BMW of North America, LLC and Volkswagen Group of America; Denial of Petitions for Temporary Exemption From FMVSS No. 108 for Vehicles With Adaptive Driving Beam Headlamps, 9785-9787 [2022-02452]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Notices
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
this exemption will be effective on
March 24, 2022, unless stayed pending
reconsideration. Petitions to stay that do
not involve environmental issues,2
formal expressions of intent to file an
OFA under 49 CFR 1152.27(c)(2), and
interim trail use/rail banking requests
under 49 CFR 1152.29 must be filed by
March 4, 2022.3 Petitions to reopen or
requests for public use conditions under
49 CFR 1152.28 must be filed by March
14, 2022.
All pleadings, referring to Docket No.
AB 55 (Sub-No. 806X), should be filed
with the Surface Transportation Board
via e-filing on the Board’s website. In
addition, a copy of each pleading must
be served on CSXT’s representative,
Louis E. Gitomer, Law Offices of Louis
E. Gitomer, LLC, 600 Baltimore Avenue,
Suite 301, Towson, MD 21204.
If the verified notice contains false or
misleading information, the exemption
is void ab initio.
CSXT has filed a combined
environmental and historic report that
addresses the potential effects, if any, of
the abandonment on the environment
and historic resources. OEA will issue a
Draft Environmental Assessment (Draft
EA) by February 25, 2022. The Draft EA
will be available to interested persons
on the Board’s website, by writing to
OEA, or by calling OEA at (202) 245–
0294. Assistance for the hearing
impaired is available through the
Federal Relay Service at (800) 877–8339.
Comments on environmental or historic
preservation matters must be filed
within 15 days after the Draft EA
becomes available to the public.
Environmental, historic preservation,
public use, or trail use/rail banking
conditions will be imposed, where
appropriate, in a subsequent decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of 49 CFR
1152.29(e)(2), CSXT shall file a notice of
consummation with the Board to signify
that it has exercised the authority
granted and fully abandoned the Line. If
consummation has not been effected by
CSXT’s filing of a notice of
consummation by February 22, 2023,
and there are no legal or regulatory
offer, indicating the type of financial assistance they
wish to provide (i.e., subsidy or purchase) and
demonstrating that they are preliminarily
financially responsible. See 49 CFR 1152.27(c)(2)(i).
2 The Board will grant a stay if an informed
decision on environmental issues (whether raised
by a party or by the Board’s Office of Environmental
Analysis (OEA) in its independent investigation)
cannot be made before the exemption’s effective
date. See Exemption of Out-of-Serv. Rail Lines, 5
I.C.C.2d 377 (1989). Any request for a stay should
be filed as soon as possible so that the Board may
take appropriate action before the exemption’s
effective date.
3 Filing fees for OFAs and trail use requests can
be found at 49 CFR 1002.2(f)(25) and (27),
respectively.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:42 Feb 18, 2022
Jkt 256001
barriers to consummation, the authority
to abandon will automatically expire.
Board decisions and notices are
available at www.stb.gov.
Decided: February 15, 2022.
By the Board, Scott M. Zimmerman, Acting
Director, Office of Proceedings.
Stefan Rice,
Clearance Clerk.
[FR Doc. 2022–03704 Filed 2–18–22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915–01–P
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
TRADE REPRESENTATIVE
China’s Acts, Policies, and Practices
Related to Technology Transfer,
Intellectual Property, and Innovation;
Technical Modifications to 301 Action
Office of the United States
Trade Representative (USTR).
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
Effective January 27, 2022, the
U.S. International Trade Commission
(USITC) implemented certain changes to
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (HTSUS) to conform to
amendments adopted by the World
Customs Organization. To rectify a
technical error and ensure that those
amendments do not extend the scope of
the additional duties in the Section 301
investigation of China’s acts, policies,
and practices related to technology
transfer, intellectual property, and
innovation (China 301 investigation),
this notice makes two technical
modifications in the HTSUS notes
implementing the additional duties.
DATES: The technical modifications in
the Annex to this notice are applicable
as of January 27, 2022.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
general questions about this notice,
contact Associate General Counsel
Philip Butler or Assistant General
Counsel Rachel Hasandras at (202) 395–
5725. For specific questions on customs
classification or implementation of the
product exclusion identified in the
Annex to this notice, contact
traderemedy@cbp.dhs.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
A. Background
Effective January 27, 2022, the USITC,
in accordance with Presidential
Proclamation 10326 of December 23,
2021, implemented certain changes in
the HTSUS in accordance with its
responsibility to update the HTSUS to
conform to amendments adopted by the
World Customs Organization. These
changes subjected HTSUS subheading
PO 00000
Frm 00223
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
9785
2931.49.00 to additional duties in the
China 301 investigation.
B. Technical Modifications to China
301 Action
The Annex to this notice makes
technical modifications to the HTSUS to
correct the error of subjecting HTSUS
subheading 2931.49.00 to additional
duties in the China 301 investigation. In
particular, the Annex makes technical
modifications to U.S. notes 20(f) and
20(u) to subchapter III of chapter 99 of
the HTSUS, as set out in the Annexes
to the notices published at 83 FR 47974
(September 21, 2018), 84 FR 43304
(August 20, 2019), and 84 FR 69447
(December 18, 2019). The technical
changes are applicable as of January 27,
2022, which is the same effective date
as the HTSUS changes conforming to
the World Customs Organization
amendments.
Annex
Effective with respect to goods
entered for consumption, or withdrawn
from warehouse for consumption, on or
after 12:01 a.m. eastern standard time on
January 27, 2022:
1. U.S. note 20(f) to subchapter III of
chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)
is amended by deleting ‘‘2931.49.00’’;
and
2. U.S. note 20(u) to subchapter III of
chapter 99 of the HTSUS is amended:
a. by deleting ‘‘2931.39.00’’; and
b. by inserting ‘‘2931.49.00’’, in
numerical sequence.
Greta Peisch,
General Counsel, Office of the United States
Trade Representative.
[FR Doc. 2022–03701 Filed 2–18–22; 8:45 a.m.]
BILLING CODE 3290–F2–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA–2017–0018]
BMW of North America, LLC and
Volkswagen Group of America; Denial
of Petitions for Temporary Exemption
From FMVSS No. 108 for Vehicles With
Adaptive Driving Beam Headlamps
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of denial of petitions for
a temporary exemption for vehicles
equipped with adaptive driving beam
headlighting systems from certain
requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108;
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\22FEN1.SGM
22FEN1
9786
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Notices
‘‘Lamps, reflective devices, and
associated equipment.’’
This document denies
petitions from Volkswagen Group of
America (Volkswagen) and BMW of
North America, LLC (BMW)
(collectively, Petitioners) for temporary
exemptions from certain requirements
of FMVSS No. 108 to allow installation
of adaptive driving beam (ADB)
headlighting systems. Both
manufacturers requested exemptions on
the basis that an exemption would
facilitate the development or field
evaluation of a new motor vehicle safety
feature providing a safety level at least
equal to that of the standard. NHTSA
has determined that, in light of the
publication today of a final rule
amending FMVSS No. 108 to allow ADB
systems, there is no need to grant the
requested exemptions because the
standard now allows the deployment of
such systems. Accordingly, the petitions
are denied.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John
Piazza, Office of the Chief Counsel,
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
Telephone: 202–366–2992; Email:
John.Piazza@dot.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
SUMMARY:
I. Background
On September 11, 2017, NHTSA
published a notice of receipt of a
petition from Volkswagen for a
temporary exemption from certain
requirements of FMVSS No. 108 to
allow the use of ADB headlights (82 FR
42720). On March 22, 2018, NHTSA
published a notice of receipt of a similar
petition from BMW (83 FR 12650). That
notice also requested additional
information from Volkswagen, BMW,
and any other manufacturers wishing to
submit exemption petitions for ADB
systems, to assist NHTSA in evaluating
such petitions.1 Volkswagen and BMW
subsequently submitted additional
information in response to the 2018
notice.
Adaptive driving beam systems are an
advanced type of semiautomatic
headlamp beam switching technology
that aims to address the tradeoff
between forward visibility and glare.
ADB systems are capable of producing
a dynamic adaptive beam pattern
brighter than a conventional lower
beam, but not as bright as an upper
beam. This adaptive beam is
1 The basis for both petitions is that an exemption
would make easier the development or field
evaluation of a new motor vehicle safety feature
providing a safety level at least equal to that of the
standard. 49 CFR 555.6(b).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:42 Feb 18, 2022
Jkt 256001
particularly useful for distance
illumination of pedestrians, cyclists,
animals, and objects in or near the road
when other vehicles are present and
thus preclude use of the upper beam.2
NHTSA is today publishing a final
rule amending FMVSS No. 108 to
permit ADB systems. The final rule
establishes performance requirements to
ensure that ADB systems operate safely
by not glaring other motorists and
providing a minimum level of visibility.
The final rule is effective immediately.
II. Overview of the Petitions
Volkswagen Petition
Volkswagen petitioned for an
exemption from S9.4 and S10.14.6 of
FMVSS No. 108 for its Matrix Beam
ADB system on Audi A7 models (which
may also include S7 and Rs7 variants).
Section S9.4 requires that a vehicle have
a means of switching between lower and
upper beams. The means must be
designed and located so that it may be
operated conveniently by a simple
movement of the driver’s hand or foot.
The switch must have no dead point
and, except as provided by S6.1.5.2, the
lower and upper beams must not be
energized simultaneously except
momentarily for temporary signaling
purposes or during switching between
beams. S10.14.6 specifies the
photometry requirements for integral
beam headlighting systems. Volkswagen
indicated that the Matrix Beam may not
comply with these requirements.
The basis for the application is that
the exemption would make easier the
development or field evaluation of a
new motor vehicle safety feature
providing a safety level at least equal to
that of the standard. Volkswagen
explained how the Matrix Beam system
operates and the safety benefits it
believes the system would offer.
Volkswagen also submitted additional
information in response to NHTSA’s
request for information in the 2018
notice.
BMW Petition
BMW petitioned for an exemption
from FMVSS No. 108 for BMW i8
vehicles equipped with its Laserlight
2 ADB technology can enhance safety in two
ways. First, such systems provide more
illumination than existing lower beams by
providing a sculpted, dynamic beam pattern that
adjusts to avoid glaring other motorists; highresolution ADB systems are even capable of
classifying objects and placing optimized levels of
light on all objects in the driver’s view (such as
retroreflective signs or pedestrians). Second, such
systems facilitate increased use of the upper beam
in situations where other vehicles will not be
glared. For both these reasons, ADB has the
potential to reduce the risk of crashes by increasing
visibility without increasing glare.
PO 00000
Frm 00224
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Glare-Free High Beam Assist. Similar to
Volkswagen, BMW sought an exemption
from the requirement of S9.4 that
prohibits the simultaneous energization
of the lower and upper beams and from
the upper beam photometry
requirements of S10.14.6. BMW stated
that the photometry requirements
specify minimum and maximum
photometric intensities of the upper
beam light that may not be met by the
Glare-Free High Beam Assist.
The basis for the application is that
the exemption would make easier the
development or field evaluation of a
new motor vehicle safety feature
providing a safety level at least equal to
that of the standard. BMW explained
how the Glare-Free High Beam Assist
operates and the safety benefits it
believes the system would offer. BMW
also submitted additional information in
response to NHTSA’s requests for
information in the 2018 notice.
III. Summary of Comments
NHTSA received 17 comments on one
or both of the petitions. Several
manufacturers or trade groups (Truck
and Engine Manufacturers Association,
SAE, Osram Sylvania Products, Inc.,
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
(Alliance), American Trucking
Associations, Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC,
and Transportation Safety Equipment
Institute (TSEI)) commented in support
of the petitions. Two public interest
groups (Advocates for Highway Safety
and Consumers Union) also supported
or conditionally supported granting one
or both of the petitions. Several
individual citizens commented in
support of granting one or both of the
petitions.
SAE, the Alliance, and Mercedes also
responded to NHTSA’s 2018 request for
additional information. These
comments were repeated in these
organizations’ comments to the ADB
NPRM. OSRAM, the Alliance,
Mercedes, and TSEI supported SAE’s
comment. Advocates for Highway Safety
commented on Volkswagen’s petition
and conditionally supported it.
Consumers Union commented on
several issues, and submitted similar
comments to the NPRM.3
IV. Agency Analysis and Decision
NHTSA has considered Petitioners’
arguments, the comments received on
the petitions, and the final rule that is
being issued today. NHTSA has
determined that the issuance of the final
rule makes it unnecessary for NHTSA to
grant the petitions.
3 NHTSA has addressed all significant comments
to the NPRM in the ADB final rule published today.
E:\FR\FM\22FEN1.SGM
22FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Notices
Petitioners argue that an exemption is
necessary because their ADB systems
may not comply with the requirements
of S9.4 and S10.14.6. They also contend
that an exemption would facilitate the
development and field evaluation of
their ADB systems because it would
allow them to obtain data and consumer
feedback on system performance. The
publication of the FMVSS No. 108 final
rule published today—that is effective
immediately—permitting the
deployment of ADB systems renders
these petitions unnecessary. Petitioners
and other manufacturers wishing to
equip vehicles with ADB systems may
do so, provided that the systems comply
with the requirements set out in the
final rule.4
The requirements adopted by the final
rule are necessary to ensure that ADB
systems operate safely with respect to
glare prevention and visibility. The
requirements are generally within the
capabilities of current ADB systems
(some system modifications might be
necessary). These issues are discussed at
length in the preamble to the final rule.
We note that the manufacturers’
comments regarding the additional
information NHTSA requested were also
included in the comments those same
manufacturers submitted to the ADB
rulemaking docket in response to the
NPRM. Those comments are addressed
in the preamble to the final rule.
Decision—Based on the foregoing, the
petitions from Volkswagen and BMW
for temporary exemption are denied.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30113;
delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95
and 501.4, and 501.5.
Steven S. Cliff,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2022–02452 Filed 2–18–22; 8:45 am]
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
4 We do not read the petitioners as requesting an
exemption from the requirements of the final rule,
as the rule did not exist at the time of their
petitions. Alternatively, we believe it is not
necessary, nor would it be in the public interest, to
exempt the ADB systems from the requirements for
ADB systems in today’s final rule based on the
information provided in the petitions.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:42 Feb 18, 2022
Jkt 256001
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA–2021–0059]
Agency Information Collection
Activities; Notice and Request for
Comments; Consolidated Vehicles’
Owner’s Manual Requirements for
Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle
Equipment
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice and request for
comments on a reinstatement with
modification of a previously approved
information collection.
AGENCY:
The National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration invites public
comments about our intention to request
approval from the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) to reinstate a
previously approved information
collection with modification. Before a
Federal agency can collect certain
information from the public, it must
receive approval from OMB. Under
procedures established by the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
before seeking OMB approval, Federal
agencies must solicit public comment
on proposed collections of information,
including extensions and reinstatements
of previously approved collections. This
document describes a collection of
information for which NHTSA intends
to seek OMB approval on Vehicle
Owner’s Manual Requirements for
Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle
Equipment. NHTSA is requesting a
modification of the information
collection to include regulatory changes
made by NHTSA’s Adaptive Driving
Beam Headlamps final rule. NHTSA is
also requesting modification to include
requirements for owner’s manuals in
NHTSA’s existing regulations.
DATES: Written comments should be
submitted by April 25, 2022.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by NHTSA docket number
identified above, through any of the
following methods:
• Electronic submissions: Go to the
Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
• Fax: 202–493–2251.
• Mail or Hand Delivery: Docket
Management, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, West Building, Room W12–
140, Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00225
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
9787
Friday, except on Federal holidays. To
be sure someone is there to help you,
please call (202) 366–9322 before
coming.
Instructions: All submissions must
include the agency name and docket
number for this notice. Note that all
comments received will be posted
without change to https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. Please
see the Privacy Act heading below.
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) or you may visit https://
www.transportation.gov/privacy.
Docket: For access to the docket to
read background documents or
comments received, go to https://
www.regulations.gov or the street
address listed above. Follow the online
instructions for accessing the dockets
via internet.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
additional information or access to
background documents, contact James
Myers, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, West Building, Room W43–
320, NRM–100, Washington, DC 20590.
Mr. Myers’ telephone number is 202–
493–0031. Please identify the relevant
collection of information by referring to
its OMB Control Number.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), before an agency
submits a proposed collection of
information to OMB for approval, it
must first publish a document in the
Federal Register providing a 60-day
comment period and otherwise consult
with members of the public and affected
agencies concerning each proposed
collection of information. The OMB has
promulgated regulations describing
what must be included in such a
document. Under OMB’s regulation (at
5 CFR 1320.8(d)), an agency must ask
for public comment on the following: (a)
Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the
agency, including whether the
information will have practical utility;
(b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate
of the burden of the proposed collection
of information, including the validity of
the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) how to enhance the quality, utility,
and clarity of the information to be
E:\FR\FM\22FEN1.SGM
22FEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 35 (Tuesday, February 22, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9785-9787]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02452]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2017-0018]
BMW of North America, LLC and Volkswagen Group of America; Denial
of Petitions for Temporary Exemption From FMVSS No. 108 for Vehicles
With Adaptive Driving Beam Headlamps
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of denial of petitions for a temporary exemption for
vehicles equipped with adaptive driving beam headlighting systems from
certain requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS)
No. 108;
[[Page 9786]]
``Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment.''
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document denies petitions from Volkswagen Group of
America (Volkswagen) and BMW of North America, LLC (BMW) (collectively,
Petitioners) for temporary exemptions from certain requirements of
FMVSS No. 108 to allow installation of adaptive driving beam (ADB)
headlighting systems. Both manufacturers requested exemptions on the
basis that an exemption would facilitate the development or field
evaluation of a new motor vehicle safety feature providing a safety
level at least equal to that of the standard. NHTSA has determined
that, in light of the publication today of a final rule amending FMVSS
No. 108 to allow ADB systems, there is no need to grant the requested
exemptions because the standard now allows the deployment of such
systems. Accordingly, the petitions are denied.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Piazza, Office of the Chief
Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: 202-366-2992; Email:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On September 11, 2017, NHTSA published a notice of receipt of a
petition from Volkswagen for a temporary exemption from certain
requirements of FMVSS No. 108 to allow the use of ADB headlights (82 FR
42720). On March 22, 2018, NHTSA published a notice of receipt of a
similar petition from BMW (83 FR 12650). That notice also requested
additional information from Volkswagen, BMW, and any other
manufacturers wishing to submit exemption petitions for ADB systems, to
assist NHTSA in evaluating such petitions.\1\ Volkswagen and BMW
subsequently submitted additional information in response to the 2018
notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The basis for both petitions is that an exemption would make
easier the development or field evaluation of a new motor vehicle
safety feature providing a safety level at least equal to that of
the standard. 49 CFR 555.6(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adaptive driving beam systems are an advanced type of semiautomatic
headlamp beam switching technology that aims to address the tradeoff
between forward visibility and glare. ADB systems are capable of
producing a dynamic adaptive beam pattern brighter than a conventional
lower beam, but not as bright as an upper beam. This adaptive beam is
particularly useful for distance illumination of pedestrians, cyclists,
animals, and objects in or near the road when other vehicles are
present and thus preclude use of the upper beam.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ ADB technology can enhance safety in two ways. First, such
systems provide more illumination than existing lower beams by
providing a sculpted, dynamic beam pattern that adjusts to avoid
glaring other motorists; high-resolution ADB systems are even
capable of classifying objects and placing optimized levels of light
on all objects in the driver's view (such as retroreflective signs
or pedestrians). Second, such systems facilitate increased use of
the upper beam in situations where other vehicles will not be
glared. For both these reasons, ADB has the potential to reduce the
risk of crashes by increasing visibility without increasing glare.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA is today publishing a final rule amending FMVSS No. 108 to
permit ADB systems. The final rule establishes performance requirements
to ensure that ADB systems operate safely by not glaring other
motorists and providing a minimum level of visibility. The final rule
is effective immediately.
II. Overview of the Petitions
Volkswagen Petition
Volkswagen petitioned for an exemption from S9.4 and S10.14.6 of
FMVSS No. 108 for its Matrix Beam ADB system on Audi A7 models (which
may also include S7 and Rs7 variants). Section S9.4 requires that a
vehicle have a means of switching between lower and upper beams. The
means must be designed and located so that it may be operated
conveniently by a simple movement of the driver's hand or foot. The
switch must have no dead point and, except as provided by S6.1.5.2, the
lower and upper beams must not be energized simultaneously except
momentarily for temporary signaling purposes or during switching
between beams. S10.14.6 specifies the photometry requirements for
integral beam headlighting systems. Volkswagen indicated that the
Matrix Beam may not comply with these requirements.
The basis for the application is that the exemption would make
easier the development or field evaluation of a new motor vehicle
safety feature providing a safety level at least equal to that of the
standard. Volkswagen explained how the Matrix Beam system operates and
the safety benefits it believes the system would offer. Volkswagen also
submitted additional information in response to NHTSA's request for
information in the 2018 notice.
BMW Petition
BMW petitioned for an exemption from FMVSS No. 108 for BMW i8
vehicles equipped with its Laserlight Glare-Free High Beam Assist.
Similar to Volkswagen, BMW sought an exemption from the requirement of
S9.4 that prohibits the simultaneous energization of the lower and
upper beams and from the upper beam photometry requirements of
S10.14.6. BMW stated that the photometry requirements specify minimum
and maximum photometric intensities of the upper beam light that may
not be met by the Glare-Free High Beam Assist.
The basis for the application is that the exemption would make
easier the development or field evaluation of a new motor vehicle
safety feature providing a safety level at least equal to that of the
standard. BMW explained how the Glare-Free High Beam Assist operates
and the safety benefits it believes the system would offer. BMW also
submitted additional information in response to NHTSA's requests for
information in the 2018 notice.
III. Summary of Comments
NHTSA received 17 comments on one or both of the petitions. Several
manufacturers or trade groups (Truck and Engine Manufacturers
Association, SAE, Osram Sylvania Products, Inc., Alliance of Automobile
Manufacturers (Alliance), American Trucking Associations, Mercedes-Benz
USA, LLC, and Transportation Safety Equipment Institute (TSEI))
commented in support of the petitions. Two public interest groups
(Advocates for Highway Safety and Consumers Union) also supported or
conditionally supported granting one or both of the petitions. Several
individual citizens commented in support of granting one or both of the
petitions.
SAE, the Alliance, and Mercedes also responded to NHTSA's 2018
request for additional information. These comments were repeated in
these organizations' comments to the ADB NPRM. OSRAM, the Alliance,
Mercedes, and TSEI supported SAE's comment. Advocates for Highway
Safety commented on Volkswagen's petition and conditionally supported
it. Consumers Union commented on several issues, and submitted similar
comments to the NPRM.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ NHTSA has addressed all significant comments to the NPRM in
the ADB final rule published today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Agency Analysis and Decision
NHTSA has considered Petitioners' arguments, the comments received
on the petitions, and the final rule that is being issued today. NHTSA
has determined that the issuance of the final rule makes it unnecessary
for NHTSA to grant the petitions.
[[Page 9787]]
Petitioners argue that an exemption is necessary because their ADB
systems may not comply with the requirements of S9.4 and S10.14.6. They
also contend that an exemption would facilitate the development and
field evaluation of their ADB systems because it would allow them to
obtain data and consumer feedback on system performance. The
publication of the FMVSS No. 108 final rule published today--that is
effective immediately--permitting the deployment of ADB systems renders
these petitions unnecessary. Petitioners and other manufacturers
wishing to equip vehicles with ADB systems may do so, provided that the
systems comply with the requirements set out in the final rule.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ We do not read the petitioners as requesting an exemption
from the requirements of the final rule, as the rule did not exist
at the time of their petitions. Alternatively, we believe it is not
necessary, nor would it be in the public interest, to exempt the ADB
systems from the requirements for ADB systems in today's final rule
based on the information provided in the petitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The requirements adopted by the final rule are necessary to ensure
that ADB systems operate safely with respect to glare prevention and
visibility. The requirements are generally within the capabilities of
current ADB systems (some system modifications might be necessary).
These issues are discussed at length in the preamble to the final rule.
We note that the manufacturers' comments regarding the additional
information NHTSA requested were also included in the comments those
same manufacturers submitted to the ADB rulemaking docket in response
to the NPRM. Those comments are addressed in the preamble to the final
rule.
Decision--Based on the foregoing, the petitions from Volkswagen and
BMW for temporary exemption are denied.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30113; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95
and 501.4, and 501.5.
Steven S. Cliff,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2022-02452 Filed 2-18-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
