[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 29 (Wednesday, February 12, 2003)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 7101-7104]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-3505]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-02-13957; Notice 01]
RIN 2127-AI97


Glare from Headlamps and Other Front-Mounted Lamps: Adaptive 
Frontal-lighting Systems Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108; 
Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment

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

ACTION: Request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: This document requests comments on Adaptive Frontal-lighting 
Systems (AFS). The automotive industry is introducing Adaptive Frontal-
lighting Systems that can actively change the intensity and direction 
of headlamp illumination in response to changes in vehicle speed or 
roadway geometry, such as providing more light to the left in a left-
hand curve. The agency is concerned that such headlighting systems may 
cause additional glare to oncoming drivers, change the easily 
recognizable and consistent appearance of oncoming vehicles, and have 
failure modes that may cause glare for long periods of time. The agency 
is also interested in learning whether these adaptive systems can 
provide any demonstrated reduction in crash risk during nighttime 
driving. Thus, the Agency is seeking information on these systems to 
assess their potential for a net increase or decrease in the risk of a 
crash. Of special interest to us are the human factors and fleet study 
research that may have been completed to assure these systems do not 
increase the safety risk for oncoming and preceding drivers.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 14, 2003.

ADDRESSES: Comments must refer to the docket and notice number cited at 
the beginning of this notice and be submitted to: Docket Management, 
Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20590. It is 
requested, but not required, that two copies of the comments be 
provided. The Docket Section is open on weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. 
Comments may be submitted electronically by logging onto the Dockets 
Management System Web site at http://dms.dot.gov. Click on ``Help'' to 
obtain instructions for filing the document electronically.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues, please contact 
Mr. Richard L. Van Iderstine , Office of Rulemaking, NHTSA, 400 Seventh 
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Mr. Van Iderstine's telephone number 
is (202) 366-2720 and his facsimile number is (202) 366-4329. For legal 
issues please contact Mr. Taylor Vinson, Office of Chief Counsel, at 
the same address. Mr. Vinson's telephone number is (202) 366-5263.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The development of Adaptive Frontal-lighting 
Systems (AFS) has been ongoing for about a decade. However, there are 
much earlier versions of such situation-adaptive headlighting that have 
been sold to the public. In the United States, the Tucker automobile 
was equipped with one, and in Europe, Citron manufactured automobiles 
with them, too. These had headlamps that would swivel with the steering 
system. In 1993, funded by the European Union's Eureka Project EU 1403, 
member countries and their manufacturers (BMW, Bosch, Daimler-Benz, 
Fiat, Ford, Hella, Magneti-Marelli, Opel, Osram, Philips, PSA, Renault, 
Valeo, Volkswagen, Volvo, and ZKW) began defining requirements for AFS. 
Additionally, Japanese and North American manufacturers have been 
developing these systems. The goal of these AFS is to actively control 
headlamp beam pattern performance to meet the dynamic illumination 
needs of changing roadway geometries and visibility conditions.
    Today, this goal has been partially realized by several lighting 
manufacturers who have developed systems incorporating various aspects 
of AFS functionality. An initial application, called ``bending light,'' 
automatically reaims the lower beam headlamps to the left or right 
depending on the steering angle of the vehicle, with the intent to 
better illuminate curves in the roadway. Also, it is likely that these 
initial bending light offerings will have part of the light emitted 
from the headlamp move within the beam to the left or right to increase 
the amount of light shining into the curve. There are other ideas being 
explored that, for example, would reduce the intensity of illumination 
in well-lit urban driving situations, reduce the intensity of lower 
beam foreground light in wet weather to lessen the light that reflects 
off the roadway into other drivers' eyes, and various other performance 
changes.
    Prototype systems have been demonstrated by motor vehicle lighting 
companies to motor vehicle manufacturers, and recently to government 
lighting experts from numerous countries around the world. This was 
last done in Geneva, Switzerland in the Spring of 2000, during the 
Forty-Fourth Session of the Meeting of Experts on Lighting and Light 
Signalling (GRE) where ten different AFS prototypes were available on 
cars for driving. The GRE is a subgroup of the United Nations' (UN) 
World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29).
    In order to introduce this new headlighting technology in Europe, 
regulations have to be modified within the UN Economic Commission for 
Europe, under its 1958 Agreement titled: ``Agreement concerning the 
Adoption of Uniform Technical Prescriptions (Rev.2).'' The first 
amendment to accommodate swiveling (or bending) of the low beam 
function

[[Page 7102]]

in these regulations is scheduled for final voting at the March 2003 
session of WP.29. AFS installation on motor vehicles in the European 
market could occur sometime after approval by WP.29. The second stage 
is forecast to be considered for approval in 2005. This could include 
roadway illumination for specific situations, such as highway, 
suburban, urban roads, inclement weather, and additional cornering 
lighting whose technical descriptions may be found in the formal draft 
document presented to the GRE (see TRANS/WP.29/GRE/2002/18--Proposal 
for a New Draft Regulation: ``Uniform Provisions Concerning the 
Approval of Adaptive Frontlighting System (AFS) for Motor Vehicles'' at 
http://www.unece.org/trans/main/wp29/wp29wgs/wp29gre/grenwdoc/gre0218e.pdf).
    AFS implementation by U.S. vehicle manufacturers in North America 
currently is in the development stage. However, foreign manufacturers 
could begin marketing the bending function in the United States in the 
near future. Under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, 
Lamps, reflective devices and associated equipment, the bending light 
performance (by automatically reaiming the lamp) is not prohibited 
because the Standard does not specifically address the initial or 
subsequent aim of a headlamp in a headlighting system. The Standard 
addresses only aimability requirements. See the letter from the Chief 
Counsel, NHTSA, to Mr. Mark Cronmiller, VDO North America, dated July 
7, 1999 (http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/interps/files/20061.ztv.html). Mr. Cronmiller had asked about future ``smart'' 
headlighting systems that adjust headlamp aim vertically and/or 
horizontally according to driving conditions (e.g., vertically for 
oncoming traffic, horizontally around curves in the road). The Chief 
Counsel responded that paragraph S7.8 of Standard No. 108 prescribes 
headlamp aiming hardware requirements under static conditions only. 
Once a headlamp is installed on a vehicle, its aim is fixed, but may be 
adjustable by mechanical means when the vehicle is at rest. A limited 
ability to adjust vertical aim on some vehicles is also provided by 
vehicle leveling devices. Standard No. 108 does not require that 
headlamps be aimed at the time the vehicle is manufactured and 
certified as conforming to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety 
standards. If there is a requirement for correct headlamp aim on new 
vehicles, it would be that of a State's motor vehicle authority at the 
time the vehicle is first registered for highway use in that State. The 
letter continued by saying that, if a ``smart'' headlamp system meets 
the static aiming hardware requirements of Standard No. 108, a dynamic 
aiming feature is permissible. We also said that at that time that we 
had no specific plans to regulate or require headlamps with dynamic aim 
features, but were monitoring them to form an impression as to their 
suitability for use under American driving conditions, and to learn if 
there are any problems of maintenance of aiming integrity, or 
durability, involved in their use. At a minimum, we would be concerned 
about the need for fail-safe performance to assure that aim would 
return to nominally correct, straight ahead in the event of a failure.
    We note that S5.3.1.1 of Standard No. 108 also requires that lamps 
and reflective devices must be installed such that their photometric 
requirements are met on motor vehicles and that no other part of the 
vehicle shall prevent that. As such, the additional hardware added to 
achieve AFS must not prevent headlamps, or any other required lamps, 
from meeting the required performance in any manner whether AFS is 
operating or not. Additionally, for the bending light mechanization 
where some of the light in the nominal beam pattern is actively 
redirected, the photometric requirements of the headlamp must be met 
regardless of active changes in the light distribution within the beam.
    The balance between roadway illumination and glare is something 
that has always concerned us. The public shares our concern, too, as 
evidenced by the unprecedented response to Docket 8885, NHTSA's docket 
on glare from headlamps. Besides the more than four thousand comments 
to date, that docket has the highest number of Internet visits of all 
dockets in the DOT Docket Management System: more than 64,000 hits. The 
public's concern is that glare is increasing at an alarming rate 
whether from approaching vehicles or rear view mirrors. Thus, the 
agency is concerned whether the implementation of AFS will produce a 
volume of complaints similar to those in Docket 8885 regarding the 
installations of high intensity discharge, high-mounted, and 
supplemental headlamps.
    Given this concern, we have a number of questions for drivers, and 
the lighting and the motor vehicle industries, relative to the safety, 
implementation and use of AFS, especially as it may be offered to the 
U.S. market. These questions are:

Questions for Drivers

    Question 1: Do you have problems seeing around curves because of 
the limitations of the headlamps on the vehicles that you drive, or 
because of glare from an approaching vehicle? Please describe the 
problems, including road, ambient lighting, and weather conditions.
    Question 2: Is the glare that you described above worse than the 
glare from vehicles approaching on straight roads? Is it because the 
light is brighter or because it is longer lasting?
    Question 3: Under what nighttime driving conditions have you 
thought you needed extra headlight illumination to help you see the 
road, signs, or objects: When turning at intersections, when driving on 
curved roads, at intersections, driving in rain, when driving in fog, 
when driving on interstate highways, driving in cities, etc.?
    Question 4: Under what nighttime driving conditions have you 
thought that the oncoming headlights seemed more glaring than usual: On 
right-hand curves, on left-hand curves, on high-speed roads, at 
intersections in cities, on hilly roads?
    Question 5: What types of objects are most difficult for you to see 
when driving at night: Pedestrians, lane markings, street signs, stop 
signs, overhead guide signs, debris on road, animals, etc.?
    Question 6: For a ``bending light'' AFS that added more 
illumination to the right side on right-hand curves and to the left on 
left-hand curves, what aspects of lamp design concern you the most: 
That lamp failure might reduce visibility; that added light on left-
hand curves would increase glare to oncoming drivers; that the motion 
of the lights would be annoying; that the added light would not be 
bright enough to significantly increase the visibility distance.
    Question 7: If a headlighting rating were available for new 
vehicles in the same manner as crashworthiness and rollover star 
ratings, would you use these headlighting ratings in the decisions that 
lead to your purchase of a new vehicle? On a scale of 1 to 10 with 1 
being of little value and 10 being extremely important, how might you 
rate the importance of the headlamp rating, if available, to your 
purchase decision for a new vehicle?

Questions for Industry

    Question 8: Have manufacturers evaluated prototype AFS-equipped 
vehicles at night to determine whether changes in the intensity and 
direction of

[[Page 7103]]

illumination may cause misdirection of any driver's gaze toward the 
newly lighted or intensified area, or away from objects that are still 
important for driving safety? Please describe the evaluations and 
provide copies if available.
    Question 9: Do moving beams (from bending light or the increase or 
decrease in intensity) either increase or decrease the level of driver 
fatigue compared to non-AFS lighting? Please provide all available 
research information about this issue.
    Question 10: Have vehicle manufacturers evaluated prototype AFS-
equipped vehicles at night as occupants of other vehicles to evaluate 
the potential glare from AFS? If so, please describe the evaluation and 
the results. Are there other assessment methods used to assess the 
glare from the AFS before vehicle manufacturers commit to a particular 
AFS design? Please provide the results of all alternative assessments 
conducted for AFS.
    Question 11: What assessment is made of potential glare from AFS at 
points in the beam pattern that are currently unregulated?
    Question 12: Are there any current lamp or vehicle manufacturer 
corporate design guidelines for AFS that deal with unregulated points 
in the beam pattern? If so, please indicate what those guidelines are 
and explain why the manufacturer believes they are appropriate.
    Question 13: To what extent do lamp and vehicle manufacturers 
consider the reports and work by the Society of Automotive Engineers 
and other non-governmental bodies on the subject of glare in designing 
the performance of AFS on their vehicles? In answering this question, 
manufacturers are asked to provide a list of the reports, papers and 
data that they found useful in establishing design guidelines. Please 
provide specific examples of internal glare limits that have been 
adopted as a result of these references.
    Question 14: While we are aware of many studies to demonstrate and 
promote the efficacy of AFS, we are not aware of a single study that 
has been done on the effects on other drivers facing AFS-equipped 
vehicles or on drivers using AFS-equipped vehicles. Please identify any 
such studies.
    Question 15: Has glare been studied specifically for younger and 
older drivers facing or preceding the various modes of AFS operation on 
vehicles? If so, please list the studies.
    Question 16: Has diminished recognition of presence, or the 
perception of distance or closure rate to an oncoming AFS vehicle ever 
been studied? If so, please list the studies and findings.
    Question 17: What fail-safe features for each possible mode of AFS 
operation have been developed and studied that will prevent glare to 
oncoming and preceding drivers? Please describe them.
    Question 18: What fail-safe features for each possible mode of AFS 
operation have been developed and studied that will prevent no greater 
risk to the driver using it than when non-AFS headlighting fails?
    Question 19: What studies have been done to demonstrate whether AFS 
adds safety value? What value is that and how was it measured? Please 
identify and provide the findings of such studies.
    Question 20: What are the anticipated incremental costs of adding 
the various designs of AFS features to halogen headlighting systems?
    Question 21: What are the anticipated incremental costs of adding 
the various designs of AFS features to high intensity discharge 
headlighting systems?
    Question 22: What are the anticipated incremental costs of adding 
the various designs of AFS features to light emitting diode 
headlighting systems?
    Question 23: Presumably, the added illumination in curves is 
intended to reduce the risk of a crash. However, because most crashes 
are on straight roads (because of the predominance of straight roads), 
how does the presumed incremental benefit compare to the added cost of 
AFS? Does the incremental benefit outweigh the potential for additional 
glare to oncoming or preceding drivers in a curve or intersections or 
during an AFS failure? Why?
    Question 24: Should AFS designs be incorporated as separate, 
regulated lighting systems that operate independently of the primary 
headlighting system?
    Question 25: Given that known AFS prototype designs are intended to 
use more headlamp replaceable light sources than currently permitted, 
should AFS headlamps be limited in total luminous flux?
    Question 26: Should AFS headlamps have unlimited luminous flux if 
automatic headlamp leveling and cleaning are incorporated, as currently 
mandated in Europe for headlamps that have light sources that are rated 
at 2000 lumen or more?
    Question 27: What is the feasibility of reducing the intensity of 
AFS lamps during low speed, dense traffic, or high ambient illumination 
conditions? Please describe how this might be accomplished.
    Question 28: Are there requirements in Standard No. 108 that are 
barriers to the implementation of AFS? If there are barriers, in 
accordance with the published lighting policy of the agency (see NHTSA 
docket 98-4281, at: http://dms.dot.gov / search / 
document.cfm?documentid =46284& docketid=4281), what data exist showing 
safety benefits to justify amending the Standard to permit AFS?
    Question 29: Should AFS be mandatory? What data exists showing 
safety benefits to justify amending the Standard to require AFS? If not 
mandatory, why not?
    Question 30: Should AFS be permitted as a replacement for non-AFS 
headlighting systems. If so, why, and what safeguards are necessary 
beyond that necessary for new OEM installations? If not, why not?

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    This request for comment was not reviewed under Executive Order 
12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review). NHTSA has analyzed the impact 
of this request for comment and determined that it is not significant 
within the meaning of the Department of Transportation's regulatory 
policies and procedures. The agency anticipates if a proposal and 
ultimately a final rule should result from this request for comment, 
new requirements would apply to the applicable vehicles and items after 
the specified implementation date. The request for comment seeks to 
determine the ramifications of the introduction of adaptive frontal 
headlighting systems that are intended to enhance safety under a 
variety of driving conditions. The systems do so by varying the 
performance and aim of each headlamp's beam in a manner coincident with 
providing, for example, more illumination in the direction of a motor 
vehicle's turn, and other situations where the vehicle's manufacturer 
deems that more or less light is desired by the driver.

How do I Prepare and Submit Comments?

    Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your 
comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket 
number of this document in your comments.
    Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long (49 CFR 553.21). 
We established this limit to encourage you to write your primary 
comments in a concise fashion. However, you may

[[Page 7104]]

attach necessary additional documents to your comments. There is no 
limit on the length of the attachments.
    Please submit two copies of your comments, including the 
attachments, to Docket Management at the address given at the beginning 
of this document, under ADDRESSES.

How can I be Sure that my Comments were Received?

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

How do I Submit Confidential Business Information?

    If you wish to submit any information that you do not want to be 
made public, under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three 
copies of your complete submission to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the 
address given at the beginning of this document under FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT. This submission must include the information that 
you are claiming to be private, that is, confidential business 
information. In addition, you should submit two copies from which you 
have deleted the private information, to Docket Management at the 
address given at the beginning of this document under ADDRESSES. When 
you send a comment containing information claimed to be confidential 
business information, you should include a cover letter that provides 
the information specified in our confidential business information 
regulation, 49 CFR part 512.

Will the Agency Consider Late Comments?

    We will consider all comments that Docket Management receives 
before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated at 
the beginning of this notice under DATES. To the extent possible, we 
will also consider comments that Docket Management receives after that 
date. If Docket Management receives a comment too late for us to 
consider in developing a proposed response to these glare issues, we 
will consider that comment as an informal suggestion for future 
rulemaking action.

How Can I Read the Comments Submitted by Other People?

    You may read the comments received by Docket Management at the 
address and times given near the beginning of this document under 
ADDRESSES.
    You may also see the comments on the Internet. To read the comments 
on the Internet, take the following steps:
    (1) Go to the Docket Management System (DMS) Web page of the 
Department of Transportation (http://dms.dot.gov/).
    (2) On that page, click on ``search.''
    (3) On the next page (http://dms.dot.gov/search/), type in the 
multi-digit docket number shown at the heading of this document. In 
this case, the docket number is ``NHTSA-2001-13957'', you would type 
``13957''.
    (4) After typing the docket number, click on ``search''.
    (5) The next page contains docket summary information for the 
docket you selected. Click on the comments you wish to see.
    You may download the comments. Although the comments are imaged 
documents, instead of the word processing documents, the ``.pdf'' 
versions of the documents are word searchable. Please note that even 
after the comment closing date, we will continue to file relevant 
information in the Docket as it becomes available. Further, some people 
may submit late comments. Accordingly, we recommend that you 
periodically search the Docket for new material.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166; 
delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50, and 501.8.

    Issued on: February 6, 2003.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 03-3505 Filed 2-11-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P