Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, 51766-51813 [2018-21853]
Download as PDF
51766
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 198 / Friday, October 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules
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
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (‘‘NHTSA’’),
Department of Transportation (‘‘DOT’’).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
AGENCY:
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
https://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 https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. Please
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSAL10
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:34 Oct 11, 2018
Jkt 247001
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 https://
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 https://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
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\12OCP2.SGM
12OCP2
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSAL10
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 198 / Friday, October 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:34 Oct 11, 2018
Jkt 247001
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
51767
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 equipmentlevel 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
E:\FR\FM\12OCP2.SGM
12OCP2
51768
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 198 / Friday, October 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules
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.
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSAL10
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:34 Oct 11, 2018
Jkt 247001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\12OCP2.SGM
12OCP2
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.
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,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:34 Oct 11, 2018
Jkt 247001
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.’’).
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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 . . . .’’).
E:\FR\FM\12OCP2.SGM
12OCP2
EP12OC18.000
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSAL10
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 198 / Friday, October 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules
51770
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 198 / Friday, October 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSAL10
to avoid driving at night or simply
increase annoyance.5
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 highintensity 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 frontmounted lamps.7
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 selfcertify 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
5 2007
Report to Congress, p. iv.
FR 49594 (Sept. 28, 2001).
7 69 FR 54255 (Sept. 8, 2004).
8 The upper beam photometric requirements are
set out in Table XVIII; the lower beam photometric
requirements are set out in Table XIX.
6 66
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:34 Oct 11, 2018
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
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 wholevehicle 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
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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 laboratorybased.
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
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).
E:\FR\FM\12OCP2.SGM
12OCP2
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSAL10
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 198 / Friday, October 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules
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.
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 higherpower 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.
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
15 54
FR 20084 (May 9, 1989).
generally 66 FR 49594, 49596 (Sept. 28,
16 See
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).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:34 Oct 11, 2018
Jkt 247001
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
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 vehiclebased 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
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).
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
51771
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.
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.
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).
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.
27 SAE
28 SAE
E:\FR\FM\12OCP2.SGM
J3069 JUN2016, Sec. 3.1.
J3069JUN 2016, pp. 1–2.
12OCP2
51772
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 198 / Friday, October 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules
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.
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 lowerbeam 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
29 S9.4.1.
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSAL10
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:34 Oct 11, 2018
Jkt 247001
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
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.
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 typeapproval 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;
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.
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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.
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
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).
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).’’
E:\FR\FM\12OCP2.SGM
12OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 198 / Friday, October 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules
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.
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 vehiclebased 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.
The Feasibility Study translates these
equipment requirements into vehiclebased 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
38 See
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSAL10
Annex 12 to ECE R48.
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.
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.
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 ADBequipped 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 ADBequipped 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:34 Oct 11, 2018
Jkt 247001
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.
44 A photometer, or illuminance meter, is an
instrument that measures light.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
51773
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).
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
Range from headlamp to
photometer
(m)
Maximum
illuminance
(lux)
15.0–29.9 ..............................
30.0–59.9 ..............................
60.0–119.9 ............................
120.0–239.9 ..........................
3.1
1.8
0.6
0.3
TABLE 2—LIMITS FOR GLARE TO
PRECEDING VEHICLES
Range from headlamp to
photometer
(m)
15.0–29.9 ..............................
30.0–59.9 ..............................
60.0–119.9 ............................
120.0–239.9 ..........................
Maximum
illuminance
(lux)
18.9
18.9
4.0
4.0
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.
E:\FR\FM\12OCP2.SGM
12OCP2
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSAL10
51774
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 198 / Friday, October 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules
We tested four different ADBequipped 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.
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
46 ADB
Test Report, p. 20.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:34 Oct 11, 2018
Jkt 247001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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
photometer
(m)
Maximum
illuminance,
oncoming
(lux)
Maximum
illuminance,
preceding
(lux)
30
60
120
155
1.8
0.7
0.3
0.3
18.9
8.9
4.0
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.
E:\FR\FM\12OCP2.SGM
12OCP2
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSAL10
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 198 / Friday, October 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules
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.
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
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.
Second, ADB is not supplemental
lighting under NHTSA’s interpretation
of the term ‘‘supplemental lighting.’’
51 Id.
47 S6.2.1.
52 Id.
48 S9.4.
53 This is consistent with SAE J3069 JUN2016,
which considers ADB as ‘‘an addition to or
equivalent to the lower beam.’’
49 S9.4.1.
50 S4.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:34 Oct 11, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
51775
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
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
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).
57 See Letter from Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel, to
Robert Bosch Corp. (Feb. 11, 1977) (finding that fog
E:\FR\FM\12OCP2.SGM
Continued
12OCP2
51776
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 198 / Friday, October 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules
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 safetycritical 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.
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.
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSAL10
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
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).
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).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:34 Oct 11, 2018
Jkt 247001
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
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
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).
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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
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
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.
E:\FR\FM\12OCP2.SGM
12OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 198 / Friday, October 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSAL10
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.
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,
62 See, e.g., Letter from Erika Jones, Chief
Counsel, to Byung M. Soh, Target Marketing
Systems, Inc. (Sept. 13, 1988).
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:34 Oct 11, 2018
Jkt 247001
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.
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
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).
64 49 U.S.C. 30111(a).
65 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(8).
66 30102(a)(9).
67 30111(b)(1).
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
51777
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.
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
68 30111(b)
69 See
E:\FR\FM\12OCP2.SGM
(3)–(4).
49 CFR 1.95.
12OCP2
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSAL10
51778
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 198 / Friday, October 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules
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 currentlyallowed 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 equipmentlevel 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:34 Oct 11, 2018
Jkt 247001
requirements because they are vehiclelevel 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
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
malfunction, would be specific to ADB
systems.
a. Requirements
This NPRM proposes to subject ADBequipped 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.
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
70 Feasibility
E:\FR\FM\12OCP2.SGM
Study, p. 80.
12OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 198 / Friday, October 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSAL10
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 intervehicle 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.
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
71 Feasibility
Study, pp. 23–24.
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.
72 The
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:34 Oct 11, 2018
Jkt 247001
Feasibility Study derived for the
furthest distance it considered (120 m).
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
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
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
51779
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
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
77 ECE
R48 6.1.9.3.1.2.
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.
78 Yukio
E:\FR\FM\12OCP2.SGM
12OCP2
51780
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 198 / Friday, October 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules
light sources could be noncompliant
even though oncoming drivers would
not experience glare? If so, how should
this be accounted for?
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSAL10
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?
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:34 Oct 11, 2018
Jkt 247001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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
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
79 S6.8
E:\FR\FM\12OCP2.SGM
and discussion at p. 2.
12OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 198 / Friday, October 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules
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.
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.
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.
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSAL10
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
80 FMVSS
No. 108 S14.9.3.11.
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).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:34 Oct 11, 2018
Jkt 247001
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.
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,
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
51781
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
E:\FR\FM\12OCP2.SGM
12OCP2
51782
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 198 / Friday, October 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules
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?
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSAL10
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:34 Oct 11, 2018
Jkt 247001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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
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
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.
E:\FR\FM\12OCP2.SGM
12OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 198 / Friday, October 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules
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).
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)
51783
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.
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
Passenger Cars ...........................................................................................................................
Trucks, buses, MPVs (light) ........................................................................................................
Trucks, buses, MPVs (heavy) .....................................................................................................
Motorcycles ..................................................................................................................................
1.11
1.42
2.33
1.43
Upper bound
1.07
1.26
1.99
1.30
1.15
1.58
2.67
1.66
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSAL10
‘‘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.
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:18 Oct 11, 2018
Jkt 247001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
addition, we may use multiple photometers or
receptor heads simultaneously.
88 See SAE J1100 FEB2001, Motor Vehicle
Dimensions.
E:\FR\FM\12OCP2.SGM
12OCP2
51784
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 198 / Friday, October 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSAL10
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 highsales 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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:18 Oct 11, 2018
Jkt 247001
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
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
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.
94 SAE J941, Motor Vehicle Drivers’ Eye
Locations.
95 SAE J3069, p. 3.
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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.
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 Hpoint 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
96 See, e.g., FMVSS No. 208, S10.1; FMVSS No.
210, S4.3.2.
E:\FR\FM\12OCP2.SGM
12OCP2
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSAL10
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 198 / Friday, October 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules
the context of visibility measurement.
SAE J826 JUL95 defines and specifies a
procedure, including a manikin (‘‘Hpoint 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 Hpoint manikin fitted with a camera
(which is needed for the field of view
and image size tests) positioned at the
driver’s eye midpoint.
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 forwardlooking 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 forwardlooking 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.
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:10 Oct 11, 2018
Jkt 247001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
51785
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
E:\FR\FM\12OCP2.SGM
12OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 198 / Friday, October 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSAL10
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.
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
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.
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.’’).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:10 Oct 11, 2018
Jkt 247001
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.
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
101 See
PO 00000
62 FR 63416 (Nov. 28, 1997).
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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.
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
where f is the coefficient of friction, V
is the vehicle speed, R is the radius of
curvature, and e is superelevation.102
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
102 AASHTO
E:\FR\FM\12OCP2.SGM
Green Book, pp. 3–19 to 3–20.
12OCP2
EP12OC18.001
51786
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSAL10
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 198 / Friday, October 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules
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 realworld 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 largeradius 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:10 Oct 11, 2018
Jkt 247001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
51787
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.
We found that some vehicles
performed well in all passing maneuver
scenarios, while other vehicles did not
perform as well in certain passing
103 ADB
Test Report, p. 172.
at p. 102.
105 Id. at p. 173.
106 Id. at p. 192 (Fig. 84).
104 Id.
E:\FR\FM\12OCP2.SGM
12OCP2
51788
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 198 / Friday, October 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules
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
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).
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
107 Id.
at p. 173.
at p. 173.
109 ADB Test Report, p. 110.
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.
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSAL10
108 Id.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:10 Oct 11, 2018
Jkt 247001
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).
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.
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
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).
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.
118 IIHS Headlight Test and Rating Protocol
(November 2016), p. 5 (3.3 m).
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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 ADBequipped 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.
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.
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
119 2007
Report to Congress, pp. iv–v.
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.
120 SAE
E:\FR\FM\12OCP2.SGM
12OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 198 / Friday, October 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules
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.)
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.
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSAL10
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 FMVSScompliant lower beams glared oncoming
and preceding vehicles on roads with
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 https://www.virginiadot.org/info/
resources/State_of_the_Pavement_2016.pdf (last
accessed Sept. 26, 2018).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:34 Oct 11, 2018
Jkt 247001
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.
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.
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
125 ADB
Test Report, pp. 102, 108, 114.
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.
127 ADB Test Report, pp. 147–162.
126 ADB
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
51789
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.
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
E:\FR\FM\12OCP2.SGM
12OCP2
51790
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 198 / Friday, October 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules
Table 5
Baseline Measured Illuminance Values by Headlighting System Mode and Ambient Conditions (Receptor Head 1),
SmallDAS
DAS
Vehicle Headlighting
Vehicle
System Setting
Distance
AudiA8
BMWX5
LexusLS460
Mercedes-Benz
(n=3)
(n=3)
(n=2)
E350 (n=3)
Average
Heading
N/A
NW
30m
(98ft.)
60m
NW
(197ft.)
120m
NW
(394ft.)
N/A
SE
Average
SD
ADB
DAS
OFF
OFF
(98ft.)
60m
SE
(197ft.)
120m
SE
(394ft.)
(lux)
0.01
0.04
(ambient) (ambient)
OFF
LOWER
0.47
LOWER
LOWER
1.41
LOWER
OFF
1.27
UPPER
OFF
31.48*
LOWER
LOWER
LOWER
UPPER
LOWER
LOWER
Average
SD
(lux)
SD
(lux)
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.03
0.52
0.03
0.49
0.02
0.46
0.01
0.57
2.02
0.06
1.59
0.10
1.74
0.05
0.04
1.51
0.10
1.09
0.08
1.27
0.05
0.05
31.48*
0.02
31.48*
0.07
31.50*
0.05
0.95
0.00
0.88
0.04
0.80
0.02
0.97
0.03
OFF
0.47
0.02
0.37
0.03
0.30
0.02
0.48
0.05
OFF
30.77*
1.15
31.49*
0.01
31.47*
0.01
22.95
5.50
LOWER
0.71
0.09
0.60
0.03
0.56
0.01
0.64
0.05
OFF
0.26
0.09
0.10
0.01
0.10
0.03
0.15
0.01
UPPER
OFF
10.87
0.48
14.83
0.28
16.92
2.75
6.67
1.15
OFF
OFF
0.03
0.03
0.12
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.02
0.01
0.53
0.03
0.72
0.10
0.59
0.07
0.52
0.03
(ambient) (ambient)
OFF
LOWER
30m
(lux)
Average
SD
LOWER
LOWER
1.73
0.08
1.95
0.22
1.68
0.08
1.83
0.03
LOWER
OFF
1.23
0.09
1.41
0.18
1.15
0.08
1.33
0.03
UPPER
OFF
31.48*
0.07
31.46*
0.00
31.48*
0.01
31.50*
0.04
LOWER
LOWER
0.96
0.01
1.00
0.13
0.90
0.07
0.98
0.01
LOWER
OFF
0.41
0.10
0.47
0.08
0.38
0.06
0.48
0.01
UPPER
OFF
28.69
0.56
31.46*
0.00
29.76
1.91
21.20
3.45
LOWER
LOWER
0.75
0.03
0.74
0.12
0.67
0.06
0.77
0.10
LOWER
OFF
0.23
0.05
0.21
0.08
0.16
0.07
0.23
0.03
UPPER
OFF
10.73
0.31
13.96
1.44
16.91
2.05
6.85
1.05
*Note: Trials averaged to obtain these noted values include at least one instance of measurement clipping
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:34 Oct 11, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\12OCP2.SGM
12OCP2
EP12OC18.002
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSAL10
because of raw illuminance level data exceeding the measurement range of the illuminance meter.
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSAL10
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Table 6
Oncoming, Straight, Curve, Adjacent Lane Maneuvers with Small DAS Vehicle
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Maneuver
Range
Glare Limit
Audi
BMW
Lexus
Mercedes-Benz
Lower Beam
Lower Beam
Lower Beam
Lower Beam
Dynamic
Baseline
%
Dynamic
Baseline
Dynan1ic
Baseline
%
Dynamic
Baseline
%
(n=3)
(n=3)
Diff
(n=3)
(n=3)
Diff
%DitT
Frm 00027
SL:enariu
(m)
Straight,
15-29.9
(lux)
(n=3)
(n=3)
Diff
(n=3)
Not
3.109
(n=3)
Not
1.63
Not
2.58
Fmt 4701
Reported
Not
1.67
Reported
2.27
Reported
Reported
DASO
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\12OCP2.SGM
30-59.9
1.776
0.74
1.27
-42%
2.01
1.51
33%
0.94
1.09
-14%
1.05
1.27
-17%
60-119.9
0.634
0.35
0.47
-26%
0.29
0.37
-22%
0.33
0.30
10%
0.36
0.48
-25%
120-239.9
0.281
0.18
0.26
-31%
0.03
0.10
-70%
0.14
0.10
40%
0.15
0.15
0%
15-29.9
3.109
1.50
mph,ADB
62mph
Not
Straight,
Not
Not
2.98
Reported
Not
1.73
Reported
2.27
Reported
Reported
DAS62
12OCP2
30-59.9
1.776
0.80
1.27
-37%
1.60
1.51
6%
1.06
1.09
-3%
0.98
1.27
-23%
60-119.9
0.634
0.45
0.47
-4%
0.29
0.37
-22%
0.34
0.30
13%
0.36
0.48
-25%
120-239.9
0.281
0.23
0.26
-12%
0.03
0.10
-70%
0.15
0.10
50%
0.15
0.15
0%
15-29.9
3.109
1.90
mph,ADB
62mph
Not
ADB
Reported
curves
Left, DAS
Not
30-59.9
1.776
1.07
Not
2.00
1.27
Reported
-16%
0.86
Not
2.19
1.51
2.61
Reported
-43%
1.23
1.09
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 198 / Friday, October 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules
20:34 Oct 11, 2018
Average Maximum Illuminance by Receptor Head 1 Static and Dynamic -
Reported
13%
1.27
1.27
0%
51791
EP12OC18.003
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSAL10
51792
Jkt 247001
0.634
0.55
0.47
17%
0.18
0.37
-51%
0.58
0.30
93%
0.62
0.48
29%
120-239.9
0.281
0.46
0.26
77%
0.03
0.10
-70%
0.44
0.10
340%
0.47
0.15
213%
15-29.9
3.109
1.93
ADB62
mph
ADB
Not
curves
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
12OCP2
oncoming scenarios, on a curve (right
and left), and on a straightaway with the
E:\FR\FM\12OCP2.SGM
measurements when taken through
NHTSA dynamic tests including
PO 00000
Left, DAS
62 mph,
Not
Not
1.92
Reported
Not
1.94
Reported
2.54
Reported
Reported
30-59.9
1.776
1.08
1.27
-15%
0.86
1.51
-43%
1.16
1.09
6%
1.26
1.27
-1%
60-119.9
0.634
0.57
0.47
21%
0.21
0.37
-43%
0.59
0.30
97%
0.64
0.48
33%
120-239.9
0.281
0.47
0.26
81%
0.07
0.10
-30%
0.47
0.10
370%
0.49
0.15
227%
15-29.9
3.109
2.28
ADB62
mph
ADB
Not
curves
Right,
DASO
Not
Not
1.63
Reported
Not
1.75
Reported
2.38
Reported
Reported
30-59.9
1.776
1.63
1.27
28%
0.78
1.51
-48%
1.21
1.09
11%
1.35
1.27
6%
60-119.9
0.634
0.78
0.47
66%
0.22
0.37
-41%
0.57
0.30
90%
0.77
0.48
60%
120-239.9
0.281
0.57
0.26
119%
0.07
0.10
-30%
0.40
0.10
300%
0.58
0.15
287%
15-29.9
3.109
2.54
mph,ADB
62mph
EP12OC18.004
60-119.9
ADB
Not
curves
Right,
DAS62
Not
Not
1.79
Reported
Not
1.73
Reported
2.44
Reported
Reported
30-59.9
1.776
1.53
1.27
20%
0.73
1.51
-52%
1.14
1.09
5%
1.30
1.27
2%
60-119.9
0.634
0.71
0.47
51%
0.16
0.37
-57%
0.54
0.30
80%
0.70
0.48
46%
120-239.9
0.281
0.54
0.26
108%
0.00
0.10
-100%
0.37
0.10
270%
0.52
0.15
247%
mph,ADB
62mph
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 198 / Friday, October 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules
20:34 Oct 11, 2018
Table 6 includes results of the lower
beam headlamp illumination
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Omph,
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 198 / Friday, October 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:34 Oct 11, 2018
Jkt 247001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
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.
E:\FR\FM\12OCP2.SGM
12OCP2
EP12OC18.005
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSAL10
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
51793
51794
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 198 / Friday, October 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSAL10
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:34 Oct 11, 2018
Jkt 247001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\12OCP2.SGM
12OCP2
51795
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 198 / Friday, October 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules
Table 8
Cunce Scenarios
Audi (n=3)
Lower
Quotient Lower
Lexus (n=3)
Quotient Lower
ADB
ADB
Glare
Maneuver Range
BMW (n=3)
Mercedes-Benz (n=3)
Quotient Lower
ADB
Quotient
ADB
Beam
(ADB/
Beam
(ADB/
Beam
(ADB/
Beam
(ADB/
Illuminance
Lower
Illuminance
Lower
Illuminance
Lower
Illuminance
Lower
(lux)
Beam)
(lux)
Beam)
(lux)
Beam)
(lux)
Beam)
Limit
Scenario
(m)
(lux)
15ADB
29.9
curves
30-
3.109
1.90
2.05
1.08
2.00
2.22
1.11
2.19
2.24
1.02
2.61
2.77
1.06
1.776
1.07
1.22
1.14
0.86
1.00
1.17
1.23
1.32
1.07
1.27
1.42
1.11
0.634
0.55
1.61
2.92
0.18
0.38
2.14
0.58
0.81
1.41
0.62
1.06
1.71
0.281
0.46
0.50
1.09
0.03
0.07
1.96
0.44
0.49
1.10
0.47
0.59
1.27
3.109
1.93
2.08
1.08
1.92
2.11
1.10
1.94
1.88
0.97
2.54
2.77
1.09
1.776
1.08
1.22
1.13
0.86
0.92
1.07
1.16
1.30
1.12
1.26
1.40
1.11
0.634
0.57
1.99
3.49
0.21
0.79
3.76
0.59
1.92
3.23
0.64
1.60
2.49
0.281
0.47
0.50
1.07
0.07
0.11
1.48
0.47
0.51
1.07
0.49
0.60
1.23
3.109
2.28
2.59
1.14
1.63
1.60
0.98
1.75
2.14
1.22
2.38
2.45
1.03
1.776
1.63
1.61
0.98
0.78
0.77
0.98
1.21
1.21
0.99
1.35
1.39
1.03
0.634
0.78
2.95
3.77
0.22
1.24
5.58
0.57
1.64
2.87
0.77
1.14
1.49
0.281
0.57
0.65
1.15
0.07
0.14
1.98
0.40
0.42
1.05
0.58
0.89
1.53
Left, DAS 59.9
Omph,
60-
ADB62
119.9
mph
120239.9
15-
ADB
29.9
curves
30-
Left, DAS 59.9
62mph,
60-
ADB62
119.9
mph
120239.9
15-
ADB
29.9
curves
30Right,
59.9
DASO
60119.9
62mph
120-
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:34 Oct 11, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\12OCP2.SGM
12OCP2
EP12OC18.006
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSAL10
mph,ADB
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 198 / Friday, October 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules
BILLING CODE 4910–59–C
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSAL10
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:34 Oct 11, 2018
Jkt 247001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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 curveleft 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
E:\FR\FM\12OCP2.SGM
12OCP2
EP12OC18.007
51796
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 198 / Friday, October 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules
51797
Figure 2
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:34 Oct 11, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\12OCP2.SGM
12OCP2
EP12OC18.008
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSAL10
Figure 3
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 198 / Friday, October 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSAL10
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:34 Oct 11, 2018
Jkt 247001
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.
X. Regulatory Alternatives
The two main regulatory alternatives
NHTSA considered were the ECE ADB
128 See,
e.g. 49 U.S.C. 3015.
(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).
129 S3.3
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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 equipmentlevel photometric requirements to
regulate both glare and visibility. With
E:\FR\FM\12OCP2.SGM
12OCP2
EP12OC18.009
51798
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSAL10
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 198 / Friday, October 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:34 Oct 11, 2018
Jkt 247001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
51799
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.
E:\FR\FM\12OCP2.SGM
12OCP2
51800
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 198 / Friday, October 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules
a. Proposal Compared to Current
Baseline in Which ADB is Not Deployed
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSAL10
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 properlyfunctioning 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).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:34 Oct 11, 2018
Jkt 247001
The possible disbenefits of this
rulemaking would be any increases in
glare attributable to ADB. A properlyfunctioning 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
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).
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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 laboratorybased 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.
E:\FR\FM\12OCP2.SGM
12OCP2
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSAL10
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 198 / Friday, October 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules
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 realworld 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
136 Because the headlamp photometry
requirements in FMVSS No. 108 differ from ECErequired 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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:34 Oct 11, 2018
Jkt 247001
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.)
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
51801
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.
E:\FR\FM\12OCP2.SGM
12OCP2
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSAL10
51802
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 198 / Friday, October 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules
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 108compliant 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 ECEapproved 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 teardown 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 J3069compliant 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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:34 Oct 11, 2018
Jkt 247001
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 nonidentical State legislative and
administrative law address the same
aspect of performance.
The express preemption provision
described above is subject to a savings
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\12OCP2.SGM
12OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 198 / Friday, October 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules
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.
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSAL10
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 currentlyexisting 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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:34 Oct 11, 2018
Jkt 247001
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
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
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
51803
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 onroad 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.
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
140 NPS, Light Pollution Sources. https://
www.nps.gov/subjects/nightskies/sources.htm (last
accessed Sept. 26, 2018).
E:\FR\FM\12OCP2.SGM
12OCP2
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSAL10
51804
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 198 / Friday, October 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:34 Oct 11, 2018
Jkt 247001
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,
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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,
E:\FR\FM\12OCP2.SGM
12OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 198 / Friday, October 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules
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.
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSAL10
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:34 Oct 11, 2018
Jkt 247001
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
51805
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 https://
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 https://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.
E:\FR\FM\12OCP2.SGM
12OCP2
51806
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 198 / Friday, October 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules
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 https://
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.]
Year
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Day light
Dark
Dawn
Dust
Dark &
ukn. light
Others
Not-rept.
Unknown
Total
fatalities
.........................
.........................
.........................
.........................
.........................
.........................
.........................
.........................
.........................
.........................
.........................
1,386
1,433
1,285
1,252
1,254
1,247
1,335
1,336
1,393
1,453
1,499
1,561
1,472
1,425
1,199
1,321
1,402
1,589
1,532
1,615
1,789
1,905
1,571
1,495
1,463
1,463
1,483
1,569
1,726
1,641
1,697
1,973
2,183
92
66
79
71
77
57
79
74
90
91
88
128
98
122
97
84
113
105
113
111
135
138
0
0
0
39
45
35
29
25
25
67
72
0
0
0
0
5
4
2
1
4
2
2
0
0
0
0
2
3
3
5
2
3
3
17
18
13
9
5
8
6
7
10
6
22
4,755
4,582
4,387
4,130
4,276
4,438
4,874
4,734
4,947
5,519
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)
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSAL10
Dark but
lighted
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]
Year
2006
2007
2008
2009
Day light
.........................
.........................
.........................
.........................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
67,100
71,729
84,521
73,771
20:34 Oct 11, 2018
Dark
Dark but
lighted
9,288
8,285
8,889
8,037
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
22,531
28,216
22,009
24,157
Frm 00042
Dawn
1,582
1,404
1,606
1,588
Fmt 4701
Dust
4,333
4,010
3,179
2,935
Sfmt 4702
Dark &
ukn. light
Others
0
0
0
1,376
E:\FR\FM\12OCP2.SGM
Not-rept.
0
0
0
20
12OCP2
0
0
0
0
Unknown
1,471
736
1,209
260
Total
injuries
106,305
114,379
121,414
112,142
51807
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 198 / Friday, October 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules
TABLE A.2—GES 2006–2016 WEIGHTED INJURED PEDESTRIAN/CYCLISTS—Continued
[Light vehicle types <=10,000 lbs. only]
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSAL10
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Day light
Dark
Dark but
lighted
Dawn
Dust
Dark &
ukn. light
Others
Not-rept.
Unknown
Total
injuries
.........................
.........................
.........................
.........................
.........................
.........................
.........................
84,670
80,876
80,933
74,277
77,258
76,817
96,861
6,359
7,344
8,864
8,305
8,901
9,074
12,922
25,808
27,996
33,913
28,805
28,520
27,223
34,791
2,946
2,056
707
960
1,326
1,627
2,361
4,400
3,373
4,192
4,181
4,604
3,268
4,549
537
292
499
457
347
602
1,378
0
0
12
15
11
15
0
106
436
377
47
293
401
406
99
379
81
116
54
73
287
124,925
122,753
129,579
117,161
121,316
119,099
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.
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-
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:34 Oct 11, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\12OCP2.SGM
12OCP2
EP12OC18.010
Year
51808
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 198 / Friday, October 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules
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
TABLE A.5—PEDESTRIAN/CYCLIST INJURIES (INJ_SEV NOT ZERO) INCLUDING
‘DRIVER NOT-DRINKING
CRASHES’ ONLY—Continued
[Light veh. <=10, 000 lbs. and GES 2006–16]
Year
Day
light
Dark
Dark but
lighted
2015 ................
2016 ................
75,831
95,226
8,558
11,915
26,409
33,339
Total .........
849,390
89,321
283,743
[Light VEH <=10,000 lbs, FARS 2006–16]
Day
light
Dark
Dark but
lighted
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
1,302
1,351
1,200
1,167
1,194
1,162
1,256
1,254
1,305
1,372
1,413
1,369
1,294
1,250
1,050
1,180
1,245
1,431
1,378
1,474
1,642
1,752
1,335
1,267
1,263
1,257
1,265
1,336
1,493
1,439
1,472
1,762
1,936
Total .........
13,976
15,065
15,825
Year
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
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]
Year
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
Day
light
Dark
Dark but
lighted
63,535
69,553
81,003
71,870
84,006
79,471
79,724
72,970
76,201
7,929
7,479
8,161
7,184
6,144
7,088
8,519
7,811
8,533
19,083
26,293
19,560
22,758
24,672
26,387
32,113
25,655
27,474
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.
Year
Day
light
Dark
Dark but
lighted
Fatalities ..........
Injuries .............
13,976
849,390
15,065
89,321
15,825
283,743
1.65%
16.87%
5.58%
Ratio of
(fatalities/
injuries)
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.
TABLE A.7—PEDESTRIAN/CYCLIST FATALITY ODDS RATIOS FROM LIGHT CONDITION AND SPEED LIMIT
Odds ratio
(OR) point
estimate
‘dawn or dust’ vs. ‘day light’ ............................................................................
‘dark but lighted’ vs. ‘day light’ ........................................................................
‘dark’ vs ’day light’ ...........................................................................................
higher speed limit (5 MPH) ..............................................................................
Drinking versus NOT .......................................................................................
95% OR
confidence
lower
1.930
2.711
5.004
1.512
1.965
95% OR
confidence
upper
1.781
2.596
4.807
1.490
1.849
2.092
2.830
5.209
1.534
2.087
P-value
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
ANALYSIS OF MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATES AND PARAMETER ESTIMATE OF EQ.
Comparison between two different light conditions
Parameter estimate (bi)
Standard error
¥2.8634
0.0295
intercept ...........................................................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:34 Oct 11, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\12OCP2.SGM
12OCP2
Wald
chi-sqare
9397.9
P-value
<0.0001
EP12OC18.011
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSAL10
Comparison between two different light conditions
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 198 / Friday, October 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules
51809
ANALYSIS OF MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATES AND PARAMETER ESTIMATE OF EQ.—Continued
Comparison between two different light conditions
Parameter estimate (bi)
Standard error
¥0.586
0.1809
0.7940
0.4133
0.6753
0.0292
0.0157
0.0147
0.00734
0.0309
‘dawn or dust’ vs. ‘day’ ....................................................................................
‘dark but lighted’ vs. ‘day’ ................................................................................
‘dark’ vs ’day’ ...................................................................................................
higher speed limit (5 MPH) ..............................................................................
‘Drinking’ vs ‘not-drinking’ ................................................................................
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
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.
2. Amend § 571.108 by:
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;
■ b. Adding paragraphs S9.4.1.5.1
through S9.4.1.5.3 in numerical order;
■ c. Revising paragraph S9.4.1.6;
■ d. Adding paragrpahs S9.4.1.6.1
through S9.4.1.6.8 in numerical order;
■ e. Removing S9.4.1.7;
■ f. Revising paragraph S9.5;
■ g. Adding paragraphs S14.9.3.12
through S14.9.3.12.8.1, tables XIX–d
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSAL10
■
■
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:34 Oct 11, 2018
Jkt 247001
and XXI, and figures 23 through 25 in
numerical order; and
■ h. Removing the appendix to the
section.
The revisions and additions read as
follows:
§ 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
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Wald
chi-sqare
29.4
132.1
2904.1
3174.6
477.97
P-value
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
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
E:\FR\FM\12OCP2.SGM
12OCP2
51810
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 198 / Friday, October 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules
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
vehicle speed
(mph)
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSAL10
Test matrix No.
1 .......................................................................................................................
2 .......................................................................................................................
3 .......................................................................................................................
4 .......................................................................................................................
5 .......................................................................................................................
6 .......................................................................................................................
7 .......................................................................................................................
8 .......................................................................................................................
9 .......................................................................................................................
10 .....................................................................................................................
11 .....................................................................................................................
12 .....................................................................................................................
13 .....................................................................................................................
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%.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:34 Oct 11, 2018
Jkt 247001
60–70
0
40–45
60–70
25–30
0
40–45
0
30–35
40–45
50–55
50–55
40–45
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
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Test vehicle
speed
(mph)
60–70
60–70
60–70
40–45
25–30
25–30
40–45
40–45
40–45
30–35
50–55
40–45
50–55
Radius of
curve
(ft.)
Superelevation
(%)
Straight
Straight
Straight
Straight
320–380
320–380
730–790
730–790
730–790
730–790
1,100–1,300
1,100–1,300
1,100–1,300
than the mounting height of the
stimulus vehicle’s headlamps.
S14.9.3.12.4.7 The tests are
conducted on a dry, uniform, solidpaved surface. The road surface shall
E:\FR\FM\12OCP2.SGM
12OCP2
0–2
0–2
0–2
0–2
0–2
0–2
0–2
0–2
0–2
0–2
0–2
0–2
0–2
51811
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 198 / Friday, October 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules
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:
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSAL10
ADB TEST ORIENTATION
Direction
Lane orientation/maneuver
Oncoming .................................................
Same Direction .........................................
Same Direction .........................................
Same Direction .........................................
Adjacent ...................................................
Same Lane ..............................................
Adjacent/Passing .....................................
Adjacent/Passing .....................................
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:34 Oct 11, 2018
Jkt 247001
1,
1,
2,
4,
2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11 ....................................
5, 7, 11 ................................................
3, 6, 8, 9, 13 ........................................
10, 12 ...................................................
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
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Measurement
distance
(m)
Test matrix No.
15
30
15
30
to
to
to
to
220.
119.9.
119.9.
119.9.
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
oncoming
direction
(lux)
Range
(m)
15.0 to 29.9 .........
30.0 to 59.9 .........
60 to 119.9 ..........
120 to 220 ...........
Maximum
illuminance
same direction
(lux)
3.1
1.8
0.6
0.3
18.9
18.9
4.0
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
bound
(m)
Vehicle type
(weight class)
Passenger Cars ................
Trucks, buses, MPVs
(light) .............................
Trucks, buses, MPVs
(heavy) ..........................
Motorcycles .......................
Upper
bound
(m)
1.07
1.15
1.26
1.58
1.99
1.30
2.67
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.
*
E:\FR\FM\12OCP2.SGM
*
*
12OCP2
*
*
51812
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 198 / Friday, October 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules
Figure 23
Adjacent Lane Oncoming
-
- - - - - - - - -
...
Figure 24
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:34 Oct 11, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\12OCP2.SGM
12OCP2
EP12OC18.012 EP12OC18.013
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSAL10
Same Lane I Same Direction
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 198 / Friday, October 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules
51813
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]
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:34 Oct 11, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
E:\FR\FM\12OCP2.SGM
12OCP2
EP12OC18.014
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSAL10
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
Agencies
[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 https://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 https://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 https://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
https://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 https://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 https://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 https://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 https://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