9916 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 571 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2022–0013] 

RIN 2127–AL83 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standards; Lamps, Reflective Devices, 

and Associated Equipment, Adaptive 

Driving Beam Headlamps 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This document amends 

NHTSA’s lighting standard to permit the 

certification of adaptive driving beam 

(ADB) headlamps. ADB headlamps 

utilize technology that actively modifies 

a vehicle’s headlamp beams to provide 

more illumination while not glaring 

other vehicles. The requirements 

adopted today are intended to amend 

the lighting standard to permit this 

technology and establish performance 

requirements for these systems to ensure 

that they operate safely. ADB has the 

potential to reduce the risk of crashes by 

increasing visibility without increasing 

glare. The agency initiated this 

rulemaking in response to a petition for 

rulemaking from Toyota Motor North 

America, Inc. 

DATES: 

Effective date: The effective date of 

this final rule is February 22, 2022. The 

incorporation by reference of certain 

publications listed in the rule was 

approved by the Director of the Federal 

Register as of February 6, 2012. 

Compliance date: The compliance 

date for the amendments in this final 

rule is February 22, 2022. 

Petitions for reconsideration: Petitions 

for reconsideration of this final rule 

must be received not later than April 8, 

2022. 

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration 

of this final rule must refer to the docket 

and notice number set forth above and 

be submitted to the Administrator, 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. 

Note that all petitions received will be 

posted without change to 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. 

Privacy Act: Please see the Privacy 

Act heading under Rulemaking 

Analyses and Notices. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Markus Price, NHTSA Office of Crash 

Avoidance Standards. Telephone: 202– 

366–1810; Email: Markus.Price@dot.gov; 

or Mr. John Piazza, Office of Chief 

Counsel. Telephone: 202–366–2992; 

Email: John.Piazza@dot.gov. You may 

send mail to these officials at: National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 

Washington, DC 20590. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Executive Summary 

II. Background and Safety Need 

III. NHTSA’s Statutory Authority 

IV. ADB Rulemaking Mandate in the 

Infrastructure, Investment and Jobs Act 

V. Summary of the NPRM 

VI. Overview of Comments 

VII. NHTSA Research and Testing 

VIII. Final Rule and Response to Comments 

A. Summary of the Final Rule and 

Modifications to the NPRM 

B. Interpretation of FMVSS No. 108 as 

Applied to ADB Systems 

C. Track Testing Requirements and 

Procedures 

1. Practicability of Proposed Test Scenarios 

2. Test Fixtures vs. Stimulus Vehicles 

3. Justification for Testing on Curves and 

General Approach for Scenario Selection 

4. Maximum Illuminance Criteria (Glare 

Limits) 

5. ADB Adaptation Time 

6. Test Fixture Specifications 

7. Test Fixture Placement 

8. Test Scenarios 

a. Scenario 1: Oncoming Straight 

b. Scenario 2: Oncoming Small Left Curve 

c. Scenario 3: Oncoming Medium Left 

Curve 

d. Scenario 4: Oncoming Large Left Curve 

e. Scenario 5: Oncoming Medium Right 

Curve 

f. Scenario 6: Oncoming Large Right Curve 

g. Scenario 7: Preceding Straight 

h. Scenario 8: Preceding Medium Left 

Curve 

i. Decision Not To Include Oncoming Short 

Right Curve Scenario 

9. Other Test Parameters and Conditions 

a. Radius of Curvature 

b. Test Vehicle Speed and Acceleration 

c. Headlamp Aim 

d. Road Surface 

e. Ambient and Reflected Light 

f. Superelevation 

g. Lane Divisions 

h. Hills 

10. Data Acquisition and Measurement 

a. Photometers 

b. Sampling Rate 

c. Noise and Filtering 

d. Allowance for Momentary Glare 

Exceedances 

e. Vehicle Pitch 

11. Repeatability 

D. Laboratory (Component-Level) Testing 

1. Need for Laboratory Testing 

2. Definitions of Areas of Reduced and 

Unreduced Intensity 

3. Requirements for Area of Reduced 

Intensity 

4. Requirements for Area of Unreduced 

Intensity 

5. Transition Zone 

6. Veiling Glare 

E. Minimum Activation Speed 

F. Operator Controls, Indicators, 

Malfunction Detection, and Operating 

Instructions 

G. Accommodation of Different 

Technologies 

H. Requirements for Semiautomatic Beam 

Switching Devices Other Than ADB and 

Applicability of Compliance Options 

I. Physical Test Requirements 

J. Other Requirements 

K. Information Reporting 

L. Aftermarket Compliance 

M. Exemption Petitions 

N. Compliance Date 

O. Regulatory Alternatives 

P. Overview of Benefits and Costs 

IX. Appendix to FMVSS No. 108 (Table of 

Contents) 

X. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices 

Appendix A. Comparison of Oncoming Glare 

Limits to Table XIX Right-Side 

Photometric Maxima 

Appendix B. Example of Laboratory 

Photometric Testing of Adaptive Driving 

Beam 

Appendix C. ADB Performance With 

Motorcycle Test Fixture 

Appendix D. List of Comments Cited in 

Preamble 

I. Executive Summary 

This final rule amends Federal Motor 

Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS or 

Standard) No. 108, ‘‘Lamps, reflective 

devices, and associated equipment,’’ to 

enable the certification of adaptive 

driving beam (ADB) headlighting 

systems on vehicles sold in the United 

States. NHTSA is issuing this final rule 

under the National Traffic and Motor 

Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act), 49 

U.S.C. Chapter 301, Motor Vehicle 

Safety (49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.). 

Glare, Visibility, and Adaptive Driving 

Beam Technology 

Adaptive driving beam headlamps 

utilize technology that actively modifies 

the headlamp beams to provide more 

illumination while not glaring other 

vehicles. The requirements adopted 

today are intended to amend FMVSS 

No. 108 to permit this technology and 

ensure that it operates safely. 

Vehicle headlamps must satisfy two 

different safety needs: Visibility and 

glare prevention. The primary function 

of headlamps is to provide forward 

visibility for drivers. At the same time, 

there is a risk that intense headlamp 

illumination may be directed towards 

oncoming or preceding vehicles. Such 

illumination, referred to as glare, can 

reduce the ability of other drivers to see 

and can cause discomfort. Headlighting 

has therefore traditionally entailed a 

tradeoff between long-distance visibility 

and glare prevention. This is reflected in 

Standard No. 108’s requirement that 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 9917 

1NHTSA is sensitive to concerns about glare due 

to the numerous complaints from the public it has 

received and its own research (prompted, in part, 

by these complaints and a 2005 Congressional 

mandate to study the risks from glare). 

headlighting systems have both upper 

and lower beams. The existing 

headlamp requirements regulate the 

beam pattern (photometry) of the upper 

and lower beams; they ensure sufficient 

visibility by specifying minimum 

amounts of light in certain areas on and 

around the road, and prevent glare by 

specifying maximum amounts of light in 

directions that correspond to where 

oncoming and preceding vehicles would 

be. 

ADB systems are an advanced type of 

headlamp technology that optimizes 

beam patterns without driver action. 

Semiautomatic beam switching 

technology was first introduced on 

vehicles in the United States in the 

1950s and has become increasingly 

popular in the last few decades. The 

semiautomatic beam switching 

technology currently available in the 

United States (commonly referred to as 

‘‘auto hi-beam’’ or ‘‘high beam assist’’) 

automatically switches between the 

lower and upper beams. This provides 

safety benefits because research has 

shown that most drivers underutilize 

the upper beams, and semiautomatic 

beam switching facilitates increased 

upper beam use in situations where 

drivers of other vehicles will not be 

glared. 

ADB systems are an improvement 

over ‘‘auto hi-beam’’ technology 

currently available in the United States 

because they are capable of providing 

more illumination than a lower beam 

without increasing glare. When 

operating in automatic mode, instead of 

simply switching between the upper 

and lower beams, an ADB system is able 

to provide a dynamic, adaptive beam 

pattern that changes based on the 

presence of other vehicles or objects, 

providing less illumination to occupied 

areas of the road and more illumination 

to unoccupied areas of the road. ADB 

systems can therefore provide more 

illumination than existing lower beams 

without glaring other motorists (if 

operating correctly). ADB systems 

achieve this enhanced performance by 

utilizing advanced sensors, data 

processing software, and headlamp 

hardware. 

ADB systems are available in foreign 

markets but are not currently offered on 

vehicles in the United States. This final 

rule amends FMVSS No. 108 to permit 

ADB systems on vehicles in the United 

States and ensure that they operate 

safely. ADB, like other headlamp 

technologies, implicates the twin safety 

needs of visibility and glare prevention. 

This final rule does three main things 

that, taken together, allow ADB systems 

and ensure that they meet these safety 

needs. 

First, it amends FMVSS No. 108 to 

allow ADB systems. It amends, among 

other things, the existing headlamp 

requirements so that ADB technology is 

permitted. 

Second, this final rule adopts 

requirements to ensure that ADB 

systems do not increase glare to other 

motorists beyond current lower beams. 

ADB systems are capable of providing a 

variable, adaptive beam in the presence 

of other vehicles that provides more 

illumination than the currently allowed 

lower beam. However, if ADB systems 

do not accurately detect other vehicles 

on the road and shade them 

accordingly, other motorists will be 

glared.1 The rule addresses this safety 

need by including vehicle-level tracktest requirements specifically tailored to 

evaluate whether an ADB system 

functions safely and limits glare for 

other motorists. 

Third, it adopts component-level 

laboratory-tested requirements related to 

both glare and visibility, as well as a 

limited set of other system 

requirements, such as requirements for 

manual override and fail-safe operation. 

In drafting this final rule, NHTSA 

considered two major regulatory 

alternatives. One was the Economic 

Commission for Europe (ECE) 

regulations that apply to ADB systems, 

including a vehicle-level test on public 

roads. However, the ECE road test is not 

appropriate for adoption as an FMVSS 

because it does not provide sufficiently 

objective performance criteria. We also 

considered a Society for Automotive 

Engineers (SAE) recommended practice, 

J3069 JUN2016, Surface Vehicle 

Recommended Practice; Adaptive 

Driving Beam, as well as the updated 

version of this practice (published in 

March 2021). The final rule follows SAE 

J3069 in many significant respects, but 

also differs from it in significant ways. 

NHTSA published the notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) preceding 

this final rule on October 12, 2018 (83 

FR 51766). Many industry comments to 

the NPRM urged closer harmonization 

with SAE J3069. These comments 

focused primarily on costs from disharmonization due to the resulting need 

for market-specific hardware and 

components. In response to the 

comments, NHTSA conducted 

additional vehicle-level testing to 

validate modifications to the proposal to 

harmonize more closely with SAE J3069 

while still retaining sufficient realism. 

As a result, NHTSA has changed some 

aspects of the proposal. The final rule 

more closely conforms to SAE J3069 in 

a number of respects but continues to 

deviate from it for reasons discussed in 

detail in this preamble. 

Differences Between This Final Rule and 

the Proposal 

The following discussion highlights 

the more noteworthy differences 

between the final rule and the NPRM. 

All changes from the proposal are 

discussed in the appropriate sections of 

this preamble. 

Vehicle-Level Track Test To Evaluate 

Glare 

Stimulus test fixtures instead of 

stimulus vehicles. The final rule 

specifies test fixtures instead of 

stimulus vehicles. This change will 

result in a less complex test that is more 

closely harmonized with SAE J3069, 

while still ensuring that ADB systems 

operate safely. While the test fixture 

specifications follow SAE J3069 with 

respect to the locations of the 

photometers and stimulus lamps, the 

final rule requires the use of more realworld representative lighting in the 

compliance test by specifying original 

equipment vehicle headlamps and 

taillamps. 

More efficient test scenarios. The final 

rule simplifies the number and 

complexity of test scenarios. The final 

rule continues to differ from SAE J3069 

by specifying test scenarios with actual 

curves because this is necessary to 

evaluate how an ADB system would 

perform in the real world. We have, 

however, modified many of the curvedpath test scenarios. NHTSA believes 

that the final scenarios meet the need 

for motor vehicle safety by containing a 

broad range of realistic road geometries 

and vehicle interactions. 

Data measurement and allowances. 

The final rule changes how NHTSA will 

measure and evaluate ADB system 

illuminance. This includes an added 

specification for a data filter and 

replacing the proposed International 

Roughness Index parameter with an 

explicit adjustment for vehicle pitch. 

Component-Level Laboratory 

Photometric Testing 

The final rule retains, in modified 

form, the proposed requirements for 

component-level laboratory testing. 

Defining ‘‘adaptive driving beam’’ as 

a new beam type. The final rule defines 

a new beam type, ‘‘adaptive driving 

beam.’’ The final rule also provides 

manufacturers flexibility to determine 

when to provide an area of reduced or 

unreduced intensity (subject to several 

requirements or constraints, such as the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
9918 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

2See pp. 51768–51774. 

3They also make the vehicle more visible to other 

road users. 

4Nighttime Glare and Driving Performance, 

Report to Congress (2007), National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration, Department of 

Transportation [hereinafter ‘‘2007 Report to 

Congress’’], p. 6. A 2016 study by the Insurance 

Institute for Highway Safety noted that ‘‘[t]wentynine percent of all fatalities during 2014 occurred 

in the dark on unlit roads. Although factors such 

as alcohol impairment and fatigue contributed to 

many of these crashes, poor visibility likely also 

played a role.’’ Ian J. Reagan, Matthew L. 

Brumbelow & Michael J. Flannagan. 2016. The 

Effects of Rurality, Proximity of Other Traffic, and 

Roadway Curvature on High Beam Headlamp Use 

Rates. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, pp. 

2–3 (citations omitted). See also Michael J. 

Flannagan & John M. Sullivan. 2011. Feasibility of 

New Approaches for the Regulation of Motor 

Vehicle Lighting Performance. Washington, DC: 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, p. 

5 (NHTSA–2018–0090–0002) (‘‘The conclusion of 

our analysis was that pedestrian crashes were by far 

the most prevalent type of crash that could in 

principle be addressed by headlighting.’’). 

5 2007 Report to Congress, pp. iv, 11–14. See also, 

e.g., John D. Bullough et al. 2003. An Investigation 

of Headlamp Glare: Intensity, Spectrum and Size, 

DOT HS 809 672. Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration [hereinafter ‘‘Investigation of 

Headlamp Glare’’], p. 1. (‘‘It is almost always the 

case that headlamp glare reduces visual 

performance under driving conditions relative to 

the level of performance achievable without glare.’’) 

track test that evaluates glare). This will 

enable systems to provide an area of 

reduced intensity not only to prevent 

glare to oncoming or preceding vehicles, 

but also in other situations in which 

reduced intensity would be beneficial. 

Requirements for areas of reduced 

intensity. The final rule follows the 

NPRM and specifies the existing lower 

beam photometric test points (both 

minima and maxima). The minima are 

important because the final rule does 

not include any ‘‘false positive’’ tests to 

ensure that an ADB system does not 

mistakenly dim the beam in the absence 

of other vehicles, and the maxima are 

necessary to help ensure that other 

motorists are not subject to glare beyond 

that experienced with lower beams. 

Requirements for areas of unreduced 

intensity. The final rule follows the 

NPRM and specifies the existing upper 

beam photometric test points (both 

minima and maxima). Requiring a 

minimum level of illumination is 

important to ensure a minimum level of 

visibility. The final rule does not adopt 

the higher ECE upper beam maxima. 

Transition zone. The final rule allows 

for a 1-degree transition zone between 

an area of reduced intensity and an area 

of unreduced intensity. The lower and 

upper beam photometric test points will 

not apply within a transition zone 

(except for the upper beam maximum at 

H–V, which still applies). 

Manufacturers essentially will be free to 

determine the areas of reduced and 

unreduced intensity and, therefore, the 

boundaries of the transition zone. 

Other System Requirements 

The final rule retains many of the 

proposed system requirements. 

However, the minimum activation 

speed has been decreased from 25 mph 

to 20 mph to give greater flexibility to 

manufacturers wishing to provide for 

hysteresis in the system design. The 

final rule also exempts ADB systems 

from many of the vehicle headlamp 

aiming device requirements, which 

would add unnecessary costs to ADB 

systems. 

Benefits and Costs 

This final rule is not significant and 

so was not reviewed by OMB under E.O. 

12866. NHTSA has determined that 

quantifying the benefits and costs is not 

practicable in this rulemaking because 

of limitations on the agency’s ability to 

accurately estimate the target 

population and the effectiveness of 

ADB. We have, however, identified the 

problem this rule is intended to address, 

considered whether existing regulations 

have contributed to the problem, 

qualitatively assessed the costs and 

benefits, and considered alternatives. 

This final rule appropriately balances 

the needs for visibility and glare 

prevention, and adopts requirements 

that are both practicable and sufficient 

to assess whether an ADB system 

operates safely. This final rule does not 

require manufacturers to provide ADB 

systems, but only specifies the 

requirements the systems must meet if 

equipped on vehicles. 

II. Background and Safety Need 

On October 12, 2018, NHTSA 

published the NPRM (83 FR 51766) 

underlying this final rule. NHTSA is 

publishing this final rule to set forth the 

amendments to FMVSS No. 108 (49 CFR 

571.108), summarize the comments 

received in response to the proposal, 

and provide the agency’s responses to 

those comments. 

This section provides a brief 

introduction to the safety needs 

addressed in this rulemaking, ADB 

technology, the relevant industry and 

international standards for ADB 

systems, the petition for rulemaking that 

prompted the NPRM, and related 

exemption petitions and NTSB 

recommendations. For additional 

detailed background information 

(including an explanation of the 

headlamp photometric requirements 

and regulatory history and research 

efforts related to glare), the reader is 

referred to the NPRM.2

Safety Needs: Visibility and Glare 

Prevention 

Vehicle headlamps primarily satisfy 

two safety needs: Visibility and glare 

prevention. Headlamps illuminate the 

area ahead of the vehicle and provide 

forward visibility.3 Headlamp 

illumination, however, has the potential 

to glare other motorists. Accordingly, 

headlighting systems have traditionally 

consisted of lower beams and upper 

beams. The lower beams (also referred 

to as passing beams or dipped beams) 

are designed to provide relatively high 

levels of light in the close-in forward 

visibility region, and to provide reduced 

light intensity in longer-distance 

regions, where oncoming or preceding 

vehicles would be glared. The lower 

beams are intended for use during 

lower-speed driving or when meeting or 

closely following another vehicle. 

Upper beams (also referred to as high 

beams, main beams, or driving beams) 

are designed to provide relatively high 

levels of illumination in both close-in 

and longer distance regions. They are 

intended primarily for distance 

illumination and for use when not 

meeting or closely following another 

vehicle. (FMVSS No. 108 establishes 

maximum levels of intensity the upper 

beam may not exceed.) 

Visibility and glare are both related to 

motor vehicle safety. Visibility has an 

obvious, intuitive relation to safety: The 

better drivers can see the road, the better 

they can react to road conditions and 

obstacles to avoid crashes. Although the 

qualitative connection to safety is 

intuitive, quantifying the effect of 

visibility on crash risk is difficult 

because of many confounding factors 

(for example, was a late-night crash 

caused by diminished visibility or 

driver fatigue?). Still, evidence suggests 

that diminished visibility likely 

increases the risk of crashes, 

particularly crashes at higher speeds 

involving pedestrians, animals, trains, 

and parked cars.4 The NPRM (in 

Appendix A) included an analysis 

estimating the target population that 

could benefit from the increased 

visibility provided by ADB systems. 

Glare is related to safety because it 

can degrade important aspects of 

driving performance. Glare is a 

sensation caused by bright light in an 

observer’s field of view. Headlamp 

illumination can glare drivers of 

oncoming or preceding vehicles (via the 

rearview or side mirrors). Empirical 

evidence suggests that headlamp glare 

decreases visibility distance, increases 

reaction time, and reduces detection 

probability, among other things.5 It can 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 9919 

6 John D. Bullough et al. 2008. Nighttime Glare 

and Driving Performance: Research Findings, DOT 

HS 811 043. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, p. I–4. 

7 Id., p. 33. But see Investigation of Headlamp 

Glare, p. 3 (‘‘Very few studies have probed the 

interactions between discomfort and disability 

glare, or indeed any driving-performance related 

factors . . . .’’). 

8 2007 Report to Congress, p. iv. 

9 66 FR 49594 (Sept. 28, 2001). 

10 69 FR 54255 (Sept. 8, 2004). 

11Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 

Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, 

Public Law 109–59, Sec. 2015 (2005). 

12For more information, see the NPRM at p. 

51771. 

13Under FMVSS No. 108 this technology is 

classified as a ‘‘semiautomatic beam switching 

device’’ because it provides either automatic or 

manual control of switching between the lower and 

upper beams at the option of the driver. See S4 

(definition of ‘‘semiautomatic headlamp beam 

switching device’’) and S9.4. 

14See, e.g., John D. Bullough, Nicholas P. 

Skinner, Yukio Akashi, & John Van Derlofske. 2008. 

Investigation of Safety-Based Advanced ForwardLighting Concepts to Reduce Glare, DOT HS 811 

033. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration, p. 63. (finding that 

‘‘abundant evidence suggests that most drivers use 

lower beams primarily, if not exclusively.’’) See 

also, e.g., Mary Lynn Mefford, Michael J. Flannagan 

& Scott E. Bogard. 2006. Real-World Use of HighBeam Headlamps, UMTRI–2006–11. University of 

Michigan, Transportation Research Institute, p. 6 

(finding that ‘‘high-beam headlamp use is low . . . 

consistent with previous studies that used different 

methods’’). 

15 Investigation of Safety-Based Advanced 

Forward-Lighting Concepts to Reduce Glare (DOT 

HS 811 033), p. 63. 

16Michael J. Flannagan & John M. Sullivan. 2011. 

Preliminary Assessment of The Potential Benefits of 

Adaptive Driving Beams, UMTRI–2011–37. 

University of Michigan, Transportation Research 

Institute, p. 2. 

17When operating in manual mode—which the 

driver may obtain at any time—the driver is able to 

switch between the lower and upper beams. 

18SAE J3069 JUN 2016, pp. 1–2. 

19There are, however, situations in which it may 

be appropriate to provide less than a full upper 

beam even in the absence of oncoming or preceding 

vehicles. For example, it may be optimal to direct 

less light at a retroreflective sign or wet roadway, 

in order to minimize glare to the driver of the ADBequipped vehicle from reflected light. This is 

discussed in more detail in Section VIII.D.2. 

20SAE comment (NHTSA–2018–0090–0167), p. 9 

(‘‘The forward camera vision on today’s vehicles 

only extends to approximately 25 degrees left and 

right[.]’’). We assume this is the camera’s field of 

view for the illustrative examples in the discussions 

of the curve scenarios. 

also cause discomfort. Despite this 

evidence, it remains difficult to quantify 

the effect of glare on crash risk. Unlike 

drug or alcohol use, there is usually no 

way to determine precisely the amount 

of glare that was present in a given 

crash. Nevertheless, some police crash 

reports mention glare as a potential 

cause, and it is reasonable to expect that 

glare can reduce visibility, and 

reductions in visibility caused by 

headlamp glare increase crash risk.6

Discomfort attributable to glare might 

also indirectly affect crash risk (for 

example, if a driver reacts to glare by 

changing their direction of gaze).7 In 

addition, discomfort caused by glare 

may induce some drivers, particularly 

older drivers, to avoid driving at night 

or simply increase their annoyance.8

The potential problems associated 

with glare are highlighted by the 

thousands of complaints NHTSA has 

received from the public on the issue, as 

well as congressional interest. The 

introduction of halogen headlamp 

technology in the late 1970s and highintensity discharge and auxiliary 

headlamps in the 1990s was 

accompanied by a marked upswing in 

the number of glare complaints to 

NHTSA. In response to increased 

consumer complaints in the late 1990s, 

NHTSA published a Request for 

Comments in 2001 on issues related to 

glare from headlamps, fog lamps, 

driving lamps, and auxiliary 

headlamps.9 NHTSA received more 

than 5,000 comments, most of which 

concerned nighttime glare from frontmounted lamps.10 In 2005 Congress 

directed DOT to study the risks of 

glare.11 NHTSA subsequently initiated a 

multipronged research program to 

examine the causes of, and possible 

solutions to, glare.12

Adaptive Driving Beam Technology 

ADB systems are an advanced type of 

headlamp technology that optimizes 

beam patterns without driver action. 

Semiautomatic beam switching 

technology was first introduced on 

vehicles in the United States in the 

1950s and has become increasingly 

popular in the last few decades with the 

wider deployment of camera-based 

driver assistance technologies. The 

semiautomatic beam switching 

technology currently available on 

vehicles in the United States is 

commonly referred to as ‘‘auto hi-beam’’ 

or ‘‘high beam assist,’’ among other 

terms. This currently-available 

technology automatically switches 

between the lower and upper beams 

(while still allowing the driver to 

manually switch beams).13

Semiautomatic beam switching 

enhances safety because it facilitates 

increased use of the upper beams in 

situations where drivers of other 

vehicles will not be glared. Research has 

shown that most drivers under-utilize 

the upper beams,14 despite the fact that 

‘‘driving with lower-beam headlamps 

can result in insufficient visibility for a 

number of driving situations,’’ 15

particularly at higher speeds.16

ADB systems are an improvement 

over the ‘‘auto hi-beam’’ technology 

currently available in the United States 

because they are capable of providing 

more illumination than a lower beam 

without increasing glare. When 

operating in automatic mode, instead of 

simply switching between the upper 

and lower beams, the ADB system is 

able to provide a dynamic, adaptive 

beam pattern that changes based on the 

presence of other vehicles or objects, 

providing less illumination to occupied 

areas of the road and more illumination 

to unoccupied areas of the road.17 The 

portions of the adaptive beam directed 

to areas of the roadway occupied by 

other vehicles are at or (for some 

systems deployed in Europe) even 

below levels of a lower beam.18 The 

portions of the adaptive beam directed 

at unoccupied areas of the road are 

typically equivalent to an upper beam. 

When the roadway ahead is fully 

occupied by oncoming or preceding 

vehicles, the adaptive beam is 

essentially a lower beam. When there 

are no oncoming or preceding vehicles, 

the adaptive beam is essentially an 

upper beam.19

So, for example, when an ADBequipped vehicle (operating in 

automatic mode) travelling on an 

otherwise unoccupied roadway 

encounters an oncoming vehicle, it 

switches from an upper beam providing 

high light levels in both close-in and 

longer distance regions to an adaptive 

beam providing reduced intensity 

(similar to a lower beam) near the 

oncoming vehicle and unreduced 

intensity (similar to an upper beam) 

elsewhere. Because the system is able to 

provide unreduced intensity to 

unoccupied areas of the roadway, while 

at the same time providing reduced 

intensity to areas near other vehicles, it 

provides more illumination than a 

conventional lower beam would 

provide. ADB therefore has the potential 

to reduce the risk of crashes by 

increasing visibility without increasing 

glare. The adaptive beam is particularly 

useful for distance illumination of 

pedestrians, animals, and objects in or 

near the road when other vehicles are 

present and thus preclude use of the 

upper beam. 

ADB systems achieve this enhanced 

performance by utilizing advanced 

sensors, data processing software, and 

headlamp hardware (such as shutters or 

LED arrays). Many current ADB systems 

utilize a camera with a typical field of 

view of approximately 25 degrees left 

and right to detect objects.20 Highresolution ADB systems are capable of 

classifying objects and placing 

optimized levels of light on all objects 

in the driver’s view (such as 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
9920 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

21Uniform provisions concerning the approval of 

vehicles with regard to the installation of lighting 

and light-signalling devices (R48) and Regulation 

No. 123, Uniform provisions concerning the 

approval of adaptive front-lighting systems (AFS) 

for motor vehicles (R123) of the Economic 

Commission for Europe (ECE). 

22SAE has recently published a revised version 

of this recommended practice (SAE J3069 

MAR2021). These limited revisions, where 

potentially relevant to this final rule, are identified 

and discussed in subsequent sections of this 

preamble. 

23A photometer, or illuminance meter, is an 

instrument that measures light. 

24 Illuminance is the amount of light falling on a 

surface. The unit of measurement for illuminance 

is lux. 

retroreflective signs or pedestrians). 

ADB systems typically use the existing 

headlamps that are modified either with 

a mechanical shade that blocks part of 

the beam, or (for light-emitting diode 

[LED] headlamps) extinguish individual 

LEDs. The ADB systems NHTSA tested 

required the driver to select the ADB 

mode using the headlighting system 

control. Once in ADB mode, the systems 

were designed to activate the adaptive 

beam at speeds between 20 mph and 40 

mph and deactivate the adaptive beam 

(and provide a lower beam) from 15 

mph to 25 mph. 

European ADB Requirements 

ADB was first permitted in Europe by 

amendments to ECE Regulation No. 48 

in 2006.21 ECE regulations allow ADB 

systems under the umbrella of adaptive 

front lighting systems (AFS). There are 

a variety of requirements for AFS 

generally and adaptive lighting in 

particular. Unlike the FMVSS, which 

rely on manufacturer self-certification, 

ECE requirements for ADB systems 

utilize the type approval framework 

used throughout the ECE standards. 

Under the type approval framework, 

production samples of new model cars 

must be approved by regulators before 

being offered for sale. This approval is 

based, in part, on testing whole vehicles 

on public roadways to verify 

performance. The ECE requirements 

specify that the adaptation of the mainbeam not cause any discomfort, 

distraction or glare to the driver of the 

ADB-equipped vehicle (for example, 

glare to the driver cause by excessive 

illumination of retroreflective signs) or 

to oncoming and preceding vehicles. 

This is demonstrated through the 

technical service performing a test drive 

on various types of roads (e.g., urban, 

multi-lane roads, and country roads), at 

a variety of speeds, and in a variety of 

specified traffic conditions. The 

performance of the ADB system is 

evaluated based on the subjective 

observations of the type approval 

engineer during this test drive. The ECE 

road test is therefore not appropriate for 

adoption as an FMVSS because it does 

not provide objective performance 

criteria. However, the proposed track 

test scenarios were based, in part, on the 

ECE road-test scenarios. 

SAE J3069 

In June 2016, SAE International (SAE) 

published SAE J3069 JUN2016, Surface 

Vehicle Recommended Practice; 

Adaptive Driving Beam (SAE J3069).22

The recommended practice, which is 

based, in part, on NHTSA’s research 

(described in Section VII below), 

includes (among other requirements) a 

track test to evaluate ADB system 

performance in avoiding excessive glare 

to other vehicles. It specifies a straight 

test path with a single lane, on either 

side of which it specifies the placement 

of test fixtures simulating an opposing 

or preceding vehicle. See Figure 1. The 

test fixtures are fitted with lamps having 

a specified luminous intensity, color, 

and size intended to simulate the 

taillamps and headlamps on a typical 

car, truck, or motorcycle. Four different 

test fixtures are specified: An opposing 

(i.e., oncoming) car/truck; an opposing 

motorcycle; a preceding car/truck; and a 

preceding motorcycle. In addition to 

simulated vehicle lighting, the test 

fixtures are fitted with photometers 23 to 

measure the illumination from the ADB 

headlamps. Although the test does not 

specify any scenarios with a curved test 

path, the placement of the fixtures 

relative to the straight test path, along 

with a sudden appearance test, are 

intended to simulate curves. 

SAE J3069 sets out a total of 18 

different test drive scenarios. The 

scenarios vary the test fixture, the 

placement of the fixture, and whether 

the lamps on the test fixture are 

illuminated for the entire test drive, or 

are instead suddenly illuminated when 

the ADB vehicle reaches a specified 

distance from the test fixture. During 

each of these test drives, the 

illuminance 24 recorded at 30 meters 

(m), 60 m, 120 m, and 155 m must not 

exceed the maximum allowed 

illuminance specified for each distance. 

See Table 1. These illuminance maxima 

are based on and similar (but not 

identical) to the maximum illuminance 

limits developed in NHTSA’s published 

research and proposed in the NPRM. If 

there is no recorded illuminance value 

at any of these distances, interpolation 

is used to estimate the illuminance at 

that distance. For sudden appearance 

tests, the system is given a maximum of 

2.5 seconds to react and adjust the beam 

to reduce illumination to a level within 

the applicable maximum. If any 

recorded (or interpolated) illuminance 

value exceeds the applicable maximum 

illuminance, SAE J3069 provides for an 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2ER22FE22.001</GPH>

ADS Test 

Vehicle 

Figure 1 - SAE test fixture positions 

Test Length 155 m 

Fixture Position 1 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 9921 

25As explained in the NPRM, FMVSS No. 108 

also contains laboratory-based photometric 

requirements. SAE J3069 refers not to these 

requirements, but to analogous requirements 

specified in other SAE standards. 26See, e.g., SAE J3069 (‘‘However, in the United 

States it is unclear how ADB would be treated 

under the current Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standard (FMVSS) 108.’’). 

27Letter from Tom Stricker, Toyota Motor North 

America, Inc. to NHTSA (Mar. 29, 2013). Toyota 

requested confidential treatment for portions of its 

submission. A redacted copy of the petition has 

been placed in the docket for this rulemaking. 

28 82 FR 42720 (Docket No. NHTSA–2017–0018). 

29 83 FR 12650 (Docket No. NHTSA–2017–0018). 

30National Transportation Safety Board. 2018. 

Pedestrian Safety. Special Investigation Report 

NTSB/SIR–18/03. Washington, DC. 

31 49 U.S.C. 30111(a). 

32 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(9). 

33 30102(a)(10). 

34 30111(b)(1). 

35 30111(b)(3)–(4). 

36See 49 CFR 1.95. 

37H.R. 3684 (117th Congress) (2021). 

allowance: The same test drive scenario 

is run with the lower beam activated. 

The ADB system can still be deemed to 

have passed the test if any of the ADB 

exceedances do not exceed 125% of the 

measured (or interpolated) illuminance 

value(s) for the lower beam. 

TABLE 1—SAE J3069 MAXIMUM

ALLOWED ILLUMINANCE

Range from 

headlamp 

to 

photometer 

(m) 

Maximum 

illuminance, 

oncoming 

(lux) 

Maximum 

illuminance, 

preceding 

(lux) 

30 .............. 1.8 18.9 

60 .............. 0.7 8.9 

120 ............ 0.3 4.0 

155 ............ 0.3 4.0 

In addition to the dynamic track test, 

SAE J3069 contains a number of other 

system requirements, such as a physical 

test (e.g., a corrosion test) and telltale 

requirements. It also requires the system 

to comply with a limited set of 

component-level laboratory-based 

photometry requirements. For example, 

for the portion of the adaptive beam that 

is directed at areas of the roadway 

unoccupied by other vehicles, the lower 

beam minimum values specified in the 

relevant SAE standard must be met.25

Specific provisions of SAE J3069 are 

discussed in more detail in the 

responses to the comments. 

Toyota Petition for Rulemaking, ADB 

Exemption Petitions, and NTSB 

Recommendation 

While ADB systems have been 

available in Europe for a number of 

years, they have not yet been deployed 

in the United States, largely because of 

industry uncertainty about whether 

FMVSS No. 108 allows ADB systems.26

Prior to the NPRM, NHTSA had not 

formally addressed whether the lighting 

standard allows ADB systems. 

Accordingly, in 2013, Toyota Motor 

North America, Inc. (Toyota) petitioned 

NHTSA for rulemaking to amend 

FMVSS No. 108 to give manufacturers 

the option of equipping vehicles with 

ADB systems.27 In its petition, Toyota 

described how its system works, 

identified potential safety benefits of the 

system, and discussed its view of how 

ADB should be treated under the 

agency’s regulations. NHTSA granted 

Toyota’s petition and the NPRM was 

NHTSA’s action on that grant. 

After receiving Toyota’s petition, but 

prior to the NPRM, NHTSA received 

two exemption petitions (under 49 CFR 

part 555) for ADB-equipped vehicles. In 

2016, Volkswagen Group of America 

(Volkswagen) submitted a petition for a 

temporary exemption from some of the 

requirements of FMVSS No. 108 to sell 

a limited number of ADB-equipped 

vehicles. NHTSA published a notice of 

receipt of this petition on September 11, 

2017, and provided a 30-day comment 

period.28 BMW of North America, LLC 

(BMW) subsequently 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.29 Both 

Volkswagen and BMW subsequently 

submitted additional information to the 

docket. Prior to today, NHTSA has not 

made a decision on either petition; as 

we explain later in the preamble, 

NHTSA is denying the petitions in a 

separate notice published today. 

Shortly before the NPRM was 

published in October 2018, the National 

Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) 

published a special investigation report 

that examined pedestrian crashes and 

related phenomena.30 The report 

covered, among other things, vehicle 

headlighting system performance. The 

NTSB found that the FMVSS should not 

limit advanced vehicle lighting systems 

that have been shown to have safety 

benefits. It also found that vehicle 

headlighting systems require an 

evaluation that is more advanced than 

laboratory bench-testing. The report 

went on to recommend that NHTSA 

revise FMVSS No. 108 to allow adaptive 

headlight systems. This final rule 

responds to these NTSB 

recommendations. 

III. NHTSA’s Statutory Authority 

NHTSA is issuing this final rule 

under the Motor Vehicle Safety Act 

(Safety Act), 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, 

Motor Vehicle Safety (49 U.S.C. 30101 

et seq.). Under the Safety Act, the 

Secretary of Transportation is 

responsible for prescribing motor 

vehicle safety standards that are 

practicable, meet the need for motor 

vehicle safety, and are stated in 

objective terms.31 ‘‘Motor vehicle 

safety’’ is defined in the Safety Act as 

‘‘the performance of a motor vehicle or 

motor vehicle equipment in a way that 

protects the public against unreasonable 

risk of accidents occurring because of 

the design, construction, or performance 

of a motor vehicle, and against 

unreasonable risk of death or injury in 

an accident, and includes 

nonoperational safety of a motor 

vehicle.’’ 32 ‘‘Motor vehicle safety 

standard’’ means a minimum 

performance standard for motor vehicles 

or motor vehicle equipment.33 When 

prescribing such standards, the 

Secretary must consider all relevant, 

available motor vehicle safety 

information.34 The Secretary must also 

consider whether a proposed standard is 

reasonable, practicable, and appropriate 

for the types of motor vehicles or motor 

vehicle equipment for which it is 

prescribed and the extent to which the 

standard will further the statutory 

purpose of reducing traffic accidents 

and associated deaths.35 The 

responsibility for promulgation of 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 

is delegated to NHTSA.36 The agency 

carefully considered these statutory 

requirements in developing this final 

rule. We evaluate this rule with respect 

to these requirements in subsequent 

sections of this preamble. 

IV. ADB Rulemaking Mandate in the 

Infrastructure, Investment and Jobs Act 

Congress has recently passed, and the 

President has signed, the Infrastructure, 

Investment and Jobs Act (‘‘IIJA’’).37

Section 24212 of IIJA contains a 

mandate for a variety of headlamp 

rulemakings, including an ADB 

rulemaking. Specifically, IIJA requires 

in paragraph (b) of § 24212 that ‘‘[n]ot 

later than 2 years after the date of 

enactment of this Act, the Secretary 

shall issue a final rule amending 

Standard 108’’ to, among other things, 

‘‘allow for the use on vehicles of 

adaptive driving beam headlamp 

systems.’’ Paragraph (a) of § 24212 

defines ‘‘adaptive driving beam 

headlamp’’ to mean a headlamp ‘‘that 

meets the performance requirements 

specified in SAE International Standard 

J3069, published on June 30, 2016.’’ 

Paragraph (c) of § 24212 states that 

‘‘[n]othing in this section precludes the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
9922 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

38 49 U.S.C. 30111(a). 

39Public Law 104–113, 110 Stat. 775 (1996). See 

Section X, Rulemaking Analyses and Notices. 

40 J.E.M. AG Supply, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred Int’l, 

Inc., 534 U.S. 124, 143–144 (2001) (‘‘[W]hen two 

statutes are capable of coexistence, it is the duty of 

the courts, absent a clearly expressed congressional 

intention to the contrary, to regard each as 

effective.’’) (quotations and citations omitted). 41See Norman J. Singer & Shambie Singer, 2B 

Sutherland Statutory Construction § 51:2 (7th ed.) 

(‘‘Courts assume that a legislature always has in 

mind previous statutes relating to the same subject 

when it enacts a new provision. In the absence of 

any express repeal or amendment, the new 

provision is presumed to accord with the legislative 

policy embodied in those prior statutes[.]’’). See 

also, e.g., U.S. v. City of New York, 359 F.3d 83, 

98 (2nd. Cir. 2004) (‘‘The courts are not at liberty 

to pick and choose among congressional 

enactments, and when two statutes are capable of 

co-existence, it is the duty of the courts, absent a 

clearly expressed congressional intention to the 

contrary, to regard each as effective.’’) (citations and 

quotations omitted). 

42Nat’l Ass’n of Home Builders v. Defenders of 

Wildlife, 551 U.S. 644, 662 (2007) (quotations, 

alterations, and citations omitted). See also, e.g., 

Branch v. Smith, 538 U.S. 254, 273 (2003) (‘‘We 

have repeatedly stated, however, that absent a 

clearly expressed congressional intention, repeals 

by implication are not favored[.]’’) (citations and 

quotations omitted); Athey v. U.S., 123 Fed. Cl. 42, 

52 (2015) (‘‘[T]the law is clear that repeals by 

implication are not favored absent clear 

congressional intent[.]’’) (quotations and citations 

omitted). 

43 J.E.M. AG Supply, Inc., 534 U.S. at 142. 

44Branch, 538 U.S. at 273 (citations and 

quotations omitted). See also, e.g., Carcieri v. 

Salazar, 555 U.S. 379, 395 (2009) (same); Nat’l 

Ass’n of Home Builders, 551 U.S. at 662 (‘‘We will 

not infer a statutory repeal unless the later statute 

expressly contradict[s] the original act or unless 

such a construction is absolutely necessary . . . in 

order that [the] words [of the later statute] shall 

have any meaning at all.’’) (quotations and citations 

omitted, alterations in original); J.E.M. AG Supply, 

Inc., 534 U.S. at 142–43 (‘‘The only permissible 

justification for a repeal by implication is when the 

earlier and later statutes are irreconcilable.’’). 

45Radzanower v. Touche Ross & Co., 426 U.S. 

148, 154 (1976). See also N.Y. Republican State 

Comm. v. SEC, 927 F.3d 499, 507 (D.C. Cir.2019) 

(quoting Radzanower). 

46See, e.g., Cheney Railroad. Co., Inc. v. ICC, 902 

F.2d 66, 68 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (‘‘[E]xplicit direction for 

something in one provision, and its absence in a 

parallel provision, implies an intent to negate it in 

the second context.’’) (quotations and citations 

omitted). But see, e.g., Carter v. Office of Workers’ 

Comp. Programs, 751 F.2d 1398 (D.C. Cir. 1985) 

(‘‘That maxim has force, however, only when there 

is no apparent reason for the inclusion of one 

disposition and the omission of a parallel 

disposition except the desire to achieve disparate 

results’’). 

Secretary from—. . . (2) revising 

Standard 108 to reflect an updated 

version of SAE International Standard 

J3069, as the Secretary determines to 

be—(A) appropriate; and (B) in 

accordance with section 30111 of [the 

Safety Act].’’ Today’s final rule satisfies 

both that ADB mandate and the core 

Safety Act requirement that FMVSSs, 

among other things, ‘‘meet the need for 

motor vehicle safety,’’ 38 which, as 

explained throughout this notice, would 

not be met by a standard that solely 

codified SAE J3069. 

Paragraphs (a) and (b) of § 24212, 

taken together, instruct NHTSA to 

amend FMVSS No. 108 to allow ADB 

systems that at least meet the 

requirements of SAE J3069. Paragraph 

(b) instructs NHTSA to ‘‘amend[ ] 

Standard 108.’’ Standard 108 is an 

FMVSS, and FMVSSs are subject to the 

criteria in § 30111 of the Safety Act, 

which include, importantly, meeting the 

need for motor vehicle safety. The 

directive to ‘‘amend[ ] Standard 108’’ in 

paragraph (b) would conflict with the 

specification of SAE J3069 in paragraph 

(a) if SAE J3069 did not meet the need 

for safety and NHTSA were limited to 

allowing any systems that met that 

standard. We also do not believe 

§ 24212 means that Congress 

determined that SAE J3069 satisfies 

§ 30111, as the codified text does not 

express this conclusion nor is there 

such a finding elsewhere in the IIJA 

statute or legislative history. Therefore, 

reading paragraphs (a) and (b) as 

requiring NHTSA to amend FMVSS No. 

108 so that ADB systems that meet SAE 

J3069 can also meet the requirements of 

the revised Standard 108 harmonizes 

the directive in paragraph (b) to 

‘‘amend[ ] Standard 108’’ with the 

specification of SAE J3069 in paragraph 

(a). It also harmonizes with the Safety 

Act, as well as with the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act,39 which, while generally requiring 

the use of consensus standards, 

importantly reserves to an agency the 

ability to decline using a consensus 

standard that it determines does not 

meet the agency’s governing statutes. 

As the Supreme Court has explained, 

statutes should be construed 

harmoniously, so that ‘‘when two 

statutes are capable of coexistence,’’ 

they should be construed as each having 

effect.40 The interpretation taken in this 

final rule achieves that goal. In contrast, 

an interpretation that would require 

NHTSA to amend the standard to permit 

any ADB system conforming to SAE 

J3069 would be an implicit repeal of the 

Safety Act in this instance—and there is 

a strong presumption against implied 

repeals.41 As the Supreme Court has 

repeatedly pointed out, ‘‘repeals by 

implication are not favored and will not 

be presumed unless the intention of the 

legislature to repeal is clear and 

manifest.’’ 42 Due to this ‘‘relatively 

stringent standard,’’ implied repeals are 

‘‘rare,’’ 43 and have generally been 

limited to situations ‘‘where provisions 

in two statutes are in irreconcilable 

conflict, or where the latter Act covers 

the whole subject of the earlier one and 

is clearly intended as a substitute.44 But 

‘‘in either case, the intention of the 

legislature to repeal must be clear and 

manifest.’’ 45 Here, Congress has shown 

no such manifest intention in § 24212. 

In particular, as NHTSA had already 

published an NPRM tentatively 

determining that SAE J3069 does not 

meet the need for safety, the Agency 

expects that a Congressional override of 

this tentative determination would have 

been far clearer, given NHTSA’s general 

authority and role in determining that 

adequate level of safety. Moreover, 

neither of the two categories of repeal by 

implication apply here because there is 

a way to harmonize § 24212 and the 

Safety Act, and § 24212 does not ‘‘cover 

the whole subject matter’’ of the Safety 

Act and is not clearly intended as a 

substitute. Therefore, we read 

paragraphs (a) and (b) to permit NHTSA 

to amend FMVSS No. 108 to impose 

requirements more stringent than SAE 

J3069 as long as those requirements are 

not inconsistent with SAE J3069. 

Next, we do not believe the specific 

mention of § 30111 in paragraph (c), and 

the absence of such an explicit reference 

to § 30111 in paragraphs (a) or (b), 

should be read to suggest that Congress 

intended the § 30111 criteria to apply 

only to subsequent revisions of FMVSS 

No. 108 (i.e., amendments to FMVSS 

No. 108 after NHTSA completes the 

ADB rulemaking mandated in paragraph 

(b)). The Agency acknowledges that, 

when Congress includes particular 

language in one section of a statute and 

omits it in another section of that 

statute, one canon of statutory 

construction (sometimes referred to as 

expressio unius est exclusio alterius) 

holds that Congress acts intentionally 

and purposely in the disparate inclusion 

or exclusion.46 However, to begin with, 

this canon is not clearly applicable here 

because paragraph (b) directs the agency 

to ‘‘amend[ ]’’ ‘‘Standard 108.’’ Because 

an FMVSS is required to meet the 

§ 30111 criteria, paragraph (b) implicitly 

references § 30111, including, among 

other things, the requirement that the 

standard meet the need for safety. 

Moreover, to construe the reference to 

§ 30111 in paragraph (c) and the 

omission of such an explicit reference in 

paragraph (b) as implying that the 

omission in (b) was intentional and 

evinced a Congressional intent that the 

Safety Act not apply to the ADB 

rulemaking would be to read paragraph 

(c) as implicitly repealing the Safety Act 

in this instance. Courts have recognized 

that it is especially inappropriate to 

apply the expressio canon when its 

application would result in an implied 

repeal, explaining ‘‘when one possible 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 9923 

47Adirondack Med. Ctr. v. Sebelius, 740 F.3d 692, 

697 (D.C. Cir. 2014). 

48 Id. 

49 Id. at 697–698. See also id. at 697 (‘‘The 

expressio unius canon is a feeble helper in an 

administrative setting, where Congress is presumed 

to have left to reasonable agency discretion 

questions that it has not directly resolved . . . The 

dizzying array of other canons that could shift the 

analysis one way or another—e.g., . . . the 

presumption against implied repeals, militates 

against finding unambiguous congressional intent 

here’’) (quotations and citations omitted). See also, 

e.g., Cheney Railroad. Co., Inc. at 69–69 (same); U.S. 

v. City of New York, 359 F.3d 83, 98 (2nd. Cir. 2004) 

(‘‘[S]ince not every silence is pregnant, expressio 

unius is an uncertain guide to interpretation.’’) 

(quotations and citations omitted). 

50National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act 

of 1966, Public Law 89–563, 103(h) (1966) (‘‘The 

Secretary shall issue initial Federal motor vehicle 

safety standards based upon existing safety 

standards on or before January 31, 1967. On or 

before January 31, 1968, the Secretary shall issue 

new and revised Federal motor vehicle safety 

standards under this title.’’). 

51 Jerry L. Mashaw & David L. Harfst, From 

Command And Control To Collaboration And 

Deference: The Transformation Of Auto Safety 

Regulation, 34 Yale J. on Reg. 167, 199 n. 106 

(2017). 

52See, e.g., 32 FR 10812 (July 22, 1967) (NPRM 

for initial FMVSS 109) (‘‘In drafting these proposed 

standards, the Bureau considered the comments 

received in response to the Advance Notice of 

Proposed Rule Making published in the Federal 

Register on February 3, 1967 (32 FR. 2417) and 

consultation with the National Motor Vehicle Safety 

Advisory Council and with representatives of the 

Federal Trade Commission, the General Services 

Administration, the National Bureau of Standards, 

and tire and auto industry associations, both 

domestic and foreign.’’). 

53National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act 

of 1966, Public Law 89–563, 103(h) (1966). 54See pp. 51777–51789. 

interpretation of a statutory provision 

has the potential to render another 

provision inert . . . the canon’s 

relevance and applicability must be 

assessed within the context of the entire 

statutory framework.’’ 47 Accordingly, 

‘‘the canon is a poor indicator of 

Congress’ intent’’ when ‘‘counterveiled 

by a broad grant of authority contained 

within the same statutory scheme.’’ 48 A 

negative inference, therefore, should 

only be drawn if there is an 

‘‘unambiguous suggest[ion that] 

Congress intended to strip’’ an agency of 

its counterveiling ‘‘broad grant of 

authority.’’ 49 As we have discussed 

above, such an intent is not present 

here. Further, it would not make sense 

to say that § 30111 applies to revisions 

to the 2016 version of SAE J3069 but not 

to the 2016 version itself. And it would 

be odd to view paragraph (c) as a 

limitation on agency authority when it 

expressly reserves agency authority. We 

therefore conclude that paragraph (c) 

should not be read to preclude NHTSA 

from issuing a final rule that imposes 

requirements beyond SAE J3069 if the 

agency concludes that SAE J3069 does 

not meet the need for safety under the 

Safety Act. 

In addition, we are unaware of any 

instances in which Congress required 

NHTSA to issue or amend an FMVSS to 

enact or incorporate by reference a 

consensus standard without reference to 

the § 30111 criteria. The closest 

precedent of which we are aware is that 

the 1966 Safety Act directed NHTSA’s 

predecessor agency to issue initial 

FMVSS ‘‘based on existing safety 

standards.’’ 50 Those ‘‘existing 

standards’’ ‘‘were understood to be the 

[General Services Administration] 

standards then in effect for government 

vehicles.’’ 51 However, the initial 

standards were not required to be 

identical to those ‘‘existing standards,’’ 

only to be ‘‘based on’’ them; consistent 

with this, the initial FMVSS did not 

simply copy existing standards.52

Moreover, the 1966 Act went on to 

direct that, after issuing the initial 

FMVSS, the agency ‘‘shall issue new 

and revised Federal motor vehicle safety 

standards under this title’’ within two 

years from the enactment of the Act.53

This shows, if anything, a general 

Congressional preference for providing 

NHTSA with at least some discretion 

over the content of the standards. 

Today’s final rule is therefore 

consistent with the § 24212 mandate. 

The rule amends FMVSS No. 108 to 

allow for the use of ADB systems. While 

NHTSA has modified the proposal to 

follow SAE J3069 more closely where 

warranted, the final rule includes some 

requirements (such as test scenarios) not 

included in SAE J3069. NHTSA has 

concluded that these deviations from 

SAE J3069 are—pursuant to the Safety 

Act—necessary for the final rule to meet 

the need for motor vehicle safety, 

because SAE J3069 does not adequately 

address the safety needs of visibility and 

glare prevention. The final rule, 

however, does not conflict with ADB 

systems that meet the performance 

requirements of SAE J3069 because a 

headlamp designed to comply with 

NHTSA’s final rule can also be designed 

to conform with SAE J3069. The 

differences between the final rule and 

SAE J3069, as well as our test data on 

the performance of ADB systems tested 

to both the final rule and J3069 are 

described in detail throughout this 

preamble. 

V. Summary of the NPRM 

Proposed Requirements and Test 

Procedures 

NHTSA tentatively concluded that 

because ADB technology has the 

potential to provide safety benefits in 

preventing collisions with pedestrians, 

animals, and roadside objects—while 

not increasing glare—FMVSS No. 108 

should be amended to permit it. 

NHTSA further tentatively concluded 

that to ensure ADB systems operate 

safely, the standard should be amended 

to include additional requirements 

specific to ADB systems. The existing 

headlamp requirements (including the 

requirements for semiautomatic beam 

switching devices) have two features 

that make them ill-suited to evaluate 

ADB performance. First, they are 

component-level requirements that 

involve testing the performance of an 

individual headlamp in a laboratory; 

they do not evaluate the performance of 

the headlamp system on the vehicle as 

it is driven on the road, which is 

particularly important for ADB because 

it adapts to roadway conditions. 

Second, the preexisting semiautomatic 

beam switching device requirements are 

only related to which of two beams 

(upper or lower) are appropriate. They 

do not contemplate an adaptive beam 

that is capable of dynamically 

producing many different beam patterns 

in response to vehicles and other object 

in the road. For example, the sensitivity 

test for semiautomatic beam switching 

devices currently tests the ability of the 

device to switch between a lower and 

upper beam when exposed to a light 

source in a controlled laboratory setting. 

These requirements would 

accordingly not evaluate the 

performance of an ADB system as it 

adapts the beam when driven on an 

actual road in the presence of other 

vehicles. In particular, because ADB 

systems use relatively new technology 

to dynamically change the beam to 

accommodate the presence of other 

vehicles, they have the potential—if not 

designed otherwise—to glare other 

motorists. This could create safety risks 

for those other motorists. We therefore 

proposed amending the standard to 

include vehicle-level track-tested 

requirements specifically tailored to 

evaluate whether an ADB system 

functions safely and limits glare for 

other motorists. We also proposed a set 

of component-level laboratory-tested 

requirements to ensure that ADB 

systems always provide adequate 

visibility; some of these requirements 

were also related to glare. Below, we 

briefly summarize the proposed 

requirements. For additional 

information and detail, the reader is 

referred to the NPRM.54


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
9924 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

55See Section VII, NHTSA Research and Testing. 

56While the NPRM used the terms ‘‘dimmed 

area’’ and ‘‘undimmed area,’’ this document and the 

final regulatory text use the terms ‘‘area of reduced 

intensity’’ and ‘‘area of unreduced intensity’’ to 

more closely follow the terminology in SAE J3069. 

57S9.4.1. 

58S14.9.3.11. 

Vehicle-Level Track Test To Evaluate 

Glare 

The centerpiece of the proposal was a 

vehicle-level track test to evaluate ADB 

performance in recognizing and limiting 

glaring for other vehicles. We proposed 

evaluating the performance of an ADBequipped vehicle (test vehicle) in a 

variety of different types of interactions 

with either an oncoming or preceding 

vehicle (referred to as a ‘‘stimulus’’ 

vehicle because it stimulates a response 

from the ADB system). The stimulus 

vehicle would be equipped with sensors 

near the driver’s eyes (or rearview 

mirrors) to measure the illuminance 

from the ADB headlamps. The 

illuminance falling on the stimulus 

vehicle would be measured and 

recorded throughout the test run. 

To evaluate ADB performance, we 

proposed a set of maximum allowed 

illuminance values (glare limits). These 

are numeric illuminance values that 

would be the maximum illuminance the 

ADB system would be permitted to cast 

on the stimulus vehicle during the track 

test. See Table 2. We proposed sampling 

illuminance values throughout the 

proposed measurement ranges (also 

referred to in this document as 

measurement distances). The proposed 

compliance criterion was that any 

recorded illuminance value greater than 

the applicable glare limit would be 

considered a test failure, except that 

values above the applicable glare limit 

lasting no longer than 0.1 second(s) or 

over a distance of no longer than 1 m 

would not be considered test failures. 

This adjustment was intended to allow 

for electric noise in the photometers 

(i.e., any electrical signal whose source 

is not a result of changes in 

illuminance) as well as momentary 

changes in vehicle pitch. 

TABLE 2—PROPOSED MAXIMUM ILLUMINANCE CRITERIA

Measurement distance 

(m) 

Maximum illuminance 

oncoming direction 

(lux) 

Maximum illuminance same direction 

(lux) 

15.0 to 29.9 3.1 18.9 

30.0 to 59.9 1.8 18.9 

60.0 to 119.9 0.6 4.0 

120.0 to 220 0.3 N/A 

The proposal specified a broad set of 

potential stimulus vehicles. We 

proposed using any FMVSS-certified 

vehicle from the five model years 

preceding the model year of the test 

vehicle, subject to a specified height 

constraint that was intended to exclude 

unusually high- or low-riding vehicles. 

We proposed a variety of scenarios to 

dynamically assess ADB system 

performance. We proposed three basic 

maneuvers for testing compliance: 

oncoming (where the test and stimulus 

vehicles approach each other traveling 

in opposite directions); same direction/ 

same lane (where the stimulus vehicle 

precedes the test vehicle in the same 

lane); and same direction/passing with 

one vehicle (either the stimulus or test 

vehicle) traveling faster than and 

overtaking the other vehicle. We also 

proposed scenarios where the stimulus 

vehicle was stationary. 

We proposed to test each type of 

maneuver at various test and stimulus 

vehicle speeds (from 0 to 70 mph) on 

both a straight test path and on left and 

right curves of varying radii: A ‘‘short’’ 

curve (with radii from 98 m to 116 m), 

a ‘‘medium’’ curve (223 m to 241 m), 

and a ‘‘large’’ curve (335 m to 396 m). 

The proposal also included a variety of 

related test procedures and conditions, 

such as adjusting for ambient light, the 

condition of the road surface, and the 

number of lanes. The proposed glare 

limits and test procedures were based 

on extensive agency research and 

testing.55

Component-Level Laboratory 

Photometric Testing 

The NPRM also proposed componentlevel laboratory-tested headlamp 

photometry requirements for the 

adaptive beams. We proposed to require 

that the part of the adaptive driving 

beam that is cast near other vehicles (the 

area of reduced intensity) must conform 

to the Table XIX lower beam 

photometry requirements (i.e., maxima 

and minima). We similarly proposed 

that the part of the adaptive beam cast 

onto areas of the roadway not occupied 

by other vehicles (area of unreduced 

intensity) conform with the Table XVIII 

upper beam photometric maxima and 

minima.56 These proposed requirements 

were intended to act as a complement 

to the track test in ensuring other 

motorists were not glared (the 

photometric maxima) and to ensure a 

minimum level of visibility (the 

photometric minima), an aspect not 

evaluated in the track test. 

Other System Requirements 

The standard has long specified a 

variety of requirements specifically for 

semiautomatic beam switching devices 

(in S9.4.1 and S14.9.3.11). The proposal 

extended some but not all of these 

requirements to ADB systems. 

The proposal extended the existing 

requirements for manual override, failsafe operation (i.e., a failure of the 

automatic control portion of the device 

must not result in loss of manual beam 

switching control), and an automatic 

dimming indicator.57

The proposal did not extend the 

existing semiautomatic beam switching 

device requirements for lens 

accessibility or mounting height. It also 

did not extend any of the existing 

physical test requirements to ADB 

systems.58 These include the sensitivity 

test mentioned above, as well as tests 

such as a corrosion test and a 

temperature test. We proposed not 

subjecting ADB systems to these 

requirements for two reasons. First, as 

noted above, those requirements date 

from the 1960s and, accordingly, many 

of them (such as the sensitivity test) do 

not usefully extend to modern ADB 

technologies. Second, we tentatively 

believed that market forces would 

ensure an ADB system’s switching 

device will operate robustly with 

respect to environmental conditions. 

We also proposed additional 

requirements for ADB systems that are 

not currently required for 

semiautomatic beam switching devices. 

This included requirements related to 

fault detection and a requirement that 

the ADB system must produce a lower 

beam at speeds below 25 mph. 

Regulatory Alternatives 

The NPRM identified two main 

alternatives to the proposed 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 9925 

59 Global Automakers and the Alliance of 

Automobile Manufacturers each commented during 

the comment period. After the comment period had 

ended, they merged to form the Alliance for 

Automotive Innovation. The Alliance for 

Automotive Innovation subsequently commented 

on this rulemaking. Comments from each of these 

three entities are summarized and identified by 

reference to the entity that submitted the comment. 

60SAE, on behalf of the SAE lighting systems 

group (which developed SAE J3069) submitted a 

detailed comment that touched on harmonization as 

well as a variety of other issues. A majority of 

industry commenters explicitly supported SAE’s 

comments. 

requirements and test procedures: the 

ECE ADB requirements and SAE J3069. 

As noted earlier, however, the ECE 

requirements are not sufficiently 

objective to be incorporated into an 

FMVSS. Accordingly, the main 

regulatory alternative we considered 

was SAE J3069. 

The proposal followed SAE J3069 in 

many respects but deviated from it in 

several significant ways. These 

differences are briefly discussed below 

and summarized in Table 3. The 

proposal identified the deviations from 

SAE J3069 and provided a tentative 

justification for those deviations. The 

proposal sought comment on the 

relative merits of the proposal and SAE 

J3069 in all of these respects. 

Vehicle-level track test to evaluate 

glare. Both the proposal and SAE J3069 

specified a vehicle-level track test to 

evaluate glare. The proposed glare limits 

were essentially identical to the glare 

limits in SAE J3069. The proposed track 

test, however, significantly differed 

from the SAE standard in four main 

ways: it utilized actual stimulus 

vehicles, not test fixtures; it proposed 

actual curves, not simulated curves; it 

included a large set of test scenarios, 

including scenarios with a moving 

stimulus vehicle, and complex vehicle 

maneuvers (e.g., passing scenarios); and, 

finally, it specified different data 

measurement and allowance 

procedures. 

Component-level laboratory 

photometric testing. The proposal 

applied more of the current componentlevel photometric requirements to the 

ADB system to regulate both glare and 

visibility. With respect to glare, while 

we proposed to require that the area of 

reduced intensity not exceed the current 

lower beam maxima, and the area of 

unreduced intensity not exceed the 

current upper beam maxima, SAE J3069 

requires only the former. With respect to 

visibility, we proposed that the area of 

reduced intensity meet the lower beam 

minima and the area of unreduced 

intensity meet the upper beam minima; 

SAE J3069 only specifies the lower 

beam minima for the area of unreduced 

intensity. 

Other system requirements. The 

proposed telltale and malfunction 

requirements were similar to the 

requirements in SAE J3069. The 

proposal mainly differed from SAE 

J3069 in specifying a minimum 

activation speed, and in not applying 

any physical test requirements to ADB 

systems. 

TABLE 3—SUMMARY OF MAJOR DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE NPRM AND SAE J3069 

Test elements NPRM SAE J3069 

Vehicle-level track test to evaluate 

glare: 

Stimulus ............................................ Broad range of stimulus vehicles ............................. Test fixtures.

Test track geometry .......................... Specifies actual curves of various sizes ................... Specifies a straight path and uses fixture placement 

to simulates curves. 

Test scenarios .................................. Specified scenarios with moving and stationary 

stimulus vehicles and a variety of road geometries.

Specified smaller set of less complex scenarios. 

Data measurement and glare limit 

applicability.

Applies the glare limits throughout the measurement range specified for each scenario.

Sampling rate of at least 200 Hz ..............................

Applies the glare limits only at 30 m, 60 m, 120 m, 

and 155 m. 

Sampling rate of at least 10 Hz. 

Compliance criteria ........................... Specified allowance for momentary glare 

exceedances.

Allows measured illuminance to exceed an applicable glare limit if it does not exceed 125% of the 

lower beam illuminance under the same conditions. 

Component-level laboratory test: 

Area of reduced intensity ................. Specified lower beam (Table XIX) minima and 

maxima.

Specifies lower beam maxima. 

Area of unreduced intensity ............. Specified upper beam (Table XVIII) minima and 

maxima.

Specifies lower beam minima. 

Minimum activation speed ................ 25 mph ...................................................................... Not specified. 

VI. Overview of Comments 

NHTSA received 217 comments on 

the proposal. This included comments 

from 32 vehicle and equipment 

manufacturers, industry groups,59 and 

test laboratories, as well as 5 comments 

from public interest groups. We also 

received comments from 19 owner/ 

operators of drive-in movie theatres, 

including the United Drive-In Theatre 

Owners Association. The balance of the 

comments was from individual 

members of the public. An index of 

comments cited in this preamble along 

with the comment identification 

numbers is provided in Appendix D. 

All industry and public-interest 

commenters supported amending the 

standard to allow the introduction of 

ADB systems. A majority of the industry 

commenters and the Competitive 

Enterprise Institute (CEI) strongly 

supported closer harmonization with 

SAE J3069 (or with the ECE 

requirements).60 These comments 

focused primarily on costs from 

disharmonization due to the resulting 

need for market-specific hardware, 

components, and/or software. Several 

commenters argued that the increased 

costs associated with the proposal 

would increase consumer costs and 

hinder ADB adoption and the 

concomitant safety benefits. Several 

industry commenters and the Insurance 

Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) 

stated that the proposal did not 

maximize overall benefits because it 

prioritized glare prevention over 

enhanced visibility, and opined that the 

final rule should place greater weight on 

the benefits associated with enhanced 

visibility. 

Drive-in theatre owner/operators 

stressed the importance of the ADB 

system providing a means for manual 

headlamp control. Many indicated some 

level of support for the rule (assuming 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
9926 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

61Michael J. Flannagan & John M. Sullivan. 2011. 

Feasibility of New Approaches for the Regulation of 

Motor Vehicle Lighting Performance. Washington, 

DC: National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration (NHTSA–2018–0090–0002). See 

also 77 FR 40843 (July 11, 2012) (request for 

comments on the report). 

62Elizabeth Mazzae, G.H. Scott Baldwin, Adam 

Andrella, & Larry A. Smith. 2015. Adaptive Driving 

Beam Headlighting System Glare Assessment, DOT 

HS 812 174. Washington, DC: National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA–2018–0090– 

0003). 

63See NPRM, pp. 51773–51774. 

64The OVSC laboratory procedures are not part 

the regulatory text. Published separately by OVSC, 

they are intended to provide laboratories contracted 

by NHTSA with additional guidelines for obtaining 

compliance test data. 

65To represent a motorcycle headlamp, this 

testing used a 5.75 inch bullet headlamp kit from 

a 2018 Harley Davidson Roadster using an HB2 

replaceable light source (part #68593–06). After this 

testing and before the publication of this final rule, 

it provides for manual control). The 

majority of comments from individual 

members of the public supported the 

proposal, often on the grounds that it 

would likely reduce glare or increase 

safety. A number of these commenters 

noted the availability of this technology 

in Europe. Several individuals who 

opposed the proposal thought that it 

would increase glare. 

With respect to specific aspects of the 

proposal, while most industry and 

public-interest groups supported a track 

test, many of these commenters argued 

that the specific track test in the 

proposal was impracticable and 

excessively burdensome, especially 

with respect to the number and 

complexity of test scenarios and the use 

of stimulus vehicles instead of fixtures. 

These commenters especially focused 

on the broad set of proposed stimulus 

vehicles. Some industry commenters 

also raised concerns with the objectivity 

and repeatability of the test procedure. 

Many industry commenters also 

opposed the use of a curved test path; 

they recommended that curved test 

paths be simulated with the placement 

of test fixtures relative to a straight test 

path. Many of these commenters also 

stated that the final rule should provide 

less stringent compliance criteria and 

provide a greater allowance for 

illuminance levels above the proposed 

glare limits (for example, by evaluating 

the ratio of ADB illuminance to lower 

beam illuminance or allowing 

additional time for an ADB system to 

react to the test stimulus). Industry 

commenters also raised issues about 

other aspects of the test procedures, 

such as data filtering and vehicle pitch. 

The agency also received comments 

about the proposed component-level 

laboratory test requirements. A few 

industry commenters (including SAE) 

contended that component-level testing 

is unnecessary, while some industry 

members and public-interest groups 

supported aspects of the laboratory test 

requirements. Many industry 

commenters pointed out the need for a 

transition zone between areas of 

reduced and unreduced intensity. 

Multiple industry commenters and 

some public-interest commenters 

recommended not requiring the lower 

beam minima in areas of reduced 

intensity in order to realize the full 

glare-reducing potential of ADB 

technology. Several industry 

commenters also suggested specifying 

the lower beam minima, not the upper 

beam minima, in areas of unreduced 

intensity. Some industry and publicinterest commenters supported 

increasing the maxima in an area of 

unreduced intensity to the higher level 

allowed in Europe. Several industry 

commenters requested NHTSA clarify 

certain terms in the regulatory text. 

We also received comments about 

other system requirements, including 

the minimum ADB activation speed, 

operator controls, telltales, and 

headlamp mounting requirements. 

VII. NHTSA Research and Testing 

Research Before the NPRM 

Two NHTSA research studies formed 

the basis for the NPRM. (This research 

was necessary because, among other 

things, the current photometry 

requirements are laboratory-tested 

component-level requirements, not 

vehicle-level requirements tested on a 

track.) In 2012, the agency published a 

study (Feasibility Study) 61 exploring 

the feasibility of new approaches to 

regulating vehicle lighting performance, 

including headlamp photometry. 

Among other things, the study 

presented vehicle-based headlamp 

photometry requirements derived from 

the current component-level photometry 

requirements in Tables XVIII (upper 

beam) and XIX (lower beam). This 

included vehicle-based photometry 

requirements to ensure that other 

vehicles are not glared. NHTSA then 

built on this effort by developing a 

vehicle-level track test to evaluate 

whether an ADB system conforms with 

the derived photometry requirements 

for glare prevention (2015 ADB Test 

Report).62 For more information on this 

research, the reader is referred to the 

NPRM 63 and the docketed research 

reports. 

Research After the NPRM 

After reviewing the comments on the 

NPRM, NHTSA explored opportunities 

to modify the proposal to resemble SAE 

J3069 more closely, while at the same 

time retaining a sufficient degree of 

realism the agency believes the SAE 

standard lacks. Most significantly, 

NHTSA explored using stationary test 

fixtures instead of dynamic stimulus 

vehicles. NHTSA developed and 

fabricated test fixtures that were similar 

to the fixtures specified in SAE J3069 

but differed in some important respects 

(this is discussed below). NHTSA 

developed a modified version of the 

NPRM test procedure (including a 

simplified set of test scenarios) using 

the test fixtures. NHTSA then carried 

out a series of preliminary and full-scale 

vehicle tests to develop and validate 

those test procedures. Those test 

procedures are the same test procedures 

specified in this final rule. The research 

also documented testing details to 

support the laboratory test procedure 

manual that will be used by NHTSA’s 

Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance 

(OVSC).64

NHTSA used the following three 

vehicles in the test program. 

• 2019 Ford Fusion equipped with 

FMVSS-certified halogen headlamps; 

Æ Selected because it was a high-sales 

vehicle with halogen headlamps 

compliant with FMVSS No. 108, and the 

vehicle was readily available at 

NHTSA’s Vehicle Research and Testing 

Center (VRTC). 

• 2016 Volvo XC90 equipped with 

FMVSS-certified LED headlamps; 

Æ Selected because it was equipped 

with LED headlamps rated 

‘‘Acceptable’’ by IIHS, and the vehicle 

was readily available at NHTSA’s VRTC. 

• 2018 Lexus NX300 (European mass 

production model) equipped with ADB 

LED headlamps modified by the 

manufacturer to be consistent with a 

visually optically aligned right (VOR) 

beam pattern used in the United States. 

Æ Selected because it was equipped 

with an ADB system, modified to 

project lower and upper beam patterns 

compliant with FMVSS No. 108. 

Preliminary Test Development and 

Validation 

NHTSA created a test fixture to 

accommodate both the NHTSA and SAE 

test procedures. The test fixture 

positioned a vertical array of 

illuminance meter light sensors (i.e., 

receptor heads) in specified positions 

and provided accurate positioning for 

the various NHTSA and SAE lamp 

configurations. The configurations 

included stimulus lamps specified in 

today’s final rule: MY 2018 Ford F–150 

headlamps and taillamps, MY 2018 

Toyota Camry headlamps and taillamps, 

and a MY 2018 Harley Davidson 

motorcycle taillamp,65 and the lamps 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 9927 

that part went out of production and has been 

replaced with part #68297–05B. 

66Mazzae, E.N., Baldwin, G.H.S., Satterfield, K., 

& Browning, D.A. 2021. Adaptive Driving Beam 

Headlamps Test Repeatability Assessment. 

Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration. 

67Mazzae, E.N., Baldwin, G.H.S., Satterfield, K., 

Browning, D.A., & Andrella, A.T. 2021. Adaptive 

Driving Beam Headlighting Systems Rulemaking 

Support Testing. Washington, DC: National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 

68The final rule regulatory text uses the terms 

‘‘same direction’’ and ‘‘opposite direction’’ to reflect 

that the final rule uses fixtures and not stimulus 

vehicles. 

specified in SAE J3069 intended to 

simulate headlamps and taillamps. This 

single test fixture was able to 

accommodate needed light sensor 

configurations for both oncoming and 

same direction test scenarios. 

As an important initial step as part of 

the research, NHTSA evaluated the 

stability of the measured illuminance 

values without a test vehicle present to 

determine the level of noise (if any) in 

the measurement system that was not 

dependent on the vehicle being tested. 

For each stimulus lamp condition, 

illuminance data were recorded for a 

period of 30 seconds in typical test 

conditions. The results indicated that 

both the analog and digital data, 

measured at frequency over time, 

demonstrated low standard deviations 

for each of the receptor heads for each 

of the ten test lamp conditions, 

suggesting very little system noise or 

fluctuation from ambient conditions. In 

fact, each lamp condition had at least 

two receptor heads that exhibited no 

variability (standard deviation = 0) in 

the digital data. Thus, the illuminance 

meter outputs appeared to be stable. 

Testing of the three vehicle models 

with headlighting systems operating in 

lower beam mode showed that the 

measurement system and the headlamp 

types tested, halogen and LED, were 

compatible with the test equipment (i.e., 

no abnormalities in measurements were 

observed based upon the type of 

headlighting system). 

NHTSA performed tests to assess 

whether test scenarios could be 

executed with sufficiently steady 

vehicle dynamics such that, in lower 

beam mode, headlamp illumination 

measured during the dynamic test 

scenario would match that measured in 

the same location with the vehicle 

stationary. Measured illuminance and 

pitch data values were extracted for 

both dynamic and static test trials at 

specific scenario path points 

corresponding to an end of a glare limit 

distance range. This study found that 

dynamically-influenced variation was 

not a major contributor to variability in 

the test. Pitch was found to have a major 

influence on illuminance 

measurements; however, the sources of 

pitch variance were primarily static in 

nature (resulting from waviness in the 

track pavement) and not dynamic 

(acceleration, or dynamic oscillations). 

Full-Scale Validation Testing 

After successfully completing this 

preliminary evaluative testing, NHTSA 

proceeded to validate the final test 

procedure by performing three sets of 

full-scale tests. 

In the first set of tests, the ADBequipped Lexus NX300 was subjected 

(in ADB mode) to the final rule test 

procedure as well as the SAE test 

procedure. We also evaluated ADB 

system performance using a full F–150 

vehicle as a stimulus instead of a test 

fixture. In general, the ADB system 

installed on the tested vehicle 

responded similarly to the test fixture as 

it did to the full stimulus vehicle. 

In the second set of tests, the agency 

subjected all three test vehicles with 

headlighting systems operating in lower 

beam mode to the NHTSA ADB test 

procedure. Measured illuminance 

values were evaluated with respect to 

the glare limit criteria. The lower beams 

of the Ford Fusion had passing results 

below the glare limits in all test 

scenarios, while the lower beams of the 

Lexus NX300 did not pass several of the 

test scenarios when illuminance values 

were compared to the glare limits. The 

Volvo lower beams performed well 

under the limits for the straight and left 

curve scenarios, but exceeded the limits 

finalized today for the right curves. 

In the third set of validation tests, the 

agency conducted a series of tests using 

the 2016 Volvo XC90 with the lower 

beams activated to determine the 

repeatability of measured illuminance 

values and test outcomes for both the 

final rule and SAE test procedures. 

Testing involving multiple runs of each 

test scenario was conducted to permit 

different types of repeatability analyses, 

including same night (gauge); different 

night (test procedure); and different 

headlamp aiming technician 

(reproducibility). The repeated testing 

was performed to support an assessment 

of the repeatability of measured 

illuminance values and test outcomes 

for the final rule’s ADB test procedure 

(as well as the SAE test procedure). A 

summary of the agency’s repeatability 

analysis is presented in Section 

VIII.C.11. The full results of NHTSA’s 

test procedure repeatability and 

reproducibility analyses are detailed in 

the repeatability report docketed with 

this final rule.66 The test procedures 

reported in that document are the same 

as the procedures used in the first and 

second sets of validation tests described 

above. NHTSA is also docketing a full 

test report more fully describing the 

agency’s testing.67

VIII. Final Rule and Response to 

Comments 

A. Summary of the Final Rule and 

Modifications to the NPRM 

The major components of the final 

rule are summarized below, including 

the most significant differences between 

the final rule and the NPRM. Less 

significant changes are discussed in the 

appropriate sections of the preamble. 

Vehicle-Level Track Test To Evaluate 

Glare 

The final rule retains the track test but 

departs from the proposal in a few ways. 

Stimulus test fixtures instead of 

stimulus vehicles. The final rule 

specifies the use of test fixtures instead 

of stimulus vehicles. This change will 

result in a less complex test more 

closely harmonized with SAE J3069, 

while still ensuring that ADB systems 

operate safely. While the test fixture 

specifications follow the SAE J3069 

specifications with respect to the 

locations of the photometers and 

stimulus lamps, the final rule requires 

the use of more real-world 

representative lighting by specifying 

original equipment vehicle headlamps 

and taillamps. 

More efficient test scenarios. The final 

rule substantially simplifies the number 

and complexity of test scenarios. 

Because the final rule specifies stimulus 

test fixtures and not stimulus vehicles, 

all scenarios involving a moving 

stimulus vehicle (e.g., passing scenarios) 

were eliminated. While the final rule 

retains oncoming and preceding 

scenarios 68 with a curved test path, the 

agency modified the measurement 

distances and eliminated some 

scenarios entirely because they were 

deemed unnecessary. With respect to 

oncoming scenarios, the straight and 

large left curve scenarios are retained 

essentially as proposed, and the shortradius right curve scenario has been 

eliminated. The final rule retains 

scenarios with other proposed curves 

but truncates the distances at which 

ADB illuminance is evaluated. With 

respect to preceding glare scenarios, the 

final rule retains (with truncated 

measurement distances) the straight and 

medium left curve scenarios. These 

modifications, summarized in Table 4, 

respond to comments that expressed 

concern about the complexity of the 

proposed testing. NHTSA believes that 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
9928 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

69Small = 98 m–116 m; Med = 223 m–241 m; 

Large = 335 m–396 m. 70Small = 85 m–115 m; Med = 210 m–250 m; 

Large = 335 m–400 m. 

the finalized test scenarios meet the 

need for motor vehicle safety by 

containing a broad range of realistic 

road geometries—including curves— 

and vehicle interactions while 

addressing possible redundancies. 

TABLE 4—SUMMARY OF MODIFICATIONS TO THE PROPOSED TRACK TEST SCENARIOS

NPRM Final rule 

NPRM test # 

Measurement 

distance 

(m) 

Stimulus 

vehicle 

speed 

(mph) 

Test vehicle speed 

(mph) 

Radius 

(sizedirection) 69

Final 

test # 

Measurement 

distance 

(m) 

Test 

vehicle 

speed 

(mph) 

Radius 

(sizedirection) 70

Oncoming (adjacent lane): 

1 ................................................................ 15–220 60–70 60–70 Straight ........... ................ Dropped 

2 ................................................................ 15–220 0 60–70 Straight ........... 1 15–220 60–70 Straight 

5a .............................................................. 15–220 25–30 25–30 Small—R ........ Dropped 

5b .............................................................. 15–220 25–30 25–30 Small—L 

6a .............................................................. 15–220 0 25–30 Small—R 

6b .............................................................. 15–220 0 25–30 Small—L ......... 2 15–59.9 25–30 Small—L 

7a .............................................................. 15–220 40–45 40–45 Med—R ................ Dropped 

7b .............................................................. 15–220 40–45 40–45 Med—L 

8a .............................................................. 15–220 0 40–45 Med—R .......... 5 15–50 40–45 Med—R 

8b .............................................................. 15–220 0 40–45 Med—L ........... 3 15–150 40–45 Med—L 

11a ............................................................ 15–220 50–55 50–55 Large—R ................ Dropped 

11b ............................................................ 15–220 50–55 50–55 Large—L 

N/A ............................................................ N/A N/A N/A N/A ................. 6 15–70 50–55 Large—R 

N/A ............................................................ N/A N/A N/A N/A ................. 4 15–220 50–55 Large—L 

Same Direction Same Lane: 

1 ................................................................ 15–220 60–70 60–70 Straight ................ Dropped 

5a .............................................................. 15–220 25–30 25–30 Small—L 

5b .............................................................. 15–220 25–30 25–30 Small—R 

7a .............................................................. 15–220 40–45 40–45 Med—L 

7b .............................................................. 15–220 40–45 40–45 Med—R 

11a ............................................................ 15–220 50–55 50–55 Large—L 

11b ............................................................ 15–220 50–55 50–55 Large—R 

Same Direction Adjacent Lane Fast ADB: 

2 ................................................................ 15–119.9 0 60–70 Straight ........... 7 15–100 60–70 Straight 

3 ................................................................ 15–119.9 40–45 60–70 Straight ........... ................ Dropped 

6a .............................................................. 15–119.9 0 25–30 Small—R 

6b .............................................................. 15–119.9 0 25–30 Small—L 

8a .............................................................. 15–119.9 0 40–45 Med—R 

8b .............................................................. 15–119.9 0 40–45 Med—L ........... 8 15–100 40–45 Med—L 

9a .............................................................. 15–119.9 30–35 40–45 Med—R .......... ................ Dropped 

9b .............................................................. 15–119.9 30–35 40–45 Med—L 

13a ............................................................ 15–119.9 40–45 50–55 Large—R 

13b ............................................................ 15–119.9 40–45 50–55 Large—L 

Same Direction Fast Stimulus: 

4 ................................................................ 30–119.9 60–70 40–45 Straight ........... ................ Dropped 

Data measurement and allowances. 

The final rule makes some changes to 

how NHTSA will measure and evaluate 

ADB system illuminance. NHTSA has 

added a specification for a data filter. It 

has deleted the proposed International 

Roughness Index parameter and 

replaced it with an explicit adjustment 

for vehicle pitch. The proposed 0.1 

second (or 1 m) allowance for 

momentary glare exceedances has been 

modified by deleting the distance 

component and more clearly specifying 

how this adjustment will be applied. 

The final rule also includes additional 

specifications for the photometer. 

Component-Level Laboratory 

Photometric Testing 

The final rule retains the proposed 

requirements for component-level 

laboratory testing but has modified them 

to give manufacturers greater design 

flexibility. 

Defining ‘‘adaptive driving beam’’ as 

a new beam type. The final rule defines 

a new beam type, an ‘‘adaptive driving 

beam,’’ as ‘‘a beam consisting of area(s) 

of reduced intensity, unreduced 

intensity, and transition zone(s).’’ We 

eliminated 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 an area of unreduced 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 9929 

71For a more detailed discussion, see NPRM, 83 

FR 51774–51777. 

72FMVSS No. 108 specifies, for each class of 

vehicle, required and optional (if-equipped) lighting 

elements. The standard sets out various 

performance requirements for the required and 

optional lighting elements. The standard also 

allows vehicles to be equipped with lighting not 

otherwise regulated as required or optional 

equipment. This type of lighting equipment is 

referred to as ‘‘supplemental’’ or auxiliary lighting. 

Supplemental lighting is permitted if it does not 

impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment 

required by the standard. S6.2.1. 

73The interpretation set out in the NPRM 

assumed that the adaptive beam would always be 

a ‘‘lower beam’’ under the version of the standard 

predating this final rule because a ‘‘lower beam’’ is 

defined in the standard as ‘‘a beam intended to 

illuminate the road and its environs . . . when 

meeting or closely following another vehicle.’’ This 

assumed that in the absence of other vehicles ADB 

systems would provide a full upper beam, and not 

an adaptive beam. However, some of the 

commenters pointed out that an adaptive beam (i.e., 

less than a full upper beam) might also be provided 

in the absence of other vehicles (for example, in 

order to minimize glare to the driver from 

retroreflective signs). As we explain later in this 

preamble, the final rule allows for this type of beam 

design. 

74The test matrix specifies ranges for the various 

test parameters. Other provisions in the final 

regulatory text also specify ranges of values at 

which various testing parameters may be set. The 

larger the range of values, the broader the 

parameters for which the vehicle much perform. 

Where a range of values is specified, the vehicle 

must be able to meet the requirements at all values 

within the range. In addition, the word ‘‘any,’’ used 

in connection with a range of values or set of items 

in the requirements, conditions, and procedures of 

an FMVSS means generally the totality of the items 

or values, any one of which may be selected by the 

agency for testing. See 49 CFR 571.4, Explanation 

of Usage. 

intensity as being directed ‘‘in other 

directions.’’ The final rule is intended to 

provide manufacturers flexibility to 

decide which portions of the roadway 

will receive an area of reduced or 

unreduced intensity, subject to several 

requirements or constraints (such as the 

track test that evaluates glare). This will 

enable systems to provide an area of 

reduced intensity not only to prevent 

glare to oncoming or preceding vehicles, 

but also in other situations in which 

reduced intensity would be beneficial 

(for example, towards retroreflective 

signs, or on a wet roadway). 

Transition zone. In response to 

comments, the final rule also allows for 

a 1-degree transition zone between an 

area of reduced intensity and an area of 

unreduced intensity. 

Requirements for areas of reduced 

intensity. The final rule retains the 

requirement that an area of reduced 

intensity not exceed the lower beam 

maxima in order to help ensure that 

other motorists are not subject to glare. 

It also continues to require that an area 

of reduced intensity meet the lower 

beam minima; NHTSA believes this 

requirement is important because 

neither the proposal nor the final rule 

include any ‘‘false positive’’ tests to 

ensure that an ADB system does not 

mistakenly dim the beam in the absence 

of any oncoming or preceding vehicles. 

Requirements for areas of unreduced 

intensity. The final rule follows the 

NPRM and specifies the existing upper 

beam minima and maxima. In response 

to comments that suggested not 

specifying the upper beam minima in 

this area (in order to allow less 

illumination in situations in which it 

would be appropriate, such as towards 

a retroreflective sign), we have, as 

explained above, eliminated the 

proposed regulatory text that implied 

that an area of unreduced intensity 

should be directed towards areas of the 

roadway not occupied by other vehicles. 

This will allow manufacturers to design 

systems that provide an area of reduced 

intensity to areas of the road that are not 

occupied by other vehicles but for 

which it may be appropriate to provide 

less illumination than would be 

required by the upper beam minima. 

As was proposed, the final rule does 

not adopt the higher ECE upper beam 

maxima. While NHTSA agrees with the 

commenters that higher intensity upper 

beams might lead to potential safety 

benefits in the form of increased 

visibility in the absence of other road 

users, the agency remains concerned 

about the associated potential safety 

disbenefits, due to increased glare, that 

might result from higher intensity upper 

beams, particularly in situations in 

which an ADB system might not 

recognize and shade other vehicles. 

Other System Requirements 

ADB minimum activation speed. The 

final rule retains a minimum activation 

speed but this has been decreased from 

25 mph to 20 mph to give greater 

flexibility to manufacturers wishing to 

provide for hysteresis in the system 

design. 

Exemption from some horizontal 

aimability performance requirements. 

The final rule amends the headlamp 

horizontal aimability performance 

requirements to exempt ADB systems 

from many of the vehicle headlamp 

aiming device (VHAD) requirements. 

These requirements are not necessary 

for ADB systems and exempting ADB 

systems will lower costs and facilitate 

ADB deployment in the United States. 

B. Interpretation of FMVSS No. 108 as 

Applied to ADB Systems 

Prior to the publication of the NPRM, 

NHTSA had not directly addressed 

whether FMVSS No. 108 permits ADB 

systems. In the NPRM, we tentatively 

concluded that ADB systems are not 

currently permitted under the standard 

because they are part of the required 

headlamp system, and, as such, would 

not comply with at least some of the 

headlamp requirements.71 We included 

this tentative interpretation in the 

NPRM because some manufacturers had 

argued that ADB systems should be 

considered supplemental lighting.72

In the NPRM we went on to also 

consider the status of ADB technology if 

we were, instead, to consider it 

supplemental equipment. We concluded 

that this still might not obviate the need 

for this rulemaking because it would be 

difficult for NHTSA to verify that the 

system did not impair the effectiveness 

of any of the required lighting. That is, 

whether an ADB system is functioning 

properly depends on whether it 

accurately detects oncoming and 

preceding vehicles in actual operation 

on the road, and there would be no way 

to test this under FMVSS No. 108 as the 

standard had existed prior to this final 

rule. 

Comments 

Several commenters (General Motors, 

LLC [GM], American Honda Motor Co., 

Inc. [Honda], Global Automakers 

[Global], Ford Motor Company [Ford], 

and the Alliance of Automobile 

Manufacturers [Alliance]) disagreed 

with NHTSA’s proposed interpretation, 

and contended that ADB systems should 

be considered supplemental lighting. 

Agency Response 

The interpretation set out in the 

NPRM (which concerned the version of 

the standard in effect prior to this final 

rule) is now moot because the final rule 

amends the standard to expressly allow 

and regulate ADB systems. For the same 

reason, ADB systems can no longer be 

considered (as suggested by the 

commenters) ‘‘supplemental’’ lighting 

because the rule amends the standard to 

expressly allow ADB systems, while at 

the same time subjecting them to a 

variety of requirements expressly 

intended for and unique to these 

systems.73

C. Track Testing Requirements and 

Procedures 

1. Practicability of Proposed Test 

Scenarios 

The NPRM proposed a wide range of 

track test scenarios, including a large set 

of potential stimulus vehicles, varying 

road geometries (curves, straight paths), 

and varying vehicle speeds.74 NHTSA 

tentatively concluded that the proposed 

ranges of stimulus vehicles and test 

scenarios were appropriate to ensure 

that an ADB system functions robustly 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
9930 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

75These were MEMA, IIHS, Toyota, Alliance, 

SAE, Auto Innovators, Honda, Global, Valeo, 

Volkswagen, the International Organization of 

Motor Vehicle Manufacturers (OICA), GM, Ford, 

and the Transportation Safety Equipment Institute 

(TSEI). 

76EMA also commented about the impact of the 

driver’s eye point and sensor positions in heavyduty vehicles, but NHTSA was unsure of the 

meaning of this comment. 

and avoids glaring other drivers in a 

wide variety of real-world 

circumstances. The agency explained its 

concerns about a test procedure 

permitting an ADB system designed to 

accommodate only a narrow range of 

vehicles and explained that the 

proposed scenarios would require ADB 

systems to be able to negotiate a variety 

of real-world conditions. NHTSA 

tentatively concluded that the proposed 

testing was practicable but 

acknowledged that certain scenarios 

might be challenging for some ADB 

systems. The agency also explained its 

decision not to propose some common 

scenarios. For example, we explained 

that the proposal did not include testing 

ADB performance when approaching a 

vehicle at an intersection oriented 

perpendicular to the ADB vehicle’s 

direction of travel because existing ADB 

systems would have a difficult time 

meeting the performance criteria in such 

scenarios and the magnitude and effect 

of glare in this situation would be 

relatively minimal (because the vehicle 

illuminated by the ADB system would 

be stopped or preparing for a stop). 

Comments 

The agency received a number of 

comments on the practicability of the 

proposed test scenarios. Many of the 

commenters, including many vehicle 

and equipment manufacturers and trade 

associations, agreed with the need for 

track testing, but most stated that the 

proposed testing was unnecessarily 

broad and impracticable. Intertek 

supported a more rigorous dynamic 

roadway test than specified in SAE 

J3069, but stated that the full set of 

proposed scenarios may not be 

necessary and estimated testing costs to 

be two-to-four times higher than testing 

to SAE J3069. Consumer Reports and 

IIHS also supported a vehicle-level track 

test but stated that the proposed track 

test was too broad. Many industry 

members (Honda, Global, GM, SAE, 

Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), 

Toyota, Alliance, Mobileye, OSRAM 

Sylvania Inc. (OSRAM), the Motor & 

Equipment Manufacturers Association 

(MEMA), Infineon Technologies 

Americas Corp. (Infineon), Valeo 

Lighting Systems (Valeo), and NAFA 

Fleet Management Association (NAFA)) 

supported the use of SAE J3069, which 

includes a more limited track test, and/ 

or specifically supported a more limited 

track test than proposed. Commenters 

made a variety of arguments for why 

they believed the proposed track test 

was not practicable. 

A number of commenters 75 stated 

that the proposed track test was not 

practicable because of the number and 

complexity of the proposed scenarios. 

For example, SAE stated that testing 

over 34 different maneuvers on various 

road geometries with multiple 

variations is excessive and not 

practicable. IIHS similarly commented 

that the number of scenarios could be 

reduced to a more manageable set 

without sacrificing the tests’ ability to 

identify systems unable to adequately 

mitigate glare. IIHS estimated that 

testing every scenario with all four types 

of stimulus vehicle would require 272 

tests, and that testing at different speeds 

would require even more tests. Toyota 

estimated that the proposal resulted in 

10,000 possible test scenarios. 

Several commenters claimed that the 

proposal would necessitate testing 

capabilities beyond those available at 

existing test facilities. The Alliance for 

Automotive Innovation (Auto 

Innovators) conducted a series of tests 

based on the proposed scenarios and 

commented that it found that the 

proposed scenarios were unnecessary 

and beyond the capabilities of many 

proving grounds. Volkswagen, the 

Alliance, Valeo, and Auto Innovators 

commented that the proposed test 

scenarios necessitated test tracks with 

characteristics (e.g., specified radii of 

curvature, road surface conditions, test 

track length necessary for attaining 

specified speeds) that were not within 

the capabilities of existing proving 

grounds. SAE, Auto Innovators, OICA 

and the Society of Motor Manufacturers 

and Traders (SMMT) contended that the 

proposed track test would necessitate 

data measurement capabilities beyond 

those which are currently available at 

test facilities, with Auto Innovators 

arguing that the proposal would require 

up to 476 data elements. Auto 

Innovators also commented that the 

amount of time needed for data 

collection and processing was longer 

than expected, and it recommended that 

NHTSA develop software or other 

compliance tools to expedite data 

processing. To address these issues, 

Auto Innovators recommended (among 

other things) adopting fixed lighting 

stimuli, limiting the number of eligible 

stimulus vehicles, and limiting the 

number and complexity of test 

scenarios. 

A few commenters suggested 

eliminating redundant scenarios and/or 

testing only the most stringent 

scenarios. Auto Innovators suggested 

that by adopting the most stringent test 

scenarios at the extremes of the testing 

range, the intermediate tests could be 

eliminated. For example, Auto 

Innovators suggested only specifying 

straight and small-radius curve 

scenarios because the small-radius 

curve was the most stringent test with 

46 failures out of 127 valid test runs 

(36.2% failure rate), while the failure 

rates for the straight, mid, and large 

radius test scenarios were 26.6%, 

26.7%, and 22.4%, respectively. IIHS 

stated that while the volume of 

proposed test scenarios might be 

justified if each scenario presented 

substantially different conditions for the 

ADB system, that is not the case with 

the proposal; an algorithm based on a 

camera sensor has limited ability to 

compute distance and vehicle type 

solely using another vehicle’s 

headlamps or taillamps. For example, 

from the camera’s perspective, a larger 

vehicle farther away will look the same 

as a smaller vehicle at a closer distance. 

As a result, ADB algorithms will be 

designed to the boundary cases of the 

range of scenarios NHTSA finalizes, 

which should allow the intermediate 

scenarios to be eliminated. 

The Truck and Engine Manufacturers 

Association (EMA) commented that the 

NPRM did not consider the significant 

barriers and expense of the proposal on 

the heavy-duty market. EMA stated that 

the heavy-duty market presents unique 

challenges for ADB development 

because of the wide variation of 

potential vehicle configurations due to 

extensive customization and low 

volume.76 EMA commented that these 

varied configurations determine the 

height and angle of the vehicle, and in 

the case of incomplete vehicles the 

angle of the chassis may change upon 

completion of the vehicle by a bodybuilder. EMA also commented that 

performing track-level testing on 

hundreds of vehicle configurations 

would be cost-prohibitive, and tracktesting facilities are not readily 

accessible to manufacturers. EMA also 

commented that the NPRM did not 

include any data specific to heavy-duty 

vehicles and stated that such testing 

would be necessary before finalizing the 

rule. EMA stated it was unable to fully 

evaluate the proposal due to the 

immaturity of ADB technology for the 

heavy-duty market. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 9931 

77The agency saw a similar result in its 2015 

data. See Adaptive Driving Beam Headlighting 

System Glare Assessment, DOT HS 812 174, August 

2015, NHTSA U.S. Department of Transportation, 

p.168 (Fig. 74). The vehicles tested as part of that 

research demonstrated a similar performance with 

respect to curve radius and closing speed. The glare 

was higher for the moving stimulus vehicle as 

compared to a stationary one. 

Global commented that NHTSA 

should justify the fact that the proposal 

was more stringent than the current 

semiautomatic beam switching device 

requirements (which are limited to a test 

of the ‘‘camera’’ device and do not test 

the overall system). 

Agency Response 

NHTSA agrees that the proposal 

included redundant scenarios and that 

the final rule can more closely follow 

SAE J3069 without sacrificing the 

robustness of the test. The final rule 

specifies stationary test fixtures 

outfitted with vehicle lamps instead of 

dynamic stimulus vehicles. The test 

fixture specifications are similar to 

those specified in SAE J3069, but differ 

by specifying original equipment 

vehicle lamps. Accordingly, the final 

rule eliminates all scenarios involving a 

moving stimulus vehicle. 

NHTSA also modified the specified 

road geometries. The final rule retains 

scenarios with actual curves. However, 

considering lower beam and ADB 

system capabilities, NHTSA has 

narrowed down the curve scenarios by 

eliminating the short right-curve 

scenario and truncating the 

measurement distances for all but the 

large left curve scenario. NHTSA 

similarly modified the measurement 

distance for the preceding scenarios. We 

believe that the final test scenarios are 

sufficient to determine whether an ADB 

system prevents glare to other motorists. 

The reasons for these modifications are 

discussed in more detail in Section 

VIII.C.8, Test Scenarios and Section 

VIII.O, Regulatory Alternatives. 

The agency narrowed down the test 

scenarios by identifying aspects of 

performance that an acceptable ADB 

system should meet and choosing 

scenarios that would be the most 

challenging with respect to those 

aspects of performance. For example, 

the final rule includes a same-direction 

left curve scenario in order to test the 

ability of an ADB system to recognize 

dim red lamps at wide angles. 

However, the agency’s testing showed 

that it was not possible to identify a 

radius of curvature (e.g., shortest) that 

would necessarily present a ‘‘worstcase’’ for all aspects of an ADB system. 

For example, with the oncoming car/ 

truck test fixture outfitted with the 

Camry headlamps on a left curve, the 

shorter-radius curve was, in fact, more 

challenging for the ADB system used for 

testing as evidenced by the fact that it 

nearly exceeded the glare limit. See 

Figure 2.77 However, when tested with 

the preceding motorcycle fixture in a 

left curve test scenario, the ADB system 

tested failed the test on a larger-radius 

curve but passed the test on a smallerradius curve. See Figure 3. On the 

larger-radius curve, the system failed to 

recognize the motorcycle taillamp for 

the entirety of the test (the detectors are 

saturated at the end of the test, so it is 

not possible to interpret the results from 

30 m–15 m). This suggests that a variety 

of test scenarios, including a range of 

different curves, are needed to test the 

variety of factors that contribute to a 

properly-performing ADB system. While 

in many instances, shorter-radius curves 

will be a worst-case scenario, the agency 

does not believe such curves will 

necessarily represent the worst-case for 

all ADB systems; complexities in the 

recognition system can create a far more 

complex set of test results. The final 

rule therefore retains curves with a 

range of radii of curvature. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2ER22FE22.002</GPH>

Figure 2. ADB system with oncoming car/truck fixture on left curve, R85 m vs. 

ABB system exposed to an 85-m curve (29 

mph) with the Camry headlamp. 

i 2 

1 u 

t i 1 

o.s 

0 

-----,---

50 40 30 20 10 0 

Dlllance (m) 

Rl15m 

ABB system exposed to an 115-m curve (29 

mph) with the Camry headlamp. 

3 

OJI 

so 40 30 20 10 0 

Dllla.-(111) 
9932 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

78We also note that NHTSA was unable to 

perform testing on heavy-duty vehicles because it 

was not aware of any such vehicles that are ADBequipped. In any case, for the reasons given above, 

we do not believe that it is necessary to test heavyduty vehicles prior to adopting this rule. 

79See NPRM at p. 51782–51783. 

80SAE J3069, p. 3. 

NHTSA implemented the finalized 

test scenarios using readily-available 

photometric measurement and 

processing equipment. Accordingly, the 

agency has concluded that it is within 

the capabilities of current testing 

facilities to test to the final 

requirements. 

The agency is not persuaded by 

EMA’s comments regarding heavy-duty 

vehicles. Because ADB systems are not 

required, heavy-duty vehicle 

manufacturers may take time to fully 

develop ADB technologies for use on 

these vehicles. Moreover, while the 

development of ADB systems for heavyduty vehicles is less mature than for 

passenger cars, the agency does not 

believe these challenges to be 

insurmountable, or that meeting the 

requirements of this final rule is 

impracticable. There are a few reasons 

for this. First, the ability of the ADB 

system to dynamically track other 

vehicles is independent of the specific 

characteristics of the ADB-equipped 

vehicle, so the fact that the ADB system 

would be on a heavy-vehicle would not 

be consequential. Second, the test 

procedures specify that NHTSA will 

aim the headlamps on the test vehicle 

according to the manufacturer’s 

instructions, which provides 

manufacturers with a means to mitigate 

the effects of chassis-specific features 

that might affect system performance by 

establishing chassis-specific aim 

specifications. Third, the final rule’s 

extensive modifications to the proposed 

track test, resulting in a streamlined set 

of test scenarios, should also help 

address concerns about heavy-vehicle 

testing.78

Finally, while the requirements and 

test procedures in the final rule are an 

increase in stringency from the 

longstanding requirements for 

semiautomatic beam switching devices, 

this final rule is appropriate because 

ADB systems are capable of providing 

an enhanced beam that is brighter than 

the lower beam, which presents an 

increased risk for glare if the system is 

not designed appropriately. 

2. Test Fixtures vs. Stimulus Vehicles 

NHTSA identified two main 

alternatives to the proposed broad range 

of eligible stimulus vehicles that would 

be used to elicit an ADB system 

response. First, the agency considered 

specifying a small set of specificallyidentified stimulus vehicles, but 

tentatively decided that a broad range of 

potential stimulus vehicles was 

necessary to ensure that an ADB system 

can recognize multiple headlamp/ 

taillamp configurations on vehicles of 

different sizes and shapes. 

Second, NHTSA considered 

specifying test fixtures, including those 

specified in SAE J3069.79 The NPRM 

noted SAE’s rationale that fixtures 

represent a worst-case scenario because 

some cameras use movement to identify 

objects as vehicles. It also noted SAE’s 

explanation that the fixture lamps 

would represent a ‘‘reasonable worst 

case for intensity and location and 

should promote test repeatability.’’ 80

NHTSA also noted that test fixtures 

could be easier to use than actual 

vehicles. 

However, the proposal identified 

several potential concerns with test 

fixtures. The major concern was the lack 

of realism, so that fixtures might not 

indicate whether the ADB system would 

recognize actual vehicles and instead 

could permit ADB systems to be tuned 

to detect fixtures. Another concern 

related to possible difficulties in tuning 

out non-vehicle objects. Also of concern 

was the possibility that the fixture 

characteristics might not represent a 

worst case. 

The NPRM therefore proposed a large 

set of eligible stimulus vehicles. The 

agency tentatively concluded that it 

would be practicable for manufacturers 

to design ADB systems to recognize and 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2ER22FE22.003</GPH>

Figure 3. ADB system with preceding motorcycle fixture on left curve (R400 and 

R88) 

Same direction motorcycle R400Left Same direction motorcycle R88 Left 

35 luminance (lux)YS. Raceplal'Head Distance (m) 20 lllumlnanClt {lulC .. 

30 18 

18 

25 

14. 

g20 112 

I 1s I 1·: i t,· 

!, 

j 10 Ii 

/// ,8 

5 

4 

0 2 

-6 0 

200 150 100 50 0 eo 

Dlslance (m) 

0 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 9933 

81National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995, Public Law 104–113, 

110 Stat. 775 (1996). See Section X, Rulemaking 

Analyses and Notices. 

shade any vehicle satisfying the 

proposed selection criteria. NHTSA 

noted that the lighting configurations an 

ADB system would have to recognize 

would not be unreasonably large, as 

front and rear lighting designs are 

limited by the requirements of FMVSS 

No. 108 and the realities of vehicle 

design. NHTSA also reasoned that there 

is a limited, and not exceptionally large, 

number of makes and models of new 

vehicles offered for sale in the United 

States every year (approximately 420), 

and that the set of eligible stimulus 

vehicles would be further limited by the 

proposed vehicle height constraint. 

Comments 

Vehicle and equipment manufacturers 

opposed the use of stimulus vehicles 

and commented that NHTSA should 

instead follow SAE J3069 and use test 

fixtures. These commenters identified a 

variety of specific concerns with 

stimulus vehicles. 

Several commenters (Mobileye, EMA, 

Volkswagen, SMMT, Ford, Toyota, SAE, 

the Alliance, Global, and Honda) 

contended that the proposed stimulus 

vehicle specifications would result in an 

impracticably large set of potential 

vehicles. For example, SAE and the 

Alliance commented that the NPRM 

specified an unmanageable and 

exceptionally large number of potential 

stimulus vehicles, exacerbated by the 

fact that many vehicles have multiple 

headlamp and/or taillamp trim levels, 

and that the proposal does not account 

for motorcycles or heavy-duty vehicles. 

They estimated that this could result in 

a set of up to 1,000 eligible stimulus 

vehicles. The Alliance also contended 

that it would be impossible for a 

manufacturer to choose a worst-case 

scenario and guarantee that testing with 

the other thousands of vehicle choices 

would exhibit reproducible results for 

the multitude of requirements. MEMA, 

Volkswagen, and the Alliance 

commented that the proposal would 

cause manufacturers to incur costs from 

repeated testing as the stimulus vehicles 

need to be refreshed every year. 

Volkswagen also commented that 

obtaining stimulus vehicles would be 

especially burdensome for foreign 

original equipment manufacturers 

(OEMs) and test facilities. 

Mobileye, SAE, Honda, and Ford 

commented that an FMVSS requiring a 

manufacturer certification to account for 

the various configurations and 

performance of thousands of vehicles in 

the market would be unreasonable and 

unprecedented, as opposed to other 

FMVSS which simulate real-world 

conditions with standardized test 

apparatus. As an example, SAE, Ford, 

and Honda pointed to FMVSS No. 208, 

which uses a fixed barrier to simulate a 

stimulus vehicle crashing head on into 

the test vehicle within one specified 

range of speeds and does not require 

selecting actual vehicles from a large 

population available in the market to 

conduct this testing. Honda also pointed 

to FMVSS No. 214 (side impact) and 

FMVSS No. 301 (rear impact), and 

various New Car Assessment Program 

(NCAP) test procedures that standardize 

the device used to assess the 

crashworthiness of the test vehicle. SAE 

and Honda contended that this 

approach allows the test to be 

practicable and objective, and SAE 

suggested such an approach would be 

sufficiently realistic because, as the 

NPRM noted, the lighting configurations 

an ADB system would have to recognize 

are limited by the requirements of 

FMVSS No. 108 and realities of vehicle 

design. 

Commenters also raised concerns 

related to vehicle production cycles. 

SAE and Ford commented that the cycle 

plans of any given vehicle design can 

last many years, with those designs 

solidified many months prior to 

production, making it impossible for 

manufacturers to account for other 

manufacturers’ vehicles in any 

manageable timeframe. A manufacturer 

would not be aware of which vehicles 

may pose compliance challenges for its 

ADB system prior to these vehicles 

being sold to the public, especially 

considering the extremely conservative 

and challenging requirements associated 

with the NPRM. Honda made similar 

comments. 

Mobileye commented that the 

proposal would lead OEMs to over-tune 

the ADB system in order to ensure 

compliance, resulting in non-optimal 

and overly sensitive system behavior 

and diminished safety benefits. 

Several commenters (Global, 

Mobileye, Valeo, the Alliance, MEMA, 

and Volkswagen) raised concerns 

regarding the repeatability and/or 

reproducibility of compliance test 

results. SAE, the Alliance, SMMT, and 

Honda commented that the proposal 

was not objective. 

A few commenters did support using 

stimulus vehicles. Consumer Reports 

supported a broad range of stimulus 

vehicles as reasonable to adequately 

ensure ADB systems detect, identify, 

and shade vehicles of different size, 

shape, and lighting configurations; 

however, it also urged that testing be 

practical and efficient. Intertek 

commented that a simple static test 

fixture may not be sufficient, and that 

using any make or model within defined 

physical constraints is preferable to 

adding an appendix with a list of 

eligible test vehicles. AAA commented 

that no certified motor vehicle should 

be excluded from use as a stimulus 

vehicle, and that the proposed 

limitation to the past five model years 

together with the vehicle height 

constraints were practical and 

acceptable. 

Several commenters, while not 

supporting the use of actual vehicles, 

commented that if NHTSA were to use 

actual vehicles, it should further limit 

the set of eligible stimulus vehicles. SL 

Corporation (SL) commented that 

detailed criteria for stimulus vehicles 

(such as light source, luminous intensity 

of the stimulus vehicle’s headlamp and 

rear lamp), specified by vehicle type, is 

needed. Global commented about a need 

for consistency in any testing, further 

arguing that the rule could bookend the 

vehicle population’s performance (i.e., 

lowest/highest, narrowest/widest) to 

constrain the massive number of 

stimulus vehicles. Toyota suggested that 

NHTSA limit the number of stimulus 

vehicles to a practical and manageable 

list by only using the top three U.S. 

selling vehicle models for each of the 

vehicle types identified in Table XXI of 

the NPRM in the fifth model year prior 

to the model year of the certified 

vehicle. Honda stated that if NHTSA 

does not adopt test fixtures, it should 

test with a single stimulus vehicle 

chosen by the manufacturer. Valeo 

suggested specifying a standard 

stimulus vehicle. Mobileye suggested 

modifying SAE J3069 by defining the 

use of a standardized dummy stimulus 

vehicle with lamps representative of 

those approved by FMVSS No. 108 

instead of the static fixtures specified in 

SAE J3069. Mobileye also recommended 

complementing the (modified) SAE test 

with a requirement for an additional test 

drive by a test engineer to ensure stable 

detection and reaction to vehicles of 

different makes and models in 

additional real-world scenarios not 

specified in the track test. 

Agency Response 

After evaluating the comments and 

considering the requirements of the 

Safety Act and the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act 

(NTTAA),81 NHTSA has decided to 

specify test fixtures instead of stimulus 

vehicles. The NTTAA directs agencies 

to use voluntary consensus standards 

unless, among other things, doing so 

would be inconsistent with applicable 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
9934 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

82We also note that the final rule does not adopt 

Mobileye’s suggestion to supplement the track test 

with an evaluative drive by a test engineer, because such a requirement would not satisfy the Safety Act 

requirement of objectivity. 

law. We believe the test fixtures 

specified in the final rule are consonant 

with both the Safety Act and the 

NTTAA.82 In particular, we believe the 

test fixtures both meet the need for 

safety and better align with SAE J3069 

and other countries’ standards. 

Most importantly, we concluded that 

the test fixtures specified in the final 

rule meet the need for safety. There are 

two main reasons for this. First, in this 

case the need for safety requires us to 

balance visibility and glare prevention. 

As some commenters pointed out, a toodemanding track test to evaluate glare, 

including a large set of eligible stimulus 

vehicles, could lead manufacturers to 

tune the system to provide sub-optimal 

forward illumination. Second, we 

concluded that using real vehicles 

would generally not challenge ADB 

systems any more robustly than 

properly-specified fixtures. In the 

NPRM we expressed the concern that 

insufficiently realistic test fixtures could 

lead to ADB systems with performance 

tuned to the fixtures, not to real 

vehicles, resulting in a test that does not 

sufficiently replicate real-world 

performance. To address this concern, 

NHTSA developed test fixtures fitted 

with original manufacturer replacement 

equipment vehicle headlamps and 

taillamps, instead of the lamps specified 

in SAE J3069 that are intended to 

simulate vehicle lighting. (See Section 

VIII.C.6 for a discussion of the final 

fixture specifications.) NHTSA then 

tested whether an ADB system 

performed differently with these 

fixtures than with an actual vehicle. As 

explained below, this testing showed 

that the ADB system detected and 

responded to the finalized test fixtures 

in generally the same way it did to an 

actual vehicle. 

NHTSA’s recent research compared 

ADB performance when tested with the 

finalized stimulus fixtures versus a 

stationary stimulus (i.e., actual) vehicle. 

For the most part, differences in 

performance were not observed. For 

example, in straight oncoming and 

preceding test scenarios, the ADB 

system recognized both the stimulus 

vehicle and test fixture before either 

stimulus entered the measurement 

range. See Figures 4 and 5. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2ER22FE22.004</GPH>

Figure 4. ADB performance with stimulus vehicle vs. stimulus fixture 

_________ (.....,Opposing, Straigh ....... t,_6_9_m__...,p_h .... ) ______ ... 

Full Vehicle (FordF-150) I I Fixture with F-150headlamps 

3.5 lllllmlnlMe (luX) w. RHep1or Htlld Dlllanoe (m) --E)'t- 3 

2.5 

i 2 

J,s 

i 

OS 

0 200 150 100 50 0 200 150 100 50 0 

Distance (m) Distance (m) 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 9935 

One exception to this was observed 

for the smallest-radius left curve 

(oncoming) at the highest speed. In this 

case, the ADB system performed better 

(recognized and adjusted sooner) when 

exposed to the test fixture. For the 

fixture, the test vehicle adjusted its light 

output at around 44 m and did not 

exceed the glare limits. For the real 

vehicle, it reacted at 39 m, resulting in 

a glare exceedance. This suggests that 

this ADB system likely relies on light 

source detection rather than using 

supplemental systems such as radar or 

LIDAR to detect a vehicle structure. 

Although we did not systematically test 

this hypothesis, we suspect that the 

performance differences observed in 

this case are caused by small differences 

in headlamp mounting heights between 

the fixture and the real vehicle. See 

Figure 6. The agency did not observe 

any situations in which the full vehicle 

was recognized, but the test fixture was 

not. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2ER22FE22.005</GPH>

Figure 5. ADB performance with stimulus vehicle vs. stimulus fixture 

Preceding, straight, 69 mph) 

.-----------------, 

18~ 

f 14! 

Full Vehicle (FordF-lSO) 

_20 

l I 15 

10 

si-------1 

Fixture with F-lSOtaillamps I 

112:-c. __ _ 

110;. ====--

1 ••• • ---- •: ,_~-- •r 

4'--.-------1 

2} 

o•iiiii!llill!iieil!!Blmi;==~::::lt:....._ 

100 

0 
9936 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

83Specific to this rulemaking, NHTSA has 

concluded that using test fixtures better balances 

the safety needs of visibility and glare prevention, 

and is more practicable and appropriate, than using 

a broad range of potential stimulus vehicles. We are 

not implying that a large set of potential stimulus 

vehicles is necessarily impracticable for an FMVSS. 

We also note that we do not agree with the 

commenters who claimed that the proposal raised 

issues with respect to objectivity, repeatability, or 

reproducibility. 

84NHTSA developed a single test fixture that was 

capable of mounting both the motorcycle and the 

car/truck vehicle lamps; the various lamps could be 

switched between test runs of different scenarios. 

85This is a standard formula used in road design 

that specifies the relationship between vehicle 

speed and the radius of curvature. See infra n.142 

and accompanying text. 

The test fixtures specified in the final 

rule more closely align with SAE J3069 

and better harmonize with other 

countries’ standards than the proposed 

broad range of eligible stimulus 

vehicles. This should help facilitate 

deployment of ADB systems in the 

United States because manufacturers are 

already familiar with SAE J3069 and 

because it harmonizes with the 

Canadian regulations, which permit 

ADB systems designed to meet either 

ECE R123 or SAE J3069. This approach 

also results in a more manageable set of 

test scenarios and stimulus vehicles to 

which manufacturers must certify,83

which will also result in a less complex 

and costly test. Test fixtures will reduce 

the test burden by establishing a 

consistent stimulus for testing, reducing 

the cost of acquiring and maintaining 

the test stimulus, reducing the test time, 

and more closely harmonizing with SAE 

J3069. NHTSA’s testing showed that 

fixtures simplified the coordination of 

each test run. A single test driver was 

required to drive the test vehicle as 

opposed to two drivers required for tests 

involving dynamic stimulus vehicles. 

Additionally, no start and stop 

coordination was needed between the 

two drivers. The use of fixtures also 

facilitates set-up for different 

scenarios.84

3. Justification for Testing on Curves 

and General Approach for Scenario 

Selection 

In addition to testing ADB 

performance in a straight-path scenario, 

the NPRM proposed testing ADB 

systems on curved-path scenarios (both 

left and right curves) with a variety of 

radii of curvature. The agency proposed 

testing on a ‘‘small’’ curve with radii of 

curvature from 98 m–116 m (320–380 

ft); a ‘‘medium’’ curve with radii of 

curvature of 223 m–241 m (730–790 ft); 

and a large curve, 335 m–396 m (1100– 

1300 ft). The NPRM explained that the 

small curve was chosen because it 

corresponded (approximately) to the 

shortest radii of curvature appropriate 

for a vehicle traveling 25–35 mph, 

approximately the minimum speed for 

which we proposed to allow ADB 

activation. The medium curve 

corresponded to the shortest radii of 

curvature appropriate for the higher 

ADB minimum activation speeds of 

some of the ADB-equipped vehicles 

NHTSA tested. Finally, the large curve 

was intended to correspond to a curve 

appropriate for vehicles traveling at 

higher speeds, to test ADB performance 

on curves at higher speeds. Values for 

speed and radius of curvature were 

selected to be consistent with the 

simplified curve formula.85

The NPRM recognized that curves 

might present engineering challenges for 

ADB systems. For example, on a curve 

an oncoming vehicle enters the ADB 

system’s field of view (FOV) from the 

edge; in a tight curve, an oncoming 

vehicle will enter the field of view at a 

closer distance than in a larger-radius 

curve. Performing adequately on largeradius curves at relatively high speeds 

consequently presents a slightly 

different engineering challenge than 

performance on tight curves at lower 

speeds. 

Comments 

Consumer Reports supported testing 

using curved path scenarios of various 

curvatures. Intertek supported a more 

rigorous dynamic roadway test than 

specified in SAE J3069 (which specifies 

straight test drive paths) because the 

SAE J3069 approach may not be 

sufficient to validate the performance of 

the ADB sensor over the range of 

situations that it will normally 

encounter. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2ER22FE22.006</GPH>

Figure 6. ADB performance with actual vehicle vs fixture 

(Oncoming, Left curve (R=85 m), 29 mph) 

Full vehicle (Ford F-150) 

3_5 i------;::l=llu:::rm=in=a=nc=e='=(l:r:ux:::::):::;vs_. _Re_cr'ept~o_r_H_ead~Di_'s_ta_n_ce.,.,(m~) _ 7 

\--F150 Eye Point· I 

2.5 

x' 

g, 2 

1l 

ffi 

-~ 1.5 

~ 

0.5 

o~-~--~--~--~~-~~~ 

60 50 40 30 

Distance (m) 

20 10 

Fixture with F-150 headlamps 

3_5 r-_l_llu~m_ln_a_nc_e~(l~ux~)_vs_. _Re_cr'ep~to_r;:::H=ea::,:d=D=ist=a=n=ce:,::'(m::::':::;) _ 7 

3 

2.5 

x' 

:, i 2 

~ 1-----------1 

·E 1.5 

~ 

0.5 

,, 

; I 

/ \ 

/ \ / \ 

I \. ____ _ 

--Car Eye Point 

- - ---Truck Eye Point 

o~-~--~--~--~~-~-~ 

60 50 40 30 

Distance (m) 

20 10 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 9937 

86The commenters’ data and arguments on these 

points are discussed in more detail in the sections 

below discussing each of the test scenarios in the 

final rule. 

On the other hand, several 

commenters opposed or raised issues 

with testing on actual curves. SAE 

commented that NHTSA should follow 

SAE J3069 and simulate curves using a 

straight path and varying the placement 

of the test fixtures. SAE contended that 

curves are not necessary because 

continuous tracking of the angular 

location of the test fixture in straight 

scenarios is required, and that removing 

curves would greatly reduce the testing 

burden. SAE noted that it considered 

including curves in SAE J3069 but 

concluded that attempting to capture 

hundreds of potential road geometries 

would make the test excessively 

burdensome because ADB systems 

would function similarly over many of 

these geometries and including them all 

would provide no added value. SAE 

further determined that testing on a 

straight path with one lane to the right 

and more than one lane to the left of the 

ADB-equipped vehicle would capture 

the conditions necessary to determine 

whether an ADB system functions 

appropriately and ensures an adequate 

response to a wide variety of road 

geometries, while allowing the test 

method to be simple enough to be 

objective and repeatable. For example, 

SAE J3069 requires that in a straightline encounter, an ADB system must 

continuously track the angular location 

of an opposing vehicle fixture as that 

angular position becomes increasingly 

further from the center of the camera’s 

field of view with decreasing distance to 

the opposing vehicle. SAE commented 

that such an approach allows evaluation 

of vehicles encountered on curves to be 

captured without using actual curves. 

SAE, ALNA, Toyota, and the Alliance 

stated that the proposal would require 

ADB systems to produce less glare than 

current FMVSS No. 108-compliant 

lower beams, and that this issue was 

particularly acute on curves. They 

argued that the proposed approach 

would reduce lower beam visibility and 

negatively impact safety. SAE provided 

analyses and graphs based on IIHS data 

on lower beam performance on different 

road geometries, from straight roads to 

left and right curves of various radii. 

Stanley and Intertek also asserted that 

the final rule should account for the fact 

that current lower beams would not 

comply with the glare limits on right 

curves.86

Agency Response 

The final rule does not adopt some 

commenters’ recommendation to forgo 

actual curved-path scenarios, but it does 

reduce the measurement distances in 

many of the test scenarios for which 

curves are specified. 

The agency is not persuaded that the 

SAE J3069 approach of simulating 

curves by varying fixture placement 

relative to a test vehicle’s straight path 

adequately replicates curves. Two 

features of the SAE test are intended to 

replicate what the system would 

encounter in an actual curve. First, the 

fixtures are placed to the side of the test 

vehicle’s path. Second, the sudden 

appearance scenario is intended to 

roughly replicate a curve in that the 

fixture’s stimulus lamps become visible 

at a close distance, which would 

happen on a relatively tight curve. (The 

sudden appearance scenario is also 

intended to exercise the ability of the 

ADB system to react to real world 

situations such as another road user 

turning on their lights, turning onto the 

road, or cresting a hill at distances as 

close as 100 m.) This approach, 

however, does not accurately replicate 

real curves in at least two respects. 

One is the trajectory of the fixture as 

it is tracked by the ADB system (see 

Figure 7). An approaching vehicle on an 

actual curve enters the ADB system’s 

field of view from the edge, at a 

relatively far distance; moves towards 

the center of the field of view as the 

distance to the fixture closes; and then 

moves out towards the edge of the field 

of view at a close distance. The 

trajectory is different, however, when 

attempting to replicate a curve using a 

straight path and fixtures placed out to 

the side. There, the fixture is first 

detected by the ADB system near the 

center of the camera’s field of view at a 

far distance, and then moves out 

towards the edge of the field of view at 

closer distances. 

For example, on an actual left curve 

with a radius of 230 m, the fixture 

enters the FOV at the edge (25L) at a 

relatively far distance (191 m) and 

moves towards the center of the FOV 

until around 35 m at which point it 

moves out towards the edge of the FOV 

again (see Figure 7). In comparison, in 

the SAE test run, at 155 meters (the start 

of the SAE test), Fixture 1 is near the 

center of the FOV at approximately 2.5 

degrees left, and as the test vehicle 

approaches the fixture the fixture moves 

out to the edge of the field of view. 

As another example, this time on a 

right curve with a radius of 230 m, the 

fixture enters the FOV at the right edge 

of the field of view (25R) at about 205 

m and moves towards and then across 

the center of the FOV. In comparison, in 

the SAE test, at 155 meters (the start of 

the SAE test), Fixture 3 is near the 

center of the FOV (at about 3 degrees 

right), and as the test vehicle 

approaches the fixture the fixture 

trajectory moves out to the right edge of 

the field of view. The SAE test evaluates 

rather large angles to the right of the 

beam pattern, almost entirely to the 

right of where the NHTSA test method 

examines the beam pattern performance. 

The agency believes this to be unusual 

in reality, particularly for oncoming 

encounters. 

Because the SAE test does not 

accurately replicate the fixture 

trajectory, it does not test how the 

system will need to actually function. 

For example, one way to ‘‘optimize’’ 

optical recognition is to focus on where 

an object is most likely to appear. The 

speed and accuracy of image recognition 

software can be increased without 

increasing computing power if systems 

are trained to look in smaller portions 

of an image for key elements, as 

opposed to looking at the entire image 

continuously. Including test scenarios 

with actual curves will discourage 

manufacturers from taking ‘‘shortcuts’’ 

and designing ADB systems that do not 

react until the stimulus vehicle enters 

narrow angles within the camera’s FOV. 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
9938 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

Second, the SAE approach does not 

accurately replicate real curves with 

respect to the speed at which the fixture 

traces its trajectory. On an actual curve, 

the fixture travels horizontally across 

the FOV relatively quickly at longer 

distances than on a simulated curve. For 

instance, a left curve requires the 

headlamp to start shading on the left 

side of the pattern, quickly move to the 

right; briefly hold the shade near the 

middle; and very quickly move the 

shade back to the far left. A simulated 

curve, on the other hand, simply 

necessitates that the system starts 

shading the middle of the pattern; hold 

nearly that same angle; and then quickly 

move the shade either left or right at 

closer distances. Including actual 

curved-path scenarios will discourage 

manufacturers from very accurately 

following the straight path pattern but 

less accurately following the paths 

required for real-world curves; it should 

therefore result in better real-world 

performance than would the SAE J3069 

fixture placements. 

NHTSA’s recent testing confirmed 

that the SAE scenarios do not accurately 

model how an ADB system will perform 

on an actual curve. For example, the 

agency tested ADB system performance 

on an 85 m left curve as well as the most 

closely analogous SAE scenario, with 

the fixture place in Fixture Position 1. 

(Fixture Position 1 is the closest 

analogue to this scenario because it is 

the leftmost fixture position in the SAE 

test.) See Figure 8. On the actual curve, 

the system did not recognize and adjust 

to the fixture until 45 m. On the most 

closely analogous SAE scenario (Fixture 

Position 1), the system was able to 

continuously track the fixture from 150 

m away. Even when the agency repeated 

the same SAE scenario at a much higher 

speed of 61 mph, the SAE test did not 

challenge the system’s image 

recognition in an observable way. This 

shows that an ADB system’s initial 

image recognition capability is not 

challenged by the SAE test as it is in a 

more realistic curve test, meaning that 

NHTSA is less confident that the SAE 

test would result in an equivalent level 

of safety as the actual-curve test that 

NHTSA is finalizing. The practical 

implications of this is that glare will not 

be sufficiently controlled by the SAE 

test compared to the actual-curve test 

adopted in this final rule. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2ER22FE22.007</GPH>

Figure 7. Comparison of fixture trajectories in SAE J3069 and final rule 

'\. 

'\~8.95s 

I 

I / ~ -- :;,,L= 9.51 s \. I / 10.26s-;j 

' ---

' \. ' I I ... ·· 

' \. ' I / ... ·· 

' ' I / .--

' \. 8.67s SAE ' 1 -8.67s / .. --- ',/ 7.35s \. T "! / ... ·· '\. \. i ' ' I' .... •· 

' \. ! ' ~ / -- SAE Start 

' \. I 6.17s ~ •\ / .. -·· I ' \I ! • " --... / i .. -·· I ' ; ' I ' ' I! I•, / I •• • 

-- -- I 6.87s7 I ' ' \ i/ l -- I \V .. -·· .. 7s.11s ' \ l J :: I/~ -- 1 ... --- .. -· . -,_ ' I \ /1 / _: ' L-2.80s · _ ... .. ' ', .....-4.17s+- \ \ f I I -- /' ----·t '-. .- I i rr 

_ .. I -.... , 0.61s · 0.84s SAE I i -- ;r ____ ..__2_60s ' ... - I I 

' "- o.74sh ·- ... .... . , ' / .... I _ .. ---....... .. 

_0.99s 1.1! s ,I J..--f"' I //0.51~r ......-::-----=--- _..-,:..::_ 2.22s ---..... --~--1 \I~ - --- ~0.61s. · .--• I 

·· 0.74s •• ---·- -25.00 -20.00 -15.00 -10.00 -5.00 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 

--Right 350m --left 350m •---····· Right 230 m - - - Right 100 m -----left 230 m 

- - - left 100m - • - SAE Straight Fl - • SAE Straight F2 - - - SAE Straight F3 --Straight 65 mph 

---- 20degleft --Right 350m --left 350m ••••••••• Right 230 m - - - Right 100 m 

•····-···-· left 230 m --Left 100m -----SAE Straight Fl - -SAEStraightF2 - • -SAEStraightF3 

--Straight 65 mph - - - - 3 deg right -------- 20deg left 

The y-axis is distance in m and the x-axis is in degrees 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 9939 

87See, e.g., Chrysler Corp. v. Dept. of Transp., 472 

F.2d 659, 676 (6th Cir. 1972). 

As another example, SAE J3069 does 

include a sudden appearance test (using 

the oncoming and preceding motorcycle 

fixtures) in which the fixture lamps are 

activated when the test vehicle is 

between 155 m and 100 m from the 

fixture. The agency found, however, that 

this also does not realistically simulate 

a curve. See Figure 9. On an 85 m left 

curve at 26 mph, the ADB system 

recognized the final rule oncoming 

motorcycle fixture at 20 m. On the SAE 

sudden appearance scenario, in 

contrast, the ADB system performed 

better, activating a shaded area at 70 m. 

Additional comparative data from the 

final rule scenarios and the SAE test 

scenarios are presented and discussed 

in Section VIII.C.8, Test Scenarios. 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–C 

NHTSA disagrees with SAE’s 

comment to the extent that it suggests 

that a final rule incorporating actual 

curves might not be objective or 

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.87 The final rule specifies the 

specific scenarios NHTSA may test, 

including ranges and values for key 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2ER22FE22.008</GPH> ER22FE22.009</GPH>

Figure 8. Comparison of ADB performance on real and simulated curves 

Radius 85 m Left- F150 Stimulus lamps 

(Lexus ADB at 26 mph) 

a.s ,-~•H_uml_nan_ce-.---"-(lux~) ""~· F_lxtu-----;::re=D::clsla=n=ce::::::(:::m~) ==~ 

-CarEyePolnl 

·- ----- -Tn..:kEyePoint 

2.5 

0.5 

50 40 30 20 10 0 

Distance (m) 

Note: Horizontal axes truncated at 60 m because 

this is the distance at which evaluation begins. 

SAE Fixture position 1 

(Lexus ADB at 28 mph) 

1br-_11_1um_l_na_n_ce-'(lu_x .... )vs._Re_ceptor.,__-;::He=ad=D;::lsta::::n:::icec::(m::::::,)17 

-CarEyePcinl 

1.6 

1.4 

0.4 

02 

-- "TmckE Poinl 

100 50 0 

Distance (m) 

Figure 9. Real curve vs. SAE sudden appearance scenario 

ADB Radius 85 m Left motorcycle 

fixture (Lexus ADB at 26 mph) 

50 40 30 20 10 

Distance (m) 

0 

SAE Motorcycle Fixture, Position 1, Sudden 

appearance (Lexus ADB at 28 mph) 

12 r-_ll_lu_ml_na_n_ce-'(l_ux"") vs_. Re_ce_,_ptor----;:H=ead=Dl=sta=nce=='m=) ;--7 

-·-·-·- Cycle Eye Point 

10 

2 i S.E. S.E.+2.5s f --- ---------' .--~·- ·-·-.. ✓ - 0 L.,___]c___J___:t....,_ __ ___:__j_~--'-__JLL--1 

150 100 50 0 

Distance (m) 
9940 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

88See NPRM, pp. 51787–51788. 

89See NPRM, pp. 51770, 51773. 

90See Section VIII.C.5, ADB Adaptation Time. 

91The fact that the final rule does not include all 

the proposed scenarios does not mean that NHTSA 

has concluded that only a relatively small set of 

narrowly circumscribed scenarios is permissible in 

an FMVSS. In this case, NHTSA has concluded that 

adopting a smaller set of test scenarios 

appropriately addresses both the need for safety 

(including facilitating the timely deployment of 

ADB systems) and practicability. This also does not 

imply that FMVSS requirements must be tailored to 

the capabilities of currently existing systems. See, 

e.g., Chrysler Corp. v. Dept. of Transp., 472 F.2d 

659, 673 (6th Cir. 1972) (‘‘[T]he Agency is 

empowered to issue safety standards which require 

improvements in existing technology or which 

require the development of new technology, and it 

is not limited to issuing standards based solely on 

devices already fully developed.’’). 

92As we explained in the NPRM, the proposal 

extended the standard’s longstanding ‘‘design to 

conform’’ language to the proposed requirements 

because the concept of the rulemaking was to 

extend the current headlamp requirements to ADB 

systems. We therefore considered the continued 

appropriateness of ‘‘design to conform’’ to be 

outside the scope of this rulemaking. However, this 

extension in no way limits NHTSA’s ability to 

revisit the issue of design to conform in the future. 

Furthermore, if NHTSA were to reconsider the 

design to conform language, it might not come to 

the same conclusion it did when it originally 

adopted that language. As we explained in the 

NPRM, NHTSA adopted the ‘‘design to conform’’ 

language when the standard was introduced in 1967 

because it accepted industry’s contemporaneous 

representation that vehicle lamps could not be 

manufactured to meet every single test point 

without a substantial cost penalty unjustified by 

safety. We further explained that, because lighting 

equipment design, technology, and manufacturing 

have evolved and advanced since the late 1960’s, 

NHTSA might not come to the same conclusion 

were it to revisit this issue. 

testing parameters (e.g., differing radii of 

curvature), and specific numeric limits 

for the maximum allowable illuminance 

at certain distances; there is thus no 

ambiguity with respect to the parameter 

values NHTSA may select in 

compliance testing. Moreover, NHTSA 

has conducted a repeatability analysis 

and has concluded that the finalized test 

scenarios and procedures are repeatable 

(see Section VIII.C.11, Repeatability). 

NHTSA did, however, agree that some 

of the proposed curve scenarios were 

too stringent. With respect to oncoming 

glare scenarios, the final rule eliminates 

the short right curve scenario and 

reduces the distances at which glare on 

the medium and large right curves and 

the short and medium left curves is 

evaluated. With respect to preceding 

glare scenarios, the final rule includes a 

straight-path scenario and a medium left 

curve scenario. The specifications for 

the radii of curvature have also been 

slightly modified. These modifications 

and other choices are explained in more 

detail later in the preamble. 

In general, NHTSA selected the final 

scenarios based on three criteria: 

The scenario represents commonlyencountered roadway geometries and 

vehicle interactions. To ensure that ADB 

systems operate safely, the final 

scenarios should include at least the 

most common road geometries and 

vehicle interactions. Because the 

adaptive driving beam is intended for 

distance illumination at speeds at which 

the lower beam does not provide 

adequate illumination—typically above 

20 mph—these geometries and 

interactions should be those common at 

these speeds.88

A compliant lower beam could pass 

the scenario. We also generally chose 

scenarios such that a compliant lower 

beam would be able to pass the 

scenario. There were several reasons for 

this. First, this (in conjunction with the 

requirement that areas of reduced 

intensity meet the corresponding lower 

beam laboratory photometric 

requirements) ensures that an area of 

reduced intensity, up to and including 

a full lower beam, will meet the same 

level of safety (with respect to both 

visibility and glare prevention) as 

current lower beams certified to FMVSS 

No. 108. Second, this is consistent with 

the concept for the proposal: Extending 

the current laboratory-based lower beam 

photometric requirements (specifically, 

the photometric maxima regulating 

oncoming and preceding glare) for use 

in a vehicle-level test to evaluate the 

ability of an ADB system to minimize 

glare (both oncoming and preceding).89

Because the track test was intended as 

an extension of the current laboratory 

photometric requirements, the track test 

requirements should (generally) be such 

that a lower beam (or area of reduced 

intensity) that complies with the current 

laboratory photometric requirements 

will also comply with the track test 

requirements. 

The scenario is generally within the 

capabilities of robustly-designed 

internationally-available ADB systems. 

As noted above, the field of view for 

current ADB systems is typically 25 

degrees to the left and right of the 

camera, and, as explained below,90 ADB 

adaptation time—the time it takes an 

ADB system to recognize a stimulus 

(once the stimulus is within the 

camera’s field of view) and dim the 

beam to a level that falls within the 

applicable glare limit—is generally 

about 1 second. Therefore, NHTSA 

generally chose scenarios such that it 

would be possible for an ADB system 

with such field of view and response 

capabilities to pass the scenario. This is 

not to say that all current ADB systems 

would necessarily be able to pass all the 

final scenarios without any 

modifications. However, the agency 

intended to select scenarios that were 

generally within the reach of current 

technology (perhaps necessitating some 

additional improvements, adjustments, 

or optimizations, depending on the ADB 

technology), to facilitate timely 

deployment of ADB systems. NHTSA 

also recognized that these systems have 

been in use in foreign markets for 

several years with few, if any, apparent 

safety issues.91 We discuss and apply 

these criteria in more detail in Section 

VIII.C.8, Test Scenarios. 

4. Maximum Illuminance Criteria (Glare 

Limits) 

The NPRM included a set of 

photometric maxima to evaluate an ADB 

system’s ability to minimize glare in the 

track test (glare limits). Because the 

current photometric test points from 

which the proposed glare limits were 

derived are maxima, the agency 

proposed applying the derived glare 

limits as maxima, so that any measured 

exceedance of an applicable glare limit 

(except for momentary spikes) would be 

used to determine compliance. The 

NPRM also extended the standard’s 

‘‘design to conform’’ language to the 

proposed requirements, including the 

glare limits.92 The NPRM also 

summarized the basis for the glare limits 

(the full explanation for the derivation 

is given in the Feasibility Study). 

The NPRM explained that the 

proposed glare limits deviate from SAE 

J3069 in a few respects. First, two of the 

glare limits differ slightly. At 60 m, SAE 

J3069 uses glare limits of 0.7 lux 

(oncoming) and 8.9 lux (preceding) 

compared to the proposed 0.6 lux and 

4.0 lux. Second, SAE J3069 applies to a 

narrower range of distances (30 m–155 

m) than the proposed glare limits (15 

m–220 m). Third, SAE J3069 applies the 

glare limits only at the endpoints of the 

measurement ranges (i.e., 155 m, 120 m, 

60 m, and 30 m), while the NPRM 

applied the glare limits throughout the 

entire measurement range. The proposal 

explained the reasons for these 

deviations from SAE J3069. 

Comments 

A few commenters (AAA, Consumer 

Reports, and Zoox) supported the glare 

limits as proposed. Intertek agreed that 

the baseline glare limit requirements 

should extend to the full distance ranges 

rather than only at the four individual 

distances specified in SAE J3069. 

Several commenters, however, 

contended that the glare limits were too 

stringent and suggested a variety of 

modifications. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 9941 

93Auto Innovators also supplied an apparently 

somewhat similar analysis of IIHS data (on pp. 12– 

13 of its comment). However, the comment did not 

identify the geometry of the road (the orientation of 

the headlamps to the photometer) for the 

measurements, so the agency is unable to evaluate 

this submission. In any case, NHTSA addresses this 

issue using the IIHS data submitted by SAE and the 

agency’s own testing of lower beams to the 

scenarios included in the final rule. 

94 DOT HS 808 209, Sept. 1994. 

95SAE and other commenters also argued that 

comparing the ratio of the illuminance from the 

adaptive beam to the lower beam would also 

compensate for unaccounted for test variability 

such as dips and bumps in the road. This is 

discussed below in Section VIII.C.10.d, Allowance 

for Momentary Glare Exceedances. 

96 ‘‘Luminance’’ refers to the luminous intensity 

produced by a light source in a particular direction 

per solid angle, while, as noted earlier, 

‘‘illuminance’’ refers to the amount of light falling 

on a surface. The unit of measurement for 

luminance is candela, while the unit of 

measurement for illuminance is lux. A measure of 

luminous intensity in candela can be converted to 

a lux equivalent (and vice versa), given a specified 

distance. 

97 Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. 

Headlight Test and Rating Protocol, Version III (July 

2018); Rationale and Supporting Work for 

Headlight Test and Rating Protocol. (August 2015). 

SAE, Global, Ford, Toyota, the 

Alliance, and Auto Innovators 

commented that the proposed glare 

limits were conservative and that using 

absolute measurements of discomfort 

glare (the aspect of glare that is painful 

or annoying, as opposed to the aspect of 

glare that limits the ability to see other 

objects) is unreasonable and not 

practicable. They recommended the 

final rule include reasonable allowances 

for an ADB system to momentarily 

exceed the glare limits, especially given 

the large number of proposed test 

scenarios. They also stated that the 

proposed glare limits are well below the 

illuminance provided by contemporary 

lower beams, including Insurance 

Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) toprated lower beams for MY 2017 

vehicles, especially on curves. As noted 

earlier, SAE provided analyses and 

graphs based on IIHS data on lower 

beam performance on different road 

geometries, from straight roads to left 

and right curves of various radii.93

For those reasons, SAE, the Alliance, 

and Toyota argued that NHTSA should 

evaluate the ratio of the ADB to lower 

beam illuminance. SAE noted that this 

procedure is specified in SAE J3069, 

which requires the measured 

illuminance to be no more than 25% 

above the measured lower beam 

illuminance. SAE further stated that 

NHTSA’s 2015 ADB Test Report used a 

similar procedure, and that an UMTRI 

report found that 25% was an 

acceptable maximum limit above the 

lower beam.94 Toyota commented that 

following SAE J3069 in this respect 

would facilitate ADB deployment across 

a wider range of vehicles.95 Auto 

Innovators also argued for a similar 25% 

allowance (discussed below). 

A few commenters expressed interest 

in the final rule accounting for glare 

dosage. Toyota commented that there is 

no clear evidence that exceeding the 

maximum illuminance for longer than 

0.1 second leads to a safety hazard any 

greater than what occurs with existing 

headlighting systems on U.S. roads 

today. Mobileye similarly commented 

that a distinction needs to be introduced 

between glaring that may cause 

discomfort to other drivers and glaring 

which may pose a safety risk. It asserted 

that, while the NPRM assumes that any 

glare exceedances for more than 0.1 

seconds are not acceptable, drivers 

commonly use intentional, limited 

glaring as a signaling mechanism to 

other drivers. Accordingly, Mobileye 

suggested allowing glare exceedances 

longer than 0.1 seconds. AAA 

commented that the final rule should 

not permit glare exceedances lasting 

longer than 1 second because its 

research showed that glare from an 

oncoming vehicle lasting approximately 

1 second was rated as highly distracting. 

Intertek believed that proposed 0.1 

second allowance would account for the 

majority of the issues related to glare 

dosage, exposure, or perceptibility 

because any longer exceedance is 

detectable by the human eye. Auto 

Innovators also asserted that the final 

rule should account for glare dosage. 

(This is discussed further below.) 

NHTSA received a few comments 

about the proposed measurement 

distances. Intertek commented that 

regulating glare for distances extending 

out to 220 m is unnecessary because the 

angular size and position of oncoming 

headlamps at distances greater than 155 

m mitigate any harmful effects of glare. 

Intertek commented that testing out to 

220 m creates additional complexity 

and testing costs. In contrast, AAA 

suggested regulating glare beyond 220 

m. They noted that European 

specifications require camera 

recognition and reaction at distances of 

400 meters (1,312 feet), and that 

intensity limits could be increased from 

the current maximum of 150,000 cd to 

the European maximum of 430,000 cd if 

ADB systems are effective at this 

distance. SAE commented that the 

proposed requirements for preceding 

glare are too stringent, given the 

detection distance (120 m vs. 100 for the 

ECE) and the minimum photometric 

requirements for rear lamps (2 cd vs. 4 

cd for the ECE). 

Valeo commented that the proposed 

maximum illuminance requirements 

would result in wildly varying light 

output, especially compared to the 

current ECE requirements, which result 

in a much more constant and consistent 

light intensity. Valeo also suggested that 

the final rule clarify that the 

requirements apply to the entire ADB 

system (both left-hand and right-hand 

headlamps). 

Intertek suggested measuring 

luminance 96 from the ADB system 

headlamps rather than illuminance at 

the test fixture would provide several 

benefits, including: The data collected 

from the test would have a record which 

is very closely matched, and can be 

perceived and analyzed in much the 

same way as what an actual driver of the 

stimulus vehicle would have 

experienced; the recorded data can be 

viewed as a map of luminous intensity 

(candela) emitted from the test vehicle, 

which would be directly comparable to 

the existing photometry requirements, 

and can be plotted as a function of time 

or approach distance; over time, if this 

data is collected carefully and attention 

is paid to those scenarios in which the 

driver of the stimulus vehicle feels 

glared, a better quantitative baseline for 

and understanding of glare can be 

established. 

Auto Innovators stated that NHTSA 

should adopt a modified version of the 

IIHS right-curve glare exposure criteria 

for all oncoming scenarios.97 See Table 

5. Auto Innovators contended that this 

would be appropriate because the IIHS 

glare limits are intended to provide 

consumers with a relative assessment of 

headlamp performance and it is possible 

for a vehicle to drastically exceed the 

glare criteria in the IIHS test and still 

comply with FMVSS No. 108; the IIHS 

protocol allows exceedances in the form 

of cumulative exposures as opposed to 

hard pass/fail limit at a single point in 

time, resulting in a series of demerits 

(based on the percentage over the limit) 

for which it is possible for a vehicle to 

achieve a ‘‘Good’’ rating while still 

offering small amounts of glare. Auto 

Innovators recommended adopting a 

similar method for establishing an 

allowable time exceedance for each test 

range. 

TABLE 5—AUTO INNOVATORS’ MODIFIED MAXIMUM ILLUMINANCE CRITERIA BASED ON IIHS PROTOCOL

Distance 

(m) 

Illuminance 

limit 

(lx) 

30 to 59.9 ............................... 6 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
9942 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

98Auto Innovators also argues that glare 

exceedances at these short distances may be caused 

by swiveling of the headlamps. While this only 

applies to swiveling beam ADB systems, Auto 

Innovators believes that any safety standard should 

remain technology neutral. 

99 85 FR 39678 (July 1, 2020) (grant of petition for 

inconsequential noncompliance for side marker 

lamp below photometric minima); 85 FR 39679 

(July 1, 2020) (grant of petition for inconsequential 

noncompliance for rear reflectors below minima); 

55 FR 37601 (Sept. 12, 1990) (grant of petition for 

inconsequential noncompliance for taillamp 

exceeding maxima). 

100NHTSA anticipates that ADB systems could 

provide better glare protection than current lower 

beams if dynamic vertical aim is incorporated into 

the systems. Current lower beams will produce 

glare on hills and undulating roads. Because of the 

nature of the adaptive beam’s area of unreduced 

intensity, it does not have the same sensitivity to 

aim as a lower beam with respect to seeing distance. 

For example, an ADB pattern could be aimed down 

more than a lower beam (preventing glare even 

when the vehicle pitches) while still providing 

appropriate seeing distance in directions where 

glare protection is not required. However, the 

agency decided not to require additional glare 

protection performance from ADB systems beyond 

that currently produced by lower beams (except on 

right curves) and anticipates aiming strategies might 

be incorporated into ADB systems in order to 

maintain reasonable compliance margins. 

101See DOT HS 808 209, Sept. 1994, p. 9 

(concluding that ‘‘using 25% as a criterion for 

inconsequential noncompliance’’ is appropriate for 

lower-beam headlamps) (emphasis added). 

102 2015 ADB Test Report, p. 133. 

103 Id. 

TABLE 5—AUTO INNOVATORS’ MODIFIED MAXIMUM ILLUMINANCE CRITERIA BASED ON IIHS PROTOCOL— 

Continued 

Distance 

(m) 

Illuminance 

limit 

(lx) 

60 to 119.9 ............................. 3.4 

120 to 220 .............................. 1 

Auto Innovators gave a few different 

arguments for adopting its proposed 

glare limits. First, it claimed that the 

IIHS glare limits better reflect modern 

headlighting systems. It noted that the 

proposed glare limits are based, in part, 

on headlamps typical of the 1997 model 

year, whereas the IIHS protocol is based 

on contemporary headlighting systems. 

Next, Auto Innovators contended that 

the IIHS protocol accounts for research 

indicating that the harmful effects of 

glare depend on both peak illuminance 

and overall dosage of glare exposure. 

Finally, Auto Innovators contended that 

the IIHS methodology accounts for glare 

effects due to incidence angle whereas 

the Feasibility Study does not. Auto 

Innovators recommended eliminating 

the 15–29.9 m measurement range (for 

both oncoming and preceding scenarios) 

because its test data showed not only 

that the least amount of failures 

occurred in this interval but that the 

exceedance durations for all failures in 

this range were 1.0 second or less.98

In addition to recommending NHTSA 

adopt its suggested glare limits, Auto 

Innovators recommended that the final 

rule require passage of a percentage of 

averaged individual illuminance 

readings to achieve compliance instead 

of looking to the maximum recorded 

illuminance in each measurement range. 

Specifically, Auto Innovators appeared 

to suggest that NHTSA perform three 

test runs for each scenario and average 

the maximum illuminance in each 

measurement range recorded for each 

scenario. Then, it asks that NHTSA 

allow up to 15% of the averaged 

illuminance readings to exceed its 

recommended glare limits by up to 

25%. Auto Innovators cited the same 

UMTRI and NHTSA reports referenced 

earlier, as well as three 

inconsequentiality petition grants as the 

basis for the 25% allowance.99 Auto 

Innovators commented that the 15% 

allowance comes from the turn signal 

test requirements in S14.9.3 of FMVSS 

No. 108. It contended that this amount 

of performance variation is consistent 

with the challenges of outdoor dynamic 

testing where little previous experience 

exists, especially compared to the 

highly-controlled laboratory 

photometric testing that has previously 

been used. Auto Innovators commented 

that it would be difficult not to attribute 

failures of illuminance readings to 

variances that could appear in the novel 

and unique aspects of the test 

procedure, rather than to quality control 

issues, particularly where the time and 

complexity of the testing preclude 

conducting it on multiple ADBequipped vehicles. It also asserted that 

this approach is consistent with the 

standard’s design to conform language. 

Mobileye similarly suggested specifying 

a pass/fail ratio for the measured 

illuminance values in each specified 

measurement interval. 

Agency response 

NHTSA agrees with the commenters 

that the proposed glare limits were 

overly stringent at some geometries and 

measurement distances in that a current, 

FMVSS No. 108-compliant lower beam 

would not have complied with some of 

these requirements. The agency has 

therefore modified the proposal by 

deleting the short right curve scenario 

and modifying measurement distances 

for other specified radii of curvature. 

NHTSA believes that these 

modifications reasonably ensure that a 

lower beam that complies with the 

current FMVSS No. 108 photometry 

requirements would be within the glare 

limits as applied in the specified 

measurement ranges in each of the final 

scenarios. This is discussed in further 

detail in Section VIII.C.8, Test 

Scenarios.100

NHTSA disagrees with some 

commenters’ suggestions to follow SAE 

J3069 and only consider an ADB system 

as not complying with the glare limits 

if the measured ADB illuminance 

exceeds 25% of lower beam 

illuminance. The final rule differs from 

the proposal by eliminating overly 

stringent scenarios and providing 

additional adjustments to account for 

testing variability, including data 

filtering procedures and an adjustment 

for vehicle pitch, in addition to the 

proposed allowance for momentary 

glare exceedances. The agency believes 

that these modifications obviate the 

need for any further glare limit 

allowances. While more relaxed test 

requirements might facilitate ADB 

deployment, they would not ensure that 

ADB systems function properly. We 

believe that the final requirements and 

test procedures strike a reasonable 

balance between visibility and glare 

prevention. 

Neither the UMTRI report nor the 

comments relating to the NHTSA 

research cited by the commenters are 

persuasive. The UMTRI report 

concerned the evaluation of 

inconsequentiality petitions, not the 

appropriate magnitude of the lower 

beam maxima, which is the relevant 

issue when considering the appropriate 

level for the glare limits.101 As 

explained in the NPRM, the proposed 

glare limits were based on FMVSS No. 

108’s longstanding Table XIX 

photometric maxima. While the 2015 

ADB Test Report did examine how close 

the observed ADB illuminance values 

were to the relevant glare limit, 

including an analysis of the effect on the 

results of increasing the glare limits by 

up to 25%,102 the analysis did not 

concern ‘‘just noticeable differences’’ or 

state or imply that exceedances of up to 

125% of the relevant glare limit were 

inconsequential. Instead, the purpose of 

this analysis was to ‘‘see whether 

increasing the glare limit would have 

changed an exceeding result to a nonexceeding result.’’ 103 The 2015 ADB 

Test Report also examined the ratio of 

ADB illuminance to lower beam 

illuminance. This analysis was intended 

to evaluate ADB functionality, not as a 

means of evaluating ADB compliance. 

This was particularly useful because 

some of the lower beam headlighting 

systems tested in the 2015 study were 

not designed to meet the requirements 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 9943 

104Although commenters did not suggest it, we 

also decided not to adopt an adjustment such that 

if ADB illuminance exceeds an applicable glare 

limit, the exceedance would be considered a 

noncompliance only if the ADB illuminance 

exceeded the lower beam illuminance (i.e., without 

a 25% cushion). The reasons for this are the same 

as the reasons for not adopting the commenters’ 

recommendations. 

105Feasibility Study, p. 23. 

106 Id. 

107The Fusion used had not been rated by IIHS. 

The Volvo was rated ‘‘acceptable’’ by IIHS. 

of FMVSS No.108. Using a ratio allowed 

for the comparison of basic ADB 

functionality against the lower beam 

regardless of the photometric standard 

to which the lower beam was 

designed.104

Regarding the distances at which to 

regulate glare, regulating oncoming glare 

out to 220 m is appropriate. As the 

Feasibility Study explained, at greater 

distances a smaller glare limit is 

appropriate because, at greater 

distances, ‘‘the glare source will be seen 

by the oncoming driver at a smaller 

angle.’’ 105 NHTSA was able to test the 

final scenarios out to this distance 

(where applicable) and did not 

encounter any testing difficulties related 

to this distance. On the other hand, 

NHTSA did not develop testing 

scenarios for oncoming glare at 

distances greater than 220 m, and so is 

not prepared to test beyond that 

distance. The reasons for regulating 

oncoming glare out to 220 m are 

discussed in greater detail in Section 

VIII.D.4, Requirements for area of 

unreduced intensity. NHTSA does agree 

with SAE that it is more appropriate to 

test preceding glare only out to 100 m, 

and not the proposed 120 m. The 

reasons for this are discussed in more 

detail in Section VIII.C.8.g, Scenario 7: 

Preceding Straight. 

The agency disagrees with Valeo’s 

assertion that specifying the glare limits 

as a stepwise (discontinuous) function 

of distance will result in dramatic 

fluctuations in light output. The glare 

limits are photometric maxima, not 

design requirements, and there is no 

reason to think that manufacturers will 

design headlamps that suddenly 

increase or decrease in brightness for 

reasons unrelated to road conditions. 

Moreover, the laboratory requirements 

that reference the Table XIX 

photometric maximum intensity limits 

preclude manufacturers from producing 

areas of reduced intensity that vary as 

Valeo would suggest. In fact, the output 

limits specified in Table XIX require 

lower beam intensities (which is what 

the agency requires the ADB systems to 

produce in the area of reduced 

intensity) well below those calculated 

by Valeo at the further distances of the 

measurement subrange. 

While the final rule could have 

specified the glare limits as a 

continuous function of distance, this 

would have been more complicated. In 

any case, the stepwise specification is 

less stringent than specifying glare 

limits as a continuous function of the 

closing distance between the test 

vehicle and the test fixture. The glare 

limits for each of the four specified 

ranges was derived from the shortest 

distance in the range, and then applied 

to all the (further) distances in the 

range. As the Feasibility Study 

explained, however, the glare limits are 

derived to decrease as distance 

increases.106 Therefore, if the glare 

limits were specified as a continuous 

function of distance, they would 

decrease throughout the interval as 

distance increased. By specifying the 

glare limits as a stepwise function, the 

glare limits are higher at the further 

distances in the interval than they 

would have been if we specified them 

as a continuous function of distance. 

This has the benefit of simplicity. It also 

essentially gives manufacturers an 

additional margin for error than they 

would have had if we specified the 

limits as a continuous function of 

distance. The final rule has, however, 

incorporated Valeo’s suggestion to 

clarify that the requirements apply to 

the entire ADB system. 

Intertek makes an interesting 

suggestion for quantifying perceived 

glare. However, based on the agency’s 

stated goals of minimizing the cost 

impact of the regulation and providing 

a pathway for introduction of ADB 

systems for use on U.S. roadways as 

quickly as possible, the final rule does 

not adopt Intertek’s suggestion. To do so 

would require additional research to 

inform the agency on how such changes 

would affect the glare and photometry 

limits specified, as well as any costs 

associated with requiring the agency 

and the industry to switch from test 

methods designed around measuring 

illuminance at the test vehicle to 

measuring luminance. The agency 

simply has no data to support such a 

change at this time. 

NHTSA understands Auto Innovators’ 

suggestion to adopt the IIHS glare limits 

as related to their general argument that 

the proposed glare limits and test 

scenarios were too stringent. As 

explained earlier, NHTSA agreed with 

this point to some extent and modified 

the measurement distances, test 

scenarios, and allowances accordingly. 

However, the agency does not adopt 

Auto Innovators’ glare limits for two 

reasons. 

First, the glare limits suggested by 

Auto Innovators are three times the 

proposed limits, which are based on the 

current photometry requirements. The 

intent of this rulemaking is to permit 

ADB without increasing glare from 

levels currently on the road. NHTSA’s 

testing showed that Auto Innovators’ 

suggested limits do not represent glare 

produced by compliant lower beams 

under the controlled driving situations 

that are part of the ADB test, 

particularly for straight and left curve 

scenarios. For the left curve and straight 

path scenarios, testing of the Fusion and 

Volvo demonstrated that a considerable 

margin is achieved with the proposed 

glare limits.107 See Table 6. These same 

types of margins are present throughout 

our lower beam testing. This confirms 

that these limits provide a boundary to 

protect the public from additional glare 

beyond what is currently experienced 

on the roads today. See also the 

discussions of lower beam performance 

on various scenarios in Section VIII.C.8, 

Test Scenarios. The commenter’s 

suggested limits would significantly 

increase that boundary and permit 

substantially higher glare on the roads. 

TABLE 6—LOWER BEAM ILLUMINANCE MARGIN FOR PROPOSED GLARE LIMITS

Range 

(m) Glare limit Max illum. Margin (%) 

Volvo 210 m left curve at 42 mph 

150.0–120.0 ................................................................................................................................. 0.3 0.051 83 

119.9–60.0 ................................................................................................................................... 0.6 0.158 74 

59.9–30.0 ..................................................................................................................................... 1.8 0.788 56 

29.9–15.0 ..................................................................................................................................... 3.1 2.118 32 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
9944 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

108 DOT HS 811 043 Nighttime Glare and Driving 

Performance: Research Findings, 2008. 

109 2007 Report to Congress, pg. iv. 

110See Feasibility Study, p. 23. 

111 In addition, we note that the negative impacts 

of glare are not limited to disabling glare, but are 

also related to the annoyance and even painful 

experience of other roadway users. NHTSA’s 2008 

research concluded that ‘‘the peak illuminance, 

rather than the dosage, was the primary factor 

associated with rated discomfort.’’ DOT HS 811 043 

Nighttime Glare and Driving Performance: Research 

Findings, 2008. 

112See Section VIII.C.10, Data Acquisition and 

Measurement. 

113See Section VIII.C.11, Repeatability. 

TABLE 6—LOWER BEAM ILLUMINANCE MARGIN FOR PROPOSED GLARE LIMITS—Continued 

Range 

(m) Glare limit Max illum. Margin (%) 

Fusion 400 m right curve at 54 mph 

70.0–60.0 ..................................................................................................................................... 0.6 0.415 31 

59.9–30.0 ..................................................................................................................................... 1.8 0.933 48 

29.9–15.0 ..................................................................................................................................... 3.1 1.394 55 

Second, the agency believes the 

proposed oncoming glare limits (which 

are derived from the Table XIX left side 

photometric maxima) are most 

appropriate for any oncoming 

scenario—including right curves— 

because they were derived from limits 

designed specifically for oncoming 

traffic (which in the United States are 

typically to the left, except on right 

curves). Auto Innovators’ suggested 

limits may be appropriate for the right 

side of lower beams where the 

compromise between seeing distance 

and glare places greater value on seeing 

toward the right side. This is 

appropriate for a static beam pattern 

that limits glare in all horizontal 

directions no matter where the other 

road user is located. If one thinks of 

oncoming interactions as being oriented 

in terms of either straight, left curve, or 

right curve, two of these three (straight 

and left curve) have the other vehicle 

toward the left of the subject vehicle’s 

headlamps. So, for those two situations, 

it is better to allow more potential glare 

to the right side of the road (where other 

road users are less likely to be) in order 

to provide some seeing light in that 

direction. For the remaining right curve 

situation, the beam is still limited, but 

less so, and some glare is expected to 

account for better seeing distance 

toward the right for the other two 

situations. No such compromise needs 

to be applied for ADB. The ADB pattern 

creates a reduced illumination area to 

the left when the other vehicle is to the 

left and an unreduced area to the right. 

When the other vehicle is toward the 

right, the same protection can now be 

applied to those encounters as to the 

straight and left, without sacrificing 

seeing distance. As such, the agency is 

using the glare limits derived for the left 

side oncoming curve scenario for the 

right curve scenario. 

The agency acknowledges the 

relationship between dosage (the 

product of illuminance and duration) 

and the disabling effects of glare. For 

glare control, the IIHS headlamp rating 

procedure uses a derivative of dosage 

(distance for which a limited 

illuminance is exceeded). However, the 

quantified crash risks associated with 

exceeding these limits is not clear. 

Research the agency conducted in 2008 

began to explore this relationship, 

noting that ‘‘specification of the 

integrated (summed) values throughout 

the segment would be more likely to 

provide control for glare recovery, but 

would involve headlamp light 

measurement procedures that are more 

complex than those currently used to 

determine if a headlamp meets the 

FMVSS 108 requirements.’’ 108 Until 

this final rule, the basic structure of the 

headlighting regulation (goniometer— 

photometry) did not provide a 

foundation for which glare dosage could 

be readily measured and regulated. As 

such, the agency has not focused its 

research in this area. While NHTSA 

agrees that a qualitative relationship 

exists, the agency has not established, 

and does not know of, a quantified 

relationship between glare dosage and 

crash risk. 

Another limitation of IIHS’s method is 

that it considers all glare doses equal 

(except for distances between 5 m and 

10 m). The impacts of glare, however, 

are also related to the angle between the 

glare source and the line of sight of the 

viewer. The glance pattern of drivers in 

nighttime glare situations is not well 

understood, as some drivers may be 

inclined to look toward the glare source 

effectively causing the angle between 

the line of sight and the glare source to 

be zero.109 To the extent that a driver 

follows driver’s education 

recommendations and does not look at 

the glare source, glare doses in roadway 

interactions are not equally impactful at 

all distances, as the angle between the 

glare source and the line of sight is 

smaller at far distances. Such an effect 

is reflected in the current photometric 

tables and was, in fact, taken into 

account in the glare limits derivation in 

the Feasibility Study, in that the glare 

limits are smaller at greater distances.110

NHTSA therefore disagrees with Auto 

Innovators that the IIHS study accounts 

for glare effects due to incidence 

angle.111

NHTSA is therefore finalizing the 

glare limits as proposed. Future 

development of glare dosage as full 

vehicle dynamic testing for headlighting 

systems continues to mature is of 

interest to the agency. 

With respect to Auto Innovators’ 

comments regarding specifying an 

allowance of 25% over the glare limits, 

we disagree with this for the reasons 

given above regarding the evaluation of 

the ratio of adaptive driving beam to 

lower beam illuminance. NHTSA also 

does not find the cited 

inconsequentiality petition grants to be 

persuasive because they did not concern 

headlamps, and, except for one of the 

petitions, did not concern glare. The 

agency was also not persuaded by the 

suggestions by Auto Innovators and 

Mobileye to adopt a pass/fail ratio or to 

average a number of test runs in order 

to mitigate test-related variability. Such 

procedures, while occasionally 

specified in an FMVSS, would be 

unusual. In any case, we do not believe 

this is necessary here for two reasons. 

First, we believe the final test procedure 

already has sufficient allowances for 

test-related variability (an allowance for 

momentary glare exceedances, a vehicle 

pitch adjustment, and the application of 

a low-pass filter with a cutoff frequency 

of 35 Hz).112 Second, we conducted a 

repeatability analysis and found the 

final test procedure to be repeatable.113

5. ADB Adaptation Time 

The NPRM included a 0.1 second or 

1 m magnitude allowance for 

momentary glare exceedances. This was 

intended to account for variations in 

illumination due not to the ADB system 

but to uncontrolled or uncontrollable 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 9945 

114The proposed allowance for momentary glare 

exceedances (intended to account for uncontrolled 

test-related variability) is discussed in Section 

VIII.C.10.d. 

115Assessment of Adaptive Driving Beam 

Photometric Performance (SAE 2016–01–1408), p. 

3. This included the time it took for an 

experimenter to turn on the stimulus vehicle 

headlamps at a predetermined distance, so the 

actual system response time was shorter than this. 

116 2015 ADB Test Report, p. 92. 

testing variables. This differs from an 

allowance for an adaptation time, which 

would account for the operation of the 

ADB system—specifically, the time it 

takes an ADB system to recognize a 

stimulus (once the stimulus is within 

the camera’s field of view) and respond 

by dimming the beam, switching from 

an area of unreduced intensity to an 

area of reduced intensity. SAE J3069 

specifies a 2.5 second maximum ADB 

adaptation time during the sudden 

appearance test drive. (The NPRM did 

not include a ‘‘sudden appearance’’ 

scenario because the system’s ability to 

respond quickly is exercised by the 

shorter-radii curve scenarios.) The 

NPRM did not propose a time limit 

within which an ADB system would be 

required to respond to a stimulus, but 

sought comment on whether one should 

be included in the regulation. 

Comments 

Some commenters interpreted the 0.1 

second allowance for momentary glare 

exceedances as an adaptation time 

allowance.114 Mobileye, Ford, Honda, 

Volkswagen, and Auto Innovators 

contended that 0.1 second is not 

technically feasible and the final rule 

should specify a duration greater than 

0.1 second because ADB systems need 

time to recognize the stimulus and 

modify the beam. Mobileye and Ford 

stated that without this, ADB systems 

would behave erratically, and Mobileye 

stated that it would result in many more 

false positives, leading to reduced 

visibility. Honda asserted that an 

insufficient time allowance would disincentivize the deployment of systems 

that operate over a wide range of 

conditions, and might especially be an 

issue on curves with a radius of 320– 

380 ft, on which an opposing vehicle 

will enter the ADB vehicle’s field of 

view suddenly at a close distance. 

Honda suggested an allowance for an 

adaptation time sufficient to ensure that 

ADB systems have an appropriate 

amount of time to react to the sudden 

appearance of other vehicles or when 

environmental lighting changes 

dynamically when driving. 

Mobileye, Ford, Volkswagen, and 

Auto Innovators specifically supported 

the 2.5 second ‘‘reaction time’’ specified 

in SAE J3069. Ford commented that 2.5 

seconds is reasonable based on its 

extensive experience with auto beam 

switching systems similar to ADB 

systems available internationally. 

Mobileye also noted that ECE R48 

defines the minimal distance below 

which glaring is not allowed. Auto 

Innovators commented that its test data 

showed that a majority of exceedances 

were less than 2.0 seconds, with only a 

few exceedances over 2.5 seconds 

(limited to scenarios in which the 

stimulus vehicle was difficult to detect, 

such as the stationary motorcycle). 

Mobileye, Volkswagen, and Auto 

Innovators commented that 2.5 seconds 

would still be an improvement over 

human-driver reaction time. 

In contrast, AAA asserted that 2.5 

seconds is inordinately long, and that 

the reaction time should be decreased to 

approximately 1 second, based on its 

research which showed that glare from 

an oncoming vehicle lasting 

approximately 1 second was rated as 

highly distracting. 

Agency Response 

Although the final rule does not 

specify an allowable ‘‘adaptation time,’’ 

the agency does agree that the final rule 

should generally take into account how 

long it takes a typical, well-designed 

ADB system to respond. Typical ADB 

adaptation times are a little over 1 

second. An ADB test report published 

by SAE in 2016 reported a reaction time 

of about 1.1 seconds.115 NHTSA’s 

testing showed comparable times, 

ranging from .56 seconds to 1.22 

seconds when suddenly exposed to a 

stimulus.116 These reported adaptation 

times are much less than the 2.5 

seconds specified in SAE J3069. 

In addition, at the speeds the track 

tests are conducted, the test vehicles 

will cover a significant amount of the 

measurement distance within an 

adaptation time of 2.5 seconds (nearly 

28 m at 25 mph, or 55 m at 50 mph). 

For example, the SAE sudden 

appearance scenarios specify that the 

fixture lamp be suddenly exposed when 

the test vehicle is between 155 m and 

100 m from the fixture. At 55 mph (24.6 

m/s) the test vehicle will have traveled 

61.5 m in 2.5 s. If the fixture lamps were 

activated at 100 m, this means that the 

test vehicle would be about 40 m from 

the fixture by the time the 2.5 second 

allowance had elapsed. This would 

mean that only one illuminance value 

(at 30 m) would be evaluated by the 

SAE test. Similarly, in a real-world 

vehicle interaction, with two vehicles 

approaching each at 70 mph (31.3 m/s) 

each, if the ABD system takes 2.5 s to 

react, the two vehicles will have 

traveled 157 m before the ADB system 

reacts. 

After consideration of the studies and 

data discussed above, NHTSA believes 

that an ADB adaptation time of 2.5 

seconds is exceedingly long. The final 

rule does not specify an adaptation 

time, however, because the final 

scenario parameters have generally been 

specified so that glare is not regulated 

until the fixture has been within the 

field of view of a typical ADB system 

(25 degrees to each side) long enough 

for the system to react (for example, in 

the small left curve scenario the fixture 

is within the camera’s field of view for 

approximately 1.24 s before the fixture 

enters the measurement distance range 

for that scenario). There are some 

exceptions to this. For some of the 

smaller-radii curve scenarios, the final 

rule begins regulating glare at a distance 

at which a typical ADB system might 

not have had time to react. Even here, 

however, there is not a need for an 

adaptation time because a typical ADB 

system would not exceed the glare 

limits even at these distances. At these 

further distances, because there will be 

a relatively wide angle between the test 

vehicle headlamps and the test fixture, 

the upper beam illuminance at those 

angles (and distances) is not likely to 

exceed the applicable glare limit. There 

is also no apparent safety need for 

directing high illuminance at such wide 

angles. These points are covered in 

more detail in the sections below for the 

various test scenarios. 

6. Test Fixture Specifications 

The NPRM identified test fixtures, 

including those specified in SAE J3069, 

as a regulatory alternative. The NPRM 

explained that SAE J3069 specifies four 

test fixtures: An opposing car/truck 

fixture; an opposing motorcycle fixture; 

a preceding car/truck fixture; and a 

preceding motorcycle fixture. The 

NPRM explained that the SAE fixtures 

are fitted with lights intended to 

simulate actual vehicle lamps; the 

lamps are intended to represent 

reasonable worst-case for intensity and 

location and promote repeatability. For 

headlamp representations, the SAE 

standard specifies a lamp projecting 300 

cd of white light in a specified manner 

and angle instead of actual headlamps. 

In addition to being intended to 

represent a reasonable worst-case 

condition, the SAE J3069 rationale also 

states a ‘‘concern that if the actual lower 

beam headlamps were used on the 

opposing vehicle test fixture the large 

gradients present in typical lower beam 

patterns would cause unnecessary test 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
9946 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

117SAE J3069, p. 4. 

118SAE J3069 5.5.2 and Figures 1 and 2 (opposing 

vehicle fixture); 5.5.3 and Figures 3 and 4 

(preceding vehicle fixture). 

119SAE J3069, p. 3. 

120See Section VIII.O, Regulatory Alternatives. 

121Auto Innovators also suggested using 

standardized headlamps and taillamps in lieu of the 

proposed broad range of actual stimulus vehicles. 122S10.1. 

variability.’’ 117 For the taillamp 

representations, SAE J3069 specifies 

lamps emitting no more than 7 cd of red 

light in a specified manner and angle. 

The fixtures are fitted with photometers 

positioned near where a driver’s eyes or 

the rearview/side mirrors would be 

located to measure illumination from 

the ADB test vehicle headlamps.118 The 

lamp and photometer locations are 

based on ‘‘median location values 

provided by [the University of Michigan 

Transportation Research Institute].’’ 119

The NPRM identified and sought 

comment on potential issues with the 

SAE J3069 fixture specifications, 

particularly whether using simulated 

lamps instead of actual vehicle lamps 

was sufficiently realistic. We stated that 

test fixtures may encourage an ADB 

system designed to ensure identification 

of test fixtures rather than actual 

vehicles, which might not adequately 

ensure that the system performs 

satisfactorily when faced with a wide 

range of real-world vehicles and, 

particularly, real-world vehicle lighting. 

We stated that we were not confident 

that the lamps specified in SAE J3069 

represented a worst-case scenario. As 

one example of this, we noted that the 

minimum intensity allowed for a 

taillamp is 2.0 cd at H–V and as low as 

0.3 cd at an angle of 20 degrees. These 

values are considerably lower than the 

7.0 cd lamp specified in SAE J3069. We 

therefore sought comment on the extent 

to which narrowly-defined lamps can be 

used to establish performance 

requirements that reasonably ensure an 

ADB system will recognize and adapt 

appropriately to the wide range of 

lighting configurations permitted under 

FMVSS No. 108. We also noted, with 

respect to the concern raised in SAE 

J3069 that using actual lower beam 

headlamps on the opposing vehicle 

fixtures would lead to test variability, 

that in the real world an ADB system 

must be able to identify headlamps from 

many different types and models of 

vehicles; if an ADB system was so 

sensitive to actual headlamp gradients 

that those gradients affected ADB 

system performance, the variability 

would be attributable to the ADB 

system, not the test. 

Comments 

The agency received several 

comments relating to test fixture 

specifications. While many 

manufacturers urged NHTSA to adopt 

SAE J3069,120 some commenters 

identified potential concerns with the 

SAE J3069 fixtures. Mobileye 

commented that the major drawback of 

SAE J3069 is the use of synthetic 

stimulus light sources, which presents a 

challenge because in actual driving 

scenarios, the system is trained to ignore 

the types of synthetic light sources 

specified in SAE J3069 because they are 

more likely to be lights from houses, 

driveways, or other non-vehicle sources. 

Mobileye pointed out that vehicle 

headlamps differ from the SAE fixtures 

in shape, power source (DC), and having 

a distinct non-uniform light dispersion 

pattern. Mobileye suggested that placing 

lamps on static fixtures will force an 

ADB system to react to light sources 

even when it positively recognizes them 

as not being part of a vehicle. Mobileye 

recommended that the fixture closely 

resemble a ‘‘uniform’’ or ‘‘standard’’ 

vehicle with lamps representative of 

those approved by FMVSS No. 108 

instead of the static fixtures specified in 

SAE J3069, so as not to force the ADB 

system to downgrade its real-life 

performance to comply with a synthetic 

test.121 Intertek commented that it is 

possible for image recognition software 

to be adjusted to specifically identify 

and respond to the SAE J3069 test 

fixture and test track without 

necessarily ensuring adequate realworld performance. 

We also received comments on the 

proposed stimulus vehicle lighting that 

are equally relevant to test fixture 

lighting. Bosch recommended that, to 

ensure system robustness, NHTSA 

specify stimulus vehicles with a wide 

variety of light source technologies and 

consider utilizing a reference 

publication such as the Ward’s 

Automotive Yearbook to stay current 

with rapidly evolving headlamp 

technology. Honda noted that the NPRM 

did not specify which headlamp beams 

should be activated on the stimulus 

vehicle and suggested that the final rule 

clarify that this is the lower beam. Auto 

Innovators raised the possibility of a 

situation where the regulation specifies 

a specific vehicle or vehicle component, 

but the item is later determined to be 

noncompliant or subject to 

manufacturer in-cycle design changes or 

modifications. Auto Innovators 

suggested that this potential for noncompliance presents an unforeseeable 

uncertainty to the compliance process, 

because such changes will not always be 

known at the time a manufacturer of the 

ADB vehicle conducts self-certification 

testing or to a third-party conducting 

compliance testing for the agency. 

Agency Response 

The final rule specifies test fixtures 

conforming to SAE J3069 with respect to 

the types of fixtures and photometer 

placement. The final rule departs from 

SAE J3069 by specifying vehicle lamps 

from high-selling vehicles instead of 

lamps intended to simulate vehicle 

lighting. 

The final rule specifies the same four 

types of fixtures specified in SAE J3069: 

An oncoming car/truck fixture; a 

preceding car/truck fixture; an 

oncoming motorcycle fixture; and a 

preceding motorcycle fixture. The final 

rule follows the SAE specifications for 

the locations of the stimulus lighting. 

SAE based these locations on data 

regarding the typical mounting locations 

of vehicle lighting. NHTSA agrees that 

these locations are appropriate, and 

within the FMVSS No. 108 mounting 

location requirements. 

The rule also follows SAE J3069 for 

the locations of the illuminance meters. 

SAE based these locations on data 

regarding typical driver’s eye heights 

and mounting locations for the 

rearview/side mirrors. The illuminance 

meter locations specified in the final 

rule are the same as in the proposal, 

with one exception. In its recent 

revisions to SAE J3069, SAE revised the 

specifications for the placement of the 

illuminance meters (corresponding to 

two side-view mirrors) on the preceding 

motorcycle fixture. The revision notes 

that the figure depicted in the prior 

version of the practice showed the 

mirrors to be 0.2 m from the centerline 

of the rear position lamp, which is not 

consistent with the FMVSS No. 111 

required minimum. FMVSS No. 111 

requires that each motorcycle have a 

mirror ‘‘mounted so that the horizontal 

center of the reflective surface is at least 

279 mm outward of the longitudinal 

centerline of the motorcycle.’’ 122 The 

revised version of SAE J3069 shows the 

motorcycle mirror separation to be 0.4 

m, which is consistent with the FMVSS 

No. 111 required minimum. The 

specification in the final rule adopts this 

revised specification. 

We did, however, agree with 

Mobileye that—as we also tentatively 

concluded in the NPRM—the simulated 

lamps specified in SAE J3069 would not 

be sufficiently realistic. We therefore 

agreed with Mobileye’s and Auto 

Innovators’ suggestions to use 

standardized vehicle lamps on the 

fixtures. The final rule therefore departs 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 9947 

123This is different than the motorcycle 

headlamp used in NHTSA recent testing. For that 

testing, NHTSA used a 5.75 inch bullet headlamp 

kit from a 2018 Harley Davidson Roadster using an 

HB2 replaceable light source (part #68593–06). 

After that testing and before the publication of this 

final rule, that part went out of production and has 

been replaced with part #68297–05B. 

124SAE J3069 MAR2021 added a note requiring 

that any pulse width modulation or similar 

frequency control be sufficiently above the 

commercial power grid frequency and updated the 

conical angle specification. Even with these 

changes, NHTSA still believes that the finalized 

vehicle lighting is more appropriate. 

125SAE J3069 MAR2021 allows the fixture to be 

‘‘constructed in a manner that represents the 

intended vehicle type to avoid false readings that 

the stimulus fixture is not a vehicle’’ (sections 

5.5.2.1 and 5.5.3.1). As noted in the text, we 

considered but did not examine this alternative. 

However, we believe, based on the results of our 

testing (see Section VIII.C.2, Test Fixtures vs. 

Stimulus Vehicles), that specifying actual vehicle 

lamps makes the fixtures sufficiently realistic so 

that the ADB system will recognize the fixture as 

a vehicle. 

126The test vehicle will be driven within the right 

adjacent lane and will not change lanes. 

from SAE J3069 and specifies actual 

vehicle lamps for the fixtures. The 

reasons for this choice are explained in 

more detail below. The final rule 

specifies headlamp assemblies from a 

2018 Ford F–150 (halogen) and a 2018 

Toyota Camry (LED). For motorcycles, 

the final rule specifies a 5.75 inch 

headlamp assembly from a 2018 Harley 

Davidson Sportster using an HB2 

replaceable light source.123 The rule 

specifies right and left taillamp 

assemblies from a 2018 Ford F–150 

incandescent rear combination lamp 

and right and left tail lamp assemblies 

from a 2018 Toyota Camry combination 

lamp. For motorcycles, the final rule 

specifies a layback LED taillamp 

assembly from a 2018 Harley Davidson 

Roadster. 

There were several reasons for 

specifying actual vehicle lamps. NHTSA 

agrees with the concerns Mobileye 

identified regarding the use of synthetic 

fixture lighting and with Intertek that 

specifying synthetic lighting could 

result in vehicle manufacturers 

programming systems to recognize 

unrealistic fixtures, thus decoupling 

compliance test performance from 

actual performance.124 The agency’s 

intent was to specify a variety of light 

source technologies that are common in 

the market in order to assess how an 

ADB system performs with respect to 

light systems it will encounter while in 

actual use on the roads. This will 

discourage manufacturers from 

designing specifically to fixture lamps 

lacking characteristics typical of actual 

automotive lamps (e.g., non-uniform 

illuminance, variations in shape). Using 

actual vehicle lamps also reduces the 

cost of manufacture of the test fixture 

(since the highly specialized SAE 

fixture lighting is much more 

expensive). The agency agrees with 

Bosch that it is important that the lamps 

on the fixtures continue to be 

representative of vehicle lamps in use. 

To that end, NHTSA envisions future 

technical rulemakings to amend the 

lamps specified in the regulatory text. 

The agency also does not believe that 

the synthetic light sources specified in 

SAE J3069 represent a worst-case 

scenario. As NHTSA explained in the 

NPRM, the minimum taillamp 

intensities allowed by FMVSS No. 108 

(2.0 cd at H–V and as low as 0.3 cd at 

20 degrees) are considerably lower than 

the 7.0 cd lamp specified in SAE J3069. 

NHTSA also does not agree with SAE 

that specifying actual vehicle 

headlamps would result in excessive 

variability, but continues to believe, as 

stated in the NPRM, that gradients in 

typical headlamp beam patterns would 

likely only affect the repeatability of the 

test if the reaction by the ADB system 

changes based on this difference. If this 

is the case, the ADB system will have 

this issue in actual use (especially since 

the specified headlamps are from highselling vehicles and therefore common 

on the road), and this should not be 

considered variability attributable to the 

test, but a failing of the ADB system. In 

any case, NHTSA’s testing showed that 

the tested ADB system was generally 

able to recognize the fixtures fitted with 

these lamps. Comparative test data for 

the SAE fixtures and the final rule 

fixtures is presented in the discussions 

for each scenario (see Section VIII.C.8). 

The final rule also clarifies various 

aspects of the test procedures related to 

the fixture lamps. It clarifies that the 

stimulus headlamps will have the lower 

beam activated and aimed per the SAE 

Recommended Practice J599 Lighting 

Inspection Code (J599) procedures, as 

applicable. The final rule also specifies 

how to power the fixture lamps. SAE 

J3069 does not specify how to power the 

test-fixture lighting; this could leave 

open the possibility of powering the 

fixture in ways that are dissimilar to 

how actual automotive head and 

taillamps are powered, and potentially 

lead to ambiguities in how performance 

is measured. Accordingly, the final rule 

specifies that the lamps will have been 

energized for at least 5 minutes before 

each test scenario trial is performed. 

The agency considered Mobileye’s 

comment that the fixture should 

resemble a ‘‘standard’’ vehicle but 

decided not to adopt this. Using a 

fixture incorporating vehicle elements 

(e.g., hood, grill) raises issues of which 

elements to specify and how to specify 

them. NHTSA did consider 

implementing a portion of a vehicle in 

the fixtures, such as a partial front or 

rear section of a vehicle that would 

include the original equipment lamps as 

mounted in the production vehicle. 

Including a portion of the actual vehicle 

body would provide a more real-world 

stimulus with the added detail of some 

elements of vehicle shape and light 

reflections on the body surfaces. 

However, while this option was not 

examined in NHTSA’s research, our 

research did not demonstrate any 

significant difference in ADB response 

between actual stimulus vehicles and 

the test fixtures we are specifying, 

suggesting that adding detail elements 

to the fixture is not necessary.125

With respect to Auto Innovators’ 

comment regarding the possibility of a 

noncompliance of actual vehicle 

components used as a stimulus in a 

compliance test, NHTSA recognizes this 

possibility, but anticipates that the 

laboratory test procedures will provide 

for confirming that the vehicle lamps 

used on the test fixture comply with the 

applicable FMVSS No. 108 photometry 

requirements. 

7. Test Fixture Placement 

The proposal specified stimulus 

vehicles in the adjacent left lane to 

evaluate oncoming glare. To evaluate 

preceding glare, it essentially specified 

the stimulus vehicle either in the same 

lane as the test vehicle or in the adjacent 

left lane. 

The final rule, while specifying test 

fixtures, generally follows the NPRM 

approach. The test fixture will be placed 

in the adjacent left lane (from the 

perspective of the test vehicle) to 

evaluate both oncoming glare and 

preceding glare, essentially the same 

placement as proposed.126 See Figure 10 

(Figures 27–28 in the regulatory text). 

This corresponds to Fixture Position 2 

in SAE J3069. The final rule does not 

specify fixtures situated similarly to 

SAE Positions 1 and 3. In the SAE test 

method, fixtures placed in those 

locations are primarily intended to 

simulate curves; the final rule includes 

curved-path scenarios, so simulating 

curves with strategic fixture placement 

is not necessary. The final rule also 

specifies that the projection of the 

fixture lamp’s optical axis onto the road 

surface should be tangent to the road 

edge at the location of the photometer, 

and that the fixture be centered in the 

lane. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
9948 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

127The test scenario numbering used in the 

preamble and in the final rule regulatory text (at 

Table XXII) differs somewhat from the test scenario 

number in the ADB test report and repeatability 

assessment docketed with this final rule. 

128The illuminance measured from the highermounted photometer representing the truck driver 

eye point, is, as expected, lower than that measured 

from the lower-mounted photometer intended to 

represent a passenger car driver’s eye point. For that 

reason, some of the test data included in this 

preamble may not report the illuminance values 

measured from the higher-mounted illuminance 

meter. 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

NHTSA acknowledges that it is 

common in real-world driving for 

preceding vehicles to be located in the 

same lane or in the adjacent right lane. 

However, the agency believes that 

simply testing with the preceding 

fixture in the left adjacent lane will not 

result in a loss of information about 

ADB system performance. The purpose 

of the testing is to evaluate whether the 

ADB system is working in an integrated 

fashion; this can be done on either side. 

While real-world situations with a 

stimulus to the right side are common, 

it is reasonable to expect that if a system 

functions on the left it will also function 

on the right. Further, the final rule also 

has tests that include curves to the right, 

where the detection system is exercised 

(limited to oncoming and limited 

distances) on the right side of the field 

of view. 

8. Test Scenarios 127

a. Scenario 1: Oncoming Straight 

The NPRM proposed testing for 

oncoming glare in a straight-path test 

scenario at speeds from 60 mph to 70 

mph at measurement distances of 15 m 

to 220 m. 

Comments 

ALNA, Toyota, SAE, and the Alliance 

commented that the proposed glare 

limits are at or well below those 

regularly occurring today from lower 

beams, including, the commenters 

appeared to suggest, in a straight-path 

scenario. SAE and the Alliance stated 

that the glare limits are not reasonable 

if lower beams, including IIHS ‘‘Good’’- 

rated lower beams, would fail to 

comply. SAE provided a graphical 

analysis (based on IIHS data) of lower 

beam illuminance on a straight road 

(from 0 m to 125 m) for nine MY 2017 

IIHS Top Safety Picks, all with FMVSS 

108-compliant IIHS-rated ‘‘Good’’ 

headlamps. The graph shows that 

almost all those headlamps complied 

with the proposed glare limits at all 

proposed measurement distances. 

Agency Response 

NHTSA is finalizing the proposed 

specifications for this scenario, 

including the proposal to evaluate 

illuminance from 15 m to 220 m. The 

rule thus evaluates glare across a 

broader range of distances than SAE 

J3069, which evaluates glare at 30 m, 60 

m, 120 m, and 155 m, respectively. The 

reasons for choosing this range are 

discussed in the NPRM (83 FR at 

51778–51781) and elsewhere in this 

preamble. 

The available data indicate that 

current lower beams can comply with 

the glare limits in this scenario. The 

IIHS data submitted by SAE show that 

the lower beams for the 9 vehicles for 

which data was provided were generally 

within the glare limits on a straight road 

for all the distances for which the final 

rule regulates glare. NHTSA’s testing 

also shows that current lower beams 

would pass this scenario. NHTSA tested 

the lower beams of a MY 2019 Ford 

Fusion and MY 2016 Volvo XC90 in this 

scenario. The measured illuminance of 

the lower beams was found to be within 

the glare limits by a considerable margin 

at all distances. See Figure 11 and 

Figure 12.128


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2ER22FE22.010</GPH>

Figure 10. Final Rule Test Fixture Placement 

Opposite Direction Test Scenario 

Test Vehicle 

[c::X]) 

0 Re presents stimulus I amp 8 Re presents photometer 

Same Direction Test Scenario 

Opposite 

Direction 

Stimulus 

Test Fixture 

Same Direction 

Stimulus Test 

Fixture 

-------------------- Test Vehicle 

0 Represents stimulus lamp 8 Represents photometer 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 9949 

129 2015 ADB Test Report at p. 103 (Table 23) 

(results for Audi show adaptive beam within the 

glare limits at all distances on the straight scenario, 

with both a static and dynamic stimulus vehicle). 

Audi indicated that the shaded area of the adaptive 

beam complied with the FMVSS No. 108 lower 

beam requirements. 

130Agency testing showed some anomalies when 

testing with the motorcycle fixtures (both the final 

rule fixture and the SAE fixture). For that reason, 

the results of that testing are discussed separately. 

See Appendix C. 

NHTSA’s analysis and testing also 

indicate that current ADB systems can 

reasonably be expected to comply with 

this scenario. As Figure 7 makes clear, 

the fixture is within the ADB camera’s 

field of view at the beginning of the 

measurement range, at less than 5 

degrees left of the center of the field of 

view. (As noted earlier, the field of view 

of current ADB systems extends to about 

25 degrees left and right.) Accordingly, 

the ADB system should have sufficient 

time to detect and react to the fixture 

stimulus lamps and adjust the beam. 

The agency’s ADB test data confirms 

this. For example, the ADB system we 

tested was within the glare limits at all 

distances when tested with the 

oncoming car/truck fixture. See Figure 

13. Additionally, NHTSA’s 2015 testing 

showed that an older ADB system was 

able to pass this scenario even when 

tested with stimulus vehicles, both 

moving and stationary.129

The ADB system also passed the SAE 

scenario that is the closest analog to this 

scenario (with the car/truck test fixture 

in Position 2), and NHTSA did not see 

a significant difference between 

performance on the NHTSA and SAE 

test protocols here.130 See Figure 13. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2ER22FE22.011</GPH>

Figme 11-Ford Fusion Lower Beams 

(Straight Scenario) 

3.5 ---(Uc)w.Reco,lor_Dl...,._(m)•a-lng 

3 

o.s 

0 200 190 100 0 

Dlalance{m) 

Figme 12-Volvo XC90 Lower Beams 

(Straight Scenario) 

6 ·--- w.llaceplar-~ • 

•1,__ ________ __. ___ _._ __ _, 

200 1SO 100 so 0 

Dlalance(m) 
9950 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

131 In the regulatory text this is specified as ‘‘less 

than 60 m.’’ Other distance specifications are stated 

similarly. The preamble discussion simplifies this 

for ease of exposition. 

b. Scenario 2: Oncoming Small Left 

Curve 

The NPRM provided for testing 

oncoming glare on left curves with radii 

of 98 m to 116 m, at speeds from 20 

mph to 30 mph, for the full range of 15 

m to 220 m. 

Comments 

In addition to general comments from 

several manufacturers that the proposal 

would require ADB systems to produce 

less glare than current FMVSS No. 108- 

compliant lower beams, particularly on 

curves, SAE provided a graphical 

analysis of IIHS data of illuminance 

from nine ‘‘Good’’-rated lower beams 

from 0 m to 125 m on a 150 m left curve. 

The data show that almost all the lower 

beams were within the glare limits in 

this entire range, except that one vehicle 

occasionally exceeded the glare limits 

between 15 m and 60 m, one vehicle 

exceeded the glare limits at 15 m, and 

a couple of vehicles exceeded the glare 

limits between about 60 m and 90 m. 

The Alliance, SAE, OICA, and SMMT 

commented that current ADB systems 

would not comply with this scenario 

because it would necessitate a camera 

field of view wider than provided on 

current ADB systems. The Alliance 

stated that the camera visibility needed 

to detect a stimulus vehicle on this 

curve is almost 45 degrees (with a 

median) and 40 degrees (without a 

median). Both the Alliance and SAE 

contended that, should this scenario be 

retained, camera visibility would have 

to be extended, which would increase 

costs, potentially diminish performance 

in the more critical central portion of 

the visibility zone, and create disharmonization, limiting the availability 

of ADB systems in the United States. 

SAE also stated that upper beams at 

greater than 15 degrees left or right are 

not as bright as lower beams straight 

ahead, and at an angle of 40 degrees the 

light toward a stimulus vehicle driver is 

low. SAE stated that this is supported 

by the fact that millions of 

semiautomatic beam systems on the 

roads today are equipped with the same 

or similar forward vision cameras and 

detection algorithms as ADB systems 

and have not resulted in glare 

complaints. This suggests, SAE asserted, 

that wide angle visibility (i.e., beyond 

25 degrees) is unnecessary and 

precludes any need to test on curves of 

these radii. 

Honda commented that the proposed 

0.1 s or 1 m allowance for momentary 

spikes does not allow enough time for 

an ADB system to respond to sudden 

changes in stimulus lighting, and that 

this especially might be an issue on 

curves with a radius of 98 m–116 m, on 

which an opposing vehicle will enter 

the ADB system’s field of view suddenly 

at a close distance. 

Agency Response 

The final rule retains this scenario but 

modifies the distances at which 

illuminance from the ADB system is 

evaluated: The measurement range now 

begins at 59.9 m 131 instead of the 

proposed 220 m. The reasons for this are 

explained below. 

First, the available data indicate that 

current, FMVSS 108-compliant lower 

beams might not comply with the glare 

limits at distances greater than 60 m but 

would generally comply at closer 

distances. The IIHS data submitted by 

SAE show that almost all the tested 

lower beams were almost fully within 

the glare limits in the modified distance 

range (15 m–59.9 m), while some of the 

lower beams exceeded the glare limits 

for distances greater than 60 m. 

NHTSA’s testing also shows that current 

lower beams would pass this modified 

scenario. NHTSA tested two vehicles 

with lower beams activated on an 85 m 

left curve, and both vehicles performed 

well with considerable margins. See 

Figure 14. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2ER22FE22.012</GPH>

-

250 

--aSAE 

Figure 13:Lexus ADB, Straight Scenario (69mph) 

Camry JleadJamr And SAE FixturePosition2 

Comparison of Responses • SAE Rxture 2 vs. NHTSA Straight 

(Oncoming, cars Only) 

' 

--SAEAl<llltit2!'11!111h) 

----•NlflSASlraiali! 

,__I: " :: 

: : :, 

! l 

,;, ~ ' . ! ,. : 

• I !, 

: ' , ,l t·~ I • ., 

/ Ji 1 . 

... J ~ 1 -.. __, 

I - _____ _..,. -,._. , 

-~·--

ffll 100 so 

3 

u 

1 

OJ! 

0 

0 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 9951 

Next, NHTSA believes that this 

modified specification is within the 

capabilities of most current ADB 

systems. On a curve with a 100 m 

radius, at the highest vehicle speed 

specified for this scenario (30 mph), the 

fixture will enter the camera’s field of 

view (25 degrees) at 77 m (see Figure 7). 

At the distance at which the final rule 

begins evaluating the system’s 

illuminance (59.9 m), the fixture is 

therefore well within the camera’s field 

of view (at about 21 degrees). The 

fixture is not only within the camera’s 

FOV, but has been within the FOV for 

1.24 s, which is a sufficient time for an 

ADB system to react. NHTSA 

acknowledges that for shorter radii in 

the specified range, the time elapsed 

between the fixture entering the 

system’s field of view and the test 

vehicle reaching the beginning of the 

evaluation range (59.9 m), may not 

provide sufficient time for an ADB 

system to react and switch from an area 

of unreduced intensity (i.e., upper 

beam) to an area of reduced intensity. 

For example, on a curve with an 85 m 

radius at 30 mph, the fixture will enter 

the camera’s field of view at 63 m. At 

59.9 m, the fixture will have been 

within the system’s FOV for 0.13 s. The 

agency does not, however, expect this to 

result in a noncompliance because at 

that distance the headlamps are at a 

large enough angle to the photometer 

that the upper beam should be within 

the glare limits. (Agency testing 

generally showed that the upper beam 

was within the glare limits at angles 

greater than 20 degrees. There are no 

upper beam photometry requirements at 

angles wider than 12 degrees. At 12 

degrees, Table XVIII specifies 

(depending on the type of upper beam) 

a minimum of, at most, 1,500 cd (at 

horizontal) and 1,000 cd (at 2.5D). 

NHTSA’s ADB test data bear this out. 

When NHTSA tested an ADB system at 

29 mph on a curve at the upper bound 

of the range (115 m), the ADB system 

detected and reacted to the fixture prior 

to the measurement range. See Figure 

15. On the other hand, when testing the 

ADB system on a curve at the lower 

bound of the radius range (85 m), the 

system did not react to the fixture and 

dim the beam until 41 m—which is after 

the specified beginning of the 

measurement range (59.9 m). See Figure 

16. However, the illuminance (the upper 

beam) at these large angles was below 

the applicable glare limit, and the 

system was able to react and adapt the 

beam before the geometry was such that 

the narrower angle of the upper beam 

would exceed the glare limit. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2ER22FE22.013</GPH>

Figure 14. Lower beam performance on 85 m Left curve 

Fusion Lower Beam on the 

85 m cUIVe left 

:u; lhlmlnaMe (h,lx)vs. R<tceplorlfeN Dl-(m) • Oncoming 

3 

so 40 30 20 10 0 

Dl8tance (m) 

Volvo Lower Beam on the 

85 m cUIVe left 

S lllumlnance (lwc)YL Rllceplol'Mead Dl-(m) •On-. 

8 1=~:=1 .··"•~T-Ez!l'Olnl. 

7 

50 40 30 20 

Oltlance(m) 

0 
9952 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

NHTSA also tested the SAE scenario 

that is the closest analog to this scenario 

(with the oncoming fixtures in Position 

1) and observed no glare limit 

exceedances. See Figure 17. However, 

the illuminance was, for closer 

distances, significantly lower than the 

illuminance measured during the 

corresponding final rule scenario. This 

is because, as the test vehicle 

approaches the SAE fixture, the fixture 

moves more and more off-angle from the 

test vehicle as the distance closes, 

resulting in lower-than-expected 

illuminance. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2ER22FE22.014</GPH>

0.5 

3.5 

3 

2.S 

I 2 

I 1.5 

!! 1 

0.5 

0 

.0.5 

60 

Figure 15- Lexus ADD 29 mph OR 

the 115-m curve Left (Camry BL) 

so 40 30 20 10 

Dlslance(m) 

Figure 16 - Lexus l'llll OR the 85 m 

curveleft. 

fflUll'llnance 

so 40 30 20 10 

Distance (m) 

0 

0 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 9953 

NHTSA notes that this scenario, as 

modified, does not evaluate illuminance 

from 60 m to 220 m, so it would not test 

whether the ADB system switched from 

an upper beam to an adaptive beam in 

this range. In the NPRM the agency 

tentatively concluded that it was 

important to regulate illuminance in the 

full range of 15 m–220 m. However, as 

explained above, NHTSA decided the 

full range is unnecessary because an 

upper beam projected at angles larger 

than 20 degrees is not glaring at 

distances beyond those at which we are 

evaluating illuminance in this scenario. 

c. Scenario 3: Oncoming Medium Left 

Curve 

NHTSA proposed testing for 

oncoming glare on left curves with radii 

of 223 m to 241 m, at speeds of 40–45 

mph, for the full range of 15–220 m. 

Comments 

NHTSA received one comment 

specifically related to this scenario. SAE 

provided a graphical analysis of IIHS 

illuminance data (out to 125 m) for nine 

lower beams on a 250 m left curve 

showing that all the lower beams were 

within the glare limits, except for two 

headlamps that had some exceedances 

between 60 m and 110 m. As noted 

earlier, some commenters argued more 

generally that the proposed glare limits 

were so stringent that even currentlycompliant lower beams would exceed 

them. 

Agency Response 

The final rule modifies the 

measurement range, which now begins 

at 150 m instead of the proposed 220 m. 

The rationale for this is analogous to the 

rationale for limiting the measurement 

distances for the small left curve. 

First, the available data indicate that 

compliant lower beams would generally 

comply with these requirements. As 

explained earlier, this (in conjunction 

with the requirement that areas of 

reduced intensity meet the 

corresponding lower beam laboratory 

photometric requirements) means that 

an area of reduced intensity, up to and 

including a full lower beam, will meet 

the same level of safety (with respect to 

both visibility and glare prevention) as 

current lower beams certified to FMVSS 

No. 108. The IIHS data submitted by 

SAE shows that almost all the tested 

lower beams complied with the glare 

limits for the distances for which data 

was reported. NHTSA’s testing also 

shows that current lower beams would 

pass this modified scenario; both lower 

beams NHTSA tested had illuminance 

values within the glare limits by a 

considerable margin. See Figure 18. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2ER22FE22.015</GPH>

____ F!gure 17. SAE Fixture 1, oncoming~c_a_r _____ _ 

Comparison of Responses - SAE Fixture 1 vs NHTSA 115 m left Curve (Cars Only) 

---NHTSA115ml 

•~ ....... SAE Position 1 {61 mph} 

--NHlSAUmits 

It SAEUmits 

3.5 

t----------<-------+-------+--------+----+----·- 2 

" ,, 

,., 

I I 

t----------J-------+--------+-----+--+----...,;.'-11H 1.5 

05 

Distance (m) 

Note: Illuminance as measured from photometer corresponding to the passenger car driver's eye 

point. 
9954 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

Next, NHTSA’s analysis also indicates 

that the modified specifications are 

within the field-of-view and adaptation 

time capabilities of most current ADB 

systems. For example, on a 230 m curve 

at 45 mph, over two seconds elapse 

between the fixture entering the field-ofview and the vehicle reaching the 

measurement range (150 m), providing 

the ADB system sufficient time to react 

and adapt the beams. As with the small 

left curve, however, for shorter radii in 

the specified range, the time elapsed 

between the fixture entering the ADB 

system’s field of view and the vehicle 

reaching the beginning of the 

measurement range may not provide 

sufficient time for the ADB system to 

adapt and switch from an area of 

unreduced intensity to an area of 

reduced intensity. For example, on a 

210 m curve, only .57 seconds elapse. 

However, as with the small left curve, 

at those distances the headlamps are at 

a large enough angle to the photometers 

that the upper beam should be within 

the applicable glare limit. 

Again, NHTSA’s ADB test data bears 

this out. NHTSA tested an ADB system 

on a 210 m left curve at 44 mph. See 

Figure 19. The measured illuminance 

values were within the glare limits 

except for two exceedances lasting less 

than 0.1 s (which would not be 

considered a noncompliance because 

they are within the allowance for 

momentary glare exceedances). The 

ADB system reacted to the fixture at 120 

m. Prior to that (i.e., from 150 m to 121.9 

m), the ADB system was projecting an 

upper beam, but the upper beam was 

within the glare limits. 

In comparison, when testing the most 

analogous SAE test scenario (with the 

fixture in Position 1) there were no glare 

limit exceedances, and, at closer 

distances, the SAE test scenario resulted 

in lower illuminance values than were 

measured on the actual left curve. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2ER22FE22.016</GPH> ER22FE22.017</GPH>

Figure 18. NHTSA Lower beam data 

Fusion 21 Om Left oncoming Volvo210mLeft oncoming 

»-""'-

a 

2.6 

0.6 

~IIO 

3 

0.6 

100 ~ DIIMnoJ(III) DIIMnoJ(m) 

___ F!gure)9. Lexus ADB 210 Left Cam Headlam s 

nses - SAE Fixture.1 vs NHTSA 250 m left Curve (Q!_rs O!)_!tl__ 35 

- • -NHTSA250m l 

......... SAEPosffion 1 

-NHTSAl.imils 

IC SAEUmits 

-----1(. 

ii !11 --~ 2 

I 

1-------1-------1-------1-------!,-l---;l ___ ...;l-1 1.S 

I 

L _____ L ____ ..:...~~~:±:~.::..JL ___ .:::===--===Bo 250 200 150 100 50 0 

Distance (m) 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 9955 

In addition, as noted earlier for the 

small left curve scenario, although the 

final rule reduces the start of the 

measurement distance in this scenario 

from 220 m to 150 m, this should not 

present a risk that oncoming vehicles 

will experience glare outside of 150 m 

for the reasons discussed earlier. 

d. Scenario 4: Oncoming Large Left 

Curve 

The NPRM specified testing for 

oncoming glare on left curves with radii 

of 335–396 m, at speeds of 50–55 mph, 

from 15 m to 220 m. 

Comments 

NHTSA did not receive any 

comments that related specifically to 

this curve. Commenters argued more 

generally that currently-compliant lower 

beams would not always comply with 

the glare limits, especially on curves, 

and that there might not be sufficient 

time for the ADB system to react to the 

stimulus lighting. 

Agency Response 

The final rule adopts this scenario 

essentially as proposed (the largestspecified radius of curvature has been 

rounded up). Both a lower beam and an 

ADB system can reasonably be expected 

to comply with the glare limits 

throughout this range. 

The available data indicate that 

current FMVSS No. 108-compliant 

lower beams can comply with the glare 

limits in the full measurement range. 

The IIHS data submitted by SAE did not 

include a left curve with a radius this 

large. However, the IIHS data did 

include lower beam performance on a 

250 m radius left curve and a straight 

road. As explained in the preceding 

section for the medium left curve 

scenario, all the IIHS-tested headlamps 

were essentially within the glare limits 

at all distances for which data was 

reported (out to about 125 m) on both 

the 250 m left curve and the straight 

road. Because the curve in this scenario 

is essentially between a 250 m left curve 

and a straight road, it is reasonable to 

extrapolate that the lower beams tested 

by IIHS would also have complied on 

left curves with radii greater than 250 

m. NHTSA’s test data confirms this. 

Both the Fusion and the Volvo lower 

beams were within the glare limits on 

this curve. See Figure 20. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2ER22FE22.018</GPH>

Figure 20. NHTSA-tested lower beams on large left curve scenario 

I Fusion335m Left Oncoming I 3.5 llllllnanN (IIIX) w. Rlceptor Head DlsflmN (m) .a.-.1ng 

3 

0.5 

200 150 100 so 0 

Dlslance(m) 

Volvo 335 m Left oncoming 

7 ....,__(IIIX)w. RlceptorHNd m---(m)•a.-.lng 

l==~:=1 8 .···-·-•-· 

5 

-1----------------- 200 150 100 so 0 

Dlrllrance(m) 
9956 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

These specifications are also within 

the capabilities of current ADB systems. 

On a curve with a 335 m radius at the 

highest speed specified for this scenario 

(55 mph), the fixture will enter the 

camera’s field of view (25 degrees) at 

283 m (see Figure 7). At the distance at 

which we will begin evaluating the 

system’s illuminance (220 m), the 

fixture is therefore well within the 

camera’s field of view (at about 20 

degrees), and has been within the FOV 

for 1.27 s, which is sufficient time for 

an ADB system to react. 

NHTSA’s testing confirmed this. The 

ADB system tested was generally able to 

respond and shade the fixture in this 

scenario. See Figure 21. The system 

reacted at 185 m and performed well 

from a recognition standpoint. The area 

of reduced intensity exceeded the limits 

in the 60–120 m range as well as the 30– 

60 m range. Because these exceedances 

last longer than 0.1 s. and occur while 

the vehicle pitch is less than 0.3 degrees 

from the average pitch throughout the 

run, these exceedances would be 

considered possible noncompliances. 

However, these failures are relatively 

marginal, and the beam pattern could be 

modified to fully comply with this 

scenario. 

As with the other oncoming left curve 

scenarios, the closest SAE test analogue 

is with an oncoming fixture in Position 

1. Again, NHTSA’s testing showed that, 

compared to NHTSA’s test, the SAE test 

resulted in much lower illuminance at 

close distances than on an actual curve. 

See Figure 22. Thus, data indicate again 

that the two test methods can yield 

different results, and that the actual 

curve test is preferable because it would 

be more evaluative of real-world 

performance. 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

e. Scenario 5: Oncoming Medium Right 

Curve 

The NPRM proposed regulating glare 

on right curves with a radius of 223 m 

to 241 m, at speeds of 40–45 mph, from 

15 m to 220 m. 

Comments 

SAE provided a graphical analysis of 

illuminance data for nine IIHS ‘‘Good’’- 

rated lower beams on a 250 m radius 

right curve from 0 m to 125 m and 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2ER22FE22.019</GPH> ER22FE22.020</GPH>

Figure 21. Lexus 335 m Left 

3.5 llluminance (lux) vs. Receptor Head Distance (m) 

--Car Eye Point 

3 ·· - Truck Eye Point 

2.5 

>< 2 ::, 

= 

~ 

., 

i: 1.5 i: .E 

::, 

= 

0.5 

0 

-0.5 

200 150 100 50 0 

Distance (m) 

r-----I~ure 22.SAE test v_~~J?!_g~ _ _!>_.IJ£~_'!1J.!1 curve scenario 

Comparison of Responses • SAE Fixture 1 vs NHTSA 400 m Left Curve (Cars O.!.!hl.__ 35 

----NHTSA400JTil(61 rJ>h) 

·······•· SAEF'dsmon1(61n ,h) 

-NHTSAUmits 

k SAfUmits 

. 

/ t-------+------+------+-----t---+------H L'i 

I ,.j ' 

250 200 150 Oistance{m) 100 

k 

(\ r,...; 

/\ ..... l \.i~ 

so 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 9957 

132See www.iihs.org/ratings/vehicle/toyota/ 

camry-4-door-sedan/2020#headlights (last accessed 

Dec. 18, 2020). 

133Corresponding to approximately 0.3D, 7R. 

134Feasibility Study, p. 23. 

135 In Appendix A, we provide additional data 

and discussion on this. 

136 2015 ADB Test Report, p. 193 (Fig. 85, 

Mercedes Trial 82 [lower beam]); p. 63 (Mercedes 

test vehicle modified by manufacturer to produce 

a FMVSS No. 108 compliant beam pattern). 

stated that it demonstrated none of 

those lower beams would meet the 

proposed glare limits. Other 

commenters argued more generally that 

current lower beams would exceed the 

proposed glare limits, especially on 

curves. Intertek commented that 

NHTSA should limit the range for righthand curves to account for lower beam 

patterns at 3 degrees right. Stanley ran 

simulations for a 232 m radius right 

curve and commented that the proposed 

glare limits appeared to be inconsistent 

with the current photometric 

requirement for lower beams at several 

points (especially from 1R to 3R). It 

asked that the agency reconsider the 

proposed glare limits and make them 

consistent with the current regulatory 

requirements for lower beams. 

Agency Response 

The final rule retains this scenario but 

revises the measurement range to begin 

at 50 m instead of the proposed 220 m. 

NHTSA agrees with the commenters 

that current compliant lower beams— 

especially ones that perform well on the 

IIHS test—would likely not comply with 

the glare limits from 51 m–220 m. The 

IIHS data submitted by SAE show that 

almost all the lower beams tested by 

IIHS exceeded the glare limits at 

distances of 60 meters and greater on a 

250 m right curve. NHTSA also 

examined IIHS lower beam data for a 

2020 Toyota Camry with ‘‘Good’’-rated 

LED lower beams.132 IIHS measured that 

vehicle on a 250-m radius curve to have 

a 5-lux line at 79.5 m 133 (70 m is the 

minimum without receiving demerits), 

which would exceed the applicable 

glare limit at that distance (0.6 lux). 

After considering the comments, 

NHTSA has determined that these 

results should have been generally 

expected based on a comparison of the 

oncoming glare limits and the 

longstanding Table XIX lower beam 

photometry requirements that regulate 

lower beam design. The oncoming glare 

limits were derived from the Table XIX 

left-side maxima (700 cd at 1U, 1.5 L to 

L and 1,000 cd at 0.5 U, 1.5L to L).134

On a right curve, however, the fixture 

enters the lower beam pattern from the 

right side and traces a trajectory across 

the beam pattern from right to left (See 

Figure 7). The Table XIX right-side 

maxima (1,400 cd at 1.5U, 1R to R and 

2,700 cd at 0.5U, 1R to 3R) are higher 

than the left-side maxima. In addition, 

unlike on the left side, the right-side 

photometry is not limited at 0.5U 

extending indefinitely horizontally. The 

left-side photometry is limited by the 

line 0.5U, 1.5L–L. The right-side 

photometry is limited by 0.5U, 1R–3R. 

While right-side photometry is 

ultimately limited at 1.5U, 1R–R, this 

line provides considerably more 

flexibility to provide light down the 

right side. Consequently, the Table XIX 

right-side maxima, on which current 

lower beams are based, permit 

intensities that exceed the oncoming 

glare limits, which were derived from 

the left-side maxima. Indeed, data show 

that current compliant lower beams 

exceed the derived glare limits on the 

right side at distances greater than 50 m. 

More specifically, based on the IIHS 

data presented by SAE, exceedances at 

about 3R and greater (corresponding to 

measurement distances of greater than 

about 50 m) are found, and many fewer 

glare limits exceedances to the left of 3 

degrees right. Accordingly, the final rule 

revises this scenario so that the 

measurement range does not start until 

50 m. 

The agency notes that even with this 

modification, the glare limits in this 

final rule are still (as Stanley suggested) 

more stringent than currently allowed 

by the Table XIX right-side maxima 

from 1R to 3R.135 However, this level of 

stringency is reasonable and provides a 

manageable design range. The lower 

beam photometry was designed to 

provide a generic beam to prevent glare 

regardless of the actual road and traffic 

conditions; it was not customized to 

provide glare protection to oncoming 

vehicles on a right curve. Because most 

situations in which an oncoming 

vehicle can be glared will occur with 

the oncoming vehicle to the left, the 

existing Table XIX lower beam 

photometry requirements require 

shading the left side and permit more 

light on the right side. However, the 

adaptive driving beam is not, and need 

not be, an all-purpose beam like a 

conventional lower beam. It is clear in 

the photometry tables that the 

appropriate glare limits for oncoming 

situations are the left-side maxima in 

Table XIX, on which the oncoming glare 

limits are based. These limits should, to 

the extent possible, apply to oncoming 

glare, including from the right-side. In 

any case, the agency believes that 

current lower beams would generally 

comply with the glare limits as applied 

in this scenario with the revised 

measurement distance range. 

Indeed, both IIHS and NHTSA lower 

beam test data demonstrate that 

compliant lower beams, including highrated IIHS beams, would generally be 

within the glare limits in this revised 

scenario. The IIHS data submitted by 

SAE shows that for distances between 

15 m and 60 m, most of the lower beams 

were within the glare limits. Vehicles 1 

and 7 seem to take the most advantage 

of the flexibilities provided toward the 

right side beyond 3 degrees in 

performing well in the IIHS right-curve 

test, and the lower beams on both 

vehicles were below the glare limits 

within 50 m. This demonstrates that a 

vehicle can both perform well on the 

IIHS right-curve distance rating and stay 

within the glare limits in this final rule’s 

revised scenario. 

NHTSA’s testing also showed that 

current lower beams can pass this 

revised scenario. NHTSA tested two 

lower beams on a 210 m right curve, and 

both were within the glare limits at all 

distances within the specified 

measurement range. See Figure 23. The 

agency also saw similar results in our 

2015 testing, which (among other 

things) evaluated lower beam 

illuminance on a 231 m right curve, and 

found that the lower beams exceeded 

the glare limits at 60 meters and greater, 

and was within the glare limits from 15 

m to 60 m.136


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
9958 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

137Comment from Alliance for Automotive 

Innovation (July 31, 2020) (NHTSA–2018–0090– 

0219), p. 11 (Fig. 5, Low-Beam Headlight Intensity 

Pattern from IIHS Headlight Rating. 

138 2015 ADB Test Report, p. 193 (Fig. 85, 

Mercedes Trial 83 [ADB]); p. 63 (Mercedes test 

vehicle modified by manufacturer to produce a 

FMVSS No. 108 compliant beam pattern). 

NHTSA notes that these data from 

contemporary lower beams differ 

somewhat from data on 1990s-era lower 

beams presented in the Feasibility 

Study. Specifically, Figure 9 in the 

Feasibility Study, which displayed a 

lower beam pattern typical of MY 1997 

vehicles, seems to indicate that lower 

beams would likely be within the 

oncoming glare limits on the right side 

of the beam pattern illustrated in Figure 

9. However, as Auto Innovators pointed 

out in its comment, lower beam design 

has changed since 1997. NHTSA 

believes it is reasonable to assume that 

at least some manufacturers are 

supplying more light at or just above the 

horizon for horizontal angles greater 

than 3 degrees right (without violating 

the 1,400 cd maximum) than in the past 

in order to perform well on the IIHS 

tests.137 Lower beams that are designed 

to perform well on the IIHS test may 

thus be more likely to fail the glare 

limits in the ADB track test, even if the 

system is projecting an area of reduced 

intensity onto the fixture. This is 

compounded by the effect of vehicle 

pitch: With higher intensity light at 

larger vertical angles of the beam 

pattern, slight changes in pitch can push 

the higher intensity portion of the lower 

beam upwards and cause the oncoming 

glare limit to be exceeded. Further, at 

angles beyond 3 degrees right, the glare 

limits begin to veer dramatically from 

the flexibilities provided in the current 

Table XIX requirements (specifically, 

the right-side maxima). Accordingly, the 

oncoming glare limits, in conjunction 

with the revised measurement 

distances, are consistent with the 

angular limits of the current lower beam 

photometry. The track test continues the 

longstanding flexibilities for lower beam 

design on the right side beyond 3 

degrees. 

The modified specifications for this 

scenario are also within the capabilities 

of typical ADB systems. Because 

illuminance is evaluated starting at 50 

m from the fixture, there is more than 

enough time for an ADB system to 

detect and react to the fixture (more 

than 7 seconds on a 230 m radius 

curve). 

The agency’s ADB test data bear this 

out. When testing an ADB system on a 

210-meter radius right curve, the 

illuminance was within the glare limits 

except for some limited exceedances, 

which can readily be addressed by 

minor changes in the design of the area 

of reduced intensity. See Figure 24. 

Similarly, the 2015 testing with actual 

stimulus vehicles showed that even an 

older ADB system was able to pass a 

right curve (231 m) oncoming scenario 

at 15 m to 50 m.138


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2ER22FE22.021</GPH>

Fusion LB 210 Right Curve 

3.11 ......_(lux)w.lltclplorHNdm.- )•~ 

3 

o.s 

40 30 20 10 0 

Dilllnce (m) 

Figure 23. 

I Volvo LB 210 Right Curve 

8 ......_(lux)w.lltclplorllndOIIIIIM 

40 30 20 10 0 

Dilllnce (m) 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 9959 

The ADB system NHTSA tested had 

more exceedances when tested to the 

most closely analogous SAE J3069 

scenario (with the test fixture in 

Position 3) compared to NHTSA’s test. 

See Figure 25. This is because at the 

measurement distances in this scenario, 

Fixture Position 3 is in the bright (rightside) portion of the beam pattern, while 

the fixture in NHTSA’s test scenario is 

in the less-bright portion of the beam 

pattern (center-right to center-left). 

NHTSA notes that this scenario does 

not evaluate the illuminance from the 

ADB system from 50 m–220 m, so it 

would not test whether the ADB system 

switched from an upper beam to an 

adaptive beam in this range. NHTSA 

believes this is acceptable because the 

left curve scenarios generally test the 

ability of the ADB system to react and 

it is reasonable to expect similar 

reactions on the left and right side. The 

right curve test simply confirms the 

right side is performing similarly by 

applying the oncoming glare limits to 

narrow angles on the right side and 

providing greater flexibility at broader 

angles on the right side of the vehicle. 

f. Scenario 6: Oncoming Large Right 

Curve 

The NPRM proposed regulating glare 

on right curves with a radius of 335 m 

to 396 m at 50–55 mph from distances 

of 15 m to 220 m. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2ER22FE22.022</GPH> ER22FE22.023</GPH>

Figure 24. Lexus ADB 210 Right 

4 ,-----••_um_i~na_nc_e~(lux~) vs~-Re_ce~ptor~-;,:H=ead=Di=·sta=nce==(m::::):;--, 

--<:a-Eye Point 

3.5 -Truck Eye Point 

3 

j2.s 

= 

~ I 2-----'<s----l 

;! 1.5 

0.5 

o~--~---~--~-~-~--~ 

50 40 30 20 10 0 

Distance (m) 

Figure 25. SAE test fixture Position 3 ( car) 

Com arison of Res onses - SAE Fixture 3 vs NHTSA 250 m Ri ht Curve Cars Onl 

- -NHTSA250mR 

----- SAE Position 3 

X SAELimits 

250 200 150 100 50 

Distance (ml 

4 

3.5 

3 

2.5 

2.3 

1.5 

1 

0.5 I 

I 

I 

' I 

' I 

0 

0 
9960 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

Comments 

As explained above regarding the 

medium right curve scenario, Stanley 

ran simulations for right curves with a 

radius of 366 m and commented that the 

oncoming glare limits were effectively 

more stringent than the current Table 

XIX photometry on the right side of the 

beam pattern. In addition, as noted 

earlier, commenters argued more 

generally that the proposed glare limits 

were so stringent that compliant lower 

beams would exceed them, and that 

there might not be sufficient time for the 

ADB system to react to the stimulus 

lighting. 

Agency Response 

This final rule modifies the proposal, 

similar to the modifications for the 

medium right curve, in response to 

comments that current compliant lower 

beams might not comply with the 

NPRM’s glare limits at all the proposed 

measurement distances. As explained 

earlier, this (in conjunction with the 

requirement that areas of reduced 

intensity meet the corresponding lower 

beam laboratory photometric 

requirements) means that an area of 

reduced intensity, up to and including 

a full lower beam, will meet the same 

level of safety (with respect to both 

visibility and glare prevention) as 

current lower beams certified to FMVSS 

No. 108. As NHTSA agrees with Stanley 

and other commenters that the proposed 

scenario permitted less glare than 

presently required of a lower beam on 

the right side of the beam pattern, 

NHTSA has narrowed this angle not to 

go beyond 3 degrees right, to provide 

flexibility at larger angles. The final rule 

therefore specifies testing on a right 

curve with a radius of 335—400 m at 

distances of 15 m to 70 m, at the 

proposed speeds of 50–55 mph. 

NHTSA believes that a lower beam 

that is FMVSS No. 108-compliant and 

performs well on the IIHS test would 

generally be able to comply with the 

glare limits in this scenario. The reasons 

for this are analogous to the reasons 

given earlier for revising the 

measurement distance in the medium 

right curve scenario. None of the IIHS 

data submitted by SAE was for a right 

curve of this diameter. NHTSA tested 

two lower beams on this scenario. See 

Figure 26. The Fusion lower beam was 

within the glare limits at all specified 

distances, while the Volvo lower beam 

exceeded the glare limits at distances 

from 60 m—70 m. This is likely 

because, as explained earlier, the Table 

XIX photometry requirements and the 

IIHS test have prompted some 

manufacturers to provide greater light 

on the right side. NHTSA believes such 

systems can comply with the 

requirements with minor modifications. 

This is also consistent with what 

Stanley points out in its comment. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 9961 

The agency also believes that the 

finalized requirements are within the 

capabilities of existing ADB systems, for 

reasons analogous to those provided for 

the medium right curve scenario above. 

The ADB NHTSA system tested was 

within the glare limits in this scenario 

except at distances greater than 60 m. 

See Figure 27. This is similar to the 

results for the Volvo lower beam and, 

we believe, can be addressed with 

minor system modifications. Agency 

test data also confirm that the most 

closely analogous SAE test scenario 

(Fixture Position 3) does not accurately 

replicate an actual right curve; the 

measured illuminance on this scenario 

was significantly higher than in the 

analogous SAE scenario. Thus, the data 

indicate again that the two test methods 

can yield different results, and that the 

actual curve test is preferable because it 

would be more evaluative of real-world 

performance. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2ER22FE22.024</GPH>

Figure 26. Lower beams on 

I FusionLB 335Right 

3.5 ~(IUX)w. ReclplorHMd....._(m)•O.-lng 

3 

2.5 

o---~-_._ ______ __._.._..___, 

70 60 50 '40 30 20 

Olstance (m) 

Volvo LB 335Right 

10 0 

8 IBumlllllnN (IUX) w. ReclplorHMd ....._ (m) •QlcN!lng 

s 

r· .. -·C,,.EyoNl1 =-:..";,~ 

60 50 '40 30 20 

Olstance (m) 

10 0 
9962 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

g. Scenario 7: Preceding Straight 

The NPRM proposed testing for 

preceding glare in a variety of vehicle 

maneuvers, on both straight and curved 

roadway. It proposed scenarios in which 

a stimulus vehicle preceded the test 

vehicle in the same lane and in which 

the test vehicle overtakes the stimulus 

vehicle, and vice versa. We proposed 

evaluating glare out to 119.9 m. 

Comments 

SAE commented, with respect to 

NHTSA’s statement in the NPRM that 

the ECE ADB regulations require ADB 

cameras to be capable of sensing 

vehicles out to 400 m, that this only 

applies to opposing vehicles 

(headlamps), not preceding vehicles 

(rear lamps). For preceding vehicles 

(i.e., tail/rear position lamps), the ECE 

requirement is greater than 100 m. SAE 

also noted that ECE minimum 

photometric requirements for a rear 

position lamp is 4 cd versus the 2 cd 

minimum under FMVSS No. 108 for a 

taillamp. Thus, SAE stated, the ECE 

requires a shorter detection distance 

(100 m in the ECE versus 120 m in the 

NPRM) for a lamp whose absolute 

minimum intensity is two times that 

required by FMVSS No. 108. 

Auto Innovators found that there were 

very few test failures in this scenario (5 

failures out of 109 valid test runs in its 

testing) and therefore suggested 

eliminating it because it would provide 

no additional benefit. 

Agency Response 

The final rule scales back the proposal 

with respect to evaluating preceding 

glare. The final rule does not include 

any passing or same-lane scenarios 

because it utilizes stationary fixtures. 

The final rule provides only for testing 

preceding glare with the fixture in the 

left adjacent lane, on both a straight 

path (this ‘‘preceding straight’’ test 

scenario) and on a left curve path 

(Scenario 8). 

The final rule also shortens the 

measurement distance to 100 m. As SAE 

suggested in its comment, the detection 

distance for ADB systems differs for 

oncoming versus preceding traffic. It is 

much more difficult for an ADB system 

to detect taillamps than headlamps, and 

the difficulty increases with greater 

forward distances. This is mainly due, 

as SAE notes, to the fact that headlamps 

are much brighter than taillamps. The 

NPRM stated that it is reasonable to 

expect ADB systems to detect oncoming 

vehicles at 220 m but did not mean to 

imply that this also applies to preceding 

vehicles. The final rule harmonizes with 

the ECE requirements in this respect. 

Agency test data indicate that current 

lower beams can comply with this 

revised scenario. NHTSA tested two 

vehicle lower beams, both of which 

performed well, with considerable 

margin. See Figures 28 and 29 below. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2ER22FE22.025</GPH>

Figure 27. Lexus ADB Ri ht 335 & SAE Fixture Position 3 

Com arison of Res onses • SAE Fixture 3 vs NHTSA 400 m Ri ht Curve ~rs Onl 

- -NHTSA400m R 

•··••SAE Position 3 

l-~.Jll>llSAJJmits....---1----------l----------+-----------<'---------1 3.5 

IC SAEUmits 

,, 

1----------------------------------~~--, 2.5 

I" ' I I 

-------------------------------------, ..... 2! 

250 200 150 100 50 0 

Oistance (m) 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 9963 

NHTSA’s analysis also indicates that 

ADB systems can reasonably be 

expected to comply with this scenario. 

As explained earlier for the oncoming 

straight scenario, the preceding vehicle 

fixture—which is in the same location 

as it is for the oncoming straight 

scenario—is always within the ADB 

system’s field of view, so that an ADB 

system will have more than sufficient 

time to react to and shade the fixture. 

NHTSA’s test data bear this out. The 

Lexus ADB system performed well with 

considerable margins in this scenario 

with all fixtures (passenger car, truck, 

motorcycle). See Figure 30. On the SAE 

test run with the preceding fixtures in 

Position 2 (the closest analog to this 

final rule scenario), the ADB system 

passed with the car/truck fixtures, 

although the margins were lower. See 

Figure 31. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2ER22FE22.026</GPH> ER22FE22.027</GPH>

Figure 28: Fusion 61 mph: Figure 29:Volvo 65 mph 

J~ (klx) vs. ~Head Dlulce (m) • Same Direction ~nance(klx) vs. ~Head Dlulce (m) • Same DlftlCtlon 

18 .,., .. .,Oydtuft-

-·-·-Oydt~Mfflr 

CarO!lwerSideMmr 

Car--

14 Car ..... SideMiffllt ..... • •.• Tnlclc Dll'ierSlde Miffllt 

l 12 ·•-Tnlclc -- i 10 

! 8 

8 

4 

2 

oL-----•-a.l!!!'l!l!::E:::::::l::.::::e!l 

200 150 100 

Distance (m) 

25 

s 

0 

··-···· Oydt .... - -··-Oydt~-

-CarO!lwerSideMIIQ' 

-Car,.__SideMlmlr -ear-- .•.. TnlclcO!lwerSldt Mm!' 

----Tlucl<-SldeI 

200 150 100 

Dlslanoe(m) 

Figme 30: Lexus straight run 

at 69 mph, Same Direction 

20 ,___1_um1..,.na_nce-'"'(lwc......,_).,.vs._Rtceptor_......__Head_Dlttance_..,.....,_(m .... )--, 

18 

18 

14 

--car Ddver Side Minor 

---Cllrllllide Mmlr 

-CllrPellengarSldeMlnor 

TIIICkDrilerSldeMlrmr 

•· - • TIIICk Passenger Skit Mmlr 

41--------1 

2 

80 60 40 

Oislance (m) 

20 0 

~~ 

50 0 
9964 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

139 2015 ADB Test Report, p. 173. See also pp. 

114–123. 

h. Scenario 8: Preceding Medium Left 

Curve 

The NPRM included scenarios for 

testing preceding glare on short, 

medium, and large right and left curves, 

in same-lane and passing scenarios. It 

proposed evaluating glare from 15 m or 

30 m (depending on the scenario) out to 

119.9 m. The agency did not receive any 

comments specifically on the preceding 

curve scenarios. 

The final rule retains only one 

preceding curve scenario of those 

proposed. This scenario evaluates 

preceding glare on a medium left curve 

(with a radius from 210 m to 250 m) 

from 15 m to 100 m with the fixture in 

the left adjacent lane. 

After considering the comments 

questioning the number and complexity 

of the proposed test scenarios, NHTSA 

considered including only a preceding 

vehicle straight path scenario, 

hypothesizing that it, in addition to the 

full set of oncoming scenarios, would 

adequately probe ADB system 

performance. NHTSA’s testing, 

however, showed that ADB systems 

encountered some difficulties 

preventing glare to preceding vehicles 

on curves. The 2015 ADB Test Report 

concluded that left curve same-direction 

maneuver scenarios in which the 

stimulus vehicle was stationary were 

associated with high measured 

illuminance values.139 NHTSA’s recent 

testing showed that the ADB system, 

while performing adequately on 

oncoming left curve and preceding 

straight scenarios, had trouble with a 

preceding left curve scenario for short 

and medium curves, but handled the 

large curve well. See Figure 32. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2ER22FE22.028</GPH>

Figme 31 - SAE test 

scenanos 

Comparison of Responses - SAE Fixture 2 vs. NHTSA Straight 

(Preceding cars Only) 

l f---...----,----,----,,-----.---,----.., l$ 

- - ~ tarSt,.;ghlil,1 """11 l I ..... + Fix2 tarfl8 !l'll>hl 

-···--=J..--~ .. 1---t---1---1---,·r·---i-----t----1 20 

IC Wllmlt ' 

l 

X X 

I •·-·•·-.. 180 160 140 120 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 9965 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2ER22FE22.029</GPH>

Figure 32. Preceding glare on left curves 

Lexus ADB - Preceding, 85 m left 

cUtveat26mph 

40 30 20 10 

Dlllance(m) 

Lexus ADB - Preceding 250 m left 

cUtve at 44 mph. 

0 

30....---~==;;;;;;.,;~'Vl.=Rll;;:,;C;.;;:lllllc;;;IO_ll';;.;Htld;;:;;.;Dltr-.==-=--, -c.--- 25 -===--- ---. TMl<---

20 ----TMI< --

i,s 

J ,o 

$ 

-s ''"'' '""''''''' '"' a«•~••c•h••-'"'''''-'1⁄4'"'"'''''"''''''''""'"'"•'"' ,<,,,,,,,,,,> 

150 100 SO 0 

Dlllance(m) 

Lexus ADB - Preceding, 210 m left 

curve at 41 mph: 

-c.r-- -c.r--- 25 -c.r-..-- TMI<--- ~··-TMI< -- ,..20 

l I,, 

10 

5 

100 SO 

Dlllance (m) 

Lexus ADB -Preceding 400 m left 

curve at 51 mph. 

-cw--- -cw-- 25 -cw-..S1c1e111m1r 

• - -· T---- TnlCI< --

0 
9966 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

140 2015 ADB Test Report, p. 173. 

141For example, the Lexus has a late reaction (at 

70 m) on the preceding medium left curve. If the 

recognition system is essentially symmetrical (i.e., 

the same for a right curve), the same late 

recognition (70 m) on a preceding right curve would 

not result in a failure, because the measurement 

distance for a right curve is truncated to 50 m 

(Scenario 5). As is the case for the left curve, the 

Lexus was under the right curve limits at distances 

less than 50 m. 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–C 

Accordingly, the final rule retains a 

preceding left curve scenario to help 

ensure that ADB systems respond 

appropriately when encountering 

preceding vehicles on curved roadways. 

NHTSA decided that one curve test 

would suffice and has opted for the 

medium curve. The ADB system we 

tested performed well on the large 

curve, and the short curvature would be 

a difficult test for the manufacturers to 

meet. The final rule does not add a right 

curve scenario for preceding vehicles 

because the 2015 study showed that 

ADB systems generally performed well 

on same-direction right curve 

maneuvers.140 Further, because the final 

rule truncates the measurement 

distances on right curves, preceding 

tests for right curves would not test the 

system in any significant ways that are 

not already covered by the other 

scenarios.141

The results from the SAE test fixture 

position most analogous to this final 

rule scenario (with the SAE fixture in 

Position 1) show that the ADB system 

passed the test with the car/truck fixture 

with wide margins. See Figure 33. 

Again, this contrasts with the results 

from the final rule test scenario and 

suggests that the SAE test does not 

sufficiently replicate a preceding 

situation on an actual curve. 

i. Decision Not To Include Oncoming 

Short Right Curve Scenario 

The NPRM proposed evaluating 

illuminance on right curves with a 

radius of 98 m to 116 m at distances of 

15 m to 220 m. 

Comments 

SAE and Stanley commented— 

parallel to their arguments for the 

medium right curve—that contemporary 

lower beams would likely not comply 

with this scenario. SAE provided a 

graph of illuminance data for IIHS 

‘‘Good’’-rated lower beams from about 0 

m to 125 m on a 150 m radius right 

curve. SAE stated that these data show 

that many of those lower beams would 

not comply with the proposed glare 

limits at distances greater than 30 m. 

Other commenters stated more generally 

that the proposed glare limits were so 

stringent that even currently-compliant 

lower beams would exceed them. 

Similarly, Stanley ran simulations for a 

right curve with a radius of 107 m and 

asserted that the glare limits were more 

stringent than the right-side intensities 

currently permitted by the standard. 

As noted above under the small left 

curve scenario, several commenters 

stated that curves of this size would 

require a camera field of view beyond 

the capabilities of existing systems, and/ 

or would not allow a sufficient time for 

an ADB system to detect and react to the 

stimulus. 

SAE also commented that upper 

beams at greater than 15 degrees left or 

right are not as bright as lower beams 

straight ahead, and at an angle of 40 

degrees the light toward a stimulus 

vehicle driver is low, further suggesting 

that requiring a camera field of view 

beyond 25 degrees is unnecessary. 

Agency Response 

The final rule does not include a short 

right curve scenario because NHTSA 

was persuaded by the comments. 

The reasons for this decision are 

similar to the reasons for modifying the 

measurement distances for the medium 

and large right curve scenarios. As 

explained earlier, NHTSA concluded 

that contemporary lower beams— 

especially beams that score well on the 

IIHS test—would likely not comply with 

the oncoming glare limits at distances 

corresponding to horizontal angles 

greater than 3 degrees—that is, on a 100 

m right curve, distances greater than 30 

m (the distance at which the fixture 

would cross 3 degrees). This is 

consistent with the IIHS data submitted 

by SAE, which shows that none of the 

lower beams tested were within the 

oncoming glare limits between 60 and 

approximately 120 m, and most of the 

lower beams tested were not within the 

oncoming glare limits from 30 m to 60 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2ER22FE22.030</GPH>

-

180 

Comparison of Responses - SAE Fixture 1 vs. NHTSA Straight 

(Preceding Cars Only) 

I I I 

----• Car 250 m left Curve 41 mph 

--car 400 m Left Curve 51 mph 

- - Fixl car 28 mph 

--NHTSAlimit ~ 

• SAE limit 

◄ ~ 

""' Aai 

X ◄ t ~/~ ,- °" "' , ..... , 

\ --M -4' 

-------- ______ , L. ..,,. .... ~ 

...,_ r-..--- ,.,, - --- 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 

Distance (ml 

25 

20 

15 

.3 

10 

5 

0 

0 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 9967 

142See A Policy on Geometric Design of 

Highways and Streets. American Association of 

State Highway and Transportation Officials. 

Washington, DC (2011) (AASHTO Green Book), pp. 

3–19 to 3–20. 

m. (From 15 m to 30 m, almost all the 

lower beams tested by IIHS were within 

the glare limits.) As such, the agency 

has confidence that including a small 

radius right curve scenario would have 

no positive impact on safety relative to 

that provided by current lower beams in 

this situation. 

Because, as explained above, the final 

rule specifies right curve scenarios only 

for measurement distances 

corresponding to horizontal angles to 

the left of 3R, this would leave only 

about 15 m of track length (and 1 second 

of test time) for this scenario. NHTSA 

concluded it was not useful to include 

such a short-duration scenario in the 

final rule. 

9. Other Test Parameters and Conditions 

a. Radius of Curvature 

NHTSA proposed testing using a 

curved path scenario (both left and right 

curves) with a variety of radii of 

curvature. The NPRM proposed testing 

on a ‘‘small’’ curve with radii of 

curvature from 98 m—116 m (320–380 

ft); a ‘‘medium’’ curve with radii of 

curvature of 223 m–241 m (730–790 ft); 

and a ‘‘large’’ curve, 335 m–396 m 

(1100–1300 ft). The NPRM proposed 

that the curve on which testing is 

conducted be of a constant radius 

within the range listed in the test 

matrix. 

Comments 

Manufacturers requested clarification 

or modification of the specifications and 

procedures related to the radius of 

curvature. 

The Alliance, Ford, and Toyota 

commented on measuring the radius of 

curvature. Ford requested clarification 

on how to measure the radius of 

curvature and all three commenters 

recommended following the IIHS 

protocol and measuring the radius of 

curvature from the center of the test 

vehicle’s travel lane. 

Toyota suggested the final rule not 

specify a constant radius because it is 

not practical and is rarely the case in 

real-world situations. 

Honda, Toyota, and Auto Innovators 

requested clarification of the direction 

of curvature (left or right). 

OICA, SAE, SMMT, and Auto 

Innovators commented that the 

proposed road geometries do not exist at 

the proving grounds of many vehicle 

manufacturers. Auto Innovators 

commented that its testing contractor 

found that modifications to curvature 

radii were necessary to accommodate 

performance of the specified test 

scenarios at its facility, and that only the 

short-radius curve was within the 

NPRM specification. 

Agency Response 

NHTSA has made a variety of changes 

in the final rule in response to these 

comments. With respect to measuring 

the radius of curvature, the final rule 

adopts regulatory text to specify that the 

curve is of a constant radius, as 

measured to the centerline of the path 

on which the test vehicle travels, within 

the range specified in the test matrix. In 

its latest testing, NHTSA used an 

inertial navigation system to follow a 

pre-programmed path for the centerline 

of the vehicle to follow. This was 

executed using a steering controller that 

followed the predefined path. 

When conducting its compliance 

testing, the agency may choose any 

radius within the range listed in the test 

matrix. The constant-radius 

specification is intended to indicate that 

the agency does not intend to test on 

compound curves (i.e., a curve with a 

non-constant radius of curvature). 

Considering that the manufacturer must 

certify that the vehicle will perform 

throughout the range of radii of 

curvature specified in the test matrix, 

NHTSA does not expect dramatic 

differences in results if the radius is not 

perfectly constant but contains minor 

variations throughout the run. The final 

rule also retains ranges for the radii of 

curvature, as opposed to a single radius 

of curvature with a relatively narrow 

tolerance. NHTSA believes the system 

should be able to function over at least 

these range of radii because they are 

representative of real-world roadway 

geometry. 

NHTSA agrees with Honda and 

Toyota about clearly specifying the 

direction of curvature and has done so 

in the regulatory text. 

With respect to the comment that the 

specified curves are not available at 

testing facilities, NHTSA was able to 

test on the curves specified in the final 

rule at the Transportation Research 

Center (TRC) Vehicle Dynamics Area 

(VDA). This test facility is publicly 

available to manufacturers. 

The final rule slightly modifies the 

specifications for the radii of curvature 

for all curves. NHTSA converted the 

center of the proposed range units from 

feet to meters and rounded the meter 

units. 

b. Test Vehicle Speed and Acceleration 

The NPRM proposed, for each test 

scenario, a range of test vehicle speeds 

that NHTSA could select. The values 

proposed for speed, radius of curvature, 

and superelevation were consistent with 

a standard formula used in road design 

specifying the relationship between 

these parameters. The formula, referred 

to as the simplified curve formula, is 

where f is the coefficient of friction, V 

is the vehicle speed, R is the radius of 

curvature, and e is superelevation.142

The speeds ranged from a high of 70 

mph for the straight scenario to 25 mph 

for the short-radius curve scenarios. 

The NPRM proposed that for each test 

run, a speed conforming to the ADB test 

matrix would be selected and that the 

test vehicle would achieve this speed ± 

0.45 m/s (1 mph) prior to reaching the 

data measurement distance and 

maintain this speed with ‘‘no sudden 

acceleration or braking.’’ 

Comments 

SAE, Toyota, and Honda 

recommended that, to simplify the test 

and reduce variability, the final rule 

specify a specific vehicle speed and 

tolerance for each scenario. Auto 

Innovators recommended that the 

maximum test speed be reduced from 70 

mph to 55 mph because camera 

detection does not depend on vehicle 

speed; the majority of fatal nighttime 

crashes on curves occur at speeds of 55 

mph or less; and certain vehicles (such 

as large trucks) would have difficulty 

reaching the specified test speeds given 

the lengths of courses available at test 

facilities. Toyota suggested providing a 

more specific specification for 

acceleration. 

Agency Response 

The final rule retains the speed ranges 

and tolerances proposed for each 

scenario. The range of speeds reflects 

the real world (where different drivers 

may take the same curve at different 

speeds) and provides testing flexibility. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2ER22FE22.031</GPH>

V 2 

a.Ole+ f = 15R ' 
9968 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

143 5.5.6.1. 

144 2015 ADB Test Report, p. 20. 

145S10.18. 

146The standard specifies a third compliance 

option (mechanical aim), which involves an 

externally-applied mechanical device. This method 

is no longer in use and is not at issue in this 

rulemaking. 

The speeds set out in the final rule are 

generally higher than specified in SAE 

J3069, which states that ‘‘[t]he speed of 

the vehicle for the full length of the 155 

m test shall be above the ADB activation 

threshold of the vehicle as specified by 

the manufacturer.’’ 143 NHTSA believes 

that testing at speeds only marginally 

higher than the activation speed would 

not be representative of real-world 

driving, especially on the types of roads 

and situations (e.g., outdriving lower 

beam) in which ADB is most useful. The 

ADB systems NHTSA tested had 

activation speeds ranging from 19 to 43 

mph.144 Safety concerns regarding glare, 

like many safety concerns, are also 

magnified at higher speeds. 

NHTSA disagrees with the suggestion 

that test speed does not impact ADB 

system performance, as the higher the 

test speed, the quicker the system must 

identify and shade the fixture. The 

proposal did not specify test speeds 

greater than 55 mph on curves; speeds 

above this were only proposed for 

straight-path scenarios. Regarding the 

concern that vehicles such as large 

trucks may have difficulty attaining test 

speeds in the distances available at track 

test facilities, the final rule specifies test 

fixtures and not stimulus vehicles, 

which should facilitate testing at the 

higher speeds. Further, the agency was 

able to achieve the maximum test speed 

of 70 mph on two different sections of 

the TRC facility for the straight scenario, 

using a class 8 truck tractor in the 

loaded and unloaded condition on the 

skid pad and the vehicle dynamics area 

(this is the surface that was used for all 

of the research testing). While complete 

lamp testing was not conducted using 

the class 8 truck tractor, the pitch and 

speed parameters were recorded along 

the path to demonstrate that a valid test 

was possible. Given the superiority of 

full-vehicle testing of ADB, the 

difficulties that a few vehicles may have 

in executing the test procedure do not 

appear insurmountable for heavy 

vehicles. 

Regarding Toyota’s comment on the 

acceleration criteria, the proposal did 

address acceleration beyond the 

specification that ‘‘no sudden 

acceleration or braking shall occur’’ in 

that it also specified a tolerance of +/¥ 

0.45 m/s (1 mph) for the nominal test 

speed. This tolerance is smaller than 

that used in the IIHS test procedure (3 

km/h (.83 m/s)). In NHTSA’s testing, the 

test driver was able to consistently 

maintain the speed within this 

tolerance. In addition, the final rule 

includes a vehicle pitch allowance that 

constrains acceleration in that if 

acceleration causes changes in vehicle 

pitch exceeding 0.3 degrees compared to 

the average pitch, then the measured 

illuminance at those points will not be 

considered in determining compliance. 

c. Headlamp Aim 

The proposed test procedures 

specified several aspects of test vehicle 

preparation. This included that the 

headlamps would be aimed and the 

ADB system adjusted according to the 

manufacturer’s instructions. 

FMVSS No. 108 requires that when a 

headlamp is installed on a motor 

vehicle, it must be aimable.145 The 

standard specifies compliance options 

for the aiming system. The principal 

options are vehicle headlamp aiming 

devices (VHAD) and visual/optical 

aiming devices (VOA).146

A VHAD is an item of equipment 

installed on the vehicle and headlamp 

which is used for aiming the headlamp 

mechanically, such as with a bubble vial 

on the headlamp housing which has a 

closely specified geometric relationship 

to the headlamp beam’s vertical 

location. A similar mechanical reference 

marking system is used for correct 

horizontal aim, essentially aligning the 

optical axis of the headlamp housing or 

reflector to the vehicle’s longitudinal 

axis. 

VOA involves either projecting the 

beam onto a vertical surface and then 

adjusting the headlamp to an 

appropriate position as determined by 

an observer (visual aim), or projecting 

the beam into an optical device that is 

placed in front of the headlamp and 

then adjusting the headlamp until the 

beam conforms to the appropriate 

parameters (optical aim). VOA is used 

on most, if not all, vehicles currently 

sold in the U.S. The standard requires 

a relatively sharp horizontal cutoff in 

the lower beam pattern in order to aim 

the headlamps vertically. The standard 

does not permit horizontal aiming on 

VOA headlamps unless the headlamp is 

equipped with a horizontal VHAD. 

Comments 

IIHS expressed concern that the 

NPRM allowed vehicle manufacturers to 

provide headlamp re-aiming procedures 

and ADB adjustments prior to testing, 

because for the systems to be effective 

in real-world driving, they need to 

function without adjustment when the 

consumer purchases the vehicle. IIHS 

explained that its headlighting system 

evaluations are conducted without 

changing the factory aim of the 

headlamps. They found that there is 

often a wide range of aim values 

between manufacturers, between some 

vehicles of the same make and model, 

and even between the left and right 

headlamp of the same vehicle, 

indicating that ADB effectiveness will 

be reduced if there is no incentive in the 

regulation for precise aiming at the 

factory. IIHS noted that this is even 

more important for ADB than for 

traditional headlighting systems since 

both the headlamps and the camera 

system require accurate alignment. IIHS 

further stated that just as NHTSA would 

not allow manufacturers to modify an 

air bag deployment algorithm prior to 

conducting FMVSS No. 208 compliance 

crash tests, the agency should not allow 

the ADB system to be modified to a 

condition that may not exist on any 

other production vehicle. IIHS provided 

data on factory aim variation for seven 

new vehicle models with VOR 

headlamps showing that most had aim 

values that would have a substantial 

effect on the measured visibility 

distances in the IIHS evaluation. IIHS 

stated that this indicates that 

conducting headlamp evaluations or 

compliance testing with re-aimed lamps 

is likely to reduce the real-world 

relevance of the tests. 

Conversely, several commenters 

(Valeo, the Alliance, Volkswagen, SAE, 

Koito, Global, Honda, Auto Innovators, 

and Ford) requested that the final rule 

allow for horizontal aim adjustment on 

VOA ADB headlamps without 

equipping them with a horizontal 

VHAD (as the standard currently 

requires). The commenters highlighted 

the importance of horizontal aiming for 

ADB systems and requested that the 

final rule allow horizontal aim 

adjustment on VOA headlamps used in 

conjunction with an ADB system. They 

stated that in order to maximize the 

visibility benefits of ADB, the area of 

reduced intensity must be minimized, 

which can only be accomplished using 

both horizontal and vertical aiming. 

They commented that horizontal 

adjustment of the beam is critical in 

placing the area of reduced intensity 

accurately over the oncoming or 

preceding vehicles. If a horizontal aim 

access allowance were not incorporated 

into the final rule, automakers would be 

required to compensate for the expected 

horizontal vehicle variation into the size 

of the area of reduced intensity, 

resulting in greatly increasing this area, 

and lessening the additional light. 

The commenters noted that the 

standard prohibits horizontal aim on a 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 9969 

147Ford noted that NHTSA has opined that 

horizontal aiming is permitted with VOA 

headlamps provided it is disabled or made 

inaccessible for consumers, but contended that this 

does not address the potential need for readjustment should the ADB system need to be 

aimed after sale to the consumer (for example, upon 

headlamp replacement due to vehicle damage). 148 62 FR 10710 (Mar. 10, 1997). 

149 Id., p. 10715. 

150 66 FR 42985 (Aug. 16, 2001) (denial of 

rulemaking petition from Federal-Mogul Lighting 

Products). 

151See S10.18.8. 

VOA headlamp unless a VHAD is 

provided, and stated that VHADs are 

unreliable, ineffective, lack the accuracy 

necessary for use with ADB systems, 

and are essentially obsolete. SAE 

suggested that NHTSA modify the 

current regulatory text in S10.18 and 

S14.2.5 to allow headlamps with 

adaptive driving beams to be adjusted 

according to the manufacturer’s 

instructions.147 Auto Innovators 

commented that the method to 

horizontally aim ADB headlamps varies 

depending on the specific execution of 

the ADB system. Each involves an ADBspecific aim calibration mode to be 

activated either by a dealer or consumer 

when the vehicle is parked. This mode 

illuminates a horizontal aim feature 

utilizing one or more of the ADBilluminated elements which have a 

sufficient vertical gradient that can be 

used for horizontal aim, just as one does 

today with vertical aim. The dealer or 

consumer would use this vertical 

gradient to properly calibrate the 

horizontal aim following instructions 

specified in the service manual or 

owner’s manual. 

Several of these commenters pointed 

out that the ECE and Canadian 

requirements provide for horizontal aim 

with VOA headlamps and that 

effectively requiring horizontal VHADs 

would drive hardware 

disharmonization. Ford pointed out that 

SAE J3069 recognized the necessity of 

horizontal aiming for ADB systems, and 

that Canada, in adopting SAE J3069, 

specifically permitted horizontal aim. 

ALNA suggested applying tolerances 

for aiming the headlamps. 

Agency Response 

The final rule follows the proposal 

and specifies that the headlamps will be 

aimed and the ADB system adjusted 

according to the manufacturer’s 

instructions. In addition, the final rule 

provides that the test vehicle will be 

loaded within +/¥ 5 kg of the total 

vehicle weight during track testing prior 

to aiming the ADB headlamps. This is 

intended to indicate that NHTSA will 

not change the loading of the vehicle by 

more than 5 kg compared to what it is 

when the headlamps are aimed. This 

means that NHTSA will not aim the 

headlamps when the vehicle is at a 

lower weight compared to when the 

vehicle is fully instrumented and 

occupied by a test driver (which 

changes the pitch of the vehicle, and 

thus, the aim of the headlamps). 

NHTSA disagrees with IIHS and 

believes that manufacturers should be 

permitted to specify aiming procedures 

prior to the compliance tests. IIHS’s 

suggestion is essentially that on-vehicle 

aim should be regulated. Even if this 

approach may have merit, it is outside 

the scope of this rulemaking, which 

extends the current requirements to 

ADB systems. The proposed 

specification is also consistent with the 

required laboratory testing, which 

involves aiming the headlamp prior to 

testing. Conventional laboratory testing 

of headlamps has long permitted aiming 

them prior to testing. This contributes to 

the repeatability of the test and sets a 

consistent standard to which headlamps 

must perform. This is important because 

the laboratory photometric requirements 

are the basis for the current track-based 

test procedure limits; if we were to 

consider practical limits that included 

variations in aim introduced through 

the distribution chain, the limits that are 

finalized might not be appropriate. In 

addition, as IIHS notes, ADB systems 

rely on accurate alignment of the 

headlamps and camera systems. Aiming 

the headlamps prior to the compliance 

test limits aim variation and isolates 

ADB performance. This approach 

ensures that the ADB compliance test 

will be performed with a headlighting 

beam pattern that, as manufactured, at 

least meets a minimum level of 

performance. The end customer or 

dealer can then aim the headlamps to 

align the system appropriately. 

The agency agrees that successful 

implementation of ADB using current 

technology requires the regulation to 

provide flexibility to permit headlamps 

to be aimed horizontally once installed 

on the vehicle to align the vehicle, 

camera, and headlamps. As explained 

below, while NHTSA agrees with the 

commenters that ADB systems should 

be exempt from several of the current 

requirements for horizontal VHADs, 

NHTSA does not agree that ADBequipped VOA headlamps should be 

completely exempt from all the VHAD 

requirements. 

FMVSS No. 108 does not permit VOA 

headlamps to be visually aimed with 

respect to horizontal aim. NHTSA 

explained the reason for this in the 1997 

final rule that permitted VOA aim 

headlamps.148 Because the lower beam 

of a headlamp designed to conform to 

Standard No. 108 does not have any 

visual cues for achieving correct 

horizontal aim when aimed visually or 

optically, and because it is not possible 

to add such visual features without 

damaging the beam pattern, horizontal 

aim should be either fixed and 

nonadjustable, or have a horizontal 

VHAD. The agency also noted that the 

negotiated rulemaking committee 

involved in that 1997 negotiated 

rulemaking ‘‘considered features for 

horizontal visual/optical aiming but 

none were deemed sufficiently 

developed and designed to be 

usable.’’ 149 Accordingly, that final rule 

did not permit any horizontal 

movement of VOA headlamps, with the 

lamp essentially being correctly aimed 

as installed, unless the headlamp was 

equipped with a horizontal VHAD. The 

horizontal VHAD was included as a 

compliance option (and required to be 

set to zero) as a means for manufacturers 

to meet European requirements for both 

a horizontal and vertical aim 

adjustment. For these reasons, in 1999 

NHTSA denied a petition for 

rulemaking to allow VOA headlamps to 

have a horizontal adjuster system that 

does not have the required 2.5-degree 

horizontal adjustment range or a VHAD 

indicator.150

Although VHADs are not widely (if 

ever) used, NHTSA is not persuaded 

that a VHAD for horizontal aiming 

would not be feasible for ADB-equipped 

headlamps. The commenters did not 

present any information to show VHADs 

are necessarily incompatible with the 

aiming accuracy necessary for ADB 

systems. While VHAD devices used 

prior to the allowance of visual optical 

aiming in the U.S. may have been 

inaccurate, these limitations are not 

driven by the requirements placed on 

VHADs by the FMVSS.151 The 

minimum requirements in FMVSS No. 

108 for horizontal VHADs provide a 

floor below which accuracy cannot 

drop, but do not limit aiming accuracy. 

For example, the requirements in 

S10.18.8.1.2 that the VHAD include 

references and scales relative to the 

longitudinal axis of the vehicle, 

including a ‘‘0’’ mark and an equal 

number of graduations from the ‘‘0’’ 

mark, limit neither precision nor 

accuracy. The horizontal VHAD need 

only be accurate enough to set at 0 in 

order to perform basic photometry 

testing in the lab. Other measurement 

cues (including more precise methods) 

may be used to more accurately aim the 

headlamps on the vehicle for the 

purposes of ADB functionality. The 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
9970 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

152The ECE horizontal aim test procedure is in 

R112 Annex 9. This procedure is not suitable for 

headlamps in the U.S. because it relies on features 

in the beam pattern, such as the kink, that are not 

required to be present in a lower beam pattern by 

FMVSS No. 108. 

153See S10.18.9.1. 154 66 FR 42985, 42986 (Aug. 16, 2001). 

155SAE J3069 JUN2016 states, in section 7.1, that 

it is recommended that the road have an IRI of less 

than 1.5 m/km, while the text accompanying Figure 

5 states that the IRI should be less than 3. SAE 

J3069 MAR2021 corrects the text in Figure 5 to state 

1.5. 

regulation does not restrict this but 

allows the flexibility to customize such 

methods to accommodate any unique 

features present in any beam. 

Even if NHTSA were to agree with the 

commenters that VHADs were not 

optimal for ADB systems, the agency 

does not currently have, and the 

commenters did not provide, a workable 

alternative. For example, SAE’s 

suggested amendments to S10.18 and 

S14.2.5 simply stated that ‘‘if the 

headlamp is equipped with ADB, and 

has horizontal aim, it shall be adjusted 

according to the manufacturer’s 

instructions.’’ If the commenters sought 

allowance of horizontal VOA aim for 

ADB systems, they did not provide 

information on how this would work in 

practice. Unlike the lower beam pattern 

in Europe, where the lower beam 

pattern has a vertical cutoff component 

and uses VOA for horizontal aim, the 

U.S. lower beam pattern has no such 

required cutoff or other cues—meaning 

horizontal VOA in FMVSS No. 108 is 

not currently feasible.152 If the beam 

pattern were to include cues that could 

be used to visually aim the headlamps 

horizontally, such a procedure could be 

workable. Such procedures, however, 

have not been developed for the United 

States market for visual/optical 

horizontal aim of the headlamps, and 

they would need to include, among 

other things, a cut-off requirement 

analogous to the current requirements 

for the horizontal cutoff for the lower 

beam.153 In addition, such requirements 

would limit the flexibility of beam 

pattern design currently permitted by 

the standard. This could limit the 

potential for innovative safety solutions 

generally afforded by this final rule. On 

the other hand, if the commenters 

referred to non-VOA methods, they 

were not presented to the agency. 

NHTSA agrees, however, that several 

of the requirements for horizontal 

VHADs (in S10.18.8.1.2.1–4) are not 

necessary for ADB systems. 

S10.18.8.1.2.1 requires that each 

graduation must represent a change in 

the horizontal position of the 

mechanical axis not greater than 0.38° (2 

in at 25 ft) to provide for variations in 

aim at least 0.76° (4 in at 25 ft) to the 

left and right of the longitudinal axis of 

the vehicle, and must have an accuracy 

relative to the zero mark of less than 

0.1°. As the commenters alluded to, this 

minimum accuracy of graduation is 

likely not adequate for aligning the 

camera and headlamps. NHTSA expects 

that a more accurate method will be 

utilized to align the lamps and the 

camera and does not expect this 

alignment procedure to be manually 

conducted by non-expert vehicle 

owners. Similarly, S10.18.8.1.2.2–3 

pertain to the readability of those 

graduations. S10.18.8.1.2.4 specifies 

minimum horizontal indicator and 

aiming ranges. Those limits are not 

relevant to ADB aim because they are 

intended to align the lamp with the 

vehicle, whereas ADB systems require 

the alignment of the lamp with the 

camera. NHTSA expects that this 

alignment range will be determined by 

each manufacturer appropriate for their 

camera installation and body tolerances. 

Consequently, the final rule exempts 

ADB systems from these requirements. 

With respect to harmonization, the 

agency recognizes that VHADs add 

some additional cost, but the option to 

use a horizontal VHAD was actually 

intended to facilitate harmonization by 

giving manufacturers a way to meet both 

the ECE requirements (which require 

both a horizontal and vertical aim 

adjustment) and the U.S. requirements 

(which require only vertical aimability). 

A VOA headlamp intended for sale in 

both the European and U.S. markets 

would likely have a vertical aiming 

screw and a horizontal VHAD, while 

one intended for use only in the U.S. 

market need only provide for vertical 

adjustment.154 In practice, 

manufacturers wishing to sell 

essentially the same headlamp design in 

both markets, but not utilize a 

horizontal VHAD, would typically 

design a lamp with both a vertical and 

horizontal aiming screw, and lock out 

(or make inaccessible) the horizontal 

screw in the U.S.-market version. 

d. Road Surface 

The NPRM proposed several 

specifications related to the quality of 

the test track surface, including that the 

tests would be conducted on a dry, 

uniform, solid-paved surface; that the 

road surface have an International 

Roughness Index (IRI) measurement of 

less than 1.5 m/km; and that the test 

course surface be composed of concrete 

or asphalt. The proposal also included 

an allowance for momentary glare 

exceedances that might be related to, 

among other things, imperfections in the 

road surface. SAE J3069 specifies an 

identical IRI value and that the test 

course surface be uniform, straight, flat 

and represent a typical road surface. 

Comments 

Intertek commented that the IRI is not 

simple to measure quantitatively and 

that requiring a road surface quality of 

1.5 m/km will impose unnecessary 

restrictions on the test track. The 

commenter recommend instead using 

the SAE J3069 value of 3 m/km.155 Auto 

Innovators commented that, for its 

testing, longitudinal lane IRI 

measurements were within the NPRM 

specification, averaging near 0.475 m/ 

km, but that atypical IRI measurements 

across transverse lanes (east/west) are 

unknown and may impact testing on 

curves. 

ALNA commented that test ground 

conditions and variations should be 

reflected in the requirements and 

suggested applying tolerances in order 

to reflect variations such as ground 

unevenness. Toyota commented that the 

NPRM did not sufficiently define the 

test track conditions and that failure to 

do so would affect compliance test 

results. 

Agency Response 

The final rule deletes the IRI 

specification. The purpose of the IRI 

specification was to limit angular 

changes between the vehicle and the 

illuminance meters throughout the test 

run. This was anticipated to provide a 

boundary limit for which a vehicle 

manufacturer could certify performance 

of its vehicle. In other words, the ADB 

system was not expected to perform to 

the limits specified in the NPRM on a 

bumpy or wavy road. However, during 

NHTSA’s most recent testing, it was 

found that a more direct approach— 

pitch adjustment—could be used to 

limit this orientation. IRI values are a 

general measurement of road roughness, 

but, in the context of the track test in 

this rule, are essentially a proxy for 

vehicle pitch: A test conducted on a test 

track surface with a low IRI will 

generally have less pitch variation than 

a test conducted on a surface with a 

high IRI. Directly measuring vehicle 

pitch eliminates the need for the IRI 

parameter. 

NHTSA believes that directly 

accounting for vehicle pitch addresses 

Auto Innovators’ concern that the 

transverse IRI may influence test results 

(by influencing vehicle pitch, which in 

turn influences test results) on curve 

scenarios. The area of the test facility 

that NHTSA used for its most recent 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 9971 

156Ambient light refers to light emitted from a 

source other than the ADB system. This may 

include moonlight, light pollution from nearby 

buildings, or light coming from the test fixture 

itself. Reflected light refers to light from the ADB 

vehicle’s headlamps reflected off the road or other 

surfaces (including rain or fog droplets) onto the 

photometric receptors. 157 5.5.2.1 and 5.5.3.1. 

testing had an IRI of 1.46 m/km in the 

EW direction and an IRI of 1.61 m/km 

in the NS direction. In conducting its 

testing, however, NHTSA nested the 

straight, right, and left curves of each 

radius on the TRC VDA large-area test 

facility. As such, those IRI 

measurements are not direct 

measurements of the longitudinal or 

transverse paths taken during ADB 

testing. While the final rule limits the 

number of scenarios, it retains 6 

different curved-path scenarios, 

including various radii for right and left 

curves. These paths may have slight, but 

potentially meaningful, differences in 

longitudinal IRI. While this longitudinal 

test surface roughness measurement is 

possible along each path, requiring a 

new IRI measurement any time the path 

is altered would be unnecessarily 

burdensome, considering it is possible 

to instead directly measure vehicle 

pitch. Additionally, the IRI can change 

over time, especially considering large 

temperature changes; it is possible that 

a path that in one season is under 1.5 

m/km will exceed that value in a 

different season. Replacing the IRI 

parameter with a procedure for directly 

measuring and limiting the pitch 

variation of the test vehicle eliminates 

these concerns. 

With respect to the comments by 

ALNA and Toyota, the commenters did 

not identify specific additional ways to 

specify the test conditions. For the 

reasons given here and elsewhere in the 

preamble, NHTSA believes the final rule 

sufficiently accounts for test surface 

conditions to control for the major 

sources of testing variability—including 

vehicle pitch—related to the test track. 

e. Ambient and Reflected Light 

The NPRM proposed to control for 

ambient and reflected light, which can 

interfere with test results, in a few 

ways.156 Ambient illumination recorded 

by the photometers must be at or below 

0.2 lux; testing must be conducted on 

dry pavement, and with no 

precipitation; the test road must be free 

of retroreflective material; and the 

pavement must not be bright white (to 

avoid intense reflections). 

Notwithstanding such controls, some 

degree of ambient light is unavoidable. 

Accordingly, in testing for compliance 

the agency proposed to zero-calibrate 

the photometers. SAE J3069 similarly 

specifies that the test track does not 

contain retroreflective material and that 

testing be conducted during clear 

weather on dry pavement. 

Comments 

Intertek tentatively agreed with 

NHTSA’s assessment of the impact of 

stray and ambient light on the test. 

Some commenters, however, stated that 

the proposal did not sufficiently control 

for ambient light. The Alliance and 

Volkswagen commented that ambient 

light can change throughout the data 

collection (e.g., due to clouds, the 

moon) during a test, which could 

introduce uncontrolled variability and 

difficulty in repeatability and 

reproducibility of test results. ALNA 

suggested applying tolerances for 

variations in test course surface 

conditions including ground 

reflectivity. 

Volkswagen commented that the 

presence of reflectors in the 

environment could cause test results to 

vary and that the NPRM did not address 

environmental conditions such as fog, 

dust, or pollution which exist in realworld testing and can introduce 

variability that will present challenges 

for repeatability and reproducibility. 

Mobileye commented that the track test 

requirements should specify that fog 

and dust should not be present when 

performing testing. TSEI recommended 

the agency clarify how ambient 

conditions should be treated. 

Agency Response 

The final rule adopts the proposed 

test procedures, but modifies the 

photometer zero-adjustment procedure 

to reflect the fact that the test uses 

fixtures, not stimulus vehicles. The 

meters will continue to be zerocalibrated for each scenario tested. 

With respect to the comment about 

ambient light changing throughout the 

test, NHTSA found that the ambient 

light did not change significantly during 

a test session. Further, NHTSA’s testing 

method accounted for ambient 

conditions by measuring ambient 

illuminance either immediately before 

or after each test trial and subtracting 

that value from the recorded test data. 

The repeatability analysis, which 

included testing on different nights, 

showed that the night on which testing 

occurred did not appear to be a 

significant source of variation. The 

commenters did not recommend any 

alternative methods to account for 

ambient or reflected light. SAE J3069 

does not specify how ambient 

conditions or reflected lighting are to be 

treated aside from requiring that ‘‘[n]o 

other vehicle lighting devices shall be 

activated or any retro-reflective material 

present and care should be taken to 

avoid other sources of light, reflected or 

otherwise.’’ 157 Although the final rule 

does not specify a baffle, the regulatory 

text does not prohibit it if it provides 

more accurate results for a particular 

location. The agency did not study 

adding baffles in a systematic way 

because testing did not show stray light 

to be a significant contributor to 

variability. 

With respect to reflectivity, as noted 

above, the proposal (and final rule) 

specifies that the test road be free of 

retroreflective material and that the 

pavement may not be bright white. With 

respect to tolerances, although the 

agency does not expect reflectivity to 

affect the illuminance measurements, 

the allowance for momentary 

exceedances would be applied to spikes 

in illuminance caused by any such 

factors. NHTSA is not aware of any 

standardized way of accounting for dust 

or fog, and the commenters did not 

identify any such method. In any case, 

the same test conducted on different 

nights did not lead to much variation in 

results. Certainly, if ambient 

environmental conditions were such 

that there was an unusual concentration 

of particulates—or any other unusual 

conditions that would be likely to affect 

test results—NHTSA would not attempt 

to conduct compliance testing. In 

addition, NHTSA’s testing showed that 

the ambient light did not appear to 

fluctuate dramatically in the relatively 

short times it took to perform a test run. 

And, as noted above, the recorded test 

data was adjusted by subtracting the 

ambient illuminance. The agency 

therefore believes that test outcomes 

will generally not be affected by changes 

in ambient light. 

f. Superelevation 

Superelevation refers to the degree of 

banking of a road. The NPRM specified 

that the test track have a superelevation 

of 0% to 2%. We explained that it was 

desirable to minimize the degree of 

banking because photometry design as 

well as the existing and derived glare 

limits are based on flat surfaces. 

Comments 

Auto Innovators commented that it 

found that modifications to the 

specified superelevation were necessary 

to accommodate the track lengths at its 

test facility. 

Agency Response 

The VDA test pad, on which NHTSA’s 

most recent testing was conducted, has 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
9972 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

158See TRC site plan at www.trcpg.com/wpcontent/uploads/2016/10/Vehicle-DynamicsArea.pdf last accessed on February 16, 2021. 

159 In addition, the wider the specified range of 

superelevation, the more stringent the test, because 

the vehicle must perform over a larger range of 

superelevation angles. 160 2015 ADB Test Report, pp. 102, 108, 114. 

a slope of 1% in the direction between 

the two loops. That means that the 

largest superelevation that we tested 

was less than 1%. The superelevation 

would be 1% had we tested across the 

width of the pad and 0% had we tested 

along the length of the pad. All the 

recent NHTSA tests were conducted 

somewhere between these two extremes. 

Accordingly, every test scenario 

traversed had a superelevation of less 

than 1% (based on the TRC site plan).158

We recognize that superelevation 

could, conceivably, influence test 

results.159 Depending on the details of 

the curve/fixture location, a large 

superelevation can either increase or 

decrease the likelihood that the 

measured illuminance will exceed the 

relevant glare limit. Superelevation 

effectively rotates the beam pattern 

around the centerline of the vehicle. If 

the rotation causes the pattern to rotate 

down with respect to the sensor 

location, it is less likely that the 

measured illuminance will exceed the 

glare limit; if, on the other hand, the 

rotation causes the pattern to rotate up 

with respect to the sensor location, the 

measured illuminance is more likely to 

exceed the glare limit. More specifically, 

on a left curve a positive superelevation 

will always make it less likely that the 

glare limit will be exceeded because the 

fixture is always on the left side of the 

beam pattern and the superelevation 

causes a rotation of the beam pattern 

counterclockwise. For the portions of a 

right curve at which the photometric 

receptors are to the left of the beam 

pattern, a positive superelevation will 

increase the likelihood that the 

measured illuminance will exceed the 

glare limit because the beam pattern is 

rotated clockwise for a positive 

superelevation on a right curve. Finally, 

for straight-path test scenarios, a large 

positive superelevation will always be 

more stringent because the ‘‘crown’’ in 

the road rotates the beam pattern 

clockwise and the fixture is always to 

the left. 

We do not expect superelevation to 

have a meaningful impact on the test 

results, especially compared to the 

effect of vehicle pitch, which can 

materially impact test results. For this 

reason, we concluded that it was not 

necessary to include an adjustment for 

superelevation. 

g. Lane Divisions 

The NPRM specified that the test 

track lanes may have a median of up to 

6.1 m (20 ft) wide and should not have 

any barrier taller than 0.3 m (12 in.) less 

than the mounting height of the 

stimulus vehicle’s headlamps. SAE 

J3069 does not specify any lane 

divisions or medians but does specify 

that the test track area be free from 

obstructions and retroreflective 

markings. 

Comments 

Mobileye commented that roads with 

narrow curves do not typically have 

such wide medians, and this will place 

the stimulus vehicle at a very wide 

angle to the host vehicle. Intertek 

questioned the need to consider 

medians or barriers and suggested that 

the median be limited to a standard lane 

divider. SL Corporation commented that 

a traffic barrier is not necessary and may 

make it difficult for ADB systems to 

accurately detect oncoming traffic, 

recommending that final rule provide a 

more detailed specification if retained. 

SAE questioned the inclusion of a 20-ft 

median for a 320-ft curve because 

medians of that size are typically found 

only on higher speed interstate roads 

which do not contain curves of that 

sharpness. 

Agency Response 

NHTSA agrees with commenters that 

a median or barrier is not useful for 

testing. These features are not included 

in the final rule. 

h. Hills 

The NPRM did not propose testing on 

sloped (dipped or hilly) roads, 

explaining that even headlighting 

systems with compliant lower beam 

photometry can glare oncoming or 

preceding vehicles on sloped roads 

because the hill geometry may place 

that vehicle in the brighter portion of 

the lower beam pattern. NHTSA’s 

testing was consistent with this, 

showing ADB headlighting systems and 

FMVSS-compliant lower beams glared 

oncoming and preceding vehicles on 

roads with dips.160 NHTSA tentatively 

concluded that to require this 

performance of ADB systems would be 

neither practical nor consistent with the 

approach of this rulemaking (extending 

the existing lower beam glare 

requirements to ADB systems). 

Comments 

AAA asserted that the track test 

should include scenarios with 

undulating roadways and hills but 

seemed to suggest that this might be 

limited to ADB systems with higherintensity upper beams (i.e., at the ECE 

maximum). AAA commented that ADB 

technology has the ability to avoid 

glaring other drivers in these situations, 

and that including this in the test will 

create pressure to more quickly and 

successfully address this. 

Agency Response 

The final rule does not include testing 

on dips or hills for several reasons. 

First, this approach would be more 

stringent than current requirements. 

Current lower beams create glare for 

other drivers on hills. The general 

approach of this rulemaking was to 

extend the current headlamp 

requirements to ADB systems, not to 

increase the stringency of existing 

requirements for ADB systems. Second, 

NHTSA’s testing indicated that current 

ADB systems did not perform well on 

hill scenarios. Although including such 

scenarios in the track test could help 

speed the development of ADB systems 

with these advanced capabilities, it 

would likely make the systems more 

costly and slow deployment. Finally, 

NHTSA has not developed test 

procedures for such scenarios. This 

would take additional time and 

resources and would require developing 

a complex test track that would be 

specific to ADB testing. However, while 

it is outside the scope of the current 

rulemaking to test ADB systems to 

ensure that they produce less glare than 

current headlamps, NHTSA intends to 

monitor this issue and will consider 

future action if warranted. 

10. Data Acquisition and Measurement 

a. Photometers 

The proposed regulatory text 

specified that the photometer must be 

capable of a minimum measurement 

unit of 0.01 lux. 

Comments 

Intertek suggested specifying that the 

photometric receiver have a cosine 

response and be spectrally matched to 

the photonic response of the human eye. 

It also suggested an accuracy limit of +/ 

¥ 5% nominal over the full range of 

illuminance from 0.01 lux to the upper 

limit (about 100 lux). 

Agency Response 

NHTSA’s testing utilized a Minolta 

T10A illuminance meter. The 

manufacturer’s specifications indicated 

that it has a spectral response within 

6% of the (CIE) human eye photopic 

vision [V(l)] and a cosine correction 

characteristic within 3%. The 

photometers used in agency research 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 9973 

161See supra note 93. 

162As NHTSA has pointed out in the past, the 

FMVSS specify the procedures NHTSA will use in 

compliance testing. While manufacturers must 

exercise reasonable care in certifying that their 

products meet applicable standards, they are not 

required to follow the compliance test procedures 

set forth in a standard. 

were capable of measuring light within 

3% of the ideal cosine response. 

NHTSA agrees with Intertek’s 

suggestion and has modified the 

regulatory text to include photometer 

specifications drawn from S14.2.5.7.3 

and to specify a cosine response within 

3%. 

The agency also notes that the IIHS 

headlamp testing procedures 161 used 

baffles on the photometry equipment at 

25 degrees to ensure that the light 

captured was more directly attributable 

to the test vehicle light source, and not 

to stray lighting that may be captured by 

the photometer. This 25-degree angle is 

roughly equivalent to the angles of 

incidence of light received from the 

light source when the test vehicle is 

approaching the stimulus through a 

curve on the roadway surface and 

equates to the angles at which ADB 

systems are typically scanning for 

targets to shade. NHTSA finds the IIHS 

test method specifications closely match 

our intent and has adopted similar 

language to include a 25-degree angle of 

incidence. 

b. Sampling Rate 

The NPRM proposed to sample 

illuminance at a rate of at least 200 Hz. 

SAE J3069 specifies a sampling rate of 

10 Hz, and IIHS test methods sample 

illuminance at 200 Hz. 

Comments 

Volkswagen commented that 

sampling at 200 Hz would lead to a 

more complex selection of measuring 

equipment and analysis for each 

experiment and supported the SAE 

J3069 specification. Global requested 

that NHTSA explain the 

appropriateness of this minimum 

sampling rate and whether a maximum 

sampling rate should be specified. 

Intertek commented that 200 Hz is 

near or exceeding the capability of most 

high-grade light meters and 

recommended reducing the sampling 

rate to 100 Hz in order to resolve 

illuminance in the ranges necessary for 

this test. Intertek also stated that 

reducing the sampling time to 100 Hz is 

supported by the allowance of 

momentary exceedances up to 0.1 

seconds in duration (100 Hz would 

include 10 measurements within that 

0.1 seconds) and suggested determining 

acceptance based on a time-averaged 

sampling rate at 10 Hz to account for 

very fast variances in the illuminance 

level as well as the human eye response. 

Agency Response 

After considering the comments, the 

final rule adopts a sampling rate of at 

least 100 Hz. NHTSA is balancing the 

need for precise data collection with the 

cost and availability of equipment. 

NHTSA agrees that 200 Hz is faster than 

the minimum needed to verify 

compliance, particularly considering the 

0.1 second allowance, but the SAE 

sampling rate of 10 Hz simply provides 

too little data to ensure that ADB 

performance is within the specified 

glare limits. While a 200 Hz sampling 

rate matches that used by NHTSA in 

both its most recent research and in the 

research reported in the 2015 ADB Test 

Report (as well as that used by IIHS), 

and did not present any issues, NHTSA 

agrees with Intertek that a sampling rate 

as low as 100 Hz would provide 

adequate date collection to detect 

exceedances lasting near the 0.1 s 

allowance. As described by Intertek, a 

100 Hz data collection method collects 

10 readings within 0.1 s. This is 

adequate to judge a short exceedance, 

and an extra 10 readings provided by a 

200 Hz rate would not substantially 

change that ability. A sampling rate of 

10 Hz however would collect only a 

single reading over 0.1 s, making it 

difficult to judge the actual time a short 

exceedance lasts. The agency 

considered adding a maximum 

sampling rate but does not believe doing 

so is necessary because the final rule 

specifies an allowance for momentary 

glare exceedances (up to 0.1 s) as well 

as a low-pass filter with a cutoff 

frequency of 35 Hz. 

NHTSA is not incorporating timeaveraged sampling due to concerns that 

the delay associated with time-averaging 

would make it difficult to properly 

synchronize illuminance and distance. 

This is particularly important at higher 

vehicle speeds. Time-averaging 

(depending on the parameters) could 

also collect illuminance levels from one 

location over time and report that data 

at a moment while the vehicle is closer 

to the fixture. This would have the 

result of shifting illuminance levels 

down because all tests are arranged such 

that the vehicle approaches the fixture, 

and never moves away from it. 

c. Noise and Filtering 

The NPRM did not specify any filters 

other than the 0.1 s or 1m spike 

allowance, and the proposal did not 

explore this issue although it sought 

comment on it. The IIHS test procedure 

does specify that photometric sensor 

signals be filtered through a low-pass 

filter with a cutoff frequency of 35 Hz. 

This allows for accurate measurement of 

all existing types of headlamp light 

sources, including pulse width 

modulated systems like LEDs. IIHS test 

methods sample illuminance at 200 Hz, 

and any ambient offset for the 

measurements is based on the minimum 

ambient illumination from 1–5 seconds 

after the test vehicle has passed the 

measurement location. 

Comments 

Global requested that the agency 

clarify which standards OEMs will be 

permitted to use when removing test 

data noise from measured data, and 

suggested incorporating any such 

standards in the final rule or the formal 

compliance test procedure (NHTSA 

understands this to refer to the 

laboratory test procedure, which is not 

part of the regulatory text but is 

published separately by the Office of 

Vehicle Safety Compliance). Intertek 

suggested that to ensure that all the 

energy is accounted for, the minimum 

data acquisition rate should be 100 Hz, 

and the data should be subject to 

averaging or boxcar smoothing to reduce 

the effective sampling rate to a 

frequency of 10 Hz. Intertek 

alternatively suggested an integrating 

photometer with a period of 100 ms. 

The final product would then be the 

filtered illuminance (with PWM, pitch, 

and other sources of noise averaged out) 

reported with a frequency of 10 Hz (or 

another frequency such as 25 or 33 Hz 

based on the human eye response), or if 

boxcar averaging, it could be reported at 

100 Hz (with the understanding that 

each measurement carries 10 Hz of 

averaging). 

Agency Response 

In response to Global’s request, the 

final rule specifies that NHTSA will use 

a low-pass filter with a 35 Hz cutoff 

frequency.162

The low pass filter essentially reduces 

high-frequency noise by adjusting each 

data point by comparing it to the 

average of the neighboring data. Any 

individual points that are higher than 

the immediately adjacent points are 

reduced, and any points lower than the 

immediately adjacent points are 

increased. As long as the general data 

trends in the underlying signal are true 

(low frequency—allowed to pass), then 

the signal will not be distorted by 

smoothing. This filter is suitable for the 

types of measurements collected as it 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
9974 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

163This is different from an allowance for an 

adaptation time (referred to as ‘‘reaction time’’ in 

SAE J3069) which we understand as referring to 

another possible reason for a testing allowance: To 

account for the operation of the ADB system itself, 

because, as the discussion in SAE J3069 points out, 

‘‘ADB cannot react instantaneously.’’ This is 

discussed in Section VIII.C.5 above. 

164NHTSA, in its testing, did not observe any 

test-related variable other than pitch that led to a 

glare exceedance. While some limited glare 

exceedances lasting less than 0.1 seconds were not 

caused by pitch, these appeared to result from 

marginal performance from the ADB system. The 

0.1 second allowance means that such exceedances 

would not be considered a noncompliance. 

165See Section VIII.C.5, ADB Adaptation Time. 

results in the most complete response to 

noise without detrimental effects on the 

data. Because the noise effects are 

assumed to be evenly distributed with a 

standard deviation (d), the noise 

remaining in the measurements will be 

approximately d over the square root of 

the smooth width (m) of 35 samples at 

the 100 Hz we are collecting data. At the 

finalized low-pass filter rate, that 

reduces the noise to less than 0.03 of the 

standard deviation of the noise in the 

lux. Filtering will not eliminate the 

measurement noise and will result in a 

slight reduction of the peak lux values 

measured during the track test. The 

agency does not expect this to affect test 

results, however, both because the 

reduction in the peak value is limited by 

the higher sampling rate (100 Hz versus 

10 Hz for SAE) and because even at the 

broad width of the smoothing filter, the 

filter only smooths values over roughly 

a third of the ‘‘sudden spike’’ timing, 

allowing for differentiation of a spike 

from a non-compliance. 

The box-car averaging has the 

advantage of filtering out both signal 

and test condition noise. Such data 

treatment is useful for smoothing 

rapidly changing signal data, such as 

that type of data that may result from 

vibratory effects as the test vehicle 

moves across the track test bed. It is 

essentially equivalent to using a low 

pass filter, as specified in the IIHS test 

procedure. The final rule is therefore 

consistent with Intertek’s comments. 

d. Allowance for Momentary Glare 

Exceedances 

The NPRM proposed an allowance for 

momentary glare exceedances (or 

‘‘spikes’’) of not greater than 0.1 second 

in duration or spanning 1 m of vehicle 

travel. This was intended to account for 

variations in illumination due to 

uncontrolled testing variables, such as 

minor imperfections in the road 

surface.163 Minor imperfections in the 

road surface can cause glare 

exceedances by affecting vehicle pitch. 

Comments 

Some commenters believed the 

proposed allowance was insufficient. 

Toyota stated that the requirements to 

minimize glare go beyond the levels 

currently specified in the standard and 

beyond what is needed to meet a safety 

need and that, given the strict allowance 

for momentary glare, additional test 

parameters would need to be defined; 

for example, the vehicle pitch can vary 

(due to the condition of the road, 

suspension, tires, and the vehicle’s 

acceleration), potentially affecting the 

compliance result. Similarly, SAE and 

Volkswagen commented that a 0.1 

second allowance is insufficient, would 

frequently be exceeded even by 

compliant lower beams (for example, 

due to momentary changes in vehicle 

pitch), and it would be unreasonable to 

expect an ADB system to comply with 

the glare limits in the numerous 

proposed test scenarios with only that 

allowance. Auto Innovators proposed 

that NHTSA increase this allowance to 

2.5 seconds, based on the human 

response time to the sudden appearance 

of an opposing or preceding vehicle. 

ALNA agreed that it is appropriate to 

apply tolerances in order to cover onroad application and reflect variations 

in test ground conditions. 

SAE, Global, Ford, and the Alliance 

stated that in order to account for 

otherwise uncontrolled-for test 

variability, NHTSA should follow SAE 

J3069 such that the glare limits may be 

exceeded if the ADB illuminance does 

not exceed 125% of the lower beam 

illuminance from the vehicle measured 

under the same conditions. SAE, Global 

and Ford commented that this better 

represents real-world conditions and 

compensates for environmental factors 

such as dips and bumps in the road, 

reflectivity of lane markers, ambient 

light, and vehicle pitch. 

Global commented that the term 

‘‘spike’’ is not defined and 

recommended that it be defined relative 

to accommodating the natural behavior 

of certain headlamp light sources to 

have a ‘‘spike’’ of light intensity during 

the sequence of use. 

Global also pointed out that in the 

proposed regulatory text (‘‘no longer 

that 1 meter’’) ‘‘that’’ should be replace 

with ‘‘than.’’ 

Auto Innovators commented that the 

distance exceedance limit should be 

eliminated because specifying both a 

time and distance specification is 

duplicative, and timing is more relevant 

to real-world driving. 

Agency Response 

The final rule retains the 0.1 second 

component of the momentary glare 

exceedance allowance and adds (as 

discussed in the next section) an 

allowance for vehicle pitch. 

The momentary glare exceedance 

allowance accounts for testing-related 

variability caused by noise and 

uncontrolled test factors (such as 

uncontrolled ambient illuminance).164

NHTSA believes that 2.5 seconds is an 

inordinately long time for a 

‘‘momentary’’ exceedance, for the 

reasons discussed earlier.165 The agency 

also declines to follow SAE J3069 and 

allow ADB illuminance to exceed lower 

beam illuminance by up to 25%. The 

reasons for this are discussed in Section 

VIII.C.4, Maximum Illuminance Criteria 

(Glare Limits). NHTSA agrees with 

Global that there was a typographic 

error in the proposed S14.9.3.12.8.1 

(now at S14.9.3.12.2), which has been 

corrected in the final rule. The agency 

also agrees that even at the slowest test 

speed of 25 mph the limiting factor is 

time, not distance, and has removed 1 

m from the text as it serves no practical 

purpose. 

NHTSA is removing the term ‘‘spike’’ 

and replacing it with a clearer 

description of the adjustment: The 

agency will not consider, in determining 

compliance, ‘‘single illuminance values 

or consecutive illuminance values 

occurring over a span of no more than 

0.1 seconds that exceed the applicable 

maximum illuminance[.]’’ The 

momentary glare exceedance duration 

may end in at least two ways. First, the 

illuminance value can drop below the 

applicable glare limit. Second, the glare 

limit itself might change (i.e., increase). 

This could happen if the exceedance is 

experienced just before the glare limit 

changes. In either case, if the glare limit 

is not exceeded for more than 0.1 s, the 

exceedance will not be considered a 

noncompliance. 

e. Vehicle Pitch 

Pitch refers to rotation of a vehicle 

about its transverse axis appearing as an 

opposing vertical motion of the front 

and rear ends of a vehicle. When a 

vehicle’s pitch increases, the vehicle’s 

front end, and therefore the angle of its 

headlamps, will raise in an upward 

direction away from the road surface. 

Conversely, when pitch decreases, the 

vehicle’s front end will lower, and the 

headlamps light will be cast downward 

towards the road surface. 

The amount of glare perceived by 

other roadway users may be more 

pronounced when the headlamp is 

pitched upward. Common causes of 

changes in vehicle pitch angle include 

vehicle loading condition or weight 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 9975 

distribution, tire inflation that deviates 

from specifications, irregularities or 

pitting in the road surface, vehicle 

suspension characteristics, and vehicle 

acceleration. As mentioned above, the 

NPRM did not propose any adjustments 

to correct directly for or take vehicle 

pitch into account as part of the 

compliance track testing, although it 

specifically sought comment on this. 

In the IIHS test method, pitch effects 

are corrected by measuring road surface 

pitch changes through a self-leveling 

horizontal rotary laser system every 5 m 

along the test track surface. The pitch 

angles at each measured position are 

measured, and photometers placed at 

different heights provide the 

illuminance data for each measurement 

location. Once this illuminance data is 

collected, a pitch correction factor is 

calculated that is used to offset any 

exceedance of glare limits based on the 

roadway conditions. 

Comments 

As noted in the section above on 

allowances for momentary glare 

exceedances, several commenters noted 

the potential effect of vehicle pitch on 

test results. For this reason, Ford 

recommended NHTSA adopt the IIHS 

pitch correction protocol. Ford 

commented that pitch correction is 

essential to produce results that are 

independent of differences in vehicle 

suspensions and are repeatable at 

different test tracks and different 

locations on the test tracks themselves. 

Ford noted that dynamic testing makes 

illuminance more difficult to measure 

because throughout the driving event, 

the vehicle pitch changes and effects 

from instrumentation inaccuracies 

increase proportionately. On the other 

hand, Intertek claimed that pitch 

correction would not be necessary 

unless there is a sustained change in 

pitch longer than 0.1 seconds. 

Agency Response 

After analyzing the comments and its 

own testing NHTSA has modified the 

proposal by adding in an explicit 

allowance for pitch variation: The 

agency will not consider any 

illuminance measurements recorded 

while the vehicle pitch exceeds the 

average pitch recorded throughout the 

entire measurement distance range 

specified for that scenario by more than 

0.3 degrees. 

Although the NPRM did not propose 

any adjustments to directly take vehicle 

pitch into account, the NPRM requested 

comment on this issue. Further, the 

proposed test procedures controlled for 

the following factors that could affect 

pitch: 

• Vehicle loading and suspension— 

the headlamps will be aimed when the 

vehicle is loaded as it will be during 

testing, and the gas tank (if the vehicle 

is equipped with one) is maintained at 

lease three-quarters full. The tires will 

be within 1 psi of recommended cold 

pressure. 

• Road surface—the road surface 

must have an IRI measurement of less 

than 1.5 m/km. 

• Vehicle acceleration—the vehicle 

speed must be maintained within 1 mph 

of the target test speed throughout the 

test run. 

In addition to these procedures, as 

explained above, the proposal also 

contained an allowance for momentary 

glare exceedances that was intended to 

account for variations in illumination 

due to uncontrolled testing variables, 

including minor imperfections in the 

road surface that can cause glare 

exceedances by affecting vehicle pitch. 

Despite these specifications, NHTSA’s 

test data revealed two situations in 

which vehicle pitch still impacted 

measured illuminance and were not 

accounted for in the provisions listed 

above. 

First, NHTSA repeatedly observed 

small cyclical pitch changes related to 

road surface undulations, which 

affected illuminance measurements. For 

one example, see Figure 34. 

Here, where the maximum pitch 

occurs (at about 85 m), there is a peak 

in the illuminance reading. The highest 

illuminance value (at about 31 m) also 

coincides with a positive spike in pitch. 

(In these instances, the pitch did not 

exceed the average pitch by more than 

0.3 degrees, so if this were a compliance 

test, these values would still be 

considered when assessing compliance; 

in any case, in this instance, all 

illuminance values are still within the 

glare limits). 

To better understand the sources of 

the pitch oscillations identified in 

testing, NHTSA collected pitch 

information both when the test vehicle 

was moving, and when it was stationary 

at the same (or as close as possible) 

location on the test surface. See Table 7. 

The pitch measurements were similar, 

indicating that dynamic contributors 

were generally small. Accordingly, 

although the testing did not show any 

instances where pavement-related 

vehicle pitching led to a glare 

exceedance that would be excused 

through the final pitch variation 

allowance, the agency recognizes the 

possibility for this to occur and has thus 

accounted for pitch in the regulatory 

text. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2ER22FE22.032</GPH>

Figure 34. Fusion's lower beam 250 m left at 41 mph 

3.$ 

- OJI - •-toFllllln 

3 0,1 

2.5 OJI 

i 2 i® I,. iOA 

0.3 

0.5 1),2 ' 

0 0.1 1$0 100 50 0 1$0 100 liO 0 

Dislance(m) Dislance(m) 
9976 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

166Because the target speed had not yet been 

attained, had this been a compliance test, the 

measured illuminance value would not be having 

been considered in determining compliance. We 

also note that this glare exceedance lasted for more 

than 0.1 second, so it would not have been 

addressed with the momentary glare allowance. 

167NPRM, pp. 51789–51798. 

168A number of comments about repeatability 

were related to the proposal to use stimulus 

vehicles. Because the final rule does not use 

stimulus vehicles, we need not address those 

comments as the issue is moot. 

TABLE 7—VEHICLE PITCH IN STATIC

AND DYNAMIC STATES

Distance Pitch 

(deg.) 

Speed: 41 mph: 

148.982 .................................. 0.3 

119.254 .................................. 0.46 

59.605 .................................... 0.51 

29.926 .................................... 0.64 

15.145 .................................... 0.65 

Speed: 0 mph (static): 

149.058 .................................. 0.17 

119.274 .................................. 0.51 

TABLE 7—VEHICLE PITCH IN STATIC

AND DYNAMIC STATES—Continued 

Distance Pitch 

(deg.) 

59.650 .................................... 0.46 

29.939 .................................... 0.63 

15.152 .................................... 0.63 

Second, NHTSA observed pitch 

changes related to acceleration. For 

example, NHTSA tested the lower 

beams on the Fusion at 69 mph in a 

straight-path scenario. See Figure 35. 

When the vehicle reached the beginning 

of the illuminance measurement range 

(220 m) it had not yet attained the target 

speed, so it was still accelerating and 

pitching upward, resulting in an 

‘‘exceedance’’ of the applicable glare 

limit. The pitch of 1.1 degrees during 

the exceedance was greater than 0.3 

degrees over the average pitch of 0.68 

degrees. This shows that pitch in excess 

of the proposed allowance could lead to 

an exceedance of the glare limits.166

Based on these instances of vehicle 

pitch fluctuations impacting measured 

illuminance (due to either the road 

surface or acceleration), the final rule 

includes an allowance for vehicle pitch 

variation. NHTSA’s testing 

demonstrated that it is generally 

possible to maintain pitch within less 

than 0.3 degrees of the average pitch 

recorded throughout the entire 

measurement distance. We believe that 

no allowance for pitch, or a higher pitch 

variation allowance (e.g., ‘‘by no more 

than 0.4 degrees)—resulting in a more 

stringent test—could lead manufacturers 

to design headlamps providing suboptimal visibility (because 

manufacturers might aim the headlamps 

down to minimize the possible effects of 

pitch during a compliance test). 

We believe this adjustment 

methodology is preferable to the IIHS 

pitch correction procedure for the 

purposes of this rule. The IIHS test 

procedure relies on interpolation, which 

introduces inaccuracy (without knowing 

the linearity of the beam pattern). The 

final rule methodology does not 

interpolate but instead measures pitch 

directly. By controlling pitch to 0.3 

degrees or less and regulating 

performance only within that range, we 

are directly measuring the aspect of 

performance that matters to safety. The 

IIHS procedure also requires that the 

vehicle path be mapped with respect to 

pitch prior to running the test. The final 

rule procedure does not require this, 

which simplifies the test procedure. 

11. Repeatability 

The NPRM included an analysis of 

the repeatability of the test data from the 

2015 ADB Test report.167 That test data 

was based on the proposed test 

procedures, which utilized dynamic 

stimulus vehicles. 

Comments 

NHTSA received a variety of 

comments on the repeatability of the 

proposed test. One commenter, Intertek, 

agreed with NHTSA’s repeatability 

analysis. Other commenters expressed 

concerns that the proposed test 

procedures were not repeatable based 

upon the complexity of the proposed 

test procedures and a variety of test 

conditions that might affect 

repeatability. Commenters identified 

several factors they argued would 

adversely affect repeatability.168

Auto Innovators, MEMA, the 

Alliance, TSEI, and Volkswagen 

commented that the proposed track 

testing was overly complicated and 

expressed concerns that it would not 

lead to repeatable results. 

SAE commented generally that test 

results (both for tests conducted on the 

same track and for tests conducted on 

different tracks) would be sensitive to 

the environment because lighting 

measurements are affected by small 

changes in conditions. Other 

commenters echoed this and identified 

unspecified test conditions that they 

argued could introduce uncontrolled 

variability, causing acceptable levels of 

repeatability and reproducibility of the 

test scenarios to be extremely 

challenging to achieve, particularly 

given the stringency of the 

requirements. The Alliance and 

Volkswagen commented that, although 

the NPRM requires the photometers to 

be zero-calibrated to the ambient light, 

the ambient light can change throughout 

the data collection, introducing 

uncontrollable variability. Volkswagen 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2ER22FE22.033</GPH>

Figure 35. Example of application of vehicle pitch allowance 

3.6 - )W.Rlapeor-~ 1-0.-lng i.2-~--=-Pltch=.i::;( ;:lf.!.:w.=Dl:::..,:::-;::..:1<>::..:.Flxllft=::,x;:t--_~ 

3 1.1 

0.5 

0 200 150 200 150 100 50 0 

Dlalance (m) 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 9977 

169 2105 ADB Test Report, p. 172. 

170See Mazzae, E.N., Baldwin, G.H.S., Satterfield, 

K., & Browning, D.A. 2021. Adaptive Driving Beam 

Headlamps Test Repeatability Assessment. 

Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration. The discussion here is a summary 

of that report, which has been placed in the docket 

for this rulemaking. 

171NHTSA has used similar analyses before to 

assess the reliability and repeatability of test 

methods developed for FMVSS. As an example, 

refer to the test report ‘‘Repeatability, 

Reproducibility, and Sameness of Quiet Vehicle 

Test Data’’ supporting the development of FMVSS 

No. 141, Minimum sound level for hybrid and 

electric vehicles. See Docket number NHTSA– 

2016–0125–0006 at www.regulations.gov. 

also stated that the presence of reflectors 

in the environment may also cause 

variances by redirecting part of the test 

vehicle lights into the photometers. 

Volkswagen also commented that the 

NPRM only specified that there be no 

precipitation and a dry road surface, but 

other environmental conditions such as 

fog, dust, or pollution could affect 

results. TSEI identified variation in road 

materials and reflectivity, weather 

conditions, and road surface as other 

factors. Toyota identified the test 

vehicle’s suspension, tires, and 

acceleration/deceleration during the test 

as affecting repeatability; it stated that it 

is unclear whether any test track meets 

the ideal conditions specified in the 

proposal, and, if so, whether such a test 

track can be reasonably accessible to 

conduct compliance testing. 

Auto Innovators commented that to 

evaluate testing variability, one member 

company repeated a test series using a 

vehicle tested by FTTA and cited in the 

NPRM. The full test series was repeated 

under the same conditions using 

comparable measurement equipment. 

The commenter stated that, despite 

careful attention to test setup and test 

conditions, the results varied from those 

obtained by FTTA to the extent that the 

variation altered the compliance status 

of the vehicle. 

Agency Response 

The final rule substantially reduces 

the complexity of the test, especially by 

using test fixtures instead of stimulus 

vehicles and streamlining the test 

scenarios. Further, while it is true that 

lighting measurements can be sensitive 

to small changes in conditions, 

NHTSA’s testing has shown that 

measurement of headlamp illuminance 

using the whole vehicle, rather than a 

component-level test, can be 

accomplished in a repeatable 

manner.169 NHTSA has identified, and 

the test parameters and conditions 

specified in the final rule control for, 

the major sources of test-related 

variability, including vehicle pitch. This 

final rule also includes a data filter, 

which will smooth out the measured 

illuminance data, in addition to the 

proposed allowance for momentary 

glare exceedances, which should 

address any otherwise uncontrolled 

ambient illumination, among other 

things. 

NHTSA conducted a series of tests to 

determine the level of variability in the 

track test finalized today, as well as the 

SAE J3069 test method.170 To do this, 

NHTSA analyzed data from testing 

using the original-equipment lower 

beams on a FMVSS-certified 2016 Volvo 

XC90. Multiple runs of each test 

scenario were conducted to permit 

different types of repeatability analyses, 

including: Same night (gauge); different 

night (test procedure); and different 

headlamp aiming technician 

(reproducibility). Data from these test 

trials were analyzed for each 

measurement distance sub-range 

(interval), calculating the mean, 

standard deviation, 95% confidence 

interval, and 95% prediction interval.171

Sample results of Test Number 1 

(straight—oncoming) for the sub-range 

of 120 m to 220 m are shown below in 

Tables 8 through 10. (Throughout this 

section, ‘‘Test Number’’ refers to the 

scenario test numbers as reported in the 

repeatability report. Please see Table 1 

(NHTSA Test Matrix) in that report. The 

test scenarios in the repeatability report 

are the same as the test scenarios 

specified in Table XXII of this final rule, 

but the numbering of the test scenarios 

differs.) Data similar to this (i.e., 10 test 

repetitions, 10 separate test days, and 3 

headlamp aiming technicians) were 

collected for every final rule scenario. 

Testing with the lower beam headlamps 

activated (the test vehicle was not ADBequipped) allowed the agency to isolate 

variability to factors related to the test 

and to be certain that ADB performance 

itself did not contribute to variability. 

Oncoming and same direction data were 

collected during the same run, using 

receptor heads (i.e., light sensors) 

placed in the appropriate positions. 

TABLE 8—NHTSA TEST NO. 1, 220 M–120 M, GAUGE (MEASUREMENT SYSTEM) REPEATABILITY

Descriptive statistic 

Repetition 

(all in one 

night) 

Car 

eye point 

(lux) 

Cycle 

eye point 

(lux) 

Truck 

eye point 

(lux) 

Difference between pitch 

maximum (subrange) and pitch 

average (entire 

measurement distance) 

(degrees) 

1 0.0688 0.0751 0.0652 0.0900 

2 0.0666 0.0802 0.0602 0.1600 

3 0.0751 0.0724 0.0618 0.1400 

4 0.0665 0.0764 0.0560 0.1000 

5 0.0686 0.0675 0.0561 0.1100 

6 0.0711 0.0722 0.0599 0.1000 

7 0.0709 0.0730 0.0542 0.1100 

8 0.0830 0.0763 0.0590 0.1000 

9 0.0693 0.0822 0.0574 0.0900 

10 0.0736 0.0822 0.0625 0.1400 

Mean .............................................................................. ........................ 0.0714 0.0758 0.0592 ..............................

StdDev (S) ..................................................................... ........................ 0.0049 0.0048 0.0034 ..............................

Min ................................................................................. ........................ 0.0665 0.0675 0.0542 ..............................

Max ................................................................................ ........................ 0.0830 0.0822 0.0652 ..............................

95% C.I. Margin of Error (+/-) ........................................ ........................ 0.0035 0.0034 0.0024 ..............................

95% C.I. Upper Limit ..................................................... ........................ 0.0749 0.0791 0.0617 ..............................

95% C.I. Lower Limit ..................................................... ........................ 0.0678 0.0724 0.0568 ..............................

95% Prediction Interval Margin of Error (+/-) ................ ........................ 0.0117 0.0113 0.0080 ..............................


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
9978 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 8—NHTSA TEST NO. 1, 220 M–120 M, GAUGE (MEASUREMENT SYSTEM) REPEATABILITY—Continued 

Descriptive statistic 

Repetition 

(all in one 

night) 

Car 

eye point 

(lux) 

Cycle 

eye point 

(lux) 

Truck 

eye point 

(lux) 

Difference between pitch 

maximum (subrange) and pitch 

average (entire 

measurement distance) 

(degrees) 

95% P.I. Upper Limit ...................................................... ........................ 0.0831 0.0870 0.0673 ..............................

95% P.I. Lower Limit ...................................................... ........................ 0.0596 0.0645 0.0512 

TABLE 9—NHTSA TEST NO. 1, 220 M–120 M, TEST PROCEDURE REPEATABILITY

Descriptive statistic Repetition 

(one per night) 

Car 

eye point 

(lux) 

Cycle 

eye point 

(lux) 

Truck 

eye point 

(lux) 

Difference between pitch 

maximum (subrange) and pitch 

average (entire 

test 

number range) 

(degrees) 

1 0.0839 0.0905 0.0774 0.1048 

2 0.0847 0.0805 0.0564 0.1072 

3 0.0796 0.0857 0.0662 0.1030 

4 0.0713 0.0772 0.0522 0.1313 

5 0.0745 0.0865 0.0634 0.1061 

6 0.0777 0.0865 0.0614 0.1260 

7 0.0717 0.0745 0.0554 0.1226 

8 0.0794 0.0718 0.0559 0.1271 

9 0.0817 0.0884 0.0679 0.1210 

10 0.0815 0.0686 0.0581 0.0990 

Mean .............................................................................. ........................ 0.0786 0.0810 0.0614 ..............................

StdDev (S) ..................................................................... ........................ 0.0048 0.0076 0.0076 ..............................

Min ................................................................................. ........................ 0.0713 0.0686 0.0522 ..............................

Max ................................................................................ ........................ 0.0847 0.0905 0.0774 ..............................

95% C.I. Margin of Error (+/-) ........................................ ........................ 0.0034 0.0055 0.0054 ..............................

95% C.I. Upper Limit ..................................................... ........................ 0.0820 0.0865 0.0668 ..............................

95% C.I. Lower Limit ..................................................... ........................ 0.0752 0.0755 0.0560 ..............................

95% Prediction Interval Margin of Error (+/-) ................ ........................ 0.0113 0.0181 0.0179 ..............................

95% P.I. Upper Limit ...................................................... ........................ 0.0899 0.0991 0.0794 ..............................

95% P.I. Lower Limit ...................................................... ........................ 0.0673 0.0629 0.0435 

TABLE 10—NHTSA TEST NO. 1, 220 M–120 M, REPRODUCIBILITY

Descriptive statistic Aimer Repetition 

Car 

eye point 

(lux) 

Cycle 

eye point 

(lux) 

Truck 

eye point 

(lux) 

Difference between pitch 

maximum (subrange) and pitch 

average (entire 

test 

number range) 

(degrees) 

A 1 0.0545 0.0599 0.0578 0.1323 

B 1 0.0673 0.0672 0.0581 0.1522 

B 2 0.0658 0.0662 0.0556 0.0977 

C 1 0.0632 0.0631 0.0545 0.0983 

C 2 0.0676 0.0663 0.0540 0.1549 

Mean ............................................................... ........................ 0.0637 0.0645 0.0560 ..............................

StdDev (S) ...................................................... ........................ 0.0054 0.0030 0.0019 ..............................

The standard deviation is a 

measurement of the variation within the 

data set. The 95th percentile confidence 

interval is the estimate of the upper and 

lower illuminance values in which there 

is a 95% probability that the true mean 

falls within this interval. The 

confidence interval is calculated using 

the equation 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2ER22FE22.034</GPH>

C19s% = i ± to.975,n-1S i 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 9979 

172For example, if this analysis produces a 95% 

prediction interval of 0.180 lux and the limit is 1.8, 

a system with a true performance of 1.62 or less will 

have a 95% or greater probability of receiving a 

passing score if the agency were to do a compliance 

test, using a single run. 

Where the margin of error is 

calculated using t as the upper critical 

value for the t distribution with n-1 

degrees of freedom, S as the standard 

deviation, n as sample size. The 

confidence interval is then calculated by 

summing the mean (x) and the margin 

of error. The 95th percentile prediction 

interval is the estimate of the interval of 

which there is a 95% probability that 

future measurements will be within. 

The prediction interval is calculated 

using the equation: 

Where the margin of error is 

calculated using t as the upper critical 

value for the t distribution with n-1 

degrees of freedom, S as the standard 

deviation, and n as the sample size. The 

prediction interval is then calculated by 

summing the mean (x) and the margin 

of error. 

Note that CI95% and PI95% are 

dependent on the number of values 

collected (t0.975 is large for small sample 

sizes and decreases as more data are 

collected). That is to say, the more data 

collected for a distribution, the more 

confident we can be of where the true 

mean is located and where future 

measurement values will fall. While a 

standard deviation can be calculated for 

a very small sample size, CI and PI will 

be large for small samples, even if the 

population standard deviation is small. 

Taken together, the standard deviation 

and the prediction interval can be used 

to quantify the repeatability of the test 

procedure. The smaller the standard 

deviations and the tighter the prediction 

interval, the smaller the range of values 

we will expect future values to be 

within, indicating a tighter precision of 

measurement system. 

The magnitude of the prediction 

intervals can be used to determine how 

a vehicle with a similar headlighting 

system and beam pattern is likely to 

perform with respect to the glare limits. 

The prediction interval indicates the 

range within which a similar vehicle’s 

measured illuminance value is 95% 

likely to fall (5% chance of not falling 

within the range). If the upper end value 

of the prediction interval is less than the 

glare limit for a measurement distance 

sub-range, then a similar vehicle’s 

measured value is at least 95% likely to 

be less than the glare limit when tested 

by NHTSA.172 Because the repeatability 

of the measurement system and test 

procedure produced small standard 

deviations, the variability of the 

illuminance values should not differ 

substantially, even if the maximum 

illuminance value for other headlighting 

systems is higher. This assumption 

holds true provided the headlamp beam 

pattern under test demonstrates similar 

gradients in and around the 

measurement locations. 

Table 11 below pools the standard 

deviation for the oncoming straight and 

left curve scenarios (Test Number 

1,3,4,7—each of these tests provide 

similar means), and the same direction 

straight and left curve scenarios (Test 

Number 2,5), and lists the standard 

deviation observed for the oncoming 

right medium curve (Test Number 6) 

and oncoming-right large curve (Test 

Number 8) for each measurement 

distance sub-range. 

TABLE 11—TEST PROCEDURE: STANDARD DEVIATION RESULTS

NHTSA 

Oncoming NHTSA 

test numbers 

1, 3, 4, 7 

(lux) 

Same direction 

NHTSA test 

numbers 2, 5 

(lux) 

Oncoming right 

NHTSA test 

number 6 

(lux) 

Oncoming right 

NHTSA test 

number 8 

(lux) 

Measurement Distance Sub-Range: All standard deviations were at or below: 

220 m–120 m ................................................................... 0.0076 .............................. .............................. ..............................

150 m–120 m ................................................................... 0.0068 .............................. .............................. ..............................

119.9 m–60 m .................................................................. 0.0156 .............................. .............................. ..............................

100 m–60 m ..................................................................... .............................. 0.0153 .............................. ..............................

70 m–60 m ....................................................................... .............................. .............................. .............................. 0.5996 

59.9 m–30 m .................................................................... 0.0599 0.0494 .............................. 0.5921 

50 m–30 m ....................................................................... .............................. .............................. 0.9648 ..............................

29.9 m–15 m .................................................................... 0.0713 0.1324 0.0651 0.0602 

TABLE 12—PREDICTION INTERVAL MARGIN OF ERROR VALUES OF THE TEST PROCEDURE

[NHTSA Test] 

Measurement distance sub-range 

Glare 

limit 

(lux) 

Test number 

1 

Test number 

2 

Test number 

3 

Test number 

4 

Test number 

5 

Test number 

6 

Test number 

7 

Test number 

8 

95th Percentile Prediction Interval Car Eye Point/Passenger Side Mirror (Values in lux) 

220 m–120 m ........ 0.3 0.0113 (3.8%) ....................... ....................... ....................... ....................... ......................... 0.0128 (4.3%) 

150 m–120 m ........ 0.3 ....................... ....................... ....................... 0.0145 (4.8%) ....................... ......................... .......................

119.9 m–60 m ....... 0.6 0.0357 (6.0%) ....................... ....................... 0.0238 (4.0%) ....................... ......................... 0.0171 (2.9%) 

70 m–60 m ............ 0.6 ....................... ....................... ....................... ....................... ....................... ......................... ....................... 1.4225 (237%) * 

50 m–30 m ............ 1.8 ....................... ....................... ....................... ....................... ....................... 2.2890 (127%) * .......................

59.9 m –30 m ........ 1.8 0.0741 (4.1%) ....................... 0.0690 (3.8%) 0.0933 (5.2%) ....................... ......................... 0.0812 (4.5%) 1.4047 (78%) * 

29.9 m–15 m ......... 3.1 0.1436 (4.6%) ....................... 0.1672 (5.4%) 0.1693 (5.5%) ....................... 0.1534 (4.9%) 0.1637 (5.3%) 0.1427 (4.6%) 

100 m–60 m .......... 4.0 ....................... 0.0331 (0.8%) ....................... ....................... 0.0189 (0.5%) ......................... .......................


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2ER22FE22.035</GPH>

P 195% = :i ± to.975,n-1S ✓ 1 + (~) 
9980 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 12—PREDICTION INTERVAL MARGIN OF ERROR VALUES OF THE TEST PROCEDURE—Continued 

[NHTSA Test] 

Measurement distance sub-range 

Glare 

limit 

(lux) 

Test number 

1 

Test number 

2 

Test number 

3 

Test number 

4 

Test number 

5 

Test number 

6 

Test number 

7 

Test number 

8 

59.9 m–30 m ......... 18.9 ....................... 0.0963 (0.5%) ....................... ....................... 0.1121 (0.6%) ......................... .......................

29.9 m–15 m ......... 18.9 ....................... 0.2348 (1.2%) ....................... ....................... 0.3141 (1.7%) ......................... .......................

The prediction intervals shown in 

Table 12 are small compared to the 

limits that are finalized for each 

measurement distance sub-range. For 

instance, we found that within the subrange of 120 m to 220 m Test Number 

1 resulted in a prediction interval of 

0.0113 lux as compared to the limit of 

0.3 lux. This interval represents 3.8% of 

the limit. 

Both measurement system (gauge) 

repeatability results and full test 

repeatability results revealed NHTSA 

test scenarios involving right curves 

(Test Numbers 6 and 8) to be less 

repeatable than the other test scenarios 

(marked with * in the table). 

Unsurprisingly, these two scenarios 

showed a pattern of higher standard 

deviations with respect to the other 

NHTSA test scenarios. SAE Test Drive 

3, in which the test fixture was located 

to the right of the test vehicle also 

showed a pattern of higher standard 

deviations as compared to the other 

scenarios. As is the case with many U.S. 

vehicle lower beam headlamps, the 

2016 Volvo XC90 lamps produced beam 

patterns with a higher right-side 

horizontal cutoff. The variability of 

measurements recorded on the right 

side of the vehicle (right curve 

scenarios) is attributable to the cutoff at 

the right portion of the headlamp 

pattern of this vehicle projecting near 

the location of the lower-mounted light 

sensors. The lower beam headlamps 

tested in this repeatability study 

exceeded the glare limits for these twomeasurement distance sub-ranges as 

well. An ADB pattern designed to meet 

the requirements finalized today will 

need to provide a greater angular 

distance between the cutoff and the 

light sensors to meet the minimum glare 

requirements as described earlier in the 

right curve discussion. With such a 

design, the agency anticipates that 

similar repeatability will be obtained for 

right curves as was demonstrated for the 

other scenarios. 

Breaking down the 8 NHTSA test 

scenarios by measurement distance subrange and measurement points (light 

sensor locations) gives a total of 99 data 

points. The finalized test method found 

the same pass/fail results for 97 of the 

99 data points in every one of the 10 test 

procedure repetitions. For the vehicle’s 

lower beam headlamps under test, 94 of 

those data points, without fail, were 

under the glare limit criteria and 3 of 

the data points consistently exceeded 

the glare limits. The vehicle consistently 

failed to meet the glare criteria for Test 

Number 6 (medium right curve) at the 

car eye point for the sub-range 50 m–30 

m. It also consistently failed to meet the 

glare criterion for Test Number 8 (Large 

Right Curve) at the Car Eye and Cycle 

Eye point for the sub-range 70 m–60 m. 

The 2 data points with inconsistent 

results (sometimes the test reported that 

the vehicle met the criteria and other 

times it reported a failure) were also 

found on these two right curve tests. 

Test Number 6 had mixed results at the 

cycle eye point for the sub-range 50 m– 

30 m and Test Number 8 had mixed 

results at the car eye point for the subrange 59.9 m–30 m. As discussed above, 

we do not expect any mixed results for 

an ADB beam pattern designed to meet 

the track test finalized today. 

NHTSA also conducted testing to 

examine the possibility of variability 

introduced by different technicians 

visually aiming the headlamps. This 

reproducibility analysis examined the 

effects of three different technicians 

performing headlamp aiming prior to 

running a test set. This analysis found 

only small differences in illuminance 

measurements between datasets 

associated with different headlamp 

aiming operators. The pooled standard 

deviations for each orientation are 

shown in Table 13 below. 

TABLE 13—REPRODUCIBILITY: STANDARD DEVIATION RESULTS

Oncoming NHTSA 

test numbers 

1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 

(lux) 

Same direction 

NHTSA test 

numbers 2, 5 

(lux) 

Measurement Distance Sub-Range: All standard deviations were below: 

220 m–120 m ....................................................................................................................................... 0.0055 ..............................

150 m–120 m ....................................................................................................................................... 0.0069 ..............................

119.9 m–60 m ...................................................................................................................................... 0.0123 ..............................

100 m–60 m ......................................................................................................................................... N/A 0.0153 

70 m–60 m ........................................................................................................................................... 0.0122 ..............................

59.9 m–30 m ........................................................................................................................................ 0.0366 0.0521 

50 m–30 m ........................................................................................................................................... 0.0355 ..............................

29.9 m–15 m ........................................................................................................................................ 0.0933 0.1264 

NHTSA also assessed the repeatability 

of the SAE J3069 test (Table 14). We 

found that the SAE test resulted in similar variability of both measured 

illuminance and test outcomes. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2

I I 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 9981 

173For a general explanation of the laboratory 

photometry requirements, see the NPRM at p. 

51770. 

TABLE 14—TEST PROCEDURE: STANDARD DEVIATION RESULTS

NHTSA 

Oncoming NHTSA 

test numbers 

1, 3, 4, 7 

(lux) 

Same direction 

NHTSA test 

numbers 2, 5 

(lux) 

Oncoming right 

NHTSA test 

number 6 

(lux) 

Oncoming right 

NHTSA test 

number 8 

(lux) 

Measurement Distance Sub-Range: All standard deviations were at or below: 

220 m–120 m ................................................................... 0.0076 .............................. .............................. ..............................

150 m–120 m ................................................................... 0.0068 .............................. .............................. ..............................

119.9 m–60 m .................................................................. 0.0156 .............................. .............................. ..............................

100 m–60 m ..................................................................... .............................. 0.0153 .............................. ..............................

70 m–60 m ....................................................................... .............................. .............................. .............................. 0.5996 

59.9 m–30 m .................................................................... 0.0599 0.0494 .............................. 0.5921 

50 m–30 m ....................................................................... .............................. .............................. 0.9648 ..............................

29.9 m–15 m .................................................................... 0.0713 0.1324 0.0651 0.0602 

SAE 

Oncoming SAE 

test drives 1, 2 

(lux) 

Preceding SAE 

test drives 

10, 11, 12 

(lux) 

Oncoming SAE 

test drive 3 

(lux) 

Preceding SAE 

test drive 12 

(lux) 

Measurement Distance: All standard deviations were at or below: 

155 .................................................................................... 0.0141 0.0228 0.1234 0.1436 

120 .................................................................................... 0.0132 0.0231 0.1489 0.1909 

60 ...................................................................................... 0.0219 0.0226 0.2464 0.3020 

30 ...................................................................................... 0.0380 0.0341 0.0413 0.3503 

D. Laboratory (Component-Level) 

Testing 

1. Need for Laboratory Testing 

The NPRM proposed that an ADB 

system would also be subject to the 

existing component-level laboratorybased upper and lower beam 

photometry requirements. With respect 

to the adaptive beam, the NPRM 

proposed that an area of reduced 

intensity meet the applicable Table XIX 

lower beam photometry requirements 

(maxima and minima), and that an area 

of unreduced intensity meet the 

applicable Table XVIII upper beam 

photometry requirements. The NPRM 

proposed that when the ADB system is 

producing a lower beam, that beam be 

subject to all the Table XIX lower beam 

requirements, and when producing an 

upper beam, the beam be subject to all 

the Table XVIII upper beam photometric 

requirements. The NPRM proposed to 

require that the system provide only a 

lower beam when the vehicle is 

travelling less than 25 mph (unless 

overridden by the driver).173

This differed from SAE J3069 in some 

respects. SAE J3069 only specifies that 

the lower beam maxima are not 

exceeded within the area of reduced 

intensity, and that the lower beam 

minima be met in the area of unreduced 

intensity. (These provisions reference 

the relevant SAE photometric standards; 

the proposal instead appropriately 

referenced the upper and lower beam 

photometric requirements in Tables 

XVIII and XIX of the standard.) 

Comments 

Some commenters supported the 

inclusion of at least some laboratory 

testing requirements. AAA and Intertek 

supported applying the existing upper 

beam photometric requirements to the 

upper beam, Consumer Reports 

supported requiring that the part of the 

adaptive beam that is cast near other 

vehicles not exceed the current lower 

beam maxima, and the part of the 

adaptive beam that is cast onto 

unoccupied roadway not exceed the 

current upper beam maxima. Consumer 

Reports also supported applying the 

lower beam minima to areas of reduced 

intensity and the upper beam minima to 

areas of unreduced intensity. Zoox 

supported applying the existing 

laboratory requirements to the upper 

and lower beams. 

In contrast, both SAE and Global 

disagreed that photometric component 

testing is necessary in addition to 

vehicle testing. SAE explained that, 

when SAE J3069 was published, 

component level testing was included as 

an additional metric to aid in lamp 

manufacturers’ process controls and 

also because it is a familiar compliance 

method. The SAE J3069 rationale 

accordingly explained that, if vehiclelevel testing of ADB systems were to be 

included in FMVSS No. 108, ‘‘any need 

for laboratory photometric requirements 

may be reconsidered for removal.’’ SAE 

therefore requested that the final rule 

not include component testing. 

Agency Response 

The final rule retains the laboratory 

testing requirements because the fullvehicle track test alone may not be 

sufficient to ensure that an ADB system 

provides adequate visibility and does 

not glare other vehicles, as discussed 

further below. Accordingly, the final 

rule applies the existing laboratory 

testing requirements to any beam an 

ADB system may provide (a lower beam, 

an upper beam, or an adaptive driving 

beam). (The different types of beams 

classified in the final rule are discussed 

in Section VIII.D.2.) 

The full vehicle track test and the 

laboratory-based component test are 

complementary. The full vehicle 

dynamic track test only evaluates glare; 

it does not evaluate visibility. The final 

requirements include laboratory testing 

requirements that ensure that the ADB 

system always provides the driver with 

a minimum level of visibility. 

The laboratory testing requirements 

generally assure adequate visibility by 

specifying minimum levels of light at 

certain locations (test points) that 

roughly correspond to different 

locations on the road. As explained in 

Section VIII.D.2, we have modified the 

proposal to give manufacturers greater 

flexibility in determining which areas of 

the roadway receive an area of reduced 

intensity or an area of unreduced 

intensity. For the former, the 

appropriate minimum visibility is the 

applicable lower beam minima; for the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
9982 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

174This 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. 

175Or 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. 

latter, the appropriate minimum 

visibility is the applicable upper beam 

minima. Similarly, the lower beam 

minima indicate the appropriate 

minimum visibility for the lower beam, 

and the upper beam minima for the 

upper beam. 

Laboratory testing will complement 

the track test to minimize glare to other 

vehicles. The laboratory testing 

requirements minimize glare by 

specifying photometric maxima at 

certain test points. The track test 

evaluates whether an ADB system glares 

a test fixture in specific scenarios. While 

the final track test requirements 

encompass many common scenarios 

(e.g., a single oncoming vehicle in the 

adjacent lane), they do not test every 

conceivable scenario. Laboratory testing 

will therefore help serve as a backstop 

to the track test. Moreover, the track test 

evaluates glare out to 220 meters. 

Extremely bright upper beams (for 

example, an ECE-approved upper beam 

that exceeds the current FMVSS No. 108 

75,000 cd upper beam maximum) could 

create glare further than this distance. 

The laboratory testing requirements will 

therefore also ensure that upper beams 

are not exceedingly bright. (Indeed, if 

the current upper beam maxima did not 

apply to the upper beam of an ADB 

system, upper beam maximum intensity 

would effectively be unregulated). 

Accordingly, the final rule specifies that 

the lower beam and an area of reduced 

intensity must not exceed any 

applicable Table XIX (lower beam) 

maxima, and the upper beam and areas 

of unreduced intensity must not exceed 

any applicable Table XVIII (upper beam) 

maxima. 

2. Definitions of Areas of Reduced and 

Unreduced Intensity 

The NPRM proposed (in S9.4.1.6.6–.7) 

that ‘‘when the system is producing a 

lower beam with an area of reduced 

light intensity designed to be directed 

towards oncoming or preceding 

vehicles, and an area of unreduced 

intensity in other directions,’’ the 

system must meet the Table XIX (lower 

beam) photometric requirements within 

the area of reduced intensity and the 

Table XVIII (upper beam) photometric 

requirements in the within the area of 

unreduced intensity. The proposed rule 

did not otherwise define the areas of 

reduced and unreduced intensity. 

Comments 

Several commenters suggested 

clarifications to the definitions or 

references to the areas of reduced and 

unreduced intensity. ALNA, Zoox, and 

Valeo commented that the definitions of 

the area of reduced intensity and/or area 

or unreduced intensity were unclear. 

Mercedes suggested expanding the 

definition of the area of reduced 

intensity to include portions of the 

roadway other than those occupied by 

other vehicles because sophisticated 

ADB systems are capable of dimming 

areas of the beam pattern directed 

towards retroreflective signs or wet road 

surfaces in order to minimize glare to 

the driver. Stanley requested 

confirmation that the area of reduced 

intensity corresponds to the windshield 

area of an oncoming vehicle and the 

area of unreduced intensity refers to the 

area outside of the area of reduced 

intensity. Ford suggested edits to clarify 

the regulatory text setting out the 

dimmed and undimmed area 

requirements. It suggested that instead 

of referring to the lower beam, the 

regulatory text refer to the ‘‘adaptive 

driving beam,’’ and suggested 

rearranging the regulatory text. Valeo 

similarly commented that classifying 

the adaptive beam as a lower beam is 

misleading because it is actually a 

modified driving or upper beam and 

suggested including a definition of 

‘‘adaptive driving beam.’’ Intertek 

suggested requiring that the system emit 

a base 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 

detected the emitted beam is a 

compliant upper beam. This would, it 

contended, ensure that the augmented 

lower beam is always compliant to the 

applicable lower beam photometry 

requirements. Zoox commented that the 

NPRM appeared to assume that the 

adaptive beam is a defined, static beam 

pattern that is generated based on 

camera recognition of oncoming or 

preceding traffic. It stated that the 

laboratory test requirements should be 

technology neutral with respect to the 

manner and method of controlling and 

producing an adaptive beam. 

Some commenters requested that the 

agency establish more specific 

laboratory test requirements. Zoox 

commented that the proposed laboratory 

test requirements were not clear on how 

to determine which portion of an 

adaptive beam is to be checked against 

the lower beam or upper beam minima 

and maxima. For example, a system may 

progressively dim an LED array across 

the headlamp width as vehicle distance 

closes for oncoming traffic. The ADB 

pattern may also differ for oncoming 

versus preceding traffic. Zoox requested 

clarification of which test 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. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 9983 

176This will include, as requested by Auto 

Innovators, calibration of any sensors required for 

ADB system performance in the laboratory prior to 

testing. 

177We 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 noncompliance, could potentially be a safety-related 

defect. 

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: 

D The adaptive driving beam must be 

designed to conform to the track test 

requirements. 

D For speeds below 20 mph, the 

system must provide only lower beams 

(unless manually overridden). 

D In an area of reduced intensity, the 

adaptive driving beam must be designed 

to conform to the Table XIX (lower 

beam) photometry requirements. 

D In an area of unreduced intensity, 

the adaptive driving beam must be 

designed to conform to the Table XVIII 

(upper beam) photometry requirements. 

D 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. 

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

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
9984 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

178See SAE J599 Lighting Inspection Code. 

179Letter 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). 

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 onvehicle aim of the headlamps, much as 

it is currently addressed.178

Manufacturers might also be able to 

further minimize glare if they use onvehicle 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. 

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 9985 

180SAE 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. 

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. 

improvements enabled by highresolution 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. 

IIHS commented that, for properlyfunctioning 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 safetyenhancing 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

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
9986 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

183See NPRM n. 75 and accompanying text. 

184The 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. 

185NHTSA’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. 

186Most 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 systemlevel 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’’). 

187While 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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 9987 

188SAE stated that these recommendations are 

also intended to address the veiling glare issue. See 

Section VIII.D.6, Veiling Glare. 

189SAE 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. 

190SAE comment (NHTSA–2018–0090–0167), p. 

6 (Fig. 2). 

191 Id. 

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 S9.4.1.6.6–.7.188 Some 

of SAE’s suggestions were echoed by 

other commenters. Global suggested that 

the final rule should allow for a midbeam 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. 

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. 

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 6.22.6.3 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 S14.2.5.5) 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. 

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. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
9988 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

192SAE 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. 

The purpose of these test points 

controlling veiling glare is to limit backscatter 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

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 highresolution 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 9989 

193Toyota 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. 

195 DOT HS 811 043 (2008) at I–9 (citing and 

discussing research). 

196See 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.’’). 

197See 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.’’). 

198While 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. 

199A 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. 

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). 

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. 

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. 

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

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. 

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
9990 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

200The 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. 

201SAE J3069 S6.8 and discussion at p. 2. 

202We 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). 

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. 

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 

S9.4.1.2. Zoox recommended that this 

requirement apply only to systems 

certified to S9.4.1.5.The proposed failsafe 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 S9.4.1.6.2 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 S9.4.1.3, 

S9.4.1.6.1 and S9.4.1.6.2 are very 

similar and may be duplicative. It 

recommended that a system certified to 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 9991 

203The term ‘‘manual’’ in this definition, as well 

as in S9.4.1.2 and S9.4.1.3, has a general meaning 

that encompasses both hand-operated and footoperated 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.’’). 

204For 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 S6.1.5.2, the 

lower and upper beams must not be energized 

simultaneously except momentarily for temporary 

signaling purposes or during switching between 

beams.’’ 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. 

205See S6.1.5.2, S9.4, Table I–a, and Table II. 

S9.4.1.5 must meet S9.4.1.3 for fail-safe 

operation, while a system certified to 

S9.4.1.6 must meet S9.4.1.6.1 and .2 for 

fail-safe operation. Further, instead of 

using ‘‘shall work in manual mode’’ in 

S9.4.1.6.2, 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

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 failsafe 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, 

S14.2.5.4 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. 

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 S9.4.1.3, 

S9.4.1.6.1, and S.9.4.1.6.2, the agency 

does not believe these provisions are 

duplicative. The longstanding 

requirements for semiautomatic beam 

switching devices at S9.4.1.3 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 

S9.4.1.6.1 nor S9.4.1.6.2 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. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
9992 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

206See Section VIII.D, Laboratory (ComponentLevel) Testing. 

207See Section VIII.E, Minimum Activation 

Speed. 

208Honda’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. 

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 highresolution 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 highdefinition 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 S9.4.1.1 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 performancebased 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

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 ‘‘midbeam’’ 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 9993 

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. 

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 

14.9.3.11 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 S14.9.3.11), 

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 highmounted 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 

S6.1.3.5.1 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 highvolume vehicles. Toyota suggested that 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
9994 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

209See S9.4.1.6.8 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. 210 49 U.S.C. 30115. 

211S3.3 (the standard applies to ‘‘[l]amps, 

reflective devices, and associated equipment for 

replacement of like equipment on vehicles to which 

this standard applies.’’). 

212S6.7.1.1. 

213S6.7.1.2. 

214 49 U.S.C. 30115; Letter from NHTSA to George 

Van Straten, Van Straten Heated Tail Light Co., Inc. 

(Aug. 11, 1989). 

215S3.3. 

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. 

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 

S9.4.1.6.8) 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 S9.4.1.6.5) 

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 S9.4.1.6.8 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

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 costprohibitive, 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 9995 

216See 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.’’) 

217 82 FR 42720 (Docket No. NHTSA–2017–0018). 

218 83 FR 12650 (Docket No. NHTSA–2017–0018). 

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

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. 

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 straightpath 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
9996 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

219The comment cited the Memorandum of 

Understanding Between the Treasury Board of 

Canada Secretariat and OIRA Regarding the 

Canada-United States Regulatory Cooperation 

Council, June 4, 2018. 

220National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995, Public Law 104–113, 

12(d)(1), 110 Stat. 775 (1996). 

221 Id. at § 12(d)(3). 

222Office 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). 

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 crossborder 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. 

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

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 limits throughout the measurement 

range specified for each scenario.

Applies the glare limits only at 30 m, 60 m, 120 m, 

and 155 m. 

Fixture lighting .......................... Specifies actual vehicle lamp. ................................... Specifies lamp assemblies intended to simulate vehicle lamps. 

Test track geometry ................. Specifies actual curves of various sizes ................... Specifies a straight path and uses fixture placement 

to simulate curves. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 9997 

223See Chrysler Corp. v. Dept. of Transp., 472 

F.2d 659, 676 (6th Cir. 1972) (construing 

‘‘objective’’). 

224NHTSA 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). 

225For additional information, see the NPRM, pp. 

51799–51801. 226There 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. 

TABLE 15—SUMMARY OF MAJOR DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE FINAL RULE AND SAE J3069—Continued 

Test elements Final rule SAE J3069 

Compliance criteria .................. Specifies allowances for momentary glare and vehicle pitch fluctuations.Allows measured illuminance to exceed an applicable glare limit if it does not exceed 125% of the 

lower beam illuminance under the same conditions. 

Specifications related to 

smoothness of road surface.

Specifies vehicle pitch allowance .............................. Recommends the test track have an International 

Roughness Index of less than 1.5 m/km. 

Laboratory Test: 

Area of reduced intensity ......... Specifies lower beam (Table XIX) minima and maxima.Specifies lower beam maxima. 

Area of unreduced intensity ..... Specifies upper beam (Table XVIII) minima and 

maxima.

Specifies lower beam minima. 

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). 

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

Comments 

With regard to allowing the 

introduction of ADB systems, as noted 

earlier, all the industry and publicinterest 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
9998 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

227Comment 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.). 

232As 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. 

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. 

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. 

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 difficult 

to precisely determine the risk from 

glare; that pedestrian fatalities are on 

the rise; and therefore that improved 

visibility could help to address this 

trend. Nevertheless, in the absence of 

empirical evidence to the contrary, the 

agency still believes that glare poses a 

non-trivial safety risk that justifies some 

departures from the SAE standard. 

NHTSA agrees with the commenters 

that the proposed track test to evaluate 

glare was too stringent in a couple of 

ways. First, the proposed track test 

somewhat overemphasized glare at the 

expense of visibility. This includes that 

lower beams that currently comply with 

FMVSS No. 108 may not have complied 

with some of the proposed scenarios. 

NHTSA also recognizes that the 

proposed requirements may have led 

manufacturers to tune ADB systems to 

be overly conservative in order to have 

acceptable compliance margins, 

potentially diminishing the visibility 

benefits that ADB can provide. Second, 

the agency agrees that the proposed 

track test procedure included redundant 

scenarios, and that the final rule can 

more closely follow SAE J3069 without 

sacrificing the evaluative power of the 

test. 

The modifications we have made to 

the proposal address those issues 

regarding stringency. The most 

important of the modifications are the 

reduced number of test scenarios and 

the specification of stationary test 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 9999 

233 72 FR 68234 (Dec. 4, 2007). This was an 

administrative rewrite; it did not impose any new 

substantive requirements on manufacturers. 

234See Appendix A in the NPRM. Toyota’s 

rulemaking petition also includes a target 

population analysis using a different methodology. 

Letter from Tom Stricker, Toyota Motor North 

America, Inc. to NHTSA, Appendix D (Mar. 29, 

2013). 

fixtures instead of dynamic stimulus 

vehicles to follow SAE J3069 more 

closely and reduce the complexity of 

testing. However, the final track test 

procedure continues to depart from SAE 

J3069 in a few ways, especially in that 

it retains the use of curved test path 

scenarios and uses fixtures fitted with 

actual vehicle lamps. The agency 

believes that the final test scenarios are 

efficient yet sufficient to determine 

whether an ADB system prevents glare 

to other motorists, and that the final rule 

strikes an appropriate balance between 

visibility and glare prevention, and 

between safety and practicability. The 

reasons for the agency’s specific choices 

are explained earlier in the preamble. 

NHTSA believes the final rule is 

neither cost-prohibitive nor 

impracticable compared to the 

alternatives. As explained in Section 

VIII.O (Regulatory Alternatives), design 

and development costs will not 

significantly differ from those that 

would have been incurred by 

compliance with the SAE or ECE 

standards. On the other hand, with 

respect to AAA’s comment that the final 

rule be technology-forcing, NHTSA 

believes the final rule is somewhat 

technology forcing with respect to glare: 

While the requirements are generally 

within the capabilities of current ADB 

system, there are some respects in 

which tested ADB performance fell 

short (for example, appropriately 

responding to the motorcycle fixture). 

ADB systems may therefore need to be 

improved or modified to certify to some 

aspects of the requirements. With 

respect to visibility, the final rule does 

depart from SAE J3069 in requiring the 

lower beam minima in an area of 

reduced intensity and the upper beam 

minima in an area of unreduced 

intensity. 

With respect to the comments about 

market incentives to mitigate glare, 

NHTSA does not doubt that OEMs are 

attentive to owner concerns but believes 

that vehicle owners are less likely to 

notify OEMs about issues with glaring 

other motorists. Manufacturers pointed 

to the lack of warranty claims or vehicle 

owner complaints about glare issues 

(and Volkswagen noted that it has not 

received any owner complaints about 

ADB systems causing glare). Of course, 

this could indicate that there are no 

glare issues, but it also could indicate 

that glare issues go unreported. In any 

case, the fact that glare is largely an 

externality would seem to make glare 

mitigation less likely to be incentivized 

by market signals. 

NHTSA also believes that the final 

component-level laboratory testing 

requirements strike an appropriate 

balance between visibility and glare. In 

particular, the agency believes (and the 

comments did not convince us 

otherwise) that specifying the lower 

beam photometric minima for areas of 

reduced intensity and the upper beam 

minima in areas of unreduced intensity 

are important for guaranteeing a 

minimum level of visibility. Conversely, 

as discussed earlier in the preamble, it 

is important to specify the current upper 

beam maximum for areas of unreduced 

intensity. 

IX. Appendix to FMVSS No. 108 (Table 

of Contents) 

When NHTSA re-wrote FMVSS No. 

108 (the final rule for which was 

published in 2007), it added an 

appendix that contained a table of 

contents for the standard.233 The Office 

of the Federal Register no longer allows 

appendices to sections, and § 571.108 is 

the only section in Part 571 to have a 

table of contents. Because the appendix 

may be a useful aid to users of the 

standard, rather than simply deleting 

the appendix NHTSA is moving it to the 

end of subpart B of Part 571. 

X. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices 

Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 

13563, and DOT Regulatory Policies and 

Procedures 

We have considered the potential 

impact of this final rule under Executive 

Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, 

and DOT Order 2100.6A. This final rule 

is not significant and so was not 

reviewed by OMB under E.O. 12866 and 

is not of special note to the Department 

under DOT Order 2100.6A. Pursuant to 

E.O. 12866 and the Department’s 

policies, we have identified the problem 

this rule addresses, assessed the benefits 

and costs, and considered alternatives. 

These analyses have been provided in 

preceding sections of the preamble; 

benefits and costs are summarized in 

Section VIII.P. As explained below, 

NHTSA has determined that quantifying 

the benefits and costs is not practicable 

for this rulemaking. 

Quantifying the benefits of the rule— 

the decrease in deaths and injuries due 

to the greater visibility made possible by 

ADB—is difficult because of a variety of 

data limitations related to accurately 

estimating the target population and the 

effectiveness of ADB systems (as well as 

the potential penetration rate of ADB 

systems). For example, headlamp state 

(on-off, upper-lower beam) is not 

reflected in the data for many pedestrian 

crashes. Nevertheless, in the NPRM we 

attempted to broadly estimate the 

magnitude of the target population.234

Quantification of costs is similarly not 

practicable. The only currently-available 

ADB systems are in foreign markets 

such as Europe. We believe, as 

explained in the discussion of 

regulatory alternatives and elsewhere in 

the preamble, that an ECE-approved 

ADB system (modified to have FMVSS 

108-compliant photometry) would, with 

some further modifications, be able to 

comply with the rule’s requirements 

(see the discussion of regulatory 

alternatives). For the reasons explained 

in detail in the preamble, we believe 

that the final requirements are generally 

within the capabilities of existing ADB 

systems, although some adjustments 

might be necessary. We also note that 

this final rule does not require 

manufacturers to equip their vehicles 

with ADB systems. The requirements of 

this final rule specify minimum 

performance requirements for the 

lighting systems that only apply if 

manufacturers choose to equip vehicles 

with ADB systems. 

Although NHTSA has concluded that 

quantification of costs and benefits is 

not practicable, we have qualitatively 

assessed the benefits and costs of the 

final rule. As we explain in Section 

VIII.P, Overview of Benefits and Costs, 

we believe the final rule appropriately 

balances benefits and costs and that the 

net benefits of the final rule are greater 

compared to both the status quo in 

which ADB systems are not deployed 

and if we adopted SAE J3069 in every 

respect. 

Executive Order 13609: Promoting 

International Regulatory Cooperation 

The policy statement in section 1 of 

Executive Order 13609 provides that the 

regulatory approaches taken by foreign 

governments may differ from those 

taken by the United States to address 

similar issues, and that in some cases 

the differences between them might not 

be necessary and might impair the 

ability of American businesses to export 

and compete internationally. It further 

recognizes that in meeting shared 

challenges involving health, safety, and 

other issues, international regulatory 

cooperation can identify approaches 

that are at least as protective as those 

that are or would be adopted in the 

absence of such cooperation and can 

reduce, eliminate, or prevent 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
10000 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

235 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C). 

unnecessary differences in regulatory 

requirements. 

This rule is different than comparable 

foreign regulations. For the reasons 

described in this preamble, these 

differences are justified because they 

have the potential to enhance safety. 

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

NHTSA has examined this rule 

pursuant to Executive Order 13132 (64 

FR 43255; Aug. 10, 1999) and concluded 

that no additional consultation with 

States, local governments, or their 

representatives is mandated beyond the 

rulemaking process. The agency has 

concluded that the rule does not have 

sufficient federalism implications to 

warrant consultation with State and 

local officials or the preparation of a 

federalism summary impact statement. 

The rule does not have ‘‘substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government.’’ 

NHTSA rules can have preemptive 

effect in two ways. First, the National 

Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act 

contains an express preemption 

provision: When a motor vehicle safety 

standard is in effect under this chapter, 

a State or a political subdivision of a 

State may prescribe or continue in effect 

a standard applicable to the same aspect 

of performance of a motor vehicle or 

motor vehicle equipment only if the 

standard is identical to the standard 

prescribed under this chapter. 49 U.S.C. 

30103(b)(1). It is this statutory command 

by Congress that preempts any nonidentical State legislative and 

administrative law address the same 

aspect of performance. 

The express preemption provision 

described above is subject to a savings 

clause under which ‘‘[c]compliance 

with a motor vehicle safety standard 

prescribed under this chapter does not 

exempt a person from liability at 

common law.’’ 49 U.S.C. 30103(e). 

Pursuant to this provision, State 

common law tort causes of action 

against motor vehicle manufacturers 

that might otherwise be preempted by 

the express preemption provision are 

generally preserved. However, the 

Supreme Court has recognized the 

possibility, in some instances, of 

implied preemption of State common 

law tort causes of action by virtue of 

NHTSA’s rules—even if not expressly 

preempted. 

This second way that NHTSA rules 

can preempt is dependent upon the 

existence of an actual conflict between 

an FMVSS and the higher standard that 

would effectively be imposed on motor 

vehicle manufacturers if someone 

obtained a State common law tort 

judgment against the manufacturer— 

notwithstanding the manufacturer’s 

compliance with the NHTSA standard. 

Because most NHTSA standards 

established by an FMVSS are minimum 

standards, a State common law tort 

cause of action that seeks to impose a 

higher standard on motor vehicle 

manufacturers will generally not be 

preempted. However, if and when such 

a conflict does exist—for example, when 

the standard at issue is both a minimum 

and a maximum standard—the State 

common law tort cause of action is 

impliedly preempted. See Geier v. 

American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 

861 (2000). 

Pursuant to Executive Order 13132, 

NHTSA has considered whether this 

rule could or should preempt State 

common law causes of action. The 

agency’s ability to announce its 

conclusion regarding the preemptive 

effect of one of its rules reduces the 

likelihood that preemption will be an 

issue in any subsequent tort litigation. 

To this end, the agency has examined 

the nature (e.g., the language and 

structure of the regulatory text) and 

objectives of this rule and does not 

foresee any potential State requirements 

that might conflict with it. We note that 

many or most States have laws that 

regulate lower and upper beam use. 

These laws require that a motorist use 

a lower beam within a certain distance 

of an oncoming or preceding vehicle. 

We do not believe that there is a conflict 

between the rule and these laws. A 

vehicle equipped with a compliant and 

properly functioning ADB system 

should not glare other vehicles. 

Moreover, the rule requires an ADBequipped vehicle to provide the driver 

with a means of manually overriding the 

automatically provided beam. 

Therefore, if, for any reason the driver 

determines that the automatically 

provided beam is not appropriate, the 

driver can manually switch to the 

appropriate beam (e.g., lower beam). 

NHTSA does not intend this rule to 

preempt State tort law that would 

effectively impose a higher standard on 

motor vehicle manufacturers than that 

established by this rule. Establishment 

of a higher standard by means of State 

tort law would not conflict with the 

standards in this final rule. Without any 

conflict, there could not be any implied 

preemption of a State common law tort 

cause of action. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

The National Environmental Policy 

Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321– 

4347) requires Federal agencies to 

analyze the environmental impacts of 

proposed major Federal actions 

significantly affecting the quality of the 

human environment, as well as the 

impacts of alternatives to the proposed 

action.235 When a Federal agency 

prepares an environmental assessment, 

the Council on Environmental Quality 

(CEQ) NEPA implementing regulations 

(40 CFR parts 1500–1508) require it to 

(1) ‘‘[b]briefly provide sufficient 

evidence and analysis for determining 

whether to prepare an environmental 

impact statement or a finding of no 

significant impact’’ and (2) ‘‘[b]briefly 

discuss the purpose and need for the 

proposed action, alternatives . . ., and 

the environmental impacts of the 

proposed action and alternatives, and 

include a listing of agencies and persons 

consulted.’’ 40 CFR 1501.5(c). This 

section serves as the Final 

Environmental Assessment (Final EA). 

Purpose and Need 

This notice sets forth the purpose of 

and need for this action. As explained 

earlier in this preamble, ADB 

technology improves safety by 

providing a variable, enhanced lower 

beam pattern that is sculpted to traffic 

on the road, rather than just one static 

lower beam pattern, thereby providing 

more illumination without glare to other 

motorists. In addition, ADB technology 

will likely lead to increased upper beam 

use, thereby improving driver visibility 

distance at higher speeds. In the NPRM, 

NHTSA concluded that FMVSS No. 108 

does not currently permit ADB 

technology. 

Alternatives 

NHTSA considered a range of 

regulatory alternatives for the proposed 

action. Under a ‘‘no action alternative,’’ 

NHTSA would not issue a final rule 

amending FMVSS No. 108, and ADB 

technology would continue to be 

prohibited. NHTSA has also considered 

the ECE requirements and SAE J3069, 

which are described above in this 

preamble. In the final rule, NHTSA 

incorporates elements from these 

standards, but departs from them in 

significant ways, which are also 

described above. 

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed 

Action and Alternatives 

This final rule is anticipated to result 

in increased upper beam use as well as 

greater illumination provided by the 

adaptive driving beams (in patterns 

designed to prevent glare to other 

motorists). As a result, the primary 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 10001 

236National Park Service, Light Pollution. https:// 

www.nps.gov/subjects/nightskies/lightpollution.htm 

(last accessed Sept. 26, 2018). 

237Chepesiuk, R. 2009. Missing the Dark: Health 

Effects of Light Pollution. Environmental Health 

Perspectives, 117(1), A20–A27. 

238 Id. 

239NPS, Light Pollution Sources. https://

www.nps.gov/subjects/nightskies/sources.htm (last 

accessed Sept. 26, 2018). 

environmental impacts anticipated to 

result from this rulemaking are 

associated with light pollution, 

including the potential disruption of 

wildlife adjacent to roadways. The 

National Park Service (NPS) defines 

‘‘light pollution’’ as the introduction of 

artificial light, either directly or 

indirectly, into the natural 

environment.236 Forms of light 

pollution include sky glow (the bright 

halo over urban areas at nighttime), light 

trespass (unintended artificial lighting 

on areas that would otherwise be dark), 

glare (light shining horizontally), and 

over illumination (excess artificial 

lighting for a specific activity).237 Light 

pollution caused by artificial light can 

have various effects on flora and fauna, 

including disrupting seasonal variations 

and circadian rhythms, disorientation 

and behavioral disruption, sleep 

disorders, and hormonal imbalances.238

Although this rule is anticipated to 

result in increased levels of illumination 

caused by automobiles at nighttime, 

NHTSA does not believe these levels 

would contribute appreciably to light 

pollution in the United States. First, the 

rule requires that the part of an ADB 

beam that is cast near other vehicles not 

exceed the current lower beam maxima 

and the part of an ADB beam that is cast 

onto unoccupied roadway not exceed 

the current upper beam maxima. 

Although overall levels of illumination 

are expected to increase from current 

levels due to increased upper beam use 

and the sculpting of the adaptive 

driving beams to traffic on the road, 

total potential brightness would not be 

permitted to exceed the potential 

maxima that already exists on motor 

vehicles today. These maxima not only 

reduce the potential for glare to other 

drivers but also limit the potential 

impact of light pollution. 

Second, we note that ADB systems 

remain optional. Because of the added 

costs associated with the technology, 

NHTSA does not anticipate that 

manufacturers would make these 

systems standard equipment in all their 

vehicle models at this time. Thus, only 

a percentage of the on-road fleet will 

feature ADB systems, while new 

vehicles without the systems are 

anticipated to continue to have levels of 

illumination at current rates. 

Third, while ADB systems generally 

would increase horizontal illumination, 

they likely would not contribute to 

ambient light pollution to the same 

degree as other forms of illumination, 

such as streetlights and building 

illumination, where light is 

intentionally scattered to cover large 

areas or wasted due to inefficient 

design, likely contributing more to the 

nighttime halo effect in populated areas. 

According to NPS, the primary cause of 

light pollution is outdoor lights that 

emit light upwards or sideways (but 

with an upwards angle).239 As the light 

escapes upward, it scatters throughout 

the atmosphere and brightens the night 

sky. Lighting that is directed downward, 

however, contributes significantly less 

to light pollution. Lower beams 

generally direct light away from 

oncoming traffic and downward in 

order to illuminate the road and the 

environs close ahead of the vehicle 

while minimizing glare to other road 

users. As a result, any increases in lower 

beam illumination are not anticipated to 

contribute meaningfully to light 

pollution. As discussed further in the 

next paragraph, increases in upper beam 

illumination would be anticipated 

largely in less populated areas, where 

oncoming traffic is less frequent and 

small sources of artificial light (such as 

motor vehicles) likely would not change 

ambient light levels at nighttime to a 

meaningful degree. 

Fourth, NHTSA believes that the areas 

that would see the greatest relative 

increase in nighttime illumination are 

predominantly rural and unlikely to 

experience widespread impacts. The 

rule requires ADB systems to produce a 

lower beam at speeds below 20 mph. 

These slower speeds are anticipated 

primarily in crowded, urban 

environments where the current impacts 

of light pollution are likely the greatest. 

As a result, such urban environments 

should not experience changes in light 

levels produced from motor vehicles as 

a result of this rule. In moderately 

crowded, urban environments, 

nighttime vehicles may travel above 20 

mph, thereby engaging the ADB system. 

However, in those cases, upper beam 

use would likely be low, as the high 

level of other road users would cause 

the ADB system to rely on lower beams 

for visibility in order to reduce glare for 

other drivers. These areas may 

experience small increases in light 

pollution as the upper beams 

occasionally engage, as well as 

increased illumination associated with 

the adaptive driving beam. In rural 

areas, where traffic levels are lower and 

driving speeds may be higher, the use of 

ADB systems is anticipated to result in 

increased upper beam use. However, the 

low traffic levels would result in only 

moderate additional light output, and 

the low quantity of artificial light 

sources in general would mean that 

light pollution levels overall would be 

anticipated to remain low. 

The final rule is anticipated to 

improve visibility without glare to other 

drivers. In addition to the potential 

safety benefits associated with reduced 

crashes, this rule could result in fewer 

instances of collisions involving 

animals on roadways. Upper beams are 

used primarily for distance illumination 

when not meeting or closely following 

another vehicle. Increased upper beam 

use in poorly lit environments, such as 

rural roadways, may allow drivers 

increased time to identify roadway 

hazards (such as animals) and to stop, 

slow down, or avoid a collision. 

In addition, the impact of added 

artificial light on wildlife located near 

roadways would depend on where and 

how long the additional illumination 

occurs, whether wildlife is present 

within a distance to detect the light, and 

the sensitivity of wildlife to the 

illumination level of the added light. 

Wildlife species located near active 

roadways have likely acclimated to the 

light produced by passing vehicles, 

including light associated with upper 

beams (which would be the same under 

the proposal in terms of brightness, 

directionality, and shape as under 

current regulations). Any additional 

disruption caused by increased use of 

upper beams is not feasible to quantify 

due to the extensive number of variables 

associated with ADB use and wildlife. 

NHTSA is unable to comparatively 

evaluate the potential light pollution 

impacts of the rule compared to the 

other regulatory alternatives (ECE 

requirements and SAE J3069). For 

example, the rule requires that the area 

of unreduced intensity meet the upper 

beam minima and the area of reduced 

intensity meet the lower beam minima. 

The SAE standard only requires that the 

area of unreduced intensity meet the 

lower beam minima. However, NHTSA 

also proposes that the area of unreduced 

intensity may not exceed the upper 

beam maxima, whereas the SAE 

standard does not specify any maxima 

for the undimmed portion. Thus, while 

the final rule establishes requirements 

for minimum levels of light, it also 

limits the maximum level of light in the 

area of unreduced intensity; both differ 

from the SAE standard. This combined 

with the wide variations still permitted 

under the final rule and the SAE 

standard make it difficult to compare 

them with any level of certainty. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
10002 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

240National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995, Public Law 104–113, 

110 Stat. 775 (1996). 

241 Id. at § 12(d)(1). 

242 Id. at § 12(d)(3). 

243Office of Management and Budget, Circular 

No. A–119, ¶ 5(a)(i), Federal Participation in the 

Development and Use of Voluntary Consensus 

Standards and in Conformity Assessment Activities 

(Jan. 26, 2016). 

244 Id. 

245SAE has recently published a revised version, 

SAE J3069 MAR2021. 

However, to the degree to which ABD 

systems would function similarly under 

each of those standards, the 

environmental impacts would be 

anticipated to be similar. 

Agencies and Persons Consulted 

This preamble describes the various 

materials, persons, and agencies 

consulted in the development of the 

proposal. 

Finding of No Significant Impact 

I have reviewed this EA. Based on the 

EA, I conclude that any of the impacts 

anticipated to result from the 

alternatives under consideration will 

not have a significant effect on the 

human environment and that a ‘‘finding 

of no significant impact’’ is appropriate. 

This statement constitutes the agency’s 

‘‘finding of no significant impact,’’ and 

an environmental impact statement will 

not be prepared. 40 CFR 1501.6(a). 

Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice 

Reform) 

With respect to the review of the 

promulgation of a new regulation, 

section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, 

‘‘Civil Justice Reform’’ (61 FR 4729, 

February 7, 1996) requires that 

Executive agencies make every 

reasonable effort to ensure that the 

regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the 

preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies 

the effect on existing Federal law or 

regulation; (3) provides a clear legal 

standard for affected conduct, while 

promoting simplification and burden 

reduction; (4) clearly specifies the 

retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately 

defines key terms; and (6) addresses 

other important issues affecting clarity 

and general draftsmanship under any 

guidelines issued by the Attorney 

General. This document is consistent 

with that requirement. 

Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes 

as follows. The issue of preemption is 

discussed above in connection with E.O. 

13132. NHTSA notes further that there 

is no requirement that individuals 

submit a petition for reconsideration or 

pursue other administrative proceeding 

before they may file suit in court. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by 

the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 

1996), whenever an agency is required 

to publish an NPRM or final rule, it 

must prepare and make available for 

public comment a regulatory flexibility 

analysis (RFA) that describes the effect 

of the rule on small entities (i.e., small 

businesses, small organizations, and 

small governmental jurisdictions). The 

Small Business Administration’s 

regulations at 13 CFR part 121 define a 

small business, in part, as a business 

entity ‘‘which operates primarily within 

the United States.’’ (13 CFR 121.105(a)). 

No regulatory flexibility analysis is 

required if the head of an agency 

certifies that the rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The SBREFA amended the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act to require Federal 

agencies to provide a statement of the 

factual basis for certifying that a rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

NHTSA has considered the effects of 

this final rule under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. According to 13 CFR 

121.201, the Small Business 

Administration’s size standards 

regulations used to define small 

business concerns, manufacturers of the 

vehicles covered by this final rule 

would fall under North American 

Industry Classification System (NAICS) 

No. 336111, Automobile Manufacturing, 

which has a size standard of 1,500 

employees or fewer. 

NHTSA estimates that there are six 

small light vehicle manufacturers in the 

U.S. We estimate that there are eight 

headlamp manufacturers that could be 

impacted by this rule. I certify that this 

rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Most of the 

affected entities are not small 

businesses. The rule will not establish a 

mandatory requirement on regulated 

persons. 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act and 1 CFR Part 51 

Under the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 

(NTTAA),240 ‘‘all Federal agencies and 

departments shall use technical 

standards that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies, using such technical standards 

as a means to carry out policy objectives 

or activities determined by the agencies 

and departments.’’ 241 However, if the 

use of such technical standards would 

be ‘‘inconsistent with applicable law or 

otherwise impractical, a Federal agency 

or department may elect to use technical 

standards that are not developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies[.]’’ 242 Voluntary 

consensus standards are technical 

standards (e.g., materials specifications, 

test methods, sampling procedures, and 

business practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies such as SAE. The 

NTTAA directs the agency to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when the agency decides not to use 

available and applicable voluntary 

consensus standards. Circular A–119 

directs that evaluating whether to use a 

voluntary consensus standard should be 

done on a case-by-case basis.243 An 

agency should consider, where 

applicable, factors such as the nature of 

the agency’s statutory mandate and the 

consistency of the standard with that 

mandate.244

SAE has published a voluntary 

consensus standard (SAE J3069 

JUN2016) for ADB systems.245 The 

Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), 

in its comments, specifically referenced 

the NTTAA, arguing that the NPRM 

unnecessarily departed from SAE J3069. 

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 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 SAE J3069 did not adequately 

address glare or visibility. The major 

differences are summarized in Section 

VIII.O, Regulatory Alternatives. The 

preceding sections of this document 

discuss in detail the ways in which the 

final rule follows and differs from SAE 

J3069, and explain why we believe these 

departures are justified. 

The CIE 1931 Chromaticity Diagram 

was previously approved for 

incorporation by reference in the section 

where it appears as of February 6, 2012. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.), 

Federal agencies must obtain approval 

from the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) for each collection of 

information they conduct, sponsor, or 

require through regulations. This 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 10003 

rulemaking modifies two existing 

information collection requirements. 

First, this rulemaking modifies the 

requirements for manufacturers to 

provide instructions for operating 

semiautomatic headlamp switching 

devices. Prior to this final rule, the 

standard required manufacturers to 

provide instructions on how to operate 

the device correctly, including: How to 

turn the automatic control on and off; 

how to adjust the sensitivity control; 

and any other specific instructions 

applicable to the device. This rule 

modifies the requirement by excluding 

ADB systems from the requirement to 

provide instructions on how to adjust 

the sensitivity control if they are not 

equipped with a sensitivity control. The 

rule also modifies the requirements 

regarding providing instructions for 

vehicle headlamp aiming devices 

(VHAD). Prior to this rule, the standard 

required manufacturers to provide 

instructions advising that the 

headlighting system is properly aimed if 

the appropriate vertical plane (as 

defined by the vehicle manufacturer) is 

perpendicular to both the longitudinal 

axis of the vehicle, and a horizontal 

plane when the vehicle is on a 

horizontal surface, and the VHAD is set 

at ‘‘0’’ vertical and ‘‘0’’ horizontal. The 

final rule changes the standard to 

require manufacturers to provide 

instructions advising the vehicle owner 

what to do if the headlighting system 

requires aiming using the VHAD. 

NHTSA is separately publishing a 

notice requesting comment on NHTSA’s 

intention to request approval for a 

modification to its previously approved 

information collection request titled 

‘‘Consolidated Vehicle Owner’s Manual 

Requirements for Motor Vehicles and 

Motor Vehicle Equipment.’’ The 

document (Docket Number: NHTSA– 

2021–0059) will provide details about 

the burden associated with the 

information collection and will provide 

a 60-day comment period. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) (UMRA) 

requires agencies to prepare a written 

assessment of the costs, benefits, and 

other effects of proposed or final rules 

that include a Federal mandate likely to 

result in the expenditures by States, 

local or tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

more than $100 million annually 

(adjusted annually for inflation with 

base year of 1995). Adjusting this 

amount by the implicit gross domestic 

product price deflator for 2016 results in 

$148 million (111.416/75.324 = 1.48). 

The assessment may be included in 

conjunction with other assessments, as 

it is here. 

This rule is not likely to result in 

expenditures by State, local or tribal 

governments of more than $148 million 

annually. 

UMRA requires the agency to select 

the ‘‘least costly, most cost-effective or 

least burdensome alternative that 

achieves the objectives of the rule.’’ As 

discussed above, the agency considered 

alternatives to the final rule and has 

concluded that the requirements are the 

most cost-effective alternatives that 

achieve the objectives of the rule. 

Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) 

2127–AL83 

The Department of Transportation 

assigns a regulation identifier number 

(RIN) to each regulatory action listed in 

the Unified Agenda of Federal 

Regulations. The Regulatory Information 

Service Center publishes the Unified 

Agenda in April and October of each 

year. You may use the RIN contained in 

the heading at the beginning of this 

document to find this action in the 

Unified Agenda. 

Privacy Act 

Anyone is able to search the 

electronic form of all documents 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

document (or signing it, if submitted on 

behalf of an association, business, labor 

union, etc.). You may review DOT’s 

complete Privacy Act Statement in the 

Federal Register published on April 11, 

2000, (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 

19477–78) or you may visit 

www.dot.gov/privacy.html. 

Appendices to the Preamble 

Appendix A. Comparison of Oncoming 

Glare Limits to Table XIX Right-Side 

Photometric Maxima 

To analyze the dynamic track test 

procedure requirements in the narrow 

right-side region of the beam from 1R to 

3R and compare it to the current Table 

XIX requirements (particularly .5 U, 1R– 

3R, which has a minimum of 500 cd and 

a maximum of 2,700 cd), the agency 

calculated the horizontal angle for each 

headlamp (right and left) at each 

extreme of each right curve. See Figure 

A.1. These calculations assume a 

headlamp mounting height of 0.4 m 

below the oncoming photometer height 

(1.1 m above ground), or a headlamp 

height of 0.7 m above the ground. 

Additionally, they assume a headlamp 

separation distance of 1.1 m and a lane 

width of 3.66 m. 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
10004 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2ER22FE22.036</GPH>

1 

Figure A.1. Horizontal angle for each headlamp (right and left) at each 

extreme of each right curve 

Right Curve Headlamp - Left 

Angle Calculation 

2.00 ------------------------------------..-----------

-1,00 -------------------------------------+-----------

·LSO -------------------------------------1-----------

·200 -------------------------------------'----------- H-Angle (deg) 

Right Curve Headlamp - Right 

Angle Calculation 

2.00 ---------------------------------------------

45m, 1,822 cd 

1.00 

Som, 2,250 cd 

--•210 

........ , R250 

---R335 

- • -R400 

30m,810cd --R210 

-If, 0.00 ~-~---'--~---'--~---'--~---'--~---'--~---'--~--+--~---'-+-~-~ "'""" R250 

---R335 ; ·14.0 

> 

-10.0 

-·-R400 

·1.00 ---------------------------------------------

-150 ------------------------------------+----------

·cOO ------------------------------------'---------- H-Angle (deg) 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 10005 

For the medium radius, right curve, 

the most stringent angle toward the right 

side of the beam pattern will occur on 

the 210 m curve at 2.17 (right lamp) and 

3.42 (left lamp) degrees right and 0.46U 

(close to 0.5U). As Stanley pointed out, 

this is very close to the 0.5U, 1R–3R 

line, for which Table XIX specifies a 

minimum of 500 cd and a maximum of 

2,700 cd. The per lamp maximum of 

2,250 cd implied by the applicable 

oncoming glare limit (1.8 lux) is slightly 

more stringent than 2,700 cd. 

For the large radius right curve, the 

most stringent angle toward the right 

side of the beam pattern will occur on 

the 335 m curve at 2.67 (right lamp) and 

3.57 (left lamp) degrees right and 0.33U 

(below the 0.5U line). This angle (which 

is dependent on the mounting height of 

the lamps) is below the 0.5U, 1R–3R 

line. The implied maximum of 1,470 per 

lamp is more stringent than 2,700 cd. 

Appendix B. Example of Laboratory 

Photometric Testing of Adaptive 

Driving Beam 

As explained in the preamble, in 

conducting its compliance testing, 

NHTSA will request information from 

the manufacturer on how to power and 

control the headlamps. To test the 

adaptive driving beam, we will activate 

a 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 realworld with areas of reduced intensity, 

unreduced intensity, and/or transition 

zone(s). Specific patterns will conform 

to any real-world scenario determined 

by NHTSA. 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 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 that correspond to that area of 

reduced intensity. The area of 

unreduced intensity must conform to 

the requirements for the test points in 

Table XVIII that correspond to that area 

of unreduced intensity. 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. 

For example, NHTSA could request 

from the manufacturer information on 

powering the headlamp and controlling 

it such that an area of reduced intensity 

area is centered horizontally around 

0.5U 1.2R. A hypothetical isocandela 

pattern is provided in Table B.1. 

produced by the headlamp (simplified 

to a resolution of 0.1 degree for ease of 

visualization). 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2ER22FE22.037</GPH>

Left Headlamp 

Positive Horizontal Angle are Right 

Distance Max ii luminance R210 R250 R335 R400 cd per Lamp 

V(UP) H V(UP) H V(UP) H V(UP) H 

15 3.1 1.53 -9.31 1.53 -9.64 1.53 -10.08 1.53 -10.29 349 

29 3.1 0.79 -1.89 0.79 -2.53" 0.79 -2.53 0.79 -3.78 1304 

30 1.8 0.76 -1.56 0.76'" -2.22 0.76 -2.22 0.76 -3.51 810 

50 1.8 0.46 3.43 0.46 2.34 2250 

59 1.8 0.39 2.17 0.39 1.35 3133 

60 0.6 0.38 2.31 0.38 1.47 1080 

70 0.6 0.33 3.57 0.33 2.59 1470 

Right Headlamp 

Positive Horizontal Angle are Right 

Distance Max ii luminance R210 R250 R335 R400 Intensity per lamp 

V(UP) H V(UP) H V(UP) H V(UP) H 

15 3.1 1.53 -13.60 1.53 -13.93 1.53 -14.38 1.53 -14.60 349 .. 29 3.1 0.79 -4.07 0.79 -4.71 0.79 -4.71 0.79 -5.96 1304 

30 1.8 0.76 -3.67 0.76'" -4.32 0.76 -4.32 0.76 -5.62 810 

50 1.8 0.46 2.17 0.46 1.08 2250 

59 1.8 0.39 1.10 0.39 0.28 3133 

60 0.6 0.38 1.25 0.38 0.42 1080 

70 0.6 0.33 2.67 0.33 1.69 1470 
10006 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2ER22FE22.038</GPH>

Table B.1. Photometric Testing Example 

Horizontal Angle 

-0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 

3.5 13544 12076 10608 9141 7673 6205 4737 3270 1802 334 

3.4 14410 12848 11287 9726 8164 6603 5042 3480 1919 357 

3.3 15276 13621 11966 10311 8656 7001 5346 3691 2036 381 

3.2 16142 14393 12645 10896 9147 7399 5650 3902 2153 404 

3.1 17008 15166 13323 11481 9639 7797 5954 4112 2270 428 

3.0 17874 15938 14002 12066 10130 8195 6259 4323 2387 451 

2.9 18740 16710 14681 12651 10622 8592 6563 4533 2504 474 

2.8 19606 17483 15360 13237 11114 8990 6867 4744 2621 498 

2.7 20472 18255 16039 13822 11605 9388 7172 4955 2738 521 

2.6 21338 19028 16717 14407 12097 9786 7476 5165 2855 545 

2.5 22204 19800 17396 14992 12588 10184 7780 5376 2972 568 

2.4 23070 20573 18075 15577 13080 10582 8084 5587 3089 592 

2.3 23936 21345 18754 16162 13571 10980 8389 5797 3206 615 

2.2 24802 22117 19433 16748 14063 11378 8693 6008 3323 638 

2.1 25668 22890 20111 17333 14554 11776 8997 6219 3440 662 

.S:l 2.0 26534 23662 20790 17918 15046 12174 9302 6429 3557 685 i,J) 

= 1.9 28081 25040 21998 18957 15915 12874 9833 6791 3750 709 

< 1.8 29628 26417 23206 19996 16785 13574 10364 7153 3943 732 -; 1.7 31174 27794 24414 21035 17655 14275 10895 7515 4135 755 -~ .... 1.6 32721 29172 25623 22073 18524 14975 11426 7877 4328 779 -

~ 

> 1.5 34267 30546 26825 23105 19384 15663 11942 8221 4500 779 

1.4 35814 31921 28028 24136 20243 16350 12458 8565 4672 780 

1.3 37360 33291 29222 25153 21083 17014 12945 8875 4806 737 

1.2 38907 34661 30415 26169 21923 17678 13432 9186 4940 694 

1.1 40454 36031 31608 27185 22762 18339 13916 9493 5070 647 

1.0 42000 37402 32804 28205 23607 19009 14411 9812 5214 616 

0.9 43593 38814 34035 29256 24477 19698 14918 10139 5360 581 

0.8 45120 40167 35215 30262 25309 20357 15404 10452 5499 546 

0.7 46647 41521 36394 31268 26142 21016 15890 10764 5638 512 

0.6 48173 42874 37574 32275 26975 21675 16376 11076 5777 477 

0.5 49700 44273 38847 33420 27994 22567 17141 11714 6287 861 

0.4 51227 45595 39964 34333 28702 23070 17439 11808 6177 545 

0.3 52753 47156 41559 35963 30366 24769 19172 13575 7978 2381 

0.2 54280 48434 42587 36741 30895 25048 19202 13355 7509 1663 

0.1 56069 50251 44433 38616 32798 26980 21163 15345 9528 3710 

0.0 57857 52068 46279 40491 34702 28913 23124 17335 11546 5757 

Horizontal Ane:le 

0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 

3.5 345 355 365 376 376 376 376 375 375 375 375 

.S:l 3.4 360 380 392 403 403 403 403 403 403 403 403 i,J) 

= 3.3 386 406 418 431 431 431 431 431 431 430 430 

< 3.2 410 431 445 459 459 458 458 458 458 458 458 -; 3.1 435 457 472 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 -~ .... 3.0 463 482 498 514 514 514 514 513 513 513 513 -

~ 

> 2.9 498 508 525 541 541 541 541 541 541 541 541 

2.8 530 533 551 569 569 569 569 569 569 569 568 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 10007 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2ER22FE22.039</GPH>

2.7 550 559 578 597 596 596 596 596 596 596 596 

2.6 580 584 604 624 624 624 624 624 624 624 624 

2.5 605 610 631 652 652 652 652 652 651 651 651 

2.4 628 635 657 679 679 679 679 679 679 679 679 

2.3 655 661 684 707 707 707 707 707 707 707 707 

2.2 680 686 710 734 734 734 734 734 734 734 734 

2.1 705 712 737 762 762 762 762 762 762 762 762 

2.0 735 737 764 790 790 790 790 790 790 790 789 

1.9 760 763 790 817 817 817 817 817 817 817 817 

1.8 785 788 817 845 845 845 845 845 845 845 845 

1.7 810 814 843 872 872 872 872 872 872 872 872 

1.6 835 839 870 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 

1.5 838 840 870 900 1027 1027 1027 1027 1027 1027 1027 

1.4 838 840 870 900 900 914 929 943 957 971 986 

1.3 790 792 820 848 856 869 881 894 906 919 931 

1.2 740 745 771 796 813 823 834 845 855 866 877 

1.1 696 696 720 744 769 778 787 796 804 813 822 

1.0 655 659 681 703 725 732 739 746 754 761 768 

0.9 620 621 641 661 681 687 692 697 703 708 713 

0.8 581 583 601 619 638 641 645 648 652 655 659 

0.7 540 545 561 577 594 596 597 599 601 603 604 

0.6 503 506 521 535 550 550 550 550 550 550 550 

0.5 930 930 965 1000 550 550 550 550 550 550 550 

0.4 582 582 600 2600 2600 2600 2600 2600 2600 2600 2600 

0.3 2611 2611 2725 4504 4783 5061 5340 5644 5419 5194 4969 

0.2 3788 3788 4851 6408 6965 7523 8080 8689 8239 7789 7339 

0.1 5887 5887 6976 8312 9148 9984 10820 11733 11058 10383 9708 

0.0 7987 7987 9101 10216 11331 12445 13560 14778 13878 12978 12078 

Horizontal Ane:le 

1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 

3.5 375 375 1681 2987 4293 5599 6905 8211 9517 10823 

3.4 403 402 1793 3184 4575 5966 7357 8748 10139 11530 

3.3 430 430 1906 3382 4858 6334 7809 9285 10761 12237 

3.2 458 458 2019 3579 5140 6701 8262 9822 11383 12944 

3.1 485 485 2131 3777 5422 7068 8714 10359 12005 13651 

3.0 513 513 2244 3974 5705 7435 9166 10896 12627 14357 

2.9 541 541 2356 4172 5987 7802 9618 11433 13249 15064 

2.8 568 568 2469 4369 6269 8170 10070 11970 13871 15771 

-9:! 2.7 596 596 2581 4566 6552 8537 10522 12507 14493 16478 OJ) 

= 2.6 624 624 2694 4764 6834 8904 10974 13044 15114 17185 

< 2.5 651 651 2806 4961 7116 9271 11426 13581 15736 17891 -; 2.4 679 679 2919 5159 7399 9638 11878 14118 16358 18598 -~ .... 

lo. 

~ 2.3 707 707 3031 5356 7681 10006 12331 14655 16980 19305 

> 2.2 734 734 3144 5554 7963 10373 12783 15192 17602 20012 

2.1 762 762 3256 5751 8246 10740 13235 15729 18224 20719 

2.0 789 789 3369 5948 8528 11107 13687 16266 18846 21425 

1.9 817 817 3481 6146 8810 11475 14139 16803 19468 22132 

1.8 845 845 3594 6343 9093 11842 14591 17340 20090 22839 

1.7 872 872 3707 6541 9375 12209 15043 17877 20712 23546 

1.6 900 900 3819 6738 9657 12576 15495 18414 21333 24252 

1.5 1027 1027 4020 7013 10006 12999 15992 18984 21977 24970 

1.4 1000 1014 4097 7179 10261 13343 16426 19508 22590 25673 
10008 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2ER22FE22.040</GPH>

1.3 944 956 4133 7310 10486 13663 16840 20016 23193 26370 

1.2 888 898 4169 7440 10712 13983 17254 20525 23796 27067 

1.1 831 840 4206 7571 10937 14302 17668 21033 24399 27764 

1.0 775 782 4173 7564 10955 14346 17737 21127 24518 27909 

0.9 719 724 4140 7557 10973 14389 17805 21221 24638 28054 

0.8 663 666 4283 7899 11516 15132 18749 22365 25982 29598 

0.7 606 608 4425 8242 12059 15876 19692 23509 27326 31143 

0.6 550 550 4567 8584 12602 16619 20636 24653 28671 32688 

0.5 550 550 4761 8972 13183 17394 21606 25817 30028 34239 

0.4 2600 2600 6777 10954 15132 19309 23486 27663 31841 36018 

0.3 4744 4519 8677 12835 16993 21151 25309 29466 33624 37782 

0.2 6889 6439 10577 14716 18854 22993 27131 31270 35408 39547 

0.1 9033 8358 12477 16596 20716 24835 28954 33073 37192 41311 

0.0 11178 10278 14302 18327 22352 26377 30401 34426 38451 42475 

Horizontal Angle 

2.7 2.8 2.9 3.0 

3.5 12129 11998 11867 11735 

3.4 12921 12780 12638 12496 

3.3 13713 13561 13409 13257 

3.2 14504 14342 14180 14018 

3.1 15296 15124 14952 14779 

3.0 16088 15905 15723 15540 

2.9 16880 16687 16494 16301 

2.8 17671 17468 17265 17063 

2.7 18463 18250 18037 17824 

2.6 19255 19031 18808 18585 

2.5 20046 19813 19579 19346 

2.4 20838 20594 20350 20107 

2.3 21630 21376 21122 20868 

2.2 22421 22157 21893 21629 

2.1 23213 22939 22664 22390 

.S:l 2.0 24005 23720 23435 23151 i,J) 

= 1.9 24796 24502 24207 23912 < 

-; 1.8 25588 25283 24978 24673 

.;:! 1.7 26380 26065 25749 25434 .... 

-

cu 

> 1.6 27172 26846 26520 26195 

1.5 27963 27627 27292 26956 

1.4 28755 28409 28063 27717 

1.3 29547 29190 28834 28478 

1.2 30338 29972 29605 29239 

1.1 31130 30753 30377 30000 

1.0 31300 30867 30433 31000 

0.9 31470 30980 30490 30000 

0.8 33215 32727 32238 31750 

0.7 34960 34473 33987 33500 

0.6 36705 36220 35735 35250 

0.5 38450 37967 37483 37000 

0.4 40195 39713 39232 38750 

0.3 41940 41460 40980 40500 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 10009 

246As mentioned earlier, in its recent revisions to 

SAE J3069, SAE revised the specifications for the 

placement of the illuminance meters 

(corresponding to two side-view mirrors) on the 

same direction motorcycle fixture so that they are 

now 0.4 m from the centerline of the rear position 

lamp as opposed to 0.2 m. This change would not 

be expected to meaningfully impact our test results 

because the vehicle we tested did not produce a 

particularly narrow reduced area as a result of 

recognizing a motorcycle as compared to a 

passenger car. As such, a 200 mm horizontal 

difference would have no meaningful impact on the 

applicability of the research. 

In this area of reduced intensity, 

NHTSA would check to ensure that the 

applicable Table XIX minima and 

maxima are met. For this area of the 

beam pattern, we would check the 

following lines within the lower beam 

requirements. 

1.5U 1R to 3R Min 200 cd 

1.5U 1R to R Max 1,400 cd 

0.5U 1R to 3R Max 2,700 cd 

NHTSA would scan along 1.5 U to 

determine at what location the 1.5 U 

line begins to fail the lower beam 

photometric requirements. This 

establishes the beginning of the 

transition zone. In the hypothetical case 

shown above, the lower beam meets 

these requirements at 1.2R [1,027] 

(where we asked for an area of reduced 

intensity) and continues to comply at 

1.3R [1,027] continuing right until 1.5U, 

1.9R [4,020] where it fails the Maximum 

1,400 cd limit. So, for this case the 

transition zone begins at 1.9 R. 

Similarly, the 0.5 U line complies with 

the lower beam at 1.2 R [550 cd]. The 

0.5 U line continues to comply until, 

again, 1.9R. Considering this, the 

transition zone begins at 1.9R and can 

continue for no more than 1 degree, or 

through the location of 2.9R. As such, 

upper beam points extending past this 

location must be met. As such, the beam 

pattern must meet the upper beam test 

point 1U, 3R which requires a minimum 

of 5,000 cd for a UB2 lamp. In this case, 

the value is 31,000 and therefore 

compliant with the area of unreduced 

intensity tested at that location. 

Additionally, the upper beam point H, 

3R minimum of 15,000 must be met 

along with all the upper beam points at 

6R, 9R, 12R and all points left of V. A 

0.25 degree re-aim is permitted in 

S14.2.5.5. 

Considering the left edge of the area 

of reduced intensity, we would scan 

along the 1.5 U and 0.5 U right side 

lines and discover that the transition 

zone begins at 0.4 degrees R (traveling 

to the left). As such, the transition zone 

is permitted to extend 1 degree to the 

left from the left edge, or through 0.5 

degrees L. The ADB pattern is not 

required to produce a compliant upper 

beam at the test point location of H-V as 

that may still be within the transition 

zone. If, however, an ADB beam pattern 

is produced with the left edge of the 

transition zone beginning at an angle 

greater than 1 degree R, the upper beam 

H-V point must be met for the area of 

unreduced intensity. 

This example also demonstrates how, 

although no photometry requirements 

apply to the transition zone, the 

photometry in the transition zone is not 

unconstrained. In this example, the edge 

of the area of reduced intensity is at 

1.8R. That means that it must be at least 

200 cd but not more than 1400 cd. At 

the 3R point it must be at least 5,000 cd. 

The transition zone will be between 

these two points. With respect to 

potential concerns, illuminance above 

1,400 cd is not the concern, some 

exceedance is expected as the light 

transitions. It might be a concern if the 

intensity drops below 200 cd, however, 

this is very unlikely. As the commenters 

point out, it is difficult physically, and 

not preferred by drivers to have such 

extreme cutoffs. There is no reason for 

a manufacturer to allow the intensity to 

drop below 200 cd through the 

transition zone. 

Appendix C. ADB Performance With 

Motorcycle Test Fixture 

Our testing showed consistently poor 

performance when the ADB system was 

tested against the motorcycle fixture and 

lamps we are finalizing.246 See Table 

C.1. The agency is concerned that if 

ADB systems do not adequately react to 

motorcycles in the real world that any 

safety benefits provided by ADB 

introduction could be negated by 

additional glare related risk to 

motorcyclists. Many of the failures 

listed below are not attributable to 

headlamp beam pattern design but are 

fundamental failures of the ADB system 

to react to the motorcycle lamps 

installed on the test fixture. 

TABLE C.1—ADB PERFORMANCE WITH FINAL RULE MOTORCYCLE FIXTURE

15.0–29.9 30.0–59.9 60.0–119.9 120.0–220.0 

Oncoming ..................................... Straight ............. 61 PASS ................ PASS ................ PASS ................ FAIL. 

Same Direction ............................ Straight ............. 61 PASS ................ PASS ................ PASS.

Oncoming ..................................... 85-L ................... 26 FAIL .................. FAIL.

Oncoming ..................................... 210-L ................. 41 PASS ................ FAIL .................. FAIL .................. PASS. 

Same Direction ............................ 210-L ................. 41 FAIL .................. FAIL .................. FAIL.

Oncoming ..................................... 210-R ................ 41 PASS ................ FAIL.

Oncoming ..................................... 335-L ................. 51 PASS ................ PASS ................ FAIL .................. FAIL. 

Oncoming ..................................... 335-R ................ 51 PASS ................ FAIL .................. FAIL.

The plots below (Figure C.1) are 

representative of the types of failures we 

observed when testing. That is, the ADB 

system was often late in reacting to the 

test fixture. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2ER22FE22.041</GPH>

0.2 43685 43207 42728 42250 

0.1 45430 44953 44477 44000 

0.0 46500 46000 45500 45000 
10010 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

While we are confident in the realism 

of the finalized test procedure, we did 

consider potential sources of variation 

within the test to see if the safety need 

and practicality of the test could be 

better optimized. As part of this 

investigation, we considered the lamps 

that are installed on the fixture and 

compared the ADB systems performance 

using the lamps specified in SAE J3069. 

See Table C.2 and Figure C.1. The 

motorcycle lamps we have chosen are 

not the source of the system’s lack of 

performance as similar failures were 

observed when using the SAE specified 

lamps. 

TABLE C.2—ADB PERFORMANCE WITH SAE J3069 MOTORCYCLE FIXTURE

15.0–29.9 30.0–59.9 60.0–119.9 120.0–220.0 

Oncoming ..................................... Straight ............. 61 PASS ................ PASS ................ FAIL .................. FAIL. 

Same Direction ............................ Straight ............. 61 PASS ................ PASS ................ PASS.

Oncoming ..................................... 85-L ................... 26 FAIL .................. FAIL.

Oncoming ..................................... 210-L ................. 41 PASS ................ PASS ................ FAIL .................. PASS. 

Same Direction ............................ 210-L ................. 41 FAIL .................. FAIL .................. FAIL.

Oncoming ..................................... 210-R ................ 41 PASS ................ PASS.

Oncoming ..................................... 335-L ................. 51 PASS ................ PASS ................ FAIL .................. FAIL. 

Oncoming ..................................... 335-R ................ 51 PASS ................ PASS ................ FAIL.

We also considered if the fixture itself 

was a contributing factor in the system’s 

lack of performance when encountering 

motorcycles. This does not seem to be 

the case based on the 2015 research, 

which exposed those ADB systems, 

installed to a complete three-wheel 

motorcycle. Some of those vehicles also 

demonstrated a lack of ability to react to 

the motorcycle stimulus. That research 

observed that ‘‘Motorcycle scenario 

values . . . show, on average, the Audi 

headlighting system produced 

substantially higher glare in the 30 to 

120 m range, up to approximately 9 

times greater than that seen for lower 

beam mode (quotient values ranging 

from 6.13 to 9.69) and ‘‘preceding 

motorcycle scenarios appeared to 

challenge ADB’s ability to maintain 

glare within derived lower beam limit 

values. In both the stationary and 

moving preceding motorcycle scenarios, 

ADB mode for all four test vehicles 

showed illuminance levels exceeding 

lower beam levels and exceeding lower 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2ER22FE22.042</GPH> ER22FE22.043</GPH>

Fi ure C.1. ADB erformance with final rule motorc cle fixture 

Oncoming -Straight 61 mph Oncoming- 85-L 26 mph 

Finalized Motorcycle Lamp Finalized Motorcycle Lamp 

3.5 20 lluml11111Ct (lux)va. Fbdure Dflllnce(m) 

18 - 16 

2.5 14 

1 2 !12 

i1.5 ~ j': i 6 l 

0.5 

~-.,#'°""''~""·~..,..,,.,,...-·~ --~~,,.~~~,,. 0 • 

200 1150 100 l50 0 60 so 40 30 20 10 0 

Dlatance(m) Distance (m) 

Fi ure C.2. ADB erformance with SAE J3069 motorcycle fixture ~-------'""'-------..._~ 

Oncoming -Straight 61 mph Oncoming- 85-L 26 mph 

t2 

10 

i, i . 

SAE Lamp SAE Lamp 

14 

12 

j10 

I : 

IIO 40 30 20 

-(ill) 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 10011 

247 2015 ADB Test Report, pp. 109, 114. 

beam glare limit values in at least one 

distance range.’’ 247

Although, as discussed previously, we 

do not believe that the SAE test 

adequately replicates the real world, we 

also considered how well the vehicle we 

tested performed on the SAE J3069 test. 

Overall, it performed better against the 

SAE J3069 test then the finalized test, 

however it did have dramatic failures on 

that test well. Figure C.3 depicts a 

sample of these failures. 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–C 

In conclusion, the agency has 

determined that ADB systems must 

protect motorcyclist against increases in 

glare in the same way as other motor 

vehicle drivers. We have considered the 

ability of ADB systems to achieve the 

finalized level of performance but are 

unwilling to degrade overall safety. As 

such, we are finalizing today’s rule to 

include a fixture with a specified 

motorcycle headlamp and a taillamp 

and testing ADB systems using the same 

real-world geometries for the motorcycle 

fixture as for the car and truck fixture. 

Appendix D. List of Comments Cited in 

Preamble 

Commenter Comment ID 

AAA ...................................................................................................................................................................... NHTSA–2018–0090–0158. 

Alliance for Automotive Innovation ...................................................................................................................... NHTSA–2018–0090–0219. 

Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers ................................................................................................................. NHTSA–2018–0090–0138. 

Association of Global Automakers ...................................................................................................................... NHTSA–2018–0090–0182. 

Automotive Lighting North America ..................................................................................................................... NHTSA–2018–0090–0068. 

Competitive Enterprise Institute .......................................................................................................................... NHTSA–2018–0090–0145. 

Consumer Reports .............................................................................................................................................. NHTSA–2018–0090–0191. 

Ford Motor Company .......................................................................................................................................... NHTSA–2018–0090–0162. 

General Motors .................................................................................................................................................... NHTSA–2018–0090–0181. 

GTB—The International Automotive Lighting and Light Signalling Expert Group .............................................. NHTSA–2018–0090–0070. 

Harley-Davidson Motor Company ....................................................................................................................... NHTSA–2018–0090–0148. 

HELLA GmbH & Co. KGaA ................................................................................................................................. NHTSA–2018–0090–0085. 

Honda (American Honda Motor Company) ......................................................................................................... NHTSA–2018–0090–0179. 

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety ............................................................................................................... NHTSA–2018–0090–0149. 

International Organization of Motor Vehicle Manufacturers ................................................................................ NHTSA–2018–0090–0089. 

Intertek ................................................................................................................................................................. NHTSA–2018–0090–0143. 

Koito Manufacturing Company ............................................................................................................................ NHTSA–2018–0090–0173. 

League of American Bicyclists ............................................................................................................................ NHTSA–2018–0090–0157. 

Mercedes-Benz USA ........................................................................................................................................... NHTSA–2018–0090–0147. 

Mobileye, An Intel company ................................................................................................................................ NHTSA–2018–0090–0140. 

Montgomery, Bryan ............................................................................................................................................. NHTSA–2018–0090–0069. 

Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association .................................................................................................. NHTSA–2018–0090–0175. 

NAFA Fleet Management Association ................................................................................................................ NHTSA–2018–0090–0067. 

North American Lighting ...................................................................................................................................... NHTSA–2018–0090–0163. 

Osram Sylvania ................................................................................................................................................... NHTSA–2018–0090–0177. 

Peterson, Brent .................................................................................................................................................... NHTSA–2018–0090–0030. 

Robert Bosch ....................................................................................................................................................... NHTSA–2018–0090–0159. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2ER22FE22.044</GPH>

Figure C.3. Examples of ADB failures when tested against the SAE J3069 

motorcycle fixtures --------------- --------------- Oncoming- SAE test 28 mph 

Position #1 SAE Lamp 

10 llumllwa{lllx)w. Receplarlltld Dlltlnce(m) 

9 

8 

7 

!a 

3 5 I • i 

3 

2 

_..,.., _____ .,._,.. ..... _ .......... -... 0 

150 100 50 

Dislance (m) 

0 

Preceding - SAE test 28 mph 

Position #1 SuddenAppearance 

20 Ullllnance{lllx) vs. Rlceplal'Head Dlltance(m) 

-··Cydel.elUllm: 

18 ---·Cyde MIiiar 

18 

14 

,.. ,r·", i, 12 

r,fp~"\ I 10 

. ' \ AA.I '1\ 

I 8 

,-r ..,_,,, __ J./ 

j 

6 

-------1Jf-•2!fS ----- I I I I 

2 I I I I I I 

0 

150 100 50 0 

Dislance (m) 
10012 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

Commenter Comment ID 

SAE International ................................................................................................................................................. NHTSA–2018–0090–0167. 

Seastrunk, Jay ..................................................................................................................................................... NHTSA–2018–0090–0200. 

SL Corporation .................................................................................................................................................... NHTSA–2018–0090–0183. 

Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders ..................................................................................................... NHTSA–2018–0090–0156. 

Stanley Electric Company ................................................................................................................................... NHTSA–2018–0090–0189. 

Subaru ................................................................................................................................................................. NHTSA–2018–0090–0217. 

Texas Instruments ............................................................................................................................................... NHTSA–2018–0090–0161. 

Toyota Motor North America ............................................................................................................................... NHTSA–2018–0090–0172. 

Transportation Safety Equipment Institute .......................................................................................................... NHTSA–2018–0090–0193. 

Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association .................................................................................................... NHTSA–2018–0090–0165. 

United Drive-In Theatre Owners Association ...................................................................................................... NHTSA–2018–0090–0153. 

Valeo Lighting Systems ....................................................................................................................................... NHTSA–2018–0090–0142. 

Victor Hunt ........................................................................................................................................................... NHTSA–2018–0090–0028. 

Volkswagen Group of America ............................................................................................................................ NHTSA–2018–0090–0154. 

Zoox ..................................................................................................................................................................... NHTSA–2018–0090–0178. 

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571 

Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor 

vehicles, and Tires. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 

NHTSA amends 49 CFR part 571 as set 

forth below. 

PART 571—FEDERAL MOTOR 

VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 571 

of title 49 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 

30117, 30166; delegation of authority at 49 

CFR 1.95. 

■ 2. Amend § 571.108 by: 

■ a. Adding, in alphabetical order, 

definitions of ‘‘Adaptive driving beam,’’ 

‘‘Headlighting system midpoint’’ and 

‘‘Transition zone’’ to paragraph S4; 

■ b. Revising the definition of 

‘‘Semiautomatic headlamp beam 

switching device’’ in paragraph S4; 

■ c. Revising paragraphs S9.4.1, 

S9.4.1.1, S9.4.1.2, S9.4.1.3, S9.4.1.4, and 

S9.4.1.5; 

■ d. Adding paragraphs S9.4.1.5.1 

through S9.4.1.5.3 in numerical order; 

■ e. Revising paragraph S9.4.1.6; 

■ f. Adding paragraphs S9.4.1.6.1 

through S9.4.1.6.5 in numerical order; 

■ g. Removing S9.4.1.7; 

■ h. Revising the introductory text of 

paragraph S9.5; 

■ i. Revising paragraphs S10.14.1, 

S10.15.1, S10.16.1, S10.18.8.1.2, and 

S10.18.8.2.1; 

■ j. Adding paragraphs S14.9.3.12 

through S14.9.3.12.6.3; 

■ k. Revising the entries for ‘‘Lower 

Beam Headlamps’’ and ‘‘Upper Beam 

Headlamps’’ in table I–a and table I–c; 

■ l. Adding tables XXI and XXII, and 

figures 23 through 30 in numerical 

order; and 

■ m. Removing the appendix to the 

section. 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 571.108 Standard No. 108; Lamps, 

reflective devices, and associated 

equipment. 

* * * * * 

S4 Definitions 

Adaptive driving beam means a longrange light beam for forward visibility, 

which automatically modifies portions 

of the projected light to reduce glare to 

traffic participants on an ongoing, 

dynamic basis. 

* * * * * 

Headlighting system midpoint means 

the intersection of a horizontal plane 

through the test vehicle’s headlamp 

light sources, a vertical plane through 

the test vehicle’s headlamp light sources 

and a vertical plane through the test 

vehicle’s centerline. 

* * * * * 

Semiautomatic headlamp beam 

switching device is one which provides 

either automatic or manual control of 

beam switching at the option of the 

driver. When the control is automatic 

the headlamp beams switch 

automatically. When the control is 

manual, the driver may obtain either the 

lower beam or the upper beam manually 

regardless of the conditions ahead of the 

vehicle. 

* * * * * 

Transition zone means the portion of 

an adaptive driving beam that occurs 

between an area of reduced intensity 

and an area of unreduced intensity. 

* * * * * 

S9.4.1 Semiautomatic headlamp 

beam switching devices. As an 

alternative to S9.4, a vehicle may also be 

equipped with a semiautomatic means 

of switching beams that complies with 

9.4.1.1 though S9.4.1.4 and either 

9.4.1.5 (Option 1) or 9.4.1.6 (Option 2). 

S9.4.1.1 Operating instructions. 

Each semiautomatic headlamp 

switching device must include 

operating instructions to permit a driver 

to operate the device correctly, 

including: How to turn the automatic 

control on and off; how to adjust the 

sensitivity control (for Option 1 and if 

provided for Option 2); and any other 

specific instructions applicable to the 

device. 

S9.4.1.2 Manual override. The 

device must include a means 

convenient to the driver for switching 

the beam from the one provided. 

S9.4.1.3 Fail safe operation. A 

failure of the automatic control portion 

of the device must not result in the loss 

of manual operation and control of the 

upper and lower beams. 

S9.4.1.4 Automatic dimming 

indicator. There must be a convenient 

means of informing the driver when the 

device is controlling the headlamps 

automatically. For headlighting systems 

certified to Option 1, the device shall 

not affect the function of the upper 

beam indicator light. 

S9.4.1.5—Option 1 (Semiautomatic 

headlamp beam switching devices other 

than Adaptive Driving Beam systems). 

S9.4.1.5.1 Lens accessibility. The 

device lens must be accessible for 

cleaning while the device is installed on 

a vehicle. 

S9.4.1.5.2 Mounting height. The 

center of the device lens must be 

mounted no less than 24 inches above 

the road surface. 

S9.4.1.5.3 Physical tests. Each 

semiautomatic headlamp beam 

switching device must be designed to 

conform to all applicable performance 

requirements of S14.9.3.11. 

S9.4.1.6—Option 2 (Adaptive Driving 

Beam systems). 

S9.4.1.6.1 The system must be 

capable of detecting system 

malfunctions (including but not limited 

to sensor obstruction). 

S9.4.1.6.2 If the system detects a 

malfunction that prevents the system 

from operating in automatic mode safely 

and in conformance with these 

requirements, the headlighting system 

must operate in manual mode until the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 10013 

malfunction is corrected and must 

provide the driver with a visible 

warning that the malfunction exists. 

S9.4.1.6.3 When operating in 

manual mode, the system must provide 

only switching between lower and 

upper beams as provided in S9.4. 

S9.4.1.6.4 When operating in 

automatic mode, the system must only 

switch between lower, upper, and 

adaptive driving beams. The adaptive 

driving beams must be designed to 

conform to the requirements of this 

section. 

S9.4.1.6.4.1 The adaptive driving 

beams must consist only of area(s) of 

reduced intensity, area(s) of unreduced 

intensity, and transition zone(s). 

S9.4.1.6.4.2 The adaptive driving 

beams must be designed to conform to 

the photometry requirements of Table 

XXI when tested according to 

S14.9.3.12, and, for replaceable bulb 

headlighting systems, when using any 

replaceable light source designated for 

use in the system. 

S9.4.1.6.4.3 In an area of reduced 

intensity, the adaptive driving beams 

must be designed to conform to the 

photometric intensity requirements of 

Table XIX as specified in Table II for the 

specific headlamp unit and aiming 

method, when tested according to the 

procedure of S14.2.5, and, for 

replaceable bulb headlighting systems, 

when using any replaceable light source 

designated for use in the system. 

S9.4.1.6.4.4 In an area of unreduced 

intensity, the adaptive driving beams 

must be designed to conform to the 

photometric intensity requirements of 

Table XVIII as specified in Table II for 

the specific headlamp unit and aiming 

method, when tested according to the 

procedure of S14.2.5, and, for 

replaceable bulb headlighting systems, 

when using any replaceable light source 

designated for use in the system. 

S9.4.1.6.4.5 A transition zone not to 

exceed 1.0 degree in either the 

horizontal or vertical direction is 

permitted between an area of reduced 

intensity and an area of unreduced 

intensity. The Table XVIII and Table 

XIX photometric intensity requirements 

do not apply in a transition zone, 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. 

S9.4.1.6.4.6 For vehicle speeds 

below 32 kph (20 mph), the system must 

provide only lower beams (unless 

manually overridden according to 

S9.4.1.2). 

S9.4.1.6.4.7 The adaptive driving 

beams must not be energized 

simultaneously with the lower or upper 

beams except as provided in Table II. 

S9.4.1.6.5 The adaptive driving 

beams may be provided by any 

combination of headlamps or light 

sources, provided parking lamps are 

installed. If parking lamps meeting the 

requirements of this standard are not 

required according to Table I and are 

not installed, the adaptive driving 

beams may be provided using any 

combination of headlamps but must 

include the outermost installed 

headlamps to show the overall width of 

the vehicle. 

* * * * * 

S9.5 Upper beam headlamp 

indicator. Each vehicle must have a 

means for indicating to the driver when 

the upper beams of the headlighting 

system are activated. The upper beam 

headlamp indicator is not required to be 

activated when an Adaptive Driving 

Beam system is operating in automatic 

mode. 

* * * * * 

S10.14.1 Installation. An integral 

beam headlighting system must consist 

of the correct number of designated 

headlamp units as specified for the 

applicable system in Table II–c. The 

units must have their upper and lower 

beams activated as specified in Table II– 

c, and their adaptive driving beams (if 

so equipped) activated as specified in 

S9.4.1.6.5. A system must provide in 

total not more than two upper beams, 

two lower beams, and, optionally, two 

adaptive driving beams. 

* * * * * 

S10.15.1 Installation. A replaceable 

bulb headlighting system must consist 

of either two or four headlamps as 

specified for the applicable system in 

Table II–d. The headlamps must have 

their upper and lower beams activated 

as specified in Table II–d, and their 

adaptive driving beams (if so equipped) 

activated as specified in S9.4.1.6.5. A 

system must provide in total not more 

than two upper beams, two lower 

beams, and, optionally, two adaptive 

driving beams, and must incorporate not 

more than two replaceable light sources 

in each headlamp. 

* * * * * 

S10.16.1 Installation. A combination 

headlighting system must consist of the 

correct number of designated headlamp 

units as specified for the applicable 

system in Table II–b. The units must 

have their upper and lower beams 

activated as specified in Table II–b, and 

their adaptive driving beams (if so 

equipped) activated as specified in 

S9.4.1.6.5. A system must provide in 

total not more than two upper beams, 

two lower beams, and, optionally, two 

adaptive driving beams. When installed 

on a motor vehicle, the headlamps (or 

parts thereof) that provide the lower 

beam must be of the same type and 

provide a symmetrical effective 

projected luminous lens area when 

illuminated. 

* * * * * 

S10.18.8.1.2 Horizontal aim. The 

VHAD must include references and 

scales relative to the longitudinal axis of 

the vehicle necessary to assure correct 

horizontal aim for photometry and 

aiming purposes. A ‘‘0’’ mark must be 

used to indicate alignment of the 

headlamps relative to the longitudinal 

axis of the vehicle. In addition, an equal 

number of graduations from the ‘‘0’’ 

position representing equal angular 

changes in the axis relative to the 

vehicle axis must be provided. If the 

horizontal VHAD is part of an adaptive 

driving beam system, S10.18.8.1.2.1 

through S10.18.8.1.2.4 are not required. 

* * * * * 

S10.18.8.2.1 Instructions must be 

provided either on a label permanently 

affixed to the vehicle adjacent to the 

VHAD, or in the operator’s manual, 

advising the vehicle owner what to do 

if the headlighting system requires 

aiming using the VHAD. 

* * * * * 

S14.9.3.12 Test for compliance with 

adaptive driving beam photometry 

requirements. 

S14.9.3.12.1 Test scenarios. 

S14.9.3.12.1.1 Any of the scenarios 

specified in Table XXII and Figures 27, 

28, 29, and 30 may be tested. Where a 

range of values is specified, the vehicle 

shall be able to meet the requirements 

at all values within the range. 

S14.9.3.12.1.2 Any speed that 

conforms to the speeds specified for that 

test scenario will be selected for the test 

vehicle. The vehicle will achieve and 

maintain this speed ± 0.45 m/s (1 mph) 

prior to reaching, and then throughout, 

the measurement distance range 

specified for that scenario. Once the test 

speed is achieved and maintained, no 

sudden steering inputs, acceleration, 

braking, or anything that causes a 

change in vehicle pitch that affects the 

results of the test shall occur. 

S14.9.3.12.1.3 For test scenarios 

involving curves, any radius within the 

allowable range specified for that test 

scenario may be selected. The curve 

shall nominally consist of a constant 

radius path and be referenced to the 

headlighting system midpoint. The 

actual path of the test vehicle shall not 

deviate from the nominal path by more 

than +/¥ 0.5 m throughout the 

measurement distance range. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
10014 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

S14.9.3.12.1.4 The test vehicle shall 

be driven within the lane and will not 

change lanes. 

S14.9.3.12.1.5 The measurement 

distance is the linear distance measured 

from the headlighting system midpoint 

to the most forward point of the relevant 

photometric receptor head mounted on 

the test fixture. 

S14.9.3.12.1.6 The illuminance 

values for each photometer, the 

instantaneous pitch of the test vehicle, 

and the measurement distance shall be 

recorded and synchronized throughout 

the measurement distance range 

specified for that scenario. 

S14.9.3.12.2 Compliance criteria. 

The maximum calculated illuminance 

for each measurement distance interval 

specified in Table XXI that is applicable 

to the scenario being tested, as 

determined according to S14.9.3.12.2.1, 

shall not exceed the applicable 

maximum illuminance listed in Table 

XXI. 

S14.9.3.12.2.1 The maximum 

calculated illuminance for each 

measurement distance interval specified 

in Table XXI that is applicable to the 

scenario being tested will be the highest 

illuminance recorded in that distance 

interval, excluding any illuminance 

value(s) that meet any of the following 

conditions: 

(a) A single illuminance value 

exceeding the applicable maximum 

illuminance in Table XXI (i.e., the 

illuminance value is not immediately 

preceded or followed by an illuminance 

value exceeding the applicable 

maximum illuminance); or 

(b) consecutive illuminance values 

occurring over a span of no more than 

0.1 seconds exceeding the applicable 

maximum illuminance in Table XXI; or 

(c) any illuminance values collected 

while the vehicle pitch exceeds the 

average pitch recorded throughout the 

entire measurement distance range 

specified for that scenario in Table XXII 

by more than 0.3 degrees. 

S14.9.3.12.3 Stimulus test fixtures. 

Testing shall be conducted using the 

stimulus test fixtures specified in this 

section and Figures 23 through 26. 

S14.9.3.12.3.1 Headlamps. The 

headlamps specified in Fig. 23 

(Opposite Direction Car/Truck) shall be 

a right- and left-hand 2018 Ford F–150 

Halogen headlamp (part # KL3Z13008C 

KL3Z13008D) using any replaceable 

light source designated for use in the 

system and, separately, a right- and lefthand 2018 Toyota Camry LED headlamp 

(part # 8111006C40/8115006C40). The 

headlamps specified in Fig. 25 

(Opposite Direction Motorcycle) shall be 

a 5.75-inch round headlamp kit from a 

2018 Harley Davidson Sportster (part 

#68297–05B) using an HB2 replaceable 

light source. Each headlamp shall 

energize the lower beam only, powered 

at 12.8 volts DC +/¥ 500 mV when 

measured at the lamp terminals, and 

shall have been energized for a 

minimum of 5 minutes before each test 

trial. The measurement locations 

specified in Figures 23 and 25 shall be 

measured to the optical axis marking of 

the headlamps. 

S14.9.3.12.3.2 Taillamps. The 

taillamps specified in Fig. 24 (Same 

Direction Car/Truck) shall be a right and 

left-hand 2018 Ford F–150 incandescent 

rear combination lamp (part # 

JL3Z13405H/JL3Z13404H) and, 

separately, a right and left-hand 2018 

Toyota Camry rear combination lamp 

(part # 81550–06730/81560–06730). The 

taillamps specified in Fig. 26 (Same 

Direction Motorcycle) shall be a 2018 

Harley Davidson Roadster layback LED 

taillamp assembly (part #67800355). 

The taillamps shall be powered at 12.8 

volts DC +/¥ 500 mV when measured 

at the lamp terminals and shall have 

been energized for a minimum of 5 

minutes before each test trial. The 

measurement locations specified in 

Figures 24 and 26 shall be measured to 

the center of the taillamp. 

S14.9.3.12.3.3 Photometers. 

Photometers must be capable of a 

minimum measurement unit of 0.01 lux. 

The color response of the photometer 

must be corrected to that of the 1931 CIE 

Standard Observer (2-degree) Photopic 

Response Curve, as shown in the CIE 

1931 Chromaticity Diagram 

(incorporated by reference, see § 571.5), 

with a cosine correction characteristic 

within 3%. The photometer lenses on 

the test fixture shall be clean and free 

from dirt and debris, and the 

photometers will be zero-calibrated for 

each test to account for ambient light. 

The illuminance values from the 

photometers shall be collected at a rate 

of at least 100 Hz and a maximum 25- 

degree angle of incidence. 

S14.9.3.12.3.4 The projection of the 

fixture lamp’s optical axis onto the road 

surface shall be parallel to a tangent of 

the road edge at the location of the 

photometer. 

S14.9.3.12.3.5 The test fixture shall 

be centered in the lane. 

S14.9.3.12.4 Test vehicle 

preparation. 

S14.9.3.12.4.1 Tires on the test 

vehicle shall be inflated to the 

manufacturer’s recommended cold 

inflation pressure ± 7 kPa (1 psi). If 

more than one recommendation is 

provided, the tires are inflated to the 

cold inflation pressure ± 7 kPa (1 psi) 

that corresponds to the lowest loaded 

condition listed. 

S14.9.3.12.4.2 Before initiating 

testing, if the test vehicle is equipped 

with a fuel tank it shall be filled to 

approximately 100% of capacity with 

the appropriate fuel and maintained to 

at least 75% capacity throughout the 

testing. 

S14.9.3.12.4.3 Headlamps on the test 

vehicle shall be aimed according to the 

vehicle manufacturer’s instructions. The 

test vehicle shall be loaded within +/¥ 

5 kg of the total vehicle weight during 

track testing prior to aiming the 

adaptive driving beam headlamps. 

S14.9.3.12.4.4 The adaptive driving 

beam system shall be adjusted according 

to the manufacturer’s instructions. 

S14.9.3.12.4.5 To the extent 

practicable, adaptive driving beam 

system sensors and the windshield on 

the test vehicle (if an adaptive driving 

beam system sensor is behind the 

windshield) shall be clean and free of 

dirt and debris. 

S14.9.3.12.4.6 The headlamp lenses 

of the test vehicle shall be clean and free 

from dirt and debris. 

S14.9.3.12.4.7 The adaptive driving 

beam system shall be activated 

according to the manufacturer’s 

instructions and all other independently 

controlled lamps, such as fog lamps, 

shall be turned off. 

S14.9.3.12.5 Test road 

S14.9.3.12.5.1 The test road shall have 

a longitudinal grade (slope) that does 

not exceed 2%. 

S14.9.3.12.5.2 The lane width shall be 

any width from 3.05 m (10 ft) to 3.66 m 

(12 ft). 

S14.9.3.12.5.3 The lanes shall be 

adjacent to one another. 

S14.9.3.12.5.4 The tests are conducted 

on a uniform, solid-paved surface. 

S14.9.3.12.5.5 The test road surface 

may be concrete or asphalt and shall not 

be bright white. 

S14.9.3.12.5.6 The test road surface 

may have pavement markings but shall 

be free of retroreflective material or 

elements that affect the outcome of the 

test. 

S14.9.3.12.6 Other test parameters 

and conditions 

S14.9.3.12.6.1 Testing shall be 

conducted on dry pavement and with 

no precipitation. 

S14.9.3.12.6.2 Testing shall be 

conducted when the ambient 

illumination at the test road as recorded 

by the photometers is at or below 0.2 

lux. 

S14.9.3.12.6.3 Photometer data signals 

shall be passed through a low-pass filter 

with a cutoff frequency of 35 Hz. 

* * * * * 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 10015 

TABLE I–a—REQUIRED LAMPS AND REFLECTIVE DEVICES

Lighting device Number and color Mounting location Mounting height Device activation 

All Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles (MPV), Trucks, and Buses 

Lower Beam Headlamps White, of a headlighting 

system listed in Table 

II.

On the front, at the 

same height, symmetrically about the 

vertical centerline, as 

far apart as practicable.

Not less than 55.9 cm 

nor more than 137.2 

cm.

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 and semiautomatic headlamp beam switching devices certified to S9.4.1.6. 

Steady burning, except that may be 

flashed for signaling purposes or 

(for semiautomatic headlamp 

beam switching devices certified 

to S9.4.1.6) vary in intensity for 

adaptive driving beam 

functionality. 

Upper Beam Headlamps White, of a headlighting 

system listed in Table 

II.

On the front, at the 

same height, symmetrically about the 

vertical centerline, as 

far apart as practicable.

Not less than 22 inches 

(55.9 cm) nor more 

than 54 inches (137.2 

cm).

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
10016 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE I–c—REQUIRED LAMPS AND REFLECTIVE DEVICES

Lighting device Number and color Mounting location Mounting height Device activation 

All Motorcycles 

Lower Beam Headlamps White, of a headlighting 

system listed in 

S10.17.

On the front, at the 

same height, symmetrically about the 

vertical centerline, as 

far apart as practicable. See additional 

requirements in 

S10.17.1.1, 

S10.17.1.2, and 

S10.17.1.3.

Not less than 22 inches 

(55.9 cm) nor more 

than 54 inches (137.2 

cm).

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 and semiautomatic headlamp beam switching devices certified to S9.4.1.6. 

Steady burning, except that may be 

flashed for signaling purposes or 

(for semiautomatic headlamp 

beam switching devices certified 

to S9.4.1.6) vary in intensity for 

adaptive driving beam 

functionality. 

The upper beam or the lower beam, 

but not both, may be wired to 

modulate from a higher intensity 

to a lower intensity in accordance 

with S10.17.5. 

Upper Beam Headlamps White, of a headlighting 

system listed in 

S10.17.

On the front, at the 

same height, symmetrically about the 

vertical centerline, as 

far apart as practicable. See additional 

requirements in 

S10.17.1.1, 

S10.17.1.2, and 

S10.17.1.3.

Not less than 55.9 cm 

nor more than 137.2 

cm.

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

TABLE XXI—ADAPTIVE DRIVING BEAM PHOTOMETRY REQUIREMENTS (1) 

Measurement distance interval 

(m) 

Maximum illuminance 

Opposite direction 

(lux) 

Maximum illuminance same 

direction 

(lux) 

Greater than or equal to 15.0 and less than 30.0 ................................................................................................... 3.1 18.9 

Greater than or equal to 30.0 and less than 60.0 ................................................................................................... 1.8 18.9 

Greater than or equal to 60.0 and less than 120.0 ................................................................................................. 0.6 4.0 

Greater than or equal to 120.0 and less than or equal to 220 ............................................................................... 0.3 N/A 

(1)For purposes of determining conformance with these specifications, an observed value or a calculated value shall be rounded to the nearest 

0.1 lux, in accordance with the rounding method of ASTM Practice E29 Using Significant Digits in Test Data to Determine Conformance with 

Specifications. 

* * * * * 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 10017 

TABLE XXII—ADAPTIVE DRIVING BEAM SYSTEM TEST MATRIX

Scenario 

No. 

Test vehicle 

speed 

(kph) 

Orientation Radius of curve 

(m.) 

Curve direction Superelevation 

(%) 

Measurement distance range 

(m) 

1 ............. 96.6–112.7 [60–70 

mph] 

Opposite Direction Straight N/A ........ 0–2 Greater than or equal to 15 and less 

than or equal to 220. 

2 ............. 40.2–48.3 [25–30 

mph] 

Opposite Direction 85–115 Left ........ 0–2 Greater than or equal to 15 and less 

than 60. 

3 ............. 64.4–72.4 [40–45 

mph] 

Opposite Direction 210–250 Left ........ 0–2 Greater than or equal to 15 and less 

than or equal to 150. 

4 ............. 80.5–88.5 [50–55 

mph] 

Opposite Direction 335–400 Left ........ 0–2 Greater than or equal to 15 and less 

than or equal to 220. 

5 ............. 64.4–72.4 [40–45 

mph] 

Opposite Direction 210–250 Right ...... 0–2 Greater than or equal to 15 and less 

than or equal to 50. 

6 ............. 80.5–88.5 [50–55 

mph] 

Opposite Direction 335–400 Right ...... 0–2 Greater than or equal to 15 and less 

than or equal to 70. 

7 ............. 96.6–112.7 [60–70 

mph] 

Same Direction ..... Straight N/A ........ 0–2 Greater than or equal to 15 and less 

than or equal to 100. 

8 ............. 64.4–72.4 [40–45 

mph] 

Same Direction ..... 210–250 Left ........ 0–2 Greater than or equal to 15 and less 

than or equal to 100. 

* * * * * 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2ER22FE22.045</GPH>

Lux Meter Locations (2 Places) 

Mount 2.14 m behind the headlamps 

.... 

2l 

C: 

<IJ 

u 

Headlamps (2 Places) : 

2.2m 

1.lm 

-m-.. - .. - .. + .. r- .. -.. -rn- • 0.7m • 0.4m • 

i

4 I •r "i 

0.15m llj :•◄---

! 

0.6m 

Car/ Truck opposite direction stimulus test fixture dimensions 
10018 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2ER22FE22.046</GPH> ER22FE22.047</GPH>

Lux Meter Locations (5 Places) 

Mount 3.5 m behind the 

tail lamps 

0.9 m 

QJ 

C 

.'.S 

0 

2l 

C 

QJ 

u 

Figure 23 

E 

<D 

0.9m ci 

Ground 

Car/ Truck same direction stimulus fixture dimensions 

Figure 24 

Lux Meter Location 

Mount 0.5 m behind the headlamps 

1.3 m 

Headlamp 

QJ 

C 

~ 0.6m 0 

2l 

C 

Ground QJ 

u 

Motorcycle opposite direction stimulus test fixture dimensions 

E 

N 

...; 

E 

m 

ci 

E 

00 

...; 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 10019 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2ER22FE22.048</GPH> ER22FE22.049</GPH>

Figure 25 

Lux Meter Location 

Mount 1.0 m behind the taillamps 

1.2 m 

0.4m 0.4m 

Taillamp 

Ground 

OJ 

C 

~ 0.6m 

0 

2l 

C 

OJ 

u 

Motorcycle same direction stimulus test fixture dimensions 

Te st Ve hie le 

0 Re presents stimulus I amp 

Not to scale. For illustrative purposes only. 

Figure 26 

8 Re presents photometer 

Opposite 

Direction 

Stimulus 

Te st Fixture 
10020 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2ER22FE22.050</GPH> ER22FE22.051</GPH>

Figure 27 Opposite Direction Test Scenarios 

Sarne Direction 

Stimulus Test 

Fixture 

-------------------- TestVehicle 

0 Re presents stimulus I amp 

Not to scale. For illustrative purposes only. 

8 Re presents photornete r 

Figure 28 Same Direction Test Scenarios 

Te st Fixture 

R 

Not to scale. For illustrative 

purposes only. 

Test Vehicle 

Acceleration Area 

Measurement distance 

Do not approach 

from this are a 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 10021 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–C 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Amend Subpart B by adding 

Appendix A to § 571.108 to read as 

follows: 

Appendix A to Subpart B to § 571.108 

Table of Contents. 

Sec. 

571.108 Standard No. 108; Lamps, 

reflective devices, and associated 

equipment. 

S1 Scope. 

S2 Purpose. 

S3 Application. 

S4 Definitions. 

S5 References to SAE publications. 

S6 Vehicle requirements. 

S6.1 Required lamps, reflective devices, and 

associated equipment by vehicle type. 

S6.1.1 Quantity. 

S6.1.1.1 Conspicuity systems. 

S6.1.1.2 High-mounted stop lamps. 

S6.1.1.3 Truck tractor rear turn signal 

lamps. 

S6.1.1.4 Daytime running lamps. 

S6.1.2 Color. 

S6.1.3 Mounting location. 

S6.1.3.3 License plate lamp. 

S6.1.3.4 High-mounted stop lamps. 

S6.1.3.4.1 Interior mounting. 

S6.1.3.4.2 Accessibility. 

S6.1.3.5 Headlamp beam mounting. 

S6.1.3.5.1 Vertical headlamp arrangement. 

S6.1.3.5.2 Horizontal headlamp 

arrangement. 

S6.1.3.6 Auxiliary lamps mounted near 

identification lamps. 

S6.1.4 Mounting height. 

S6.1.4.1 High-mounted stop lamps. 

S6.1.5 Activation. 

S6.1.5.1 Hazard warning signal. 

S6.1.5.2 Simultaneous beam activation. 

S6.2 Impairment. 

S6.2.3 Headlamp obstructions. 

S6.3 Equipment combinations. 

S6.4 Lens area, visibility and school bus 

signal lamp aiming. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2ER22FE22.052</GPH>

Figure 29 Left Curve Test Scenarios 

Te st Fixture 

Measurement distance 

Do not approach 

from this area 

R 

Not to scale. For illustrative 

purposes only. 

Test Vehicle 

Acee le ration Are a 

Figure 30 Right Curve Test Scenarios 
10022 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

S6.4.1 Effective projected luminous lens 

area requirements. 

S6.4.2 Visibility. 

S6.4.3 Visibility options. 

S6.4.3(a) Lens area option. 

S6.4.3(b) Luminous intensity option. 

S6.4.4 Legacy visibility alternative. 

S6.4.5 School bus signal lamp aiming. 

S6.5 Marking. 

S6.5.1 DOT marking. 

S6.5.2 DRL marking. 

S6.5.3 Headlamp markings. 

S6.5.3.1 Trademark. 

S6.5.3.2 Voltage and trade number. 

S6.5.3.3 Sealed beam headlamp markings. 

S6.5.3.4 Replaceable bulb headlamp 

markings. 

S6.5.3.5 Additional headlamp markings. 

S6.6 Associated equipment. 

S6.6.3 License plate holder. 

S6.7 Replacement equipment. 

S6.7.1 General. 

S6.7.2 Version of this standard. 

S7 Signal lamp requirements. 

S7.1 Turn signal lamps. 

S7.1.1 Front turn signal lamps. 

S7.1.1.1 Number. 

S7.1.1.2 Color of light. 

S7.1.1.3 Mounting location. 

S7.1.1.4 Mounting height. 

S7.1.1.5 Activation. 

S7.1.1.6 Effective projected luminous lens 

area. 

S7.1.1.7 Visibility. 

S7.1.1.8 Indicator. 

S7.1.1.9 Markings. 

S7.1.1.10 Spacing to other lamps. 

S7.1.1.10.2 Spacing measurement for nonreflector lamps. 

S7.1.1.10.3 Spacing measurement for lamps 

with reflectors. 

S7.1.1.10.4 Spacing based photometric 

multipliers. 

S7.1.1.11 Multiple compartment lamps and 

multiple lamps. 

S7.1.1.11.4 Lamps installed on vehicles 

2032 mm or more in overall width. 

S7.1.1.12 Ratio to parking lamps and 

clearance lamps. 

S7.1.1.13 Photometry. 

S7.1.1.14 Physical tests. 

S7.1.2 Rear turn signal lamps. 

S7.1.2.1 Number. 

S7.1.2.2 Color of light. 

S7.1.2.3 Mounting location. 

S7.1.2.4 Mounting height. 

S7.1.2.5 Activation. 

S7.1.2.6 Effective projected luminous lens 

area. 

S7.1.2.7 Visibility. 

S7.1.2.8 Indicator. 

S7.1.2.9 Markings. 

S7.1.2.10 Spacing to other lamps. 

S7.1.2.11 Multiple compartments and 

multiple lamps. 

S7.1.2.11.4 Lamps installed on vehicles 

2032 mm or more in overall width. 

S7.1.2.12 Ratio to taillamps and clearance 

lamps. 

S7.1.2.13 Photometry. 

S7.1.2.14 Physical tests. 

S7.1.3 Combined lamp bulb indexing. 

S7.2 Taillamps. 

S7.2.1 Number. 

S7.2.2 Color of light. 

S7.2.3 Mounting location. 

S7.2.4 Mounting height. 

S7.2.5 Activation. 

S7.2.6 Effective projected luminous lens 

area. 

S7.2.7 Visibility. 

S7.2.8 Indicator. 

S7.2.9 Markings. 

S7.2.10 Spacing to other lamps. 

S7.2.11 Multiple compartments and 

multiple lamps. 

S7.2.11.4 Taillamps installed on vehicles 

2032 mm or more in overall width. 

S7.2.12 Ratio. 

S7.2.13 Photometry. 

S7.2.14 Physical tests. 

S7.3 Stop lamps. 

S7.3.1 Number. 

S7.3.2 Color of light. 

S7.3.3 Mounting location. 

S7.3.4 Mounting height. 

S7.3.5 Activation. 

S7.3.6 Effective projected luminous lens 

area. 

S7.3.7 Visibility. 

S7.3.8 Indicator. 

S7.3.9 Markings. 

S7.3.10 Spacing to other lamps. 

S7.3.11 Multiple compartments and 

multiple lamps. 

S7.3.11.4 Lamps installed on vehicles 2032 

mm or more in overall width. 

S7.3.12 Ratio to taillamps. 

S7.3.13 Photometry. 

S7.3.14 Physical tests. 

S7.3.15 Combined lamp bulb indexing. 

S7.4 Side marker lamps. 

S7.4.1 Number. 

S7.4.2 Color of light. 

S7.4.3 Mounting location. 

S7.4.4 Mounting height. 

S7.4.5 Activation. 

S7.4.6 Effective projected luminous lens 

area. 

S7.4.7 Visibility. 

S7.4.8 Indicator. 

S7.4.9 Markings. 

S7.4.10 Spacing to other lamps. 

S7.4.11 Multiple compartments and 

multiple lamps. 

S7.4.12 Ratio. 

S7.4.13 Photometry. 

S7.4.13.2 Inboard photometry. 

S7.4.14 Physical tests. 

S7.5 Clearance and identification lamps. 

S7.5.1 Number. 

S7.5.2 Color of light. 

S7.5.3 Mounting location. 

S7.5.4 Mounting height. 

S7.5.5 Activation. 

S7.5.6 Effective projected luminous lens 

area. 

S7.5.7 Visibility. 

S7.5.8 Indicator. 

S7.5.9 Markings. 

S7.5.10 Spacing to other lamps. 

S7.5.11 Multiple compartments and 

multiple lamps. 

S7.5.12 Ratio. 

S7.5.12.1 Clearance lamps. 

S7.5.12.2 Identification lamps. 

S7.5.13 Photometry. 

S7.5.14 Physical tests. 

S7.6 Backup lamps. 

S7.6.1 Number. 

S7.6.2 Color of light. 

S7.6.3 Mounting location. 

S7.6.4 Mounting height. 

S7.6.5 Activation. 

S7.6.6 Effective projected luminous lens 

area. 

S7.6.7 Visibility. 

S7.6.8 Indicator. 

S7.6.9 Markings. 

S7.6.10 Spacing to other lamps. 

S7.6.11 Multiple compartments and 

multiple lamps. 

S7.6.12 Ratio. 

S7.6.13 Photometry. 

S7.6.14 Physical tests. 

S7.7 License plate lamps. 

S7.7.1 Number. 

S7.7.2 Color of light. 

S7.7.3 Mounting location. 

S7.7.4 Mounting height. 

S7.7.5 Activation. 

S7.7.6 Effective projected luminous lens 

area. 

S7.7.7 Visibility. 

S7.7.8 Indicator. 

S7.7.9 Markings. 

S7.7.10 Spacing to other lamps. 

S7.7.11 Multiple compartments and 

multiple lamps. 

S7.7.12 Ratio. 

S7.7.13 Photometry. 

S7.7.14 Physical tests. 

S7.7.15 Installation. 

S7.7.15.4 Incident light from single lamp. 

S7.7.15.5 Incident light from multiple 

lamps. 

S7.8 Parking lamps. 

S7.8.1 Number. 

S7.8.2 Color of light. 

S7.8.3 Mounting location. 

S7.8.4 Mounting height. 

S7.8.5 Activation. 

S7.8.6 Effective projected luminous lens 

area. 

S7.8.7 Visibility. 

S7.8.8 Indicator. 

S7.8.9 Markings. 

S7.8.10 Spacing to other lamps. 

S7.8.11 Multiple compartments and 

multiple lamps. 

S7.8.12 Ratio. 

S7.8.13 Photometry. 

S7.8.14 Physical tests. 

S7.9 High-mounted stop lamps. 

S7.9.1 Number. 

S7.9.2 Color of light. 

S7.9.3 Mounting location. 

S7.9.4 Mounting height. 

S7.9.5 Activation. 

S7.9.6 Effective projected luminous lens 

area. 

S7.9.7 Visibility. 

S7.9.8 Indicator. 

S7.9.9 Markings. 

S7.9.10 Spacing to other lamps. 

S7.9.11 Multiple compartments and 

multiple lamps. 

S7.9.12 Ratio. 

S7.9.13 Photometry. 

S7.9.14 Physical tests. 

S7.10 Daytime running lamps (DRLs). 

S7.10.1 Number. 

S7.10.2 Color of light. 

S7.10.3 Mounting location. 

S7.10.4 Mounting height. 

S7.10.5 Activation. 

S7.10.6 Effective projected luminous lens 

area. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 10023 

S7.10.7 Visibility. 

S7.10.8 Indicator. 

S7.10.9 Markings. 

S7.10.10 Spacing to other lamps. 

S7.10.10.1 Spacing to turn signal lamps. 

S7.10.11 Multiple compartments and 

multiple lamps. 

S7.10.12 Ratio. 

S7.10.13 Photometry. 

S7.10.14 Physical tests. 

S7.11 School bus signal lamps. 

S7.11.1 Number. 

S7.11.2 Color of light. 

S7.11.3 Mounting location. 

S7.11.4 Mounting height. 

S7.11.5 Activation. 

S7.11.6 Effective projected luminous lens 

area. 

S7.11.7 Visibility. 

S7.11.8 Indicator. 

S7.11.9 Markings. 

S7.11.10 Spacing to other lamps. 

S7.11.11 Multiple compartments and 

multiple lamps. 

S7.11.12 Ratio. 

S7.11.13 Photometry. 

S7.11.14 Physical tests. 

S8 Reflective device requirements. 

S8.1 Reflex reflectors. 

S8.1.1 Number. 

S8.1.2 Color. 

S8.1.3 Mounting location. 

S8.1.4 Mounting height. 

S8.1.5 Activation. 

S8.1.6 Effective projected luminous lens 

area. 

S8.1.7 Visibility. 

S8.1.8 Indicator. 

S8.1.9 Markings. 

S8.1.10 Spacing to other lamps or reflective 

devices. 

S8.1.11 Photometry. 

S8.1.12 Physical tests. 

S8.1.13 Alternative side reflex reflector 

material. 

S8.2 Conspicuity systems. 

S8.2.1 Retroreflective sheeting. 

S8.2.1.2 Retroreflective sheeting material. 

S8.2.1.3 Certification marking. 

S8.2.1.4 Application pattern. 

S8.2.1.4.1 Alternating red and white 

materials. 

S8.2.1.5 Application location. 

S8.2.1.6 Application spacing. 

S8.2.1.7 Photometry. 

S8.2.2 Conspicuity reflex reflectors. 

S8.2.2.1 Certification marking. 

S8.2.2.2 Application pattern. 

S8.2.2.2.1 Alternating red and white 

materials. 

S8.2.2.2.2 White material. 

S8.2.2.3 Photometry. 

S8.2.3 Conspicuity system installation on 

trailers. 

S8.2.3.1 Trailer rear. 

S8.2.3.1.1 Element 1—alternating red and 

white materials. 

S8.2.3.1.2 Element 2—white. 

S8.2.3.1.3 Element 3—alternating red and 

white materials. 

S8.2.3.2 Trailer side-alternating red and 

white materials. 

S8.2.4 Conspicuity system installation on 

truck tractors. 

S8.2.4.1 Element 1—alternating red and 

white materials. 

S8.2.4.2 Element 2—white. 

S9 Associated equipment requirements. 

S9.1 Turn signal operating unit. 

S9.1.2 Physical tests. 

S9.2 Turn signal flasher. 

S9.2.2 Physical tests. 

S9.3 Turn signal pilot indicator. 

S9.3.4 Indicator size and color. 

S9.3.6 Turn signal lamp failure. 

S9.4 Headlamp beam switching device. 

S9.4.1 Semi-automatic headlamp beam 

switching device. 

S9.4.1.1 Operating instructions. 

S9.4.1.2 Manual override. 

S9.4.1.3 Fail safe operation. 

S9.4.1.4 Automatic dimming indicator. 

S9.4.1.5 Option 1 (Semiautomatic 

Headlamp Beam Switching Devices other 

than Adaptive Driving Beam systems). 

S9.4.1.5.1 Lens accessibility. 

S9.4.1.5.2 Mounting height. 

S9.4.1.5.3 Physical tests. 

S9.4.1.6 Option 2 (Adaptive Driving Beam 

systems). 

S9.4.1.7 Physical tests. 

S9.5 Upper beam headlamp indicator. 

S9.5.1 Indicator size and location. 

S9.6 Vehicular hazard warning signal 

operating unit. 

S9.6.2 Operating unit switch. 

S9.6.3 Physical tests. 

S9.7 Vehicular hazard warning signal 

flasher. 

S9.7.2 Physical tests. 

S9.8 Vehicular hazard warning signal pilot 

indicator. 

S9.8.4 Indicator size and color. 

S10 Headlighting system requirements. 

S10.1 Vehicle headlighting systems. 

S10.2 [Reserved]. 

S10.3 Number. 

S10.4 Color of light. 

S10.5 Mounting location. 

S10.6 Mounting height. 

S10.7 Activation. 

S10.8 Effective projected luminous lens 

area. 

S10.9 Visibility. 

S10.10 Indicator. 

S10.11 Markings. 

S10.12 Spacing to other lamps. 

S10.13 Sealed beam headlighting systems. 

S10.13.1 Installation. 

S10.13.2 Simultaneous aim. 

S10.13.3 Photometry. 

S10.13.4 Physical tests. 

S10.14 Integral beam headlighting systems. 

S10.14.1 Installation. 

S10.14.2 Aimability. 

S10.14.3 Simultaneous aim. 

S10.14.4 Markings. 

S10.14.5 Additional light sources. 

S10.14.6 Photometry. 

S10.14.7 Physical tests. 

S10.15 Replaceable bulb headlighting 

systems. 

S10.15.1 Installation. 

S10.15.2 Aiming restrictions. 

S10.15.3 Replacement lens reflector units. 

S10.15.4 Markings. 

S10.15.5 Additional light sources. 

S10.15.6 Photometry. 

S10.15.7 Physical tests. 

S10.16 Combination headlighting systems. 

S10.16.1 Installation. 

S10.16.2 Photometry. 

S10.16.3 Physical tests. 

S10.17 Motorcycle headlighting systems. 

S10.17.1 Installation. 

S10.17.1.1 Single headlamp. 

S10.17.1.2 Two headlamps with both 

beams. 

S10.17.1.3 Two headlamps, upper beam 

and lower beam. 

S10.17.2 Motorcycle replaceable bulb 

headlamp marking. 

S10.17.3 Photometry. 

S10.17.4 Physical tests. 

S10.17.5 Motorcycle headlamp modulation 

system. 

S10.17.5.1 Modulation. 

S10.17.5.2 Replacement modulators. 

S10.17.5.2.1 Replacement performance. 

S10.17.5.2.2 Replacement instructions. 

S10.18 Headlamp aimability performance 

requirements (except motorcycles). 

S10.18.1 Headlamp mounting and aiming. 

S10.18.2 Headlamp aiming systems. 

S10.18.3 Aim adjustment interaction. 

S10.18.4 Horizontal adjustment-visually 

aimed headlamp. 

S10.18.5 Optical axis marking. 

S10.18.5.1 Optical axis marking-vehicle. 

S10.18.5.2 Optical axis marking-lamp. 

S10.18.5.3 Optical axis marking-visual/ 

optical aim headlamp. 

S10.18.6 Moveable reflectors. 

S10.18.7 External aiming. 

S10.18.7.1 Headlamp aiming device 

locating plates. 

S10.18.7.2 Nonadjustable headlamp aiming 

device locating plates. 

S10.18.8 On-vehicle aiming. 

S10.18.8.1 Aim. 

S10.18.8.1.1 Vertical aim. 

S10.18.8.1.2 Horizontal aim. 

S10.18.8.2 Aiming instructions. 

S10.18.8.3 Permanent calibration. 

S10.18.8.4 Replacement units. 

S10.18.8.5 Physical tests. 

S10.18.9 Visual/optical aiming. 

S10.18.9.1 Vertical aim, lower beam. 

S10.18.9.1.1 Vertical position of the cutoff. 

S10.18.9.1.2 Vertical gradient. 

S10.18.9.1.3 Horizontal position of the 

cutoff. 

S10.18.9.1.4 Maximum inclination of the 

cutoff. 

S10.18.9.1.5 Measuring the cutoff 

parameter. 

S10.18.9.2 Horizontal aim, lower beam. 

S10.18.9.3 Vertical aim, upper beam. 

S10.18.9.4 Horizontal aim, upper beam. 

S10.18.9.5 Photometry. 

S10.18.9.6 Visual/optical aiming 

identification marking. 

S11 Replaceable light source requirements. 

S11.1 Markings. 

S11.2 Ballast markings. 

S11.3 Gas discharge laboratory life. 

S11.4 Physical tests. 

S12 Headlamp concealment device 

requirements. 

S12.7 Certification election. 

S13 Replaceable headlamp lens 

requirements. 

S14 Physical and photometry test 

procedures and performance 

requirements. 

S14.1 General test procedures and 

performance requirements. 

S14.1.2 Plastic optical materials. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
10024 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

S14.1.4 Samples. 

S14.1.5 Laboratory facilities. 

S14.2 Photometric test procedures. 

S14.2.1 Photometry measurements for all 

lamps except license lamps, headlamps, 

and DRLs. 

S14.2.1.1 Mounting. 

S14.2.1.2 School bus signal lamp aiming. 

S14.2.1.3 Measurement distance. 

S14.2.1.4 Location of test points. 

S14.2.1.5 Multiple compartment and 

multiple lamp photometry of turn signal 

lamps, stop lamps, and taillamps. 

S14.2.1.6 Bulbs. 

S14.2.2 License plate lamp photometry. 

S14.2.2.1 Illumination surface. 

S14.2.2.2 Test stations. 

S14.2.3 Reflex reflector and retroreflective 

sheeting photometry. 

S14.2.3.1 Mounting. 

S14.2.3.2 Illumination source. 

S14.2.3.3 Measurement distance. 

S14.2.3.4 Test setup. 

S14.2.3.5 Photodetector. 

S14.2.3.6 Photometry surface. 

S14.2.3.7 Procedure. 

S14.2.3.8 Measurements. 

S14.2.3.8.1 Reflex reflectors. 

S14.2.3.8.2 Retroreflective sheeting. 

S14.2.3.8.3 Reflex reflector photometry 

measurement adjustments. 

S14.2.4 Daytime running lamp (DRL) 

photometry measurements. 

S14.2.5 Headlamp photometry 

measurements. 

S14.2.5.1 Mounting. 

S14.2.5.3 Measurement distance. 

S14.2.5.4 Seasoning and test voltage. 

S14.2.5.5 Aiming. 

S14.2.5.5.1 Mechanically aimable 

headlamps using an external aimer. 

S14.2.5.5.2 Mechanically aimable 

headlamps equipped with a VHAD. 

S14.2.5.5.3 Visually aimable lower beam 

headlamps-vertical aim. 

S14.2.5.5.4 Visually aimable lower beam 

headlamps-horizontal aim. 

S14.2.5.5.5 Visually aimable upper beam 

headlamps-vertical aim. 

S14.2.5.5.6 Visually aimable upper beam 

headlamps-horizontal aim. 

S14.2.5.5.7 Simultaneous aim Type F 

sealed beam headlamps and beam 

contributor integral beam headlamps. 

S14.2.5.5.8 Motorcycle headlamp-upper 

beam headlamps designed to comply 

with Table XX. 

S14.2.5.5.9 Motorcycle headlamp-lower 

beam headlamps designed to comply 

with Table XX. 

S14.2.5.6 Positioner. 

S14.2.5.7 Photometer. 

S14.2.5.7.2 Sensor. 

S14.2.5.8 Location of test points. 

S14.2.5.9 Beam contributor photometry 

measurements. 

S14.2.5.10 Moveable reflector aimed 

headlamp photometry measurements. 

S14.3 Motorcycle headlamp out of focus 

test procedure and performance 

requirements. 

S14.3.1 Procedure. 

S14.3.2 Performance requirements. 

S14.4 General test procedures and 

performance requirements. 

S14.4.1 Color test. 

S14.4.1.1 Samples. 

S14.4.1.2 General procedure. 

S14.4.1.3 Visual method. 

S14.4.1.3.1 Visual method procedure. 

S14.4.1.3.2 Visual method performance 

requirements. 

S14.4.1.3.2.1 Red. 

S14.4.1.3.2.2 Yellow (Amber). 

S14.4.1.3.2.3 White. 

S14.4.1.4 Tristimulus method. 

S14.4.1.4.1 Tristimulus method procedure. 

S14.4.1.4.2 Tristimulus method 

performance requirements. 

S14.4.1.4.2.1 Red. 

S14.4.1.4.2.2 Yellow (Amber). 

S14.4.1.4.2.3 White (achromatic). 

S14.4.1.4.2.4 Green. 

S14.4.1.4.2.5 Restricted Blue. 

S14.4.1.4.2.6 Signal Blue. 

S14.4.2 Plastic optical materials tests. 

S14.4.2.1 Samples. 

S14.4.2.2 Outdoor exposure test. 

S14.4.2.2.3 Procedure. 

S14.4.2.2.4 Performance requirements. 

S14.4.2.3 Heat test. 

S14.4.2.3.1 Procedure. 

S14.4.2.3.2 Performance requirements. 

S14.5 Signal lamp and reflective device 

physical test procedures and 

performance requirements. 

S14.5.1 Vibration test. 

S14.5.1.1 Procedure. 

S14.5.1.2 Performance requirements. 

S14.5.2 Moisture test. 

S14.5.2.1 Procedure. 

S14.5.2.2 Performance requirements. 

S14.5.3 Dust test. 

S14.5.3.1 Samples. 

S14.5.3.2 Procedure. 

S14.5.3.3 Performance requirements. 

S14.5.4 Corrosion test. 

S14.5.4.1 Procedure. 

S14.5.4.2 Performance requirements. 

S14.6 Headlamp physical test procedures 

and performance requirements. 

S14.6.1 Abrasion test. 

S14.6.1.1 Procedure. 

S14.6.1.1.1 Abrading pad. 

S14.6.1.1.2 Abrading pad alignment. 

S14.6.1.1.3 Abrasion test procedure. 

S14.6.1.2 Performance requirements. 

S14.6.2 Chemical resistance test. 

S14.6.2.1 Procedure. 

S14.6.2.1.1 Test fluids. 

S14.6.2.1.2 Fluid application. 

S14.6.2.1.3 Test duration. 

S14.6.2.2 Performance requirements. 

S14.6.3 Corrosion test. 

S14.6.3.1 Procedure. 

S14.6.3.2 Performance requirements. 

S14.6.4 Corrosion-connector test. 

S14.6.4.1 Procedure. 

S14.6.4.2 Performance requirements. 

S14.6.5 Dust test. 

S14.6.5.1 Procedure. 

S14.6.5.2 Performance requirements. 

S14.6.6 Temperature cycle test and internal 

heat test. 

S14.6.6.1 Samples. 

S14.6.6.2 General procedure. 

S14.6.6.3 Temperature cycle test. 

S14.6.6.3.1 Procedure. 

S14.6.6.3.2 Performance requirements. 

S14.6.6.4 Internal heat test. 

S14.6.6.4.1 Procedure. 

S14.6.6.4.2 Performance requirements. 

S14.6.7 Humidity test. 

S14.6.7.1 Procedure. 

S14.6.7.2 Performance requirements. 

S14.6.8 Vibration test. 

S14.6.8.1 Samples. 

S14.6.8.2 Procedure. 

S14.6.8.3 Performance requirements. 

S14.6.9 Sealing test. 

S14.6.9.1 Procedure. 

S14.6.9.2 Performance requirements. 

S14.6.10 Chemical resistance test of 

reflectors of replaceable lens headlamps. 

S14.6.10.1 Procedure. 

S14.6.10.1.1 Test fluids. 

S14.6.10.1.2 Fluid application. 

S14.6.10.1.3 Test duration. 

S14.6.10.2 Performance requirements. 

S14.6.11 Corrosion resistance test of 

reflectors of replaceable lens headlamps. 

S14.6.11.1 Procedure. 

S14.6.11.2 Performance requirements. 

S14.6.12 Inward force test. 

S14.6.12.1 Procedure. 

S14.6.12.2 Performance requirements. 

S14.6.13 Torque deflection test. 

S14.6.13.1 Procedure. 

S14.6.13.2 Performance requirements. 

S14.6.14 Retaining ring test. 

S14.6.14.1 Procedure. 

S14.6.14.2 Performance requirements. 

S14.6.15 Headlamp connector test. 

S14.6.15.1 Procedure. 

S14.6.15.2 Performance requirements. 

S14.6.16 Headlamp wattage test. 

S14.6.16.1 Procedure. 

S14.6.16.2 Performance requirements. 

S14.6.17 Aiming adjustment test-laboratory. 

S14.6.17.1 Procedure. 

S14.6.17.2 Performance requirements. 

S14.6.18 Aiming adjustment test-on vehicle. 

S14.6.18.1 Procedure. 

S14.6.18.2 Performance requirements. 

S14.7 Replaceable light source physical test 

procedures and performance 

requirements. 

S14.7.1 Deflection test for replaceable light 

sources. 

S14.7.1.1 Procedure. 

S14.7.1.2 Performance requirements. 

S14.7.2 Pressure test for replaceable light 

sources. 

S14.7.2.1 Procedure. 

S14.7.2.2 Performance requirements. 

S14.7.3 Replaceable light source power and 

flux measurement procedure. 

S14.7.3.1 Seasoning. 

S14.7.3.1.1 Resistive filament source. 

S14.7.3.1.2 Discharge source. 

S14.7.3.2 Test voltage. 

S14.7.3.3 Luminous flux measurement. 

S14.7.3.3.1 Resistive filament light source 

setup. 

S14.7.3.3.3.2 Discharge light source setup. 

S14.8 Vehicle headlamp aiming devices 

(VHAD) physical test procedures and 

performance requirements. 

S14.8.1 Samples. 

S14.8.2 Scale graduation test. 

S14.8.2.1 Procedure. 

S14.8.2.2 Performance requirements. 

S14.8.3 Cold scale graduation test. 

S14.8.3.1 Procedure. 

S14.8.3.2 Performance requirements. 

S14.8.4 Hot scale graduation test. 

S14.8.4.1 Procedure. 

S14.8.4.2 Performance requirements. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 10025 

S14.8.5 Thermal cycle test. 

S14.8.5.1 Procedure. 

S14.8.5.2 Performance requirements. 

S14.8.6 Corrosion test. 

S14.8.6.1 Procedure. 

S14.8.6.2 Performance requirements. 

S14.8.7 Photometry test. 

S14.8.7.1 Procedure. 

S14.8.7.2 Performance requirements. 

S14.9 Associated equipment physical test 

procedures and performance 

requirements. 

S14.9.1 Turn signal operating unit 

durability test. 

S14.9.1.1 Power supply specifications. 

S14.9.1.2 Procedure. 

S14.9.1.3 Performance requirements. 

S14.9.2 Vehicular hazard warning signal 

operating unit durability test. 

S14.9.2.1 Procedure. 

S14.9.2.2 Performance requirements. 

S14.9.3 Turn signal flasher and vehicular 

hazard warning flasher tests. 

S14.9.3.1 Standard test circuit. 

S14.9.3.1.1 Test circuit setup. 

S14.9.3.2 Power supply specifications. 

S14.9.3.2.1 Starting time, voltage drop, and 

flash rate and percent current ‘‘on’’ time 

tests. 

S14.9.3.2.2 Durability tests. 

S14.9.3.3 Turn signal flasher starting time 

test. 

S14.9.3.3.1 Samples. 

S14.9.3.3.2 Procedure. 

S14.9.3.3.3 Performance requirements. 

S14.9.3.4 Turn signal flasher voltage drop 

test. 

S14.9.3.4.1 Samples. 

S14.9.3.4.2 Procedure. 

S14.9.3.4.3 Performance requirements. 

S14.9.3.5 Turn signal flasher flash rate and 

percent current ‘‘on’’ time test. 

S14.9.3.5.1 Samples. 

S14.9.3.5.2 Procedure. 

S14.9.3.5.3 Performance requirements. 

S14.9.3.6 Turn signal flasher durability test. 

S14.9.3.6.1 Samples. 

S14.9.3.6.2 Procedure. 

S14.9.3.6.3 Performance requirements. 

S14.9.3.7 Vehicular hazard warning signal 

flasher starting time test. 

S14.9.3.7.1 Samples. 

S14.9.3.7.2 Procedure. 

S14.9.3.7.3 Performance requirements. 

S14.9.3.8 Vehicular hazard warning signal 

flasher voltage drop test. 

S14.9.3.8.1 Samples. 

S14.9.3.8.2 Procedure. 

S14.9.3.8.3 Performance requirements. 

S14.9.3.9 Vehicular hazard warning signal 

flasher flash rate and percent ‘‘on’’ time 

test. 

S14.9.3.9.1 Samples. 

S14.9.3.9.2 Procedure. 

S14.9.3.9.3 Performance requirements. 

S14.9.3.10 Vehicular hazard warning signal 

flasher durability test. 

S14.9.3.10.1 Samples. 

S14.9.3.10.2 Procedure. 

S14.9.3.10.3 Performance requirements. 

S14.9.3.11 Semiautomatic headlamp beam 

switching device tests. 

S14.9.3.11.1 Test conditions. 

S14.9.3.11.2 Sensitivity test. 

S14.9.3.11.2.1 Samples. 

S14.9.3.11.2.2 Procedure. 

S14.9.3.11.2.3 Performance requirements. 

S14.9.3.11.2.3.1 Operating limits. 

S14.9.3.11.3 Voltage regulation test. 

S14.9.3.11.3.1 Procedure. 

S14.9.3.11.3.2 Performance requirements. 

S14.9.3.11.4 Manual override test. 

S14.9.3.11.4.1 Procedure. 

S14.9.3.11.4.2 Performance requirements. 

S14.9.3.11.5 Warmup test. 

S14.9.3.11.5.1 Procedure. 

S14.9.3.11.5.2 Performance requirements. 

S14.9.3.11.6 Temperature test. 

S14.9.3.11.6.1 Procedure. 

S14.9.3.11.6.2 Performance requirements. 

S14.9.3.11.7 Dust test. 

S14.9.3.11.7.1 Procedure. 

S14.9.3.11.7.2 Performance requirements. 

S14.9.3.11.8 Corrosion test. 

S14.9.3.11.8.1 Procedure. 

S14.9.3.11.8.2 Performance requirements. 

S14.9.3.11.9 Vibration test. 

S14.9.3.11.9.1 Procedure. 

S14.9.3.11.9.2 Performance requirements. 

S14.9.3.11.10 Sunlight test. 

S14.9.3.11.10.1 Procedure. 

S14.9.3.11.10.2 Performance requirements. 

S14.9.3.11.11 Durability test. 

S14.9.3.11.11.1 Procedure. 

S14.9.3.11.11.2 Performance requirements. 

S14.9.3.11.12 Return to upper beam test. 

S14.9.3.11.12.1 Procedure. 

S14.9.3.11.12.2 Performance requirements. 

S14.9.3.12 Test for compliance with 

adaptive driving beam photometry 

requirements. 

S14.9.3.12.1 Test Scenarios. 

S14.9.3.12.2 Compliance Criteria. 

S14.9.3.12.3 Stimulus test fixtures. 

S14.9.3.12.4 Test vehicle preparation. 

S14.9.3.12.5 Test road. 

S14.9.3.12.6 Other test parameters and 

conditions. 

Table I–a Required lamps and reflective 

devices All passenger cars, multipurpose 

passenger vehicles (MPV), trucks, and 

buses 

Table I–b Required lamps and reflective 

devices All trailers 

Table I–c Required lamps and reflective 

devices All motorcycles 

Table II–a Headlighting systems Sealed 

beams 

Table II–b Headlighting systems 

Combination 

Table II–c Headlighting systems Integral 

beams 

Table II–d Headlighting systems 

Replaceable bulb 

Table III Marking requirements location 

Table IV–a Effective projected luminous 

lens area requirements 

Table IV–b Effective projected luminous 

lens area requirements 

Table IV–c Effective projected luminous 

lens area requirements 

Table V–a Visibility requirements of 

installed lighting devices 

Table V–b Visibility requirements of 

installed lighting devices Lens area 

visibility option 

Table V–c Visibility requirements of 

installed lighting devices Luminous 

intensity visibility option 

Table V–d Visibility requirements of 

installed lighting devices (Legacy 

visibility alternative) 

Table VI–a Front turn signal lamp 

photometry requirements 

Table VI–b Front turn signal lamp 

photometry requirements 

Table VII Rear turn signal lamp photometry 

requirements 

Table VIII Taillamp photometry 

requirements 

Table IX Stop lamp photometry 

requirements 

Table X Side marker lamp photometry 

requirements 

Table XI Clearance and identification 

lamps photometry requirements 

Table XII Backup lamp photometry 

requirements 

Table XIII–a Motorcycle turn signal lamp 

alternative photometry requirements 

Table XIII–b Motor driven cycle stop lamp 

alternative photometry requirements 

Table XIV Parking lamp photometry 

requirements 

Table XV High-mounted stop lamp 

photometry requirements 

Table XVI–a Reflex reflector photometry 

requirements 

Table XVI–b Additional photometry 

requirements for conspicuity reflex 

reflectors 

Table XVI–c Retroreflective sheeting 

photometry requirements 

Table XVII School bus signal lamp 

photometry requirements 

Table XVIII Headlamp upper beam 

photometry requirements 

Table XIX–a Headlamp lower beam 

photometry requirements 

Table XIX–b Headlamp lower beam 

photometry requirements 

Table XIX–c Headlamp lower beam 

photometry requirements 

Table XX Motorcycle and motor driven 

cycle headlamp photometry 

requirements 

Table XXI Adaptive Driving Beam 

Photometry Requirements 

Table XXII Adaptive Driving Beam Test 

Matrix 

Figure 1 Chromaticity diagram 

Figure 2 Flasher performance chart 

Figure 3 Replaceable bulb headlamp aim 

pads 

Figure 4 Headlamp connector test setup 

Figure 5 Headlamp abrasion test fixture 

Figure 6 Thermal cycle test profile 

Figure 7 Dirt/Ambient test setup 

Figure 8 Replaceable light source deflection 

test setup 

Figure 9 Environmental test profile 

Figure 10 Replaceable light source pressure 

test setup 

Figure 11 Trailer conspicuity treatment 

examples 

Figure 12–1 Trailer conspicuity detail I 

Figure 12–2 Trailer conspicuity detail II 

Figure 13 Tractor conspicuity treatment 

examples 

Figure 14 92 x 150 Headlamp aim 

deflection test setup 

Figure 15 Types G and H headlamp aim 

deflection test setup 

Figure 16 Types A and E headlamp aim 

deflection test setup 

Figure 17 Type B headlamp aim deflection 

test setup 

Figure 18 Types C and D headlamp aim 

deflection test setup 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
10026 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

Figure 19 License plate lamp target 

locations 

Figure 20 License plate lamp measurement 

of incident light angle 

Figure 21 Vibration test machine 

Figure 22 Flasher standard test circuit 

Figure 23 Car/Truck opposite direction 

stimulus test fixture dimensions 

Figure 24 Car/Truck same direction 

stimulus test fixture dimensions 

Figure 25 Motorcycle opposite direction 

stimulus test fixture dimensions 

Figure 26 Motorcycle same direction 

stimulus test fixture dimensions 

Figure 27 Opposite direction test scenarios 

Figure 28 Same direction test scenarios 

Figure 29 Left Curve Test Scenarios 

Figure 30 Right Curve Test Scenarios 

* * * * * 

Issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 

1.95, 501.4, and 501.5. 

Steven S. Cliff, 

Deputy Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2022–02451 Filed 2–18–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2