[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 226 (Friday, November 24, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 58038-58039]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-28683]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. 85-15; Notice 18]
RIN 2127 AB87
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Lamps, Reflective Devices
and Associated Equipment; Performance-Oriented Roadway Illumination
Headlighting Compliance Alternative
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.
ACTION: Termination of rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice terminates rulemaking action on the effort known
as the Vehicle-Based Roadway Illumination Performance Requirement. It
was begun as an attempt to move toward a more performance-oriented,
less design-restrictive regulatory solution for assuring safe roadway
environment illumination. The agency has not been able to adequately
explore the myriad solutions to this problem to the extent necessary to
satisfy the public's demand for achieving an objective decision on
performance. As a consequence, the agency has decided to temporarily
cease rulemaking in this area.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Richard L. Van Iderstine, 400
Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590. Mr. Van Iderstine's telephone
number is: (202) 366-5275. His facsimile number is (202) 366-4329.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 9, 1989 (54 FR 20084) the Agency
published a proposal to establish an alternative means of compliance
with headlighting safety regulations. This proposal was known as the
Vehicle-Based Roadway Illumination Performance Requirement or
Performance-Oriented Roadway Illumination. The goal was to achieve a
more performance-oriented, less design-restrictive regulatory solution
for assuring safe roadway environment illumination. Because the outcome
of this action had the potential to be so different from any known
means of specifying headlighting performance, commenters to the
proposal were skeptical that any solution would be usable and that even
if it were, the perceived regulatory burdens of it would not be
commensurate with the uncertain potential benefits to public safety.
This concern occurred because the proposal had the effect of requiring
substantially more illumination than was available from contemporary
headlighting systems. It was viewed as not practicable by many of the
commenters. As a consequence, commenters suggested that all the
assumptions underlying the proposal be justified to assure that the
significant increase in illumination would at least maintain safety,
and that any solution (that might someday be mandated) would be
practicable and cost-beneficial. If these criteria could not be
achieved, then any solution, even if it were at the manufacturer's
option, would have little likelihood of being used on motor vehicles.
The challenge of responding to these comments led NHTSA on a path
to attempt to develop a computer-based methodology for quickly solving
hundreds of mutually exclusive illumination conditions that occur every
second of nighttime driving. Trade-offs are necessary to resolve these
mutually exclusive illumination conditions. These conflicting needs
exist because, for example, providing the high levels of light that may
be needed to see pedestrians on the right side of a straight stretch of
road may create glare for oncoming drivers around the next right hand
curve in the road. Should the standard require that sufficient light be
provided to ensure every pedestrian can be seen, that all glare to
other drivers be eliminated, or that some more mutually satisfactory
(or unsatisfactory) shared risk solution be achieved? Safety must be
achieved both by balancing and by reducing the risks that occur in
driving. It must be done in a cost-effective manner. A computer-based
tool for
[[Page 58039]]
analyzing the assumptions for making trade-offs in a more objective
manner than NHTSA originally used is necessary to do this and resolve
commenters' concerns. Without such a tool, such sensitivity analyses
would take years of iteration of data and solutions.
The Agency has been unable to develop a practical tool for reliably
performing sensitivity studies of the multitude of assumptions
necessary for achieving a regulatory solution. This fact is presented
in the final report documenting the effort: ``a considerable amount of
work must still be accomplished before the goal of a safety-based
device-free photometric standard may be implemented.'' Reports about
this development effort are available as DOT HS 807 697 (PB 91181651)
Development of a headlight system performance evaluation tool; cost
$17.00, and DOT HS 808 041 (PB 94125762) Development of headlight
system performance criteria; cost $19.50. The source is the National
Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161. These reports
also are available for reading in the agency's Technical Information
Library.
Without the ability to perform these sensitivity studies in a
timely and resource-effective manner, the Agency is not able to examine
in detail the effects of each of the trade-offs that must be made.
Because of this inability, the Agency cannot make the decisions on the
necessary tradeoffs between safe illumination for the myriad targets in
the field of view of drivers at night. Further, this inability prevents
the Agency from giving commenters the information that they desire to
assess the merits of the proposal. In the past, such decisions relied
on the empirical results of more than eighty years of world-wide
research for guiding rational decisions on headlamp illumination trade-
offs. The results have been codified in the national laws of countries
around the world. With NHTSA's proposal being such a significantly
different way of specifying roadway lighting performance, it is easy to
understand the reluctance and concern of commenters to accept a new way
of dealing with it, without having a complete and objective explanation
and understanding. Because the Agency will not be able to assess and
make the trade-offs, there appears to be no reason to continue this
rulemaking action. However, should the agency be able to develop such
information, it would reopen rulemaking at that time.
Additionally, while interest on the part of lighting and vehicle
manufacturers in the proposal was high because of the potential for
less regulatory burden and greater styling freedom, it would appear
that the need for moving away from the traditional ``headlamp on the
front corner of each vehicle'' approach to styling is blocked by many
technological and regulatory unknowns. There continues to be talk in
the popular press of development of distributive or centralized
headlighting systems (that may use fiber optic light pipes to channel
light to multiple headlamps from a remotely mounted light bulb), and
adaptive headlighting with multiple beams (that may alter the beam
patterns and light distribution on the road depending on the perceived
needs of the driver). It appears that none of these concepts is
sufficiently developed for lighting and vehicle manufacturers to decide
how the present lighting regulations help or hinder the future
application of these new lighting technologies to motor vehicles and
thus determine what amendments should be sought. The vehicle-based
roadway illumination performance requirement was one way (albeit, a
bold new way) to address the need for accommodating new technology and
preserving or improving safety.
Thus, someday, should the vehicle industry need such design and
regulatory freedom as the Vehicle-Based Roadway Illumination
Performance Requirement had the potential to offer or should there be
other regulatory solutions available, the Agency would likely be
enthusiastic about addressing them. But, it would probably choose a
less resource-intensive route than the one being abandoned, unless
there were some obvious and significant safety value to the public to
be achieved from the potentially large expenditure. Also, it is likely
that such a solution might best be achieved through the regulatory
negotiation process, given the difficulty of detailing the merits of
the trade-offs.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117 and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8.
Issued on: November 17, 1995.
Barry Felrice,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 95-28683 Filed 11-22-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE: 4910-59-P
