[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 198 (Friday, October 12, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 51766-51813]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-21853]



[[Page 51765]]

Vol. 83

Friday,

No. 198

October 12, 2018

Part II





Department of Transportation





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





National Highway Traffic Safety Administration





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





49 CFR Part 571





Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Lamps, Reflective Devices, and 
Associated Equipment; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 83 , No. 198 / Friday, October 12, 2018 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 51766]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-2018-0090]
RIN 2127-AL83


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Lamps, Reflective 
Devices, and Associated Equipment

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (``NHTSA''), 
Department of Transportation (``DOT'').

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This document proposes amendments to Federal Motor Vehicle 
Safety Standard (``FMVSS'') No. 108; Lamps, reflective devices, and 
associated equipment, to permit the certification of adaptive driving 
beam headlighting systems, if the manufacturer chooses to equip 
vehicles with these systems. Toyota Motor North America, Inc. (Toyota) 
petitioned NHTSA for rulemaking to amend FMVSS No. 108 to permit 
manufacturers the option of equipping vehicles with adaptive driving 
beam systems. NHTSA has granted Toyota's petition and proposes to 
establish appropriate performance requirements to ensure the safe 
introduction of adaptive driving beam headlighting systems if equipped 
on newly manufactured vehicles.

DATES: You should submit your comments early enough to be received not 
later than December 11, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments to the docket number identified in 
the heading of this document by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility: U.S. Department of 
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor, 
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West 
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, 
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: 202-493-2251.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and 
docket number. Note: All comments received will be posted without 
change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal 
information provided. Please see the Privacy Act discussion below. We 
will consider all comments received before the close of business on the 
comment closing date indicated above. To the extent possible, we will 
also consider comments filed after the closing date.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or 
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to 
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
except Federal Holidays. Telephone: 202-366-9826.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all 
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual 
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf 
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's 
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on 
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit 
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.html.
    Confidential Business Information: If you wish to submit any 
information under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three 
copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim 
to be confidential business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, 
at the address given under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In 
addition, you should submit two copies, from which you have deleted the 
claimed confidential business information, to Docket Management at the 
address given above. When you send a comment containing information 
claimed to be confidential business information, you should include a 
cover letter setting forth the information specified in our 
confidential business information regulation (49 CFR part 512).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Please contact Mr. Markus Price, 202-
366-0098 or Mr. John Piazza, Office of Chief Counsel, Telephone: 202-
366-2992. Facsimile: 202-366-3820. You may send mail to these officials 
at: The 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. ECE ADB Regulations
IV. NHTSA Research Related to ADB
V. SAE J3069
VI. Interpretation of How FMVSS No. 108 Applies to ADB
    a. ADB Is Not Supplemental Lighting But Is Part of the Required 
Headlamp System
    b. ADB Systems Would Not Comply With at Least Some of the 
Headlamp Requirements
    i. Photometry Requirements
    ii. Semiautomatic Beam Switching Device Requirements
    c. Tentative Determination
VII. NHTSA's Statutory Authority
VIII. Proposed Requirements and Test Procedures
    a. Requirements
    i. Baseline Glare Limits
    ii. Existing Photometry Requirements That Would Also Apply to 
ADB Systems
    iii. Other System Requirements
    iv. Retention of Existing Requirements for Semiautomatic 
Headlamp Beam Switching Devices Other Than ADB
    b. Test Procedures
    i. Introduction
    ii. Test Vehicle and Stimulus Vehicle
    iii. Considerations in Determining Compliance With the Derived 
Glare Limit Values
    iv. Additional Test Parameters
    c. Repeatability
IX. Certification and Aftermarket
X. Regulatory Alternatives
XI. Overview of Benefits and Costs
XII. Rulemaking Analyses
XIII. Public Participation
XIV. Appendix A to Preamble--Road Illumination and Pedestrian/
Cyclist Fatalities Proposed Regulatory Text

I. Executive Summary

Glare, Visibility, and Adaptive Driving Beam Technology

    This proposal is intended to allow an advanced type of headlighting 
system referred to as adaptive driving beam to be introduced in the 
United States. Adaptive driving beam (``ADB'') headlamps use advanced 
technology that actively modifies the headlamp beams to provide more 
illumination while not glaring other vehicles. The requirements 
proposed today are intended to amend the existing regulations 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. 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 cause discomfort. Headlighting 
has therefore traditionally entailed a trade-off between long-distance 
visibility and glare. This is reflected in the requirement that 
headlamp systems have both lower and upper beams. The existing 
headlight requirements regulate

[[Page 51767]]

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.
    While the benefits of improved visibility and the harmful effects 
of glare are difficult to quantify, they are real. For example, a 
recent study from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found that 
pedestrian deaths in dark conditions increased 56% from 2009 to 2016. 
The harmful effects of glare are highlighted by the thousands of 
consumer complaints NHTSA has received from the public over the years, 
Congressional interest, and the Agency's research. NHTSA received more 
than 5,000 comments in response to a 2001 Request for Comments on glare 
from headlamps and other frontal vehicle lamps. Most of these comments 
concerned nighttime glare. In 2005, Congress directed the Department of 
Transportation to study the risks of glare. In response to these 
concerns, NHTSA initiated a multipronged research program to study the 
risks of, and possible solutions to, glare.
    ADB systems are an advanced type of headlamp beam switching 
technology that provides increased illumination without increasing 
glare. Headlamp beam switching systems were first introduced in the 
1950s, and while not initially widely adopted, have more recently 
become widely offered as optional equipment. These traditional beam 
switching systems switch automatically from the upper beam to the lower 
beam when meeting other vehicles. ADB systems improve on this 
technology. They utilize advanced equipment, including sensors (such as 
cameras), data processing software, and headlamp hardware (such as 
shutters or LED arrays). ADB systems detect oncoming and preceding 
vehicles and automatically adjust the headlamp beams to provide less 
light to the occupied roadway and more light to the unoccupied roadway.
    ADB technology enhances safety in two ways. First, it provides a 
variable, enhanced lower beam pattern that is sculpted to traffic on 
the road, rather than just one static lower beam pattern. It provides 
more illumination than existing lower beams without glaring other 
motorists (if operating correctly). Second, it likely will lead to 
increased upper beam usage. Research has shown that most drivers under-
utilize the upper beams. The effects of this increase as speeds 
increase, because at higher speeds the need for greater seeing distance 
increases. ADB technology (like traditional beam switching technology) 
enables the driver to activate the ADB system so that it is always in 
use and there is no need to switch between lower beams and upper beams. 
In this way, the upper beam will be more widely used, and used only 
when there are no other vehicles present. For both these reasons, ADB 
has the potential to reduce the risk of crashes by increasing 
visibility without increasing glare. In particular, it offers 
potentially significant safety benefits in avoiding collisions with 
pedestrians, cyclists, animals, and roadside objects.
    ADB systems are currently available in foreign markets but are not 
currently offered on vehicles in the United States. ADB systems have 
been permitted (and regulated) in Europe for several years. ADB systems 
are not, however, currently offered on vehicles in the United States. 
NHTSA's lighting standard, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 
(``FMVSS'') No. 108, has been viewed as not permitting ADB. In 
particular, the current lower beam photometry requirements do not 
appear to allow the enhanced beam that ADB systems provide. In 2013, 
Toyota petitioned NHTSA for rulemaking to amend FMVSS No. 108 to permit 
the introduction of ADB. SAE (formerly, the Society of Automotive 
Engineers) in 2016 published a recommended practice for ADB. And more 
recently, NHTSA has received multiple exemption petitions for ADB-
equipped vehicles. NHTSA has granted Toyota's rulemaking petition and 
this proposal is our action on that grant.

The Proposed Requirements and Test Procedures

    This proposal, if adopted, would amend the lighting standard to 
allow 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 glare prevention and visibility. This proposal 
does three main things that, taken together, are intended to allow ADB 
systems and ensure that they meet these safety needs.
    First, it would amend FMVSS No. 108 to allow ADB systems. We 
propose amendments to, among other things, the existing lower beam 
photometry requirements so that ADB technology is permitted.
    Second, it proposes requirements to ensure that ADB systems operate 
safely and do not glare other motorists. ADB systems provide an 
enhanced lower beam that provides more illumination than the currently-
allowed lower beam. If ADB systems do not accurately detect other 
vehicles on the road and shade them accordingly, other motorists will 
be glared. NHTSA is sensitive to concerns about glare due to the 
numerous complaints from the public that it has received, the 2005 
Congressional mandate, and its own research. The proposal addresses 
this safety need with a combination of vehicle-level track tests and 
equipment-level laboratory testing requirements.
    The centerpiece of the proposal is a vehicle-level track test to 
evaluate ADB performance in recognizing and not glaring other vehicles. 
We propose evaluating ADB performance 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 headlights. We propose a variety of different scenarios that 
vary the road geometry (straight or curved); vehicle speeds (from 0 to 
70 mph); and vehicle orientation (whether the stimulus vehicle is 
oncoming or preceding). The illumination cast on the stimulus vehicle 
would be measured and recorded throughout the test run. In order to 
evaluate ADB performance, we are proposing a set of 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. The 
proposed glare limits and test procedures are based on extensive Agency 
research and testing. NHTSA sponsored a study that developed the glare 
limits that are the objective performance criteria we are proposing. 
NHTSA also ran extensive track tests using vehicles equipped with ECE-
approved ADB systems (modified to produce U.S.-compliant beams) to 
develop the test procedures and scenarios. The resulting performance 
requirements and test procedures are intended to ensure that an ADB 
system is capable of correctly detecting oncoming and preceding 
vehicles and not glaring them.
    In addition to this track test, we also propose a limited set of 
equipment-level laboratory-tested performance requirements to regulate 
glare. We propose to require that the part of the adaptive beam that is 
cast near other vehicles not exceed the current low beam maxima, and 
the part of the adaptive beam that is cast onto unoccupied roadway not 
exceed the current upper beam maxima. These would essentially subject 
the ADB system to laboratory tests of the beam

[[Page 51768]]

similar to what are currently required for headlights.
    Third, it proposes a limited set of equipment-level laboratory-
tested performance requirements to ensure that the ADB system provides 
sufficient visibility for the driver. The current headlamp requirements 
include minimum levels of illumination to ensure that the driver has a 
minimum level of visibility. We propose that these existing laboratory 
photometry tests be applied to the ADB system to ensure that the ADB 
beam pattern, although dynamically changing, always provides at least a 
minimum level of light. We propose requiring that the part of the 
adaptive beam that is cast near other vehicles comply with the current 
lower beam minima and that the part of the adaptive beam that is cast 
onto unoccupied roadway comply with the upper beam minima. These 
minimum levels of illuminance are in a direction such that they do not 
glare other motorists.

Regulatory Alternatives Considered: ECE Requirements and SAE J3069

    NHTSA has considered a number of alternatives to this proposal. The 
main alternatives are the European requirements and the SAE recommended 
practice for ADB published in June 2016 (SAE J3069). This proposal 
incorporates elements of these standards, but departs from them in 
significant ways.

ECE Requirements

    The Economic Commission for Europe (ECE) has permitted and 
regulated ADB under its type approval framework for several years. The 
ECE regulations have a variety of requirements that specifically apply 
to ADB. Many of these are equipment requirements that are not 
appropriate for a performance-oriented FMVSS. The ECE requirements also 
include a vehicle-level road test on public roads. The road test 
includes a variety of types of roads (e.g., rural, urban) and types of 
interactions with other vehicles. The performance of the ADB system--
with respect to both visibility and glare--is evaluated by the type 
approval engineer driving the ADB-equipped vehicle. A Federal Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard is, however, statutorily required to be 
objective. The ECE road test is not appropriate for adoption as an 
FMVSS because it does not provide sufficiently objective performance 
criteria. The proposed track test scenarios are based, in part, on the 
ECE scenarios. The proposed glare limits are the objective criteria 
that we propose using to evaluate the performance of an ADB system as 
it is put through these maneuvers. In developing the proposal NHTSA 
tested several ADB-equipped vehicles that were type-approved to the ECE 
requirements. We believe that these ADB systems would able to meet the 
proposed requirements and test procedures.

SAE J3069

    SAE published this recommended practice in June 2016, while NHTSA 
was developing this proposal, but after NHTSA had concluded the testing 
on which the proposal is based. The SAE standard is based, in part, on 
NHTSA's testing and research. SAE J3069 includes vehicle-level track 
testing as well as equipment-level laboratory testing requirements, 
although they differ from the proposal in important ways.
    SAE J3069 sets out requirements and test procedures to evaluate ADB 
performance in recognizing and not glaring other vehicles. The major 
component of these is a vehicle-level track test for glare. The track 
test uses glare limits similar to (and based on) the ones developed by 
NHTSA. The track test, however, differs significantly from the proposed 
track test. The SAE test does not use actual vehicles to stimulate the 
ADB system, but instead uses test fixtures fitted with lamps that are 
intended to simulate oncoming and preceding vehicles. It also specifies 
a much smaller range of scenarios (for example, it only tests on 
straight roadway, not curves) and measures ADB illuminance only at a 
small number of specified distance intervals.
    To test for glare SAE J3069 also includes, in addition to this 
track test, an equipment-level laboratory test requirement that the 
part of the adaptive beam directed towards an oncoming or preceding 
vehicle not exceed the lower beam photometric maxima. We propose a 
requirement very similar to this, but we also propose to require that 
the part of the adaptive beam directed towards unoccupied roadway not 
exceed the current upper beam maxima. Although this is not included in 
the SAE standard, we believe it is important to maintain the upper beam 
maxima because they too play a role in glare prevention.
    To test for adequate visibility, SAE J3069 includes an equipment-
level laboratory test requirement that the part of the adaptive beam 
directed towards unoccupied roadway comply with the lower beam minima. 
The proposed requirements are more stringent. They would require that 
this part of the adaptive beam comply with the current upper beam 
minima, not the lower beam minima. We believe this additional light is 
important. The proposal would also require that the part of the 
adaptive beam directed towards an oncoming or preceding vehicle meet 
the current lower beam minima. We believe this minimum level of 
illumination will ensure a minimum level of visibility (as explained 
above, we would also subject the dimmed portion of the adaptive beam to 
the lower beam maxima to ensure that the level of light is not so high 
as to glare other motorists).

II. Background and Safety Need

    This proposal is intended to facilitate the introduction of an 
advanced headlighting technology referred to as adaptive driving beam 
(``ADB'') into vehicles sold in the United States. ADB technology is an 
advanced type of semiautomatic headlamp beam switching technology. More 
rudimentary beam switching technology was first introduced in the 1950s 
and was limited simply to switching between upper and lower beams. 
Adaptive driving beam technology is more advanced. It uses advanced 
sensors and computing technology that more accurately and precisely 
detect the presence and location of other vehicles and shape the 
headlamp beams to provide enhanced illumination of unoccupied portions 
of the road and avoid glaring other vehicles.
    This proposal would amend the Federal safety standard for lighting 
to permit the certification of this advanced technology and specify 
performance requirements and compliance test procedures for these 
optional systems. The proposed requirements are intended to ensure that 
ADB systems operate safely by providing adequate visibility while not 
glaring oncoming or preceding vehicles. To understand what the new 
technology does and the proposed regulatory adjustments, it will be 
helpful first to provide some background on headlamp technology and 
NHTSA's headlamp regulations.

The Twin Safety Needs of Glare Prevention and Visibility

    Vehicle headlamps must satisfy two different safety needs: 
Visibility and glare prevention. Headlamps provide forward visibility 
(and also work in conjunction with parking lamps on passenger cars and 
other narrow vehicles to provide conspicuity). They also have the 
potential to glare other motorists and road users. For this reason, 
headlighting systems include a lower beam and an upper beam. Lower 
beams (also referred to as passing beams or dipped beams) illuminate 
the road and its environs close ahead of the

[[Page 51769]]

vehicle and are intended for use during low speed driving or when 
meeting or closely following another vehicle. Upper beams (also 
referred to as high beams, main beams, or driving beams) are intended 
primarily for distance illumination and for use when not meeting or 
closely following another vehicle. The lower beam pattern is designed 
to produce relatively high levels of light only in the close-in forward 
visibility region; the upper beam is designed to produce high light 
levels in close-in and longer distance regions. Thus, headlighting has 
traditionally entailed a trade-off between forward longer-distance 
visibility for the driver and glare to other road users.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12OC18.000

    Visibility and glare are both related to motor vehicle safety. 
Visibility has an obvious, intuitive relation to safety: The better a 
driver can see the road, the better he or she can react to road 
conditions and obstacles and 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 the late-night crash because of diminished visibility or 
driver fatigue?). Glare, again intuitively, is related to safety 
because it degrades a driver's ability to see the forward roadway and 
any unexpected obstacles. Glare is a sensation caused by bright light 
in an observer's field of view. It reduces the ability to see and/or 
causes discomfort. Headlamp glare is the reduction in visibility and 
discomfort caused by viewing headlamps of oncoming or trailing vehicles 
(via the rearview or side mirrors).\1\ Empirical evidence suggests that 
headlamp glare degrades important aspects of driving performance, such 
as decreasing the distance at which an object in or near the roadway 
can be seen, increasing driver reaction times, and reducing the 
probability a driver will detect an object.\2\ It is difficult, 
however, 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 present in a crash. Nevertheless, some police crash reports 
mention glare as a potential cause, and it is reasonable to expect that 
reductions in visibility caused by headlamp glare increase crash 
risk.\3\ Discomfort might also indirectly affect crash risk; for 
example, if a driver reacts to glare by changing her direction of 
gaze.\4\ In addition to influencing safety, discomfort caused by glare 
may induce some drivers, particularly older drivers,

[[Page 51770]]

to avoid driving at night or simply increase annoyance.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See generally Nighttime Glare and Driving Performance, 
Report to Congress, p. ii (2007), National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, Department of Transportation [hereinafter ``2007 
Report to Congress''].
    \2\ 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.'').
    \3\ 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.
    \4\ 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 . . . .'').
    \5\ 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. 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 about glare 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.\6\ NHTSA received more than 5,000 comments, most 
of which concerned nighttime glare from front-mounted lamps.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 66 FR 49594 (Sept. 28, 2001).
    \7\ 69 FR 54255 (Sept. 8, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This proposal is intended to enable the adoption of ADB and help 
ensure that ADB systems meet these twin safety needs of glare 
prevention and visibility.

Headlamp Photometric Requirements

    NHTSA is authorized to issue FMVSS that set performance 
requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle 
equipment. Each FMVSS specifies performance requirements and test 
procedures the Agency will use to conduct compliance testing to confirm 
performance requirements are met. Motor vehicle and equipment 
manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform 
to all applicable FMVSS. FMVSS No. 108 specifies performance and 
equipment requirements for vehicle lighting, including headlamps. The 
standard requires, among other things, that vehicles be equipped with 
lower and upper beams as well as a means for switching between the two. 
Three aspects of these requirements are especially relevant to this 
proposal.
    First, the standard sets out requirements for the beam performance 
(beam pattern) of the lower and upper beam. These requirements, 
referred to as photometric requirements, consist of sets of test points 
and corresponding criterion values. Each test point is defined with 
respect to an angular coordinate system relative to the headlamp. (As 
discussed in more detail below, these requirements are for an 
individual headlamp, not for an entire headlighting system as installed 
on a vehicle.) For each test point, the standard specifies the minimum 
amount of photometric intensity the headlamp must provide in the 
direction of that test point or the maximum level of intensity the 
headlamp may provide toward the test point, or both. There are 
different photometric requirements for lower beams and upper beams.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The upper beam photometric requirements are set out in Table 
XVIII; the lower beam photometric requirements are set out in Table 
XIX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Different test points regulate different aspects of headlamp 
performance. With respect to the lower beam, some test points ensure 
the beam is providing enough visibility of the roadway; other test 
points ensure the beam does not glare oncoming or preceding drivers; 
and other test points ensure there is illumination of overhead signs. 
The upper beam photometric test points primarily (but not exclusively) 
consist of minima, and ensure sufficient light is cast far down the 
road. The lower beam test points consist of both minima and maxima, 
resulting in a beam pattern providing more illumination to the right of 
the vehicle centerline and less illumination to the left side of the 
vehicle centerline and much less light above the horizon (roughly in 
the area of the beam pattern an oncoming vehicle would be exposed to). 
The lower beam test points controlling the amount of light cast on 
other vehicles are test points regulating glare. This rulemaking is 
related to and based on the current lower and upper beam photometric 
test points, especially the lower beam photometric test points limiting 
glare to oncoming and preceding drivers.
    Second, the photometric requirements, and the requirements in FMVSS 
No. 108 generally, are requirements for equipment, not for vehicles. 
There are two basic types of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards: 
Those establishing minimum performance levels for motor vehicles, and 
those establishing levels for individual items of motor vehicle 
equipment. An example of the former is Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash 
Protection. That standard requires that vehicles be equipped with 
specific occupant protection equipment (such as seat belts or air bags) 
and certified as being able to pass specified whole-vehicle tests (such 
as a frontal crash test). FMVSS No. 108, on the other hand, is largely 
an equipment standard. It uses a two-step process to regulate vehicle 
lighting. It requires vehicle lighting equipment be manufactured to 
conform to its requirements (such as the headlamp photometry 
requirements), whether used as original or replacement equipment. These 
requirements are, for the most part, independent of the vehicle; they 
regulate lamps as individual components, not as installed on a vehicle. 
It also requires lamps be placed within designated bounds on a motor 
vehicle. Thus, except for the type, number, activation, and location of 
lighting, FMVSS No. 108 primarily regulates lighting as equipment 
independent of the vehicle. The proposed glare limits and vehicle-level 
track test to evaluate ADB performance in recognizing and not glaring 
oncoming and preceding vehicles differ from the existing photometry 
requirements because they are vehicle-level--not equipment-level--
requirements.
    Third, compliance testing for conformance to the current photometry 
requirements is, for the most part, conducted in a laboratory. 
Photometry testing is performed under strictly controlled conditions in 
a darkened laboratory using highly accurate light measurement sensors. 
The headlamp being tested is placed in a specialized fixture, and the 
light sensor is used to measure the amount of light at each of the 
photometric test points to determine whether the headlamp complies with 
the photometric requirement(s) for that test point. The proposed 
vehicle-level track test to evaluate ADB performance differs from this 
traditional testing because it is track-based, not laboratory-based.

Regulatory History and Research Efforts Related to Glare

    FMVSS No. 108 has included photometry requirements since the 
inception of the standard in 1967. The standard initially adopted SAE 
\9\ photometry requirements.\10\ Since then, NHTSA has made some 
adjustments to the photometry requirements. For example, the 
requirements were amended to permit brighter upper beams \11\ and to 
include photometric test points for overhead retroreflective signs.\12\ 
In addition, in the mid and late 1980s, NHTSA began to explore the 
possibility of making FMVSS No. 108 more of a vehicle standard.\13\ 
NHTSA began developing vehicle-level headlamp photometric 
specifications based on the geometry of roadways, an analysis of crash 
data, and the driver's ability to see.\14\ The Agency then issued an 
NPRM to amend the headlamp

[[Page 51771]]

requirements to make them more performance-oriented.\15\ That 
rulemaking was terminated several years later because the technical 
complexities proved too difficult to surmount at that time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Society of Automotive Engineers (now SAE International). 
SAE is an organization that develops technical standards based on 
best practices.
    \10\ See 54 FR 20066 (May 9, 1989) (explaining history of 
photometric requirements).
    \11\ 43 FR 32416 (July 27, 1978).
    \12\ 58 FR 3856 (Jan. 12, 1993).
    \13\ 50 FR 42735 (Oct. 22, 1985) (Request for Comments).
    \14\ 52 FR 30393 (Aug. 14, 1987) (Request for Comments).
    \15\ 54 FR 20084 (May 9, 1989).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA has also, at various times, taken steps to address problems 
and consumer complaints related to glare.\16\ In the 1970s, NHTSA began 
research in response to consumer suggestions that vehicles should have 
a lower-intensity third beam for driving in well-lit areas. In the 
1990s, NHTSA issued a final rule to address headlamp misaim, which is 
an important factor in the cause of glare.\17\ In 2001, NHTSA published 
a Request for Comments concerning issues related to glare from 
headlamps, fog lamps, driving lamps, and auxiliary headlamps.\18\ We 
observed that ``auxiliary lamps are now becoming a source of complaint 
for glare. Often described as another set of headlamps, sometimes 
mounted lower, the public reports that these lamps seem to be used all 
the time at night. This documented misuse of fog lamps in particular 
helps substantiate the complaints that NHTSA has been receiving. NHTSA 
has received complaints about fog lamp use for a while, but never so 
many as recently.'' \19\ NHTSA received more than 5,000 comments in 
response to the 2001 notice, most of which expressed concerns about 
glare. In 2005 Congress directed the Department of Transportation to 
conduct a study of the risks associated with glare to oncoming 
vehicles.\20\ NHTSA also issued a variety of interpretation letters 
concerning the permissibility of various frontal lighting concepts. 
Generally, NHTSA allowed low-illuminance supplementary frontal lighting 
such as fog lamps, but found, in at least some instances, that higher-
power frontal lamps were not permitted. These interpretations are 
discussed in detail in Section VI below which sets out NHTSA's 
tentative interpretation of how FMVSS No. 108 applies to ADB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See generally 66 FR 49594, 49596 (Sept. 28, 2001).
    \17\ 62 FR 10710 (Mar. 10, 1997).
    \18\ 66 FR 49594.
    \19\ 66 FR 49601.
    \20\ Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation 
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, Public Law 109-59, Sec. 2015 (2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the many complaints from the public about glare and 
the Congressional mandate to study the risks of glare, NHTSA initiated 
a multipronged research program to examine the reasons for the 
complaints as well as possible solutions. This effort culminated in 
several detailed Agency reports. For example, to better understand the 
complaints, NHTSA conducted a survey of U.S. drivers.\21\ The results 
showed that while, for a majority of respondents (about 54%) glare was 
``noticeable but acceptable,'' a sizeable number of drivers (about 30%) 
rated glare as ``disturbing.'' In 2003 NHTSA published a request for 
comments to learn more about advanced headlighting systems that can 
actively change the intensity and duration of headlamp illumination 
(these systems were precursors of ADB technology) to evaluate whether 
such systems would contribute to glare.\22\ In 2007, NHTSA submitted a 
report on glare to Congress.\23\ In addition, NHTSA conducted multiple 
studies, using field measurements, laboratory tests, computer analyses, 
and vehicle tests to examine the effects of different headlamp factors 
on driver performance.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Perel & Singh. 2004. Drivers' Perceptions of Headlamp Glare 
from Oncoming and Following Vehicles, DOT HS 809 669. Washington, 
DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
    \22\ 68 FR 7101 (Feb. 12, 2003); 70 FR 40974 (July 15, 2005) 
(withdrawn).
    \23\ See supra, note 1.
    \24\ See generally Summary of Headlamp Research at NHTSA, DOT HS 
811 006. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration (2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After these efforts concluded, NHTSA has continued in recent years 
to study the possibilities offered by advanced frontal lighting, 
including its potential to reduce glare. Two recent NHTSA research 
studies form the basis for this proposal. In 2012, the Agency published 
a study (``Feasibility Study'') \25\ 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 
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 built on this effort by developing a 
vehicle-level track test to evaluate whether an ADB system complies 
with the derived photometry requirements for glare prevention (``ADB 
Test Report'').\26\ This research was necessary because, among other 
things, the current photometry requirements are equipment-based 
requirements that involve laboratory testing, not vehicle-based 
requirements tested on a track. Both of these research efforts are 
discussed in more detail in Section IV below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 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. See also 77 FR 40843 (July 11, 2012) (request for 
comments on the report).
    \26\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Adaptive Driving Beam Technology, Toyota Petition for Rulemaking, and 
SAE J3069

    The last several years have seen the development of ADB headlamps 
in other parts of the world, including Europe. Adaptive driving beam is 
a ``long-range forward visibility light beam[ ] that adapts to the 
presence of opposing and preceding vehicles by modifying portions of 
the projected light in order to reduce glare to the drivers/riders of 
opposing and preceding vehicles.'' \27\ It therefore has the potential 
to improve long-range visibility for the driver without glaring other 
road users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ SAE J3069 JUN2016, Sec. 3.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ADB systems utilize advanced equipment, including sensors (such as 
cameras), data processing software, and headlamp hardware (such as 
shutters or LED arrays). ADB systems detect and identify illumination 
from the headlamps of oncoming vehicles and the taillamps of preceding 
vehicles. The system uses this information to automatically adjust the 
headlamp beams to provide less light to areas of the roadway occupied 
by other vehicles and more light to unoccupied portions of the road. 
ADB systems typically use the existing front headlamps with 
modifications that either implement a mechanical shade rotating in 
front of the headlamp beam to block part of the beam, or extinguish 
individual LEDs in headlamps using arrays of light source systems 
(e.g., LED matrix systems). The portion of the beam directed to 
portions of the roadway occupied by other vehicles is at or even below 
levels of a traditional lower beam.\28\ The portion of the beam 
directed at unoccupied portions of the road is typically equivalent to 
existing upper beams. The ADB systems NHTSA tested required that the 
driver manually select ADB mode using the headlighting system control 
and were designed to activate only at speeds above typical city driving 
speeds (about 20 mph).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ SAE J3069JUN 2016, pp. 1-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ADB systems may be viewed as an advanced type of semiautomatic 
headlamp beam switching device (which is explicitly permitted as a 
compliance option in FMVSS No.

[[Page 51772]]

108 \29\). Semiautomatic beam switching was first introduced in 
vehicles in the 1950s, and while not initially widely adopted, in 
recent years it has become widely offered as optional equipment. 
Traditional semiautomatic beam switching headlamps switch automatically 
from upper beam to lower beam when meeting other vehicles. Unlike ADB, 
however, traditional semiautomatic beam switching headlamps are not 
able to vary the lower beam pattern to fit the traffic on the road; 
they are only able to produce a single lower beam pattern.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ S9.4.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ADB technology enhances safety in two ways. First, it provides a 
variable, enhanced lower beam pattern that is sculpted to traffic on 
the road, rather than just the one static lower beam pattern. It is 
thus able to provide more illumination than existing lower beams. And 
it does this, if operating correctly, without glaring other motorists. 
Second, it likely will lead to increased, appropriate, upper beam usage 
(in situations where other vehicles will not be glared). Research has 
shown that most drivers under-utilize the upper beams. ``[A]bundant 
evidence suggests that most drivers use lower beams primarily, if not 
exclusively.'' \30\ Unfortunately, ``driving with lower-beam headlamps 
can result in insufficient visibility for a number of driving 
situations,'' \31\ particularly at higher speeds, because at higher 
speeds the need for greater seeing distance increases.\32\ ADB 
technology (like traditional beam switching technology) enables the 
driver to activate the ADB system so that it is always in use, 
obviating the need to switch between lower and upper beams. In this 
way, the upper beam will be more widely used, and used only when there 
are no other vehicles present. For both these reasons, ADB has the 
potential to reduce the risk of crashes by increasing visibility 
without increasing glare. Although isolating the effect of visibility 
on nighttime crash risk is difficult because of many confounding 
factors, there is evidence suggesting diminished visibility likely 
increases the risk of crashes, particularly the risk of pedestrian 
crashes at higher speeds, as well as crashes involving animals, trains, 
and parked cars.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 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. 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'').
    \31\ Investigation of Safety-Based Advanced Forward-Lighting 
Concepts to Reduce Glare, DOT HS 811 033, p. 63.
    \32\ 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.
    \33\ 2007 Report to Congress, p. 6. A recent 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 Feasibility Study, p. 5 (``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.''). See 
Appendix A for an analysis that roughly estimates the target 
population that could benefit from ADB technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ADB was first permitted in Europe by an amendment to R48 and R123 
of the Economic Commission for Europe (``ECE''). Since then vehicle 
manufacturers have provided ADB systems in select vehicle lines sold in 
Europe. For instance, the 2017 Volkswagen Passat was available in 
Europe equipped with an ADB system. Audi has been installing ADB on a 
variety of Audi models and has sold (as of the end of 2016) 
approximately 123,000 vehicles with ADB across 55 different markets 
outside the United States.\34\ Additional world regions adopting ECE 
regulations also permit ADB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Letter from Thomas Zorn, Volkswagen Group of America to Dr. 
Mark Rosekind, Administrator, NHTSA, Petition for Temporary 
Exemption from FMVSS 108 (October 10, 2016), pp. 1, 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ECE lighting requirements permit adaptive driving beam systems 
under the umbrella of adaptive front lighting systems, including 
lighting devices type-approved according to ECE R123. These systems 
provide beams with differing characteristics for automatic adaptation 
to varying conditions of use of dipped-beam (lower beam) and if it 
applies, the main-beam (upper beam). ECE installation requirements for 
ADB systems take advantage of the type-approval framework used 
throughout ECE standards to test whole vehicles within traffic to 
verify performance. The system is evaluated subjectively through 
observations made by the type-approval technician during a test drive 
consisting of various driving situations.
    The automotive industry has also recently developed a recommended 
practice for ADB technology. In June 2016, SAE adopted SAE J3069 
JUN2016, Surface Vehicle Recommended Practice; Adaptive Driving Beam 
(``SAE J3069''). The standard, which is based, in part, on NHTSA's 
Feasibility Study, specifies a track test to evaluate the performance 
of ADB, as well as a variety of other requirements.
    Although ADB has been deployed in Europe on a limited basis, it has 
not yet been deployed in the United States. This is largely because of 
industry uncertainty about whether FMVSS No. 108 allows ADB 
systems.\35\ NHTSA has not, until this NPRM, issued an interpretation 
of whether and how FMVSS No. 108 applies to ADB. In 2013, Toyota 
petitioned NHTSA for rulemaking to amend FMVSS No. 108 to permit 
manufacturers the option of equipping vehicles with ADB systems.\36\ In 
its petition, Toyota described how its system works, identified the 
potential safety benefits of the system, and discussed its view of how 
ADB should be treated under the Agency's regulations. In this NPRM, 
NHTSA sets out its tentative interpretation that the existing FMVSS No. 
108 prohibits ADB, while, at the same time, granting and acting on 
Toyota's petition to amend the standard to allow for this technology 
and ensure that it meets the safety needs of glare prevention and 
visibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 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.'').
    \36\ Letter from Tom Stricker, Toyota Motor North America, Inc. 
to David Strickland (Mar. 29, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. ECE ADB Regulations

    ECE regulations allow ADB systems under the umbrella of adaptive 
front lighting systems (``AFS'') under Regulation 48.\37\ 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 or to oncoming and preceding vehicles. This 
is demonstrated through the technical service performing a test drive

[[Page 51773]]

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.\38\ The performance of the ADB system is evaluated based on 
the subjective observations of the type approval engineer during this 
test drive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ Regulation 48 defines AFS as ``a lighting device type-
approved according to Regulation No. 123, providing beams with 
differing characteristics for automatic adaptation to varying 
conditions of use of the dipped-beam (passing-beam) and, if it 
applies, the main-beam (driving-beam).''
    \38\ See Annex 12 to ECE R48.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. NHTSA Research Related to ADB

    There are two components to NHTSA's ADB-related research--the 2012 
Feasibility Study and the 2015 ADB Test report. This research develops 
objective criteria and test procedures to evaluate whether an ADB 
system glares oncoming or preceding vehicles.
    The Feasibility Study derives vehicle-based photometric 
requirements to control glare from the current equipment-based 
photometric test points in FMVSS No. 108. As explained above, the 
existing lower-beam photometry requirements regulate glare by 
specifying the maximum intensity of light permitted at certain 
specified portions of the lower beam that are directed towards oncoming 
or preceding vehicles. These requirements are set out in Table XIX of 
FMVSS No. 108. Four of these test points regulate headlamp glare.\39\ 
Two of these test points correspond to locations of oncoming vehicles 
(i.e., to the left of the lamp and slightly above horizontal),\40\ and 
two correspond to glare to preceding vehicles (i.e., to the right of 
the lamp and slightly above horizontal).\41\ Table XIX specifies the 
maximum intensity of light that may be emitted in these directions. So, 
for example, a lower beam may not provide more than 1,000 candela \42\ 
(cd) at 0.5 degrees up, and 1.5 degrees to the left. These photometric 
requirements are for an individual headlamp (as a piece of equipment, 
and tested in a laboratory), not for a headlighting system as installed 
on a vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ More specifically, they regulate glare that comes directly 
from the headlamps (as opposed to headlamp glare that reflects off 
of, say, the road surface).
    \40\ 1U, 1.5L to L (700 cd maximum); 0.5U, 1.5L to L (1,000 cd 
maximum).
    \41\ 1.5U, 1R to R (1,400 cd maximum); 0.5U, 1R to 3R (2,700 cd 
maximum).
    \42\ Candela is a unit of measurement of luminous intensity. 
Candela is a measure of the amount of light coming from a source per 
unit solid angle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Feasibility Study translates these equipment requirements into 
vehicle-based photometric requirements for an entire headlighting 
system by translating them into three-dimensional space around a 
vehicle (picture a cloud of points in front of the vehicle). It derives 
groups of test points to control glare to oncoming and preceding 
drivers. These test points correspond to where an oncoming or preceding 
vehicle would be on the road in relation to the vehicle. For each of 
these points there is a maximum illuminance \43\ level--a level of 
light that should not be exceeded. The maximum allowed illuminance 
level depends on how far in front of the vehicle the test point is. 
That is, the Feasibility Study derives the maximum amount of light that 
should be directed toward an oncoming or preceding vehicle, based on 
how far the oncoming or preceding vehicle is from the ADB-equipped 
vehicle (``derived glare limits''). Additional details on this 
derivation can be found in the Feasibility Study.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ Illuminance is the amount of light falling on a surface. 
The unit of measurement for illuminance is lux. Lux is a unit 
measurement of illuminance describing the amount of light falling on 
a surface, whereas candela is a measure of the luminous intensity 
produced by a light source in a particular direction per solid 
angle. A measure of luminous intensity in candela can be converted 
to a lux equivalent, given a specified distance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA conducted testing and research to develop an objective and 
repeatable performance test to evaluate whether an ADB system exceeds 
the derived glare limits. The testing was based on the ECE R48 test 
drive scenarios and the derived glare limits.
    We evaluated and refined a range of test track scenarios based on 
the ECE test drive specifications. These included a variety of types of 
roadway geometry (e.g., curved, straight, winding), and maneuver 
scenarios (e.g., encountering an oncoming vehicle, or passing a 
preceding vehicle). We ran the tests on a closed test track with three 
types of ``stimulus'' vehicles (the vehicle that was used to interact 
with the ADB-equipped vehicle and stimulate the adaptive driving beam): 
A large stimulus vehicle, a small stimulus vehicle, and a motorcycle. 
Scenarios varied the speed of both the ADB-equipped vehicle and the 
stimulus vehicle (anywhere from stationary to 67 mph).
    We also developed methods and procedures to objectively assess ADB 
system performance on these test track drives. As noted above, ADB 
performance on the ECE test drive is evaluated based on the subjective 
observations of the type approval engineer. NHTSA's statute requires, 
however, that an FMVSS be objective. To objectively measure the amount 
of light cast on oncoming and preceding vehicles by the ADB-equipped 
vehicle, the stimulus vehicle was equipped with photometers \44\ 
mounted at locations where light from the ADB headlamps could glare the 
driver of the stimulus vehicle--for example, on an outside rear view 
mirror, or in front of the windshield near the driver's eyes.\45\ The 
ADB-equipped vehicle and one or more of the stimulus vehicles were then 
run through the various driving scenarios on closed courses at a 
vehicle testing facility. During these test runs illuminance data from 
the photometers was recorded as was position data for vehicles. A 
variety of adjustments were made to the illuminance and position data 
(for example, the recorded illuminance values were adjusted to account 
for ambient light).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ A photometer, or illuminance meter, is an instrument that 
measures light.
    \45\ The motorcycle was not fitted with photometers because of 
time constraints and equipment availability. Illuminance receptors 
were located on a vehicle positioned adjacent to the motorcycle; 
this vehicle's lamps remained off to ensure that the ADB-equipped 
vehicle was responding only to the motorcycle's lamps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To evaluate the performance of the ADB system, NHTSA used 
simplified versions of the derived glare limits reported in the 
Feasibility Study. This resulted in two sets of glare limits: One set 
for glare to oncoming vehicles and one set for glare to preceding 
vehicles. The glare limits are specified with respect to the distance 
between the ADB-equipped vehicle and either the oncoming or preceding 
stimulus vehicle (see Table 1 and Table 2). The specified glare limit 
is the maximum amount of light that may be cast on an oncoming or 
preceding vehicle within that distance interval. The recorded 
illuminance values were compared with the derived glare limit 
corresponding to the distance at which the illuminance value was 
recorded. If the recorded illuminance value exceeded the derived glare 
limit, this was considered a test failure.

             Table 1--Limits for Glare to Oncoming Vehicles
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Maximum
         Range from headlamp to photometer  (m)             illuminance
                                                               (lux)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
15.0-29.9...............................................             3.1
30.0-59.9...............................................             1.8
60.0-119.9..............................................             0.6
120.0-239.9.............................................             0.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------


             Table 2--Limits for Glare to Preceding Vehicles
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Maximum
         Range from headlamp to photometer  (m)             illuminance
                                                               (lux)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
15.0-29.9...............................................            18.9
30.0-59.9...............................................            18.9
60.0-119.9..............................................             4.0
120.0-239.9.............................................             4.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 51774]]

    We tested four different ADB-equipped vehicles that were approved 
and sold in Europe: A MY 2014 Audi A8 equipped with MatrixBeam; a MY 
2014 BMW X5 xDrive35i equipped with Adaptive High-Beam Assist; a MY 
2014 Lexus LS460 F Sport equipped with Adaptive High-Beam System; and a 
MY 2014 Mercedes-Benz E350 equipped with Adaptive Highbeam Assist. The 
beam patterns on the Audi and Mercedes headlamps were FMVSS No. 108-
compliant. Activation speeds for these ADB systems ranged from 19 to 43 
mph.\46\ The Agency analyzed the research in a variety of ways, 
including assessments for repeatability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ ADB Test Report, p. 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In these tests, ADB appeared to provide noticeable additional 
roadway illumination. ADB adaptation was more apparent in some vehicles 
than others. However, in many cases ADB did not succeed in maintaining 
glare in the location of other vehicles to lower beam levels. 
Generally, the Agency's testing suggested that when an ADB system has a 
long preview of another vehicle, ADB can perform well. When an ADB 
system does not have a long preview of another vehicle, such as in an 
intersection scenario or when two vehicles are oncoming on a curved 
road, ADB may not adapt its beam pattern quickly enough. Additionally, 
some ADB system behaviors that were not expected and uncharacteristic 
of ADB's stated purpose were observed, such as instances of momentary 
engagement of the upper beam or interpreting a reflective roadside sign 
to be another vehicle and suddenly darkening the forward roadway. 
Because this research evaluated ADB systems installed on MY 2014 
vehicles, current ADB systems may be capable of better performance.
    The Agency's test report made a number of observations based on its 
analysis of the testing data. Here, the Agency notes several. First, 
testing confirmed the validity of the derived glare limits. For 
example, the illuminance of the lower beams of the ADB systems equipped 
with an FMVSS No. 108-compliant lower beam was within the glare limits 
when measured on the test track with the vehicle stationary. Second, 
the research demonstrated that achieving a valid whole-vehicle test 
procedure for assessing ADB headlighting system performance with 
respect to relevant performance criteria is technically feasible. The 
results showed that making such measurements outdoors in variable 
ambient illumination conditions can be performed in a valid way, by 
removing the measured ambient illumination from the recorded 
headlighting system test trial data. For example, ADB response timing 
seemed consistent across trials. Scenarios involving the stimulus 
vehicle and ADB-equipped vehicle driving toward each other showed ADB 
adaptation occurring at closer range between vehicles than would be 
seen if the stimulus vehicle is stationary because of the ADB response 
timing. Third, the testing showed that this whole-vehicle test 
procedure could be accomplished in a repeatable manner. Specific 
testing results are discussed in more detail in the docketed test 
report and data and in subsequent sections of this preamble. 
Repeatability is discussed in more detail in Section VIII.c.

V. SAE J3069

    In 2016, SAE published a standard for adaptive driving beam 
systems, SAE J3069 JUN 2016, Adaptive Driving Beam. The standard 
specifies a road test to determine whether an ADB system glares 
oncoming or preceding vehicles. The standard specifies, as performance 
criteria, glare limits based on and similar but not identical to the 
glare limits used in the ADB Test Report (See Table 3).
    SAE J3069 specifies a straight test track with a single lane 155 m 
long. On either side of this test lane, the standard specifies the 
placement of test fixtures simulating an opposing or preceding vehicle. 
The test fixtures are fitted with lamps having a specified brightness, 
color, and size similar to the taillamps and headlamps on a typical 
car, truck, or motorcycle. The standard specifies four test fixtures: 
An opposing 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 to measure the 
illumination from the ADB headlamps.
    The standard specifies a total of eighteen different test drive 
scenarios. The scenarios vary the test fixture used, the placement of 
the fixture (i.e., to the right or left of the lane in which the ADB-
equipped vehicle is travelling), and whether the lamps on the test 
fixture are illuminated for the entire test drive, or are instead 
suddenly illuminated when the ADB vehicle is close to the test fixture. 
During each of these test runs, the illuminance recorded at 30 m, 60 m, 
120 m, and 155 m must not exceed the specified glare limits. 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. If any recorded (or interpolated) 
illuminance value exceeds the applicable glare limit, the standard 
provides for an allowance: The same test drive scenario is run, except 
now only the lower beam is activated. The ADB system can still be 
deemed to have passed the test as long as any of the ADB exceedances do 
not exceed 125% of the measured (or interpolated) illuminance value(s) 
for the lower beam.

                     Table 3--SAE J3069 Glare Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Range from headlamp to   Maximum  illuminance,    Maximum  illuminance,
    photometer  (m)          oncoming  (lux)         preceding  (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, the standard contains a 
number of other system requirements, such as physical test requirements 
and requirements for the telltale. It also requires the system to 
comply with certain aspects of existing standards for lower and upper 
beam photometry as measured statically in a laboratory environment (for 
example, for the portion of the ADB 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).
    In the Proposal and Regulatory Alternatives sections of this 
document we discuss specific provisions of SAE J3069 in more detail.

VI. Interpretation of How FMVSS No. 108 Applies to ADB

    NHTSA has never squarely addressed whether ADB technology is 
permitted under existing FMSS No. 108 requirements. Here we address 
this issue and consider requirements in FMVSS No. 108 that could pose 
regulatory obstacles to the introduction of ADB in the United States. 
We first consider whether ADB technology would be permissible under 
FMVSS No. 108 as supplemental lighting and conclude it is not 
supplemental lighting. We then consider whether an ADB system would 
comply with the current FMVSS No. 108 requirements for headlights. As 
we explain below, ADB would likely not comply with at least some of 
these requirements, particularly the photometry and semiautomatic beam 
switching device requirements. We tentatively conclude that FMVSS No. 
108 currently would not permit the installation of ADB on motor 
vehicles.

[[Page 51775]]

a. ADB Is Not Supplemental Lighting But Is Part of the Required 
Headlamp System

    The threshold issue is whether an ADB system is supplemental or 
required lighting. FMVSS No. 108 specifies, for each class of vehicle, 
certain 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.\47\ There are two different but related reasons 
leading us to tentatively conclude that an ADB system is not 
supplemental lighting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ S6.2.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, ADB systems are not supplemental lighting because they fit 
the definition of ``semiautomatic beam switching device,'' a 
headlighting device that is specifically regulated by the standard. 
FMVSS No. 108 requires that vehicles be equipped with a headlamp 
switching device that provides ``a means of switching between lower and 
upper beams designed and located so that it may be operated 
conveniently by a simple movement of the driver's hand or foot.'' \48\ 
As an alternative to this requirement, the standard allows a vehicle to 
be equipped with a semiautomatic means of switching between the lower 
and upper beams.\49\ The standard defines ``semiautomatic headlamp beam 
switching device'' as ``one which provides either automatic or manual 
control of beam switching at the option of the driver. When the control 
is automatic the headlamps switch from the upper beam to the lower beam 
when illuminated by the headlamps on an approaching vehicle and switch 
back to the upper beam when the road ahead is dark. When the control is 
manual, the driver may obtain either beam manually regardless of the 
conditions ahead of the vehicle.'' \50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ S9.4.
    \49\ S9.4.1.
    \50\ S4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have tentatively concluded that an ADB system is a semiautomatic 
beam switching device under FMVSS No. 108 because an ADB system 
automatically switches between an upper beam and a lower beam. An upper 
beam is defined in the standard as ``a beam intended primarily for 
distance illumination and for use when not meeting or closely following 
other vehicles.'' \51\ A lower beam is defined as ``a beam intended to 
illuminate the road and its environs ahead of the vehicle when meeting 
or closely following another vehicle.'' \52\ The beam an ADB system 
emits when there are no preceding or oncoming vehicles is the upper 
beam; the beam it emits when there are preceding or oncoming vehicles 
is a lower beam.\53\ ADB technology differs from standard headlighting 
technology in that it can provide a variety of lower beam patterns 
tailored to fit the particular traffic situation it is confronted with. 
For ease of reference, we will refer to the ``base'' lower beam as the 
lower beam pattern produced by the ADB system that is the same as the 
lower beam the headlighting system would produce if it were not ADB-
equipped, and the ``augmented'' lower beam as the enhanced lower beam 
with which the system illuminates the roadway when at least some 
portion(s) of the forward roadway is unoccupied by other vehicles. If 
the forward roadway is sufficiently occupied by other vehicles (either 
oncoming or preceding) so there is no portion of the roadway that could 
be illuminated with additional light without glaring other vehicles, 
the ADB system produces a base lower beam; if the forward roadway is at 
least partially unoccupied, the system produces an augmented lower 
beam, in which at least some portions of the beam pattern are brighter 
than the corresponding portions in the pattern of the base lower beam. 
An ADB system can provide a variety of different augmented lower beam 
patterns, depending on the traffic situation. However, each of these 
augmented beams is, by definition, a lower beam. Because an ADB system 
provides either automatic or manual control of beam switching at the 
option of the driver, and, when the control is automatic the headlamps 
switch between an upper beam and a lower beam, it is a semiautomatic 
headlamp beam switching device. The standard has specific requirements 
for semiautomatic beam switching devices (we discuss these requirements 
in more detail below and in the Proposal section of this document). 
Because ADB is regulated by these requirements, it is not supplemental 
lighting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ Id.
    \52\ Id.
    \53\ This is consistent with SAE J3069 JUN2016, which considers 
ADB as ``an addition to or equivalent to the lower beam.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, ADB is not supplemental lighting under NHTSA's 
interpretation of the term ``supplemental lighting.'' FMVSS No. 108 
requires vehicles to be equipped with one of several permissible 
headlighting systems, whose specifications are set forth in the 
standard. Headlighting systems are comprised of headlamps and 
associated hardware. The purpose of headlighting is primarily to 
provide forward illumination.\54\ In determining whether lighting 
equipment providing forward illumination is supplemental or required, 
NHTSA looks at several factors: (1) Where the lamp directs its light; 
(2) whether it uses a headlamp replaceable light source to emit a beam 
that provides significantly more light flux than supplemental cornering 
lamps or fog lamps designed to conform to applicable SAE standards; (3) 
whether the lamp is intended to be used regularly or is limited (as are 
fog lamps) to more narrow driving conditions and situations; and (4) 
whether there is a manual on/off switch.\55\ For example, in a 2004 
interpretation letter, NHTSA used these factors to evaluate a swiveling 
lamp included as part of a vehicle front lighting system meeting the 
FMVSS No. 108 requirements without the lamp. The lamp was designed to 
automatically enhance forward illumination around corners and through 
curves to improve a driver's ability to see pedestrians, bicycles, and 
other objects. NHTSA concluded the lamp was part of the required 
headlighting system, and thus not supplemental lighting, and therefore 
subject to the headlamp requirements.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ S4 ``Headlamp means a lighting device providing an upper 
and/or a lower beam used for providing illumination forward of the 
vehicle.'' (formatting in original).
    \55\ Letter from Jacqueline Glassman, Chief Counsel, to 
[Redacted] (Jan. 21, 2004) (opining that a ``swiveling lamp'' is a 
component of the required headlighting system). See also Letter from 
John Womack, Acting Chief Counsel, to M. Guy Dorleans, Valeo Vision 
(Aug. 31, 1994) (treating an auxiliary driving beam as part of the 
required headlighting system); Letter from Frank Berndt, Chief 
Counsel, to I.A. Wuddel, Hueck & Co. (Nov. 18, 1983) (treating an 
auxiliary driving beam as part of the required headlighting system 
and alternatively treating it as a supplemental light). All 
interpretations cited in this document are available at https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/.
    \56\ Letter from Jacqueline Glassman, Chief Counsel, to 
[Redacted] (Jan. 21, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under this analysis, we tentatively conclude an ADB system is part 
of the required headlighting system and not supplemental lighting. Most 
importantly, an ADB system, in contrast to supplemental lamps such as 
cornering lights or fog lamps, provides significantly more light flux 
forward of the vehicle and is intended to be used regularly.\57\ ADB 
systems function, and

[[Page 51776]]

are intended to function, as the primary source of forward illumination 
for the vehicle when they are activated. This is a safety-critical 
function affecting not only the ADB-equipped vehicle but also (through 
glare) other vehicles. The purpose of the headlighting requirements is 
to ensure headlighting systems attend to both these safety-critical 
issues and strike an acceptable balance between forward visibility and 
glare. The entire purpose of ADB technology is to strike this balance 
more robustly and effectively. It therefore seems appropriate that ADB 
is considered an element of required lighting and not merely 
supplemental lighting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ See Letter from Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel, to Robert 
Bosch Corp. (Feb. 11, 1977) (finding that fog lamp is supplemental 
lighting); Letter from Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel, to M. Iwase, 
Koito Mfg. Co., Ltd. (March 31, 1986) (same); Letter from Erika Z. 
Jones, Chief Counsel, to T. Chikada, Stanley Elec. Co. (June 19, 
1987) (same); Letter from Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel to Byung M. 
Soh, Target Marketing Sys., Inc. (Sept. 13, 1988) (same); Letter 
from Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel, to Sadato Kadoya, Mazda (North 
America), Inc. (Nov. 3, 1988) (same); Letter from Philip Recht, 
Chief Counsel, to Melinda Dresser, Carlin Mfg. (January 9, 1985) 
(same); Letter from John Womack, Acting Chief Counsel, to Yohsiaki 
Matsui, Stanley Elec. Co. (Sept. 20, 1995) (same).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We note that prior to the 2004 interpretation letter, NHTSA had 
issued several interpretations concerning auxiliary driving beams in 
which the Agency treated, without directly considering the issue, those 
lamps as supplemental lighting.\58\ If the lamps in question in those 
earlier interpretations would be considered supplemental lighting under 
the factors set forth in the 2004 interpretation, they may be 
consistent with that later interpretation. There is not, however, 
sufficient information about the lighting systems at issue in those 
earlier interpretations letters to be able to apply the factors from 
the 2004 interpretation. In any case, the 2004 interpretation has been, 
to date, NHTSA's view on the issue. Because of the reasons given above, 
we tentatively conclude that changing that interpretation is not 
warranted at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ See Letter from Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel, to P. 
Soardo, Instituto Elettrotecnico Nazionale (May 22, 1987); Letter 
from S.P. Wood to Subaru of America, Inc. (Oct. 31, 1978); Letter 
from Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel, to Byung M. Soh, Target 
Marketing Sys., Inc. (Sept. 13, 1988); Letter from Erika Z. Jones, 
Chief Counsel to George Ziolo (Sept. 12, 1988); Letter from Frank 
Berndt, Chief Counsel, to I.A. Wuddel, Hueck & Co. (Nov. 18, 1983).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. ADB Systems Would Not Comply With at Least Some of the Headlamp 
Requirements

    Because we tentatively conclude that an ADB system is part of the 
required headlamp system, we next consider whether there are any 
headlamp requirements with which it would not comply. We tentatively 
conclude that an ADB system would likely not comply with certain of the 
requirements for lower beam photometry and semiautomatic beam switching 
devices.
i. Photometry Requirements
    An ADB system would have to comply with all applicable photometry 
requirements. As discussed earlier, there are separate photometry 
requirements for lower and upper beams. The photometry requirements 
specify test points, with each test point specifying minimum levels of 
light (to ensure adequate illumination) and/or maximum levels of light 
(to limit glare to oncoming or preceding vehicles). When an ADB system 
is emitting an upper beam, the upper beam must conform to the upper 
beam photometry requirements, and when it is emitting a lower beam it 
must conform to the lower beam photometry requirements.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ We note it does not appear possible to interpret the 
standard so the dimmed portion of the ADB beam is subject to the 
lower beam photometry requirements and the undimmed portion is 
subject to upper beam photometry requirements because S9.4.1 
prohibits simultaneous activation of upper and lower beams (except 
for signaling or switching, neither of which is applicable here).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The upper beam of an ADB system would likely be able to comply with 
the upper beam photometry requirements. This is because the ADB upper 
beam would, or should, be the same as the upper beam on the non-ADB-
equipped version of that vehicle. Accordingly, an ADB system's upper 
beam presumably would comply with the upper beam photometric 
requirements.
    The ADB system's lower beam, on the other hand, would probably not 
always comply with the lower beam photometric requirements. An ADB 
system can produce a variety of lower beams; each lower beam must 
comply with the applicable lower beam photometric requirements. The 
base lower beam is designed to conform to the current lower beam 
photometry requirements. However, the augmented lower beam(s) provide 
more illumination than the base lower beam would; the purpose of ADB is 
to produce a lower beam providing more illumination than a current 
FMVSS No. 108-compliant lower beam. Therefore, it is likely that the 
augmented lower beam would not always comply with existing lower beam 
photometry requirements. Toyota appears to allude to this in its 
petition when it states that ``[w]hile the variable beam pattern mode 
does occasionally emit asymmetric candlepower that is above the maxima 
or below the minima at certain FMVSS No. 108 test points, these 
differences are always designed to be consistent with satisfying the 
dual goals of minimizing glare to oncoming and preceding drivers and 
enhancing the forward and sideways illumination for the benefit of the 
driver in the AHS-equipped vehicle.'' \60\ Volkswagen, in a recent 
exemption petition, also notes that ``the Audi Matrix Beam ADB system 
does not conform to FMVSS 108 photometric requirements at certain test 
points.'' \61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ Letter from Tom Stricker, Toyota Motor North America, Inc. 
to David Strickland (Mar. 29, 2013), p. 3.
    \61\ Letter from Thomas Zorn, Volkswagen Group of America to Dr. 
Mark Rosekind, Administrator, NHTSA, Petition for Temporary 
Exemption from FMVSS 108 (October 10, 2016), p. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also note that in the 2003 Request for Comments regarding 
advanced headlighting systems mentioned earlier, the Agency considered, 
among other things, advanced headlighting systems that could actively 
re-aim the lower beam horizontally (so-called ``bending light''). NHTSA 
concluded that FMVSS No. 108 does not prohibit bending light headlamps 
because the standard does not specifically address initial or 
subsequent headlamp aim (the standard addresses only aimability 
requirements). Advanced headlighting systems that can actively re-aim 
the lower beam horizontally are currently available as original and 
replacement equipment in the U.S.
ii. Semiautomatic Beam Switching Device Requirements
    We have tentatively concluded that an ADB system is a semiautomatic 
beam switching device under FMVSS No. 108. ADB systems could likely 
meet some, but not all, requirements applicable to these devices.
    FMVSS No. 108 sets forth a variety of performance requirements for 
semiautomatic beam switching devices. ADB systems would likely be able 
to meet some of the existing semiautomatic beam switching device 
requirements: Owner's manual operating instructions (S9.4.1.1); manual 
override (S9.4.1.2); fail safe operation (S9.4.1.3); and automatic 
dimming indicator (S9.4.1.4). We propose applying these requirements to 
ADB systems. However, ADB systems likely would not comply with other 
requirements applicable to semiautomatic beam switching devices. One of 
the requirements is that semiautomatic headlamp beam switching devices 
must provide lower and upper beams complying with relevant photometry 
requirements. As we explain in the section immediately above, an ADB 
system would not comply with the lower beam

[[Page 51777]]

photometry requirements in all instances. Other requirements include 
fail safe operation requirements, mounting height limitations, and a 
series of physical tests, including a sensitivity test. Some of these 
would be difficult to apply to, or would not sensibly apply to, an ADB 
system.

c. Tentative Determination

    We tentatively conclude that ADB would not be supplemental lighting 
and would likely not comply with at least some of the lower beam 
photometric and semiautomatic beam switching device requirements. We 
therefore tentatively conclude that FMVSS No. 108 would, in its current 
form, preclude an ADB system as original or replacement equipment.
    Although we tentatively conclude that an ADB system is part of the 
required headlighting system, we briefly consider the status of ADB 
technology if it were instead considered supplemental equipment. If we 
were to instead determine that an ADB system is supplemental lighting, 
it would be permissible provided it did not impair the effectiveness of 
any of the required lighting (S6.2.1). A vehicle manufacturer must 
certify that supplemental lighting installed as original equipment 
complies with S6.2.1 (although, as a practical matter, vehicle 
manufacturers generally insist that equipment manufacturers provide 
assurance that their products meet Federal standards). Effectiveness 
may be impaired if, among other things, supplemental lighting creates a 
noncompliance in the existing lighting equipment or confusion with the 
signal sent by another lamp, or functionally interferes with it, or 
modifies its candlepower to either below the minima or above the maxima 
permitted by the standard.\62\ The judgment of impairment is one made 
by the person installing the device, although that decision may be 
questioned by NHTSA if it appears erroneous.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ See, e.g., Letter from Erika Jones, Chief Counsel, to Byung 
M. Soh, Target Marketing Systems, Inc. (Sept. 13, 1988).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If an ADB system were installed as supplemental equipment, it would 
impair the effectiveness of the required headlighting system if it did 
not meet the Table XVIII (upper beam) test points corresponding to 
unoccupied portions of the road, or if it did not meet the Table XIX 
(lower beam) test points corresponding to portions of the road on which 
an oncoming or preceding vehicle was located.\63\ It would, however, be 
difficult for NHTSA to verify this because the Table XVIII and XIX 
photometric test points are premised on laboratory measurements, 
whereas whether an ADB system is functioning properly depends on 
whether it is accurately detecting oncoming and preceding vehicles in 
actual operation on the road. Accordingly, even if NHTSA were to adopt 
this alternative interpretation, it still might not obviate the need 
for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ See Feasibility Study, p. 36 (Fig. 19) (locations of upper 
beam test points) and p. 16 (Fig. 5) (locations of lower beam test 
points). See also Letter from Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel to 
George Ziolo (Sept. 12, 1988) (finding that a supplemental headlamp 
would impair the effectiveness of the headlighting system because it 
caused the upper beam to exceed the upper beam photometric maxima); 
Letter from Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel, to Byung M. Soh, Target 
Marketing Sys., Inc. (Sept. 13, 1988) (finding that a supplemental 
headlamp intensity modulator would impair the effectiveness of the 
headlighting system because it would not necessarily comply with 
upper or lower beam photometric requirements).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We seek comment on this tentative interpretation. In addition, we 
seek comment on whether there are provisions in FMVSS No. 108 we have 
not identified in this document that might apply to ADB systems and so 
should be amended.

VII. NHTSA's Statutory Authority

    NHTSA is proposing this NPRM pursuant to its authority under the 
Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Under 49 U.S.C. chapter 301, Motor Vehicle 
Safety (49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.), 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.\64\ ``Motor vehicle safety'' is defined in the Motor 
Vehicle 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.'' \65\ ``Motor vehicle safety 
standard'' means a minimum performance standard for motor vehicles or 
motor vehicle equipment.\66\ When prescribing such standards, the 
Secretary must consider all relevant, available motor vehicle safety 
information.\67\ 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.\68\ The 
responsibility for promulgation of Federal motor vehicle safety 
standards is delegated to NHTSA.\69\ The Agency carefully considered 
these statutory requirements in developing this proposal. We evaluate 
the proposal with respect to these requirements in subsequent sections 
of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ 49 U.S.C. 30111(a).
    \65\ 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(8).
    \66\ 30102(a)(9).
    \67\ 30111(b)(1).
    \68\ 30111(b) (3)-(4).
    \69\ See 49 CFR 1.95.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VIII. Proposed Requirements and Test Procedures

    We propose amending NHTSA's lighting standard to allow ADB systems 
on vehicles in the United States and ensure that they operate safety 
with respect to the twin safety needs of glare prevention and 
visibility.
    We have tentatively concluded that because ADB has the potential to 
provide significant safety benefits, FMVSS No. 108 should be amended in 
order to permit it. ADB technology has the potential to reduce the risk 
of crashes by increasing visibility without increasing glare. In 
particular, it offers potentially significant safety benefits in 
preventing collisions with pedestrians, cyclists, animals, and roadside 
objects. We have tentatively concluded, however, that ADB would not 
comply with FMVSS No. 108 because an ADB system is part of the required 
headlighting system--not supplemental lighting--and would likely not 
comply with at least some existing lighting requirements. Accordingly, 
we propose amending FMVSS No. 108 to permit ADB systems on vehicles in 
the U.S.
    We have also tentatively concluded that in order to ensure that ADB 
systems operate safely, the standard should be amended to include 
additional requirements specific to ADB systems. Because ADB uses 
relatively new, advanced technology to provide an enhanced lower beam 
and dynamically changes the beam to accommodate the presence of other 
vehicles, it has the potential--if it does not function properly--to 
glare other motorists. NHTSA is particularly sensitive to concerns 
about glare in light of the history of glare complaints from the 
public, the 2005 Congressional mandate, and the Agency's research. 
Because the existing headlighting regulations (in particular, the 
photometry requirements) are based on and intended for the current, 
static beams, they do not have any requirements or

[[Page 51778]]

test procedures to evaluate whether an ADB system is functioning 
properly as it dynamically changes the beam to accommodate other 
vehicles. We therefore propose amending FMVSS No. 108 to include 
requirements and test procedures specifically tailored to ensure that 
ADB systems do not glare other motorists. NHTSA is also proposing a 
limited set of requirements to ensure that ADB systems provide adequate 
visibility at all times.
    First, we propose amending FMVSS No. 108 to allow ADB systems. We 
propose amendments to, among other things, the lower beam photometry 
requirements so that the enhanced lower beam provided by ADB technology 
is permitted.
    Second, we propose requirements to ensure that ADB systems do not 
glare other motorists. ADB systems provide an enhanced lower beam that 
provides more illumination than the currently-allowed lower beam. If 
ADB systems do not function properly--detect oncoming and preceding 
vehicles and shade them accordingly--other motorists will be glared. 
The proposal addresses this safety concern with a combination of 
vehicle-level track tests and equipment-level laboratory testing 
requirements.
    The centerpiece of the proposal is a vehicle-level track test to 
evaluate ADB performance in recognizing and not glaring other vehicles. 
We propose evaluating ADB performance in a variety of different types 
of interactions with oncoming and preceding vehicles (referred to as 
``stimulus'' vehicles because they stimulate a response from the ADB 
system). The stimulus vehicle would be equipped with sensors to measure 
the illuminance from the ADB system near the driver's eyes (or rearview 
mirrors). We propose a variety of different test scenarios. The 
scenarios vary the road geometry (whether it is straight or curved); 
vehicle speeds (from 0 to 70 mph); and vehicle orientation (whether the 
stimulus vehicle is oncoming or preceding). The illumination cast on 
the stimulus vehicle would be measured and recorded throughout the test 
run. In order to evaluate ADB performance in these test runs, we are 
proposing a set of glare limits. These are numeric illuminance values 
that would be the maximum allowable illuminance the ADB system would be 
permitted to cast on the stimulus vehicle. The proposed glare limits 
and test procedures are based on NHTSA's ADB-related research and are 
intended to ensure that an ADB system is capable of correctly detecting 
oncoming and preceding vehicles and not glaring them. They differ from 
the existing photometry requirements because they are vehicle-level 
requirements tested on a track.
    In addition to this track test, we also propose a small set of 
equipment-level laboratory testing requirements related to glare 
prevention. We propose to require that the dimmed portion of the 
adaptive beam (i.e., the light directed towards an oncoming or 
preceding vehicle) not exceed the current low beam maxima, and that in 
the undimmed portion of the adaptive beam (i.e., the light directed 
towards unoccupied roadway) the current upper beam maxima not be 
exceeded. These tests would be carried out at the component level--on 
the headlamps (not installed on the vehicle) in a photometric 
laboratory. These proposed requirements would essentially subject the 
ADB system to laboratory tests of the beam similar to what are 
currently required for standard headlights. NHTSA anticipates that 
manufacturers would be able to certify to these photometry requirements 
in a typical photometric laboratory using typical test procedures, with 
the addition of a headlamp beam controller simulating the signal sent 
to headlamps from the camera/headlamp controller.
    Third, we propose a limited set of minimum illumination 
requirements (as tested in a laboratory) to ensure that the ADB system 
provides sufficient visibility for the driver. The current headlamp 
requirements include, in addition to maximum light levels in certain 
directions, minimum levels of illumination to ensure that the driver 
has a minimum level of visibility. We propose that these existing 
laboratory photometry tests be applied to the ADB system to ensure that 
the ADB beam pattern, although dynamically changing, always provides at 
least a minimum amount of light. We propose requiring that the dimmed 
portion of the adaptive beam meet the current lower beam minima and 
that that in the undimmed portion of the adaptive beam the current 
upper beam minima be met. These minimum levels of illuminance are in a 
direction such that they would not glare other motorists. Again, NHTSA 
anticipates that manufacturers will be able to certify to these 
photometry requirement in a typical photometric laboratory.
    Finally, we propose several other system requirements to ensure 
that an ADB system operates safely. Some of these requirements, such as 
manual override, are already part of the existing regulations for 
semiautomatic beam switching devices, and are being extended to ADB 
systems. Other requirements such as one that the system notify the 
driver of a fault or malfunction, would be specific to ADB systems.

a. Requirements

    This NPRM proposes to subject ADB-equipped vehicles to a dynamic 
compliance test to ensure the ADB system does not glare oncoming or 
preceding vehicles. The performance requirements we propose specify the 
maximum level of illuminance an ADB system may cast on opposing or 
preceding vehicles. In addition to these glare limit requirements, we 
are proposing a set of minimum system requirements to ensure an ADB 
system performs safely.
i. Baseline Glare Limits
    The foundation of this rulemaking is a set of glare limits 
specifying the amount of light that may be directed towards oncoming or 
preceding vehicles. The glare limits we propose are the same limits 
used in the ADB Test Report and presented earlier in this document in 
Table 1 (oncoming glare limits) and Table 2 (preceding glare limits), 
except instead of regulating glare out to 239.9 m, we propose to 
regulate glare out to 220 m. Earlier we explained how these limits were 
derived. These glare limits would be used to evaluate ADB headlamp 
illuminance as measured in a dynamic track test. (We explain the 
proposed test procedures later in this document.) The current 
photometric test points from which the proposed limits are derived are 
maxima; therefore, we propose applying the derived glare limits as 
maxima, so that any measured exceedance of an applicable glare limit 
would be used to determine compliance (except for momentary spikes 
above the limits lasting no longer than 0.1 sec. or over a distance 
range of no longer that 1 m). We are stating the glare limits to a 
precision of one decimal place, as recommended in the report that 
developed these glare limits.\70\ For purposes of determining 
compliance with the glare limits, the Agency will, when conducting 
compliance testing, round measured illuminance values to the nearest 
0.1 lux, in accordance with the rounding method of ASTM Practice E29 
Using Significant Digits in Test Data to Determine Conformance with 
Specifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ Feasibility Study, p. 80.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SAE J3069 uses glare limits drawing on and similar but not 
identical to the proposed glare limits. The proposed glare limits 
deviate from SAE J3069 in two main respects.
    First, two of the glare limits differ slightly. At 60 m, SAE J3069 
uses glare

[[Page 51779]]

limits of 0.7 lux (oncoming) and 8.9 lux (preceding) compared to the 
proposed 0.6 lux and 4.0 lux. The proposed limits are based on the 
0.643 lux and 4.041 lux limits derived in the Feasibility Study, 
rounded to two decimal places.
    Second, SAE J3069 applies to a narrower range of distances (30 m- 
155 m) than the proposed glare limits (15 m-220 m). Our tentative 
decision to regulate glare down to 15 m differs from SAE J3069, which 
does not apply to distances less than 30 m. At 15 m, the angle between 
the oncoming or preceding driver's eyes and the headlamps is small 
enough to cause the observer to be unable to see objects in the 
roadway. The 15 m cutoff we propose is consistent with the Feasibility 
Study and ADB Test Report, which also use glare limits for inter-
vehicle distances as small as 15 m.\71\ We believe it is reasonable not 
to regulate glare for distances smaller than 15 m because as the 
distance between the ADB and the oncoming vehicle decreases, the angle 
between the two vehicles increases; the effects of glare fall off 
rapidly as the angle between the glare source and the center of the 
observer's field of view increase. For preceding vehicles in a passing 
situation, we tentatively believe this is justified because at this 
distance the location of the driver's eye likely corresponds to a 
portion of the beam pattern where less light is typically projected. In 
addition, at smaller distances it might be difficult to obtain accurate 
photometry readings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ Feasibility Study, pp. 23-24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposal to measure and regulate glare out to 220 m is farther 
than either SAE J3069 (which applies only out to 155 m) or the 
Feasibility Study (which derived glare limits only out to 120 m) and is 
slightly less than in the ADB Test Report.\72\ We tentatively believe 
it is necessary to regulate glare further than 120 m or 155 m because 
the upper beams can glare other roadway users at and beyond those 
distances. The maximum intensity allowed for each upper beam headlamp 
is 75,000 cd; \73\ this is equivalent to 150,000 cd for a headlighting 
system. At 120 m, 150,000 cd is equivalent to 10.4 lux; at 155 m, this 
translates to 6.2 lux. Both values are greater than the 0.3 lux glare 
limit the Feasibility Study derived for the furthest distance it 
considered (120 m).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ The SAE range of 155 m appears to roughly track state laws 
regulating upper beam use. Many states allow drivers to use upper 
beams up to about 152 m (500 ft.) from an oncoming vehicle; inside 
of 152 m, the driver must use the lower beams. The distance 
requirements are smaller for preceding vehicles. See, e.g., Va. Code 
Ann. sec. 46.2-1034 (2017); Cal. Veh. Code sec. 24409 (2017); 7 Tex. 
Transp. Code Ann. sec. 547.333.
    \73\ Table XVIII.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The issue then is to what maximum distance glare should be 
regulated. We considered regulating glare out to the distance at which 
the upper beams would be extremely unlikely to glare other motorists, 
but this would involve measuring glare at very large distances, which 
would not be practicable for testing purposes.\74\ The maximum distance 
we are proposing (220 m) seems to be roughly consistent with 
assumptions about allowable glare implicit in state laws governing 
upper beam use.\75\ Requiring an ADB system not exceed 0.3 lux out to 
220 m would therefore preclude an ADB system from using the full upper 
beam once an oncoming vehicle is less than 220 m away.\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ The Feasibility Study derived a glare limit of .3 lux at 
120 m for oncoming vehicles. For simplicity, and since we do not 
have derived glare limits for distances greater than 120 m, we apply 
.3 lux as the glare limit for distances greater than 120 m. (From 
the standpoint of regulatory stringency this is conservative, 
because, as the Feasibility Study explains, the allowable 
illuminance actually decreases as distance increases.) The maximum 
permissible intensity for an upper beam system is 150,000 cd, and 
the distance at which this will not glare an oncoming motorist is, 
approximately, the distance at which this will result in illuminance 
of .3 lux, which is 700 m. This long of a distance--almost a half 
mile--is not practicable for testing purposes.
    \75\ Many states prohibit upper beam use unless oncoming 
vehicles are more than approximately 155 m away. These state upper 
beam laws are likely based on older upper beam headlamps that were 
not as intense as modern headlamps. See, e.g., Cal. Veh. Code sec. 
24409 (2017) (requirement that driver use lower beam within 500 ft 
(152 m) of an oncoming vehicle enacted prior to 1978). Prior to 
1978, the maximum allowable upper beam intensity for a headlighting 
system was 75,000 cd. See 61 FR 54981. At 155 m, this is equivalent 
to 3.1 lux. Thus, under these state laws the illumination to which 
an oncoming driver would be exposed would not exceed (roughly) 3.1 
lux. The current photometry requirements permit a maximum upper beam 
intensity (for a system) of 150,000 cd. This is equivalent to 3.1 
lux at 220 m. Thus, the proposal to regulate glare out to 220 m is 
consistent with the distance specified by state headlamp beam use 
laws based on the lower-intensity pre-1978 upper beam, adjusted to 
account for the higher-intensity upper beam allowed since 1978. That 
is, the distance we propose exceeds the 155 m found in many state 
beam use laws because headlamps are now allowed to be brighter than 
they were previously allowed to be.
    \76\ Assuming the system's upper beam is designed to produce up 
the maximum allowable intensity. If the upper beam were designed to 
produce less than the maximum allowable intensity, then the system 
potentially could use the full upper beam within 220 m.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We believe it is practicable for OEMs to design systems complying 
with glare limits out to 220 m. We are simply applying the lux limit, 
0.3, which was derived for 120 m, out farther, to 220 m. A headlight 
system able to comply with an illuminance limit of 0.3 lux at 155 m (as 
required by SAE J3069) should be able to comply with the same 0.3 lux 
limit at 220 m (because the illuminance decreases as the distance from 
the light source increases), as long as the ADB system is able to 
detect oncoming vehicles at that distance. We believe it is reasonable 
to expect this sort of detection capability from ADB systems; for 
example, the ECE ADB regulations require ADB cameras to be capable of 
sensing vehicles out to 400 m.\77\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ ECE R48 6.1.9.3.1.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have tentatively concluded that the proposed glare limits are 
appropriate for use in this rulemaking. The proposed glare limits 
provide objective, numeric criteria to evaluate ADB system performance 
with respect to glare. They are based on the existing glare limits, 
which have been part of FMVSS No. 108 since its inception in 1967 
(although the current lower beam maxima are slightly higher than the 
maxima incorporated by reference in the initial FMVSS). SAE has adopted 
glare limits similar to the proposed limits in SAE J3069. We seek 
comment on the appropriateness and use of the proposed glare limits. In 
particular, we request comment on any potential safety difference 
between adopting the SAE glare limits and the proposed glare limits. In 
addition, we seek comment on the proposal to consider any exceedance of 
an applicable glare limit (other than momentary spikes) to be a 
noncompliance. This does not take into account glare dosage, exposure, 
or perceptibility. Some studies suggest at least some adverse effects 
of glare depend on temporal duration. For example, some studies have 
shown that the time it takes for a driver's visual performance to 
return to its original state after exposure to glare (referred to as 
glare recovery) is proportional to the total glare or glare dosage.\78\ 
It may also be possible that light intensities exceeding the glare 
limits may not be perceptible to an oncoming or preceding driver if the 
exposure duration is sufficiently small. Should there be a durational 
element to the glare limits, and if so, what should the duration be? 
What is the safety-related basis for the duration (e.g., evidence that 
light intensity at or above a baseline glare limit does not have 
adverse effects on an oncoming or preceding motorist if the glare lasts 
for no longer than that duration)? Would the ``any exceedance'' rule 
potentially mean that an ADB system utilizing pulse width modulated

[[Page 51780]]

light sources could be noncompliant even though oncoming drivers would 
not experience glare? If so, how should this be accounted for?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ Yukio Akashi, John Van Derlofske, Jennifer Watkinson & 
Charles Fay. 2005. Assessment of Headlamp Glare and Potential 
Countermeasures: Survey of Advanced Front Lighting System (AFS). DOT 
HS 809 973. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, pg. 71.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Existing Photometry Requirements That Would Also Apply to ADB 
Systems
    The proposed baseline glare limits are essentially new lower beam 
photometric requirements with which an ADB system would have to comply 
when tested under the track-test procedures discussed later in this 
preamble. In addition to these track-tested glare limits, under this 
proposal an ADB system would also be subject to some of the existing 
laboratory-based upper and lower beam photometry requirements. When the 
ADB system is producing an upper beam (i.e. when there are no oncoming 
or preceding vehicles within 15 m to 220 m) we propose the beam be 
subject to all of the applicable Table XVIII upper beam requirements. 
In addition, we propose that in the undimmed portion of the adaptive 
beam the applicable Table XVIII upper beam maxima and minima be met. 
Similarly, we propose requiring that the lower beam maxima and minima 
be complied with within the dimmed portion of the adaptive beam.
    This differs from SAE J3069 in some respects. SAE J3069 has 
somewhat similar provisions relating to lower and upper beam 
photometry, but those provisions reference the relevant SAE photometric 
standards; the proposal instead appropriately references the upper and 
lower beam photometric requirements in Tables XVIII and XIX of FMVSS 
No. 108. In addition, SAE J3069 only specifies that the lower beam 
maxima not be exceeded within the dimmed portion of the augmented lower 
beam, and the lower beam minima be complied with outside the dimmed 
portion of the augmented lower beam. We do not see any reason an ADB 
system's upper beam should not be subject to the same requirements as 
is a standard upper beam, or the dimmed and undimmed portions of the 
ADB adaptive lower beam should not be subjected to the applicable upper 
and lower beam maxima and minima. This limited set of laboratory-tested 
photometric requirements are an extension of the longstanding 
laboratory-based photometry requirements for standard headlights. The 
Agency requests comment on this preliminary determination. In 
particular, can commenters provide information on the safety impact of 
adopting the proposed standard versus the SAE approach?
    If the Agency were to test an ADB system for compliance with these 
proposed requirements, the testing would be conducted as photometry 
testing is now tested, i.e., in a laboratory using a goniometer. The 
Agency anticipates manufacturers will be able to certify to this 
photometry requirement in a typical photometric laboratory using 
typical test procedures, with the addition of a headlamp beam 
controller simulating the signal sent to headlamps from the camera/
headlamp controller. For the Agency to conduct such testing, it would 
need to collect considerable information from the manufacturer as to 
how to control the headlamps to simulate the dynamic environment. NHTSA 
anticipates that it would consider the manufacturer's certification 
valid unless it is clearly erroneous or if the track testing indicates 
the basic headlamp photometry may be noncompliant with this 
requirement.
iii. Other System Requirements
    We are also proposing several other requirements for ADB systems.
    We propose applying some existing semiautomatic beam switching 
device requirements to ADB systems: Manual override (S9.4.1.2); fail 
safe operation (S9.4.1.3); and automatic dimming indicator (S9.4.1.4). 
These are requirements that apply today to semiautomatic beam switches.
    We also propose adopting additional operation requirements that do 
not have analogs in the current semiautomatic beam switching device 
requirements; most of these are also part of SAE J3069. We propose to 
require the following:
     The ADB system must be capable of detecting system 
malfunctions (including but not limited to sensor obstruction).
     The ADB system must notify the driver of a fault or 
malfunction.
     If the ADB system detects a fault, it must disable the 
system until the fault is corrected.
     The system must produce a base lower beam at speeds below 
25 mph. As the primary purpose of the ADB is to provide additional 
light down the road at high speed, the system is not needed at lower 
speeds. For speeds below 25 mph, it may be likely that the potential 
disbenefits from glare outweigh the potential benefits from the 
additional headlamp illumination.
    Although we propose requiring a telltale informing the driver when 
the ADB system is activated (the automatic dimming indicator 
requirement in S9.4.1.4), we have tentatively decided not to require 
telltales indicating the type of beam (upper or lower) the ADB system 
is providing. We have tentatively decided not to follow the approach of 
ECE Regulation 48, which requires the upper beam telltale be used to 
indicate ADB activation, because we consider the ADB adaptive beam to 
be a lower beam if there are vehicles on the roadway to which the beam 
must adapt. We also do not require a telltale indicating an enabled ADB 
system is projecting an augmented lower beam. We believe providing the 
driver with a visual indication of the type of beam (upper or lower) an 
ADB system is providing is not necessary for safe driving and, if 
present, may result in the driver making unnecessary glances at the 
instrument panel instead of monitoring the roadway. We also propose 
revising the existing upper beam indicator requirement in S9.5 to state 
that the upper beam indicator need not activate when the ADB system is 
activated (and the ADB telltale is activated). This is consistent with 
SAE J3069. OEMs would be free to devise supplemental telltales/
messages. In all of these, we follow the approach taken in SAE 
J3069.\79\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ S6.8 and discussion at p. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We seek comment on these choices. Our intent is to ensure that ADB 
systems operate robustly, while at the same time not unduly restricting 
manufacturer design flexibility. We also note that Table I-a of FMVSS 
No. 108 requires the ``wiring harness or connector assembly of each 
headlighting system must be designed so that only those light sources 
intended for meeting lower beam photometrics are energized when the 
beam selector switch is in the lower beam position, and that only those 
light sources intended for meeting upper beam photometrics are 
energized when the beam selector switch is in the upper beam position, 
except for certain systems listed in Table II.'' This might affect 
design choices for the headlight and/or ADB controls. It might mean 
that the headlight and ADB controls could not be designed so the ADB 
system is activated when the beam selector switch is in the lower beam 
position--the ADB system might, if no other vehicles are present, be 
projecting the upper beam, which could mean that upper beam light 
sources are activated when the beam selector switch is in the lower 
beam position. We seek comment on the effect of this requirement on ADB 
systems, and whether it needs to be amended, and if so, how.
    We are not proposing to subject the switch controlling the ADB 
system to any physical test requirements (e.g., vibration requirements, 
humidity requirement, etc.). We are not extending current device test 
requirements for

[[Page 51781]]

semiautomatic beam switching devices \80\ to ADB systems because those 
requirements date from the 1960s and do not appear to usefully extend 
to modern ADB technologies. We also are not proposing any new physical 
test requirements. We believe market forces will ensure an ADB system's 
switching device will operate robustly. We are, however, proposing 
requiring the ADB system to provide malfunction detection and 
notification and fail-safe operation. We seek comment on whether we 
should specify physical test or additional device test requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ FMVSS No. 108 S14.9.3.11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, other requirements in FMVSS No. 108 applying to 
headlamps will apply to ADB systems. ADB systems, as part of the 
required lighting system, would be required to comply with, for 
example, the Table I requirements, such as color (S6.1.2) and the 
steady-burning requirement (except for signaling purposes, and except 
for the automatic switching from upper beam to lower beam stimulated by 
the appearance of an oncoming or preceding vehicle), and any other 
provisions in FMVSS No. 108 that would apply to ADB systems by virtue 
of their being part of the required headlighting system (as we have 
tentatively concluded that they are).\81\ We asked for comment in 
Section VI above for any other regulatory provisions that might affect 
ADB systems that we should consider amending.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ Other examples include, but are not necessarily limited to, 
the following: S10 (headlighting system requirements); S12 (headlamp 
concealment device requirements); S13 (replaceable headlamp lens 
requirements); and S14.6 (headlamp physical test requirements and 
procedures).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iv. Retention of Existing Requirements for Semiautomatic Headlamp Beam 
Switching Devices Other Than ADB
    The proposal retains the existing semiautomatic beam switching 
requirements for beam switching devices other than ADB (i.e., beam 
switching devices that switch only between an upper beam and a single 
lower beam). These requirements have been in the standard for several 
decades, and while they might be updated, the focus of this rulemaking 
is on amending the current requirements to allow the adoption of ADB 
systems.

b. Test Procedures

i. Introduction
    This section explains how we propose to test an ADB system to 
determine whether it complies with the photometric glare limits we are 
proposing as a performance requirement. We propose to test the ADB 
system in a dynamic road test, in a select number of driving scenarios 
and road configurations.\82\ As noted earlier, the existing headlamp 
photometric requirements, including the requirements that regulate 
glare, are component-level requirements, and testing for compliance 
with them is conducted on the headlamp in a laboratory. We tentatively 
believe a dynamic road test is necessary to ensure, to a reasonable 
degree of confidence, that an ADB system meets minimum safety 
requirements for the prevention of glare. Because the ADB system relies 
on a combination of sensors/cameras, controller units, and headlamps 
that must all work together, the Agency tentatively concludes a dynamic 
compliance test is essential for evaluating ADB performance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \82\ As with all the FMVSSs, the proposed test procedures are 
the procedures that NHTSA would use in performing compliance 
testing. Vehicle or equipment manufacturers would not be required to 
use these testing procedures to certify their vehicles. They may 
certify their vehicles using other means as long as they exercise 
due care in making that certification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Below we discuss the proposed test procedures in detail. The 
proposed procedures involve equipping an FMVSS-certified vehicle with 
photometers (a ``stimulus vehicle'') to measure the amount of glare 
produced by the ADB-equipped vehicle being tested for compliance 
(``test vehicle''). With respect to the track on which we would test 
vehicles, we propose specifying relatively broad ranges of conditions, 
with a limited number of driving scenarios to maintain a practical and 
efficient test while also reflecting real-world conditions to which an 
ADB system would need to adapt to perform adequately. The test track 
may include straight and curved portions but no intersections. For 
curved sections, we propose allowable radii of curvature. The ADB 
systems we tested were unable to prevent glare to any measurable degree 
better on hilly roads than a typical lower beam headlamp. Accordingly, 
the longitudinal slope (grade) cannot exceed 2% to maintain useful 
alignment with headlamps. While we encourage continued development of 
the technology to reduce glare below the current lower beam on hilly 
roads, we are not proposing such a requirement today. We are proposing 
realistic vehicle speeds, appropriate for the radii of curvature we 
have specified.
ii. Test Vehicle and Stimulus Vehicle
    In later sections of this preamble, we discuss proposed maneuvers 
of the stimulus and ADB test vehicles. Here, we discuss the stimulus 
vehicles we propose to use in testing.
1. Proposal
    We propose to use as a stimulus vehicle any FMVSS-certified vehicle 
satisfying the following criteria: (1) Of any FMVSS vehicle 
classification excluding trailers, motor-driven cycles, and low-speed 
vehicles; (2) of any weight class; (3) of any make or model; (4) from 
any of the five model years prior to the model year of the test 
vehicle; and (5) subject to a vehicle height constraint. These 
criteria, and alternatives we are considering, are discussed in more 
detail below.
Vehicle Classification
    We propose to use vehicles of any FMVSS classification other than 
trailers, motor-driven cycles, and low-speed vehicles: passenger cars, 
buses, trucks, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and motorcycles. An ADB 
system should be able to function so as to not glare a broad range of 
FMVSS-certified vehicles. We do not believe it would be difficult for 
an ADB system to identify and shade different vehicle types because the 
image recognition technology will likely focus on headlight and 
taillight patterns and locations. While the FMVSS do not regulate 
vehicle width, FMVSS No. 108 does regulate the range of permissible 
mounting heights for front and rear lamps, based on the type of 
vehicle; this should help aid detection.
Weight
    We propose using vehicles of any gross vehicle weight rating 
(GVWR). SAE J3069 similarly uses fixtures based on light and heavy 
vehicle applications. Again, we see no reason why an acceptable ADB 
system should not be able to recognize and shade both large and small 
vehicles as these vehicles will be encountered in the real world.
Make and Model
    We propose using any make or model of vehicle (that meets the other 
criteria). We alternatively considered specifying a list of eligible 
test vehicles by make and model spanning a range of manufacturers and 
vehicle types. The list would be included as an appendix in FMVSS No. 
108. Vehicles included on the list would comprise a relatively large 
percentage of vehicles sold in the United States; for example, the list 
could be based on vehicle and sales data from Ward's Automotive 
Yearbook. Under this specification, the Agency could use any vehicle on 
the list from the preceding five model years. We have tentatively 
decided not to adopt this

[[Page 51782]]

approach because we believe an ADB system should recognize and shade a 
wide variety of vehicles. However, we seek comment on this alternative 
approach. Are there certain makes or models an ADB system should not be 
expected and required to detect? If so, what is the basis for such a 
determination, and how does it satisfy the need for safety as well as 
practicability?
Model Year
    We believe limiting ourselves to the preceding five model years 
strikes a reasonable balance between the need for safety and 
practicability.
Vehicle Height Constraint
    While we propose potentially using a relatively broad range of 
vehicle types, weights, makes, and models, we propose to constrain the 
set of vehicles eligible as test vehicles by vehicle height. The height 
constraint is based on the proposed specification for where the 
photometric receptor head(s) to measure oncoming glare will be placed 
on the windshield of the stimulus vehicle (see Section VIII.b.ii.3.a 
below). They may be mounted anywhere within a specified range on the 
windshield (roughly corresponding to where the driver's eyes would be), 
subject to a height constraint: The photometer may be placed no higher 
or lower than a specified height range (measured with respect to the 
ground). The ranges are based on data and studies of driver eye heights 
for different types of vehicles. If it is not possible to mount the 
receptor head(s) within the specified range on a candidate stimulus 
vehicle, then that vehicle would not be eligible for use as a stimulus 
vehicle. This photometer receptor head placement constraint effectively 
acts as a constraint on vehicles that may be used as stimulus vehicles 
and excludes vehicles that ride unusually high or low. We are proposing 
this constraint because we recognize it may be difficult or impossible 
to design a headlighting system accommodating such outlier vehicles. 
The existing Table XIX lower beam photometry requirements are such that 
low-to-the-ground vehicles may be subject to glare even by a compliant 
lower beam. We would also constrain ourselves by not using unusually 
high vehicles to ease potential testing burdens on manufacturers.
Summary
    We tentatively believe this broad range of stimulus vehicles is 
reasonable to adequately ensure that an ADB system functions robustly 
and avoids glaring other drivers; we are concerned about a test 
procedure effectively permitting an ADB system designed to accommodate 
only a narrow range of oncoming or preceding vehicles. The purpose of 
the stimulus vehicle is to elicit headlamp beam adaptation by an ADB 
system and test whether the ADB system recognizes oncoming and 
preceding vehicles and appropriately limits the amount of light cast on 
these vehicles to ensure that they are not glared. This requires an ADB 
system be able to appropriately detect and identify light coming from 
another vehicle and dynamically shade that vehicle. An ADB system must 
be able to recognize multiple possible configurations of headlights and 
taillights, on vehicles of different size and shape (within a 
reasonable range).
    We tentatively believe it would be practicable for a manufacturer 
to design an ADB system to recognize and shade any vehicle satisfying 
the proposed selection criteria. Although we are proposing a relatively 
broad range of eligible stimulus vehicles, the lighting configurations 
an ADB system would have to recognize are not unbounded. Front and rear 
lighting designs are limited by the requirements of FMVSS No. 108 and 
realities of vehicle design. Mounting heights, number, color, and 
locations of vehicle lighting are constrained by requirements set out 
in Table I of FMVSS No. 108. For example, headlamps must be white and 
mounted at the same height symmetrically about the vertical centerline, 
as far apart as practicable, and mounted at a height of not less than 
22 inches nor more than 54 inches. Additionally, while we are proposing 
a broad array of makes and models as test vehicles, there is a limited, 
and not exceptionally large, number of makes and models of vehicles 
offered for sale in the United States every year. For example, in Model 
Year 2017, approximately 420 makes/models of passenger cars, trucks, 
vans, and SUVs were offered for sale. The set of vehicles eligible to 
be used as test vehicles will be further limited by the height 
constraint we are proposing.
    We seek comment on the proposed vehicle selection criteria. Do the 
criteria define a set of stimulus vehicles that is so large as to be 
impracticable or unnecessary? If so, in what specific ways would 
manufacturers find them impracticable, or why are they unnecessary 
(i.e., how could the Agency be confident that glare prevention could be 
adequately ensured with a smaller set of possible stimulus vehicles)? 
Are the alternative criteria mentioned above preferable, and if so, 
why? Are there other vehicle selection criteria that would result in a 
smaller set of eligible stimulus vehicles but that would still be 
sufficient to adequately discriminate between a robust ADB system and a 
less robust ADB system?
2. Alternative: Test Fixtures
    We also considered using test fixtures instead of vehicles for the 
purpose of eliciting an ADB response as part of a compliance test. SAE 
J3069 specifies stationary test fixtures (structures intended to 
simulate the front or rear of an actual vehicle) in place of actual 
vehicles. It specifies four test fixtures: An opposing car/truck 
fixture; an opposing motorcycle fixture; a preceding car/truck fixture; 
and a preceding motorcycle fixture. The fixtures are fitted with lamps 
simulating headlamps and taillamps. For headlamp representations, it 
specifies a lamp projecting 300 cd of white light in a specified manner 
and angle. For the taillamp representations, it specifies lamps 
emitting no more than 7 cd of red light in a specified manner and 
angle. The fixtures are fitted with photometers positioned near where a 
driver's eyes would be to measure the light from the ADB test 
vehicle.\83\ The lamp and photometer locations are based on ``median 
location values provided by [the University of Michigan Transportation 
Research Institute].'' \84\ SAE specifies test fixtures to reduce test 
variability and because it considers stationary fixtures as a ``worst 
case since some camera systems utilize opposing or preceding vehicles 
movement within a scene to identify them as vehicles instead of other 
road objects, such as reflectors on the side of the road.'' \85\ There 
was also a ``concern that if the actual lower beam headlamps were used 
on the opposing vehicle test fixture the large gradients present in 
typical lower beam patterns would cause unnecessary test variability.'' 
\86\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\ SAE J3069 5.5.2 and Figures 1 and 2 (opposing vehicle 
fixture); 5.5.3 and Figures 3 and 4 (preceding vehicle fixture).
    \84\ SAE J3069, p. 3.
    \85\ SAE J3069, p. 3.
    \86\ SAE J3069, p. 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are not proposing to use test fixtures because we have 
tentatively concluded they may not be sufficient to ensure that an ADB 
system operates satisfactorily in actual use. Using stationary test 
fixtures as opposed to dynamic actual production vehicles has the 
advantage of relative simplicity and ease of testing. However, the 
drawback is that it is not realistic. Test fixtures may encourage an 
ADB system designed to ensure identification of test fixtures rather 
than actual vehicles. This may not adequately ensure that the system

[[Page 51783]]

performs satisfactorily when faced with a wide range of different 
vehicles equipped with lighting differing from the test fixtures. In 
addition, to the extent that test fixtures differ in appearance from 
actual vehicles, an ADB system would have to be programmed to recognize 
them, which in practice might make it difficult to tune out non-vehicle 
objects confronting the system in actual use. Regarding gradients in 
typical headlamp beam patterns, we tentatively believe this will only 
affect the repeatability of the test if the reaction by the ADB system 
changes based on this difference. If this is the case, the ADB system 
will have this issue in actual use, and this should not be considered 
variability attributable to the test, but a failing of the ADB system.
    We are also not necessarily confident that stationary fixtures with 
lamps represented as specified in SAE J3069 represent a worst-case 
scenario. Some ADB systems may have more difficulty detecting moving 
dim lights or moving lights spaced a certain width apart. The Agency 
welcomes any data relating to this. In addition, we seek comment on the 
extent to which narrowly defined lamps can be used to establish 
performance requirements that reasonably ensure an ADB system will 
recognize and adapt appropriately to the wide range of lighting 
configurations permitted under FMVSS No. 108. For instance, the minimum 
intensity allowed for a taillamp is 2.0 cd at H-V and as low as 0.3 cd 
at an angle of 20 degrees. These values are considerably lower than the 
7.0 cd lamp specified in SAE J3069. Using stationary test fixtures 
would likely reduce test variability. However, we tentatively believe 
that the variability attributable to the proposed procedure would be 
within acceptable limits considering the previously described necessity 
of vehicle-level testing as demonstrated by NHTSA's research. As 
discussed below in Section VIII.c, the variability the Agency observed 
in the test results between a stationary lower beam and a moving test 
vehicle lower beam (most applicable in the straight approach maneuver) 
seemed to primarily be caused by the moving test vehicle not the moving 
stimulus vehicle.
3. Photometer Placement
    The photometer measures the amount of light cast by the ADB test 
vehicle falling on the stimulus vehicle. Our general approach is to 
place the photometer \87\ near where the driver's eyes would be (to 
measure glare to oncoming vehicles) or near where light would strike an 
inside or outside rearview mirror (to measure glare to preceding 
vehicles).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \87\ Or, perhaps more accurately, photometric receptor heads, 
if, for example, the photometer is configured with multiple receptor 
heads, as was the case in NHTSA's testing. For ease of exposition, 
the discussion in this document simply refers to the ``photometer'' 
to refer to the test equipment used to detect the light emitted from 
the ADB system. In addition, we may use multiple photometers or 
receptor heads simultaneously.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Oncoming Vehicles

    Here the approach is to measure light cast near where the driver's 
eyes would be. Below we explain our proposal, as well as several 
alternatives.
Proposal
    We propose to specify the position of photometers with respect to 
the X, Y, and Z coordinates \88\ (i.e., the longitudinal, lateral, and 
vertical placement of the photometers). With respect to the 
longitudinal position, we propose to mount the photometer(s) outside 
the vehicle, forward of the windshield and rearward of the headlamps. 
Measuring headlight illuminance in front of the windshield is 
consistent with the proposed glare limits; they are derived from the 
current glare test points, which apply to light coming from a headlamp 
and do not take into account effects related to the windshield glass. 
If the photometer were placed behind the windshield, test results might 
depend on properties of the windshield, which is undesirable because 
the purpose of the test is to measure ADB system performance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \88\ See SAE J1100 FEB2001, Motor Vehicle Dimensions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the lateral and vertical positions of the 
photometer(s), we are proposing specifying a range of permissible 
positions.
    With respect to the lateral position of the photometer, we propose 
locating the photometer anywhere from the longitudinal centerline of 
the stimulus vehicle over to and including the driver's side A-pillar.
    With respect to the vertical position of the photometer, we propose 
placing it anywhere from the bottom of the windshield to the top of the 
windshield, subject to an upper bound and a lower bound. These upper 
and lower bounds, which differ based on vehicle classification and 
weight, are set out in the proposed regulatory text and are reproduced 
in Table 4. If it is not possible to place a photometer on a candidate 
measurement stimulus vehicle so the photometer was both between the top 
and bottom of the windshield and within the applicable range in Table 
4, then that vehicle would not be eligible for use as a stimulus 
vehicle.

                                                     Table 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         Height range (m)
                  Vehicle classification/weight                        Mean      -------------------------------
                                                                                    Lower bound     Upper bound
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Passenger Cars..................................................            1.11            1.07            1.15
Trucks, buses, MPVs (light).....................................            1.42            1.26            1.58
Trucks, buses, MPVs (heavy).....................................            2.33            1.99            2.67
Motorcycles.....................................................            1.43            1.30            1.66
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
``Light'' means vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 lb. or less. ``Heavy'' means vehicles with a GVWR of more than
  10,000 lb. Heights are measured from the ground.


[[Page 51784]]

    The ranges for passenger cars and light trucks, buses, and MPVs are 
from a 1996 University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute 
(UMTRI) study estimating mean driver's eye heights based on a sample of 
high-sales volume vehicles and drivers.\89\ The range for heavy trucks, 
buses, and MPVs is from a 1990 study based on a sample of heavy goods 
vehicles in a 1989 roadside survey in the United Kingdom.\90\ The 
ranges we are proposing are the two standard deviation ranges.\91\ 
These are consistent with the photometer heights specified in SAE J3069 
for the opposing vehicle fixtures. SAE J3069 specifies heights of 1.1 m 
and 2.2 m for the photometers used to measure oncoming glare to drivers 
of passenger cars and trucks, respectively. While SAE J3069 specifies a 
point, not a range, the points it specifies for the passenger car and 
truck driver eye heights are based on the same means we used to 
construct the height ranges for passenger cars and heavy trucks/buses. 
(SAE J3069 does not distinguish between heavy and light trucks, and 
appears to use a mean for truck driver eye height that is a slight 
downward adjustment of the heavy truck mean reported in the Cobb 
study).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \89\ Michael Sivak, et al. 1996. The Location of Headlamps and 
Driver Eye Positions in Vehicles Sold in the U.S.A. UMTRI-96-36. 
University of Michigan, Transportation Research Institute, p. 9.
    \90\ J. Cobb. 1990. Roadside Survey of Vehicle Lighting 1989. 
Research Report 290, Department of Transport, Transport and Road 
Research Laboratory (cited and discussed in Michael Sivak, et al. 
1991. The Influence of Truck Driver Eye Position on the 
Effectiveness of Retroreflective Traffic Signs. UMTRI-91-35. 
University of Michigan, Transportation Research Institute, p. 8.).
    \91\ The American Association of State Highway and 
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) uses similar values for driver's 
eye height for measuring sight distances. A Policy on Geometric 
Design of Highways and Streets. 2011. AASHTO (hereinafter ``AASHTO 
Green Book''). It recommends 1.08 m for passenger vehicles and 2.33 
m for large trucks (and notes a range of 1.8 to 2.4 m for large 
trucks). Id. pp. 3-14. The AASHTO values are based on a 1997 study 
by the Transportation Research Board, which estimated the values for 
passenger cars, multipurpose vehicles, and heavy trucks. Daniel B. 
Fambro, et al. 1997. NCHRP Report 400: Determination of Stopping 
Sight Distances. Transportation Research Board, National Research 
Council, National Cooperative Highway Research Program. The driver 
eye height values used by AASHTO for passenger cars and large trucks 
appear to be the 10th percentile values reported in the NCHRP report 
for passenger cars and heavy trucks, respectively. NCHRP Report 400, 
pp. 44-45 (Tables 31 and 33). The mean values in the NCHRP report 
are 1.15 m (passenger cars), 2.45 m (large trucks), and 1.48 m 
(MPVs). Since these estimates are based on a dynamic road survey 
conducted (largely) in 1993, they are based on older vehicles than 
the MY 1996 vehicles surveyed by UMTRI. The heights found by UMTRI 
are lower than in the NCHRP report; this is consistent with the 
observation that driver eye heights have tended to decrease over 
time. See AASHTO Green Book, p. 3-14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The height range for motorcycles was determined as follows. The 
opposing motorcycle test fixture specified in SAE J3069 locates the 
photometer coincident with the rider's eye point, 1.3 m above the 
ground. This appears to have been based on the 5th percentile 
motorcycle rider eye height of 1.35 m reported in a study that examined 
motorcycle rider eye heights in Malaysia.\92\ We propose this as the 
lower bound for the vertical height of the photometer. For the upper 
bound, we propose using 1.66 m, which is based on a two-standard 
deviation range.\93\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \92\ Seyed Davoodi et al. 2011. Motorcycle Characteristics for 
Sight Distance Investigation on Exclusive Motorcycle Lanes. Journal 
of Transportation Engineering, 137(7): 492-495.
    \93\ Specifically, this is based on the mean of 1.43 m reported 
in Davoodi et al and the standard deviation reported in another 
paper (.117 m). See Terry Smith, John Zellner & Nicholas Rogers. 
2006. A Three Dimensional Analysis of Riding Posture on Three 
Different Styles of Motorcycle. International Motorcycle Safety 
Conference, March 2006. This paper compares the riding posture 
(using anatomical landmarks) of a sample of human test subjects to 
the posture of the Motorcycle Anthropometric Test Dummy (MATD). The 
paper reports, among other things, the standard deviation of the 
vertical location of the test subjects' left infraorbitale (a point 
just below the eye) relative to the infraorbitale of the MATD of 
.117 m. In other words, the study reports the standard deviation of 
the vertical location of the infraorbitale relative to a fixed 
point.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We tentatively believe that the proposed specification for the 
placement of the photometers meets the need for safety and is 
practicable. It defines a bounded area approximating the location of 
the driver's (or rider's) eyes. Unlike a specification for an eye 
ellipse,\94\ which defines a smaller area more precisely targeting 
where the driver's eyes would likely be located, the larger area we 
specify provides a margin for safety and is easier to locate. Given 
that ADB is currently designed to shade an entire approaching or 
preceding vehicle, we believe focusing on a small area such as that of 
an eye ellipse is not necessary. Instead, ``the expectation is that ADB 
will reduce any glare producing light toward and on the full width of 
opposing and preceding vehicles, thereby providing benefit to all 
occupants in the vehicle.'' \95\ However, we propose to subject the 
vertical placement of the photometer to a lower bound because we 
recognize it may be difficult to design an ADB system to prevent 
glaring extremely low-riding vehicles with correspondingly low driver 
eye heights; we recognize that because of the low height, even an FMVSS 
No. 108-compliant lower beam might glare such a low-riding driver. We 
are proposing an upper bound on photometer placement to limit the 
conceivable test locations; we also do not anticipate ADB systems would 
produce high levels of illumination at heights above the ranges we are 
proposing. At the same time, we believe a two-standard deviation range 
captures enough variation to require the design of robust ADB systems. 
We also believe specifying these bounds will ensure tests are not 
unduly stringent. If a candidate stimulus vehicle is such that there is 
no position between the top and bottom of the windshield that would be 
within these bounds, then that vehicle would not be eligible for use as 
a stimulus vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \94\ SAE J941, Motor Vehicle Drivers' Eye Locations.
    \95\ SAE J3069, p. 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We seek comment on the proposed specifications for photometer 
placement. In particular, we seek comment on whether the proposed 
height range is necessary, and if so, whether the proposed 
specification is sound.
Alternatives to Proposal
    We also considered alternative procedures for determining the 
lateral and/or vertical position of the photometer(s) to measure 
oncoming glare. We discuss these below. Note that these are not 
alternatives for determining the longitudinal position of the 
photometer. In addition, for all of these alternatives, the vertical 
position of the photometer(s) would be subject to the upper and lower 
bounds proposed above.
Alternative 1
    We considered specifying the lateral and vertical position of the 
photometer by using a test procedure based on that currently used to 
locate the approximate eye position of a 50th percentile male in 
compliance testing for the FMVSS No. 111 rear visibility field of view 
and image size requirements. FMVSS No. 111 requires, among other 
things, a visual display of an image of an area behind the vehicle and 
specifies certain requirements for the image. The field of view and 
image size test procedures locate where eyes of a typical driver would 
be. More specifically, they locate the midpoint of the eyes of a 50th 
percentile male. The test procedure specifies the eye midpoint by using 
the H-point as a point of reference. The H-point is used in several 
other NHTSA standards \96\ and represents a specific landmark near the 
hip of a 50th percentile adult male positioned in a vehicle's driver 
seat. It has been used by NHTSA as well as other organizations in

[[Page 51785]]

the context of visibility measurement. SAE J826 JUL95 defines and 
specifies a procedure, including a manikin (``H-point manikin''), for 
determining the exact location of the H-point in a vehicle; it 
specifies the H-point in relation to the hip location of a driver in 
the driver seating position. The rear visibility test procedure uses 
the J826 manikin and procedure to locate the H point. It then uses 
anthropometric data from a NHTSA-sponsored study of the dimensions of 
50th percentile male drivers \97\ to locate the midpoint between the 
driver's eyes.\98\ In practice, a testing laboratory typically uses an 
H-point manikin fitted with a camera (which is needed for the field of 
view and image size tests) positioned at the driver's eye midpoint.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \96\ See, e.g., FMVSS No. 208, S10.1; FMVSS No. 210, S4.3.2.
    \97\ L.W. Schneider, D.H. Robbins, M.A. Pfliig, & R.G. Snyder. 
1985. Anthropometry of Motor Vehicle Occupants; Volume 1-Procedures, 
Summary Findings and Appendices. National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, DOT 806 715.
    \98\ See generally 75 FR 76232.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We considered a simplified version of this procedure to determine 
the approximate vertical and lateral position (the Z and Y coordinates) 
of the expected eye position of a 50th percentile male driver. The 
driver's seat positioning test procedure in S14.1.2.5 and part of the 
test reference point procedure (S14.1.5(a)) in FMVSS No. 111 locates 
the center of the forward-looking eye midpoint with respect to the H-
point. We considered using the Z and Y coordinates of the forward-
looking eye midpoint to specify the position of the photometer in front 
of the windshield. This procedure would locate the photometer 
approximately where the eyes of an average male driver would be. 
Mounting the photometer at different but nearby locations (e.g., a 
location corresponding to the forward-looking eye midpoint of a 5th 
percentile female) would add additional testing burden while likely not 
affecting the outcome of the test. This alternative test procedure 
would appear to be practicable. The H-point machine is a fairly 
standard piece of laboratory test equipment used in other FMVSS and SAE 
standards. Compared to the proposed test procedure, there would likely 
be some additional work involved in positioning the manikin, but this 
may not add an exceptional amount of cost or time to the test, 
particularly if the laboratory performing the test already had an H-
point machine. This alternative might be preferable to the proposed 
option if it were determined ranges utilized by the proposed option did 
not have a sound basis.
Alternative 2
    As another alternative for specifying the lateral and vertical 
position of the photometer(s), we considered obtaining from the 
manufacturer of the stimulus vehicle the coordinates of the midpoint of 
the 50th percentile male's drivers' eyes. We believe most vehicle 
manufacturers would have this information and could supply it to NHTSA. 
The purpose of this would be to save the Agency time in doing the test, 
perhaps if an H-point machine were not readily available. While there 
would be some difference between the photometer location compared to 
Alternative 1, we believe such relatively small changes would not 
meaningfully affect test outcomes. If a manufacturer desired to conduct 
testing following NHTSA's test procedures, it could use a stimulus 
vehicle it manufactures, or, if it desired to use a stimulus vehicle 
manufactured by another manufacturer, it could potentially obtain 
information from the manufacturer of that vehicle.
Alternative 3
    We also considered, as an alternative for locating the photometer 
with respect to the Z and Y axes, using SAE J941 JAN2008, Motor Vehicle 
Divers' Eye Locations. This document describes a procedure for locating 
a mid-centroid driver's eye ellipse. We tentatively concluded that, for 
purposes of compliance testing, J491 would not provide an easy enough 
to follow procedure; we believed that it would be easier to use the H-
point machine instead.
Alternative 4
    As a final alternative for locating the photometer laterally, we 
considered specifying the test procedure such that NHTSA could place 
the photometer anywhere from the driver's side A pillar up to and 
including the passenger side A-pillar. This would give an extra margin 
of safety with respect to glare directed at the driver and would also 
ensure passengers are not glared. Or, photometers could be positioned 
at the geometric center of the windshield, which would limit the range 
of testing.
    We seek comment on the desirability of each of these options, 
whether we should adopt one, or multiple options, and the relative 
merits of each.

b. Preceding Vehicles

    For preceding vehicles, the safety concern is the ADB system could 
glare the driver by shining excessive light onto the inside or outside 
rearview mirrors. To measure glare on the outside rearview mirrors, we 
propose placing the photometer anywhere against or directly adjacent to 
the mirror's reflective surface. To measure glare on the inside 
rearview mirror, we propose placing the photometer on the outside of 
the rear window, laterally and vertically aligned with the interior 
mirror. We are not proposing more detailed procedures for placing the 
photometers because the locations of the mirrors themselves largely 
determine the placement of the photometer, and we do not expect test 
results to be affected by small variations in the placement of the 
photometer. We seek comments on this aspect of the proposal.
4. Photometers and Photometric Measurements
    We propose that in compliance testing, NHTSA would use a sampling 
rate of at least 200 Hz when recording test data. We would sample over 
all the distance ranges for which we are proposing a corresponding 
glare limit. Illuminance meter and data acquisition equipment would be 
configured and any necessary steps would be taken to isolate 
measurement of the light emitted by the ADB test vehicle. We seek 
comment on the appropriateness of this minimum sampling rate, as well 
as whether a maximum sampling rate should be specified and, if so, what 
it should be. We also seek comment on whether there are other aspects 
of the photometric equipment or measurements that should be specified.
    For each test run, illuminance data would be continuously recorded 
as the ADB vehicle approached the stimulus vehicle through the range 
defined for the specific test scenario being run. This inter-vehicle 
distance is measured from the intersection of a horizontal plane 
through the headlamp light sources, a vertical plane through the 
headlamp light sources and a vertical plane through the vehicle's 
centerline to the forward most point of the relevant photometric 
receptor head mounted on the stimulus vehicle.
    In determining the set of recorded illuminance values we would look 
at within each distance interval to determine compliance, we propose to 
use the recorded values starting with (and including) the first 
recorded value up to and including the last recorded illuminance value 
in each distance range. Any recorded illuminance values in a distance 
interval greater than the applicable glare limit for that distance 
would be considered a test failure, provided the value is not a small 
spike. Values above the applicable glare limit lasting no longer than 
0.1 sec. or over a distance range of no longer than 1 m would not be 
considered test failures. This allows for electric noise in the

[[Page 51786]]

photometers as well as momentary pitch changes of the test and stimulus 
vehicles caused by bumps in the test track.
    The proposal differs from SAE J3069. For purposes of determining 
whether an ADB system complies with the glare limits, SAE J3069 
considers only illuminance values recorded at distances of 30, 60, 120, 
and 155 meters, instead of sampling multiple illuminance values within 
these distance ranges.\99\ Because an oncoming or preceding driver 
could be glared anywhere from 15 m to 220 m, and because the real test 
of an ADB system's performance is how it operates over the full 
distance range within which it may be glaring other drivers, we 
tentatively conclude it is necessary to sample illuminance values 
throughout this full range, and not simply evaluate ADB system 
performance at the four distance points at which the derived glare 
limit changes. Because we are sampling illuminance within these ranges, 
there is no need to use interpolation. The Agency would look only at 
these recorded values and not interpolate any values in evaluating 
compliance. We seek comment on these aspects of the proposal, in 
particular on whether there are any safety impacts in choosing the 
proposed test over the SAE approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \99\ If there is no illuminance value recorded at a specified 
distance, SAE J3069 specifies an interpolation procedure to generate 
an illuminance value at that distance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iii. Considerations in Determining Compliance With the Derived Glare 
Limit Values
    The lower beam photometric test points in Table XIX of FMVSS No. 
108, from which the proposed glare limits are derived, apply to direct 
illumination from a headlamp. They do not include ambient light or 
reflected light from the road surface or signs. Ambient light refers to 
light emitted from a source other than the ADB system. This includes 
moonlight, light pollution from nearby buildings, or light coming from 
the stimulus vehicle. Reflected light refers to light from the ADB 
vehicle's headlights reflected off the road or other surface into the 
photometer(s) on the stimulus vehicle.
    We propose to account for light from these sources in a couple of 
ways. To minimize ambient light, we propose that testing occur when the 
ambient illumination recorded by the photometers is at or below 0.2 
lux.\100\ We are also proposing the test only be conducted on dry 
pavement as well as pavement that is not bright white to avoid intense 
roadway reflections. Nevertheless, some degree of ambient light is 
unavoidable. Accordingly, in testing compliance the Agency will zero 
the photometers with the stimulus vehicle's headlighting system on and 
the stimulus vehicle in the orientation it will be during the test (for 
example, facing east). If the test involves a curve such that the 
orientation of the stimulus vehicle changes during the test, the 
photometers will be zeroed in the direction of the maximum ambient 
light.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \100\ See SAE J3069 at 5.5.2.1, 5.5.3.1 (``No other vehicle 
lighting devices shall be activated or any retro-reflective material 
present and care should be taken to avoid other sources of light, 
reflected or otherwise.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are more finely grained ways to measure ambient illumination. 
For driving scenarios in which the stimulus vehicle is moving, we 
could, for example, dynamically measure ambient illuminance by driving 
the stimulus vehicle over the test course and continuously recording 
ambient illuminance over this run. We have tentatively decided this 
would be unnecessary because we are not proposing to use any roadway 
illumination. We do not anticipate ambient illumination will vary 
significantly at different points on a test course section used for a 
particular driving scenario. We have tentatively decided there is no 
need to further adjust the measured illuminance values to account for 
reflected light from the ADB headlights.
    We note that FMVSS No. 108 is unusual among the FMVSSs because it 
requires that lighting equipment be ``designed to conform'' to relevant 
requirements, as opposed simply to comply with relevant requirements. 
As we have explained in the past, when NHTSA initially proposed in 1966 
that lamps ``comply'' with FMVSS No. 108, industry represented that it 
could not manufacture every lamp to meet every single test point 
without a substantial cost penalty unjustified by safety. NHTSA 
accepted this argument. In adopting the standard, the Agency specified 
that lamps be designed to comply or designed to conform with the 
applicable photometric specifications. On a number of occasions since, 
NHTSA has stated that it will not consider a lamp to be noncompliant if 
its failure to meet a test point is random and occasional. Thus, 
historically, there has never been an absolute requirement that every 
motor vehicle lighting device meet every single photometric test point 
to comply with Standard No. 108.\101\ Lighting equipment design, 
technology, and manufacturing have evolved and advanced since the late 
1960's when the Agency initially adopted the design to conform 
language, and it may be arguable whether the Agency would come to the 
same conclusion were it to revisit this issue. Such matters are beyond 
the scope of this rulemaking. We simply note that we are proposing to 
extend the design to conform language of the current FMVSS No. 108 to 
the proposed requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \101\ See 62 FR 63416 (Nov. 28, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are other adjustments to the measured illuminance values we 
could potentially make, but we have tentatively decided not to propose. 
NHTSA requests comment on the following:
     Should pitch correction be addressed directly, or are the 
momentary spike provisions enough to meet the goals of this rulemaking?
     SAE J3069 allows a 2.5 sec reaction time (i.e., a glare 
limit may not be exceeded for more than 2.5 sec), motivated by the 
``sudden appearance of an opposing or preceding vehicle due to a 
cresting a hill, a vehicle entering a roadway, etc.'' Should the Agency 
consider such a reaction time requirement in the regulation?
     Should the Agency specify specific photometry equipment 
and/or filtering based on the test vehicle's light source technology? 
Should the Agency specify different equipment to test HID, halogen, 
LED, or pulse width modulated headlamps?
iv. Additional Test Parameters
1. Test Scenarios
    We are proposing a variety of different scenarios the Agency would 
be able to run to test for compliance. Scenarios would be specified in 
the regulatory text. For each scenario, we specify speeds of the ADB 
and stimulus test vehicles, the radius of curvature of the track, the 
superelevation, the orientation of the ADB and stimulus test vehicles, 
and the particular vehicle maneuver tested. Values proposed for speed, 
radius of curvature, and superelevation are consistent with a standard 
formula used in road design specifying the relationship between these 
parameters. The formula, referred to as the simplified curve formula, 
is
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12OC18.001

where f is the coefficient of friction, V is the vehicle speed, R is 
the radius of curvature, and e is superelevation.\102\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \102\ AASHTO Green Book, pp. 3-19 to 3-20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposal specifies vehicle speeds of up to 70 mph, depending on 
whether the test track is straight or curved (and how tight the curve 
is). We propose to

[[Page 51787]]

use speeds up to 70 mph when testing on a straight track. We believe an 
upper limit of 70 mph is reasonable because freeways and other 
arterials frequently have speed limits this high. We believe that for 
an ADB system to operate at a sufficient level of safety it should be 
able to operate at these speeds, both because these speeds are typical 
of real-world driving, as well as because safety concerns regarding 
glare are magnified at higher speeds.
    We propose using a straight track or a track with a radius of 
curvature from 320-380 ft. (for vehicle speeds of 25-35 mph); 730-790 
ft. (for vehicle speeds of 40-45 mph); and 1100-1300 ft. (for speeds of 
50-55 mph). The first range of radius of curvature corresponds to 
(approximately) the smallest radius of curvature appropriate for a 
vehicle traveling 25-35 mph; these speeds roughly correspond to the 
minimum speed for which we propose to allow ADB activation. The second 
range of radius of curvature roughly corresponds to the higher ADB 
minimum activation speeds of some of the ADB-equipped vehicles the 
Agency tested. Finally, to evaluate ADB performance at higher speeds, 
we are proposing an 1100-1300 ft. radius taken at 50-55 mph. We 
tentatively believe it is important to include actual curves because 
curves may present engineering challenges to ADB systems. For example, 
in oncoming situations, a curve presents an engineering challenge in 
that the opposing vehicle appears from the edge of the field of view at 
a close distance; in a tight curve, an oncoming vehicle will enter the 
camera field of view at a closer distance than in a larger-radius 
curve. Performing adequately on large-radius curves at relatively high 
speeds presents a slightly different engineering challenge than 
performance on tight curves at lower speeds.
    We also propose superelevation (i.e., the degree of banking of the 
track) of 0 to 2%. We attempt to minimize the degree of banking because 
photometry design as well as the existing and derived glare limits are 
based on flat surfaces.
    We are proposing three basic maneuvers for testing compliance. 
These are oncoming (where the ADB and stimulus vehicles approach each 
other traveling in opposite directions); same direction/same lane 
(where the stimulus vehicle precedes the ADB vehicle in the same lane); 
and same direction/passing (where the stimulus vehicle begins behind 
the ADB vehicle, in the adjacent lane, and then passes the ADB vehicle 
from either the left or the right). During each of these maneuvers, 
each vehicle would be driven within the lane and would not change 
lanes. For each of these types of maneuvers, we specify the stimulus 
vehicle speed, ADB vehicle speed, radius of curvature (if testing on a 
curve), and superelevation with which the Agency may test.
    The proposal differs significantly from SAE J3069 in several 
respects. First, as discussed above in Section VIII.b.ii, we are 
proposing to test with actual vehicles and not simply test fixtures. 
Second, this proposal effectively tests at higher speeds than SAE 
J3069. SAE J3069 specifies a minimum speed (above the ADB activation 
threshold speed) but does not specify maximum speed. Because some of 
the proposed testing scenarios employ a moving stimulus vehicle as well 
as a moving ADB vehicle (at speeds of up to 70 mph for both), the 
proposal would require a faster reaction time from ADB systems (and, as 
discussed earlier in Section VIII.b.iii, we tentatively decided not to 
include a reaction time allowance). Third, the proposed test scenarios 
include curves. SAE J3069 specifies a straight track and accounts for 
curves by specifying test fixtures up to two lanes to either side of 
the ADB test vehicle, so that ``in a straight-line encounter, an ADB 
must continuously track the angular location of an opposing vehicle as 
that angular position becomes progressively further from the center of 
the camera's field of view with decreasing distance to the opposing 
vehicle.'' We tentatively believe it is important to test on curves 
because the safety effect of glare could be magnified when a vehicle is 
travelling at speed on a curve. In addition, the Agency's testing 
revealed that existing ADB systems may not always appropriately shade 
oncoming vehicles in curves; we believe it is important to include this 
scenario to ensure that ADB systems operate safely. We seek comments on 
these differences, including the safety impact of adopting the proposed 
test versus the SAE standard.
    The Agency has tentatively concluded that these proposed test 
scenarios are objective and strike a reasonable balance between safety 
and practicability. The proposal includes realistic vehicle speeds, 
interactions, and road geometries. We believe it is not unreasonable to 
expect an ADB system to avoid glaring other motorists in these 
scenarios. We considered, but are not proposing, a broader set of 
scenarios and/or test parameter values (e.g., additional radii of 
curvature, testing with multiple stimulus vehicles). This would have 
allowed the Agency to test with a greater degree of realism. However, a 
broader range of test scenarios may have led to less confidence in the 
repeatability of test results. In any case, we tentatively believe that 
the proposed set of scenarios is sufficient to provide a minimum level 
of safety; they include a broad range of actual vehicles on a test 
track traveling at (up to) highway speeds, on curved and straight road 
segments.
    At the same time, we tentatively conclude that the scenarios we are 
proposing are practicable, although some scenarios might be challenging 
for some ADB systems. The Agency's testing indicated that the ADB 
systems we tested generally performed well on straight roads, for 
oncoming and preceding glare.\103\ However, we did see some exceedances 
for a stationary stimulus vehicle in this scenario, suggesting a 
stationary oncoming vehicle may be more difficult for ADB systems we 
tested to handle.\104\ ADB systems also generally performed well in 
shading preceding vehicles on curves. We observed that ADB systems we 
tested had difficulties staying within the glare limits on curves for 
oncoming vehicles.\105\ It may be that on a curve the stimulus vehicle 
coincides with larger horizontal angles of the beam pattern where the 
intensity of light may be higher. Accordingly, it may be possible to 
design headlamps so the intensity of light at these wider angles is 
brought down to the proposed glare limits.
    Additionally, it might also be the case that ADB systems 
experiencing test failures are not able to view, classify, and adapt to 
an oncoming vehicle through a curve in a realistic high-speed 
interaction. The Agency's research included testing on various curves, 
but of particular applicability to this proposal are tests conducted on 
a curve with a radius of 764 ft. at 62 mph. As shown in the research 
report graphs,\106\ the ADB systems we tested were unable to react fast 
enough to avoid providing glare well above the same vehicles' lower 
beam. As part of this proposal, the Agency considered the real-world 
significance of this situation and recognized 62 mph is unusually fast 
for this radius of curvature. Accordingly, the Agency is proposing a 
lower speed (40-45 mph), which more adequately reflects the typical 
speed most drivers would approach this type of curve.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \103\ ADB Test Report, p. 172.
    \104\ Id. at p. 102.
    \105\ Id. at p. 173.
    \106\ Id. at p. 192 (Fig. 84).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We found that some vehicles performed well in all passing maneuver 
scenarios, while other vehicles did not perform as well in certain 
passing

[[Page 51788]]

scenarios (for example, the Audi produced high levels of glare in 
straight and right curve passing maneuvers).\107\ We found that the ADB 
systems generally performed well with respect to oncoming motorcycles, 
but produced excessive glare in a scenario involving a preceding 
motorcycle.\108\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \107\ Id. at p. 173.
    \108\ Id. at p. 173.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are some common scenarios we considered but are not proposing 
to test because we recognize that current ADB systems could not 
reasonably be expected to perform well, or they might be difficult to 
specify to ensure repeatable results. For example, the proposal does 
not include testing ADB performance when approaching a vehicle at an 
intersection oriented perpendicular to the ADB vehicle's direction of 
travel. \109\ We have tentatively decided not to include this scenario 
because NHTSA's testing indicated that existing ADB systems would have 
a difficult time complying with this, and we believe 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. Examples of other scenarios not proposed are testing with 
multiple stimulus vehicles; performing more complicated vehicle 
maneuvers; and performing on dips or hills (this is discussed below in 
Section VIII.b.iv.5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \109\ ADB Test Report, p. 110.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We seek comment on all aspects of the proposed test scenarios. Is 
70 mph an appropriate maximum speed? Will it be practicable for 
manufacturers to run compliance tests based on these proposed test 
procedures, if they so choose to do this as a basis for their 
certification?
2. Lane Width
    We also propose that any test track or road we use have a lane 
width from 10 feet to 12 feet. The Federal Highway Administration 
classifies roads by functional types: Arterials, collectors, and local 
roads.\110\ Design speeds on arterials and collectors range from about 
20 mph on up; \111\ because these roads generally provide enhanced 
mobility, it is reasonable to believe speeds are generally higher than 
this. Design speeds for local roads are generally lower, ranging from 
about 20 to 30 mph.\112\ ADB systems are typically designed to activate 
at speeds above typical city driving speeds; activation speeds of 
vehicles tested by NHTSA ranged from 19 to 43 mph. Thus, ADB systems 
could conceivably be used on all types of roads, although ADB would be 
less likely to be used on local roads (at least in urban settings).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \110\ See Highway Functional Classification Concepts, Criteria, 
and Procedures, Federal Highway Administration (hereinafter 
``HFCC''), available at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/processes/statewide/related/highway_functional_classifications/fcauab.pdf. 
Arterials (such as interstates and expressways) generally handle 
longer trips; collector roads collect and disperse traffic between 
arterials and the lower level roads; and local roads provide access 
function to homes, businesses, and other locations. Arterials 
provide relatively high levels of mobility and less access, whereas 
the opposite is true for local roads, and connectors fall in 
between. Higher levels of mobility are generally associated with 
higher speeds.
    \111\ AASHTO Green Book, p. 6-2 (rural collectors); AASHTO Green 
Book, p. 6-11 (urban collectors); HFCC p. 43 (arterials); AASHTO 
Green Book, p. 7-2 (rural arterial); AASHTO Green Book, p. 7-27 
(urban arterial). Various speed ratings can be used to describe a 
road--e.g., operating speed, running speed, speed limit, and design 
speed. The discussion here focuses on design speed, which is ``a 
selected speed used to determine the various geometric design 
features of the roadway . . . [and] should be a high-percentile 
value in this speed distribution curve[.]'' AASHTO Green Book, pp. 
2-54 to 2-55.
    \112\ AASHTO Green Book, p. 5-2 (rural local); p. 5-11 (urban 
local).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While 12-foot lanes are standard on arterials such as interstates 
and expressways, a sizeable proportion of collectors and local roads 
(as well as other types of arterials) have narrower lanes. Arterials 
and collectors together make up approximately one-third of all 
roadways.\113\ About 55% of arterials and collectors have 12-ft. 
lanes.\114\ However, about 33% have 10 or 11 ft. lanes.\115\ Local 
roads account for approximately two-thirds of all roadways.\116\ Local 
road widths generally range from 8 to 10 ft.\117\ NHTSA's testing was 
conducted on several different track configurations with lane widths of 
9, 10.5, and 12 feet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \113\ Highway Statistics 2014. Department of Transportation, 
Federal Highway Administration, available at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics.cfm, Table HM-220 
(miles); Table HM-260 (lane-miles). All citations to tables are from 
this edition of Highway Statistics. We consider arterials and 
collectors together and separately from local roads because of the 
way the data is reported. If the analysis were based on vehicle 
miles traveled, the result would likely be similar. See HFCC pp. 22-
23.
    \114\ Calculated from Table HM-53.
    \115\ Calculated from Table HM-53.
    \116\ Calculated from Table HM-220.
    \117\ HFCC, p. 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We tentatively believe using lanes with widths from 10 feet to 12 
feet would be adequate to cover a sufficient range of road widths the 
ADB would encounter in the real world. This would allow lanes narrower 
than specified in SAE J3069, which tests on a 12 foot lane, but is 
consistent with the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety headlight 
testing protocol, which uses a lane of 10.8 ft.\118\ We believe that 
using the proposed range better reflects the range of lane widths on 
roads where ADB would likely be used. The less the lateral separation 
between the ADB-equipped vehicle and either oncoming or preceding 
vehicles, the greater the glare risk (although differences in lateral 
separation of only a couple of feet may not be expected to have a 
material effect on the amount of glare). At the same time, we do not 
believe it is necessary to use lanes narrower than 10 feet because at 
the speeds at which ADB is operational, lane widths would not, 
typically, appear to be under 10 feet. Narrower lanes might also affect 
the safety of running the test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \118\ IIHS Headlight Test and Rating Protocol (November 2016), 
p. 5 (3.3 m).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Number of Lanes, Median, and Traffic Barriers
    We propose to test using two adjacent lanes. The effects of glare 
decrease as the angle between the glare source and the observer 
increases. Accordingly, the glare risk is most acute on 2-lane 
roads.\119\ A properly-functioning ADB system should be capable of 
detecting and not glaring vehicles in non-adjacent lanes. However, we 
tentatively conclude that if a system detects and avoids glaring in 
same lane and adjacent lane scenarios, additional lanes will likely not 
affect test outcomes. A median of 0 to 20 feet may separate the two 
lanes. The median may include a barrier wall, but the barrier must not 
be taller than 12 inches less than the mounting height of the stimulus 
vehicle's headlamps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \119\ 2007 Report to Congress, pp. iv-v.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Road Surface
    We propose that the road surface be of any material (e.g., 
concrete, asphalt, etc.) but shall not be bright white. Avoiding a 
bright white road surface will assist in limiting the effects of 
ambient and reflected light.
    We follow SAE J3069 and specify that the road surface have an 
International Roughness Index (IRI) of less than 1.5 m/km.\120\ The IRI 
is an internationally recognized measure of road surface roughness; the 
lower the IRI value, the smoother the road, with an IRI of 0 
corresponding to a perfectly smooth road. A smooth road is important 
for the proposed test because an uneven road surface can cause the ADB-
equipped vehicle to change pitch, which can lead to anomalies or spikes 
in the illuminance measurements.\121\ This could lead an otherwise 
compliant headlight beam to exceed the glare

[[Page 51789]]

limits. (The photometry requirements and the lower beam pattern are 
based on a nominally level vehicle headlighting system; an increase in 
vehicle pitch shifts the beam pattern up, which could glare oncoming or 
preceding vehicles.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \120\ SAE J3069 7.1.
    \121\ See John D. Bullough, Nicholas P. Skinner & Timothy T. 
Plummer. 2016. Assessment of Adaptive Driving Beam Photometric 
Performance. SAE Technical Paper 2016-01-1408, doi:10.4271/2016-01-
1408, p. 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An IRI value of 1.5 corresponds to a newly paved road without any 
potholes, pitting, or bumps.\122\ The Federal Highway Administration 
classifies roads with an IRI less than 1.5 as ``Good,'' those with an 
IRI from 1.5 to 2.7 as ``Fair'', and those with an IRI greater than 2.7 
as ``Poor.'' \123\ Approximately 37% of pavement miles on Federal-aid 
highways were rated as having ``Good'' ride quality in 2012.\124\ This 
suggests the proposed IRI value is realistically achievable on a test 
track because it is realistically achievable on the much less-
controlled environments of actual roads. The vehicle test facility at 
which NHTSA conducted its testing regularly measures the IRI of at 
least some of its track surfaces and has generally found them to have 
IRI values within the proposed range.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \122\ Michael W. Sayers & Steven M. Karamihas. 1998. The Little 
Book of Profiling, Basic Information About Measuring and 
Interpreting Road Profiles. University of Michigan. p. 48.
    \123\ 2015 Status of the Nation's Highways, Bridges, and 
Transit: Conditions and Performance, Report to Congress, Department 
of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit 
Administration, p. 3-4, available at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/2015cpr/pdfs.cfm (last accessed Sept. 26, 2018).
    \124\ Id. p. 3-3. Many states appear to use similar 
categorization. The Virginia DOT considers interstates and primary 
roads with an IRI less than .95 to be ``Excellent,'' and those with 
an IRI from .95 to 1.6 to be ``Good.'' Approximately one third of 
interstates in Virginia were rated Excellent, and half were rated 
Good. Virginia Department of Transportation. State of the Pavement 
2016. pp. IV-V, available at http://www.virginiadot.org/info/resources/State_of_the_Pavement_2016.pdf (last accessed Sept. 26, 
2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Grade of Test Road
    We propose to use a road approximating a uniform, level road, with 
a longitudinal grade (slope) not exceeding 2%. We are not proposing to 
test on sloped (dipped or hilly) roads. Even headlights with compliant 
lower beam photometry can glare oncoming or preceding vehicles on 
sloped roads because the hill geometry may place that vehicle in the 
brighter portion of the lower beam pattern. NHTSA's testing was 
consistent with this, showing ADB headlights and FMVSS-compliant lower 
beams glared oncoming and preceding vehicles on roads with dips.\125\ 
It would be neither practical nor consistent with the approach of this 
rulemaking (extending the existing lower beam glare requirements to ADB 
systems) to require this performance of ADB systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \125\ ADB Test Report, pp. 102, 108, 114.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Repeatability

    The Agency has collected extensive testing data and is docketing 
this data. The Agency has done several different analyses of this data 
to assess the repeatability of the proposed compliance test.
    One method is pooled standard deviation.\126\ Same-direction and 
oncoming curve scenarios tended to have the smallest maximum pooled 
standard deviation values across all four distance ranges. Also, 
maneuvers involving the stimulus vehicle (also referred to here as the 
``DAS'' vehicle) being stationary tended to have smaller pooled 
standard deviations. This was especially true for curve maneuver 
scenarios in which the DAS vehicle was stationary, likely because of 
the short period of time in which the test vehicle's heading was in the 
direction of the stimulus vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \126\ ADB Test Report, pp. 138-146. The pooled variance is a 
weighted mean of variances of individual groups, groups in this case 
being the six different test vehicle/stimulus vehicle combinations. 
This ignores differences in mean values for different groups and 
compares only the variability within the groups. The pooed standard 
deviation is the square root of this. Standard deviations calculated 
by comparing all values to the overall mean are larger because that 
calculation includes variability between the groups. The pooled 
standard deviation method of measuring repeatability measures how 
well values from one repetition to another of the same maneuver 
compare to each other for any test vehicle even if the means for the 
different test vehicles are different.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another method is visual analysis of data plots from each scenario 
the Agency tested.\127\ These plots demonstrate each run collected data 
such that the overall shape of the curve (illuminance as a function of 
distance) is consistent across each test repetition. In most cases, the 
deviation between data collection runs is small, and for those where 
larger differences occur, differences can be reasonably attributable to 
faulty sensors or lack of rigorous equipment configurations for the 
particular situation such as the motorcycle photometers were not 
mounted on the motorcycle itself but were on a car positioned nearby 
(these data are useful for other findings but not for evaluating 
repeatability). Finally, these plots allow us to evaluate the extent to 
which the variability within the test itself can be reasonably 
accounted for in the basic design of the ADB headlighting system. That 
is to say, this method allows the Agency to evaluate the magnitude of 
noise within test results as compared to proposed limits. The method of 
visual analysis further supports the Agency's tentative conclusion that 
the proposed test provides manufacturers with adequate notice as to the 
results of any compliance testing the Agency may conduct on its 
product. The Agency seeks comment on this analysis and these tentative 
conclusions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \127\ ADB Test Report, pp. 147-162.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Agency further examined its research results to understand the 
validity of the tests. This examination is part of the basis for which 
the Agency has confidence the proposed tests can generate accurate 
results and adequately distinguish between an ADB system that is likely 
to expose others to excessive glare and an ADB system that will not. 
Table 5 shows results of NHTSA measurements in the baseline (static) 
condition in which we would expect the photometry to be the least 
influenced by uncontrollable factors. This is the most basic 
progression beyond testing headlamps outside of the typical photometric 
lab used in most regulatory test procedures. As a general observation, 
we note the mean of each static measurement is below the proposed glare 
limits for each distance for a lower beam headlighting system. We also 
note the upper beam illumination at 120 meters is higher than one would 
expect for an FMVSS headlighting system; however, we also note all four 
of these vehicles were originally designed to the UNECE standard, which 
allows for considerably higher intensity upper beam headlamps. 
Consistent with the information provided to us by the vehicle 
manufacturer, the Mercedes-Benz and Audi vehicles' upper beam headlamps 
appear to be within the FMVSS upper beam maximum limit while the other 
two vehicles are likely outside of this limit. While we were unable to 
do a standard laboratory photometry test on these headlamps, these data 
provide confidence NHTSA measurements are reasonable.
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

[[Page 51790]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12OC18.002


[[Page 51791]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12OC18.003


[[Page 51792]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12OC18.004

    Table 6 includes results of the lower beam headlamp illumination 
measurements when taken through NHTSA dynamic tests including oncoming 
scenarios, on a curve (right and left), and on a straightaway with the

[[Page 51793]]

stimulus vehicle moving and stationary. For purposes of examining the 
validity of the proposed test, the Agency first considered results of 
lower beam testing only to remove potential variabilities in test 
results from the performance of ADB systems. The most closely 
comparable measurements are the baseline and the straight maneuver as 
the general orientation for these situations place the vehicle mounted 
photometers in similar locations for each test. We note measurements 
for dynamic situations differ from the static in positive and negative 
ways meaning sometimes the dynamic test produces a higher illumination 
reading, while in others, it produces a lower illumination measurement 
as compared to the baseline measurement. Also of significant note, for 
straight situations, the far distance (120-239.9 m range) produced 
generally higher percentage differences between the baseline and the 
dynamic situation. This may be expected as stray light will have a 
larger percentage contribution considering the smaller base value. 
Additionally, vehicle pitch variation as measured in angles would have 
a larger contribution if the lower beam headlamp cutoff were to 
approach photometers. This second possibility seems the less likely of 
the two as dynamic measurements were not consistently higher than the 
baseline measurement for that range and orientation but similar to the 
other measurement ranges. Sometimes the baseline measurement was 
higher, and sometimes the dynamic measurements were higher.
    Curve situations (both left and right) demonstrated a greater 
difference between baseline and dynamic tests, particularly at the far 
distance range. Importantly, the difference did not seem to be 
compounded with the stimulus vehicle moving as opposed to stationary. 
One possible explanation for the difference between baseline results 
and curve results is the orientation of the two vehicles is different. 
While for the straight situations photometers are in a similar place 
within the test vehicles' headlamp beam pattern, for the curve 
situation the vehicle orientation moves the stimulus vehicle (and 
mounted photometers) out toward larger horizontal angles of the beam 
pattern where the intensity of light seems to be higher in three of 
these test vehicles. The BMW consistently did not demonstrate this 
difference, leading the Agency to believe the test is measuring true 
differences in vehicles' beam patterns even at large angles in the 
curve situation. Additionally, the right curve with and without the 
stimulus vehicle moving recorded similar results as the left curve with 
and without the stimulus vehicle moving for each of the vehicles 
tested. As such, the Agency tentatively concludes the difference 
between baseline and curve situations do not demonstrate variability 
within the test procedure itself but are caused by variations in beam 
patterns of test vehicles. Not the topic of this section, however, this 
examination leads the Agency to tentatively conclude situations in 
which these far distance curves produced glare beyond tentative limits 
can be designed out of headlamps.
    Considering the confidence established in the Agency's ability to 
measure lower beam performance in an outdoor test on-vehicle, the 
Agency next evaluated the performance of the ADB system and evaluated 
the tests' ability to measure ADB headlighting systems in a dynamic 
way. First, we compared oncoming straight results between lower beam 
and ADB as shown in Table 7.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12OC18.005


[[Page 51794]]


    We expected the straight scenario would pose the least difficult 
situation for the performance of the ADB system itself and allow the 
Agency to evaluate the test. As such, we expected ADB results to be 
similar to lower beam results for the same maneuver. Table 7 compares 
the maximum illumination value recorded for lower beam headlamps as 
compared to ADB systems and presents the quotient of the ADB divided by 
the lower beam. Ideally, we would expect the quotient to equal 1. A 
value less than 1 identifies results in which the ADB is dimmer than 
the lower beam, while values greater than 1 identify results in which 
the ADB is brighter than the lower beam. In general, the results 
indicate the quotient is close to 1 with some exceptions. The far 
distance range produced a quotient 2.65 on the BMW, meaning ADB system 
results for that range are more than twice as bright as lower beam 
results. This result is, however, a ratio of small numbers, namely 0.08 
divided by 0.03. To provide context around these small numbers, the 
research threshold value for that range is 0.281 (0.3 as proposed 
today), much greater than recorded results for either headlighting 
system. The far distance range for the Lexus vehicle produced a ratio 
of 2.7 meaning ADB results are approaching three times as bright as the 
lower beam. Unlike results for the BMW, the Lexus measurements are not 
particularly small numbers. In fact, the ADB measurement for that test 
was 0.37 lux, which is above the research threshold for the far 
distance range. Interestingly, the Mercedes-Benz ADB results were 
within 16% of lower beam results for all ranges corresponding to the 
straight maneuver. This leads the Agency to the tentative conclusion 
favorable ratios between the lower beam and ADB systems are technically 
possible, and the test procedure is useful in discerning the 
performance of the ADB system in the straight maneuver.
    The Agency research also included the evaluation of more complex 
maneuvers and scenarios to evaluate the ADB performance in situations 
that are more likely to challenge the ADB system's functionality. Table 
8 presents results of the ADB system's performance on the curve 
maneuver.
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

[[Page 51795]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12OC18.006


[[Page 51796]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12OC18.007

BILLING CODE 4910-59-C
    As discussed previously, the lower beam exceeded research 
thresholds for the long range for all vehicles except the BMW. Beyond 
this, several ADB performance aspects were observed in this test. 
Again, building on the lower beam performance, the ADB performance was 
evaluated as a quotient of the maximum illumination as compared to the 
lower beam for each distance range. Audi results showed high quotients 
for each of the curve tests for the 60-119.9 m range. Not only is the 
quotient high, the maximum illumination for that range was reported as 
1.61, 1.99, 2.95, and 3.23 lux as presented in the table above. To put 
these values in perspective, the research threshold for that range is 
0.634 lux. While the lower beam, in some cases, exceeded this 
threshold, the maximum exceedance for the lower beam was a measurement 
of 0.78 over the threshold by just 23% on the Audi. Based on the 
confidence in the Agency's test, established in the previous 
discussion, the Agency tentatively concludes differences shown on 
curves are true differences in the ADB performance and not variability 
in the test itself. To further establish this tentative conclusion, the 
Agency looked at details of the test and plotted the illuminance as a 
function of distance as shown below. Results for the oncoming curve-
left test show the passenger car stimulus vehicle and the SUV stimulus 
vehicle where both the stimulus vehicle and the ADB vehicles are moving 
at 62 mph.
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

[[Page 51797]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12OC18.008


[[Page 51798]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12OC18.009

BILLING CODE 4910-59-C
    By comparing the plots, we can see the ADB system is providing a 
full upper beam (or at least not shading the stimulus vehicle) until 
suddenly recognizing and dramatically lowering the glare (at round 70 m 
for the moving passenger car stimulus vehicle and 50 m for the moving 
SUV stimulus vehicle). The sudden lowering of the illuminance appears 
to happen sooner for the two stationary stimulus vehicles. The Agency 
tentatively considers this outcome a byproduct of the ADB system's lack 
of ability to view, classify, and adapt to an oncoming vehicle through 
a curve at a realistic but generally high-speed interaction. Further 
support of this tentative conclusion is that for each of the curve 
interactions listed above, glare measurements are higher when the 
stimulus is moving as compared to when it is stopped for the 60-119.9 m 
range.
    Taken together, these results support the Agency's tentative 
conclusion that the proposed test is repeatable and sufficient in its 
ability to measure ADB performance using a vehicle-based, dynamic test. 
Further, the Agency tentatively concludes the variability in the test 
is small enough that a manufacturer can reasonably anticipate results 
of any compliance test the Agency would conduct if taken into 
consideration during design stages of the vehicle and headlighting 
system.

IX. Certification and Aftermarket

    Motor vehicle manufacturers are required to certify that their 
vehicles comply with all applicable FMVSS.\128\ FMVSS No. 108 also 
applies to replacement equipment (i.e., equipment sold on the 
aftermarket to replace original equipment installed on the vehicle and 
certified to FMVSS No. 108 at the time of the first sale to a purchaser 
other than for resale).\129\ Replacement equipment must be designed to 
conform to meet any applicable requirements and include all functions 
of the lamp it is designed to replace or capable of replacing.\130\ 
Each replacement lamp which is designed or recommended for particular 
vehicle models must be designed so that it does not take the vehicle 
out of compliance with the standard when the individual device is 
installed on the vehicle.\131\ A manufacturer of replacement equipment 
is responsible for certifying that equipment.\132\ It may be the case 
that only the manufacturer of the original equipment and/or vehicle 
would be able to make a good faith certification of ADB replacement 
equipment because requirements are vehicle-level, not equipment level. 
We seek comment on this.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \128\ See, e.g. 49 U.S.C. 3015.
    \129\ S3.3 (the standard applies to ``[l]amps, reflective 
devices, and associated equipment for replacement of like equipment 
on vehicles to which this standard applies.'').
    \130\ S6.7.1.1.
    \131\ S6.7.1.2.
    \132\ 49 U.S.C. 30115; Letter from Stephen Wood, Acting Chief 
Counsel, to George Van Straten, Van Straten Heated Tail Light Co., 
Inc. (Aug. 11, 1989).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

X. Regulatory Alternatives

    The two main regulatory alternatives NHTSA considered were the ECE 
ADB requirements and SAE J3069. However, as noted earlier, the ECE 
requirements are not sufficiently objective to be incorporated into an 
FMVSS. Accordingly, the main regulatory alternative we considered is 
SAE J3069.
    In the preceding sections of this document we discussed in detail 
specific aspects in which the proposal follows and differs from SAE 
J3069. In general, there are two major ways in which they differ.
    First, the proposal would require a more robust and realistic track 
test to evaluate glare. This track test is the major element of the 
proposed rule. It is ultimately based--as is the SAE J3069 track test--
on the glare limits developed in NHTSA's Feasibility Study. These glare 
limits are the foundational element of the track test. The proposal and 
SAE J3069 differ somewhat in the way the proposed glare limits are 
specified, but they are largely similar. The proposal differs 
significantly from SAE J3069, however, in the way that it would test 
for compliance with these glare limits. SAE J3069 specifies testing on 
a straight portion of road, and instead of using oncoming or preceding 
vehicles, uses stationary test fixtures positioned at precisely 
specified locations adjacent to the test track. The proposed test 
procedure would permit the Agency to test on curved portions of road 
(with various radii of curvature) using a broad range of actual FMVSS-
certified vehicles as oncoming or preceding vehicles.
    Second, the proposal would require additional laboratory-tested 
equipment-level photometric requirements to regulate both glare and 
visibility. With

[[Page 51799]]

respect to glare prevention, we propose to require that the part of the 
ADB beam that is cast near other vehicles must not exceed the current 
low beam maxima, and the part of an ADB beam that is cast onto 
unoccupied roadway must not exceed the current upper beam maxima. SAE 
J3069 requires the former but not the latter. With respect to 
visibility, we propose that the part of the ADB beam that is cast near 
other vehicles must comply with the current lower beam minima, and that 
the part of the ADB beam that is cast onto unoccupied roadway comply 
with the upper beam minima. SAE J3069 does not have any laboratory-
based requirements for the former, and for the latter specifies the low 
beam minima, not the upper beam minima.
    NHTSA has tentatively concluded that the differences between the 
proposal and SAE J3069 are necessary to ensure the ADB systems meet the 
dual safety needs of glare prevention and visibility.
    NHTSA is particularly concerned about ensuring, to a reasonable 
degree, that ADB systems do not glare other motorists. The attraction 
of ADB is that it is able--if designed and functioning properly--to 
provide enhanced illumination while not glaring other motorists. 
However, if an ADB system does not perform as intended, it does have 
the potential to glare other motorists. NHTSA is particularly concerned 
about this because glare is a negative externality that might not be 
sufficiently mitigated by market forces alone. Headlamp design involves 
an inherent tension between forward illumination and glare. A vehicle 
manufacturer's incentive, absent regulation, might be to provide 
forward illumination at the expense of glare prevention because the 
benefits of forward illumination are enjoyed by the vehicle owner, 
while glare prevention principally benefits other motorists. NHTSA is 
especially mindful of the many comments and complaints NHTSA has 
received from the public expressing concerns about glare. The proposed 
regulation is, therefore, largely focused on glare. This is consistent 
with the current headlamp regulations, which have included photometry 
requirements regulating glare since the standard's inception.
    NHTSA tentatively believes that the proposed requirements are 
preferable to SAE J3069. The proposed track test would require that ADB 
systems be able to negotiate a variety of real-world conditions and not 
simply be engineered to recognize specified fixtures. We tentatively 
believe the proposal will lead to ADB systems that prevent glare more 
effectively, particularly in real-world situations where the other 
vehicle enters the field of view of the ADB camera from the side and 
not from a far distance. We also believe that requiring that the part 
of the ADB beam that is cast near other vehicles must not exceed the 
current low beam maxima, and the part of the ADB beam that is cast onto 
unoccupied roadway must not exceed the current upper beam maxima would 
provide further assurance against glare compared to the less stringent 
SAE specifications. We tentatively conclude that the regulatory 
requirements we are proposing would meet the need for vehicle safety 
and would be sufficient to determine whether an ADB system was 
functioning properly so as not to glare other motorists.
    While the bulk of the proposal is related to glare, and there is 
reason to believe that manufacturers have an incentive to provide 
sufficient forward illumination, we also include a very limited set of 
laboratory tests to ensure a minimum level of visibility. NHTSA 
tentatively believes that the limited set of proposed laboratory 
photometric tests not included in SAE J3069 would provide important 
safety assurances. These laboratory-based requirements only require 
that the ADB complies with the existing photometry requirements that 
ensure that minimum levels of illumination are provided. We tentatively 
believe that if ADB systems did not provide these minimum levels of 
illumination the driver might not have sufficient visibility.
    At the same time, we tentatively believe that more stringent 
requirements relating to visibility are not necessary. Manufacturers 
have a market incentive to provide drivers with sufficient 
illumination. In addition, if an ADB system is malfunctioning in not 
providing adequate illumination, vehicle owners can file complaints 
both with the manufacturer and NHTSA. This would make it possible for 
NHTSA to identify the safety concern, open a defect investigation, and, 
if the investigation suggests the ADB system is defective, require the 
OEM to recall and remedy the vehicle. This is largely not the case for 
glare, because a motorist who is glared by another vehicle is rarely 
able to identify that vehicle and submit a complaint. Moreover, we 
believe potential safety benefits of ADB technology justify focusing on 
what we believe is the most acute regulatory concern (glare), and not 
including equally stringent requirements and test procedures related to 
visibility. Based on the Agency's testing, and on the experience with 
ADB systems in Europe and Asia, it appears that current systems have 
generally been providing adequate illumination. However, we tentatively 
believe these minimum requirements are necessary.
    A more detailed discussion of the expected likely costs and 
benefits of the proposal as compared to SAE J3069 is provided below in 
Section XI, Overview of Costs and Benefits.
    As an alternative to the proposed requirements and compliance test 
procedures, the Agency could more closely follow SAE J3069. We earlier 
discussed specific ways in which we depart from SAE J3069. We could 
choose to conform to SAE J3069 with respect to some or all of these 
test attributes. The major ways the proposal could further conform to 
SAE J3069 would be by using stationary fixtures, instead of moving 
vehicles, limiting the array of road geometries we would test with, and 
not requiring the additional laboratory-based photometric requirements 
not also included in SAE J3069. We could also incorporate SAE J3069 by 
reference.
    We seek comment on the relative merits of the proposal and SAE 
J3069 generally, and the advisability of conforming to or departing 
from SAE J3069 in any of these respects. In particular, with respect to 
differences between the proposal and SAE J3069: What are the relative 
merits and drawbacks of each with respect to the statutory criteria of 
objectivity, practicability, meeting the need for safety, and 
appropriateness for the type of vehicle? NHTSA is also interested in 
views regarding differences between the proposal and SAE J3069 in terms 
of the repeatability of test results. NHTSA is also interested in 
learning whether there are any other alternatives that should be 
considered by the Agency.

XI. Overview of Benefits and Costs

    NHTSA has considered the qualitative costs and benefits of the 
proposal. (For the reasons discussed in Section XI, Overview of 
Benefits and Costs, NHTSA has not quantified the costs and benefits of 
the proposal.) NHTSA has analyzed the qualitative costs and benefits of 
the proposal compared to both the current baseline in which ADB systems 
are not deployed as well as the primary regulatory alternative (SAE 
J3069). Based on this analysis, NHTSA tentatively concludes that ADB 
should be permitted and that the proposed requirements and test 
procedures are the preferred regulatory alternative.

[[Page 51800]]

a. Proposal Compared to Current Baseline in Which ADB is Not Deployed

    We have tentatively concluded that the proposal to permit ADB and 
subject it to requirements and test procedures to ensure that it does 
not glare other motorists and provides sufficient visibility would have 
greater net benefits than maintaining the status quo.
    We have tentatively determined that the proposal to permit ADB and 
subject it to requirements and test procedures would lead to greater 
benefits than maintaining the status quo in which ADB is not deployed. 
The anticipated benefits are a decrease in fatalities and injuries 
associated with crashes involving pedestrians, cyclists, animals, and 
roadside objects due to the improved visibility provided by ADB. The 
improved visibility is a result of increased upper beam use and an 
enhanced lower beam. Although it is difficult to estimate these 
benefits, NHTSA performed a data analysis to explore how driving in 
better light conditions affects pedestrian and cyclist fatalities. The 
analysis focused on pedestrian/cyclist fatalities and injuries under 
various light conditions and explored the correlation between 
pedestrian/cyclist fatalities and injuries with light conditions, as 
well as several other risk factors (location, speed limit, alcohol use, 
and driver distraction). The analysis used data from the Agency's 
Fatality Analysis Reporting System and the National Automotive Sampling 
System General Estimate System. These databases contain detailed 
information on crashes involving fatalities and injuries, respectively, 
including information on the conditions under which the crashes 
occurred. This analysis suggests that the size of the target 
population--pedestrian and cyclist fatalities that occur in darkness--
is 15,065 over 11 years or 1,370 per year. This analysis is discussed 
in more detail in Appendix A. The Agency tentatively concludes this 
analysis demonstrates that a properly-functioning ADB system could 
provide significant safety benefits beyond that provided by existing 
headlighting systems.\133\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \133\ As discussed in Appendix A, the analysis requires a 
variety of assumptions and, while partially accounting for some 
confounding factors (such as alcohol-related crashes), is not able 
to isolate the effect of darkness on crash risk. (Toyota also 
estimated the target population, using a different methodology, in 
its rulemaking petition.) Determining a more specific target 
population is difficult because of a variety of data limitations 
(e.g., headlamp state (on-off, upper-lower beam) is not known in 
many of the pedestrian crashes).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The possible disbenefits of this rulemaking would be any increases 
in glare attributable to ADB. A properly-functioning ADB system would 
not produce more glare than current headlights because it would 
accurately recognize and shade oncoming and preceding vehicles. The 
Agency's research testing of ADB-equipped vehicles leads NHTSA to 
tentatively conclude that an ADB system that complied with the proposed 
requirements would not lead to any significant increases in glare. 
Accordingly, we do not expect any significant disbenefits.\134\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \134\ We do recognize, as the ADB Test Report notes, that there 
are situations in which ADB might not adequately perform, such as at 
intersections and on dipped segments of roadway. We believe that at 
intersections the safety concern is lessened because the encountered 
vehicle is likely stationary. We also note that current headlights, 
which are unable to actively adapt the beam, can glare other 
vehicles at intersections and on dipped roads because the roadway 
geometry becomes such that those vehicles are exposed to relatively 
bright portions of the beam.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ADB is currently not permitted by FMVSS No. 108, and is therefore 
not currently available to consumers. The proposed rule, by allowing 
the introduction of ADB systems, would expand the set of choices open 
to consumers. ADB systems are optional, and the proposed rule in no way 
restricts or imposes additional costs or requirements on any existing 
technologies that consumers are currently able to purchase. Consumers 
are therefore no worse off under the proposal. Because the proposal 
expands the set of consumer choices (compared to the status quo), it is 
an enabling regulation. The estimated cost savings of an enabling 
regulation would include the full opportunity costs of the previously 
foregone activities (i.e., the sum of consumer and producer surplus, 
minus any fixed costs).
    Because we expect positive benefits and cost savings from enabling 
the use of new technologies, we tentatively conclude that the proposal 
would lead to higher net benefits compared to the status quo. We seek 
comment on the potential benefits and cost savings of this proposal, 
including quantitative data that could help estimate their magnitude.

b. Proposal Compared to SAE J3069

    NHTSA also compared the proposal to SAE J3069. As discussed below, 
although the proposal is likely more costly (due to higher compliance 
testing and equipment costs), these higher costs are likely outweighed 
by the higher safety-related benefits (and lower glare disbenefits).
    The proposal would likely result in greater benefits than the 
regulatory alternative because the proposed requirements require more 
illumination (but not at levels that would glare other motorists). 
Above we broadly estimated the size of the target population. We 
tentatively believe that the proposed requirements would be more 
effective--i.e., more likely to lead to a greater reduction in 
crashes--than SAE J3069 because the proposal would require ADB systems 
to provide more illumination. Two of the proposed laboratory-based 
photometric requirements do this. We propose that the part of the ADB 
beam that is cast near other vehicles must comply with the current 
lower beam minima, and that the part of the ADB beam that is cast onto 
unoccupied roadway comply with the upper beam minima. SAE J3069 does 
not have any laboratory-based requirements for the former, and for the 
latter specifies the lower beam minima, not the upper beam minima. We 
believe the proposed requirements would offer meaningful safety 
assurances. The lower and upper beam minima have been in place for 
decades. They indicate what have been the longstanding minimum 
acceptable levels of illumination for adequate visibility. Along with 
this, they provide an appropriate tradeoff between illumination and 
glare. While requiring the lower beam minima for the dimmed portion of 
the ADB beam may not provide much benefit when the ADB system is 
dimming portions on an oncoming or proceeding vehicle, any activation 
of the dimmed region due to a false positive (dimming for a lamp post 
or sign) could have safety implications (because there would not be 
another vehicle's headlamps to illuminate the road). Because SAE J3069 
does not require ADB systems to meet any minima within the dimmed 
portion of the ADB beam, it could lead to insufficient illumination. On 
the other hand, it might be possible that the more demanding road test 
we propose to test for glare could incentivize manufacturers to equip 
vehicles with ADB systems that provide less illumination (to ensure 
that they do not fail the glare road test) than they would if we adopt 
requirements more similar to SAE J3069. However, we tentatively believe 
the proposed requirements will result in a greater reduction in crashes 
due to increased illumination.\135\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \135\ The proposal and the alternative both are most likely to 
be cost-effective using the DOT's $9.7 million value of a 
statistical life. However, due to the relatively more stringent 
performance requirements of the proposal, it would likely accrue 
more safety benefits than does the alternative.

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

[[Page 51801]]

    The Agency has also tentatively concluded that the proposed 
requirements would lead to smaller disbenefits in terms of glare than 
the regulatory alternatives, for two reasons. First, the proposal 
requires a much more realistic road test to evaluate glare, including 
actual vehicles and curved portions of the roadway, instead of fixtures 
simulating vehicles and curves. This would require that ADB systems be 
able to meet a variety of real world conditions and not simply be 
engineered to recognize specified fixtures. We tentatively believe this 
will lead to less glare, particularly in real-world situations where 
the other vehicle enters the field of view of the ADB camera from the 
side and not from a far distance (such as situations in which the ADB-
equipped vehicle is overtaken or encounters an oncoming vehicle on a 
small-radius curve). Second, the proposal would require that in the 
undimmed portion of the ADB beam the current upper beam maxima be met; 
SAE J3069 does not specify any maxima. The upper beam maxima limit the 
amount of light projected on objects that are not detected by the ADB 
system such as cyclists, pedestrians, and houses near the road.
    NHTSA tentatively concludes that the proposed rule would likely 
have higher costs than SAE J3069. This is due to compliance testing 
costs, and, possibly, to component costs.
    We would expect higher costs for compliance testing. The proposed 
road test for compliance with the proposed glare limits is more complex 
than the testing required by SAE J3069 because it involves actual test 
vehicles and more scenarios. The proposal also includes requirements 
for static photometry testing that are not included in SAE J3069. If a 
manufacturer concluded that testing was necessary to certify an ADB 
system, then testing for compliance with the proposal would be more 
costly than compliance testing for a standard more closely based on SAE 
J3069.
    We do not expect design and development costs to be significantly 
higher than they would be under SAE J3069. ADB is currently offered as 
an optional system in Europe, among other markets. We tentatively 
believe that the European ADB (if modified to produce a U.S.-compliant 
beam \136\) systems are essentially capable of complying with the 
proposed requirements. The Agency tested a variety of European vehicles 
in a road test similar to the one that is proposed today to measure 
glare. The vehicles passed many of the scenarios we tested, although we 
observed that the ADB systems had difficulties staying within the glare 
limits when encountering oncoming vehicles on curves when both vehicles 
were travelling at approximately 60 mph. In consideration of these test 
results, the proposal does not include any tests on curves at these 
higher speeds. (In the proposal, we are proposing that the vehicle's 
speeds not exceed 45 mph in this scenario.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \136\ Because the headlamp photometry requirements in FMVSS No. 
108 differ from ECE-required photometry, in order for an ECE-
compliant system to be sold in the U.S., the headlamp photometry 
would need to be modified, which would entail some design cost. This 
is true for any European-model vehicle sold in the U.S.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, we do believe that it could be more costly to equip a 
vehicle with an ADB system that complies with the proposal rather than 
with the minimum requirements of SAE J3069. For instance, the proposal 
requires that the undimmed portion of the ADB beam meet the current 
upper beam minima. The European systems we tested similarly used the 
upper beam (ECE driving beam) to illuminate regions outside the dimmed 
portion of the beam. SAE J3069, however, requires only that the lower 
beam minima be met in this region. Accordingly, an SAE J3069-compliant 
system could use a lower cost light source. As another example, while 
the European systems NHTSA tested employed relatively sophisticated LED 
arrays or shading devices, a system that complied with the minimum 
requirements of SAE J3069 could employ less sophisticated technology.
    NHTSA has tentatively concluded that the likely additional (i.e., 
as compared to SAE J3069) benefits associated with the proposal exceed 
the likely additional costs of the proposal. The somewhat greater costs 
it would require to equip a vehicle with an ADB system that complies 
with the proposed requirements would likely be outweighed by the 
greater benefits (and smaller glare disbenefits) that we tentatively 
believe would be likely to result from the proposal. For instance, a 
system that saved money on a narrow field of view camera would not 
provide glare protection on small radius curves in real world driving. 
Additionally, any cost savings to be gained from a less intense light 
source used for the undimmed portion of the beam would be negated by 
the relative increase risk to pedestrian detection.
    NHTSA seeks comment on all these issues, in particular the relative 
costs of compliance with the proposal, SAE J3069, and the ECE 
requirements (especially specific data and cost estimates), as well as 
the relative benefits of these alternatives.

XII. Rulemaking Analyses

Executive Order 13771

    Executive Order 13771 titled ``Reducing Regulation and Controlling 
Regulatory Costs,'' directs that, unless prohibited by law, whenever an 
executive department or Agency publicly proposes for notice and comment 
or otherwise promulgates a new regulation, it shall identify at least 
two existing regulations to be repealed. In addition, any new 
incremental costs associated with new regulations shall, to the extent 
permitted by law, be offset by the elimination of existing costs. Only 
those rules deemed significant under section 3(f) of Executive Order 
12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review,'' are subject to these 
requirements. As discussed below, this rule is not a significant rule 
under Executive Order 12866. However, this proposed rule is expected to 
be an E.O. 13771 deregulatory action. Details on the estimated cost 
savings of this proposed rule can be found in the rule's economic 
analysis.

Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and DOT Regulatory 
Policies and Procedures

    Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and the Department of 
Transportation's regulatory policies require determinations as to 
whether a regulatory action is ``significant'' and therefore subject to 
OMB review and the requirements of the aforementioned Executive Orders. 
Executive Order 12866 defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as 
one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or 
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    We have considered the potential impact of this proposal under 
Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and the Department of 
Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. This NPRM is not 
significant and so was not reviewed under E.O. 12866.

[[Page 51802]]

    However, pursuant to E.O. 12866 and the Department's policies, we 
have identified the problem this NPRM intends to address, considered 
whether existing regulations have contributed to the problem, and 
considered alternatives. Because this rulemaking has been designated 
nonsignificant, quantification of benefits is not required under E.O. 
12866, but is required, to the extent practicable, under DOT Order 
2100.5. NHTSA has tentatively determined that quantifying the benefits 
and costs is not practicable in this rulemaking.
    Quantifying the benefits of the proposal--the decrease in deaths 
and injuries due to the greater visibility made possible by ADB--is 
difficult because of a variety of data limitations related to 
accurately estimating the target population and the effectiveness of 
ADB. For example, headlamp state (on-off, upper-lower beam) is not 
reflected in the data for many of the pedestrian crashes. Nevertheless, 
we attempt to broadly estimate the magnitude of the target population 
in Appendix A. (Toyota's rulemaking petition also includes a target 
population analysis using a different methodology.)
    Quantification of costs is similarly not practicable. The only 
currently-available ADB systems are in foreign markets such as Europe. 
We tentatively believe that an ECE-approved ADB system (modified to 
have FMVSS 108-compliant photometry) would be able to comply with the 
proposed requirements. It would be possible for NHTSA to estimate the 
cost of such systems by performing teardown studies, but we have not 
done so. Among other reasons, even if NHTSA performed tear-down studies 
for ECE-approved systems, NHTSA would still need to estimate the cost 
of the compliance with the main regulatory alternative, SAE J3069. 
However, there are not any SAE J3069-compliant systems on the market to 
use in a tear-down cost analysis because ADB systems are not currently 
available in the U.S. It might be possible for NHTSA to estimate the 
costs of an SAE J3069-compliant system with an engineering assessment, 
but such an assessment would require additional time and resources.
    We therefore tentatively conclude that a quantitative cost-benefit 
analysis is not currently practicable. We believe that a qualitative 
analysis (see Section XI, Overview of Benefits and Costs) is sufficient 
to reasonably conclude that the proposed requirements are preferable to 
the current regulatory alternative.

Executive Order 13609: Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation

    The policy statement in section 1 of Executive Order 13609 
provides, in part:

    The regulatory approaches taken by foreign governments may 
differ from those taken by U.S. regulatory agencies to address 
similar issues. In some cases, the differences between the 
regulatory approaches of U.S. agencies and those of their foreign 
counterparts might not be necessary and might impair the ability of 
American businesses to export and compete internationally. In 
meeting shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, 
environmental, and other issues, international regulatory 
cooperation can identify approaches that are at least as protective 
as those that are or would be adopted in the absence of such 
cooperation. International regulatory cooperation can also reduce, 
eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory 
requirements.

    Although this proposal is different than comparable foreign 
regulations, we believe that the proposed requirements have the 
potential to enhance safety.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    NHTSA has examined this proposed rule pursuant to Executive Order 
13132 (64 FR 43255; Aug. 10, 1999) and concluded that no additional 
consultation with States, local governments, or their representatives 
is mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The Agency has concluded 
that the rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to 
warrant consultation with State and local officials or the preparation 
of a federalism summary impact statement. The rule does not have 
``substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between 
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    NHTSA rules can have preemptive effect in two ways. First, the 
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains an express 
preemption provision: When a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect 
under this chapter, a State or a political subdivision of a State may 
prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same 
aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment 
only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed under this 
chapter. 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1). It is this statutory command by 
Congress that preempts any non-identical State legislative and 
administrative law address the same aspect of performance.
    The express preemption provision described above is subject to a 
savings clause under which ``[c]ompliance with a motor vehicle safety 
standard prescribed under this chapter does not exempt a person from 
liability at common law.'' 49 U.S.C. 30103(e) Pursuant to this 
provision, State common law tort causes of action against motor vehicle 
manufacturers that might otherwise be preempted by the express 
preemption provision are generally preserved. However, the Supreme 
Court has recognized the possibility, in some instances, of implied 
preemption of State common law tort causes of action by virtue of 
NHTSA's rules--even if not expressly preempted.
    This second way that NHTSA rules can preempt is dependent upon the 
existence of an actual conflict between an FMVSS and the higher 
standard that would effectively be imposed on motor vehicle 
manufacturers if someone obtained a State common law tort judgment 
against the manufacturer--notwithstanding the manufacturer's compliance 
with the NHTSA standard. Because most NHTSA standards established by an 
FMVSS are minimum standards, a State common law tort cause of action 
that seeks to impose a higher standard on motor vehicle manufacturers 
will generally not be preempted. However, if and when such a conflict 
does exist--for example, when the standard at issue is both a minimum 
and a maximum standard--the State common law tort cause of action is 
impliedly preempted. See Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 
861 (2000).
    Pursuant to Executive Order 13132, NHTSA has considered whether 
this proposed rule could or should preempt State common law causes of 
action. The Agency's ability to announce its conclusion regarding the 
preemptive effect of one of its rules reduces the likelihood that 
preemption will be an issue in any subsequent tort litigation.
    To this end, the Agency has examined the nature (e.g., the language 
and structure of the regulatory text) and objectives of this proposed 
rule and does not foresee any potential State requirements that might 
conflict with it. We do note that many or most states have laws that 
regulate lower and upper beam use. These laws require that a motorist 
use a lower beam within a certain distance of an oncoming or preceding 
vehicle. We do not believe that there is a conflict between the 
proposed rule and these laws because the proposed rule would allow an 
additional type of lower beam. A vehicle equipped with a compliant and 
properly functioning ADB system should not glare other vehicles, as 
long

[[Page 51803]]

as the proposed requirements are sufficient to meet the goals of this 
proposal--i.e., to protect oncoming and preceding motorists from glare. 
NHTSA does not intend that this proposed rule preempt state tort law 
that would effectively impose a higher standard on motor vehicle 
manufacturers than that established by this rule. Establishment of a 
higher standard by means of State tort law would not conflict with the 
standards proposed in this NPRM. Without any conflict, there could not 
be any implied preemption of a State common law tort cause of action.

National Environmental Policy Act

    The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 
4321-4347) requires Federal agencies to analyze the environmental 
impacts of proposed major Federal actions significantly affecting the 
quality of the human environment, as well as the impacts of 
alternatives to the proposed action. 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C). When a 
Federal agency prepares an environmental assessment, the Council on 
Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA implementing regulations (40 CFR parts 
1500-1508) require it to ``include brief discussions of the need for 
the proposal, of alternatives [. . .], of the environmental impacts of 
the proposed action and alternatives, and a listing of agencies and 
persons consulted.'' 40 CFR 1508.9(b). This section serves as the 
Agency's Draft Environmental Assessment (Draft EA). NHTSA invites 
public comments on the contents and tentative conclusions of this Draft 
EA.
Purpose and Need
    This notice of proposed rulemaking sets forth the purpose of and 
need for this action. As explained earlier in this preamble, ADB 
technology improves safety by providing a variable, enhanced lower beam 
pattern that is sculpted to traffic on the road, rather than just one 
static lower beam pattern, thereby providing more illumination without 
glare to other motorists. In addition, ADB technology will likely lead 
to increased upper beam use, thereby improving driver visibility 
distance at higher speeds. In this document, NHTSA tentatively 
concludes that FMVSS No. 108 does not currently permit ADB technology. 
This proposal therefore reconsiders the currently-existing standard by 
addressing the safety needs of visibility and glare prevention to 
improve safety. This proposal considers and invites comment on how best 
to ensure that ADB technology improves visibility without increasing 
glare.
Alternatives
    NHTSA has considered a range of regulatory alternatives for the 
proposed action. Under a ``no action alternative,'' NHTSA would not 
issue a final rule amending FMVSS No. 108, and ADB technology would 
continue to be prohibited. NHTSA has also considered the ECE 
requirements and SAE J3069, which are described above in this preamble. 
Under this proposal, NHTSA incorporates elements from these standards, 
but departs from them in significant ways, which are also described 
above. NHTSA invites public comments on its proposal.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and Alternatives
    This proposed action is anticipated to result in increased upper 
beam use as well as greater illumination from lower beams (albeit in 
patterns designed to prevent glare to other motorists). As a result, 
the primary environmental impacts anticipated to result from this 
rulemaking are associated with light pollution, including the potential 
disruption of wildlife adjacent to roadways. The National Park Service 
(NPS) defines ``light pollution'' as the introduction of artificial 
light, either directly or indirectly, into the natural 
environment.\137\ Forms of light pollution include sky glow (the bright 
halo over urban areas at nighttime), light trespass (unintended 
artificial lighting on areas that would otherwise be dark), glare 
(light shining horizontally), and overillumination (excess artificial 
lighting for a specific activity).\138\ Light pollution caused by 
artificial light can have various effects on flora and fauna, including 
disrupting seasonal variations and circadian rhythms, disorientation 
and behavioral disruption, sleep disorders, and hormonal 
imbalances.\139\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \137\ National Park Service, Light Pollution. https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nightskies/lightpollution.htm (last accessed 
Sept. 26, 2018).
    \138\ Chepesiuk, R. 2009. Missing the Dark: Health Effects of 
Light Pollution. Environmental Health Perspectives, 117(1), A20-A27.
    \139\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although this rule is anticipated to result in increased levels of 
illumination caused by automobiles at nighttime, NHTSA does not believe 
these levels would contribute appreciably to light pollution in the 
United States. First, the Agency proposes to require that the part of 
an ADB beam that is cast near other vehicles not exceed the current low 
beam maxima and the part of an ADB beam that is cast onto unoccupied 
roadway not exceed the current upper beam maxima. Although overall 
levels of illumination are expected to increase from current levels due 
to increased high beam use and the sculpting of lower beams to traffic 
on the road, total potential brightness would not be permitted to 
exceed the potential maxima that already exists on motor vehicles 
today. These maxima would not only reduce the potential for glare to 
other drivers, but would also limit the potential impact of light 
pollution.
    Second, we note that ADB systems remain optional under the 
proposal. Because of the added costs associated with the technology, 
NHTSA does not anticipate that manufacturers would make these systems 
standard equipment in all of their vehicle models at this time. Thus, 
only a percentage of the on-road fleet would feature ADB systems, while 
new vehicles without the systems would be anticipated to continue to 
have levels of illumination at current rates.
    Third, while ADB systems generally would increase horizontal 
illumination, they likely would not contribute to ambient light 
pollution to the same degree as other forms of illumination, such as 
streetlights and building illumination, where light is intentionally 
scattered to cover large areas or wasted due to inefficient design, 
likely contributing more to the nighttime halo effect in populated 
areas. According to NPS, the primary cause of light pollution is 
outdoor lights that emit light upwards or sideways (but with an upwards 
angle).\140\ As the light escapes upward, it scatters throughout the 
atmosphere and brightens the night sky. Lighting that is directed 
downward, however, contributes significantly less to light pollution. 
Lower beams generally direct light away from oncoming traffic and 
downward in order to illuminate the road and the environs close ahead 
of the vehicle while minimizing glare to other road users. As a result, 
any increases in lower beam illumination are not anticipated to 
contribute meaningfully to light pollution. As discussed further in the 
next paragraph, increases in upper beam illumination would be 
anticipated largely in less populated areas, where oncoming traffic is 
less frequent and small sources of artificial light (such as motor 
vehicles) likely would not change ambient light levels at nighttime to 
a meaningful degree.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \140\ NPS, Light Pollution Sources. https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nightskies/sources.htm (last accessed Sept. 26, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Fourth, NHTSA believes that the areas that would see the greatest 
relative increase in nighttime illumination are predominantly rural and 
unlikely to experience widespread impacts. The

[[Page 51804]]

Agency's proposal would require ADB systems to produce a base lower 
beam at speeds below 25 mph. These slower speeds are anticipated 
primarily in crowded, urban environments where the current impacts of 
light pollution are likely the greatest. As a result, such urban 
environments would not experience changes in light levels produced from 
motor vehicles as a result of this proposal. In moderately crowded, 
urban environments, nighttime vehicles may travel above 25 mph, thereby 
engaging the ADB system. However, in those cases, upper beam use would 
likely be low, as the high level of other road users would cause the 
ADB system to rely on lower beams for visibility in order to reduce 
glare for other drivers. These areas may experience small increases in 
light pollution as the upper beams occasionally engage, as well as 
increased illumination associated with lower beam shaping by the ADB 
system. In rural areas, where traffic levels are lower and driving 
speeds may be higher, the use of ADB systems is anticipated to result 
in increased upper beam use. However, the low traffic levels would 
result in only moderate additional light output, and the low quantity 
of artificial light sources in general would mean that light pollution 
levels overall would be anticipated to remain low.
    The proposed action is anticipated to improve visibility without 
glare to other drivers. In addition to the potential safety benefits 
associated with reduced crashes, this rule could result in fewer 
instances of collisions involving animals on roadways. Upper beams are 
used primarily for distance illumination when not meeting or closely 
following another vehicle. Increased upper beam use in poorly lit 
environments, such as rural roadways, may allow drivers increased time 
to identify roadway hazards (such as animals) and to stop, slow down, 
or avoid a collision.
    In addition, the impact of added artificial light on wildlife 
located near roadways would depend on where and how long the additional 
illumination occurs, whether or not wildlife is present within a 
distance to detect the light, and the sensitivity of wildlife to the 
illumination level of the added light. Wildlife species located near 
active roadways have likely acclimated to the light produced by passing 
vehicles, including light associated with upper beams (which would be 
the same under the proposal in terms of brightness, directionality, and 
shape as under current regulations). Any additional disruption caused 
by increased use of upper beams is not feasible to quantify due to the 
extensive number of variables associated with ADB use and wildlife.
    NHTSA is unable to comparatively evaluate the potential light 
pollution impacts of the proposal compared to the other regulatory 
alternatives (ECE requirements and SAE J3069). For example, the 
proposal requires that the undimmed portion of the adaptive beam meet 
the upper beam minima and the dimmed portion of the beam meet the lower 
beam minima. The SAE standard does not establish minima for either 
condition. However, NHTSA also proposes that the undimmed portion of 
the beam may not exceed the upper beam maxima, whereas the SAE standard 
does not specify an upper beam maxima for the undimmed portion. Thus, 
while NHTSA proposes more stringent requirements for ADB systems, the 
wide variations still permitted under the proposal and the SAE 
standards make it difficult to compare them with any level of 
certainty. However, to the degree to which ABD systems would function 
similarly under each of those standards, the environmental impacts 
would be anticipated to be similar.
    NHTSA seeks comment on its analysis of the potential environmental 
impacts of its proposal, which will be reviewed and considered in the 
preparation of a Final EA.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
    This preamble describes the various materials, persons, and 
agencies consulted in the development of the proposal.
Tentative Conclusion
    NHTSA has reviewed the information presented in this Draft EA and 
tentatively concludes that the proposed action would not contribute in 
a meaningful way to light pollution as compared to current conditions. 
Any of the impacts anticipated to result from the alternatives under 
consideration are not expected to rise to a level of significance that 
necessitates the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement. 
Based on the information in this Draft EA and assuming no additional 
information or changed circumstances, NHTSA expects to issue a Finding 
of No Significant Impact (FONSI). Such a finding will not be made 
before careful review of all public comments received. A Final EA and a 
FONSI, if appropriate, will be issued as part of the final rule.

Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    With respect to the review of the promulgation of a new regulation, 
section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform'' (61 FR 
4729, February 7, 1996) requires that Executive agencies make every 
reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies 
the preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies the effect on existing 
Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for 
affected conduct, while promoting simplification and burden reduction; 
(4) clearly specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately 
defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting 
clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the 
Attorney General. This document is consistent with that requirement.
    Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes as follows. The issue of 
preemption is discussed above in connection with E.O. 13132. NHTSA 
notes further that there is no requirement that individuals submit a 
petition for reconsideration or pursue other administrative proceeding 
before they may file suit in court.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., 
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish an NPRM or 
final rule, it must prepare and make available for public comment a 
regulatory flexibility analysis (RFA) that describes the effect of the 
rule on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small organizations, 
and small governmental jurisdictions). The Small Business 
Administration's regulations at 13 CFR part 121 define a small 
business, in part, as a business entity ``which operates primarily 
within the United States.'' (13 CFR 121.105(a)). No regulatory 
flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency certifies 
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. The SBREFA amended the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a statement of 
the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    NHTSA has considered the effects of this rulemaking action under 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act. According to 13 CFR 121.201, the Small 
Business Administration's size standards regulations used to define 
small business concerns, manufacturers of the vehicles covered by this 
proposed rule would fall under North American Industry Classification 
System (NAICS) No. 336111, Automobile Manufacturing,

[[Page 51805]]

which has a size standard of 1,000 employees or fewer.
    NHTSA estimates that there are six small light vehicle 
manufacturers in the U.S. We estimate that there are eight headlamp 
manufacturers that could be impacted by a final rule. I hereby certify 
that if made final, this proposed rule would not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Most of the 
affected entities are not small businesses. The proposed rule, if 
adopted, will not establish a mandatory requirement on regulated 
persons.

National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Under the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 
(NTTAA) (Pub. L. 104-113), ``all Federal agencies and departments shall 
use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary 
consensus standards bodies, using such technical standards as a means 
to carry out policy objectives or activities determined by the agencies 
and departments.'' Voluntary consensus standards are technical 
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling 
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by 
voluntary consensus standards bodies, such as the Society of Automotive 
Engineers (SAE). The NTTAA directs this Agency to provide Congress, 
through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available 
and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    SAE International has published a voluntary consensus standard (SAE 
J3069 JUN2016) for ADB systems. The foregoing sections of this document 
discuss in detail areas in which we follow or depart from SAE J3069.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501, et 
seq.), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they 
conduct, sponsor, or require through regulations. This rulemaking would 
not establish any new information collection requirements.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) (UMRA) 
requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, 
benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a 
Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditures by States, local 
or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of 
more than $100 million annually (adjusted annually for inflation with 
base year of 1995). Adjusting this amount by the implicit gross 
domestic product price deflator for 2013 results in $142 million 
(109.929/75.324 = 1.42). The assessment may be included in conjunction 
with other assessments, as it is here.
    This proposed rule is not likely to result in expenditures by 
State, local or tribal governments of more than $100 million annually.
    UMRA requires the Agency to select the ``least costly, most cost-
effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives 
of the rule.'' As discussed above, the Agency considered alternatives 
to the proposed rule. We have tentatively concluded that none of the 
alternatives are preferable to the alternative proposed by the NPRM. We 
have tentatively concluded that the requirements we are proposing today 
are the most cost-effective alternatives that achieve the objectives of 
the rule.

Plain Language

    Executive Order 12866 and E.O. 13563 require each agency to write 
all rules in plain language. Application of the principles of plain 
language includes consideration of the following questions:
     Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
     Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
     Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that 
isn't clear?
     Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, 
use of headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
     Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
     Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or 
diagrams?
     What else could we do to make the rule easier to 
understand?
    If you have any responses to these questions, please include them 
in your comments on this proposal.

Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) 2127-AL83

    The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier 
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of 
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center 
publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may 
use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document 
to find this action in the Unified Agenda.

Privacy Act

    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments 
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual 
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf 
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's 
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on 
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).

XIII. Public Participation

How do I prepare and submit comments?

    Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure your 
comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket 
number of this document in your comments.
    Please organize your comments so they appear in the same order as 
the topic to which they respond appears in the preamble. Please number 
comments as they are numbered in the preamble. For example, a comment 
concerning the placement of the photometer on an oncoming vehicle might 
be labeled ``VIII.b.ii.3.a--Photometer Placement for Oncoming 
Vehicles,'' or ``VIII.b.ii.3--Photometer Placement.''
    Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 553.21). 
We established this limit to encourage you to write your primary 
comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary 
additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length 
of the attachments.
    Comments may also be submitted to the docket electronically by 
logging onto the Docket website at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 
the online instructions for submitting comments.
    Please note pursuant to the Data Quality Act, for substantive data 
to be relied upon and used by the Agency, it must meet the information 
quality standards set forth in the OMB and DOT Data Quality Act 
guidelines. Accordingly, we encourage you to consult guidelines in 
preparing your comments. OMB's guidelines may be accessed at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/reproducible.html.

How can I be sure that my comments were received?

    If you wish the Docket to notify you upon its receipt of your 
comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the envelope 
containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, the Docket will 
return the postcard by mail.

[[Page 51806]]

How do I submit confidential business information?

    If you wish to submit any information under a claim of 
confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete 
submission, including the information you claim to be confidential 
business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given 
above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, you should 
submit a copy, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential 
business information, to the docket at the address given above under 
ADDRESSES. When you send a comment containing information claimed to be 
confidential business information, you should include a cover letter 
setting forth the information specified in our confidential business 
information regulation. (49 CFR part 512.)

Will the Agency consider late comments?

    We will consider all comments received before the close of business 
on the comment closing date indicated above under DATES. To the extent 
possible, we will also consider comments the docket receives after that 
date. If the docket receives a comment too late for us to consider in 
developing a final rule (assuming that one is issued), we will consider 
that comment as an informal suggestion for future rulemaking action.

How can I read the comments submitted by other people?

    You may read the comments received by the docket at the address 
given above under ADDRESSES. The hours of the docket are indicated 
above in the same location. You may also see the comments on the 
internet. To read the comments on the internet, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for accessing the 
dockets.
    Please note: Even after the comment closing date, we will continue 
to file relevant information in the docket as it becomes available. 
Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly, we 
recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material. You 
can arrange with the docket to be notified when others file comments in 
the docket. See www.regulations.gov for more information.

XIV. Appendix A to Preamble--Road Illumination and Pedestrian/Cyclist 
Fatalities

    The Agency examined crash risk that could reasonably be linked to 
vehicle headlighting to demonstrate the safety issue which ADB optional 
equipment could potentially impact. We explored the correlations 
between pedestrian and cyclist fatalities (FARS 2006-2016 data) and 
light conditions, as well as the correlations between pedestrian and 
cyclist injuries (GES 2006-2016 data) and light conditions. Then the 
ratios of pedestrian/cyclist fatalities over injuries were also 
examined. The Agency tentatively believes that a higher ratio of 
fatalities to injuries demonstrates among potential other influences, 
driver recognition and attempts to avoid these crashes. The basic 
concept is that limited visibility can result in late reactions and 
deadly crashes.
    The following tables indicate combined pedestrian and cyclist 
fatalities, associated with light vehicle (<=10,000 lbs.) crashes only 
and in ``all areas'' (rural, urban, and others), decreased from 4,755 
in 2006 to the lowest number of 4,130 in 2009, but the fatalities 
increased steadily from 2009 to the highest number of 5,912 in 2016. In 
particular, there was an increase of 7.1% from 2015 to 2016 in 
pedestrian and cyclist fatalities.

                                      Table A.1--Light Condition Pedestrian/Cyclist Fatalities From FARS 2006-2016
                                                           [Light vehicle types <=10,000 lbs.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Dark &
                   Year                    Day light     Dark     Dark but     Dawn       Dust       ukn.      Others   Not-rept.   Unknown      Total
                                                                  lighted                           light                                     fatalities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2006.....................................      1,386      1,561      1,571         92        128          0          0          0         17       4,755
2007.....................................      1,433      1,472      1,495         66         98          0          0          0         18       4,582
2008.....................................      1,285      1,425      1,463         79        122          0          0          0         13       4,387
2009.....................................      1,252      1,199      1,463         71         97         39          0          0          9       4,130
2010.....................................      1,254      1,321      1,483         77         84         45          5          2          5       4,276
2011.....................................      1,247      1,402      1,569         57        113         35          4          3          8       4,438
2012.....................................      1,335      1,589      1,726         79        105         29          2          3          6       4,874
2013.....................................      1,336      1,532      1,641         74        113         25          1          5          7       4,734
2014.....................................      1,393      1,615      1,697         90        111         25          4          2         10       4,947
2015.....................................      1,453      1,789      1,973         91        135         67          2          3          6       5,519
2016.....................................      1,499      1,905      2,183         88        138         72          2          3         22       5,912
                                          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total................................     14,873     16,810     18,264        864      1,244        337         20         21        121      52,554
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the fatality data, GES 2006-2016 data are used to 
explore how many pedestrians and cyclists were injured (e.g., 
`severity' not equal zero) under various light conditions. With both 
FARS and GES data, we are then able to calculate the ratio of 
`fatalities over injuries' (Fatality Rate) under various light 
conditions, to compare the relative fatality rates (%) under various 
light conditions.

                                              Table A.2--GES 2006-2016 Weighted Injured Pedestrian/Cyclists
                                                        [Light vehicle types <=10,000 lbs. only]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Dark &
                   Year                     Day light     Dark     Dark but     Dawn       Dust       ukn.      Others   Not-rept.   Unknown     Total
                                                                   lighted                           light                                      injuries
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2006......................................     67,100      9,288     22,531      1,582      4,333          0          0          0      1,471    106,305
2007......................................     71,729      8,285     28,216      1,404      4,010          0          0          0        736    114,379
2008......................................     84,521      8,889     22,009      1,606      3,179          0          0          0      1,209    121,414
2009......................................     73,771      8,037     24,157      1,588      2,935      1,376         20          0        260    112,142

[[Page 51807]]

 
2010......................................     84,670      6,359     25,808      2,946      4,400        537          0        106         99    124,925
2011......................................     80,876      7,344     27,996      2,056      3,373        292          0        436        379    122,753
2012......................................     80,933      8,864     33,913        707      4,192        499         12        377         81    129,579
2013......................................     74,277      8,305     28,805        960      4,181        457         15         47        116    117,161
2014......................................     77,258      8,901     28,520      1,326      4,604        347         11        293         54    121,316
2015......................................     76,817      9,074     27,223      1,627      3,268        602         15        401         73    119,099
2016......................................     96,861     12,922     34,791      2,361      4,549      1,378          0        406        287    153,556
                                           -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.................................    868,813     96,267    303,969     18,163     43,024      5,488         73      2,065      4,766  1,342,629
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    From the previous fatalities and injuries tables, the following 
table provides ratios of fatalities over injuries (fatality rates) 
under various light conditions. `Dark' condition resulted in the 
highest fatality rate. In other words, the following table provides the 
probability or risk of pedestrian/cyclist fatality under certain light 
condition when a crash occurred, which could further lead to the 
relative risk (RR) comparison of two different light conditions.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12OC18.010

    These tables indicate that there are 16,810 pedestrian and cyclist 
fatalities under `Dark' condition (FARS 2006-16); under the same 
condition, GES data (2006-2015) indicate there are 96,267 injured 
pedestrians/cyclists. The fatality rate, e.g., fatalities/injured 
persons = 17.46% (`Dark' condition). Similarly, there are 18,264 
pedestrian and cyclist fatalities under `Dark but Lighted' condition 
and 303,969 injured pedestrians and cyclists, which resulting in a 
ratio of 6.00% (in ``Dark but lighted'' condition).
    The Agency first noted the trend within these unfiltered ratios 
seeming to indicate the possible relationship between the amount of 
light available to a driver and the fatality risk to pedestrians and 
cyclists. That is to say, if we examine fatalities rates for `Daylight' 
(1.71%), `Dark but lighted' (6.00%), and `Dark' (17.46%), and assume 
these represent decreasing visibility, we note there appears to be an 
inverse relationship between the amount of light available and the odds 
for a pedestrian or cyclist being killed if a crash occurs.
    However, light condition may not be the only risk factor 
contributing to the pedestrian/cyclist fatality rate but many other 
confounding factors may simultaneously contribute to different fatality 
rates under different light conditions. Other confounding factors may 
include driver or pedestrian behaviors, vehicle type, travel speed, 
road condition, driver drinking status, rural/urban difference, EMS, 
person age/health condition, and more. The next table examines a 
similar fatality rate comparison made by focusing on a smaller target 
population of `non-

[[Page 51808]]

drinking' crashes only because it is likely light condition and drunk 
driving are themselves related.

Table A.4--Pedestrian/Cyclist Fatalities Including `Driver Not Drinking'
                              Crashes Only
                 [Light VEH <=10,000 lbs, FARS 2006-16]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Dark but
                Year                   Day light     Dark       lighted
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2006................................      1,302       1,369       1,335
2007................................      1,351       1,294       1,267
2008................................      1,200       1,250       1,263
2009................................      1,167       1,050       1,257
2010................................      1,194       1,180       1,265
2011................................      1,162       1,245       1,336
2012................................      1,256       1,431       1,493
2013................................      1,254       1,378       1,439
2014................................      1,305       1,474       1,472
2015................................      1,372       1,642       1,762
2016................................      1,413       1,752       1,936
                                     -----------------------------------
    Total...........................     13,976      15,065      15,825
------------------------------------------------------------------------


   Table A.5--Pedestrian/Cyclist Injuries (inj_SEV Not Zero) Including
                   `Driver Not-Drinking Crashes' Only
               [Light veh. <=10, 000 lbs. and GES 2006-16]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Dark but
                Year                   Day light     Dark       lighted
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2006................................     63,535       7,929      19,083
2007................................     69,553       7,479      26,293
2008................................     81,003       8,161      19,560
2009................................     71,870       7,184      22,758
2010................................     84,006       6,144      24,672
2011................................     79,471       7,088      26,387
2012................................     79,724       8,519      32,113
2013................................     72,970       7,811      25,655
2014................................     76,201       8,533      27,474
2015................................     75,831       8,558      26,409
2016................................     95,226      11,915      33,339
                                     -----------------------------------
    Total...........................    849,390      89,321     283,743
------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Table A.6--Ratios of Pedestrian/Cyclist Fatalities Over Injuries
 Including `Not-Drinking Driver' Crashes Only During 2006-2016 and Light
                         Vehicles <=10,000 lbs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Dark but
                Year                   Day light     Dark       lighted
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fatalities..........................     13,976      15,065      15,825
Injuries............................    849,390      89,321     283,743
                                     -----------------------------------
    Ratio of (fatalities/injuries)..      1.65%      16.87%       5.58%
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In examining previous tables, we note the trend demonstrating an 
inverse relationship between light and the fatality risk for 
pedestrians continues for crashes not involving alcohol. If our 
hypothesis considering long distance visibility contributes to the 
fatality risk to pedestrians and cyclists, then we should also expect a 
relationship between speed, light, and fatality risk. That is to say, 
we would expect that at low speeds, a driver may be more likely to 
react in time to overcome limited visibility and mitigate crash 
severity but less likely to be able to reduce crash severity at higher 
speeds. The following analysis considers both speed limit and light 
condition.
    Correlations between the pedestrian/cyclist fatal probability and 
risk factors could be described by the following equation, where `p' 
stands for the probability of `pedestrian/cyclist fatality', `1-p' 
stands for the probability of `pedestrian/cyclist non-fatality', and 
`p/(1-p)' is the `odds' of the crash resulting in `pedestrian/cyclist 
fatality' versus `pedestrian/cyclist non-fatality'. We conducted a 
multiple logistic model that included `light condition', `speed limit' 
and `drinking' into the consideration simultaneously. The logit model 
provides the odds ratio (OR) of two different crash conditions 
associated with each predictor variable, such as comparing the better 
light condition with darker light condition; comparing higher speed 
limit (+5 MPH) with next lower speed limit; and comparing the alcohol 
involved crash with not-alcohol involved crash. The OR value of larger 
than 1.0 indicates the higher chance of pedestrian/cyclist fatality 
while less than 1.0 for lower chance of pedestrian fatality. The model 
treats pedestrian/cyclist fatal crash as `outcome', in which FARS 2006-
2016 fatalities and GES 2006-16 injuries are used.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12OC18.011


             Table A.7--Pedestrian/Cyclist Fatality Odds Ratios From Light Condition and Speed Limit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Odds ratio        95% OR          95% OR
     Comparison between two different light         (OR) point      confidence      confidence        P-value
                   conditions                        estimate          lower           upper
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
`dawn or dust' vs. `day light'..................           1.930           1.781           2.092         <0.0001
`dark but lighted' vs. `day light'..............           2.711           2.596           2.830         <0.0001
`dark' vs 'day light'...........................           5.004           4.807           5.209         <0.0001
higher speed limit (5 MPH)......................           1.512           1.490           1.534         <0.0001
Drinking versus NOT.............................           1.965           1.849           2.087         <0.0001
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                     Analysis of Maximum Likelihood Estimates and Parameter Estimate of Eq.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Parameter
     Comparison between two different light          estimate     Standard error  Wald chi-sqare      P-value
                   conditions                        ([beta]i)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
intercept.......................................         -2.8634          0.0295          9397.9         <0.0001

[[Page 51809]]

 
`dawn or dust' vs. `day'........................          -0.586          0.0292            29.4         <0.0001
`dark but lighted' vs. `day'....................          0.1809          0.0157           132.1         <0.0001
`dark' vs 'day'.................................          0.7940          0.0147          2904.1         <0.0001
higher speed limit (5 MPH)......................          0.4133         0.00734          3174.6         <0.0001
`Drinking' vs `not-drinking'....................          0.6753          0.0309          477.97         <0.0001
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When fatality chances under two different light conditions are 
compared, the pedestrian/cyclist fatality chance under `dawn or dusk' 
condition is 2 times the fatality chance under `day light' condition 
(OR = 1.93); similarly, the pedestrian/cyclist fatality chance under 
`dark' condition is 5 times the fatality chance under `day light' (OR = 
5.00); the fatality chance under `dark' condition is 1.87 times (5.00/
2.7 = 1.85) the fatality chance under `dark but lighted' condition, or 
in other words, the fatality chance under `dark but lighted' condition 
is approximately 54% (2.70/5.00 = 0.53) of the fatality chance of 
'dark' condition. This analysis seems to indicate an improvement of 
light conditions could be helpful for improving and reducing fatality 
probability. With a higher speed limit (+5 MPH), the pedestrian/cyclist 
fatality chance is 51% higher (OR = 1.51) approximately. Drinking may 
result in 2.0 times fatality rate.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

    Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
Rubber and rubber products.

Proposed Regulatory Text

    In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR part 571 is proposed to 
be amended as set forth below.

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

0
1. The authority citation for part 571 of title 49 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, 30166; delegation 
of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.

0
2. Amend Sec.  571.108 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs S9.4.1, S9.4.1.1, S9.4.1.2, S9.4.1.3, S9.4.1.4, 
and S9.4.1.5;
0
b. Adding paragraphs S9.4.1.5.1 through S9.4.1.5.3 in numerical order;
0
c. Revising paragraph S9.4.1.6;
0
d. Adding paragrpahs S9.4.1.6.1 through S9.4.1.6.8 in numerical order;
0
e. Removing S9.4.1.7;
0
f. Revising paragraph S9.5;
0
g. Adding paragraphs S14.9.3.12 through S14.9.3.12.8.1, tables XIX-d 
and XXI, and figures 23 through 25 in numerical order; and
0
h. Removing the appendix to the section.
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  571.108  Standard No. 108; Lamps, reflective devices, and 
associated equipment.

* * * * *
    S9.4.1 Semiautomatic headlamp beam switching devices. As an 
alternative to S9.4, a vehicle may be equipped with a semiautomatic 
means of switching between lower and upper beams that complies with 
9.4.1.1 though S9.4.1.4 and either 9.4.1.5 or 9.4.1.6.
    S9.4.1.1 Operating instructions. Each semiautomatic headlamp 
switching device must include operating instruction to permit a driver 
to operate the device correctly including; how to turn the automatic 
control on and off, how to adjust the provided sensitivity control, and 
any other specific instructions applicable to the particular device.
    S9.4.1.2 Manual override. The device must include a means 
convenient to the driver for switching to the opposite beam from the 
one provided.
    S9.4.1.3 Fail safe operation. A failure of the automatic control 
portion of the device must not result in the loss of manual operation 
of both upper and lower beams.
    S9.4.1.4 Automatic dimming indicator. There must be a convenient 
means of informing the driver when the device is controlling the 
headlamps automatically. For systems certified to Option 1, the device 
shall not affect the function of the upper beam indicator light.
    S9.4.1.5--Option 1 (Semiautomatic Headlamp Beam Switching Devices)
    S9.4.1.5.1 Lens accessibility. The device lens must be accessible 
for cleaning when the device is installed on a vehicle.
    S9.4.1.5.2 Mounting height. The center of the device lens must be 
mounted no less than 24 in. above the road surface.
    S9.4.1.5.3 Physical tests. Each semiautomatic headlamp beam 
switching device must be designed to conform to all applicable 
performance requirements of S14.9.
    S9.4.1.6--Option 2 (Adaptive Driving Beam Systems).
    S9.4.1.6.1 The system must be capable of detecting system 
malfunctions (including but not limited to sensor obstruction).
    S9.4.1.6.2 The system must notify the driver of a malfunction. If 
the ADB system detects a fault, it must disable the ADB system and the 
lighting system shall work in manual mode until the fault is corrected.
    S9.4.1.6.3 The system must be designed to conform to the photometry 
requirements of Table XIX-d when tested according to the procedure of 
S14.9.3.12, and, for replaceable bulb headlighting systems, when using 
any replaceable light source designated for use in the system under 
test.
    S9.4.1.6.4 When the system is producing an upper beam, the system 
must be designed to conform to the photometry requirements of Table 
XVIII as specified in Table II for the specific headlamp unit and 
aiming method, when tested according to the procedure of S14.2.5, and, 
for replaceable bulb headlighting systems, when using any replaceable 
light source designated for use in the system under test.
    S9.4.1.6.5 For vehicle speeds below 25 mph, the system must produce 
a lower beam (unless overridden by the manual operator according to 
S9.4.1.1) designed to conform to the photometric intensity requires of 
Table XIX-a, XIX-b, or XIX-c as specified in Table II for the specific 
headlamp unit and aiming method, when tested according to the procedure 
of S14.2.5, and, for replaceable bulb headlighting systems, when using 
any replaceable light source designated for use in the system under 
test.
    S9.4.1.6.6 When the system is producing a lower beam with an area 
of reduced light intensity designed to be directed towards oncoming or 
preceding vehicles, and an area of unreduced intensity in other 
directions, the system must be designed to conform to the photometric 
intensity requirements of Table XIX-a, XIX-b, or XIX-c as

[[Page 51810]]

specified in Table II for the specific headlamp unit and aiming method, 
when tested according to the procedure of S14.2.5, and, for replaceable 
bulb headlighting systems, when using any replaceable light source 
designated for use in the system under test, within the area of reduced 
intensity.
    S9.4.1.6.7 When the system is producing a lower beam with an area 
of reduced light intensity designed to be directed towards oncoming or 
preceding vehicles, and an area of unreduced intensity in other 
directions, the system must be designed to conform to the photometric 
intensity requirements of Table XVIII as specified in Table II for the 
specific headlamp unit and aiming method, when tested according to the 
procedure of S14.2.5, and, for replaceable bulb headlighting systems, 
when using any replaceable light source designated for use in the 
system under test, within the area of unreduced intensity.
    S9.4.1.6.8 When the ADB system is activated, the lower beam may be 
provided by any combination of headlamps or light sources, provided 
there is a parking lamp. If parking lamps meeting the requirements of 
this standard are not installed, the ADB system may be provided using 
any combination of headlamps but must include the outermost installed 
headlamps to show the overall width of the vehicle.
* * * * *
    S9.5 Upper beam headlamp indicator. Each vehicle must have a means 
for indicating to the driver when the upper beams of the headlighting 
system are activated. The upper beam headlamp indicator is not required 
to be activated when an Adaptive Driving Beam System is activated.
* * * * *
    S14.9.3.12 Test for compliance with adaptive driving beam 
photometry requirements.
    S14.9.3.12.1 Stimulus Vehicles. There shall be one stimulus vehicle 
equipped with photometers to measure the light emitted by the ADB-
equipped vehicle being tested (test vehicle). The stimulus vehicle may 
be of any of the vehicle types defined in 49 CFR 571.3 (excluding 
trailers, motor-driven cycles, and low-speed vehicles) and shall be 
certified as conforming to all applicable FMVSS, be from any of the 
five model years prior to the model year of the test vehicle, and be a 
vehicle on which it is possible to locate a photometer to measure 
oncoming glare as specified in S14.9.3.12.3.
    S14.9.3.12.2 Photometers.
    S14.9.3.12.2.1 The photometer must be capable of a minimum 
measurement unit of 0.01 lux.
    S14.9.3.12.2.2 The illuminance values from the photometers shall be 
collected at a rate of at least 200 Hz. Multiple photometers (or 
photometric receptor heads) may be used provided that they satisfy the 
requirements of S14.9.3.12.3.
    S14.9.3.12.3 Photometer Placement. The photometers are placed in 
positions that are free from shadows and reflections from the stimulus 
vehicle's surface during the test.
    S14.9.3.12.3.1 The photometer is oriented such that the plane in 
which the aperture of the meter resides is perpendicular to the 
longitudinal axis of the stimulus vehicle and facing forward or 
rearward according to the test.
    S14.9.3.12.3.2 Placement of photometers to measure glare to 
oncoming vehicles.
    S14.9.3.12.3.2.1 Longitudinal position. The photometer shall be 
positioned outside the vehicle, forward of the windshield and rearward 
of the headlamps.
    S14.9.3.12.3.2.2 Lateral position. The photometer shall be 
positioned between and including the vehicle longitudinal centerline 
over to the driver's side A-pillar.
    S14.9.3.12.3.2.3 Vertical position. The photometer shall be 
positioned between the bottom of the windshield and the top of the 
windshield subject to the lower and upper bounds specified in Table 
XXI.
    S14.9.3.12.3.2.4 If it is not possible to so position the 
photometer, the vehicle is not eligible as a stimulus vehicle.
    S14.9.3.12.3.3 Placement of photometers to measure glare to 
preceding vehicles. Photometers may be positioned at any location on 
the driver's side outside rearview mirror and/or the passenger's side 
outside rearview mirror, and/or outside the vehicle, directly outside 
the rear window, horizontally and vertically centered with respect to 
the inside rearview mirror.
    S14.9.3.12.4 Test road.
    S14.9.3.12.4.1 Test Scenario Geometry. Test scenarios shall involve 
straight roads and curved roads.

                                                 ADB Test Matrix
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Stimulus
                 Test matrix No.                   vehicle speed   Test vehicle      Radius of    Superelevation
                                                       (mph)        speed (mph)     curve (ft.)         (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................................           60-70           60-70        Straight             0-2
2...............................................               0           60-70        Straight             0-2
3...............................................           40-45           60-70        Straight             0-2
4...............................................           60-70           40-45        Straight             0-2
5...............................................           25-30           25-30         320-380             0-2
6...............................................               0           25-30         320-380             0-2
7...............................................           40-45           40-45         730-790             0-2
8...............................................               0           40-45         730-790             0-2
9...............................................           30-35           40-45         730-790             0-2
10..............................................           40-45           30-35         730-790             0-2
11..............................................           50-55           50-55     1,100-1,300             0-2
12..............................................           50-55           40-45     1,100-1,300             0-2
13..............................................           40-45           50-55     1,100-1,300             0-2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    S14.9.3.12.4.2 The curves shall be of a constant radius within the 
range listed in the ADB test matrix table.
    S14.9.3.12.4.3 The test road shall have a longitudinal grade 
(slope) that does not exceed 2%.
    S14.9.3.12.4.4 The lane width shall be from 3.05 m (10 ft.) to 3.66 
m (12 ft.)
    S14.9.3.12.4.6 The lanes shall be adjacent, but may have a median 
of up to 6.1 m (20 ft.) wide, and shall not have any barrier taller 
than 0.3 m (12 in.) less than the mounting height of the stimulus 
vehicle's headlamps.
    S14.9.3.12.4.7 The tests are conducted on a dry, uniform, solid-
paved surface. The road surface shall

[[Page 51811]]

have an International Roughness Index (IRI) of less than 1.5 m/km.
    S14.9.3.12.4.8 The road surface may be concrete or asphalt, and 
shall not be bright white.
    S14.9.3.12.4.9 The test road surface may have pavement markings, 
and shall be free of retroreflective material or elements that affect 
the outcome of the test.
    S14.9.3.12.5 Test Scenarios.
    S14.9.3.12.5.1 The scenarios specified in the table below, and as 
illustrated in Figures 23, 24, and 25, may be tested:

                                              ADB Test Orientation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Lane orientation/
              Direction                       maneuver             Test matrix No.      Measurement distance (m)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oncoming............................  Adjacent...............  1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11...  15 to 220.
Same Direction......................  Same Lane..............  1, 5, 7, 11............  30 to 119.9.
Same Direction......................  Adjacent/Passing.......  2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 13......  15 to 119.9.
Same Direction......................  Adjacent/Passing.......  4, 10, 12..............  30 to 119.9.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    S14.9.3.12.5.2 For each of the test runs that include a passing 
maneuver, the faster vehicle will be located in the left adjacent lane 
throughout the test run (See Fig. 25).
    S14.9.3.12.5.3 For each of the test runs that include a curve, the 
test vehicle must meet the compliance criteria specified in 
S14.9.3.12.8 anywhere along the curve.
    S14.9.3.12.5.4 The measurement distance is the linear distance 
measured from the intersection of a horizontal plane through the 
headlamp light sources, a vertical plane through the headlamp light 
sources and a vertical plane through the vehicle's centerline to the 
forward most point of the relevant photometric receptor head mounted on 
the stimulus vehicle.
    S14.9.3.12.6 Test conditions.
    S14.9.3.12.6.1 Testing shall be conducted on dry pavement and with 
no precipitation.
    S14.9.3.12.6.2 Testing shall be conducted only when the ambient 
illumination at the test road as recorded by the photometers is at or 
below 0.2 lux.
    S14.9.3.12.7 Test Procedures.
    S14.9.3.12.7.1 Vehicle preparation.
    S14.9.3.12.7.1.1 Tires on the stimulus and the test vehicles are 
inflated to the manufacturer's recommended cold inflation pressure 
6895 pascal (1 psi). If more than one recommendation is 
provided, the tires are inflated to the lightly loaded condition.
    S14.9.3.12.7.1.2 The fuel tanks of the stimulus and the test 
vehicles are filled to approximately 100% of capacity with the 
appropriate fuel and maintained to at least 75% percent capacity 
throughout the testing.
    S14.9.3.12.7.1.3 Headlamps on the stimulus and test vehicles shall 
be aimed according to the manufacturer's instructions.
    S14.9.3.12.7.1.4 The ADB system shall be adjusted according to the 
manufacturer's instructions.
    S14.9.3.12.7.1.5 To the extent practicable, ADB sensors and the 
windshield on the test vehicle (if an ADB sensor is behind the 
windshield) shall be clean and free of dirt and debris.
    S14.9.3.12.7.1.6 The headlamps lenses of the stimulus vehicle and 
the test vehicles shall be clean and free from dirt and debris.
    S14.9.3.12.7.2 Prior to the start of each test, the photometers 
will be zeroed in the orientation (with respect to the surroundings) in 
which the test scenario will be conducted. For tests conducted on 
curves with ambient light sources such as the moon or infrastructure 
lighting that cannot be eliminated, the photometers will be zeroed in 
the direction of maximum ambient light. The vehicle lighting on the 
stimulus vehicle shall be in the same state as it will be during the 
test.
    S14.9.3.12.7.3 The ADB system shall be activated according to the 
manufacturer's instructions.
    S14.9.3.12.7.4 For each test run, a speed that conforms to the ADB 
test matrix table will be selected for each vehicle. The vehicle will 
achieve this speed 0.45 m/s (1 mph) prior to reaching the 
data measurement distance specified in the ADB test orientation table 
and maintain it within the range specified in the test matrix table 
throughout the remainder of the test. During each test run, once the 
test speed is achieved and maintained, no sudden acceleration or 
braking shall occur.
    S14.9.3.12.7.5 All vehicles shall be driven within the lane and 
will not change lanes during the data collection potion of the test.
    S14.9.3.12.7.6 The illuminance values for each photometer and the 
measurement distance shall be recorded and synchronized.
    S14.9.3.12.8 Compliance Criteria. The maximum illuminance, as 
calculated according to S14.9.3.12.8.1, shall not exceed the applicable 
maximum illuminance values in Table XIX-d.
    S14.9.3.12.8.1 The maximum illuminance will be the single highest 
illuminance recorded within the distance range excluding momentary 
spikes above the limits lasting no longer than 0.1 sec. or over a 
distance range of no longer that 1 meter.
* * * * *

     Table XIX-d--Adaptive Driving Beam Photometry Requirements \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Maximum
                                            illuminance       Maximum
                Range (m)                    oncoming       illuminance
                                             direction    same direction
                                               (lux)           (lux)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
15.0 to 29.9............................             3.1            18.9
30.0 to 59.9............................             1.8            18.9
60 to 119.9.............................             0.6             4.0
120 to 220..............................             0.3             4.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For purposes of determining conformance with these specifications,
  an observed value or a calculated value shall be rounded to the
  nearest 0.1 lux, in accordance with the rounding method of ASTM
  Practice E29 Using Significant Digits in Test Data to Determine
  Conformance with Specifications.

* * * * *

   Table XXI--Vertical Position Ranges for Photometer Used To Measure
                             Oncoming Glare
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Lower    Upper
              Vehicle type (weight class)                bound    bound
                                                          (m)      (m)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Passenger Cars........................................     1.07     1.15
Trucks, buses, MPVs (light)...........................     1.26     1.58
Trucks, buses, MPVs (heavy)...........................     1.99     2.67
Motorcycles...........................................     1.30     1.66
------------------------------------------------------------------------
``Light'' means vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 lb. or less. ``Heavy''
  means vehicles with a GVWR of more than 10,000 lb.
Heights are measured from the ground.

* * * * *

[[Page 51812]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12OC18.012

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12OC18.013


[[Page 51813]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12OC18.014


    Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR 
1.95 and 501.5.
Heidi Renate King,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2018-21853 Filed 10-11-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


