Document ID: NHTSA-2017-0018-0026
Agency: nhtsa
Document Type: Notice
Title: Petitions: Vehicles with Adaptive Driving Beam Headlamps; BMW of North America, LLC and Volkswagen Group of America: Temporary Exemption; Denial
Posted Date: 2022-02-22T05:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 35 (Tuesday, February 22, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9785-9787]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02452]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2017-0018]

BMW of North America, LLC and Volkswagen Group of America; Denial 
of Petitions for Temporary Exemption From FMVSS No. 108 for Vehicles 
With Adaptive Driving Beam Headlamps

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

ACTION: Notice of denial of petitions for a temporary exemption for 
vehicles equipped with adaptive driving beam headlighting systems from 
certain requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 
No. 108;

[[Page 9786]]

``Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment.''

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

SUMMARY: This document denies petitions from Volkswagen Group of 
America (Volkswagen) and BMW of North America, LLC (BMW) (collectively, 
Petitioners) for temporary exemptions from certain requirements of 
FMVSS No. 108 to allow installation of adaptive driving beam (ADB) 
headlighting systems. Both manufacturers requested exemptions on the 
basis that an exemption would facilitate the development or field 
evaluation of a new motor vehicle safety feature providing a safety 
level at least equal to that of the standard. NHTSA has determined 
that, in light of the publication today of a final rule amending FMVSS 
No. 108 to allow ADB systems, there is no need to grant the requested 
exemptions because the standard now allows the deployment of such 
systems. Accordingly, the petitions are denied.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Piazza, Office of the Chief 
Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: 202-366-2992; Email: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On September 11, 2017, NHTSA published a notice of receipt of a 
petition from Volkswagen for a temporary exemption from certain 
requirements of FMVSS No. 108 to allow the use of ADB headlights (82 FR 
42720). On March 22, 2018, NHTSA published a notice of receipt of a 
similar petition from BMW (83 FR 12650). That notice also requested 
additional information from Volkswagen, BMW, and any other 
manufacturers wishing to submit exemption petitions for ADB systems, to 
assist NHTSA in evaluating such petitions.\1\ Volkswagen and BMW 
subsequently submitted additional information in response to the 2018 
notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The basis for both petitions is that an exemption would make 
easier the development or field evaluation of a new motor vehicle 
safety feature providing a safety level at least equal to that of 
the standard. 49 CFR 555.6(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Adaptive driving beam systems are an advanced type of semiautomatic 
headlamp beam switching technology that aims to address the tradeoff 
between forward visibility and glare. ADB systems are capable of 
producing a dynamic adaptive beam pattern brighter than a conventional 
lower beam, but not as bright as an upper beam. This adaptive beam is 
particularly useful for distance illumination of pedestrians, cyclists, 
animals, and objects in or near the road when other vehicles are 
present and thus preclude use of the upper beam.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ADB technology can enhance safety in two ways. First, such 
systems provide more illumination than existing lower beams by 
providing a sculpted, dynamic beam pattern that adjusts to avoid 
glaring other motorists; high-resolution ADB systems are even 
capable of classifying objects and placing optimized levels of light 
on all objects in the driver's view (such as retroreflective signs 
or pedestrians). Second, such systems facilitate increased use of 
the upper beam in situations where other vehicles will not be 
glared. For both these reasons, ADB has the potential to reduce the 
risk of crashes by increasing visibility without increasing glare.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA is today publishing a final rule amending FMVSS No. 108 to 
permit ADB systems. The final rule establishes performance requirements 
to ensure that ADB systems operate safely by not glaring other 
motorists and providing a minimum level of visibility. The final rule 
is effective immediately.

II. Overview of the Petitions

Volkswagen Petition

    Volkswagen petitioned for an exemption from S9.4 and S10.14.6 of 
FMVSS No. 108 for its Matrix Beam ADB system on Audi A7 models (which 
may also include S7 and Rs7 variants). Section S9.4 requires that a 
vehicle have a means of switching between lower and upper beams. The 
means must be designed and located so that it may be operated 
conveniently by a simple movement of the driver's hand or foot. The 
switch must have no dead point and, except as provided by S6.1.5.2, the 
lower and upper beams must not be energized simultaneously except 
momentarily for temporary signaling purposes or during switching 
between beams. S10.14.6 specifies the photometry requirements for 
integral beam headlighting systems. Volkswagen indicated that the 
Matrix Beam may not comply with these requirements.
    The basis for the application is that the exemption would make 
easier the development or field evaluation of a new motor vehicle 
safety feature providing a safety level at least equal to that of the 
standard. Volkswagen explained how the Matrix Beam system operates and 
the safety benefits it believes the system would offer. Volkswagen also 
submitted additional information in response to NHTSA's request for 
information in the 2018 notice.

BMW Petition

    BMW petitioned for an exemption from FMVSS No. 108 for BMW i8 
vehicles equipped with its Laserlight Glare-Free High Beam Assist. 
Similar to Volkswagen, BMW sought an exemption from the requirement of 
S9.4 that prohibits the simultaneous energization of the lower and 
upper beams and from the upper beam photometry requirements of 
S10.14.6. BMW stated that the photometry requirements specify minimum 
and maximum photometric intensities of the upper beam light that may 
not be met by the Glare-Free High Beam Assist.
    The basis for the application is that the exemption would make 
easier the development or field evaluation of a new motor vehicle 
safety feature providing a safety level at least equal to that of the 
standard. BMW explained how the Glare-Free High Beam Assist operates 
and the safety benefits it believes the system would offer. BMW also 
submitted additional information in response to NHTSA's requests for 
information in the 2018 notice.

III. Summary of Comments

    NHTSA received 17 comments on one or both of the petitions. Several 
manufacturers or trade groups (Truck and Engine Manufacturers 
Association, SAE, Osram Sylvania Products, Inc., Alliance of Automobile 
Manufacturers (Alliance), American Trucking Associations, Mercedes-Benz 
USA, LLC, and Transportation Safety Equipment Institute (TSEI)) 
commented in support of the petitions. Two public interest groups 
(Advocates for Highway Safety and Consumers Union) also supported or 
conditionally supported granting one or both of the petitions. Several 
individual citizens commented in support of granting one or both of the 
petitions.
    SAE, the Alliance, and Mercedes also responded to NHTSA's 2018 
request for additional information. These comments were repeated in 
these organizations' comments to the ADB NPRM. OSRAM, the Alliance, 
Mercedes, and TSEI supported SAE's comment. Advocates for Highway 
Safety commented on Volkswagen's petition and conditionally supported 
it. Consumers Union commented on several issues, and submitted similar 
comments to the NPRM.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ NHTSA has addressed all significant comments to the NPRM in 
the ADB final rule published today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Agency Analysis and Decision

    NHTSA has considered Petitioners' arguments, the comments received 
on the petitions, and the final rule that is being issued today. NHTSA 
has determined that the issuance of the final rule makes it unnecessary 
for NHTSA to grant the petitions.

[[Page 9787]]

    Petitioners argue that an exemption is necessary because their ADB 
systems may not comply with the requirements of S9.4 and S10.14.6. They 
also contend that an exemption would facilitate the development and 
field evaluation of their ADB systems because it would allow them to 
obtain data and consumer feedback on system performance. The 
publication of the FMVSS No. 108 final rule published today--that is 
effective immediately--permitting the deployment of ADB systems renders 
these petitions unnecessary. Petitioners and other manufacturers 
wishing to equip vehicles with ADB systems may do so, provided that the 
systems comply with the requirements set out in the final rule.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ We do not read the petitioners as requesting an exemption 
from the requirements of the final rule, as the rule did not exist 
at the time of their petitions. Alternatively, we believe it is not 
necessary, nor would it be in the public interest, to exempt the ADB 
systems from the requirements for ADB systems in today's final rule 
based on the information provided in the petitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The requirements adopted by the final rule are necessary to ensure 
that ADB systems operate safely with respect to glare prevention and 
visibility. The requirements are generally within the capabilities of 
current ADB systems (some system modifications might be necessary). 
These issues are discussed at length in the preamble to the final rule.
    We note that the manufacturers' comments regarding the additional 
information NHTSA requested were also included in the comments those 
same manufacturers submitted to the ADB rulemaking docket in response 
to the NPRM. Those comments are addressed in the preamble to the final 
rule.
    Decision--Based on the foregoing, the petitions from Volkswagen and 
BMW for temporary exemption are denied.
    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30113; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 
and 501.4, and 501.5.

Steven S. Cliff,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2022-02452 Filed 2-18-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P