points would apply and how they would be evaluated. SL and Intertek
commented that specific test requirements need to be established
because it would be impracticable to test the hundreds of possible
adaptive beam patterns.
Agency Response
    The final rule does not adopt the proposed regulatory text that
referred to an area of reduced intensity as being ``designed to be
directed towards oncoming or preceding vehicles,'' and to the area of
unreduced intensity as being directed ``in other directions.'' The
proposed text implied that an area of reduced intensity must be
directed towards oncoming or preceding vehicles and that an area of
unreduced intensity must be directed towards unoccupied portions of the
roadway. The final rule defines a new beam type, an ``adaptive driving
beam,'' and adopts the definition of this in SAE J3069 MAR2021 as ``a
long-range light beam for forward visibility, which automatically
modifies portions of the projected light to reduce glare to traffic
participants on an ongoing, dynamic basis.'' It requires that areas of
reduced intensity conform to the Table XIX test points, areas of
unreduced intensity conform to the Table XVIII test points and allows
for a 1-degree transition zone between areas of reduced and unreduced
intensity.
    The final rule is intended to give manufacturers the flexibility to
design systems that provide an area of reduced intensity not only to
prevent glare to oncoming or preceding vehicles, but also in other
situations in which a dimmed beam would be beneficial (such as towards
retroreflective signs). Creating a new ``adaptive driving beam''
classification, distinct from the existing lower and upper beam
definitions, accomplished this.\174\ The intent behind these changes is
to essentially, as Intertek suggested, provide that the system emit a
lower beam, which is only augmented by adding light to the portions of
the beam in which a preceding or oncoming vehicle is not detected, to
the limit that when there are no preceding or coming vehicles \175\ the
emitted beam is an upper beam.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \174\ This is also related to comments that recommended not
specifying the upper beam minima in the area of unreduced intensity.
The final rule retains the specification of the upper beam minima in
the area of unreduced intensity, but now gives manufacturers the
flexibility to use an area of reduced intensity on roadway not
occupied by oncoming or preceding vehicles. This is discussed in
more detail in Section VIII.D.4.
    \175\ Or other situations, such as the presence of
retroreflective signs, in which it would be appropriate or optimal
to provide less than a full upper beam.

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

    Manufacturers will therefore have the flexibility to design the
system to produce areas of reduced intensity and areas of unreduced
intensity as they see fit, subject to several requirements or
constraints:
     The adaptive driving beams must consist only of area(s) of
reduced intensity, area(s) of unreduced intensity, and transition
zone(s).
     When the ADB system is operating in manual mode, the
system must provide only an upper beam or a lower beam. This was
implicit in the proposed regulatory text but is made explicit in the
final rule.
     When the ADB system is operating in automatic mode, the
system must provide an adaptive driving beam. The adaptive driving beam
is subject to several requirements, including the following:
    [ssquf] The adaptive driving beam must be designed to conform to
the track test requirements.
    [ssquf] For speeds below 20 mph, the system must provide only lower
beams (unless manually overridden).
    [ssquf] In an area of reduced intensity, the adaptive driving beam
must be designed to conform to the Table XIX (lower beam) photometry
requirements.
    [ssquf] In an area of unreduced intensity, the adaptive driving
beam must be designed to conform to the Table XVIII (upper beam)
photometry requirements.
    [ssquf] A 1-degree transition zone is permitted between any areas
of reduced and unreduced intensity.
    These requirements are discussed in more detail in the following
sections (except for the track test requirements, which were discussed
in Section VIII.C).
    In conducting its compliance testing, NHTSA will request
information from the manufacturer on how to power and control the
headlamp.\176\ The lower and upper beams will be aimed prior to
testing, and the aim will remain unchanged during testing. Testing of
the lower and upper beams will be the same as it is currently. To test
the adaptive driving beam, NHTSA will activate the headlamp in the
goniometer according to the manufacturer's instructions to produce an
adaptive driving beam pattern that is consistent with an ADB pattern
that would appear in the real world with areas of reduced intensity,
unreduced intensity, and/or transition zone(s). The ADB pattern
generated will result in light directed toward all the test points in
Tables XVIII and XIX. The issue then becomes which fixed test point
falls within an area of reduced intensity, an area of unreduced
intensity, or a transition zone. NHTSA will have manufacturers identify
the portion(s) of the adaptive beam which are areas of reduced
intensity and which are areas of unreduced intensity. The areas of
reduced intensity must conform to the requirements for the test points
in Table XIX, and the area of unreduced intensity must conform to the
requirements for the test points in Table XVIII. Procedures for
determining the transition for lower beams (similar to how the cutoff
is determined, i.e., a scan) can be used to determine whether the
transition zone exceeds 1 degree. Appendix B provides an example of how
this would work in practice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \176\ This will include, as requested by Auto Innovators,
calibration of any sensors required for ADB system performance in
the laboratory prior to testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although NHTSA will rely on manufacturers to inform it on how to
produce the beam--to some extent determining the precise contours of
the beam--this will still adequately ensure both visibility and glare
prevention. The adaptive driving beam may only consist of areas of
reduced intensity conforming to Table XIX, areas of unreduced intensity
conforming to Table XVIII, and/or transition zones between such areas.
With respect to visibility, the beam must meet either the lower beam
minima or the upper beam minima (other than in a transition zone). The
driver will at a minimum always have the visibility provided by a
traditional lower beam regardless of the size of the dimmed portion, up
to and including a situation where the entire beam is an area of
reduced intensity (i.e., a lower beam).
    This approach should also help ensure adequate glare minimization.
First and most important, the system must be designed to conform to the
track test requirements, which evaluate the adaptive driving beam in
specific scenarios. Second, the laboratory testing requirements will
ensure that any areas of reduced intensity (up to and including a
pattern equivalent to a full lower beam) do not exceed the Table XIX
(lower beam) maxima, and any areas of unreduced intensity (up to and
including a pattern equivalent to a full upper beam), do not exceed the
Table XVIII (upper beam) maxima.\177\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \177\ We would expect manufacturers to design systems that avoid
glare even in scenarios not included in the track test. A system
that did not appropriately shade other vehicles, if not a non-
compliance, could potentially be a safety-related defect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These modifications should address the concerns raised by
commenters about which Table XVIII or XIX test points apply to various
portions of the adaptive beam. The agency agreed with many of Ford's
suggested revisions to the proposed regulatory text and is
incorporating many of the suggestions into the final rule. The agency
does not believe that this presents too many cases to test or for a
manufacturer to certify. While it is true that an ADB system will be
capable of generating many different adaptive driving beam patterns, it
is reasonable to require that each beam pattern comply with the
applicable test points. As with all the FMVSSs, these requirements
would not require vehicle manufacturers to test every single case, or
to test at all; they may certify their vehicles using other means.
Manufacturers must use due care to ensure, however, that the system is
designed to conform with the FMVSS requirements when tested by NHTSA
when we use the test procedure specified in the FMVSS.
    With respect to Zoox's comment regarding technological neutrality,
the agency intends the requirements to be technology-neutral, and
compatible with ADB systems that use bulbs and shutters, or LED arrays,
as well as any sensing technology. The requirements do not assume that
an adaptive beam is a static beam pattern. (As explained above, the ADB
pattern is dynamic; the laboratory testing will evaluate snapshots of
the dynamic ADB pattern while the dynamic aspects of ADB are tested
using the track test). Although the areas of reduced and unreduced
intensity will be subject to the longstanding lower and upper beam
laboratory photometric requirements, manufacturers will still have the
flexibility to design systems that provide a wide array of different
beam patterns to accommodate not only other cars on the road, but also
retroreflective signs among other things, and bicyclist and
pedestrians.
3. Requirements for Area of Reduced Intensity
    The NPRM applied the Table XIX lower beam photometric requirements,
both minima and maxima, to areas of reduced intensity. This differed
from SAE J3069, which specifies only the lower beam maxima in this
area.
Comments
    While Consumer Reports appeared to support requiring the lower beam
minima in this area, and Intertek supported requiring both the lower
beam maxima and minima, several commenters contended that if a
laboratory test was required for the area of reduced intensity, it
should specify the lower beam maxima (perhaps with some adjustments)
but not the lower beam minima. (Some commenters argued that the maxima
above 10

degrees should not apply. This is discussed in Section VIII.D.6.)
    Volkswagen, SAE, SL, GM, Koito, Mercedes, the Alliance, IIHS, AAA,
Zoox, and Valeo commented that specifying the lower beam minima would
limit the ability of ADB systems to reduce glare below current lower
beam levels. The Alliance further commented that it would restrict
hardware design, entail separate development programs for different
markets, and add significant cost. IIHS commented that requiring the
lower beam minima would effectively create a lower beam ``cutoff''
within the area of reduced intensity and mean that drivers of other
vehicles below the horizontal axis of the ADB headlamps could
experience excessive glare. IIHS and AAA stated that current lower
beams produce high levels of glare in common situations such as
cresting hills, driving on bumpy roads, or the higher headlamp mounting
height of pickups and many SUVs, and that ADB systems have the ability
to reduce glare below these levels if the lower beam minima are not
specified.
    Zoox suggested that market forces would ensure sufficient
visibility because, in order to avoid customer complaints of lack of
illumination, manufacturers are unlikely to provide ADB illumination
below the current lower beam minima. SL commented that the NPRM
disregarded the upper area of the cut-off line in this region.
Agency Response
    The final rule adopts the proposed requirements for an area of
reduced intensity, including that it meet the Table XIX minima. NHTSA
believes requiring an area of reduced intensity to meet the lower beam
minima is justified because the rule does not include any ``false
positive'' tests, i.e., tests to ensure that an ADB system does not
mistakenly dim the beam in the absence of any oncoming or preceding
vehicles. The sensitivity of the system is largely left to the
manufacturer to design, provided it responds to the stimulus test
fixtures in the track test and passes the photometry tests. If a
manufacturer produces a very sensitive system that shades for things
that are not actually other vehicles, a beam pattern that provides less
visibility than a current lower beam would be less safe than the
current standard. Requiring the lower beam minima be met in the area of
reduced intensity ensures that the driver will always have a minimum
amount of light providing adequate visibility.
    NHTSA does recognize that it would likely be possible to revise the
current lower-beam minima, as applied to ADB systems, to allow for
reductions in intensity below the currently-required limits without
risking safety. However, NHTSA does not have data, and no data were
supplied, that would allow it to establish the minimum size and roadway
scenario for an area of reduced intensity with less light below the
cutoff. Without such data, NHTSA does not have a clear basis on which
to revise or remove the current lower beam minima.
    As some commenters pointed out, requiring the dimmed portion of the
ADB beam to meet the lower-beam minima means that an ADB system might
not be able to reduce glare below current levels in some situations.
This would likely occur in situations, as AAA alludes to, on undulating
roadways and hills where the ADB vehicle crests a hill and there is an
oncoming or preceding vehicle in front of it, in which case the lower
beam minima might coincide with that vehicle. In light of the concerns
noted above, NHTSA believes that accepting some level of glare in such
situations--which is already present with current lower beams--is a
reasonable trade-off to ensure adequate visibility for the driver. This
will result in disharmonization with the ECE regulations, which permit
the area of reduced intensity to project intensities below the lower
beam minima. However, this is justified for the reasons given above.
Specifying the lower beam minima will result in a situation that is
unchanged from present, in terms of both safety, costs, and
disharmonization.
    NHTSA recognizes that market forces are more likely to ensure
adequate visibility than mitigate glare, thereby potentially obviating
the need to specify any minima. As noted in the NPRM, ``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.''
The agency believes such an argument has merit, and closely considered
the matter. As more experience is gained with these systems the agency
may consider modifying or eliminating this requirement. For now,
however, given the importance of visibility, the agency will err on the
side of caution and apply the lower beam minima to the dimmed portion
of the beam.
    Potential issues of glare due to headlamp mounting height on
pickups and SUVs can be addressed with the on-vehicle aim of the
headlamps, much as it is currently addressed.\178\ Manufacturers might
also be able to further minimize glare if they use on-vehicle dynamic
aiming. In the past, NHTSA has explained that for headlamp systems
capable of dynamically re-aiming the headlamps (for example, based on
the steering angle), the laboratory photometry requirements ``must be
met in the nominal position of the lower beam headlamp (i.e.,
considering the location of the axis of reference to coincide with the
longitudinal axis of the vehicle).'' \179\ This means, for example,
that an ADB system that dynamically re-aimed the headlamps downward
when cresting a hill with an oncoming vehicle (which, in line with
AAA's comments, is the prime concern motivating the request to not
apply the lower beam minima) could effectively shift down the dimmed
area so as not to glare the oncoming vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \178\ See SAE J599 Lighting Inspection Code.
    \179\ Letter from NHTSA to Kiminori Hyodo, Koito Manufacturing
Co., Ltd. (Feb. 10, 2006). See also 68 FR 7101 (Feb. 12, 2003)
(discussing application of laboratory photometry requirements to
adaptive frontal-lighting systems).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the final rule does not disregard the cut-off as suggested
by SL, the final rule modified the right curve scenarios to consider
the fact that the Table XIX (lower beam) photometry requirements permit
greater illuminance on the right side than on the left side.
4. Requirements for Area of Unreduced Intensity
    The NPRM applied the current Table XVIII upper beam photometric
requirements (both the minima and the maxima) to the area of unreduced
intensity. This differed from SAE J3069, which specifies the lower beam
minima and does not specify any maxima.
Comments
    Several commenters (GM, SL, ALNA, Koito, SAE, TSE, Auto Innovators,
and Texas Instruments) asserted that NHTSA should specify the lower
beam minima instead of the upper beam minima. SAE commented that SAE
J3069 intentionally replaced the upper beam minima with lower beam
minima to assure a performance comparable to the wider lower beam
versus the narrower upper beam. SAE also stated that specifying the
lower beam minima would harmonize with ADB systems already in use in
other regions. Texas Instruments commented that while it might be
appropriate to require mechanical shutter and low-resolution ADB
systems to meet the lower beam minima, the proposal would negatively
impact many of the potential safety

improvements enabled by high-resolution ABD systems, such as luminous
intensity optimization on retroreflective street signs and
differentially illuminating the face and body of a pedestrian. TSEI
similarly commented that specifying the lower beam minima would provide
a greater degree of design freedom, and also claimed that requiring the
system to meet the upper beam minima in the area of unreduced intensity
(in combination with the requirements for the area of reduced
intensity) would create potentially insurmountable technical challenges
because ADB systems require a transition zone between the area of
reduced intensity and the area of unreduced intensity.
    A few commenters (SAE, GM, and Koito) supported the proposal to
specify the existing upper beam maxima in the area of unreduced
intensity.\180\ However, several commenters urged NHTSA to either not
specify any maxima or, alternatively, to adopt the higher maximum
allowed by the ECE. These commenters contended that adopting the higher
maximum would lead to greater safety benefits than the proposed
specification. Global commented that there are no safety reasons to
specify the upper beam maxima in the absence of other road users. The
Alliance commented that the safety benefits of ADB would be limited by
not allowing ADB systems to exceed the current upper beam maxima, and
recommended that, if NHTSA decides to specify a maximum, it should
harmonize with the ECE maximum of 430,000 cd (215,000 per headlamp). It
contended that, while glare is a concern, it is difficult to determine
glare as a direct cause to crashes or fatalities, referring to past
agency reports finding that evidence linking headlamp glare and crash
risk is difficult to obtain, and noting that the percentage of
accidents that could be at least partly related to headlamp glare is no
more than 1%. Notwithstanding the many consumer complaints regarding
glare noted by the agency, the Alliance stated that it was not aware of
any agency action to investigate issues related to headlamp glare. On
the other hand, the Alliance pointed out that in 2012, 70% of
pedestrian fatalities occurred at night, and by 2016 this had increased
to 75%. The Alliance also referred to the NPRM discussion that
referenced a study from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
finding that pedestrian deaths in dark conditions increased 56% from
2009 to 2016. Volkswagen supported the Alliance's comments and cited
studies it said showed headlamp intensities exceeding the current FMVSS
No. 108 upper beam maximum (last updated in 1978) would significantly
increase visibility and therefore safety. Mercedes also encouraged
NHTSA to adopt the ECE maximum because it could increase forward
visibility by 40% compared to the FMVSS No. 108 maximum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \180\ SAE appears to suggest this approach if NHTSA does not
adopt a transition zone. As we discuss in Section VIII.D.5, the
final rule adopts a transition zone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    IIHS commented that, for properly-functioning ADB systems, an upper
beam maximum was either not necessary or that the higher ECE maximum
should apply. IIHS stated that the proposal would prevent ADB systems
from realizing their full visibility-enhancing potential. They stated
that if NHTSA is concerned that there are scenarios where ADB systems
may not properly detect and shadow other vehicles, it would be
preferable to include these in the set of dynamic tests rather than
limit ADB output to the same level as manually-controlled upper beams.
AAA commented that European specifications require camera recognition
and reaction at distances of 400 meters (1,312 feet), and that if ADB
systems are effective at this distance, the intensity limits could be
increased to the ECE maximum. It suggested that additional criteria for
raising the upper beam maximum should include proven ability to quickly
adapt to changes in vehicle elevation, as result from driving on
undulating roadways and hills.
Agency Response
    The final rule follows the NPRM and specifies the existing upper
beam minima, not the lower beam minima. Because ADB systems can detect
other vehicles, the areas of the beam directed where other vehicles are
not present should be an upper beam. Because the track test evaluates
the ability of the ADB system to appropriately recognize and shade
other vehicles, requiring the upper beam minima should not result in
glare to other motorists.
    However, NHTSA agrees with the comments about the possible safety-
enhancing effects of allowing manufacturers to shade areas of the
roadway in addition to those occupied by other vehicles (e.g.,
retroreflective signs). The final rule therefore gives manufacturers
the flexibility to design an ADB system that provides an area of
reduced intensity to any area of the roadway, not just areas occupied
by other vehicles (see Section VIII.D.2). This essentially gives
manufacturers the flexibility to meet the lower beam minima instead of
the upper beam minima for any part of the roadway it chooses, and more
closely harmonizes with SAE J3069. Because we have modified the
proposal to allow manufacturers the flexibility to provide an area of
reduced intensity on parts of the roadway that are not occupied by
other vehicles, they will have the ability to innovate and optimize
luminous intensity for objects such as retroreflective signs and other
roadway users. We also believe this will, in conjunction with the
transition zone allowance, address the transition zone issue (see
Section VIII.D.5). With respect to SAE's comment about the
preferability of a wider lower beam, nothing in the final rule prevents
this wider beam pattern in an area of unreduced intensity. The lower
beam pattern extends to test points at 20L and 20R, whereas the upper
beam test points only extend to 12L and 12R.
    The final rule follows the NPRM in specifying the existing Table
XVIII upper beam maximum for the area of unreduced intensity. NHTSA has
decided not to adopt the higher ECE upper beam maximum. Table XVIII
specifies a maximum at H-V of 75,000 cd per headlamp, or 150,000 cd for
a headlighting system. The purpose of this maximum is to control glare
that would occur if the upper beam is improperly activated (i.e., when
other vehicles are within 500 ft) \181\ and to control glare to
vehicles that are more than 500 ft away, which is the distance outside
of which most States permit upper beam use.\182\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \181\ 43 FR 32416, 32417 (July 27, 1978) (final rule increasing
upper beam headlamp intensity to 75,000 cd).
    \182\ 61 FR 54981, 54982 (Oct. 23, 1996) (denial of rulemaking
petition to increase the upper beam maximum intensity to 140,000
cd). See also NPRM, p. 51779 n.75. Table XVIII also specifies an
upper beam maximum at 4D-V. This regulates foreground light that
affects a driver's ability to see objects far down the road. High
levels of foreground illumination tend to draw a driver's attention
away from the distant road scene to the foreground because the
foreground light appears brighter than the road scene further away.
In addition, high foreground intensities reduce the ability to see
dimly illuminated objects further down the road. See 62 FR 31008,
31010 (June 6, 1997) (denial of petition for reconsideration). The
magnitude of this maximum is based on the H-V maximum. Because we
are not adjusting the H-V maximum we do not need to consider the 4D-
V maximum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While NHTSA agrees with the commenters that brighter upper beams
would lead to safety benefits in the form of increased visibility in
the absence of other road users, NHTSA remains concerned about
potential glare from brighter upper beams in situations in which an ADB
system might not recognize and shade other vehicles. The final rule
includes a track test that evaluates an ADB system's ability to
recognize and shade other vehicles in a

variety of scenarios. The NPRM proposed an even greater variety of
scenarios that the agency could test, but many commenters argued that
the proposed testing was onerous and impracticable. Pursuant to these
comments, the final rule significantly streamlines the scenarios that
NHTSA may test. While the final rule includes a sufficient variety of
track test scenarios to reasonably ensure that an ADB system does not
glare other motorists, the track test does not include--nor could NHTSA
feasibly test--every scenario that an ADB system might encounter in the
real world. Maintaining the current upper beam maximum as a backstop to
the dynamic tests will help assure that if an ADB system fails to
properly detect and dim lighting towards another vehicle (whether due
to topography, sudden appearance, or any other situation that leads the
ADB system to fail to recognize and shade another vehicle), the system
will not produce glare beyond what a current FMVSS 108-compliant upper
beam would.
    If the final rule were to adopt the higher ECE maximum, an
expansion of the track test scenarios might be warranted to ensure that
these brighter beam patterns do not glare other motorists. There are at
least two ways the agency might consider expanding the track test
scenarios. First, testing the ADB system for glare beyond the 220 m
proposed and included in this final rule. As explained in the NPRM,
testing out to 220 m is appropriate because at this distance, the glare
from an upper beam at the current implied system maximum of 150,000 cd
would be 3.1 lux, which is equivalent to the glare cutoff implied by
many State upper beam-use laws.\183\ Adopting the ECE system maximum of
430,000 cd could justify testing out to 372 m (the distance at which
430,000 cd equals 3.1 lx.). This is consistent with AAA's suggestion
that the upper beam maximum could be increased if NHTSA dynamically
tested headlamp illuminance at ranges of up to 400 meters. Second,
NHTSA might consider additional test scenarios related to other
concerns that might be associated with brighter beam patterns. For
example, as AAA suggested, expanding the track test scenarios might be
appropriate to ensure that the brighter upper beam does not glare other
road users, for example, by testing the ability of the system to
quickly adapt to changes in vehicle elevation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \183\ See NPRM n. 75 and accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA, however, is not currently prepared to expand the track test
scenarios in this way. In order to extend the distances at which we
evaluate glare in the track test, the agency would likely want to
consider, among other things, the appropriate glare limits at those
distances and whether the existing test procedures would need to be
modified to accommodate greater testing distances (for example, the
availability of test tracks with those distances).\184\ Further
research might also include the development of additional test
scenarios appropriate for higher-intensity headlamps.\185\ In short,
NHTSA is not currently prepared to make any further changes to the
proposal related to a brighter upper beam. The goal of this rulemaking
is to extend the existing photometry requirements to enable the safe
introduction of ADB systems, and to expeditiously finalize this rule to
enable deployment of ADB systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \184\ The research on which the track test requirements are
based developed those requirements and test procedures only for
testing glare--commensurate with the current FMVSS No. 108-compliant
upper beams--out to 220 m, not at the greater distances that would
be necessary with ECE-approved upper beams.
    \185\ NHTSA's earlier research did include some testing related
to ADB performance on hills. However, such scenarios were not
proposed because of relatively poor ADB system performance in those
trials. See 2105 ADB Test Report at p. 102.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because NHTSA is not prepared to extend the test requirements to
ensure that ADB systems with a higher maximum intensity would operate
safely, increasing the photometric maximum, without also adding such
additional test requirements, would result in a situation where glare
past 220 m was not regulated. Some commenters stated that there is
insufficient data to conclude that the disbenefits from glare at these
distances outweigh the benefits from greater visibility and pointed to
the increase in pedestrian fatalities. NHTSA agrees that evidence
linking headlamp glare and crash risk is difficult to obtain, that
there are benefits to increased visibility, and that there has been an
increase in pedestrian fatalities. However, we note that NHTSA has
previously declined to increase the upper beam maximum beyond 150,000
cd to the ECE maximum because of a lack of data on whether any
improvements would outweigh any associated disbenefits associated with
potential increases in glare.\186\ We are not aware of any compelling
new research on the issue, and the comments did not identify any such
research. Accordingly, we have no reason to revise our previous
conclusions that the current upper beam maximum appropriately balances
the benefits of visibility and the disbenefits of glare. In short,
NHTSA is presently unable to conclude that more than doubling the
maximum permitted intensity from 75,000 cd to 215,000 cd (per headlamp)
would provide a significant enough advantage to warrant risking the
potential negative externalities of glare.\187\ Nevertheless, ADB
systems will still provide increased visibility outside of the area of
reduced intensity, as well as increase upper beam use, which will help
prevent crashes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \186\ Most recently, in 2009 NHTSA denied a petition for
rulemaking from The Groupe de Travail ``Bruxelles 1952'' and SAE to
amend FMVSS No. 108 to, among other things, increase the upper beam
maximum to 140,000 cd. 74 FR 42639 (Aug. 24, 2009). NHTSA declined
to increase the maximum because of a lack of data to allay the
concern that the benefits due to increased visibility might be
outweighed by the disbenefits from increased glare. Similarly, when
NHTSA increased the (implied) system-level upper beam maximum from
75,000 to 150,000 in 1978, it referred to contemporaneous research
``demonstrating that an increase in photometrics to a maximum of
150,000 cp will enhance seeing ability without any significant
increase in glare form properly aimed headlights, but that
photometric output exceeding 150,000 cp results in only a marginal
increase in visibility with an increase in glare.'' 43 FR 32416
(July 27, 1978). See also 61 FR 54981 (Oct. 23, 1996) (denial of
rulemaking petition to increase upper beam system-level maximum to
140,000 cd) (citing the 1978 rulemaking notice and stating that
``the agency has done no similar research work on upper beam
headlamps since then nor is it aware of other safety research in
this area'').
    \187\ While we agree with the Alliance that adopting the ECE
maximum would enhance harmonization, we still believe that there is
a headlamp harmonization window. See 61 FR 54981.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Transition Zone
    The NPRM applied the Table XIX lower beam photometric requirements
to areas of reduced intensity and the Table XVIII upper beam
photometric requirements to areas of unreduced intensity. The NPRM did
not provide for a transition zone between areas of reduced and
unreduced intensity.
Comments
    Many commenters (SAE, ALNA, the Alliance, Global, Valeo, Honda, SL,
Stanley, Koito, Mercedes, Volkswagen, Toyota, and TSEI) pointed out
that the proposed photometric requirements could not be met without
allowing for a transition zone between the areas of reduced and
unreduced luminous intensity. Mercedes, Volkswagen, Toyota, Auto
Innovators, and TSEI specifically agreed with SAE's comments on this
issue.
    SAE commented that a transition zone can only be minimized, not
eliminated, and because the transition between reduced and unreduced
areas does not comply with either upper or lower beam photometry it
must be eliminated in the photometric testing. Without a transition
zone, an ADB system would

be expected to modify its illumination from very low light levels to
above 40,000 cd over a zero angle, which is physically impossible. SAE
gave an example of an area of reduced intensity around the upper beam
minimum at 1U, 3L, with the edge of the area of reduced intensity to
the left of 3L, and the area of unreduced intensity at 3L. SAE pointed
out that in this example, the upper beam minimum of 5,000 cd and lower
beam maximum of 700 cd (at 1.5 U, 1.5 L to L) are impossible to
coincidentally satisfy, even with the 0.25 degree re-aim allowance in
FMVSS No. 108, because the transition from the unreduced intensity to
the reduced intensity is much larger than 0.25 degrees. To illustrate
this, SAE provided a horizontal scan through an ADB headlamp beam
pattern showing a transition zone of greater than 1 degree for the
minimum at (1U, 3L) to be met. SAE noted that similar issues will occur
in other parts of the beam pattern. Toyota similarly commented that the
absence of a transition zone leads to a distinctive vertical line
between the area of reduced intensity and the area of unreduced
intensity. It has been Toyota's experience that a sharp cutoff
distracts drivers and leads to customer complaints that the sharp
cutoff reduces visibility over bumps, dips, and twisty roads. Toyota
also noted that ADB systems it sells in other markets include a
transition zone and it has received positive consumer feedback.
    There were a variety of comments related to how the agency might
account for a transition zone in the final rule. SAE suggested that the
transition zone be ``disregarded.'' SAE recommended several different
alternative modifications to the proposal if final rule were not to
disregard the transition zone. These included specifying only the lower
beam maximum values in the area of reduced intensity, and not minimum
values; excluding the boundaries of 10U to 90U from the lower beam
maxima requirements; specifying the lower beam minima instead of the
upper beam minima in the area of unreduced intensity; and modifying the
regulatory text by adding ``fully'' before the text describing the area
of reduced intensity. SAE also recommended reorganizing the regulatory
text of S<IP_ADDRESS>.6-.7.\188\ Some of SAE's suggestions were echoed by
other commenters. Global suggested that the final rule should allow for
a mid-beam independent of the lower or upper beam. SL suggested that
the manufacturer be permitted to set the boundary area or that the
final rule should specify light intensity criteria for the transition
zone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \188\ SAE stated that these recommendations are also intended to
address the veiling glare issue. See Section VIII.D.6, Veiling
Glare.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Agency Response
    NHTSA agrees with commenters that the final rule should allow for a
transition zone between areas of reduced and unreduced intensity. The
final rule allows for a 1-degree transition zone between an area of
reduced intensity and an area of unreduced intensity, within which the
Table XVIII and XIX requirements will not apply, except that the
maximum at H-V in Table XVIII as specified in Table II for the specific
headlamp unit and aiming method may not be exceeded at any point in a
transition zone. Manufacturers essentially will be free to determine
the areas of reduced and unreduced intensity and, therefore, the
boundaries of the transition zone. In addition, the vehicle will still
need to pass the track test.
    In considering how to account for a transition zone NHTSA consulted
photometric requirements specified in other technical standards and
comparable foreign regulations. Because SAE J3069 does not explicitly
define or identify a transition zone,\189\ the agency researched
references to aiming tolerances in other SAE-recommended practices for
headlamps. J2838 Full Adaptive Forward Lighting Systems specifies
aiming procedures for adaptive lighting systems. Section 6.5 includes
provisions for adjusting vertical and horizontal aim, including
expected aiming tolerances, and provides for a +/- 0.5 degree (or 1
full degree) vertical tolerance to transition between the lower beam
zones and the upper beam zones. The J2838 procedures, though not
specifically for a transition zone, suggest that a similar 1 degree
transition between areas of reduced and unreduced intensity in an
adaptive driving beam pattern would be appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \189\ SAE J3069 MAR2021 added a definition for the transition
zone (``The area in the ADB where the unreduced intensity
transitions to the non-glare zone''). It states that the prior
version assumed the existence of a transition zone and that this
definition was added for clarity. The transition zone allowed in
this final rule is similar in concept, but is more specific in order
to provide a more objective test procedure for the purposes of
compliance testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This is consistent with the ECE requirements for adaptive front
lighting systems. NHTSA could not find reference to a direct
specification of a transition zone in either ECE R.48 or R.123. Section
<IP_ADDRESS> of R.48 does, however, specify a +/- 0.5 degree tolerance for
the cutoff of a lower beam. Similarly, Section 6.3.5 of R.123 specifies
a +/- 0.5 degree vertical and +/- 1 degree horizontal tolerance for
aiming of systems prior to testing to ensure photometric requirements
are met for ADB systems. Annex 8 of R.123 cites the same cutoff and
aiming provisions cited in SAE J2838 mentioned above.
    A 1 degree transition should resolve the concerns of and be
consistent with the information presented by the commenters. SAE raised
the example of an adaptive driving beam pattern with an area of reduced
intensity with vertical cutoffs around 3L and 6L.\190\ As SAE pointed
out, there is an upper beam minimum of 5,000 cd at 1U 3L and a lower
beam maximum of 700 cd from 1U-1.5 L to L. As SAE also correctly
pointed out, it would impossible for an adaptive driving beam with an
area of reduced intensity with a vertical cutoff around 3L to
simultaneously satisfy both the upper beam minimum and the lower beam
maximum without a transition zone. A 1 degree transition zone resolves
this issue and gives the system room to gradually modify the intensity.
The data presented by SAE \191\ shows that a real-world ADB system
could comply with the final requirements: The upper beam minimum at 1U
3L would fall within the transition zone, and the area of reduced
intensity would comply with the lower beam maximum. SAE's example also
indicates that 1 degree is sufficient for a cutoff between an area of
unreduced intensity and an area of reduced intensity because it shows
that it takes the beam less than 1 degree to transition from
intensities characteristic of an upper beam (e.g., 5,000 cd) to
intensities characteristic of a lower beam (e.g., 700 cd). In addition
to the transition zone, the existing provision (in S<IP_ADDRESS>) for a
0.25 degree re-aim in any direction at any test point would also apply.
NHTSA believes that this specification for a transition zone, together
with allowing manufacturers the flexibility to project an area of
reduced intensity on areas of the roadway other than oncoming and
preceding vehicles, also resolves the other concerns raised by the
commenters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \190\ SAE comment (NHTSA-2018-0090-0167), p. 6 (Fig. 2).
    \191\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Veiling Glare
    The NPRM extended the Table XIX lower beam photometric requirements
to areas of reduced intensity. These include a maximum of 125 cd in the
region of 10U to 90U and 90L to 90R.

The purpose of these test points controlling veiling glare is to limit
back-scatter in environmental conditions such as fog, mist, and snow.
Comments
    Some commenters opposed applying the veiling glare limits to the
area of reduced intensity. ALNA commented that these maxima are not
necessary because the increased safety provided by an ADB system
justifies less strict self-glare (back-scatter) requirements. SAE
commented that if the final rule did not include a transition zone, the
area from 10U to 90 U should be excluded from photometric testing
because light from areas of unreduced intensity can fall into the area
of reduced intensity, exceeding the veiling glare requirement in the
10U to 90U zone. GM commented similarly.
Agency Response
    The concerns the commenters expressed about the veiling glare
limits are addressed by two of the modifications to the proposal.
First, as explained in the preceding section, in response to the
comments the final rule added a transition zone between areas of
reduced and unreduced intensity. Second, the final rule modifies the
proposal to give manufacturers the flexibility, in designing the
adaptive beam, to illuminate portions of the roadway other than those
occupied by oncoming or preceding vehicles with either an area of
reduced intensity or area of unreduced intensity. An adaptive beam may
therefore provide an area of unreduced intensity that covers the
entirety of the 10U to 90U region, for which the Table XVIII upper beam
requirements do not contain any test points. NHTSA believes that these
modifications resolve the commenters' concerns about veiling glare
exceedances.\192\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \192\ SAE J3069 MAR2021 excludes the boundaries of 10U to 90U
and 90L to 90R from the requirement in that practice that the non-
glare zone (area of reduced intensity) meet the lower beam maximum
values specified in SAE J1383. The modifications to the proposal are
consistent with this.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Minimum Activation Speed

    The NPRM proposed that an ADB system must produce a lower beam
below 25 mph, explaining that since the primary purpose of ADB is to
provide additional light at relatively higher speeds, it may be likely
that the potential disbenefits from glare outweigh the potential
benefits from additional illumination at lower speeds.
Comments
    One commenter, Consumer Reports, supported requiring the lower beam
as a default any time the vehicle is traveling at a speed below 25 mph
in order to limit glare in circumstances where upper beams are not
intended for use.
    Other commenters, however, disagreed with the proposal. Toyota,
Honda, and Ford stated that there should be no speed restriction on ADB
activation. SAE, Koito, Valeo, Zoox, and Volkswagen asserted that ADB
operation should not be restricted to 25 mph and above. Texas
Instruments and Harley Davidson commented that ADB activation below 25
mph should be allowed in certain circumstances. The commenters made a
variety of arguments in support of these positions.
    Some commenters suggested that the benefits of allowing ADB at
lower speeds outweighed any potential glare disbenefits. SAE stated
that the potential disbenefits from glare would be mitigated as ADB
systems become more advanced and able to recognize and respond
appropriately in low speed-environments. Honda commented that there is
a safety need for visibility at lower speeds and calculated that, based
on 2011 to 2016 GES data for pedestrian accidents, approximately 40% of
nighttime accidents occur when the vehicle speed is estimated to be
under 25 mph (when the vehicle speed can be estimated). Toyota
commented that there are not any data that show a safety need to
regulate the activation speed.
    SAE commented that there is no single driving speed where the
benefits of ADB disappear to the point where automatic deactivation
should be required. They stated that changes in the driving environment
are not necessarily correlated with vehicle speed and it is the changes
in driving environment where the driver most benefits from an adaptive
driving beam. (Honda had a similar comment.) SAE asserted that sudden
deprivation of light based only on a specific speed threshold presents
potential safety risks and is contrary to the purpose of ADB. Toyota
stated that there was customer demand for ADB to be operable in urban
areas and in residential areas where visibility can be extremely low
and the speed limit is typically 25 mph, and believed it can provide
safety benefits, especially because there is a higher probability for
drivers to interact with pedestrians or cyclists in these areas. Honda
commented that ADB should provide active forward illumination under
certain environmental lighting conditions to address safety needs.
    Valeo, Toyota, and Ford suggested that there should be no speed
limitation because FMVSS No. 108 contains no such speed restriction for
semiautomatic beam switching devices. SAE, Valeo, and Ford similarly
stated that FMVSS No. 108 does not contain a speed threshold for manual
switching between lower and upper beams. SAE commented that a
deactivation threshold speed of 25 mph may also encourage drivers to
exceed this speed where it is the posted limit or when road conditions
warrant lower speeds in order to maintain activation of the adaptive
driving beam. SAE also commented that if drivers want to override ADB
operation they can do so manually.
    Zoox recommended that the agency consider reducing the minimum
speed to 20 mph so ADB use would be available for lower-speed city use,
especially to see pedestrians and cyclists on the roadway shoulder.
Texas Instruments commented that high-resolution ADB systems can change
this perceived disbenefit/benefit relationship, and that NHTSA should
exempt high-resolution systems to allow innovative uses of hazard
marking applications in urban settings.
    Harley Davidson commented that activation of the adaptive beam
below 25 mph should be allowed on motorcycles because they lean during
cornering and use the upper beam for more than just additional light
down the road. They claim that the beam pattern projected from a
leaning motorcycle differs significantly from the beam pattern of a
four-wheel vehicle, and that this is particularly pronounced during
low-speed maneuvering where the vehicle dynamics required to maneuver
through a 90-degree intersection often results in a more severe lean of
the vehicle than required during higher speed turns with a larger turn
radius. They claimed that when traffic conditions allow, motorcycle
riders use the upper beam during these low-speed maneuvers to take
advantage of the enhanced illumination in the direction the rider is
looking. Harley Davidson further contended that motorcycle cornering
lighting systems have been developed to enhance the lower beam
illumination during vehicle leaning, and that ADB systems are
potentially an enhancement to current systems, which are can operate at
all speeds.
Agency Response
    After considering the comments, NHTSA has decided to retain a
minimum activation speed, but has

lowered it to 20 mph to give greater flexibility to manufacturers
wishing to provide a hysteresis in the system design. (Hysteresis is
the difference in the activation or deactivation speed of the system
based on whether the vehicle is increasing or decreasing speed.)
    NHTSA believes that lower beams generally provide adequate
visibility at speeds below 25 mph, given typical driver reaction time
and vehicle stopping distances. This is consistent with the information
that Toyota provided in its petition for rulemaking, which indicated
that lower beams provide sufficient illumination up to about 30 mph (or
about 160 ft).\193\ This is also consistent with many of the ADB
systems NHTSA tested, which had activation speeds between 20 mph and 40
mph and deactivation speeds from 15 mph to 25 mph.\194\ A more recent
model NHTSA tested (a MY 2018 Lexus NX built for the European market)
had three ADB modes, and the lowest activation speed was 9 mph (with a
deactivation speed of 7.5 mph).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \193\ Toyota rulemaking petition, Appendix C. Consumer Reports,
in its comment, estimated a longer lower beam seeing distance (300
ft) but still supported the proposed minimum activation speed.
    \194\ 2015 ADB Test Report, p. 91.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A 20 mph activation speed is also supported by research on glare
and driving performance. In 2008 NHTSA published a summary of this
research and found that in areas with high ambient light levels such as
city downtown areas, lower-beam headlamps provide sufficient visibility
because driving speeds are lower in urban areas (i.e., under 30-40 mph)
and because ambient light levels (from street lighting or other
sources) are usually higher; the study also noted that lower beam
intensities might even be able to be reduced in these areas to reduce
glare to other drivers without strongly affecting forward
visibility.\195\ This is also consistent with NHTSA's data on nighttime
crashes involving pedestrians and cyclists.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \195\ DOT HS 811 043 (2008) at I-9 (citing and discussing
research).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Even if increased illumination at speeds under 20 mph were to
result in incremental benefits,\196\ omitting a minimum activation
speed could require expanding the dynamic track test scenarios to
evaluate ADB performance in the types of environments (e.g., urban) and
situations (e.g., intersections) associated with these lower speeds.
This is particularly important because the early ADB systems tested
were not able to pass low-speed scenarios such as intersection
scenarios.\197\ While it is likely true that the capabilities of ADB
systems have advanced since then--including but not limited to the
development of high-resolution systems--that does not obviate the need
for testing. However, the agency has not yet proposed or fully
developed the appropriate test scenarios to evaluate ADB performance in
these types of environments and speeds. To do so, NHTSA would have to
consider a number of factors, such as the relevant scenarios for
testing. Because such test scenarios have yet to be developed, the
agency is currently unable to test whether ADB systems would create
glare in those situations. Development of such test scenarios would
take additional time and resources. In the interests of facilitating
ADB deployment--especially in situations (i.e., at speeds over 20 mph)
at which it will provide the most benefit--NHTSA believes it is
expedient to finalize a rule with a minimum activation speed instead of
developing such additional test scenarios.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \196\ See id., p. I-9 (``Modifications to low beam patterns have
been suggested and demonstrated to provide incremental benefits in
terms of visibility, but light levels comparable to those from
typical high beam headlamps appear to be desirable in terms of
forward lighting, particularly for faster driving speeds. Yet these
same light levels would almost certainly be undesirable by drivers
facing them in nighttime driving situations.'').
    \197\ See 2015 ADB Test Report, p. 172 (``All of the ADB systems
produced considerably more glare in intersection scenarios than was
seen with lower beam mode.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because NHTSA is not extending the testing scenarios to include
typical low speed/urban environment scenarios, allowing ADB activation
at these lower speeds would allow glare in these situations to be
essentially unregulated. A few commenters suggested that the likely
benefits from enhanced visibility in these situations outweighed the
potential disbenefits from glare, or that ADB systems would be able to
mitigate any potential disbenefits from glare at lower speeds. However,
in light of the studies indicating that lower beams generally provide
adequate visibility at speeds under 25 mph and NHTSA's testing showing
that ADB systems may not yet reliably adapt to lower-speed scenarios,
the agency is not yet confident that any possible incremental benefits
to increased illumination (above present lower beam levels) below 20
mph would be likely to offset the possible disbenefits due to
glare.\198\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \198\ While there are no speed limitations in the current
requirements for semiautomatic beam switching devices (which date to
the 1960s), we believe that a minimum speed is justified for ADB
systems for the reasons given above. Such a requirement may or may
not also be appropriate for conventional semiautomatic beam
switching devices, but such a requirement is out of the scope of
this rulemaking, which is focused on ADB systems. However, we also
note that ADB systems differ from conventional semiautomatic beam
switching devices because ADB systems provide more illumination than
a lower beam. We similarly note that the fact that there are no
current speed limitations on manual upper beam use is not relevant,
because ADB is automatic, not manual.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If a driver desires additional illumination at speeds under 20 mph,
the driver can manually switch to the upper beam mode. This balances
the concerns of glare and visibility better than (as suggested in the
comments) allowing activation of the adaptive beam below 20 mph and
relying on the driver to manually override the ADB and activate the
lower beam if that would be more appropriate (and the ADB system does
not automatically switch). This is both because such situations will be
relatively infrequent and because glare is a negative externality
\199\--that is, the driver has more incentive to switch to upper beam
mode to obtain more visibility in the relatively rare situations in
which it is needed at lower speeds than to override the adaptive beam
and switch to lower beam mode to avoid glaring others. Commenters did
not provide data supporting their contention that specifying a minimum
activation speed will encourage drivers to exceed the minimum
activation speed in order to maintain ADB operation; drivers that
recognize they lack adequate visibility can switch to upper beam mode.
The agency expects this to be more likely than a driver increasing
speed when they feel that the headlamps are not providing enough
visibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \199\ A negative externality occurs when one party's actions
impose uncompensated costs on another party. Glare is a negative
externality because motorists exposed to glare are uncompensated for
the disability or discomfort they experience.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA has decided not to allow a lower activation speed for
motorcycles. Riders are provided a manual switch that activates the
upper beam in situations where the rider recognizes the need for
additional lighting. As such, the factors to consider for motorcycles
are the same as those for other motor vehicles discussed above.

F. Operator Controls, Indicators, Malfunction Detection, and Operating
Instructions

    The NPRM included a variety of system requirements for ADB systems
that were either extensions of existing requirements for semiautomatic
beam switching devices or new requirements that would apply only to ADB
systems. These included requirements for controls, telltales, and
malfunction detection. Manufacturers would be free to devise
supplemental telltales as long

as they did not impair the required elements.
    The NPRM proposed extending existing semiautomatic beam switching
device requirements for manual override, fail-safe operation,\200\ and
an automatic referred dimming indicator to apply both to conventional
semiautomatic beam switching devices (classified in the proposed
regulatory text as ``Option 1'' systems) and adaptive driving beam
systems (to as ``Option 2'' systems). With respect to the manual
override requirements, the proposal extended the current requirement
that a semiautomatic beam switching device include a convenient means
for the driver to switch beams. With respect to the automatic dimming
indicator requirement, the proposal followed the approach taken in SAE
J3069.\201\ The NPRM proposed requiring a telltale informing the driver
when the ADB system is activated.\202\ The agency tentatively decided
against following the approach of ECE Regulation 48, which requires the
upper beam telltale be used to indicate ADB activation, because the
NPRM did not classify the adaptive driving beam as an upper beam. The
NPRM also did not propose requiring a telltale indicating an enabled
ADB system is projecting an adaptive driving beam because providing the
driver with a visual indication of the type of beam an ADB system is
providing is not necessary for safe driving and could distract the
driver. For similar reasons, the NPRM also proposed 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \200\ The regulatory text in FMVSS No. 108 has long used the
unhyphenated ``fail safe.'' To maintain continuity, this final rule
maintains that spelling in the regulatory text.
    \201\ SAE J3069 S6.8 and discussion at p. 2.
    \202\ We note that the automatic dimming indicator (indicating
that the semiautomatic beam switching device is controlling the
headlamps automatically) is different than the upper beam indicator
(indicating that the upper beams are activated).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA also proposed adopting additional requirements with no
analogs in the current semiautomatic beam switching device
requirements. The NPRM proposed that the ADB system must be capable of
detecting system malfunctions (including but not limited to sensor
obstruction); notify the driver of a fault or malfunction; and disable
the system until the fault is corrected. Most of these are also
specified in SAE J3069.
    NHTSA also identified and sought comment on a requirement in Table
I-a that might affect design choices for the headlamp and/or ADB
controls. This requirement states 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 could mean that the headlamp and ADB controls could not be
designed so the ADB system is activated when the beam selector switch
is in the lower beam position, because the adaptive driving beam might
utilize upper beam light sources, which would violate Table I-a because
upper beam light sources would be activated when the beam selector
switch is in the lower beam position.
Comments
    NHTSA received several comments on the manual override
requirements. The United Drive-In Theatre Owners Association and a
number of drive-in theatre owner/operators asked that ADB systems be
required to provide manual deactivation. Many of these commenters
expressed concern that ADB systems could interfere with the enjoyment
of drive-in movies. Consumer Reports also recommended applying the
manual override requirement to ADB systems. One commenter (Victor Hunt)
suggested requiring a warning to the driver when the ADB system has
been manually overridden. Ford and Zoox suggested modifying the manual
override regulatory text. Both commenters noted that under the current
standard, when only lower beams and upper beams are provided, switching
to ``the opposite beam'' is clear since there are only two options.
However, when ADB is additionally provided it becomes less clear,
because ADB essentially introduces a third beam. To address this, Ford
recommended deleting the reference to the ``opposite'' beam in
S<IP_ADDRESS>. Zoox recommended that this requirement apply only to systems
certified to S<IP_ADDRESS>.The proposed fail-safe requirements (which
mirrored the current regulatory text) required simply that 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. Consumer Reports
supported applying the existing requirements to ADB systems. Global and
Subaru recommended that the system should fail-safe to the upper beam
mode, while Zoox suggested requiring the system to default to a lower
beam until the fault is corrected.
    Global and AAA commented on the wiring harness requirement. Global
stated that this might adversely affect design choices because it could
mean that the ADB system may not be activated when the beam selector
switch is in the lower beam position. To address this, Global
recommended adding an exception for ADB systems to Table I-a. Global
alternatively recommended that there could be three operational modes
that a driver could choose: Lower beam, upper beam, and adaptive
driving beam. AAA recommended amending Table I-a to account for
distributed control modules and recommended amending the regulatory
text so that the current language applies to distinct light sources,
which by design operate independently, and adding additional language
that the requirement is not applicable to headlamp beam systems that
are controlled at the headlamp component level.
    Ford supported not requiring the upper beam indicator to be
activated when the ADB system is activated because Ford believed it
would be distracting for driver, is unnecessary because ADB is designed
not to glare, and harmonizes with SAE and Canada. Consumer Reports
agreed with extending the existing automatic dimming indicator
requirements to ADB systems and agreed that an indicator for the type
of beam ADB is providing or the upper beam indicator should not be
required. AAA also supported the proposed requirements for telltale
indicators and supported the focus on reducing driver distraction and
encouraged that additional indicators be designed so as not to
contribute to driver distraction.
    Consumer Reports agreed with the additional operational
requirements in FMVSS No. 108 for ADB systems to detect system
malfunctions (including sensor obstruction), notify the driver of a
fault or malfunction, and automatically disable the system until any
detected fault is corrected. Subaru recommended that S<IP_ADDRESS>.2 be
amended to clarify that the ADB disablement requirement is only
applicable for non-mechanical failures because, if a mechanical portion
of the ADB system fails, the fault will not be able to be corrected
because the mechanism will be unable to function mechanically.
    Zoox suggested edits to the regulatory text, commenting that
S<IP_ADDRESS>, S<IP_ADDRESS>.1 and S<IP_ADDRESS>.2 are very similar and may be
duplicative. It recommended that a system certified to

S<IP_ADDRESS> must meet S<IP_ADDRESS> for fail-safe operation, while a system
certified to S<IP_ADDRESS> must meet S<IP_ADDRESS>.1 and .2 for fail-safe
operation. Further, instead of using ``shall work in manual mode'' in
S<IP_ADDRESS>.2, Zoox suggested the following alternatives to accommodate
both human and AI drivers: ``if a manual mode is provided, the lighting
system shall work in manual mode. . .'' or ``the lighting system shall
permit control of the beam(s) by the driver until the fault is
corrected.''
    Brent Peterson commented that upper beam light often creates
detrimental back scatter under certain weather conditions (e.g., fog or
rain) and that the driver may not know how to respond.
Agency Response
    NHTSA agrees that a manual override is necessary and, as proposed,
is extending the manual override requirements to ADB systems.
    The final rule does not require a specific warning when the driver
chooses to switch the beam from the one provided by the ADB system.
Because switching from the beam provided is an action initiated by the
driver, a warning seems unnecessary because the driver would presumably
know the action was initialized and the required automatic dimming
indicator would indicate that the ADB system is no longer active. The
final rule does not prohibit such a warning, provided the warning does
not interfere with the functionality of the upper beam indicator.
    NHTSA agrees with Ford and Zoox's suggested changes to the manual
override requirements. The regulatory text incorporates Ford's
recommended language (``The device must include a means convenient to
the driver for switching the beam from the one provided.'') The agency
believes this language provides sufficient flexibility for switch
design while ensuring that the driver is provided control over beam
switching for situations where the ADB system does not provide what the
driver needs for visibility and glare prevention. NHTSA is also
similarly amending the definition of ``semiautomatic beam switching
device'' to reflect the fact that the final rule adopts ``adaptive
driving beam'' as a third type of beam, and have amended that
definition to clarify that when a semiautomatic beam switching device--
whether or not an ADB system (i.e., certified to either Option 1 or
Option 2)--is in manual mode, the driver may obtain either the lower
beam or upper beam.\203\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \203\ The term ``manual'' in this definition, as well as in
S<IP_ADDRESS> and S<IP_ADDRESS>, has a general meaning that encompasses both
hand-operated and foot-operated controls. See S9.4 (``Each vehicle
must have 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.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The final rule does not adopt the commenters' suggested changes to
the fail-safe requirements but gives the manufacturer the flexibility
to determine whether the ADB system defaults to the lower or upper beam
in the event of an ADB system failure. Requiring an ADB system to
default to an upper beam would not ensure that other roadway users are
not glared; if, however, the ADB system were required to default to the
lower beam, visibility could be diminished. Because the appropriate
beam depends on a variety of situation-specific factors (e.g., presence
of other roadway users, the speed of the ADB vehicle, overall
visibility)--reflected in the conflicting comments on what the
appropriate fail-safe should be--NHTSA is giving manufacturers the
flexibility to determine the appropriate system response.
    NHTSA has adopted Global's suggestion and added to Table I-a an
exception for ADB systems. The simultaneous activation of a full lower
beam and a full upper beam will continue to be prohibited for ADB
systems \204\ (except momentarily in certain situations and except for
certain systems listed in Table II \205\). The final rule does not
adopt AAA's suggestion to account for distributed control modules
because the current language is sufficiently clear to apply to both
traditional wiring as well as serial communication between the vehicle
and the headlamps. For example, with respect to powering the headlamp,
S<IP_ADDRESS> specifies that headlamps are tested at 12.8 V-DC as measured
at the terminals of the lamp. This provision applies whether the
terminals of the lamp are also the terminals of the light sources or
the headlamp distributes this power to the appropriate light sources
(whether integral beam headlamp sources or replaceable light sources).
In essence, the wiring harness or connector assembly requirements
listed in Table I-a and Table I-c are the same whether they apply to
the basic vehicle wiring harness, or to the internal wiring within the
headlamp as instructed by the ADB system through a serial line.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \204\ For an ADB system in manual mode, for which the only beams
permitted are lower and upper beams, simultaneous activation of
lower and upper beams (subject to some limited exceptions) is
prohibited by the current language in S9.4, which requires that
``except as provided by S<IP_ADDRESS>, the lower and upper beams must not
be energized simultaneously except momentarily for temporary
signaling purposes or during switching between beams.'' However, to
make this clear, we have added a cross-reference to S9.4 in S4 in
the ADB requirements. For an ADB system in automatic mode, we have
also clarified that the system may only switch between lower, upper,
and adaptive driving beams and may not simultaneously activate any
of those beams.
    \205\ See S<IP_ADDRESS>, S9.4, Table I-a, and Table II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The final rule adopts the proposed telltale and malfunction
provisions. With respect to the telltale requirements, we have
clarified the proposal by requiring that the driver be provided with a
visible warning that an ADB system malfunction exists. With respect to
the malfunction provisions, the final rule does not adopt Subaru's
suggested changes to the malfunction requirements. If the ADB system is
not able to operate safely in automatic mode due to a malfunction, the
automatic mode should be deactivated, regardless of whether the
malfunction is mechanical. We have modified the proposed regulatory
text to make clear that the system is not required to be deactivated if
the malfunction does not prevent the system from operating in automatic
mode safely and in conformance with the requirements applicable to such
systems. The proposal would have required that, in the event of a
malfunction, the ADB system must be ``disabled.'' However, in order to
be less design restrictive, the final regulatory text simply requires
that the headlighting system must operate in manual mode in the event
of such a malfunction.
    In response to Zoox's comment regarding editorial changes to
S<IP_ADDRESS>, S<IP_ADDRESS>.1, and S.<IP_ADDRESS>.2, the agency does not believe
these provisions are duplicative. The longstanding requirements for
semiautomatic beam switching devices at S<IP_ADDRESS> requires that a
failure of the automatic control portion of the device must not result
in the loss of manual operation and control of both upper and lower
beams; neither S<IP_ADDRESS>.1 nor S<IP_ADDRESS>.2 clearly requires this. The
final rule also does not adopt Zoox's suggested edits regarding fully
autonomous vehicles. The appropriate fail-safe requirements in the
event that a fully automatic (with no manual controls) ADB system fails
raises a variety of issues that are outside the scope of this
rulemaking.
    NHTSA agrees that upper beams may cause backscatter under certain
weather conditions but does not believe this merits regulatory
requirements for dealing with backscatter. The agency encourages
manufacturers to provide, as part of the required operating
instructions, information or instructions to the vehicle operator
explaining the conditions in which an upper beam or an adaptive beam
may or may not be optimal or appropriate.

G. Accommodation of Different Technologies

    In the NPRM, we explained that our intent was to ensure that ADB
systems operate robustly, while not unduly restricting manufacturer
design flexibility.
Comments
    NHTSA received a variety of comments regarding the appropriateness
of the requirements for high-resolution ADB systems. Infineon commented
that the final rule must allow for innovation (e.g., high-resolution
systems). Texas Instruments also highlighted the existence of high-
resolution pixelated ADB systems that make it possible to design more
flexible and precise beam patterns. It commented that the final rule
should exempt high-resolution ADB systems from the requirement that the
upper beam minima be met in areas of unreduced intensity and suggested
allowing variable light levels between the lower beam minima and the
upper beam maxima. It also asserted that the final rule should exempt
high-resolution systems from the 25-mph minimum activation speed
requirement to avoid blocking innovative uses of high-resolution
lighting in urban settings. Texas Instruments also commented that the
proposal did not consider advanced functions other than ADB (such as
symbol generation) and requested that NHTSA consider including guidance
in the regulations on how such systems could be deployed, possibly by
considering them supplemental lighting. Volkswagen requested that NHTSA
reconsider its past interpretation of the lower beam headlamp
requirements as applied to LEDs (namely, that an integral beam headlamp
that uses multiple LEDs would be compliant as long as the LEDs were
designed to operate or fail as though they are wired in series) to
accommodate high-definition ADB systems.
    Zoox commented that the final rule should permit highly-automated
vehicles, those without manual controls for human drivers, to certify
to the ADB requirements. Zoox also suggested deleting or modifying (by
replacing ``must'' with ``may'') the operating instructions requirement
in S<IP_ADDRESS> to accommodate highly automated vehicles.
    Honda stated that manufacturers may employ multiple methods to
produce an ADB beam, such as an enhanced lower beam, an enhanced upper
beam, or a separate mid beam (essentially a partial upper beam in
addition to a lower beam). Honda requested clarification on how NHTSA
would interpret such ADB variations, and how this may impact technology
innovation in this area. Honda also stated that opportunities exist to
provide lighting patterns that are physically directed above lower beam
levels and below higher beam levels. The goal of such a mid-beam
lighting pattern would be to further balance the needs of visibility
and glare prevention and expand potential ADB operation speeds and
environments. They noted that since such a mid-beam would not solely be
able to comply with the existing lower beam requirements, this mid beam
would still require the lower beam to be activated. Honda requested
clarification on how NHTSA would interpret the standard with respect to
this.
Agency response
    NHTSA believes the final rule is generally technology neutral, and
accommodates high-resolution technologies, provided they meet the
rule's performance criteria. The agency disagrees with Texas
Instruments' comment that the final rule should exempt high-resolution
systems from certain requirements because the final rule is intended to
be performance-based and technology neutral.
    However, as explained earlier, we have modified the proposal in
response to the comments to provide more flexibility in beam design.
The final rule does not limit the number or shape of areas of reduced
or unreduced intensity, and permits localized dimming of the beam
within the photometric limits of the region of the beam in which it is
located (e.g., an area of reduced intensity may vary in intensity based
on the surrounding environment provided that intensity stays within the
corresponding maximum and minimum limits for the lower beam applicable
to the direction of light). The final rule also provides for a
transition zone. While the rule specifies the upper beam minima in the
area of unreduced intensity, the definitions of the areas of reduced
and unreduced intensity have been revised to give manufacturers more
flexibility in beam design.\206\ The minimum activation speed has also
been lowered to provide more flexibility to manufacturers.\207\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \206\ See Section VIII.D, Laboratory (Component-Level) Testing.
    \207\ See Section VIII.E, Minimum Activation Speed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are not revising the rule in response to the comments by Texas
Instruments and Zoox regarding advanced functions such as on-road
symbols and highly autonomous vehicles because those issues are outside
the scope of this rulemaking. Volkswagen's comment regarding NHTSA's
interpretation of the requirements with respect to LED failures applies
to LED headlamps generally, not just ADB systems, and is also outside
the scope of this rulemaking.
    With respect to Honda's comments, the final rule has two sets of
requirements for an adaptive driving beam: The laboratory requirements
and the track test requirements. Any ``mid-beam'' patterns would be
tested according to these requirements and test procedures. For
example, if Honda wishes to provide greater intensities than 1,400 at
the 1.5 U line as required for a lower beam, but less than the 5,000 cd
that is required at the upper beam test point 1U, 3R, the requirements
finalized today would prohibit this (unless if it were within a
transition zone, which may not exceed 1.0 degree in either the
horizontal or vertical direction). As explained previously, this
assures drivers that both glare protection and visibility of an ADB
lighting system will be equivalent to that of an upper and lower beam.
The reduced and unreduced intensity areas only need to meet the lower
and upper beam requirements, not the levels of intensity provided by
actual upper and lower beams installed on the vehicle. In the example
above, if that point is an area of unreduced intensity, 5,000 cd is all
that is required at 1U, 3R, even though many upper beams produce more
than 30,000 cd in that area. In this way, aspects of a middle beam are
permitted. For instance, if the upper beam installed on the vehicle
produces high levels of reflected light from a sign in the 1U, 3R
region, but a shaded area meeting the lower beam requirements are more
limiting than desired because, the upper beam may be reduced to as
little as 5,000 cd. The agency believes this provides flexibility to
customize a headlighting system to achieve the performance described by
Honda.
    Accordingly, the final rule does not adopt Honda's suggested edits
of the NPRM's regulatory text. Nor does the rule adopt its suggestion
that the lower beam (or area of reduced intensity) need only comply
with the maximum photometric requirements of Table XIX \208\; as
explained earlier in this document (Section VIII.D, Laboratory
(Component-Level) Testing), the final rule retains the Table XIX
requirements (both minima and maxima) for areas of

reduced intensity (and does not alter the lower beam requirements).
However, the final rule does modify the regulatory text to clarify
which photometry requirements apply to areas of reduced and unreduced
intensities--for example, for an area of reduced intensity, the Table
XIX test points that correspond (with respect to angular location) to
that area of reduced intensity apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \208\ Honda's comment referred to ``Table XVIII'', but since
these are the upper beam requirements, and Honda's edit concerned
the lower beam, we assume Honda meant to refer to Table XIX, which
contains the lower beam photometric requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

H. Requirements for Semiautomatic Beam Switching Devices Other Than ADB
and Applicability of Compliance Options

    The proposal retained the existing semiautomatic beam switching
requirements for standard systems (i.e., beam switching devices that
switch only between an upper beam and a single lower beam), explaining
that these requirements have been in the standard for several decades,
and while they might be updated, the focus of the rulemaking was on
amending the standard to allow the adoption of ADB systems. The
proposal classified these requirements as compliance Option 1, and the
requirements for ADB systems as compliance Option 2.
Comments
    Valeo commented that ADB is essentially an advanced type of
semiautomatic headlamp beam switching device and suggested that it
could be certified to the existing requirements for these devices
(classified under Option 1 in the proposal), without any of the
proposed restrictions and vehicle level testing. Conversely, Global
commented that a standard semiautomatic beam switching feature should
be permitted to certify to the new ADB requirements (Option 2).
    Bosch and Volkswagen requested that NHTSA update the semiautomatic
beam switching device requirements for conventional automatic ``hi-
beam'' systems (Option 1) to harmonize with SAE J656 (FEB 2010). Bosch
commented that the current semiautomatic beam switching requirements
(in S9.4.1 and <IP_ADDRESS> of the standard) are based on a 1969 SAE
standard (SAE J565), and beam switching technology has evolved
considerably since then. Bosch urged NHTSA to issue a supplemental
notice of proposed rulemaking or a separate rulemaking proceeding to
update the requirements to account for such advancements, including the
use of camera-based systems and advanced light sources. Volkswagen
pointed out that SAE J565 allows for a system without sensitivity
adjustment, which modern camera-based systems no longer use, and
modernized the luminous intensity minimum and maximum value
requirements.
Agency Response
    The NPRM did not discuss, and, other than Valeo's comment, the
commenters did not raise, the issue of whether an ADB system could be
certified to the first option. NHTSA agrees that an ADB system is a
type of semiautomatic beam switching device, but not necessarily that
ADB systems were allowed by the standard prior to today's amendments.
As explained in the NPRM, NHTSA's understanding has been that most, if
not all, ADB systems would not have complied with at least some of the
requirements that apply to semiautomatic beam switching devices. Among
other things, most ADB systems would not comply with the semiautomatic
beam switching device requirements that existed prior to today's rule
(and are now classified as compliance Option 1) because they would not
always comply with the existing photometry requirements. Accordingly,
NHTSA expects that ADB systems will be certified to Option 2 and not
Option 1.
    The NPRM also did not address whether standard semiautomatic beam
switching systems could be certified to Option 2. The proposed
regulatory text (along with the preamble) implied that semiautomatic
headlamp beam switching devices other than ADB systems could only be
certified to Option 1 and that ADB systems could only be certified to
Option 2. In light of the fact that the proposal did not squarely raise
this issue, and the fact that this approach maintains the status quo
with respect to conventional semiautomatic beam switching devices, the
final rule retains the proposed labels for the two compliance options.
The final regulatory text provides that standard semiautomatic beam
switching systems may only be certified to Option 1.
    As Bosch suggested in its comment, updating the Option 1
semiautomatic beam switching requirements to account for advances in
technology is outside the scope of this rulemaking. NHTSA will consider
this idea as a suggestion for future rulemaking.

I. Physical Test Requirements

    The NPRM explained that FMVSS No. 108 sets forth a variety of
performance requirements for semiautomatic beam switching devices (in
S<IP_ADDRESS>), including a series of physical tests (e.g., vibration
requirements). The NPRM did not propose to subject the switch
controlling the ADB system to any physical test requirements,
explaining that the existing physical test requirements date from the
1960s and do not appear to extend usefully to modern ADB technologies.
The NPRM also did not propose any new physical test requirements, based
upon a tentative belief that market forces would ensure an ADB system's
switching device will operate robustly. The proposal explained,
however, that other FMVSS No. 108 headlamp requirements would apply to
ADB systems, including the physical test requirements in S14.6 (e.g.,
an abrasion test and a chemical resistance test).
Comments
    Global concurred that new physical test requirements were
unnecessary. Intertek agreed that ADB systems should be subject to all
existing physical test requirements for current headlamps.
Agency Response
    The final rule follows the proposal and does not contain any
physical tests specific to ADB systems. ADB systems will be subject to
the physical test requirements applicable to all headlamp systems.

J. Other Requirements

Comments
    A few commenters mentioned unique challenges presented by the
requirements for vertical headlamp arrangement for vehicles with high-
mounted headlamps. The Alliance and Ford commented that glare increases
as vehicle mounting heights increase and stated that this may result in
light trucks, utility and crossover vehicles not meeting NHTSA's glare
requirements. They asserted that this fact could either exclude a
significant portion of the new vehicle population from utilizing ADB
technology or increase vehicle cost and complexity by necessitating
additional hardware and components. To address this, they requested
making the vertical beam arrangement requirement in S<IP_ADDRESS>.1
optional. Toyota similarly stated that vehicles with headlamps mounted
higher than the height from which glare limits were derived (0.62 m)
would have difficulty meeting the proposed glare limits and could
prevent introduction of ADB on a significant number of trucks and SUVs.
Toyota stated that the 0.62 m height is based on the typical height of
a passenger vehicle, which is not representative of the current vehicle
fleet. Toyota stated that the shift in the fleet mix from the time this
limit was derived makes it difficult for OEMs to meet the requirements
at nominal or zero aim for these high-volume vehicles. Toyota suggested
that

the design would have to aim the lower beams downward on higher-mounted
headlamps in order to meet the glare limits for ADB, thereby
deteriorating the lower beam visibility provided to the driver. Toyota
claimed that this would reduce the safety benefits of ADB by either
sacrificing optimal lower beam performance or limiting the introduction
of ADB on a significant number of vehicles.
    Related to this, Subaru commented specifically on the proposed
requirements for headlamp arrangement,\209\ stating that it seemed to
imply that a vehicle without parking lamps might somehow be permitted
by the rule. They requested that NHTSA clarify this provision and asked
whether it would simply mean a vehicle must illuminate the outermost
lamps when the ADB system is active.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \209\ See S<IP_ADDRESS>.8 in the proposed regulatory text. (``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.'') The NPRM
considered the adaptive driving beam to be a lower beam. As
explained earlier, under the final rule the adaptive driving beam is
defined as a new beam type and is accordingly not considered a lower
beam.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Agency Response
    With respect to the comments about vehicles with high-mounted
headlamps, this issue is also present with respect to the lower beams
on those vehicles. As such, those vehicles already tend to have their
headlamps aimed downward, to avoid glaring oncoming or preceding
vehicles. While manufacturers might feel the need to aim the headlamps
somewhat lower to accommodate an adaptive driving beam, that would be
likely to have the greatest impact on areas of reduced intensity, not
areas of unreduced intensity (due to the characteristics of lower beam
and upper beam patterns), and would not likely have an outsized impact
on visibility.
    Additionally, as suggested by the Alliance and Ford, manufacturers
might wish to alter the vertical arrangement of the headlamps and/or
light sources. However, the commenters who commented about high-mounted
headlamps appeared to overlook that the proposed rule permitted (in
S<IP_ADDRESS>.8) the adaptive driving beam to be provided by any combination
of headlamps. In light of the comments, the final rule retains the
proposed provision (now codified at S<IP_ADDRESS>.5) but modifies and
clarifies the regulatory text to reflect that the adaptive driving beam
is now considered a new beam type and not a lower beam as was initially
proposed.
    Regarding Subaru's comment, the proposed S<IP_ADDRESS>.8 was not
intended to imply that parking lamp requirements were being eliminated.
The standard requires parking lamps on all passenger cars, and MPVs,
trucks, and buses less than 2032 mm in overall width. Today's final
rule does not alter this requirement. On vehicles for which parking
lamps are not required, the final rule requires that the adaptive
driving beam may be provided using any combination of headlamps but
must include the outermost installed headlamps to show the overall
width of the vehicle.
    The final rule amends 10.14.1, 10.15.1 and 10.16.1 to require that
a headlamp system provide not more than two adaptive driving beams;
this parallels the same requirement for upper beams and lower beams.
The final rule does not amend 10.13.1 because ADB does not appear
feasible for sealed beam systems.

K. Information Reporting

    The NPRM did not propose any reporting requirements related to ADB
system performance in the field.
Comment
    Consumer Reports commented that NHTSA should require manufacturers
to submit detailed and timely information regarding the performance of
ADB systems and the consumer experience with them as they are
introduced. They suggested that this information be made available in
aggregate form publicly, at a minimum, and include crash reduction
estimates, near-miss statistics that are reasonably related to
lighting, and consumer satisfaction data, including documentation of
the technology's impact on glare experienced by other drivers.
Agency Response
    NHTSA is not adopting the information collection requirement
suggested by Consumer Reports. If, after ADB systems have been
deployed, the agency sees a need to obtain detailed information on the
performance of ADB systems, it will address the matter at that time.

L. Aftermarket Compliance

    Motor vehicle manufacturers are required to certify that their
vehicles comply with all applicable FMVSS, including FMVSS No.
108.\210\ FMVSS No. 108 also applies to replacement equipment (i.e.,
equipment sold on the aftermarket to replace original equipment
installed on the vehicle).\211\ 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 be capable of
replacing.\212\ Each replacement lamp 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 device is
installed on the vehicle.\213\ A manufacturer of replacement equipment
is responsible for certifying that equipment.\214\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \210\ 49 U.S.C. 30115.
    \211\ 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.'').
    \212\ S<IP_ADDRESS>.
    \213\ S<IP_ADDRESS>.
    \214\ 49 U.S.C. 30115; Letter from NHTSA to George Van Straten,
Van Straten Heated Tail Light Co., Inc. (Aug. 11, 1989).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NPRM stated that 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, and sought comment on this.
Comments
    TSEI requested clarification of whether the rule permits
aftermarket ADB systems and stated that the benefits of ADB systems
would be the same for aftermarket systems as for original equipment.
Intertek supported allowing aftermarket parts, and believed that it is
entirely feasible in aftermarket certification to rent or purchase the
vehicle for which the ADB headlamp or switch is designed in order to
conduct vehicle-level testing, and that while technical challenges
could make aftermarket systems/parts cost-prohibitive, that will be
driven by market demand.
Agency Response
    The final rule permits certification of aftermarket ADB systems and
parts. There would seem to be essentially two categories of aftermarket
ADB systems. The first is an aftermarket ADB system replacing an
original-equipment system; the second is an aftermarket ADB system
replacing a non-ADB headlamp. In either case, the aftermarket ADB
headlamp would be a ``replacement'' headlamp subject to FMVSS No. 108
because it would be ``replacing like equipment on vehicles to which the
standard applies.'' \215\ As such, the

aftermarket manufacturer will need to certify the headlamp to FMVSS No.
108; that is, the headlamp ``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.'' This would include the ADB
requirements, as well as any other applicable requirements.
Accordingly, an aftermarket manufacturer could certify and sell ADB
headlamps, if the product complies and the manufacturer was able to
make a good-faith certification.\216\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \215\ S3.3.
    \216\ See also 70 FR 65972, 65974 (Nov. 1, 2005) (Notice of
Interpretation) (``To the extent the vehicle manufacturer could have
certified the vehicle using the replacement lamp, instead of the
lamp it actually used, we believe the replacement lamp should be
viewed as being designed to conform to FMVSS No. 108.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted in the NPRM, it might be difficult as a practical matter
for aftermarket manufacturers to make the necessary certification. For
example, if an aftermarket supplier wanted to develop an ADB system for
a vehicle not originally equipped with ADB, it would need to certify
that the aftermarket ADB system was designed to conform with this final
rule and that it would not otherwise take the vehicle out of compliance
with any other standards. Because the final rule requires specific
switching conditions, the aftermarket system may need to replace the
interior lighting control systems to allow for control of the ADB
system. On the other hand, the final rule significantly simplifies the
test procedures the agency will use to determine compliance, which
could ease the certification of aftermarket systems.

M. Exemption Petitions

    In 2016, Volkswagen submitted a petition for a temporary exemption
(under 49 CFR part 555) from some of the requirements of FMVSS No. 108
to sell up to 2,500 exempted vehicles equipped with ADB systems during
each of the 12-month periods covered by the requested exemption. NHTSA
published a notice of receipt of this petition on September 11, 2017
and provided a 30-day comment period.\217\ BMW of North America, LLC
(BMW) submitted a similar petition, dated October 27, 2017. On March
22, 2018, NHTSA published a notice of receipt of the BMW petition and
requested additional information from both petitioners.\218\ Both
Volkswagen and BMW subsequently submitted additional information to the
docket. Prior to today, NHTSA had not made a decision on either
petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \217\ 82 FR 42720 (Docket No. NHTSA-2017-0018).
    \218\ 83 FR 12650 (Docket No. NHTSA-2017-0018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments
    The Alliance, Volkswagen, and Auto Innovators requested NHTSA grant
these petitions to facilitate gathering of usage and performance data.
Agency Response
    NHTSA believes that the publication of this final rule obviates the
need for the requested exemptions. NHTSA is today publishing a separate
notice of decision denying the petitions (Docket No. NHTSA-2017-0018).

N. Compliance Date

    This final rule is effective on the date of publication in the
Federal Register. The Alliance requested that the final rule be
effective on publication. This final rule permits the certification of
vehicles equipped with ADB systems if a manufacturer chooses to equip a
vehicle with such a system. NHTSA believes there is good cause to
permit ADB systems meeting FMVSS No. 108 quickly as possible because
the systems produce increased illumination without increasing glare,
and have the potential to offer significant safety benefits in avoiding
collisions with pedestrians, cyclists, and roadside objects. Good cause
exists for these amendments to be made effective immediately pursuant
to 49 U.S.C. 30111(d), which allows an FMVSS to become effective sooner
than 180 days after publication of the standard if an earlier effective
date is in the public interest.

O. Regulatory Alternatives

    In developing the final rule, NHTSA considered the ECE ADB
requirements and SAE J3069. As explained earlier, the ECE requirements
are not sufficiently objective to be incorporated into an FMVSS.
Accordingly, the main regulatory alternative NHTSA considered was SAE
J3069.
    The proposal deviated from SAE J3069 in several ways; the NPRM
explained this in detail. In general, we explained that there were two
major differences.
    First, the proposed vehicle-level track test was more realistic and
complex than the SAE J3069 track test. SAE J3069 specifies testing
using a straight-path scenario (and simulating curves with fixture
placement), and instead of using oncoming or preceding stimulus
vehicles, uses stationary test fixtures positioned at specified
locations adjacent to the test track. The proposed test permitted NHTSA
to test using scenarios having curved paths (with various radii of
curvature) using a broad range of FMVSS-certified vehicles as oncoming
or preceding vehicles.
    Second, the proposal specified additional component-level
photometric requirements to regulate both glare and visibility that
were not included in the SAE document. We proposed to require that an
area of reduced intensity be designed to conform to the Table XIX lower
beam photometry requirements (both maxima and minima). This differed
from SAE J3069, which only specified the lower beam maxima for the area
of reduced intensity. We similarly proposed that an area of unreduced
intensity conform with the Table XVIII upper beam photometric maxima
and minima. SAE J3069 required only that the lower beam minima be met
in this area.
    NHTSA tentatively concluded that the differences between the
proposal and SAE J3069 were needed to ensure the ADB systems meet the
dual safety needs of glare prevention and visibility.
Comments
    Many commenters asserted that NHTSA should adopt either SAE J3069
or the ECE requirements. Concerns about the proposal not harmonizing
with either the SAE or ECE requirements were mainly focused on the
broad acceptance of existing systems in the world market and the
additional costs associated with development of systems that would
comply with the proposal. No data were presented to quantify any
additional development or system costs to comply with the proposed
rule.
    As noted at various points earlier in this document, a few
commenters did support a variety of specific departures from SAE J3069.
More generally, Intertek agreed that the SAE J3069 approach may not be
sufficient to validate ADB performance over the full range of typical
real-world situations; it supported a more rigorous track test than
specified in SAE J3069, but also believed that the full set of proposed
test scenarios might not be necessary.
    Many commenters, however, strongly supported harmonization with SAE
J3069 and/or the ECE requirements in order to align with requirements
or approaches in other markets. Honda, Global, GM, SAE, CEI, Toyota,
the Alliance, Mobileye, and OSRAM specifically supported SAE J3069.
MEMA, Infineo, Valeo, and NAFA supported either SAE J3069 or the ECE
requirements. Ford, Volkswagen, SMMT, Mobileye, OICA, NAFA, and Hella
supported global harmonization generally, and Seastrunk and Montgomery
supported harmonizing with the ECE requirements. Mobileye

supported making relatively minor changes to SAE J3069 (such as more
realistic lamps). Commenters made a variety of arguments related to
this.
    A number of commenters (Global, MEMA, EMA, Intertek, CEI,
Volkswagen, SAE, Mobileye, the Alliance, Hella, OSRAM, SMMT, Ford, and
OICA) commented or supported the comments of others that the proposed
departures from the SAE and ECE standards would lead to additional
costs, both because the different requirements would require different
hardware, components, and/or software and because the proposed testing
was more complex. Global also commented that the lower costs would come
with no diminution in performance and an increase in visibility. SAE
commented that SAE J3069 was designed to harmonize with the ECE
requirements in order to allow common headlamps, controllers, and
sensors across markets; any aspects not harmonized could be
accommodated in headlamp aim or software calibration differences to
avoid hardware differences. OSRAM, SMMT, Volkswagen, Ford, MEMA, and
OICA agreed with or echoed SAE's comment. Hella commented that the NPRM
will demand completely different headlamp systems and additionally
different forward sensor designs compared to those already in use. This
means, that additional development is needed to establish an ADB system
in the US when compared to the rest of the world. EMA added that its
members have been developing ADB systems based on the ECE requirements
and have no experience with the proposed requirements; moreover, heavy-
duty vehicles are often engaged in cross-border operation that makes
harmonized requirements even more appropriate. Intertek estimated that
that the proposed track testing could cost as much as two to four times
more than testing to the SAE standard, which itself is around three
times costlier than current headlamp testing.
    Several commenters (MEMA, the Alliance, Ford, Volkswagen, OICA,
Hella, GM, SAE, CEI, and SMMT) stated that the proposal would
disharmonize with Canada. MEMA noted that the Canadian regulations
accept either ECE R123 or SAE J3069, and stated that the proposal was
inconsistent with a Memorandum of Understanding between the U.S. and
Canada regarding regulatory cooperation.\219\ The Alliance commented
that while there have been longstanding differences with headlighting
requirements between the U.S. and Europe, differences between the U.S.
and Canada have been minimal. Ford commented that harmonization makes
sense given the close integration of the two markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \219\ The comment cited the Memorandum of Understanding Between
the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat and OIRA Regarding the
Canada[hyphen]United States Regulatory Cooperation Council, June 4,
2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Infineon, EMA, Volkswagen, the Alliance, CEI, and NAFA commented
that the increased costs associated with the proposal would increase
the cost to consumers, hindering ADB adoption and the accompanying
safety benefits. CEI also contended that reduced consumer demand for
ADB systems could also reduce manufacturer investment in lighting
system research and development. NAFA highlighted the potential impact
on adoption by vehicle fleets for which cost is important.
    Global, Volkswagen, and the Alliance suggested that the
disharmonized aspects of the proposal would not lead to safety benefits
or could decrease safety benefits. For example, Volkswagen stated that,
compared to the proposal, SAE J3069 would lead to ADB systems providing
better visibility. Volkswagen also stated that there is no evidence
that the ECE requirements are leading to excessive glare, and that it
has developed numerous ADB systems for other markets and tested to the
SAE standard, and has not received any complaints from customers or
regulatory authorities about glare. A few commenters (GM, Toyota, MEMA,
Global, Volkswagen) also stated that J3069 would provide a more
objective, practicable, and/or repeatable test procedure.
Agency Response
    NHTSA agrees with the commenters that harmonization is an important
goal. Moreover, the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
directs Federal agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in lieu
of government-unique standards.\220\ This directive, however, is not
absolute. The NTTAA goes on to provide that an agency may decline to
use existing consensus standards if it determines that such standards
are inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.\221\
``Impractical'' includes circumstances in which the use of consensus
standards would fail to serve the agency's regulatory needs; be
inconsistent with a provision of law; or be less useful than the use of
another standard.\222\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \220\ National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995,
Public Law 104-113, 12(d)(1), 110 Stat. 775 (1996).
    \221\ Id. at Sec.  12(d)(3).
    \222\ Office of Management and Budget, Circular No. A-119, ]
5(c)(ii), Federal Participation in the Development and Use of
Voluntary Consensus Standards and in Conformity Assessment
Activities (Jan. 26, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In light of these requirements, as well as the requirements of 49
U.S.C. 30111, and in response to the comments, NHTSA has modified the
proposal to more closely follow SAE J3069 where warranted, but to
deviate from that standard where necessary. The most important of these
changes were specifying stationary stimulus test fixtures instead of
dynamic stimulus vehicles and substantially simplifying the number and
complexity of the test scenarios. However, there are several aspects of
the final rule for which NHTSA ultimately concluded that deviation from
SAE J3069 is warranted because J3069 did not adequately address glare
or visibility. The major differences are summarized in Table 12. The
preceding sections of this document discuss in detail the ways in which
the final rule follows and differs from SAE J3069, and explains why we
believe these departures are justified.

  Table 15--Summary of Major Differences Between the Final Rule and SAE
                                  J3069
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Test elements               Final rule           SAE J3069
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Track test:
    Glare limit applicability...  Applies the glare   Applies the glare
                                   limits throughout   limits only at 30
                                   the measurement     m, 60 m, 120 m,
                                   range specified     and 155 m.
                                   for each scenario.
    Fixture lighting............  Specifies actual    Specifies lamp
                                   vehicle lamp..      assemblies
                                                       intended to
                                                       simulate vehicle
                                                       lamps.
    Test track geometry.........  Specifies actual    Specifies a
                                   curves of various   straight path and
                                   sizes.              uses fixture
                                                       placement to
                                                       simulate curves.

    Compliance criteria.........  Specifies           Allows measured
                                   allowances for      illuminance to
                                   momentary glare     exceed an
                                   and vehicle pitch   applicable glare
                                   fluctuations.       limit if it does
                                                       not exceed 125%
                                                       of the lower beam
                                                       illuminance under
                                                       the same
                                                       conditions.
    Specifications related to     Specifies vehicle   Recommends the
     smoothness of road surface.   pitch allowance.    test track have
                                                       an International
                                                       Roughness Index
                                                       of less than 1.5
                                                       m/km.
Laboratory Test:
    Area of reduced intensity...  Specifies lower     Specifies lower
                                   beam (Table XIX)    beam maxima.
                                   minima and maxima.
    Area of unreduced intensity.  Specifies upper     Specifies lower
                                   beam (Table         beam minima.
                                   XVIII) minima and
                                   maxima.
Physical tests..................  Not specified.....  Specifies various
                                                       physical tests.
Minimum activation speed........  20 mph............  Not specified.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA recognizes that the final rule is more demanding than SAE
J3069 in several respects, and further recognizes that this will result
in some additional costs to develop and test these systems. The agency
believes these additional costs are justified because the departures
from the SAE test methods are warranted to properly address either
glare or visibility concerns. NHTSA is not persuaded that the test
procedures represent a significant cost burden over testing ADB systems
per the SAE J3069 test. Much of the development work the industry has
conducted on ADB systems for use in markets that permit certification
to the UNECE or SAE standards would directly apply to the performance
tests finalized today. As explained throughout this document, NHTSA has
adopted parameters similar to either the SAE standard or the UNECE
standard where appropriate.
    For these same reasons, the agency believes that the resulting
disharmonization will not hinder ADB deployment. Similarly, NHTSA
concludes that the disharmonization with Canada is justified, and is
not inconsistent with the Memorandum of Understanding, which provides,
among other things, that the countries' respective regulations continue
to apply, and that closer alignment of regulations would be consistent
with their respective national laws and policies.
    NHTSA also concludes the final rule is practicable. As explained in
previous sections in the preamble, ADB systems performed the same on
many of the final rule scenarios and the most closely analogous SAE
scenarios. As also explained above, there are likely certain test
scenarios (for example, right direction curves) with which some current
ADB systems may not comply; however, in these instances NHTSA believes
that manufacturers should be able to modify existing systems to meet
the requirements.
    NHTSA has also concluded that the final rule is objective and
repeatable. The final rule sets out a rational test procedure that
yields a clear answer based upon readings obtained from measuring
instruments and is capable of producing identical results when test
conditions are exactly duplicated.\223\ Further, the final rule
establishes the specific scenarios the agency may test, including
ranges and values for key testing parameters, and specific numeric
limits for the maximum allowable illuminance at certain distances.
NHTSA believes that the final rule specifies the test parameters that
contribute to most of the test-related variability, and that there is
no ambiguity with respect to the parameter values (e.g., differing
radii of curvature) NHTSA may select in compliance testing. To further
evaluate the repeatability of the track test, NHTSA conducted a
repeatability analysis, which shows that the test is repeatable (see
Section VIII.C.11, Repeatability).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \223\ See Chrysler Corp. v. Dept. of Transp., 472 F.2d 659, 676
(6th Cir. 1972) (construing ``objective'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

P. Overview of Benefits and Costs

    The NPRM considered 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).\224\ Based on this qualitative analysis, NHTSA tentatively
concluded that ADB systems should be permitted (because the proposal
would lead to higher net benefits compared to the status quo in which
ADB systems are not deployed) and that the proposed requirements and
test procedures would lead to higher net benefits than SAE J3069.\225\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \224\ NHTSA has not quantified the costs and benefits of the
proposal for the reasons discussed in the NPRM and below in Section
X, Rulemaking Analyses and Notices (in connection with the
discussion of Executive Order 12866).
    \225\ For additional information, see the NPRM, pp. 51799-51801.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments
    With regard to allowing the introduction of ADB systems, as noted
earlier, all the industry and public-interest commenters supported
amending the standard to allow the introduction of ADB technology. Many
of the drive-in theatre owner/operators indicated some level of support
for the rule (assuming it provides for manual control). The majority of
comments from individual members of the public supported the proposal,
frequently on the grounds that it would likely reduce glare or increase
safety. Some individual commenters, and some owner/operators of drive-
in movie theatres, opposed the proposal and/or expressed concern that
the introduction of ADB systems could lead to increased glare.
    With respect to the proposed requirements and test procedures, most
industry commenters stated that the proposed requirements were too
stringent, and did not meet the need for safety because they
overemphasized glare prevention at the expense of visibility. \226\
Several commenters (Mobileye, the Alliance, IIHS, Auto Innovators,
Toyota, Volkswagen) contended that the proposal did not maximize
overall benefits because it prioritized glare prevention over enhanced
visibility and stated that the final rule should instead place greater
weight on the benefits from enhanced visibility. For example, Mobileye
commented that the proposal would not allow OEMs to tune an ADB system
to

provide optimal visibility to drivers. Mobileye contended that the
result would be that the benefit of providing a driver with higher
visibility will be diminished with negligible gain in preventing glare.
IIHS also argued that, in terms of safety, the glare problem appears
relatively small (glare was cited in only 1% of non-daylight crashes in
the National Motor Vehicle Crash Causation Survey). Auto Innovators
similarly commented that NHTSA's own research indicates that it is
difficult to determine glare as a direct cause of crashes or
fatalities.\227\ Auto Innovators noted that NHTSA's own research has
shown that while glare was a contributing factor in only about 0.3% of
nighttime fatal crashes \228\ over 70% of pedestrian fatalities occur
at night.\229\ Auto Innovators also pointed to IIHS research finding
that between 2009 and 2016, pedestrian deaths in dark conditions
increased 56%\230\ and a report from the Government Accountability
Office finding that the number of pedestrians killed annually in motor
vehicle crashes increased 43% between 2008 and 2018 and recommending
NHTSA take additional actions to address pedestrian safety.\231\ Toyota
also asserted that glare is predominantly an issue of inconvenience and
discomfort, and that the proposal was not justified by data showing
that glare is a safety concern that requires such stringency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \226\ There were numerous comments as to why specific aspects of
the proposal were too stringent (for example, testing on small right
curves). These specific comments are addressed in the preceding
sections of the preamble. This section deals with more general
comments about the overall stringency of the requirements and the
relative benefits of visibility and glare prevention.
    \227\ Comment from Alliance for Automotive Innovation (NHTSA-
2018-0090-0219), p. 8 (citing Nighttime Glare and Driving
Performance, Report to Congress, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, Department of Transportation (2007)).
    \228\ Id. (citing National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration. 2014. Traffic Safety Facts 2012 Data: Pedestrians,
DOT HS 811 888. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration.).
    \229\ Id. (citing National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration. 2018 (Revised). Traffic Safety Facts 2016 Data:
Pedestrians, DOT HS 812 493. Washington, DC: National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration.).
    \230\ Id. (citing www.iihs.org/iihs/sr/statusreport/article/53/3/1.).
    \231\ Id., pp. 8-9 (citing Government Accountability Office.
(2020, April). NHTSA Needs to Decide Whether to Include Pedestrian
Safety Tests in Its New Car Assessment Program. (Publication No.
GAO-20-419) (retrieved from www.gao.gov/assets/710/706348.pdf.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, many commenters contended that the proposal,
particularly the track test, was costly, burdensome, and impracticable.
See Section VIII.C.1, Practicability of Proposed Test Scenarios. Honda
also stated more generally that the proposed dynamic track test
procedure did not strike the appropriate balance between effectiveness
and practicality. On the other hand, AAA recommended that the
requirements be technology-forcing with respect to improvements in both
glare prevention and visibility, and not simply adhere to established
minimums because absent such requirements such improvement may not be
made.
    A few commenters commented that the final rule would better balance
visibility and glare if it exempted ADB systems from some or all the
laboratory photometric requirements. In this context, IIHS specifically
asserted that the Table XIX lower beam requirements should not apply to
ADB, the Alliance suggested that none of the laboratory requirements
should apply to ADB, and Volkswagen stated that the upper beam maximum
should not apply.
    Mobileye and the Alliance argued that the proposal's emphasis on
glare was also unnecessary because market forces would sufficiently
incentivize glare prevention. Mobileye explained that OEMs are more
likely to hear from owners of ADB-equipped vehicles about problems with
glare than with visibility. The Alliance commented that manufacturers
are concerned with customer safety and satisfaction; for example,
automatic high beam systems are evaluated from both driver and other
motorist perspectives via intracompany test drive scenarios, some of
which include the presence of simulated ``other motorists.'' The
Alliance asserted that the deployment of ADB systems will result in a
decrease in the volume of glare complaints received by NHTSA.
    As noted in the regulatory alternatives section, many commenters
recommended adopting SAE J3069. Some commenters (Global, Volkswagen,
the Alliance) suggested that the disharmonized aspects of the proposal
would not lead to safety benefits or could decrease safety benefits.
Commenters also claimed that the proposal would be more costly than SAE
J3069 and/or the ECE requirements because the disharmonization would
result in additional development and component costs.
Agency Response
    With respect to the costs and benefits of the final rule compared
to the current baseline in which ADB systems are not deployed, NHTSA
has concluded that because the rulemaking expands the set of consumer
choices (compared to the status quo), it is an enabling regulation.
NHTSA also concludes that, because it expects positive benefits and
cost savings,\232\ this final rule will lead to higher net benefits
compared to the status quo in which ADB systems are not deployed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \232\ As we explained in the NPRM, the estimated cost savings of
an enabling regulation include the full opportunity costs of the
previously foregone activities (i.e., the sum of consumer and
producer surplus, minus any fixed costs). NPRM at p. 51800.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the costs and benefits of the proposal compared to
SAE J3069, in the NPRM NHTSA tentatively concluded that although the
proposal was likely more costly than SAE J3069 (due to higher
compliance testing and equipment costs), these higher costs were likely
outweighed by the higher safety-related benefits (and lower glare
disbenefits). We therefore tentatively concluded that the likely net
benefits of the proposal were greater than if we adopted SAE J3069 in
every respect. As we explain below, however, after considering the
comments NHTSA has concluded that more closely following SAE J3069 in
certain respects would lead to higher net benefits than the proposal
through lower costs (testing and equipment) and higher benefits
(visibility) without meaningfully increasing disbenefits (glare). We
believe the final rule appropriately balances benefits and costs and
that the net benefits of the final rule are greater than if we adopted
SAE J3069 in every respect.
    As an initial matter, NHTSA agrees with the commenters that it is