
The final rule retains many of the proposed system requirements.
However, the minimum activation speed has been decreased from 25 mph to
20 mph to give greater flexibility to manufacturers wishing to provide
for hysteresis in the system design. The final rule also exempts ADB
systems from many of the vehicle headlamp aiming device requirements,
which would add unnecessary costs to ADB systems.
Benefits and Costs
This final rule is not significant and so was not reviewed by OMB
under E.O. 12866. NHTSA has determined that quantifying the benefits
and costs is not practicable in this rulemaking because of limitations
on the agency's ability to accurately estimate the target population
and the effectiveness of ADB. We have, however, identified the problem
this rule is intended to address, considered whether existing
regulations have contributed to the problem, qualitatively assessed the
costs and benefits, and considered alternatives. This final rule
appropriately balances the needs for visibility and glare prevention,
and adopts requirements that are both practicable and sufficient to
assess whether an ADB system operates safely. This final rule does not
require manufacturers to provide ADB systems, but only specifies the
requirements the systems must meet if equipped on vehicles.
II. Background and Safety Need
On October 12, 2018, NHTSA published the NPRM (83 FR 51766)
underlying this final rule. NHTSA is publishing this final rule to set
forth the amendments to FMVSS No. 108 (49 CFR 571.108), summarize the
comments received in response to the proposal, and provide the agency's
responses to those comments.
This section provides a brief introduction to the safety needs
addressed in this rulemaking, ADB technology, the relevant industry and
international standards for ADB systems, the petition for rulemaking
that prompted the NPRM, and related exemption petitions and NTSB
recommendations. For additional detailed background information
(including an explanation of the headlamp photometric requirements and
regulatory history and research efforts related to glare), the reader
is referred to the NPRM.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See pp. 51768-51774.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safety Needs: Visibility and Glare Prevention
Vehicle headlamps primarily satisfy two safety needs: Visibility
and glare prevention. Headlamps illuminate the area ahead of the
vehicle and provide forward visibility.\3\ Headlamp illumination,
however, has the potential to glare other motorists. Accordingly,
headlighting systems have traditionally consisted of lower beams and
upper beams. The lower beams (also referred to as passing beams or
dipped beams) are designed to provide relatively high levels of light
in the close-in forward visibility region, and to provide reduced light
intensity in longer-distance regions, where oncoming or preceding
vehicles would be glared. The lower beams are intended for use during
lower-speed driving or when meeting or closely following another
vehicle. Upper beams (also referred to as high beams, main beams, or
driving beams) are designed to provide relatively high levels of
illumination in both close-in and longer distance regions. They are
intended primarily for distance illumination and for use when not
meeting or closely following another vehicle. (FMVSS No. 108
establishes maximum levels of intensity the upper beam may not exceed.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ They also make the vehicle more visible to other road users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visibility and glare are both related to motor vehicle safety.
Visibility has an obvious, intuitive relation to safety: The better
drivers can see the road, the better they can react to road conditions
and obstacles to avoid crashes. Although the qualitative connection to
safety is intuitive, quantifying the effect of visibility on crash risk
is difficult because of many confounding factors (for example, was a
late-night crash caused by diminished visibility or driver fatigue?).
Still, evidence suggests that diminished visibility likely increases
the risk of crashes, particularly crashes at higher speeds involving
pedestrians, animals, trains, and parked cars.\4\ The NPRM (in Appendix
A) included an analysis estimating the target population that could
benefit from the increased visibility provided by ADB systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Nighttime Glare and Driving Performance, Report to Congress
(2007), National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department
of Transportation [hereinafter ``2007 Report to Congress''], p. 6. A
2016 study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety noted that
``[t]wenty-nine percent of all fatalities during 2014 occurred in
the dark on unlit roads. Although factors such as alcohol impairment
and fatigue contributed to many of these crashes, poor visibility
likely also played a role.'' Ian J. Reagan, Matthew L. Brumbelow &
Michael J. Flannagan. 2016. The Effects of Rurality, Proximity of
Other Traffic, and Roadway Curvature on High Beam Headlamp Use
Rates. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, pp. 2-3 (citations
omitted). See also Michael J. Flannagan & John M. Sullivan. 2011.
Feasibility of New Approaches for the Regulation of Motor Vehicle
Lighting Performance. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, p. 5 (NHTSA-2018-0090-0002) (``The conclusion
of our analysis was that pedestrian crashes were by far the most
prevalent type of crash that could in principle be addressed by
headlighting.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Glare is related to safety because it can degrade important aspects
of driving performance. Glare is a sensation caused by bright light in
an observer's field of view. Headlamp illumination can glare drivers of
oncoming or preceding vehicles (via the rearview or side mirrors).
Empirical evidence suggests that headlamp glare decreases visibility
distance, increases reaction time, and reduces detection probability,
among other things.\5\ It can
[[Page 9919]]
also cause discomfort. Despite this evidence, it remains difficult to
quantify the effect of glare on crash risk. Unlike drug or alcohol use,
there is usually no way to determine precisely the amount of glare that
was present in a given crash. Nevertheless, some police crash reports
mention glare as a potential cause, and it is reasonable to expect that
glare can reduce visibility, and reductions in visibility caused by
headlamp glare increase crash risk.\6\ Discomfort attributable to glare
might also indirectly affect crash risk (for example, if a driver
reacts to glare by changing their direction of gaze).\7\ In addition,
discomfort caused by glare may induce some drivers, particularly older
drivers, to avoid driving at night or simply increase their
annoyance.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 2007 Report to Congress, pp. iv, 11-14. See also, e.g., John
D. Bullough et al. 2003. An Investigation of Headlamp Glare:
Intensity, Spectrum and Size, DOT HS 809 672. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration [hereinafter ``Investigation of Headlamp Glare''], p.
1. (``It is almost always the case that headlamp glare reduces
visual performance under driving conditions relative to the level of
performance achievable without glare.'')
\6\ John D. Bullough et al. 2008. Nighttime Glare and Driving
Performance: Research Findings, DOT HS 811 043. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, p. I-4.
\7\ Id., p. 33. But see Investigation of Headlamp Glare, p. 3
(``Very few studies have probed the interactions between discomfort
and disability glare, or indeed any driving-performance related
factors . . . .'').
\8\ 2007 Report to Congress, p. iv.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The potential problems associated with glare are highlighted by the
thousands of complaints NHTSA has received from the public on the
issue, as well as congressional interest. The introduction of halogen
headlamp technology in the late 1970s and high-intensity discharge and
auxiliary headlamps in the 1990s was accompanied by a marked upswing in
the number of glare complaints to NHTSA. In response to increased
consumer complaints in the late 1990s, NHTSA published a Request for
Comments in 2001 on issues related to glare from headlamps, fog lamps,
driving lamps, and auxiliary headlamps.\9\ NHTSA received more than
5,000 comments, most of which concerned nighttime glare from front-
mounted lamps.\10\ In 2005 Congress directed DOT to study the risks of
glare.\11\ NHTSA subsequently initiated a multipronged research program
to examine the causes of, and possible solutions to, glare.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 66 FR 49594 (Sept. 28, 2001).
\10\ 69 FR 54255 (Sept. 8, 2004).
\11\ Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, Public Law 109-59, Sec. 2015 (2005).
\12\ For more information, see the NPRM at p. 51771.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adaptive Driving Beam Technology
ADB systems are an advanced type of headlamp technology that
optimizes beam patterns without driver action. Semiautomatic beam
switching technology was first introduced on vehicles in the United
States in the 1950s and has become increasingly popular in the last few
decades with the wider deployment of camera-based driver assistance
technologies. The semiautomatic beam switching technology currently
available on vehicles in the United States is commonly referred to as
``auto hi-beam'' or ``high beam assist,'' among other terms. This
currently-available technology automatically switches between the lower
and upper beams (while still allowing the driver to manually switch
beams).\13\ Semiautomatic beam switching enhances safety because it
facilitates increased use of the upper beams in situations where
drivers of other vehicles will not be glared. Research has shown that
most drivers under-utilize the upper beams,\14\ despite the fact that
``driving with lower-beam headlamps can result in insufficient
visibility for a number of driving situations,'' \15\ particularly at
higher speeds.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Under FMVSS No. 108 this technology is classified as a
``semiautomatic beam switching device'' because it provides either
automatic or manual control of switching between the lower and upper
beams at the option of the driver. See S4 (definition of
``semiautomatic headlamp beam switching device'') and S9.4.
\14\ See, e.g., John D. Bullough, Nicholas P. Skinner, Yukio
Akashi, & John Van Derlofske. 2008. Investigation of Safety-Based
Advanced Forward-Lighting Concepts to Reduce Glare, DOT HS 811 033.
Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, p.
63. (finding that ``abundant evidence suggests that most drivers use
lower beams primarily, if not exclusively.'') See also, e.g., Mary
Lynn Mefford, Michael J. Flannagan & Scott E. Bogard. 2006. Real-
World Use of High-Beam Headlamps, UMTRI-2006-11. University of
Michigan, Transportation Research Institute, p. 6 (finding that
``high-beam headlamp use is low . . . consistent with previous
studies that used different methods'').
\15\ Investigation of Safety-Based Advanced Forward-Lighting
Concepts to Reduce Glare (DOT HS 811 033), p. 63.
\16\ Michael J. Flannagan & John M. Sullivan. 2011. Preliminary
Assessment of The Potential Benefits of Adaptive Driving Beams,
UMTRI-2011-37. University of Michigan, Transportation Research
Institute, p. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADB systems are an improvement over the ``auto hi-beam'' technology
currently available in the United States because they are capable of
providing more illumination than a lower beam without increasing glare.
When operating in automatic mode, instead of simply switching between
the upper and lower beams, the ADB system is able to provide a dynamic,
adaptive beam pattern that changes based on the presence of other
vehicles or objects, providing less illumination to occupied areas of
the road and more illumination to unoccupied areas of the road.\17\ The
portions of the adaptive beam directed to areas of the roadway occupied
by other vehicles are at or (for some systems deployed in Europe) even
below levels of a lower beam.\18\ The portions of the adaptive beam
directed at unoccupied areas of the road are typically equivalent to an
upper beam. When the roadway ahead is fully occupied by oncoming or
preceding vehicles, the adaptive beam is essentially a lower beam. When
there are no oncoming or preceding vehicles, the adaptive beam is
essentially an upper beam.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ When operating in manual mode--which the driver may obtain
at any time--the driver is able to switch between the lower and
upper beams.
\18\ SAE J3069 JUN 2016, pp. 1-2.
\19\ There are, however, situations in which it may be
appropriate to provide less than a full upper beam even in the
absence of oncoming or preceding vehicles. For example, it may be
optimal to direct less light at a retroreflective sign or wet
roadway, in order to minimize glare to the driver of the ADB-
equipped vehicle from reflected light. This is discussed in more
detail in Section VIII.D.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, for example, when an ADB-equipped vehicle (operating in
automatic mode) travelling on an otherwise unoccupied roadway
encounters an oncoming vehicle, it switches from an upper beam
providing high light levels in both close-in and longer distance
regions to an adaptive beam providing reduced intensity (similar to a
lower beam) near the oncoming vehicle and unreduced intensity (similar
to an upper beam) elsewhere. Because the system is able to provide
unreduced intensity to unoccupied areas of the roadway, while at the
same time providing reduced intensity to areas near other vehicles, it
provides more illumination than a conventional lower beam would
provide. ADB therefore has the potential to reduce the risk of crashes
by increasing visibility without increasing glare. The adaptive beam is
particularly useful for distance illumination of pedestrians, animals,
and objects in or near the road when other vehicles are present and
thus preclude use of the upper beam.
ADB systems achieve this enhanced performance by utilizing advanced
sensors, data processing software, and headlamp hardware (such as
shutters or LED arrays). Many current ADB systems utilize a camera with
a typical field of view of approximately 25 degrees left and right to
detect objects.\20\ High-resolution ADB systems are capable of
classifying objects and placing optimized levels of light on all
objects in the driver's view (such as
[[Page 9920]]
retroreflective signs or pedestrians). ADB systems typically use the
existing headlamps that are modified either with a mechanical shade
that blocks part of the beam, or (for light-emitting diode [LED]
headlamps) extinguish individual LEDs. The ADB systems NHTSA tested
required the driver to select the ADB mode using the headlighting
system control. Once in ADB mode, the systems were designed to activate
the adaptive beam at speeds between 20 mph and 40 mph and deactivate
the adaptive beam (and provide a lower beam) from 15 mph to 25 mph.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ SAE comment (NHTSA-2018-0090-0167), p. 9 (``The forward
camera vision on today's vehicles only extends to approximately 25
degrees left and right[.]''). We assume this is the camera's field
of view for the illustrative examples in the discussions of the
curve scenarios.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
European ADB Requirements
ADB was first permitted in Europe by amendments to ECE Regulation
No. 48 in 2006.\21\ ECE regulations allow ADB systems under the
umbrella of adaptive front lighting systems (AFS). There are a variety
of requirements for AFS generally and adaptive lighting in particular.
Unlike the FMVSS, which rely on manufacturer self-certification, ECE
requirements for ADB systems utilize the type approval framework used
throughout the ECE standards. Under the type approval framework,
production samples of new model cars must be approved by regulators
before being offered for sale. This approval is based, in part, on
testing whole vehicles on public roadways to verify performance. The
ECE requirements specify that the adaptation of the main-beam not cause
any discomfort, distraction or glare to the driver of the ADB-equipped
vehicle (for example, glare to the driver cause by excessive
illumination of retroreflective signs) or to oncoming and preceding
vehicles. This is demonstrated through the technical service performing
a test drive on various types of roads (e.g., urban, multi-lane roads,
and country roads), at a variety of speeds, and in a variety of
specified traffic conditions. The performance of the ADB system is
evaluated based on the subjective observations of the type approval
engineer during this test drive. The ECE road test is therefore not
appropriate for adoption as an FMVSS because it does not provide
objective performance criteria. However, the proposed track test
scenarios were based, in part, on the ECE road-test scenarios.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Uniform provisions concerning the approval of vehicles with
regard to the installation of lighting and light-signalling devices
(R48) and Regulation No. 123, Uniform provisions concerning the
approval of adaptive front-lighting systems (AFS) for motor vehicles
(R123) of the Economic Commission for Europe (ECE).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SAE J3069
In June 2016, SAE International (SAE) published SAE J3069 JUN2016,
Surface Vehicle Recommended Practice; Adaptive Driving Beam (SAE
J3069).\22\ The recommended practice, which is based, in part, on
NHTSA's research (described in Section VII below), includes (among
other requirements) a track test to evaluate ADB system performance in
avoiding excessive glare to other vehicles. It specifies a straight
test path with a single lane, on either side of which it specifies the
placement of test fixtures simulating an opposing or preceding vehicle.
See Figure 1. The test fixtures are fitted with lamps having a
specified luminous intensity, color, and size intended to simulate the
taillamps and headlamps on a typical car, truck, or motorcycle. Four
different test fixtures are specified: An opposing (i.e., oncoming)
car/truck; an opposing motorcycle; a preceding car/truck; and a
preceding motorcycle. In addition to simulated vehicle lighting, the
test fixtures are fitted with photometers \23\ to measure the
illumination from the ADB headlamps. Although the test does not specify
any scenarios with a curved test path, the placement of the fixtures
relative to the straight test path, along with a sudden appearance
test, are intended to simulate curves.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ SAE has recently published a revised version of this
recommended practice (SAE J3069 MAR2021). These limited revisions,
where potentially relevant to this final rule, are identified and
discussed in subsequent sections of this preamble.
\23\ A photometer, or illuminance meter, is an instrument that
measures light.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22FE22.001
SAE J3069 sets out a total of 18 different test drive scenarios.
The scenarios vary the test fixture, the placement of the fixture, and
whether the lamps on the test fixture are illuminated for the entire
test drive, or are instead suddenly illuminated when the ADB vehicle
reaches a specified distance from the test fixture. During each of
these test drives, the illuminance \24\ recorded at 30 meters (m), 60
m, 120 m, and 155 m must not exceed the maximum allowed illuminance
specified for each distance. See Table 1. These illuminance maxima are
based on and similar (but not identical) to the maximum illuminance
limits developed in NHTSA's published research and proposed in the
NPRM. If there is no recorded illuminance value at any of these
distances, interpolation is used to estimate the illuminance at that
distance. For sudden appearance tests, the system is given a maximum of
2.5 seconds to react and adjust the beam to reduce illumination to a
level within the applicable maximum. If any recorded (or interpolated)
illuminance value exceeds the applicable maximum illuminance, SAE J3069
provides for an
[[Page 9921]]
allowance: The same test drive scenario is run with the lower beam
activated. The ADB system can still be deemed to have passed the test
if any of the ADB exceedances do not exceed 125% of the measured (or
interpolated) illuminance value(s) for the lower beam.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Illuminance is the amount of light falling on a surface.
The unit of measurement for illuminance is lux.
Table 1--SAE J3069 Maximum Allowed Illuminance
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum Maximum
illuminance, illuminance,
Range from headlamp to photometer (m) oncoming preceding
(lux) (lux)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
30...................................... 1.8 18.9
60...................................... 0.7 8.9
120..................................... 0.3 4.0
155..................................... 0.3 4.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the dynamic track test, SAE J3069 contains a number
of other system requirements, such as a physical test (e.g., a
corrosion test) and telltale requirements. It also requires the system
to comply with a limited set of component-level laboratory-based
photometry requirements. For example, for the portion of the adaptive
beam that is directed at areas of the roadway unoccupied by other
vehicles, the lower beam minimum values specified in the relevant SAE
standard must be met.\25\ Specific provisions of SAE J3069 are
discussed in more detail in the responses to the comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ As explained in the NPRM, FMVSS No. 108 also contains
laboratory-based photometric requirements. SAE J3069 refers not to
these requirements, but to analogous requirements specified in other
SAE standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Toyota Petition for Rulemaking, ADB Exemption Petitions, and NTSB
Recommendation
While ADB systems have been available in Europe for a number of
years, they have not yet been deployed in the United States, largely
because of industry uncertainty about whether FMVSS No. 108 allows ADB
systems.\26\ Prior to the NPRM, NHTSA had not formally addressed
whether the lighting standard allows ADB systems. Accordingly, in 2013,
Toyota Motor North America, Inc. (Toyota) petitioned NHTSA for
rulemaking to amend FMVSS No. 108 to give manufacturers the option of
equipping vehicles with ADB systems.\27\ In its petition, Toyota
described how its system works, identified potential safety benefits of
the system, and discussed its view of how ADB should be treated under
the agency's regulations. NHTSA granted Toyota's petition and the NPRM
was NHTSA's action on that grant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ See, e.g., SAE J3069 (``However, in the United States it is
unclear how ADB would be treated under the current Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 108.'').
\27\ Letter from Tom Stricker, Toyota Motor North America, Inc.
to NHTSA (Mar. 29, 2013). Toyota requested confidential treatment
for portions of its submission. A redacted copy of the petition has
been placed in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After receiving Toyota's petition, but prior to the NPRM, NHTSA
received two exemption petitions (under 49 CFR part 555) for ADB-
equipped vehicles. In 2016, Volkswagen Group of America (Volkswagen)
submitted a petition for a temporary exemption from some of the
requirements of FMVSS No. 108 to sell a limited number of ADB-equipped
vehicles. NHTSA published a notice of receipt of this petition on
September 11, 2017, and provided a 30-day comment period.\28\ BMW of
North America, LLC (BMW) subsequently submitted a similar petition,
dated October 27, 2017. On March 22, 2018, NHTSA published a notice of
receipt of the BMW petition and requested additional information from
both petitioners.\29\ Both Volkswagen and BMW subsequently submitted
additional information to the docket. Prior to today, NHTSA has not
made a decision on either petition; as we explain later in the
preamble, NHTSA is denying the petitions in a separate notice published
today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ 82 FR 42720 (Docket No. NHTSA-2017-0018).
\29\ 83 FR 12650 (Docket No. NHTSA-2017-0018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shortly before the NPRM was published in October 2018, the National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) published a special investigation
report that examined pedestrian crashes and related phenomena.\30\ The
report covered, among other things, vehicle headlighting system
performance. The NTSB found that the FMVSS should not limit advanced
vehicle lighting systems that have been shown to have safety benefits.
It also found that vehicle headlighting systems require an evaluation
that is more advanced than laboratory bench-testing. The report went on
to recommend that NHTSA revise FMVSS No. 108 to allow adaptive
headlight systems. This final rule responds to these NTSB
recommendations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ National Transportation Safety Board. 2018. Pedestrian
Safety. Special Investigation Report NTSB/SIR-18/03. Washington, DC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. NHTSA's Statutory Authority
NHTSA is issuing this final rule under the Motor Vehicle Safety Act
(Safety Act), 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, Motor Vehicle Safety (49 U.S.C.
30101 et seq.). Under the Safety Act, the Secretary of Transportation
is responsible for prescribing motor vehicle safety standards that are
practicable, meet the need for motor vehicle safety, and are stated in
objective terms.\31\ ``Motor vehicle safety'' is defined in the Safety
Act as ``the performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment
in a way that protects the public against unreasonable risk of
accidents occurring because of the design, construction, or performance
of a motor vehicle, and against unreasonable risk of death or injury in
an accident, and includes nonoperational safety of a motor vehicle.''
\32\ ``Motor vehicle safety standard'' means a minimum performance
standard for motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment.\33\ When
prescribing such standards, the Secretary must consider all relevant,
available motor vehicle safety information.\34\ The Secretary must also
consider whether a proposed standard is reasonable, practicable, and
appropriate for the types of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment
for which it is prescribed and the extent to which the standard will
further the statutory purpose of reducing traffic accidents and
associated deaths.\35\ The responsibility for promulgation of Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standards is delegated to NHTSA.\36\ The agency
carefully considered these statutory requirements in developing this
final rule. We evaluate this rule with respect to these requirements in
subsequent sections of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ 49 U.S.C. 30111(a).
\32\ 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(9).
\33\ 30102(a)(10).
\34\ 30111(b)(1).
\35\ 30111(b)(3)-(4).
\36\ See 49 CFR 1.95.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. ADB Rulemaking Mandate in the Infrastructure, Investment and Jobs
Act
Congress has recently passed, and the President has signed, the
Infrastructure, Investment and Jobs Act (``IIJA'').\37\ Section 24212
of IIJA contains a mandate for a variety of headlamp rulemakings,
including an ADB rulemaking. Specifically, IIJA requires in paragraph
(b) of Sec. 24212 that ``[n]ot later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall issue a final rule amending
Standard 108'' to, among other things, ``allow for the use on vehicles
of adaptive driving beam headlamp systems.'' Paragraph (a) of Sec.
24212 defines ``adaptive driving beam headlamp'' to mean a headlamp
``that meets the performance requirements specified in SAE
International Standard J3069, published on June 30, 2016.'' Paragraph
(c) of Sec. 24212 states that ``[n]othing in this section precludes
the
[[Page 9922]]
Secretary from--. . . (2) revising Standard 108 to reflect an updated
version of SAE International Standard J3069, as the Secretary
determines to be--(A) appropriate; and (B) in accordance with section
30111 of [the Safety Act].'' Today's final rule satisfies both that ADB
mandate and the core Safety Act requirement that FMVSSs, among other
things, ``meet the need for motor vehicle safety,'' \38\ which, as
explained throughout this notice, would not be met by a standard that
solely codified SAE J3069.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ H.R. 3684 (117th Congress) (2021).
\38\ 49 U.S.C. 30111(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paragraphs (a) and (b) of Sec. 24212, taken together, instruct
NHTSA to amend FMVSS No. 108 to allow ADB systems that at least meet
the requirements of SAE J3069. Paragraph (b) instructs NHTSA to
``amend[ ] Standard 108.'' Standard 108 is an FMVSS, and FMVSSs are
subject to the criteria in Sec. 30111 of the Safety Act, which
include, importantly, meeting the need for motor vehicle safety. The
directive to ``amend[ ] Standard 108'' in paragraph (b) would conflict
with the specification of SAE J3069 in paragraph (a) if SAE J3069 did
not meet the need for safety and NHTSA were limited to allowing any
systems that met that standard. We also do not believe Sec. 24212
means that Congress determined that SAE J3069 satisfies Sec. 30111, as
the codified text does not express this conclusion nor is there such a
finding elsewhere in the IIJA statute or legislative history.
Therefore, reading paragraphs (a) and (b) as requiring NHTSA to amend
FMVSS No. 108 so that ADB systems that meet SAE J3069 can also meet the
requirements of the revised Standard 108 harmonizes the directive in
paragraph (b) to ``amend[ ] Standard 108'' with the specification of
SAE J3069 in paragraph (a). It also harmonizes with the Safety Act, as
well as with the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act,\39\
which, while generally requiring the use of consensus standards,
importantly reserves to an agency the ability to decline using a
consensus standard that it determines does not meet the agency's
governing statutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ Public Law 104-113, 110 Stat. 775 (1996). See Section X,
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the Supreme Court has explained, statutes should be construed
harmoniously, so that ``when two statutes are capable of coexistence,''
they should be construed as each having effect.\40\ The interpretation
taken in this final rule achieves that goal. In contrast, an
interpretation that would require NHTSA to amend the standard to permit
any ADB system conforming to SAE J3069 would be an implicit repeal of
the Safety Act in this instance--and there is a strong presumption
against implied repeals.\41\ As the Supreme Court has repeatedly
pointed out, ``repeals by implication are not favored and will not be
presumed unless the intention of the legislature to repeal is clear and
manifest.'' \42\ Due to this ``relatively stringent standard,'' implied
repeals are ``rare,'' \43\ and have generally been limited to
situations ``where provisions in two statutes are in irreconcilable
conflict, or where the latter Act covers the whole subject of the
earlier one and is clearly intended as a substitute.\44\ But ``in
either case, the intention of the legislature to repeal must be clear
and manifest.'' \45\ Here, Congress has shown no such manifest
intention in Sec. 24212. In particular, as NHTSA had already published
an NPRM tentatively determining that SAE J3069 does not meet the need
for safety, the Agency expects that a Congressional override of this
tentative determination would have been far clearer, given NHTSA's
general authority and role in determining that adequate level of
safety. Moreover, neither of the two categories of repeal by
implication apply here because there is a way to harmonize Sec. 24212
and the Safety Act, and Sec. 24212 does not ``cover the whole subject
matter'' of the Safety Act and is not clearly intended as a substitute.
Therefore, we read paragraphs (a) and (b) to permit NHTSA to amend
FMVSS No. 108 to impose requirements more stringent than SAE J3069 as
long as those requirements are not inconsistent with SAE J3069.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ J.E.M. AG Supply, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred Int'l, Inc., 534
U.S. 124, 143-144 (2001) (``[W]hen two statutes are capable of
coexistence, it is the duty of the courts, absent a clearly
expressed congressional intention to the contrary, to regard each as
effective.'') (quotations and citations omitted).
\41\ See Norman J. Singer & Shambie Singer, 2B Sutherland
Statutory Construction Sec. 51:2 (7th ed.) (``Courts assume that a
legislature always has in mind previous statutes relating to the
same subject when it enacts a new provision. In the absence of any
express repeal or amendment, the new provision is presumed to accord
with the legislative policy embodied in those prior statutes[.]'').
See also, e.g., U.S. v. City of New York, 359 F.3d 83, 98 (2nd. Cir.
2004) (``The courts are not at liberty to pick and choose among
congressional enactments, and when two statutes are capable of co-
existence, it is the duty of the courts, absent a clearly expressed
congressional intention to the contrary, to regard each as
effective.'') (citations and quotations omitted).
\42\ Nat'l Ass'n of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife, 551
U.S. 644, 662 (2007) (quotations, alterations, and citations
omitted). See also, e.g., Branch v. Smith, 538 U.S. 254, 273 (2003)
(``We have repeatedly stated, however, that absent a clearly
expressed congressional intention, repeals by implication are not
favored[.]'') (citations and quotations omitted); Athey v. U.S., 123
Fed. Cl. 42, 52 (2015) (``[T]the law is clear that repeals by
implication are not favored absent clear congressional intent[.]'')
(quotations and citations omitted).
\43\ J.E.M. AG Supply, Inc., 534 U.S. at 142.
\44\ Branch, 538 U.S. at 273 (citations and quotations omitted).
See also, e.g., Carcieri v. Salazar, 555 U.S. 379, 395 (2009)
(same); Nat'l Ass'n of Home Builders, 551 U.S. at 662 (``We will not
infer a statutory repeal unless the later statute expressly
contradict[s] the original act or unless such a construction is
absolutely necessary . . . in order that [the] words [of the later
statute] shall have any meaning at all.'') (quotations and citations
omitted, alterations in original); J.E.M. AG Supply, Inc., 534 U.S.
at 142-43 (``The only permissible justification for a repeal by
implication is when the earlier and later statutes are
irreconcilable.'').
\45\ Radzanower v. Touche Ross & Co., 426 U.S. 148, 154 (1976).
See also N.Y. Republican State Comm. v. SEC, 927 F.3d 499, 507 (D.C.
Cir.2019) (quoting Radzanower).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Next, we do not believe the specific mention of Sec. 30111 in
paragraph (c), and the absence of such an explicit reference to Sec.
30111 in paragraphs (a) or (b), should be read to suggest that Congress
intended the Sec. 30111 criteria to apply only to subsequent revisions
of FMVSS No. 108 (i.e., amendments to FMVSS No. 108 after NHTSA
completes the ADB rulemaking mandated in paragraph (b)). The Agency
acknowledges that, when Congress includes particular language in one
section of a statute and omits it in another section of that statute,
one canon of statutory construction (sometimes referred to as expressio
unius est exclusio alterius) holds that Congress acts intentionally and
purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion.\46\ However, to
begin with, this canon is not clearly applicable here because paragraph
(b) directs the agency to ``amend[ ]'' ``Standard 108.'' Because an
FMVSS is required to meet the Sec. 30111 criteria, paragraph (b)
implicitly references Sec. 30111, including, among other things, the
requirement that the standard meet the need for safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ See, e.g., Cheney Railroad. Co., Inc. v. ICC, 902 F.2d 66,
68 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (``[E]xplicit direction for something in one
provision, and its absence in a parallel provision, implies an
intent to negate it in the second context.'') (quotations and
citations omitted). But see, e.g., Carter v. Office of Workers'
Comp. Programs, 751 F.2d 1398 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (``That maxim has
force, however, only when there is no apparent reason for the
inclusion of one disposition and the omission of a parallel
disposition except the desire to achieve disparate results'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, to construe the reference to Sec. 30111 in paragraph (c)
and the omission of such an explicit reference in paragraph (b) as
implying that the omission in (b) was intentional and evinced a
Congressional intent that the Safety Act not apply to the ADB
rulemaking would be to read paragraph (c) as implicitly repealing the
Safety Act in this instance. Courts have recognized that it is
especially inappropriate to apply the expressio canon when its
application would result in an implied repeal, explaining ``when one
possible
[[Page 9923]]
interpretation of a statutory provision has the potential to render
another provision inert . . . the canon's relevance and applicability
must be assessed within the context of the entire statutory
framework.'' \47\ Accordingly, ``the canon is a poor indicator of
Congress' intent'' when ``counterveiled by a broad grant of authority
contained within the same statutory scheme.'' \48\ A negative
inference, therefore, should only be drawn if there is an ``unambiguous
suggest[ion that] Congress intended to strip'' an agency of its
counterveiling ``broad grant of authority.'' \49\ As we have discussed
above, such an intent is not present here. Further, it would not make
sense to say that Sec. 30111 applies to revisions to the 2016 version
of SAE J3069 but not to the 2016 version itself. And it would be odd to
view paragraph (c) as a limitation on agency authority when it
expressly reserves agency authority. We therefore conclude that
paragraph (c) should not be read to preclude NHTSA from issuing a final
rule that imposes requirements beyond SAE J3069 if the agency concludes
that SAE J3069 does not meet the need for safety under the Safety Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ Adirondack Med. Ctr. v. Sebelius, 740 F.3d 692, 697 (D.C.
Cir. 2014).
\48\ Id.
\49\ Id. at 697-698. See also id. at 697 (``The expressio unius
canon is a feeble helper in an administrative setting, where
Congress is presumed to have left to reasonable agency discretion
questions that it has not directly resolved . . . The dizzying array
of other canons that could shift the analysis one way or another--
e.g., . . . the presumption against implied repeals, militates
against finding unambiguous congressional intent here'') (quotations
and citations omitted). See also, e.g., Cheney Railroad. Co., Inc.
at 69-69 (same); U.S. v. City of New York, 359 F.3d 83, 98 (2nd.
Cir. 2004) (``[S]ince not every silence is pregnant, expressio unius
is an uncertain guide to interpretation.'') (quotations and
citations omitted).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, we are unaware of any instances in which Congress
required NHTSA to issue or amend an FMVSS to enact or incorporate by
reference a consensus standard without reference to the Sec. 30111
criteria. The closest precedent of which we are aware is that the 1966
Safety Act directed NHTSA's predecessor agency to issue initial FMVSS
``based on existing safety standards.'' \50\ Those ``existing
standards'' ``were understood to be the [General Services
Administration] standards then in effect for government vehicles.''
\51\ However, the initial standards were not required to be identical
to those ``existing standards,'' only to be ``based on'' them;
consistent with this, the initial FMVSS did not simply copy existing
standards.\52\ Moreover, the 1966 Act went on to direct that, after
issuing the initial FMVSS, the agency ``shall issue new and revised
Federal motor vehicle safety standards under this title'' within two
years from the enactment of the Act.\53\ This shows, if anything, a
general Congressional preference for providing NHTSA with at least some
discretion over the content of the standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966,
Public Law 89-563, 103(h) (1966) (``The Secretary shall issue
initial Federal motor vehicle safety standards based upon existing
safety standards on or before January 31, 1967. On or before January
31, 1968, the Secretary shall issue new and revised Federal motor
vehicle safety standards under this title.'').
\51\ Jerry L. Mashaw & David L. Harfst, From Command And Control
To Collaboration And Deference: The Transformation Of Auto Safety
Regulation, 34 Yale J. on Reg. 167, 199 n. 106 (2017).
\52\ See, e.g., 32 FR 10812 (July 22, 1967) (NPRM for initial
FMVSS 109) (``In drafting these proposed standards, the Bureau
considered the comments received in response to the Advance Notice
of Proposed Rule Making published in the Federal Register on
February 3, 1967 (32 FR. 2417) and consultation with the National
Motor Vehicle Safety Advisory Council and with representatives of
the Federal Trade Commission, the General Services Administration,
the National Bureau of Standards, and tire and auto industry
associations, both domestic and foreign.'').
\53\ National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966,
Public Law 89-563, 103(h) (1966).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today's final rule is therefore consistent with the Sec. 24212
mandate. The rule amends FMVSS No. 108 to allow for the use of ADB
systems. While NHTSA has modified the proposal to follow SAE J3069 more
closely where warranted, the final rule includes some requirements
(such as test scenarios) not included in SAE J3069. NHTSA has concluded
that these deviations from SAE J3069 are--pursuant to the Safety Act--
necessary for the final rule to meet the need for motor vehicle safety,
because SAE J3069 does not adequately address the safety needs of
visibility and glare prevention. The final rule, however, does not
conflict with ADB systems that meet the performance requirements of SAE
J3069 because a headlamp designed to comply with NHTSA's final rule can
also be designed to conform with SAE J3069. The differences between the
final rule and SAE J3069, as well as our test data on the performance
of ADB systems tested to both the final rule and J3069 are described in
detail throughout this preamble.
V. Summary of the NPRM
Proposed Requirements and Test Procedures
NHTSA tentatively concluded that because ADB technology has the
potential to provide safety benefits in preventing collisions with
pedestrians, animals, and roadside objects--while not increasing
glare--FMVSS No. 108 should be amended to permit it.
NHTSA further tentatively concluded that to ensure ADB systems
operate safely, the standard should be amended to include additional
requirements specific to ADB systems. The existing headlamp
requirements (including the requirements for semiautomatic beam
switching devices) have two features that make them ill-suited to
evaluate ADB performance. First, they are component-level requirements
that involve testing the performance of an individual headlamp in a
laboratory; they do not evaluate the performance of the headlamp system
on the vehicle as it is driven on the road, which is particularly
important for ADB because it adapts to roadway conditions. Second, the
preexisting semiautomatic beam switching device requirements are only
related to which of two beams (upper or lower) are appropriate. They do
not contemplate an adaptive beam that is capable of dynamically
producing many different beam patterns in response to vehicles and
other object in the road. For example, the sensitivity test for
semiautomatic beam switching devices currently tests the ability of the
device to switch between a lower and upper beam when exposed to a light
source in a controlled laboratory setting.
These requirements would accordingly not evaluate the performance
of an ADB system as it adapts the beam when driven on an actual road in
the presence of other vehicles. In particular, because ADB systems use
relatively new technology to dynamically change the beam to accommodate
the presence of other vehicles, they have the potential--if not
designed otherwise--to glare other motorists. This could create safety
risks for those other motorists. We therefore proposed amending the
standard to include vehicle-level track-tested requirements
specifically tailored to evaluate whether an ADB system functions
safely and limits glare for other motorists. We also proposed a set of
component-level laboratory-tested requirements to ensure that ADB
systems always provide adequate visibility; some of these requirements
were also related to glare. Below, we briefly summarize the proposed
requirements. For additional information and detail, the reader is
referred to the NPRM.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ See pp. 51777-51789.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 9924]]
Vehicle-Level Track Test To Evaluate Glare
The centerpiece of the proposal was a vehicle-level track test to
evaluate ADB performance in recognizing and limiting glaring for other
vehicles. We proposed evaluating the performance of an ADB-equipped
vehicle (test vehicle) in a variety of different types of interactions
with either an oncoming or preceding vehicle (referred to as a
``stimulus'' vehicle because it stimulates a response from the ADB
system). The stimulus vehicle would be equipped with sensors near the
driver's eyes (or rearview mirrors) to measure the illuminance from the
ADB headlamps. The illuminance falling on the stimulus vehicle would be
measured and recorded throughout the test run.
To evaluate ADB performance, we proposed a set of maximum allowed
illuminance values (glare limits). These are numeric illuminance values
that would be the maximum illuminance the ADB system would be permitted
to cast on the stimulus vehicle during the track test. See Table 2. We
proposed sampling illuminance values throughout the proposed
measurement ranges (also referred to in this document as measurement
distances). The proposed compliance criterion was that any recorded
illuminance value greater than the applicable glare limit would be
considered a test failure, except that values above the applicable
glare limit lasting no longer than 0.1 second(s) or over a distance of
no longer than 1 m would not be considered test failures. This
adjustment was intended to allow for electric noise in the photometers
(i.e., any electrical signal whose source is not a result of changes in
illuminance) as well as momentary changes in vehicle pitch.
Table 2--Proposed Maximum Illuminance Criteria
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum illuminance
Measurement distance oncoming direction Maximum illuminance
(m) (lux) same direction (lux)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
15.0 to 29.9 3.1 18.9
30.0 to 59.9 1.8 18.9
60.0 to 119.9 0.6 4.0
120.0 to 220 0.3 N/A
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposal specified a broad set of potential stimulus vehicles.
We proposed using any FMVSS-certified vehicle from the five model years
preceding the model year of the test vehicle, subject to a specified
height constraint that was intended to exclude unusually high- or low-
riding vehicles.
We proposed a variety of scenarios to dynamically assess ADB system
performance. We proposed three basic maneuvers for testing compliance:
oncoming (where the test and stimulus vehicles approach each other
traveling in opposite directions); same direction/same lane (where the
stimulus vehicle precedes the test vehicle in the same lane); and same
direction/passing with one vehicle (either the stimulus or test
vehicle) traveling faster than and overtaking the other vehicle. We
also proposed scenarios where the stimulus vehicle was stationary.
We proposed to test each type of maneuver at various test and
stimulus vehicle speeds (from 0 to 70 mph) on both a straight test path
and on left and right curves of varying radii: A ``short'' curve (with
radii from 98 m to 116 m), a ``medium'' curve (223 m to 241 m), and a
``large'' curve (335 m to 396 m). The proposal also included a variety
of related test procedures and conditions, such as adjusting for
ambient light, the condition of the road surface, and the number of
lanes. The proposed glare limits and test procedures were based on
extensive agency research and testing.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ See Section VII, NHTSA Research and Testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Component-Level Laboratory Photometric Testing
The NPRM also proposed component-level laboratory-tested headlamp
photometry requirements for the adaptive beams. We proposed to require
that the part of the adaptive driving beam that is cast near other
vehicles (the area of reduced intensity) must conform to the Table XIX
lower beam photometry requirements (i.e., maxima and minima). We
similarly proposed that the part of the adaptive beam cast onto areas
of the roadway not occupied by other vehicles (area of unreduced
intensity) conform with the Table XVIII upper beam photometric maxima
and minima.\56\ These proposed requirements were intended to act as a
complement to the track test in ensuring other motorists were not
glared (the photometric maxima) and to ensure a minimum level of
visibility (the photometric minima), an aspect not evaluated in the
track test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ While the NPRM used the terms ``dimmed area'' and
``undimmed area,'' this document and the final regulatory text use
the terms ``area of reduced intensity'' and ``area of unreduced
intensity'' to more closely follow the terminology in SAE J3069.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other System Requirements
The standard has long specified a variety of requirements
specifically for semiautomatic beam switching devices (in S9.4.1 and
S14.9.3.11). The proposal extended some but not all of these
requirements to ADB systems.
The proposal extended the existing requirements for manual
override, fail-safe operation (i.e., a failure of the automatic control
portion of the device must not result in loss of manual beam switching
control), and an automatic dimming indicator.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ S9.4.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposal did not extend the existing semiautomatic beam
switching device requirements for lens accessibility or mounting
height. It also did not extend any of the existing physical test
requirements to ADB systems.\58\ These include the sensitivity test
mentioned above, as well as tests such as a corrosion test and a
temperature test. We proposed not subjecting ADB systems to these
requirements for two reasons. First, as noted above, those requirements
date from the 1960s and, accordingly, many of them (such as the
sensitivity test) do not usefully extend to modern ADB technologies.
Second, we tentatively believed that market forces would ensure an ADB
system's switching device will operate robustly with respect to
environmental conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ S14.9.3.11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also proposed additional requirements for ADB systems that are
not currently required for semiautomatic beam switching devices. This
included requirements related to fault detection and a requirement that
the ADB system must produce a lower beam at speeds below 25 mph.
Regulatory Alternatives
The NPRM identified two main alternatives to the proposed
[[Page 9925]]
requirements and test procedures: the ECE ADB requirements and SAE
J3069. As noted earlier, however, the ECE requirements are not
sufficiently objective to be incorporated into an FMVSS. Accordingly,
the main regulatory alternative we considered was SAE J3069.
The proposal followed SAE J3069 in many respects but deviated from
it in several significant ways. These differences are briefly discussed
below and summarized in Table 3. The proposal identified the deviations
from SAE J3069 and provided a tentative justification for those
deviations. The proposal sought comment on the relative merits of the
proposal and SAE J3069 in all of these respects.
Vehicle-level track test to evaluate glare. Both the proposal and
SAE J3069 specified a vehicle-level track test to evaluate glare. The
proposed glare limits were essentially identical to the glare limits in
SAE J3069. The proposed track test, however, significantly differed
from the SAE standard in four main ways: it utilized actual stimulus
vehicles, not test fixtures; it proposed actual curves, not simulated
curves; it included a large set of test scenarios, including scenarios
with a moving stimulus vehicle, and complex vehicle maneuvers (e.g.,
passing scenarios); and, finally, it specified different data
measurement and allowance procedures.
Component-level laboratory photometric testing. The proposal
applied more of the current component-level photometric requirements to
the ADB system to regulate both glare and visibility. With respect to
glare, while we proposed to require that the area of reduced intensity
not exceed the current lower beam maxima, and the area of unreduced
intensity not exceed the current upper beam maxima, SAE J3069 requires
only the former. With respect to visibility, we proposed that the area
of reduced intensity meet the lower beam minima and the area of
unreduced intensity meet the upper beam minima; SAE J3069 only
specifies the lower beam minima for the area of unreduced intensity.
Other system requirements. The proposed telltale and malfunction
requirements were similar to the requirements in SAE J3069. The
proposal mainly differed from SAE J3069 in specifying a minimum
activation speed, and in not applying any physical test requirements to
ADB systems.
Table 3--Summary of Major Differences Between the NPRM and SAE J3069
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Test elements NPRM SAE J3069
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vehicle-level track test to
evaluate glare:
Stimulus........................... Broad range of stimulus vehicles..... Test fixtures.
Test track geometry................ Specifies actual curves of various Specifies a straight path and uses
sizes. fixture placement to simulates
curves.
Test scenarios..................... Specified scenarios with moving and Specified smaller set of less
stationary stimulus vehicles and a complex scenarios.
variety of road geometries.
Data measurement and glare limit Applies the glare limits throughout Applies the glare limits only at 30
applicability. the measurement range specified for m, 60 m, 120 m, and 155 m.
each scenario. Sampling rate of at least 10 Hz.
Sampling rate of at least 200 Hz.....
Compliance criteria................ Specified allowance for momentary Allows measured illuminance to
glare exceedances. exceed an applicable glare limit if
it does not exceed 125% of the
lower beam illuminance under the
same conditions.
Component-level laboratory test:
Area of reduced intensity.......... Specified lower beam (Table XIX) Specifies lower beam maxima.
minima and maxima.
Area of unreduced intensity........ Specified upper beam (Table XVIII) Specifies lower beam minima.
minima and maxima.
Minimum activation speed........... 25 mph............................... Not specified.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI. Overview of Comments
NHTSA received 217 comments on the proposal. This included comments
from 32 vehicle and equipment manufacturers, industry groups,\59\ and
test laboratories, as well as 5 comments from public interest groups.
We also received comments from 19 owner/operators of drive-in movie
theatres, including the United Drive-In Theatre Owners Association. The
balance of the comments was from individual members of the public. An
index of comments cited in this preamble along with the comment
identification numbers is provided in Appendix D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ Global Automakers and the Alliance of Automobile
Manufacturers each commented during the comment period. After the
comment period had ended, they merged to form the Alliance for
Automotive Innovation. The Alliance for Automotive Innovation
subsequently commented on this rulemaking. Comments from each of
these three entities are summarized and identified by reference to
the entity that submitted the comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
All industry and public-interest commenters supported amending the
standard to allow the introduction of ADB systems. A majority of the
industry commenters and the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI)
strongly supported closer harmonization with SAE J3069 (or with the ECE
requirements).\60\ These comments focused primarily on costs from
disharmonization due to the resulting need for market-specific
hardware, components, and/or software. Several commenters argued that
the increased costs associated with the proposal would increase
consumer costs and hinder ADB adoption and the concomitant safety
benefits. Several industry commenters and the Insurance Institute for
Highway Safety (IIHS) stated that the proposal did not maximize overall
benefits because it prioritized glare prevention over enhanced
visibility, and opined that the final rule should place greater weight
on the benefits associated with enhanced visibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ SAE, on behalf of the SAE lighting systems group (which
developed SAE J3069) submitted a detailed comment that touched on
harmonization as well as a variety of other issues. A majority of
industry commenters explicitly supported SAE's comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drive-in theatre owner/operators stressed the importance of the ADB
system providing a means for manual headlamp control. Many indicated
some level of support for the rule (assuming
[[Page 9926]]
it provides for manual control). The majority of comments from
individual members of the public supported the proposal, often on the
grounds that it would likely reduce glare or increase safety. A number
of these commenters noted the availability of this technology in
Europe. Several individuals who opposed the proposal thought that it
would increase glare.
With respect to specific aspects of the proposal, while most
industry and public-interest groups supported a track test, many of
these commenters argued that the specific track test in the proposal
was impracticable and excessively burdensome, especially with respect
to the number and complexity of test scenarios and the use of stimulus
vehicles instead of fixtures. These commenters especially focused on
the broad set of proposed stimulus vehicles. Some industry commenters
also raised concerns with the objectivity and repeatability of the test
procedure. Many industry commenters also opposed the use of a curved
test path; they recommended that curved test paths be simulated with
the placement of test fixtures relative to a straight test path. Many
of these commenters also stated that the final rule should provide less
stringent compliance criteria and provide a greater allowance for
illuminance levels above the proposed glare limits (for example, by
evaluating the ratio of ADB illuminance to lower beam illuminance or
allowing additional time for an ADB system to react to the test
stimulus). Industry commenters also raised issues about other aspects
of the test procedures, such as data filtering and vehicle pitch.
The agency also received comments about the proposed component-
level laboratory test requirements. A few industry commenters
(including SAE) contended that component-level testing is unnecessary,
while some industry members and public-interest groups supported
aspects of the laboratory test requirements. Many industry commenters
pointed out the need for a transition zone between areas of reduced and
unreduced intensity. Multiple industry commenters and some public-
interest commenters recommended not requiring the lower beam minima in
areas of reduced intensity in order to realize the full glare-reducing
potential of ADB technology. Several industry commenters also suggested
specifying the lower beam minima, not the upper beam minima, in areas
of unreduced intensity. Some industry and public-interest commenters
supported increasing the maxima in an area of unreduced intensity to
the higher level allowed in Europe. Several industry commenters
requested NHTSA clarify certain terms in the regulatory text.
We also received comments about other system requirements,
including the minimum ADB activation speed, operator controls,
telltales, and headlamp mounting requirements.
VII. NHTSA Research and Testing
Research Before the NPRM
Two NHTSA research studies formed the basis for the NPRM. (This
research was necessary because, among other things, the current
photometry requirements are laboratory-tested component-level
requirements, not vehicle-level requirements tested on a track.) In
2012, the agency published a study (Feasibility Study) \61\ exploring
the feasibility of new approaches to regulating vehicle lighting
performance, including headlamp photometry. Among other things, the
study presented vehicle-based headlamp photometry requirements derived
from the current component-level photometry requirements in Tables
XVIII (upper beam) and XIX (lower beam). This included vehicle-based
photometry requirements to ensure that other vehicles are not glared.
NHTSA then built on this effort by developing a vehicle-level track
test to evaluate whether an ADB system conforms with the derived
photometry requirements for glare prevention (2015 ADB Test
Report).\62\ For more information on this research, the reader is
referred to the NPRM \63\ and the docketed research reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ Michael J. Flannagan & John M. Sullivan. 2011. Feasibility
of New Approaches for the Regulation of Motor Vehicle Lighting
Performance. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA-2018-0090-0002). See also 77 FR 40843 (July
11, 2012) (request for comments on the report).
\62\ Elizabeth Mazzae, G.H. Scott Baldwin, Adam Andrella, &
Larry A. Smith. 2015. Adaptive Driving Beam Headlighting System
Glare Assessment, DOT HS 812 174. Washington, DC: National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA-2018-0090-0003).
\63\ See NPRM, pp. 51773-51774.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research After the NPRM
After reviewing the comments on the NPRM, NHTSA explored
opportunities to modify the proposal to resemble SAE J3069 more
closely, while at the same time retaining a sufficient degree of
realism the agency believes the SAE standard lacks. Most significantly,
NHTSA explored using stationary test fixtures instead of dynamic
stimulus vehicles. NHTSA developed and fabricated test fixtures that
were similar to the fixtures specified in SAE J3069 but differed in
some important respects (this is discussed below). NHTSA developed a
modified version of the NPRM test procedure (including a simplified set
of test scenarios) using the test fixtures. NHTSA then carried out a
series of preliminary and full-scale vehicle tests to develop and
validate those test procedures. Those test procedures are the same test
procedures specified in this final rule. The research also documented
testing details to support the laboratory test procedure manual that
will be used by NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC).\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ The OVSC laboratory procedures are not part the regulatory
text. Published separately by OVSC, they are intended to provide
laboratories contracted by NHTSA with additional guidelines for
obtaining compliance test data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA used the following three vehicles in the test program.
<bullet> 2019 Ford Fusion equipped with FMVSS-certified halogen
headlamps;
[cir] Selected because it was a high-sales vehicle with halogen
headlamps compliant with FMVSS No. 108, and the vehicle was readily
available at NHTSA's Vehicle Research and Testing Center (VRTC).
<bullet> 2016 Volvo XC90 equipped with FMVSS-certified LED
headlamps;
[cir] Selected because it was equipped with LED headlamps rated
``Acceptable'' by IIHS, and the vehicle was readily available at
NHTSA's VRTC.
<bullet> 2018 Lexus NX300 (European mass production model) equipped
with ADB LED headlamps modified by the manufacturer to be consistent
with a visually optically aligned right (VOR) beam pattern used in the
United States.
[cir] Selected because it was equipped with an ADB system, modified
to project lower and upper beam patterns compliant with FMVSS No. 108.
Preliminary Test Development and Validation
NHTSA created a test fixture to accommodate both the NHTSA and SAE
test procedures. The test fixture positioned a vertical array of
illuminance meter light sensors (i.e., receptor heads) in specified
positions and provided accurate positioning for the various NHTSA and
SAE lamp configurations. The configurations included stimulus lamps
specified in today's final rule: MY 2018 Ford F-150 headlamps and
taillamps, MY 2018 Toyota Camry headlamps and taillamps, and a MY 2018
Harley Davidson motorcycle taillamp,\65\ and the lamps
[[Page 9927]]
specified in SAE J3069 intended to simulate headlamps and taillamps.
This single test fixture was able to accommodate needed light sensor
configurations for both oncoming and same direction test scenarios.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ To represent a motorcycle headlamp, this testing used a
5.75 inch bullet headlamp kit from a 2018 Harley Davidson Roadster
using an HB2 replaceable light source (part #68593-06). After this
testing and before the publication of this final rule, that part
went out of production and has been replaced with part #68297-05B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As an important initial step as part of the research, NHTSA
evaluated the stability of the measured illuminance values without a
test vehicle present to determine the level of noise (if any) in the
measurement system that was not dependent on the vehicle being tested.
For each stimulus lamp condition, illuminance data were recorded for a
period of 30 seconds in typical test conditions. The results indicated
that both the analog and digital data, measured at frequency over time,
demonstrated low standard deviations for each of the receptor heads for
each of the ten test lamp conditions, suggesting very little system
noise or fluctuation from ambient conditions. In fact, each lamp
condition had at least two receptor heads that exhibited no variability
(standard deviation = 0) in the digital data. Thus, the illuminance
meter outputs appeared to be stable.
Testing of the three vehicle models with headlighting systems
operating in lower beam mode showed that the measurement system and the
headlamp types tested, halogen and LED, were compatible with the test
equipment (i.e., no abnormalities in measurements were observed based
upon the type of headlighting system).
NHTSA performed tests to assess whether test scenarios could be
executed with sufficiently steady vehicle dynamics such that, in lower
beam mode, headlamp illumination measured during the dynamic test
scenario would match that measured in the same location with the
vehicle stationary. Measured illuminance and pitch data values were
extracted for both dynamic and static test trials at specific scenario
path points corresponding to an end of a glare limit distance range.
This study found that dynamically-influenced variation was not a major
contributor to variability in the test. Pitch was found to have a major
influence on illuminance measurements; however, the sources of pitch
variance were primarily static in nature (resulting from waviness in
the track pavement) and not dynamic (acceleration, or dynamic
oscillations).
Full-Scale Validation Testing
After successfully completing this preliminary evaluative testing,
NHTSA proceeded to validate the final test procedure by performing
three sets of full-scale tests.
In the first set of tests, the ADB-equipped Lexus NX300 was
subjected (in ADB mode) to the final rule test procedure as well as the
SAE test procedure. We also evaluated ADB system performance using a
full F-150 vehicle as a stimulus instead of a test fixture. In general,
the ADB system installed on the tested vehicle responded similarly to
the test fixture as it did to the full stimulus vehicle.
In the second set of tests, the agency subjected all three test
vehicles with headlighting systems operating in lower beam mode to the
NHTSA ADB test procedure. Measured illuminance values were evaluated
with respect to the glare limit criteria. The lower beams of the Ford
Fusion had passing results below the glare limits in all test
scenarios, while the lower beams of the Lexus NX300 did not pass
several of the test scenarios when illuminance values were compared to
the glare limits. The Volvo lower beams performed well under the limits
for the straight and left curve scenarios, but exceeded the limits
finalized today for the right curves.
In the third set of validation tests, the agency conducted a series
of tests using the 2016 Volvo XC90 with the lower beams activated to
determine the repeatability of measured illuminance values and test
outcomes for both the final rule and SAE test procedures. Testing
involving multiple runs of each test scenario was conducted to permit
different types of repeatability analyses, including same night
(gauge); different night (test procedure); and different headlamp
aiming technician (reproducibility). The repeated testing was performed
to support an assessment of the repeatability of measured illuminance
values and test outcomes for the final rule's ADB test procedure (as
well as the SAE test procedure). A summary of the agency's
repeatability analysis is presented in Section VIII.C.11. The full
results of NHTSA's test procedure repeatability and reproducibility
analyses are detailed in the repeatability report docketed with this
final rule.\66\ The test procedures reported in that document are the
same as the procedures used in the first and second sets of validation
tests described above. NHTSA is also docketing a full test report more
fully describing the agency's testing.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ Mazzae, E.N., Baldwin, G.H.S., Satterfield, K., & Browning,
D.A. 2021. Adaptive Driving Beam Headlamps Test Repeatability
Assessment. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration.
\67\ Mazzae, E.N., Baldwin, G.H.S., Satterfield, K., Browning,
D.A., & Andrella, A.T. 2021. Adaptive Driving Beam Headlighting
Systems Rulemaking Support Testing. Washington, DC: National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VIII. Final Rule and Response to Comments
A. Summary of the Final Rule and Modifications to the NPRM
The major components of the final rule are summarized below,
including the most significant differences between the final rule and
the NPRM. Less significant changes are discussed in the appropriate
sections of the preamble.
Vehicle-Level Track Test To Evaluate Glare
The final rule retains the track test but departs from the proposal
in a few ways.
Stimulus test fixtures instead of stimulus vehicles. The final rule
specifies the use of test fixtures instead of stimulus vehicles. This
change will result in a less complex test more closely harmonized with
SAE J3069, while still ensuring that ADB systems operate safely. While
the test fixture specifications follow the SAE J3069 specifications
with respect to the locations of the photometers and stimulus lamps,
the final rule requires the use of more real-world representative
lighting by specifying original equipment vehicle headlamps and
taillamps.
More efficient test scenarios. The final rule substantially
simplifies the number and complexity of test scenarios. Because the
final rule specifies stimulus test fixtures and not stimulus vehicles,
all scenarios involving a moving stimulus vehicle (e.g., passing
scenarios) were eliminated. While the final rule retains oncoming and
preceding scenarios \68\ with a curved test path, the agency modified
the measurement distances and eliminated some scenarios entirely
because they were deemed unnecessary. With respect to oncoming
scenarios, the straight and large left curve scenarios are retained
essentially as proposed, and the short-radius right curve scenario has
been eliminated. The final rule retains scenarios with other proposed
curves but truncates the distances at which ADB illuminance is
evaluated. With respect to preceding glare scenarios, the final rule
retains (with truncated measurement distances) the straight and medium
left curve scenarios. These modifications, summarized in Table 4,
respond to comments that expressed concern about the complexity of the
proposed testing. NHTSA believes that
[[Page 9928]]
the finalized test scenarios meet the need for motor vehicle safety by
containing a broad range of realistic road geometries--including
curves--and vehicle interactions while addressing possible
redundancies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ The final rule regulatory text uses the terms ``same
direction'' and ``opposite direction'' to reflect that the final
rule uses fixtures and not stimulus vehicles.
Table 4--Summary of Modifications to the Proposed Track Test Scenarios
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM Final rule
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stimulus Test Test
Measurement vehicle vehicle Radius (size- Final Measurement vehicle Radius (size-
NPRM test # distance (m) speed speed direction) \69\ test # distance (m) speed direction) \70\
(mph) (mph) (mph)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oncoming (adjacent lane):
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1........................... 15-220 60-70 60-70 Straight............ ......... Dropped
------------------------------------------------
2........................... 15-220 0 60-70 Straight............ 1 15-220 60-70 Straight
------------------------------------------------
5a.......................... 15-220 25-30 25-30 Small--R............ ......... Dropped
5b.......................... 15-220 25-30 25-30 Small--L .........
6a.......................... 15-220 0 25-30 Small--R .........
------------------------------------------------
6b.......................... 15-220 0 25-30 Small--L............ 2 15-59.9 25-30 Small--L
------------------------------------------------
7a.......................... 15-220 40-45 40-45 Med--R ......... Dropped
7b.......................... 15-220 40-45 40-45 Med--L .........
------------------------------------------------
8a.......................... 15-220 0 40-45 Med--R.............. 5 15-50 40-45 Med--R
------------------------------------------------
8b.......................... 15-220 0 40-45 Med--L.............. 3 15-150 40-45 Med--L
------------------------------------------------
11a......................... 15-220 50-55 50-55 Large--R ......... Dropped
11b......................... 15-220 50-55 50-55 Large--L .........
------------------------------------------------
N/A......................... N/A N/A N/A N/A................. 6 15-70 50-55 Large--R
------------------------------------------------
N/A......................... N/A N/A N/A N/A................. 4 15-220 50-55 Large--L
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Same Direction Same Lane:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1........................... 15-220 60-70 60-70 Straight ......... Dropped
5a.......................... 15-220 25-30 25-30 Small--L .........
5b.......................... 15-220 25-30 25-30 Small--R .........
7a.......................... 15-220 40-45 40-45 Med--L .........
7b.......................... 15-220 40-45 40-45 Med--R .........
11a......................... 15-220 50-55 50-55 Large--L .........
11b......................... 15-220 50-55 50-55 Large--R .........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Same Direction Adjacent Lane
Fast ADB:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2........................... 15-119.9 0 60-70 Straight............ 7 15-100 60-70 Straight
------------------------------------------------
3........................... 15-119.9 40-45 60-70 Straight............ ......... Dropped
6a.......................... 15-119.9 0 25-30 Small--R .........
6b.......................... 15-119.9 0 25-30 Small--L .........
8a.......................... 15-119.9 0 40-45 Med--R .........
------------------------------------------------
8b.......................... 15-119.9 0 40-45 Med--L.............. 8 15-100 40-45 Med--L
------------------------------------------------
9a.......................... 15-119.9 30-35 40-45 Med--R.............. ......... Dropped
9b.......................... 15-119.9 30-35 40-45 Med--L .........
13a......................... 15-119.9 40-45 50-55 Large--R .........
13b......................... 15-119.9 40-45 50-55 Large--L .........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Same Direction Fast Stimulus:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4........................... 30-119.9 60-70 40-45 Straight............ ......... Dropped
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data measurement and allowances. The final rule makes some changes
to how NHTSA will measure and evaluate ADB system illuminance. NHTSA
has added a specification for a data filter. It has deleted the
proposed International Roughness Index parameter and replaced it with
an explicit adjustment for vehicle pitch. The proposed 0.1 second (or 1
m) allowance for momentary glare exceedances has been modified by
deleting the distance component and more clearly specifying how this
adjustment will be applied. The final rule also includes additional
specifications for the photometer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ Small = 98 m-116 m; Med = 223 m-241 m; Large = 335 m-396 m.
\70\ Small = 85 m-115 m; Med = 210 m-250 m; Large = 335 m-400 m.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Component-Level Laboratory Photometric Testing
The final rule retains the proposed requirements for component-
level laboratory testing but has modified them to give manufacturers
greater design flexibility.
Defining ``adaptive driving beam'' as a new beam type. The final
rule defines a new beam type, an ``adaptive driving beam,'' as ``a beam
consisting of area(s) of reduced intensity, unreduced intensity, and
transition zone(s).'' We eliminated the proposed regulatory text that
referred to an area of reduced intensity as being ``designed to be
directed towards oncoming or preceding vehicles'' and to an area of
unreduced
[[Page 9929]]
intensity as being directed ``in other directions.'' The final rule is
intended to provide manufacturers flexibility to decide which portions
of the roadway will receive an area of reduced or unreduced intensity,
subject to several requirements or constraints (such as the track test
that evaluates glare). This will enable systems to provide an area of
reduced intensity not only to prevent glare to oncoming or preceding
vehicles, but also in other situations in which reduced intensity would
be beneficial (for example, towards retroreflective signs, or on a wet
roadway).
Transition zone. In response to comments, the final rule also
allows for a 1-degree transition zone between an area of reduced
intensity and an area of unreduced intensity.
Requirements for areas of reduced intensity. The final rule retains
the requirement that an area of reduced intensity not exceed the lower
beam maxima in order to help ensure that other motorists are not
subject to glare. It also continues to require that an area of reduced
intensity meet the lower beam minima; NHTSA believes this requirement
is important because neither the proposal nor the final rule include
any ``false positive'' tests to ensure that an ADB system does not
mistakenly dim the beam in the absence of any oncoming or preceding
vehicles.
Requirements for areas of unreduced intensity. The final rule
follows the NPRM and specifies the existing upper beam minima and
maxima. In response to comments that suggested not specifying the upper
beam minima in this area (in order to allow less illumination in
situations in which it would be appropriate, such as towards a
retroreflective sign), we have, as explained above, eliminated the
proposed regulatory text that implied that an area of unreduced
intensity should be directed towards areas of the roadway not occupied
by other vehicles. This will allow manufacturers to design systems that
provide an area of reduced intensity to areas of the road that are not
occupied by other vehicles but for which it may be appropriate to
provide less illumination than would be required by the upper beam
minima.
As was proposed, the final rule does not adopt the higher ECE upper
beam maxima. While NHTSA agrees with the commenters that higher
intensity upper beams might lead to potential safety benefits in the
form of increased visibility in the absence of other road users, the
agency remains concerned about the associated potential safety
disbenefits, due to increased glare, that might result from higher
intensity upper beams, particularly in situations in which an ADB
system might not recognize and shade other vehicles.
Other System Requirements
ADB minimum activation speed. The final rule retains a minimum
activation speed but this has been decreased from 25 mph to 20 mph to
give greater flexibility to manufacturers wishing to provide for
hysteresis in the system design.
Exemption from some horizontal aimability performance requirements.
The final rule amends the headlamp horizontal aimability performance
requirements to exempt ADB systems from many of the vehicle headlamp
aiming device (VHAD) requirements. These requirements are not necessary
for ADB systems and exempting ADB systems will lower costs and
facilitate ADB deployment in the United States.
B. Interpretation of FMVSS No. 108 as Applied to ADB Systems
Prior to the publication of the NPRM, NHTSA had not directly
addressed whether FMVSS No. 108 permits ADB systems. In the NPRM, we
tentatively concluded that ADB systems are not currently permitted
under the standard because they are part of the required headlamp
system, and, as such, would not comply with at least some of the
headlamp requirements.\71\ We included this tentative interpretation in
the NPRM because some manufacturers had argued that ADB systems should
be considered supplemental lighting.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ For a more detailed discussion, see NPRM, 83 FR 51774-
51777.
\72\ FMVSS No. 108 specifies, for each class of vehicle,
required and optional (if-equipped) lighting elements. The standard
sets out various performance requirements for the required and
optional lighting elements. The standard also allows vehicles to be
equipped with lighting not otherwise regulated as required or
optional equipment. This type of lighting equipment is referred to
as ``supplemental'' or auxiliary lighting. Supplemental lighting is
permitted if it does not impair the effectiveness of lighting
equipment required by the standard. S6.2.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the NPRM we went on to also consider the status of ADB
technology if we were, instead, to consider it supplemental equipment.
We concluded that this still might not obviate the need for this
rulemaking because it would be difficult for NHTSA to verify that the
system did not impair the effectiveness of any of the required
lighting. That is, whether an ADB system is functioning properly
depends on whether it accurately detects oncoming and preceding
vehicles in actual operation on the road, and there would be no way to
test this under FMVSS No. 108 as the standard had existed prior to this
final rule.
Comments
Several commenters (General Motors, LLC [GM], American Honda Motor
Co., Inc. [Honda], Global Automakers [Global], Ford Motor Company
[Ford], and the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers [Alliance])
disagreed with NHTSA's proposed interpretation, and contended that ADB
systems should be considered supplemental lighting.
Agency Response
The interpretation set out in the NPRM (which concerned the version
of the standard in effect prior to this final rule) is now moot because
the final rule amends the standard to expressly allow and regulate ADB
systems. For the same reason, ADB systems can no longer be considered
(as suggested by the commenters) ``supplemental'' lighting because the
rule amends the standard to expressly allow ADB systems, while at the
same time subjecting them to a variety of requirements expressly
intended for and unique to these systems.\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\73\ The interpretation set out in the NPRM assumed that the
adaptive beam would always be a ``lower beam'' under the version of
the standard predating this final rule because a ``lower beam'' is
defined in the standard as ``a beam intended to illuminate the road
and its environs . . . when meeting or closely following another
vehicle.'' This assumed that in the absence of other vehicles ADB
systems would provide a full upper beam, and not an adaptive beam.
However, some of the commenters pointed out that an adaptive beam
(i.e., less than a full upper beam) might also be provided in the
absence of other vehicles (for example, in order to minimize glare
to the driver from retroreflective signs). As we explain later in
this preamble, the final rule allows for this type of beam design.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Track Testing Requirements and Procedures
1. Practicability of Proposed Test Scenarios
The NPRM proposed a wide range of track test scenarios, including a
large set of potential stimulus vehicles, varying road geometries
(curves, straight paths), and varying vehicle speeds.\74\ NHTSA
tentatively concluded that the proposed ranges of stimulus vehicles and
test scenarios were appropriate to ensure that an ADB system functions
robustly
[[Page 9930]]
and avoids glaring other drivers in a wide variety of real-world
circumstances. The agency explained its concerns about a test procedure
permitting an ADB system designed to accommodate only a narrow range of
vehicles and explained that the proposed scenarios would require ADB
systems to be able to negotiate a variety of real-world conditions.
NHTSA tentatively concluded that the proposed testing was practicable
but acknowledged that certain scenarios might be challenging for some
ADB systems. The agency also explained its decision not to propose some
common scenarios. For example, we explained that the proposal did not
include testing ADB performance when approaching a vehicle at an
intersection oriented perpendicular to the ADB vehicle's direction of
travel because existing ADB systems would have a difficult time meeting
the performance criteria in such scenarios and the magnitude and effect
of glare in this situation would be relatively minimal (because the
vehicle illuminated by the ADB system would be stopped or preparing for
a stop).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\ The test matrix specifies ranges for the various test
parameters. Other provisions in the final regulatory text also
specify ranges of values at which various testing parameters may be
set. The larger the range of values, the broader the parameters for
which the vehicle much perform. Where a range of values is
specified, the vehicle must be able to meet the requirements at all
values within the range. In addition, the word ``any,'' used in
connection with a range of values or set of items in the
requirements, conditions, and procedures of an FMVSS means generally
the totality of the items or values, any one of which may be
selected by the agency for testing. See 49 CFR 571.4, Explanation of
Usage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments
The agency received a number of comments on the practicability of
the proposed test scenarios. Many of the commenters, including many
vehicle and equipment manufacturers and trade associations, agreed with
the need for track testing, but most stated that the proposed testing
was unnecessarily broad and impracticable. Intertek supported a more
rigorous dynamic roadway test than specified in SAE J3069, but stated
that the full set of proposed scenarios may not be necessary and
estimated testing costs to be two-to-four times higher than testing to
SAE J3069. Consumer Reports and IIHS also supported a vehicle-level
track test but stated that the proposed track test was too broad. Many
industry members (Honda, Global, GM, SAE, Competitive Enterprise
Institute (CEI), Toyota, Alliance, Mobileye, OSRAM Sylvania Inc.
(OSRAM), the Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association (MEMA),
Infineon Technologies Americas Corp. (Infineon), Valeo Lighting Systems
(Valeo), and NAFA Fleet Management Association (NAFA)) supported the
use of SAE J3069, which includes a more limited track test, and/or
specifically supported a more limited track test than proposed.
Commenters made a variety of arguments for why they believed the
proposed track test was not practicable.
A number of commenters \75\ stated that the proposed track test was
not practicable because of the number and complexity of the proposed
scenarios. For example, SAE stated that testing over 34 different
maneuvers on various road geometries with multiple variations is
excessive and not practicable. IIHS similarly commented that the number
of scenarios could be reduced to a more manageable set without
sacrificing the tests' ability to identify systems unable to adequately
mitigate glare. IIHS estimated that testing every scenario with all
four types of stimulus vehicle would require 272 tests, and that
testing at different speeds would require even more tests. Toyota
estimated that the proposal resulted in 10,000 possible test scenarios.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ These were MEMA, IIHS, Toyota, Alliance, SAE, Auto
Innovators, Honda, Global, Valeo, Volkswagen, the International
Organization of Motor Vehicle Manufacturers (OICA), GM, Ford, and
the Transportation Safety Equipment Institute (TSEI).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several commenters claimed that the proposal would necessitate
testing capabilities beyond those available at existing test
facilities. The Alliance for Automotive Innovation (Auto Innovators)
conducted a series of tests based on the proposed scenarios and
commented that it found that the proposed scenarios were unnecessary
and beyond the capabilities of many proving grounds. Volkswagen, the
Alliance, Valeo, and Auto Innovators commented that the proposed test
scenarios necessitated test tracks with characteristics (e.g.,
specified radii of curvature, road surface conditions, test track
length necessary for attaining specified speeds) that were not within
the capabilities of existing proving grounds. SAE, Auto Innovators,
OICA and the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT)
contended that the proposed track test would necessitate data
measurement capabilities beyond those which are currently available at
test facilities, with Auto Innovators arguing that the proposal would
require up to 476 data elements. Auto Innovators also commented that
the amount of time needed for data collection and processing was longer
than expected, and it recommended that NHTSA develop software or other
compliance tools to expedite data processing. To address these issues,
Auto Innovators recommended (among other things) adopting fixed
lighting stimuli, limiting the number of eligible stimulus vehicles,
and limiting the number and complexity of test scenarios.
A few commenters suggested eliminating redundant scenarios and/or
testing only the most stringent scenarios. Auto Innovators suggested
that by adopting the most stringent test scenarios at the extremes of
the testing range, the intermediate tests could be eliminated. For
example, Auto Innovators suggested only specifying straight and small-
radius curve scenarios because the small-radius curve was the most
stringent test with 46 failures out of 127 valid test runs (36.2%
failure rate), while the failure rates for the straight, mid, and large
radius test scenarios were 26.6%, 26.7%, and 22.4%, respectively. IIHS
stated that while the volume of proposed test scenarios might be
justified if each scenario presented substantially different conditions
for the ADB system, that is not the case with the proposal; an
algorithm based on a camera sensor has limited ability to compute
distance and vehicle type solely using another vehicle's headlamps or
taillamps. For example, from the camera's perspective, a larger vehicle
farther away will look the same as a smaller vehicle at a closer
distance. As a result, ADB algorithms will be designed to the boundary
cases of the range of scenarios NHTSA finalizes, which should allow the
intermediate scenarios to be eliminated.
The Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA) commented that
the NPRM did not consider the significant barriers and expense of the
proposal on the heavy-duty market. EMA stated that the heavy-duty
market presents unique challenges for ADB development because of the
wide variation of potential vehicle configurations due to extensive
customization and low volume.\76\ EMA commented that these varied
configurations determine the height and angle of the vehicle, and in
the case of incomplete vehicles the angle of the chassis may change
upon completion of the vehicle by a body-builder. EMA also commented
that performing track-level testing on hundreds of vehicle
configurations would be cost-prohibitive, and track-testing facilities
are not readily accessible to manufacturers. EMA also commented that
the NPRM did not include any data specific to heavy-duty vehicles and
stated that such testing would be necessary before finalizing the rule.
EMA stated it was unable to fully evaluate the proposal due to the
immaturity of ADB technology for the heavy-duty market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\ EMA also commented about the impact of the driver's eye
point and sensor positions in heavy-duty vehicles, but NHTSA was
unsure of the meaning of this comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 9931]]
Global commented that NHTSA should justify the fact that the
proposal was more stringent than the current semiautomatic beam
switching device requirements (which are limited to a test of the
``camera'' device and do not test the overall system).
Agency Response
NHTSA agrees that the proposal included redundant scenarios and
that the final rule can more closely follow SAE J3069 without
sacrificing the robustness of the test. The final rule specifies
stationary test fixtures outfitted with vehicle lamps instead of
dynamic stimulus vehicles. The test fixture specifications are similar
to those specified in SAE J3069, but differ by specifying original
equipment vehicle lamps. Accordingly, the final rule eliminates all
scenarios involving a moving stimulus vehicle.
NHTSA also modified the specified road geometries. The final rule
retains scenarios with actual curves. However, considering lower beam
and ADB system capabilities, NHTSA has narrowed down the curve
scenarios by eliminating the short right-curve scenario and truncating
the measurement distances for all but the large left curve scenario.
NHTSA similarly modified the measurement distance for the preceding
scenarios. We believe that the final test scenarios are sufficient to
determine whether an ADB system prevents glare to other motorists. The
reasons for these modifications are discussed in more detail in Section
VIII.C.8, Test Scenarios and Section VIII.O, Regulatory Alternatives.
The agency narrowed down the test scenarios by identifying aspects
of performance that an acceptable ADB system should meet and choosing
scenarios that would be the most challenging with respect to those
aspects of performance. For example, the final rule includes a same-
direction left curve scenario in order to test the ability of an ADB
system to recognize dim red lamps at wide angles.
However, the agency's testing showed that it was not possible to
identify a radius of curvature (e.g., shortest) that would necessarily
present a ``worst-case'' for all aspects of an ADB system. For example,
with the oncoming car/truck test fixture outfitted with the Camry
headlamps on a left curve, the shorter-radius curve was, in fact, more
challenging for the ADB system used for testing as evidenced by the
fact that it nearly exceeded the glare limit. See Figure 2.\77\
However, when tested with the preceding motorcycle fixture in a left
curve test scenario, the ADB system tested failed the test on a larger-
radius curve but passed the test on a smaller-radius curve. See Figure
3. On the larger-radius curve, the system failed to recognize the
motorcycle taillamp for the entirety of the test (the detectors are
saturated at the end of the test, so it is not possible to interpret
the results from 30 m-15 m). This suggests that a variety of test
scenarios, including a range of different curves, are needed to test
the variety of factors that contribute to a properly-performing ADB
system. While in many instances, shorter-radius curves will be a worst-
case scenario, the agency does not believe such curves will necessarily
represent the worst-case for all ADB systems; complexities in the
recognition system can create a far more complex set of test results.
The final rule therefore retains curves with a range of radii of
curvature.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\77\ The agency saw a similar result in its 2015 data. See
Adaptive Driving Beam Headlighting System Glare Assessment, DOT HS
812 174, August 2015, NHTSA U.S. Department of Transportation, p.168
(Fig. 74). The vehicles tested as part of that research demonstrated
a similar performance with respect to curve radius and closing
speed. The glare was higher for the moving stimulus vehicle as
compared to a stationary one.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22FE22.002
[[Page 9932]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22FE22.003
NHTSA implemented the finalized test scenarios using readily-
available photometric measurement and processing equipment.
Accordingly, the agency has concluded that it is within the
capabilities of current testing facilities to test to the final
requirements.
The agency is not persuaded by EMA's comments regarding heavy-duty
vehicles. Because ADB systems are not required, heavy-duty vehicle
manufacturers may take time to fully develop ADB technologies for use
on these vehicles. Moreover, while the development of ADB systems for
heavy-duty vehicles is less mature than for passenger cars, the agency
does not believe these challenges to be insurmountable, or that meeting
the requirements of this final rule is impracticable. There are a few
reasons for this. First, the ability of the ADB system to dynamically
track other vehicles is independent of the specific characteristics of
the ADB-equipped vehicle, so the fact that the ADB system would be on a
heavy-vehicle would not be consequential. Second, the test procedures
specify that NHTSA will aim the headlamps on the test vehicle according
to the manufacturer's instructions, which provides manufacturers with a
means to mitigate the effects of chassis-specific features that might
affect system performance by establishing chassis-specific aim
specifications. Third, the final rule's extensive modifications to the
proposed track test, resulting in a streamlined set of test scenarios,
should also help address concerns about heavy-vehicle testing.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\78\ We also note that NHTSA was unable to perform testing on
heavy-duty vehicles because it was not aware of any such vehicles
that are ADB-equipped. In any case, for the reasons given above, we
do not believe that it is necessary to test heavy-duty vehicles
prior to adopting this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, while the requirements and test procedures in the final
rule are an increase in stringency from the longstanding requirements
for semiautomatic beam switching devices, this final rule is
appropriate because ADB systems are capable of providing an enhanced
beam that is brighter than the lower beam, which presents an increased
risk for glare if the system is not designed appropriately.
2. Test Fixtures vs. Stimulus Vehicles
NHTSA identified two main alternatives to the proposed broad range
of eligible stimulus vehicles that would be used to elicit an ADB
system response. First, the agency considered specifying a small set of
specifically-identified stimulus vehicles, but tentatively decided that
a broad range of potential stimulus vehicles was necessary to ensure
that an ADB system can recognize multiple headlamp/taillamp
configurations on vehicles of different sizes and shapes.
Second, NHTSA considered specifying test fixtures, including those
specified in SAE J3069.\79\ The NPRM noted SAE's rationale that
fixtures represent a worst-case scenario because some cameras use
movement to identify objects as vehicles. It also noted SAE's
explanation that the fixture lamps would represent a ``reasonable worst
case for intensity and location and should promote test
repeatability.'' \80\ NHTSA also noted that test fixtures could be
easier to use than actual vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\79\ See NPRM at p. 51782-51783.
\80\ SAE J3069, p. 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, the proposal identified several potential concerns with
test fixtures. The major concern was the lack of realism, so that
fixtures might not indicate whether the ADB system would recognize
actual vehicles and instead could permit ADB systems to be tuned to
detect fixtures. Another concern related to possible difficulties in
tuning out non-vehicle objects. Also of concern was the possibility
that the fixture characteristics might not represent a worst case.
The NPRM therefore proposed a large set of eligible stimulus
vehicles. The agency tentatively concluded that it would be practicable
for manufacturers to design ADB systems to recognize and
[[Page 9933]]
shade any vehicle satisfying the proposed selection criteria. NHTSA
noted that the lighting configurations an ADB system would have to
recognize would not be unreasonably large, as front and rear lighting
designs are limited by the requirements of FMVSS No. 108 and the
realities of vehicle design. NHTSA also reasoned that there is a
limited, and not exceptionally large, number of makes and models of new
vehicles offered for sale in the United States every year
(approximately 420), and that the set of eligible stimulus vehicles
would be further limited by the proposed vehicle height constraint.
Comments
Vehicle and equipment manufacturers opposed the use of stimulus
vehicles and commented that NHTSA should instead follow SAE J3069 and
use test fixtures. These commenters identified a variety of specific
concerns with stimulus vehicles.
Several commenters (Mobileye, EMA, Volkswagen, SMMT, Ford, Toyota,
SAE, the Alliance, Global, and Honda) contended that the proposed
stimulus vehicle specifications would result in an impracticably large
set of potential vehicles. For example, SAE and the Alliance commented
that the NPRM specified an unmanageable and exceptionally large number
of potential stimulus vehicles, exacerbated by the fact that many
vehicles have multiple headlamp and/or taillamp trim levels, and that
the proposal does not account for motorcycles or heavy-duty vehicles.
They estimated that this could result in a set of up to 1,000 eligible
stimulus vehicles. The Alliance also contended that it would be
impossible for a manufacturer to choose a worst-case scenario and
guarantee that testing with the other thousands of vehicle choices
would exhibit reproducible results for the multitude of requirements.
MEMA, Volkswagen, and the Alliance commented that the proposal would
cause manufacturers to incur costs from repeated testing as the
stimulus vehicles need to be refreshed every year. Volkswagen also
commented that obtaining stimulus vehicles would be especially
burdensome for foreign original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and test
facilities.
Mobileye, SAE, Honda, and Ford commented that an FMVSS requiring a
manufacturer certification to account for the various configurations
and performance of thousands of vehicles in the market would be
unreasonable and unprecedented, as opposed to other FMVSS which
simulate real-world conditions with standardized test apparatus. As an
example, SAE, Ford, and Honda pointed to FMVSS No. 208, which uses a
fixed barrier to simulate a stimulus vehicle crashing head on into the
test vehicle within one specified range of speeds and does not require
selecting actual vehicles from a large population available in the
market to conduct this testing. Honda also pointed to FMVSS No. 214
(side impact) and FMVSS No. 301 (rear impact), and various New Car
Assessment Program (NCAP) test procedures that standardize the device
used to assess the crashworthiness of the test vehicle. SAE and Honda
contended that this approach allows the test to be practicable and
objective, and SAE suggested such an approach would be sufficiently
realistic because, as the NPRM noted, the lighting configurations an
ADB system would have to recognize are limited by the requirements of
FMVSS No. 108 and realities of vehicle design.
Commenters also raised concerns related to vehicle production
cycles. SAE and Ford commented that the cycle plans of any given
vehicle design can last many years, with those designs solidified many
months prior to production, making it impossible for manufacturers to
account for other manufacturers' vehicles in any manageable timeframe.
A manufacturer would not be aware of which vehicles may pose compliance
challenges for its ADB system prior to these vehicles being sold to the
public, especially considering the extremely conservative and
challenging requirements associated with the NPRM. Honda made similar
comments.
Mobileye commented that the proposal would lead OEMs to over-tune
the ADB system in order to ensure compliance, resulting in non-optimal
and overly sensitive system behavior and diminished safety benefits.
Several commenters (Global, Mobileye, Valeo, the Alliance, MEMA,
and Volkswagen) raised concerns regarding the repeatability and/or
reproducibility of compliance test results. SAE, the Alliance, SMMT,
and Honda commented that the proposal was not objective.
A few commenters did support using stimulus vehicles. Consumer
Reports supported a broad range of stimulus vehicles as reasonable to
adequately ensure ADB systems detect, identify, and shade vehicles of
different size, shape, and lighting configurations; however, it also
urged that testing be practical and efficient. Intertek commented that
a simple static test fixture may not be sufficient, and that using any
make or model within defined physical constraints is preferable to
adding an appendix with a list of eligible test vehicles. AAA commented
that no certified motor vehicle should be excluded from use as a
stimulus vehicle, and that the proposed limitation to the past five
model years together with the vehicle height constraints were practical
and acceptable.
Several commenters, while not supporting the use of actual
vehicles, commented that if NHTSA were to use actual vehicles, it
should further limit the set of eligible stimulus vehicles. SL
Corporation (SL) commented that detailed criteria for stimulus vehicles
(such as light source, luminous intensity of the stimulus vehicle's
headlamp and rear lamp), specified by vehicle type, is needed. Global
commented about a need for consistency in any testing, further arguing
that the rule could bookend the vehicle population's performance (i.e.,
lowest/highest, narrowest/widest) to constrain the massive number of
stimulus vehicles. Toyota suggested that NHTSA limit the number of
stimulus vehicles to a practical and manageable list by only using the
top three U.S. selling vehicle models for each of the vehicle types
identified in Table XXI of the NPRM in the fifth model year prior to
the model year of the certified vehicle. Honda stated that if NHTSA
does not adopt test fixtures, it should test with a single stimulus
vehicle chosen by the manufacturer. Valeo suggested specifying a
standard stimulus vehicle. Mobileye suggested modifying SAE J3069 by
defining the use of a standardized dummy stimulus vehicle with lamps
representative of those approved by FMVSS No. 108 instead of the static
fixtures specified in SAE J3069. Mobileye also recommended
complementing the (modified) SAE test with a requirement for an
additional test drive by a test engineer to ensure stable detection and
reaction to vehicles of different makes and models in additional real-
world scenarios not specified in the track test.
Agency Response
After evaluating the comments and considering the requirements of
the Safety Act and the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
(NTTAA),\81\ NHTSA has decided to specify test fixtures instead of
stimulus vehicles. The NTTAA directs agencies to use voluntary
consensus standards unless, among other things, doing so would be
inconsistent with applicable
[[Page 9934]]
law. We believe the test fixtures specified in the final rule are
consonant with both the Safety Act and the NTTAA.\82\ In particular, we
believe the test fixtures both meet the need for safety and better
align with SAE J3069 and other countries' standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\81\ National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995,
Public Law 104-113, 110 Stat. 775 (1996). See Section X, Rulemaking
Analyses and Notices.
\82\ We also note that the final rule does not adopt Mobileye's
suggestion to supplement the track test with an evaluative drive by
a test engineer, because such a requirement would not satisfy the
Safety Act requirement of objectivity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most importantly, we concluded that the test fixtures specified in
the final rule meet the need for safety. There are two main reasons for
this. First, in this case the need for safety requires us to balance
visibility and glare prevention. As some commenters pointed out, a too-
demanding track test to evaluate glare, including a large set of
eligible stimulus vehicles, could lead manufacturers to tune the system
to provide sub-optimal forward illumination. Second, we concluded that
using real vehicles would generally not challenge ADB systems any more
robustly than properly-specified fixtures. In the NPRM we expressed the
concern that insufficiently realistic test fixtures could lead to ADB
systems with performance tuned to the fixtures, not to real vehicles,
resulting in a test that does not sufficiently replicate real-world
performance. To address this concern, NHTSA developed test fixtures
fitted with original manufacturer replacement equipment vehicle
headlamps and taillamps, instead of the lamps specified in SAE J3069
that are intended to simulate vehicle lighting. (See Section VIII.C.6
for a discussion of the final fixture specifications.) NHTSA then
tested whether an ADB system performed differently with these fixtures
than with an actual vehicle. As explained below, this testing showed
that the ADB system detected and responded to the finalized test
fixtures in generally the same way it did to an actual vehicle.
NHTSA's recent research compared ADB performance when tested with
the finalized stimulus fixtures versus a stationary stimulus (i.e.,
actual) vehicle. For the most part, differences in performance were not
observed. For example, in straight oncoming and preceding test
scenarios, the ADB system recognized both the stimulus vehicle and test
fixture before either stimulus entered the measurement range. See
Figures 4 and 5.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22FE22.004
[[Page 9935]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22FE22.005
One exception to this was observed for the smallest-radius left
curve (oncoming) at the highest speed. In this case, the ADB system
performed better (recognized and adjusted sooner) when exposed to the
test fixture. For the fixture, the test vehicle adjusted its light
output at around 44 m and did not exceed the glare limits. For the real
vehicle, it reacted at 39 m, resulting in a glare exceedance. This
suggests that this ADB system likely relies on light source detection
rather than using supplemental systems such as radar or LIDAR to detect
a vehicle structure. Although we did not systematically test this
hypothesis, we suspect that the performance differences observed in
this case are caused by small differences in headlamp mounting heights
between the fixture and the real vehicle. See Figure 6. The agency did
not observe any situations in which the full vehicle was recognized,
but the test fixture was not.
[[Page 9936]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22FE22.006
The test fixtures specified in the final rule more closely align
with SAE J3069 and better harmonize with other countries' standards
than the proposed broad range of eligible stimulus vehicles. This
should help facilitate deployment of ADB systems in the United States
because manufacturers are already familiar with SAE J3069 and because
it harmonizes with the Canadian regulations, which permit ADB systems
designed to meet either ECE R123 or SAE J3069. This approach also
results in a more manageable set of test scenarios and stimulus
vehicles to which manufacturers must certify,\83\ which will also
result in a less complex and costly test. Test fixtures will reduce the
test burden by establishing a consistent stimulus for testing, reducing
the cost of acquiring and maintaining the test stimulus, reducing the
test time, and more closely harmonizing with SAE J3069. NHTSA's testing
showed that fixtures simplified the coordination of each test run. A
single test driver was required to drive the test vehicle as opposed to
two drivers required for tests involving dynamic stimulus vehicles.
Additionally, no start and stop coordination was needed between the two
drivers. The use of fixtures also facilitates set-up for different
scenarios.\84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\83\ Specific to this rulemaking, NHTSA has concluded that using
test fixtures better balances the safety needs of visibility and
glare prevention, and is more practicable and appropriate, than
using a broad range of potential stimulus vehicles. We are not
implying that a large set of potential stimulus vehicles is
necessarily impracticable for an FMVSS. We also note that we do not
agree with the commenters who claimed that the proposal raised
issues with respect to objectivity, repeatability, or
reproducibility.
\84\ NHTSA developed a single test fixture that was capable of
mounting both the motorcycle and the car/truck vehicle lamps; the
various lamps could be switched between test runs of different
scenarios.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Justification for Testing on Curves and General Approach for
Scenario Selection
In addition to testing ADB performance in a straight-path scenario,
the NPRM proposed testing ADB systems on curved-path scenarios (both
left and right curves) with a variety of radii of curvature. The agency
proposed testing on a ``small'' curve with radii of curvature from 98
m-116 m (320-380 ft); a ``medium'' curve with radii of curvature of 223
m-241 m (730-790 ft); and a large curve, 335 m-396 m (1100-1300 ft).
The NPRM explained that the small curve was chosen because it
corresponded (approximately) to the shortest radii of curvature
appropriate for a vehicle traveling 25-35 mph, approximately the
minimum speed for which we proposed to allow ADB activation. The medium
curve corresponded to the shortest radii of curvature appropriate for
the higher ADB minimum activation speeds of some of the ADB-equipped
vehicles NHTSA tested. Finally, the large curve was intended to
correspond to a curve appropriate for vehicles traveling at higher
speeds, to test ADB performance on curves at higher speeds. Values for
speed and radius of curvature were selected to be consistent with the
simplified curve formula.\85\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\85\ This is a standard formula used in road design that
specifies the relationship between vehicle speed and the radius of
curvature. See infra n.142 and accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NPRM recognized that curves might present engineering
challenges for ADB systems. For example, on a curve an oncoming vehicle
enters the ADB system's field of view (FOV) from the edge; in a tight
curve, an oncoming vehicle will enter the field of view at a closer
distance than in a larger-radius curve. Performing adequately on large-
radius curves at relatively high speeds consequently presents a
slightly different engineering challenge than performance on tight
curves at lower speeds.
Comments
Consumer Reports supported testing using curved path scenarios of
various curvatures. Intertek supported a more rigorous dynamic roadway
test than specified in SAE J3069 (which specifies straight test drive
paths) because the SAE J3069 approach may not be sufficient to validate
the performance of the ADB sensor over the range of situations that it
will normally encounter.
[[Page 9937]]
On the other hand, several commenters opposed or raised issues with
testing on actual curves. SAE commented that NHTSA should follow SAE
J3069 and simulate curves using a straight path and varying the
placement of the test fixtures. SAE contended that curves are not
necessary because continuous tracking of the angular location of the
test fixture in straight scenarios is required, and that removing
curves would greatly reduce the testing burden. SAE noted that it
considered including curves in SAE J3069 but concluded that attempting
to capture hundreds of potential road geometries would make the test
excessively burdensome because ADB systems would function similarly
over many of these geometries and including them all would provide no
added value. SAE further determined that testing on a straight path
with one lane to the right and more than one lane to the left of the
ADB-equipped vehicle would capture the conditions necessary to
determine whether an ADB system functions appropriately and ensures an
adequate response to a wide variety of road geometries, while allowing
the test method to be simple enough to be objective and repeatable. For
example, SAE J3069 requires that in a straight-line encounter, an ADB
system must continuously track the angular location of an opposing
vehicle fixture as that angular position becomes increasingly further
from the center of the camera's field of view with decreasing distance
to the opposing vehicle. SAE commented that such an approach allows
evaluation of vehicles encountered on curves to be captured without
using actual curves.
SAE, ALNA, Toyota, and the Alliance stated that the proposal would
require ADB systems to produce less glare than current FMVSS No. 108-
compliant lower beams, and that this issue was particularly acute on
curves. They argued that the proposed approach would reduce lower beam
visibility and negatively impact safety. SAE provided analyses and
graphs based on IIHS data on lower beam performance on different road
geometries, from straight roads to left and right curves of various
radii. Stanley and Intertek also asserted that the final rule should
account for the fact that current lower beams would not comply with the
glare limits on right curves.\86\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\86\ The commenters' data and arguments on these points are
discussed in more detail in the sections below discussing each of
the test scenarios in the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agency Response
The final rule does not adopt some commenters' recommendation to
forgo actual curved-path scenarios, but it does reduce the measurement
distances in many of the test scenarios for which curves are specified.
The agency is not persuaded that the SAE J3069 approach of
simulating curves by varying fixture placement relative to a test
vehicle's straight path adequately replicates curves. Two features of
the SAE test are intended to replicate what the system would encounter
in an actual curve. First, the fixtures are placed to the side of the
test vehicle's path. Second, the sudden appearance scenario is intended
to roughly replicate a curve in that the fixture's stimulus lamps
become visible at a close distance, which would happen on a relatively
tight curve. (The sudden appearance scenario is also intended to
exercise the ability of the ADB system to react to real world
situations such as another road user turning on their lights, turning
onto the road, or cresting a hill at distances as close as 100 m.) This
approach, however, does not accurately replicate real curves in at
least two respects.
One is the trajectory of the fixture as it is tracked by the ADB
system (see Figure 7). An approaching vehicle on an actual curve enters
the ADB system's field of view from the edge, at a relatively far
distance; moves towards the center of the field of view as the distance
to the fixture closes; and then moves out towards the edge of the field
of view at a close distance. The trajectory is different, however, when
attempting to replicate a curve using a straight path and fixtures
placed out to the side. There, the fixture is first detected by the ADB
system near the center of the camera's field of view at a far distance,
and then moves out towards the edge of the field of view at closer
distances.
For example, on an actual left curve with a radius of 230 m, the
fixture enters the FOV at the edge (25L) at a relatively far distance
(191 m) and moves towards the center of the FOV until around 35 m at
which point it moves out towards the edge of the FOV again (see Figure
7). In comparison, in the SAE test run, at 155 meters (the start of the
SAE test), Fixture 1 is near the center of the FOV at approximately 2.5
degrees left, and as the test vehicle approaches the fixture the
fixture moves out to the edge of the field of view.
As another example, this time on a right curve with a radius of 230
m, the fixture enters the FOV at the right edge of the field of view
(25R) at about 205 m and moves towards and then across the center of
the FOV. In comparison, in the SAE test, at 155 meters (the start of
the SAE test), Fixture 3 is near the center of the FOV (at about 3
degrees right), and as the test vehicle approaches the fixture the
fixture trajectory moves out to the right edge of the field of view.
The SAE test evaluates rather large angles to the right of the beam
pattern, almost entirely to the right of where the NHTSA test method
examines the beam pattern performance. The agency believes this to be
unusual in reality, particularly for oncoming encounters.
Because the SAE test does not accurately replicate the fixture
trajectory, it does not test how the system will need to actually
function. For example, one way to ``optimize'' optical recognition is
to focus on where an object is most likely to appear. The speed and
accuracy of image recognition software can be increased without
increasing computing power if systems are trained to look in smaller
portions of an image for key elements, as opposed to looking at the
entire image continuously. Including test scenarios with actual curves
will discourage manufacturers from taking ``shortcuts'' and designing
ADB systems that do not react until the stimulus vehicle enters narrow
angles within the camera's FOV.
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
[[Page 9938]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22FE22.007
Second, the SAE approach does not accurately replicate real curves
with respect to the speed at which the fixture traces its trajectory.
On an actual curve, the fixture travels horizontally across the FOV
relatively quickly at longer distances than on a simulated curve. For
instance, a left curve requires the headlamp to start shading on the
left side of the pattern, quickly move to the right; briefly hold the
shade near the middle; and very quickly move the shade back to the far
left. A simulated curve, on the other hand, simply necessitates that
the system starts shading the middle of the pattern; hold nearly that
same angle; and then quickly move the shade either left or right at
closer distances. Including actual curved-path scenarios will
discourage manufacturers from very accurately following the straight
path pattern but less accurately following the paths required for real-
world curves; it should therefore result in better real-world
performance than would the SAE J3069 fixture placements.
NHTSA's recent testing confirmed that the SAE scenarios do not
accurately model how an ADB system will perform on an actual curve. For
example, the agency tested ADB system performance on an 85 m left curve
as well as the most closely analogous SAE scenario, with the fixture
place in Fixture Position 1. (Fixture Position 1 is the closest
analogue to this scenario because it is the leftmost fixture position
in the SAE test.) See Figure 8. On the actual curve, the system did not
recognize and adjust to the fixture until 45 m. On the most closely
analogous SAE scenario (Fixture Position 1), the system was able to
continuously track the fixture from 150 m away. Even when the agency
repeated the same SAE scenario at a much higher speed of 61 mph, the
SAE test did not challenge the system's image recognition in an
observable way. This shows that an ADB system's initial image
recognition capability is not challenged by the SAE test as it is in a
more realistic curve test, meaning that NHTSA is less confident that
the SAE test would result in an equivalent level of safety as the
actual-curve test that NHTSA is finalizing. The practical implications
of this is that glare will not be sufficiently controlled by the SAE
test compared to the actual-curve test adopted in this final rule.
[[Page 9939]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22FE22.008
As another example, SAE J3069 does include a sudden appearance test
(using the oncoming and preceding motorcycle fixtures) in which the
fixture lamps are activated when the test vehicle is between 155 m and
100 m from the fixture. The agency found, however, that this also does
not realistically simulate a curve. See Figure 9. On an 85 m left curve
at 26 mph, the ADB system recognized the final rule oncoming motorcycle
fixture at 20 m. On the SAE sudden appearance scenario, in contrast,
the ADB system performed better, activating a shaded area at 70 m.
Additional comparative data from the final rule scenarios and the SAE
test scenarios are presented and discussed in Section VIII.C.8, Test
Scenarios.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22FE22.009
BILLING CODE 4910-59-C
NHTSA disagrees with SAE's comment to the extent that it suggests
that a final rule incorporating actual curves might not be objective or
repeatable. The final rule sets out a rational test procedure that
yields a clear answer based upon readings obtained from measuring
instruments and is capable of producing identical results when test
conditions are exactly duplicated.\87\ The final rule specifies the
specific scenarios NHTSA may test, including ranges and values for key
[[Page 9940]]
testing parameters (e.g., differing radii of curvature), and specific
numeric limits for the maximum allowable illuminance at certain
distances; there is thus no ambiguity with respect to the parameter
values NHTSA may select in compliance testing. Moreover, NHTSA has
conducted a repeatability analysis and has concluded that the finalized
test scenarios and procedures are repeatable (see Section VIII.C.11,
Repeatability).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\87\ See, e.g., Chrysler Corp. v. Dept. of Transp., 472 F.2d
659, 676 (6th Cir. 1972).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA did, however, agree that some of the proposed curve scenarios
were too stringent. With respect to oncoming glare scenarios, the final
rule eliminates the short right curve scenario and reduces the
distances at which glare on the medium and large right curves and the
short and medium left curves is evaluated. With respect to preceding
glare scenarios, the final rule includes a straight-path scenario and a
medium left curve scenario. The specifications for the radii of
curvature have also been slightly modified. These modifications and
other choices are explained in more detail later in the preamble.
In general, NHTSA selected the final scenarios based on three
criteria:
The scenario represents commonly-encountered roadway geometries and
vehicle interactions. To ensure that ADB systems operate safely, the
final scenarios should include at least the most common road geometries
and vehicle interactions. Because the adaptive driving beam is intended
for distance illumination at speeds at which the lower beam does not
provide adequate illumination--typically above 20 mph--these geometries
and interactions should be those common at these speeds.\88\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\88\ See NPRM, pp. 51787-51788.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A compliant lower beam could pass the scenario. We also generally
chose scenarios such that a compliant lower beam would be able to pass
the scenario. There were several reasons for this. First, this (in
conjunction with the requirement that areas of reduced intensity meet
the corresponding lower beam laboratory photometric requirements)
ensures that an area of reduced intensity, up to and including a full
lower beam, will meet the same level of safety (with respect to both
visibility and glare prevention) as current lower beams certified to
FMVSS No. 108. Second, this is consistent with the concept for the
proposal: Extending the current laboratory-based lower beam photometric
requirements (specifically, the photometric maxima regulating oncoming
and preceding glare) for use in a vehicle-level test to evaluate the
ability of an ADB system to minimize glare (both oncoming and
preceding).\89\ Because the track test was intended as an extension of
the current laboratory photometric requirements, the track test
requirements should (generally) be such that a lower beam (or area of
reduced intensity) that complies with the current laboratory
photometric requirements will also comply with the track test
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\89\ See NPRM, pp. 51770, 51773.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The scenario is generally within the capabilities of robustly-
designed internationally-available ADB systems. As noted above, the
field of view for current ADB systems is typically 25 degrees to the
left and right of the camera, and, as explained below,\90\ ADB
adaptation time--the time it takes an ADB system to recognize a
stimulus (once the stimulus is within the camera's field of view) and
dim the beam to a level that falls within the applicable glare limit--
is generally about 1 second. Therefore, NHTSA generally chose scenarios
such that it would be possible for an ADB system with such field of
view and response capabilities to pass the scenario. This is not to say
that all current ADB systems would necessarily be able to pass all the
final scenarios without any modifications. However, the agency intended
to select scenarios that were generally within the reach of current
technology (perhaps necessitating some additional improvements,
adjustments, or optimizations, depending on the ADB technology), to
facilitate timely deployment of ADB systems. NHTSA also recognized that
these systems have been in use in foreign markets for several years
with few, if any, apparent safety issues.\91\ We discuss and apply
these criteria in more detail in Section VIII.C.8, Test Scenarios.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\90\ See Section VIII.C.5, ADB Adaptation Time.
\91\ The fact that the final rule does not include all the
proposed scenarios does not mean that NHTSA has concluded that only
a relatively small set of narrowly circumscribed scenarios is
permissible in an FMVSS. In this case, NHTSA has concluded that
adopting a smaller set of test scenarios appropriately addresses
both the need for safety (including facilitating the timely
deployment of ADB systems) and practicability. This also does not
imply that FMVSS requirements must be tailored to the capabilities
of currently existing systems. See, e.g., Chrysler Corp. v. Dept. of
Transp., 472 F.2d 659, 673 (6th Cir. 1972) (``[T]he Agency is
empowered to issue safety standards which require improvements in
existing technology or which require the development of new
technology, and it is not limited to issuing standards based solely
on devices already fully developed.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Maximum Illuminance Criteria (Glare Limits)
The NPRM included a set of photometric maxima to evaluate an ADB
system's ability to minimize glare in the track test (glare limits).
Because the current photometric test points from which the proposed
glare limits were derived are maxima, the agency proposed applying the
derived glare limits as maxima, so that any measured exceedance of an
applicable glare limit (except for momentary spikes) would be used to
determine compliance. The NPRM also extended the standard's ``design to
conform'' language to the proposed requirements, including the glare
limits.\92\ The NPRM also summarized the basis for the glare limits
(the full explanation for the derivation is given in the Feasibility
Study).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\92\ As we explained in the NPRM, the proposal extended the
standard's longstanding ``design to conform'' language to the
proposed requirements because the concept of the rulemaking was to
extend the current headlamp requirements to ADB systems. We
therefore considered the continued appropriateness of ``design to
conform'' to be outside the scope of this rulemaking. However, this
extension in no way limits NHTSA's ability to revisit the issue of
design to conform in the future. Furthermore, if NHTSA were to
reconsider the design to conform language, it might not come to the
same conclusion it did when it originally adopted that language. As
we explained in the NPRM, NHTSA adopted the ``design to conform''
language when the standard was introduced in 1967 because it
accepted industry's contemporaneous representation that vehicle
lamps could not be manufactured to meet every single test point
without a substantial cost penalty unjustified by safety. We further
explained that, because lighting equipment design, technology, and
manufacturing have evolved and advanced since the late 1960's, NHTSA
might not come to the same conclusion were it to revisit this issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NPRM explained that the proposed glare limits deviate from SAE
J3069 in a few respects. First, two of the glare limits differ
slightly. At 60 m, SAE J3069 uses glare limits of 0.7 lux (oncoming)
and 8.9 lux (preceding) compared to the proposed 0.6 lux and 4.0 lux.
Second, SAE J3069 applies to a narrower range of distances (30 m-155 m)
than the proposed glare limits (15 m-220 m). Third, SAE J3069 applies
the glare limits only at the endpoints of the measurement ranges (i.e.,
155 m, 120 m, 60 m, and 30 m), while the NPRM applied the glare limits
throughout the entire measurement range. The proposal explained the
reasons for these deviations from SAE J3069.
Comments
A few commenters (AAA, Consumer Reports, and Zoox) supported the
glare limits as proposed. Intertek agreed that the baseline glare limit
requirements should extend to the full distance ranges rather than only
at the four individual distances specified in SAE J3069. Several
commenters, however, contended that the glare limits were too stringent
and suggested a variety of modifications.
[[Page 9941]]
SAE, Global, Ford, Toyota, the Alliance, and Auto Innovators
commented that the proposed glare limits were conservative and that
using absolute measurements of discomfort glare (the aspect of glare
that is painful or annoying, as opposed to the aspect of glare that
limits the ability to see other objects) is unreasonable and not
practicable. They recommended the final rule include reasonable
allowances for an ADB system to momentarily exceed the glare limits,
especially given the large number of proposed test scenarios. They also
stated that the proposed glare limits are well below the illuminance
provided by contemporary lower beams, including Insurance Institute for
Highway Safety (IIHS) top-rated lower beams for MY 2017 vehicles,
especially on curves. As noted earlier, SAE provided analyses and
graphs based on IIHS data on lower beam performance on different road
geometries, from straight roads to left and right curves of various
radii.\93\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\93\ Auto Innovators also supplied an apparently somewhat
similar analysis of IIHS data (on pp. 12-13 of its comment).
However, the comment did not identify the geometry of the road (the
orientation of the headlamps to the photometer) for the
measurements, so the agency is unable to evaluate this submission.
In any case, NHTSA addresses this issue using the IIHS data
submitted by SAE and the agency's own testing of lower beams to the
scenarios included in the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For those reasons, SAE, the Alliance, and Toyota argued that NHTSA
should evaluate the ratio of the ADB to lower beam illuminance. SAE
noted that this procedure is specified in SAE J3069, which requires the
measured illuminance to be no more than 25% above the measured lower
beam illuminance. SAE further stated that NHTSA's 2015 ADB Test Report
used a similar procedure, and that an UMTRI report found that 25% was
an acceptable maximum limit above the lower beam.\94\ Toyota commented
that following SAE J3069 in this respect would facilitate ADB
deployment across a wider range of vehicles.\95\ Auto Innovators also
argued for a similar 25% allowance (discussed below).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\94\ DOT HS 808 209, Sept. 1994.
\95\ SAE and other commenters also argued that comparing the
ratio of the illuminance from the adaptive beam to the lower beam
would also compensate for unaccounted for test variability such as
dips and bumps in the road. This is discussed below in Section
VIII.C.10.d, Allowance for Momentary Glare Exceedances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A few commenters expressed interest in the final rule accounting
for glare dosage. Toyota commented that there is no clear evidence that
exceeding the maximum illuminance for longer than 0.1 second leads to a
safety hazard any greater than what occurs with existing headlighting
systems on U.S. roads today. Mobileye similarly commented that a
distinction needs to be introduced between glaring that may cause
discomfort to other drivers and glaring which may pose a safety risk.
It asserted that, while the NPRM assumes that any glare exceedances for
more than 0.1 seconds are not acceptable, drivers commonly use
intentional, limited glaring as a signaling mechanism to other drivers.
Accordingly, Mobileye suggested allowing glare exceedances longer than
0.1 seconds. AAA commented that the final rule should not permit glare
exceedances lasting longer than 1 second because its research showed
that glare from an oncoming vehicle lasting approximately 1 second was
rated as highly distracting. Intertek believed that proposed 0.1 second
allowance would account for the majority of the issues related to glare
dosage, exposure, or perceptibility because any longer exceedance is
detectable by the human eye. Auto Innovators also asserted that the
final rule should account for glare dosage. (This is discussed further
below.)
NHTSA received a few comments about the proposed measurement
distances. Intertek commented that regulating glare for distances
extending out to 220 m is unnecessary because the angular size and
position of oncoming headlamps at distances greater than 155 m mitigate
any harmful effects of glare. Intertek commented that testing out to
220 m creates additional complexity and testing costs. In contrast, AAA
suggested regulating glare beyond 220 m. They noted that European
specifications require camera recognition and reaction at distances of
400 meters (1,312 feet), and that intensity limits could be increased
from the current maximum of 150,000 cd to the European maximum of
430,000 cd if ADB systems are effective at this distance. SAE commented
that the proposed requirements for preceding glare are too stringent,
given the detection distance (120 m vs. 100 for the ECE) and the
minimum photometric requirements for rear lamps (2 cd vs. 4 cd for the
ECE).
Valeo commented that the proposed maximum illuminance requirements
would result in wildly varying light output, especially compared to the
current ECE requirements, which result in a much more constant and
consistent light intensity. Valeo also suggested that the final rule
clarify that the requirements apply to the entire ADB system (both
left-hand and right-hand headlamps).
Intertek suggested measuring luminance \96\ from the ADB system
headlamps rather than illuminance at the test fixture would provide
several benefits, including: The data collected from the test would
have a record which is very closely matched, and can be perceived and
analyzed in much the same way as what an actual driver of the stimulus
vehicle would have experienced; the recorded data can be viewed as a
map of luminous intensity (candela) emitted from the test vehicle,
which would be directly comparable to the existing photometry
requirements, and can be plotted as a function of time or approach
distance; over time, if this data is collected carefully and attention
is paid to those scenarios in which the driver of the stimulus vehicle
feels glared, a better quantitative baseline for and understanding of
glare can be established.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\96\ ``Luminance'' refers to the luminous intensity produced by
a light source in a particular direction per solid angle, while, as
noted earlier, ``illuminance'' refers to the amount of light falling
on a surface. The unit of measurement for luminance is candela,
while the unit of measurement for illuminance is lux. A measure of
luminous intensity in candela can be converted to a lux equivalent
(and vice versa), given a specified distance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Auto Innovators stated that NHTSA should adopt a modified version
of the IIHS right-curve glare exposure criteria for all oncoming
scenarios.\97\ See Table 5. Auto Innovators contended that this would
be appropriate because the IIHS glare limits are intended to provide
consumers with a relative assessment of headlamp performance and it is
possible for a vehicle to drastically exceed the glare criteria in the
IIHS test and still comply with FMVSS No. 108; the IIHS protocol allows
exceedances in the form of cumulative exposures as opposed to hard
pass/fail limit at a single point in time, resulting in a series of
demerits (based on the percentage over the limit) for which it is
possible for a vehicle to achieve a ``Good'' rating while still
offering small amounts of glare. Auto Innovators recommended adopting a
similar method for establishing an allowable time exceedance for each
test range.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\97\ Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Headlight Test and
Rating Protocol, Version III (July 2018); Rationale and Supporting
Work for Headlight Test and Rating Protocol. (August 2015).
Table 5--Auto Innovators' Modified Maximum Illuminance Criteria Based on
IIHS Protocol
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Illuminance
Distance (m) limit (lx)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
30 to 59.9................................................ 6
[[Page 9942]]
60 to 119.9............................................... 3.4
120 to 220................................................ 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Auto Innovators gave a few different arguments for adopting its
proposed glare limits. First, it claimed that the IIHS glare limits
better reflect modern headlighting systems. It noted that the proposed
glare limits are based, in part, on headlamps typical of the 1997 model
year, whereas the IIHS protocol is based on contemporary headlighting
systems. Next, Auto Innovators contended that the IIHS protocol
accounts for research indicating that the harmful effects of glare
depend on both peak illuminance and overall dosage of glare exposure.
Finally, Auto Innovators contended that the IIHS methodology accounts
for glare effects due to incidence angle whereas the Feasibility Study
does not. Auto Innovators recommended eliminating the 15-29.9 m
measurement range (for both oncoming and preceding scenarios) because
its test data showed not only that the least amount of failures
occurred in this interval but that the exceedance durations for all
failures in this range were 1.0 second or less.\98\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\98\ Auto Innovators also argues that glare exceedances at these
short distances may be caused by swiveling of the headlamps. While
this only applies to swiveling beam ADB systems, Auto Innovators
believes that any safety standard should remain technology neutral.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to recommending NHTSA adopt its suggested glare limits,
Auto Innovators recommended that the final rule require passage of a
percentage of averaged individual illuminance readings to achieve
compliance instead of looking to the maximum recorded illuminance in
each measurement range. Specifically, Auto Innovators appeared to
suggest that NHTSA perform three test runs for each scenario and
average the maximum illuminance in each measurement range recorded for
each scenario. Then, it asks that NHTSA allow up to 15% of the averaged
illuminance readings to exceed its recommended glare limits by up to
25%. Auto Innovators cited the same UMTRI and NHTSA reports referenced
earlier, as well as three inconsequentiality petition grants as the
basis for the 25% allowance.\99\ Auto Innovators commented that the 15%
allowance comes from the turn signal test requirements in S14.9.3 of
FMVSS No. 108. It contended that this amount of performance variation
is consistent with the challenges of outdoor dynamic testing where
little previous experience exists, especially compared to the highly-
controlled laboratory photometric testing that has previously been
used. Auto Innovators commented that it would be difficult not to
attribute failures of illuminance readings to variances that could
appear in the novel and unique aspects of the test procedure, rather
than to quality control issues, particularly where the time and
complexity of the testing preclude conducting it on multiple ADB-
equipped vehicles. It also asserted that this approach is consistent
with the standard's design to conform language. Mobileye similarly
suggested specifying a pass/fail ratio for the measured illuminance
values in each specified measurement interval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\99\ 85 FR 39678 (July 1, 2020) (grant of petition for
inconsequential noncompliance for side marker lamp below photometric
minima); 85 FR 39679 (July 1, 2020) (grant of petition for
inconsequential noncompliance for rear reflectors below minima); 55
FR 37601 (Sept. 12, 1990) (grant of petition for inconsequential
noncompliance for taillamp exceeding maxima).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agency response
NHTSA agrees with the commenters that the proposed glare limits
were overly stringent at some geometries and measurement distances in
that a current, FMVSS No. 108-compliant lower beam would not have
complied with some of these requirements. The agency has therefore
modified the proposal by deleting the short right curve scenario and
modifying measurement distances for other specified radii of curvature.
NHTSA believes that these modifications reasonably ensure that a lower
beam that complies with the current FMVSS No. 108 photometry
requirements would be within the glare limits as applied in the
specified measurement ranges in each of the final scenarios. This is
discussed in further detail in Section VIII.C.8, Test Scenarios.\100\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\100\ NHTSA anticipates that ADB systems could provide better
glare protection than current lower beams if dynamic vertical aim is
incorporated into the systems. Current lower beams will produce
glare on hills and undulating roads. Because of the nature of the
adaptive beam's area of unreduced intensity, it does not have the
same sensitivity to aim as a lower beam with respect to seeing
distance. For example, an ADB pattern could be aimed down more than
a lower beam (preventing glare even when the vehicle pitches) while
still providing appropriate seeing distance in directions where
glare protection is not required. However, the agency decided not to
require additional glare protection performance from ADB systems
beyond that currently produced by lower beams (except on right
curves) and anticipates aiming strategies might be incorporated into
ADB systems in order to maintain reasonable compliance margins.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA disagrees with some commenters' suggestions to follow SAE
J3069 and only consider an ADB system as not complying with the glare
limits if the measured ADB illuminance exceeds 25% of lower beam
illuminance. The final rule differs from the proposal by eliminating
overly stringent scenarios and providing additional adjustments to
account for testing variability, including data filtering procedures
and an adjustment for vehicle pitch, in addition to the proposed
allowance for momentary glare exceedances. The agency believes that
these modifications obviate the need for any further glare limit
allowances. While more relaxed test requirements might facilitate ADB
deployment, they would not ensure that ADB systems function properly.
We believe that the final requirements and test procedures strike a
reasonable balance between visibility and glare prevention.
Neither the UMTRI report nor the comments relating to the NHTSA
research cited by the commenters are persuasive. The UMTRI report
concerned the evaluation of inconsequentiality petitions, not the
appropriate magnitude of the lower beam maxima, which is the relevant
issue when considering the appropriate level for the glare limits.\101\
As explained in the NPRM, the proposed glare limits were based on FMVSS
No. 108's longstanding Table XIX photometric maxima. While the 2015 ADB
Test Report did examine how close the observed ADB illuminance values
were to the relevant glare limit, including an analysis of the effect
on the results of increasing the glare limits by up to 25%,\102\ the
analysis did not concern ``just noticeable differences'' or state or
imply that exceedances of up to 125% of the relevant glare limit were
inconsequential. Instead, the purpose of this analysis was to ``see
whether increasing the glare limit would have changed an exceeding
result to a non-exceeding result.'' \103\ The 2015 ADB Test Report also
examined the ratio of ADB illuminance to lower beam illuminance. This
analysis was intended to evaluate ADB functionality, not as a means of
evaluating ADB compliance. This was particularly useful because some of
the lower beam headlighting systems tested in the 2015 study were not
designed to meet the requirements
[[Page 9943]]
of FMVSS No.108. Using a ratio allowed for the comparison of basic ADB
functionality against the lower beam regardless of the photometric
standard to which the lower beam was designed.\104\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\101\ See DOT HS 808 209, Sept. 1994, p. 9 (concluding that
``using 25% as a criterion for inconsequential noncompliance'' is
appropriate for lower-beam headlamps) (emphasis added).
\102\ 2015 ADB Test Report, p. 133.
\103\ Id.
\104\ Although commenters did not suggest it, we also decided
not to adopt an adjustment such that if ADB illuminance exceeds an
applicable glare limit, the exceedance would be considered a
noncompliance only if the ADB illuminance exceeded the lower beam
illuminance (i.e., without a 25% cushion). The reasons for this are
the same as the reasons for not adopting the commenters'
recommendations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding the distances at which to regulate glare, regulating
oncoming glare out to 220 m is appropriate. As the Feasibility Study
explained, at greater distances a smaller glare limit is appropriate
because, at greater distances, ``the glare source will be seen by the
oncoming driver at a smaller angle.'' \105\ NHTSA was able to test the
final scenarios out to this distance (where applicable) and did not
encounter any testing difficulties related to this distance. On the
other hand, NHTSA did not develop testing scenarios for oncoming glare
at distances greater than 220 m, and so is not prepared to test beyond
that distance. The reasons for regulating oncoming glare out to 220 m
are discussed in greater detail in Section VIII.D.4, Requirements for
area of unreduced intensity. NHTSA does agree with SAE that it is more
appropriate to test preceding glare only out to 100 m, and not the
proposed 120 m. The reasons for this are discussed in more detail in
Section VIII.C.8.g, Scenario 7: Preceding Straight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\105\ Feasibility Study, p. 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agency disagrees with Valeo's assertion that specifying the
glare limits as a stepwise (discontinuous) function of distance will
result in dramatic fluctuations in light output. The glare limits are
photometric maxima, not design requirements, and there is no reason to
think that manufacturers will design headlamps that suddenly increase
or decrease in brightness for reasons unrelated to road conditions.
Moreover, the laboratory requirements that reference the Table XIX
photometric maximum intensity limits preclude manufacturers from
producing areas of reduced intensity that vary as Valeo would suggest.
In fact, the output limits specified in Table XIX require lower beam
intensities (which is what the agency requires the ADB systems to
produce in the area of reduced intensity) well below those calculated
by Valeo at the further distances of the measurement subrange.
While the final rule could have specified the glare limits as a
continuous function of distance, this would have been more complicated.
In any case, the stepwise specification is less stringent than
specifying glare limits as a continuous function of the closing
distance between the test vehicle and the test fixture. The glare
limits for each of the four specified ranges was derived from the
shortest distance in the range, and then applied to all the (further)
distances in the range. As the Feasibility Study explained, however,
the glare limits are derived to decrease as distance increases.\106\
Therefore, if the glare limits were specified as a continuous function
of distance, they would decrease throughout the interval as distance
increased. By specifying the glare limits as a stepwise function, the
glare limits are higher at the further distances in the interval than
they would have been if we specified them as a continuous function of
distance. This has the benefit of simplicity. It also essentially gives
manufacturers an additional margin for error than they would have had
if we specified the limits as a continuous function of distance. The
final rule has, however, incorporated Valeo's suggestion to clarify
that the requirements apply to the entire ADB system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\106\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Intertek makes an interesting suggestion for quantifying perceived
glare. However, based on the agency's stated goals of minimizing the
cost impact of the regulation and providing a pathway for introduction
of ADB systems for use on U.S. roadways as quickly as possible, the
final rule does not adopt Intertek's suggestion. To do so would require
additional research to inform the agency on how such changes would
affect the glare and photometry limits specified, as well as any costs
associated with requiring the agency and the industry to switch from
test methods designed around measuring illuminance at the test vehicle
to measuring luminance. The agency simply has no data to support such a
change at this time.
NHTSA understands Auto Innovators' suggestion to adopt the IIHS
glare limits as related to their general argument that the proposed
glare limits and test scenarios were too stringent. As explained
earlier, NHTSA agreed with this point to some extent and modified the
measurement distances, test scenarios, and allowances accordingly.
However, the agency does not adopt Auto Innovators' glare limits for
two reasons.
First, the glare limits suggested by Auto Innovators are three
times the proposed limits, which are based on the current photometry
requirements. The intent of this rulemaking is to permit ADB without
increasing glare from levels currently on the road. NHTSA's testing
showed that Auto Innovators' suggested limits do not represent glare
produced by compliant lower beams under the controlled driving
situations that are part of the ADB test, particularly for straight and
left curve scenarios. For the left curve and straight path scenarios,
testing of the Fusion and Volvo demonstrated that a considerable margin
is achieved with the proposed glare limits.\107\ See Table 6. These
same types of margins are present throughout our lower beam testing.
This confirms that these limits provide a boundary to protect the
public from additional glare beyond what is currently experienced on
the roads today. See also the discussions of lower beam performance on
various scenarios in Section VIII.C.8, Test Scenarios. The commenter's
suggested limits would significantly increase that boundary and permit
substantially higher glare on the roads.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\107\ The Fusion used had not been rated by IIHS. The Volvo was
rated ``acceptable'' by IIHS.
Table 6--Lower Beam Illuminance Margin for Proposed Glare Limits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Range (m) Glare limit Max illum. Margin (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Volvo 210 m left curve at 42 mph
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
150.0-120.0..................................................... 0.3 0.051 83
119.9-60.0...................................................... 0.6 0.158 74
59.9-30.0....................................................... 1.8 0.788 56
29.9-15.0....................................................... 3.1 2.118 32
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 9944]]
Fusion 400 m right curve at 54 mph
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
70.0-60.0....................................................... 0.6 0.415 31
59.9-30.0....................................................... 1.8 0.933 48
29.9-15.0....................................................... 3.1 1.394 55
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, the agency believes the proposed oncoming glare limits
(which are derived from the Table XIX left side photometric maxima) are
most appropriate for any oncoming scenario--including right curves--
because they were derived from limits designed specifically for
oncoming traffic (which in the United States are typically to the left,
except on right curves). Auto Innovators' suggested limits may be
appropriate for the right side of lower beams where the compromise
between seeing distance and glare places greater value on seeing toward
the right side. This is appropriate for a static beam pattern that
limits glare in all horizontal directions no matter where the other
road user is located. If one thinks of oncoming interactions as being
oriented in terms of either straight, left curve, or right curve, two
of these three (straight and left curve) have the other vehicle toward
the left of the subject vehicle's headlamps. So, for those two
situations, it is better to allow more potential glare to the right
side of the road (where other road users are less likely to be) in
order to provide some seeing light in that direction. For the remaining
right curve situation, the beam is still limited, but less so, and some
glare is expected to account for better seeing distance toward the
right for the other two situations. No such compromise needs to be
applied for ADB. The ADB pattern creates a reduced illumination area to
the left when the other vehicle is to the left and an unreduced area to
the right. When the other vehicle is toward the right, the same
protection can now be applied to those encounters as to the straight
and left, without sacrificing seeing distance. As such, the agency is
using the glare limits derived for the left side oncoming curve
scenario for the right curve scenario.
The agency acknowledges the relationship between dosage (the
product of illuminance and duration) and the disabling effects of
glare. For glare control, the IIHS headlamp rating procedure uses a
derivative of dosage (distance for which a limited illuminance is
exceeded). However, the quantified crash risks associated with
exceeding these limits is not clear. Research the agency conducted in
2008 began to explore this relationship, noting that ``specification of
the integrated (summed) values throughout the segment would be more
likely to provide control for glare recovery, but would involve
headlamp light measurement procedures that are more complex than those
currently used to determine if a headlamp meets the FMVSS 108
requirements.'' \108\ Until this final rule, the basic structure of the
headlighting regulation (goniometer--photometry) did not provide a
foundation for which glare dosage could be readily measured and
regulated. As such, the agency has not focused its research in this
area. While NHTSA agrees that a qualitative relationship exists, the
agency has not established, and does not know of, a quantified
relationship between glare dosage and crash risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\108\ DOT HS 811 043 Nighttime Glare and Driving Performance:
Research Findings, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another limitation of IIHS's method is that it considers all glare
doses equal (except for distances between 5 m and 10 m). The impacts of
glare, however, are also related to the angle between the glare source
and the line of sight of the viewer. The glance pattern of drivers in
nighttime glare situations is not well understood, as some drivers may
be inclined to look toward the glare source effectively causing the
angle between the line of sight and the glare source to be zero.\109\
To the extent that a driver follows driver's education recommendations
and does not look at the glare source, glare doses in roadway
interactions are not equally impactful at all distances, as the angle
between the glare source and the line of sight is smaller at far
distances. Such an effect is reflected in the current photometric
tables and was, in fact, taken into account in the glare limits
derivation in the Feasibility Study, in that the glare limits are
smaller at greater distances.\110\ NHTSA therefore disagrees with Auto
Innovators that the IIHS study accounts for glare effects due to
incidence angle.\111\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\109\ 2007 Report to Congress, pg. iv.
\110\ See Feasibility Study, p. 23.
\111\ In addition, we note that the negative impacts of glare
are not limited to disabling glare, but are also related to the
annoyance and even painful experience of other roadway users.
NHTSA's 2008 research concluded that ``the peak illuminance, rather
than the dosage, was the primary factor associated with rated
discomfort.'' DOT HS 811 043 Nighttime Glare and Driving
Performance: Research Findings, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA is therefore finalizing the glare limits as proposed. Future
development of glare dosage as full vehicle dynamic testing for
headlighting systems continues to mature is of interest to the agency.
With respect to Auto Innovators' comments regarding specifying an
allowance of 25% over the glare limits, we disagree with this for the
reasons given above regarding the evaluation of the ratio of adaptive
driving beam to lower beam illuminance. NHTSA also does not find the
cited inconsequentiality petition grants to be persuasive because they
did not concern headlamps, and, except for one of the petitions, did
not concern glare. The agency was also not persuaded by the suggestions
by Auto Innovators and Mobileye to adopt a pass/fail ratio or to
average a number of test runs in order to mitigate test-related
variability. Such procedures, while occasionally specified in an FMVSS,
would be unusual. In any case, we do not believe this is necessary here
for two reasons. First, we believe the final test procedure already has
sufficient allowances for test-related variability (an allowance for
momentary glare exceedances, a vehicle pitch adjustment, and the
application of a low-pass filter with a cutoff frequency of 35
Hz).\112\ Second, we conducted a repeatability analysis and found the
final test procedure to be repeatable.\113\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\112\ See Section VIII.C.10, Data Acquisition and Measurement.
\113\ See Section VIII.C.11, Repeatability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. ADB Adaptation Time
The NPRM included a 0.1 second or 1 m magnitude allowance for
momentary glare exceedances. This was intended to account for
variations in illumination due not to the ADB system but to
uncontrolled or uncontrollable
[[Page 9945]]
testing variables. This differs from an allowance for an adaptation
time, which would account for the operation of the ADB system--
specifically, the time it takes an ADB system to recognize a stimulus
(once the stimulus is within the camera's field o
[…truncated; see source link]Indexed from Federal Register on February 22, 2022.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.