Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment; Advisory Committee Public Meeting

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. 95-28; Notice 2]

RIN 2127-AF73

Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment; Advisory

Committee Public Meeting

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA); DOT.

ACTION: Notice of establishment of advisory committee for regulatory

negotiation and notice of first meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration announces

the establishment of a Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee to

develop recommended specifications for altering the U.S. lower headlamp

beam pattern to be more sharply defined. Such a pattern would

facilitate visual aimability of headlamps and might be the basis for a

world-wide lower beam pattern. The Committee will develop its

recommendations through a negotiation process. The Committee is

composed of persons who represent interests that would be affected by

the rule such as domestic and foreign manufacturers of motor vehicles,

headlamps, headlamp aimers, motor vehicle inspection facilities,

consumers, State governments, and the Federal government. This notice

also announces the time and place of the first advisory committee

meeting.

DATES: The first meeting of the advisory committee will be held at 9:00

a.m. on Tuesday, July 25, 1995 and will continue through Thursday, July

27, 1995.

ADDRESSES: The first meeting of the advisory committee will be held at

the Department of Transportation, Room 2230 Nassif Building, 400

Seventh Street, SW, Washington D.C.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jere Medlin, Office of Vehicle Safety

Standards, NHTSA (Phone: 202-366-5276; FAX: 202-366-4329). Mediator:

Lynn Sylvester, Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (phone: 202-

606-9140; FAX: 202-606-3679).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On June 9, 1995, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

(NHTSA) published a notice of intent to establish an advisory committee

(Committee) for regulatory negotiation to develop recommended

specifications for altering the U.S. lower beam pattern to be more

sharply defined. Such a pattern would facilitate visual aimability of

headlamps and might be the basis for a world-wide lower beam pattern

(60 FR 30506). The notice requested comment on membership, the

interests affected by the rulemaking, the issues the Committee should

address, and the procedures it should follow. The notice also announced

that NHTSA had procured the services of the Federal Mediation and

Conciliation Service to facilitate the negotiations. The reader is

referred to the notice of June 9, 1995, for further information on

these issues.

NHTSA received nine comments on the notice of intent. None of the

comments opposed using regulatory negotiation for this rulemaking; all

endorsed the process and seven included requests to serve on the

Committee. Based on this response and for the reasons stated in the

notice of intent, NHTSA has determined that establishing an advisory

committee on this subject is necessary and in the public interest. In

accordance with Section 9(c) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5

U.S.C. App. I sec. 9(c), NHTSA prepared a Charter for the establishment

of a Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee. On April 17, 1995, the

Office of Management and Budget approved the Department's Advisory

Committee Plan for FY 1995 which included this advisory committee, and

on July 6, 1995, the Secretary approved the Charter, authorizing the

Committee to begin negotiating the recommended changes.

II. Membership

In addition to a representative from NHTSA, the Committee will

consist of the following members:

American Automobile Manufacturers Association

Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, Inc.

Society of Automotive Engineers, Road Illumination Devices

Subcommittee

Hopkins Manufacturing Corporation

Traffic Materials Controls Division, 3M Corporation

Wagner Lighting Division of Cooper Industries

Groupe de Travail Brussels

Liaison Committee for the Manufacturers of Automobile Equipment and

Spare Parts

[[Page 36254]]

Japanese Automobile Standards Internationalization Center

American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators

National Automobile Dealers Association

Automotive Service Association

Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety

Requests for representation were made by Osram Sylvania

(``Osram''), Hella, Inc., Volkswagen of America, Inc. (``Volkswagen''),

National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (``NCUTCD''),

Wagner Lighting Division of Cooper Industries (``Wagner''), 3M Traffic

Controls Materials Division (``3M''), and the American Association of

State Highway and Transportation Officials (``AASHTO'').

In considering the requests for representation, the task before

NHTSA was to decide whether the requesters are interests potentially

affected by the proposed rulemaking that are not otherwise adequately

represented by the Committee members already chosen. Generally, those

who responded did not understand that NHTSA used the word ``interest''

in a broad, categorical sense, rather than a narrow individual one. For

example, Wagner, of Hampton, Va., applied to represent its interests as

a manufacturer of both OEM and aftermarket lighting products. Upon

review of the existing committee members, NHTSA concluded that the

interests of domestic headlamp manufacturers might not be adequately

represented since there is no specific trade organization that speaks

for them, and no Committee member already chosen directly addressed

this interest. Accordingly, NHTSA asked Wagner if it would be willing

to represent the interests of the domestic OEM and replacement headlamp

manufacturing industry (as compared with its corporate interests), and

Wagner agreed to do so. Accordingly, NHTSA has added Wagner to the

Committee, as shown in the list above. Osram described itself as a

manufacturer of motor vehicle headlamp and headlamp light sources that

meet both Standard No. 108 and ECE standards, and offered to provide an

employee who is a member of the Groupe de Travail Brussels. Hella

described itself as an OEM supplier, knowledgeable about the lighting

technologies of both the United States and Europe. Both Hella and Osram

are the United States subsidiaries of European headlamp manufacturers.

After reviewing these requests, NHTSA has decided to deny them. To the

extent to which the interest of these companies is headlamps with

European beam patterns and aiming characteristics, their interests will

be adequately represented by Groupe de Travail Brussels and the Liaison

Committee for the Manufacturers of Automotive Equipment and Spare

Parts. To the extent to which their interests are headlamps complying

with the beam and aim characteristics of Standard No. 108, their

interests will be adequately represented by Wagner.

Volkswagen requested participation on behalf of itself, Volkswagen

AG and Audi AG ``as major European automobile manufacturers'' and ``as

a liaison participant on behalf of the Association of International

Automobile Manufacturers (AIAM).'' Because AIAM is a member of the

Committee, NHTSA concludes that Volkswagen's interests are adequately

represented and has denied its request.

3M, an applicant who is a manufacturer of retroreflective

materials, believes that ``[m]odification of the lower beam pattern may

impact the effectiveness of retroreflective devices in place on our

nation's highways.'' In reviewing the composition of the Committee, the

agency discerned that the interests of the reflectorized marking

industry were not adequately represented. Accordingly, it asked 3M

whether it would be willing to serve as the representative of that

industry for the negotiated rulemaking. It agreed to do so, and has

been added to the Committee. NCUTCD, among other things, ``provides

background information and develops proposed standards for traffic

control devices for the Federal Highway Administration.'' It applied

for membership on the basis of ``the critical need for adequate

headlamp that provides the light source for sign reflectorization.''

After reviewing the composition of the Committee and NCUTCD's remarks,

NHTSA is denying its request. The group's interest in headlighting and

sign reflectorization are adequately represented by existing committee

members. To the extent that NCUTCD provides guidance to the Federal

Highway Administration (FHWA), its interests are adequately represented

by NHTSA, which also represents the FHWA. AASHTO applied because of its

concern ``with regard to the illumination of signage and other traffic

control devices having retroreflective characteristics.'' The agency

has concluded that AASHTO's interests are adequately represented by 3M,

AAMVA, and NHTSA, and is denying its request.

III. Participation by Non-Members

Negotiation sessions will be open to the public, so that

individuals who are not part of the Committee may attend and observe,

but not participate.

IV. Key Issues for Negotiation

In its notice of intent, NHTSA tentatively identified major issues

that should be considered in this negotiated rulemaking, and asked for

comment concerning the appropriateness of these issues for

consideration and whether other issues should be added. These issues

were:

1. Whether NHTSA should be involved in specifying headlamp

aimability requirements, or delete aimability requirements from Federal

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 and leave this subject to be

regulated by the States.

There was one commenter on this issue. 3M believed that it was more

appropriate for NHTSA, rather than the States, to establish ``a

national standard for headlamp beam patterns and to establish standards

covering the ability to aim headlamps such that the beam pattern can be

maintained.'' In its view, ``[i]ndividual states may lack the resources

required to scientifically research headlamp beam performance and

establish required performance.'' Without a national standard, ``the

performance of traffic control devices could be jeopardized.''

2. Whether it is appropriate for NHTSA to develop a single approach

to visual aim or any aim.

There were no commenters on this issue.

3. Whether motor vehicle inspectors are likely to follow the

results of a negotiated approach.

3M, the sole commenter, considers that ``[t]he negotiation process

will most likely result in a standard which is as easy to implement as

possible while still remaining effective.'' Implementation of the

result will be more successful if ``the reasoning which supports the

specification is communicated to those affected. States and inspectors

need to understand the `why' as well as the `how' associated with safe

night time driving.''

4. Whether SAE Standard J1735 Harmonized Vehicle Headlamp

Performance Requirement is acceptable as a starting point from which to

begin negotiating the details of a visual aim provision for Standard

No. 108.

3M agreed without comment. Volkswagen of America agreed that the

committee could use the SAE standard as the starting point even though

``a few photometric points and zonal values still need to be discussed

and resolved.''

5. Other issues.

Commenters raised other issues. Volkswagen recommended that ``front

fog lamps or other front lamps that project a beam should also be

included

[[Page 36255]]

in the negotiated rulemaking even though they are optional devices and

not required by any Standard.'' In its view, ``unregulated fog lamps on

some vehicles are actually larger and in some cases brighter with more

glare, especially if improperly aimed, than the headlamps themselves.''

It believes that any headlamp beam standard that NHTSA develops ``would

be fruitless and only a partial solution if unregulated fog lamps and

other auxiliary lamps remain uncontrolled and improperly aimed.''

In NHTSA's view, Volkswagen's recommendation does not relate

directly to the issue of headlamp aimability requirements, which are

the focus of the Committee. The argument made by Volkswagen is

interesting as it relates to the overall needs of roadway illumination

for nighttime driving; however, it would be appropriate to address it

in a future rulemaking more closely aligned with roadway illumination

performance.

Issues of concern to 3M were ``the impact of all potential lower

headlamp beam patterns on the visibility of traffic signs and pavement

markings, the cost of maintaining traffic control devices to meet a

minimum luminance value of 2.4 candelas per square meter based on the

various beam patterns under consideration, how the visibility of

pedestrians, joggers, etc. on both sides of the roadway would be

affected by the proposed beam patterns, the applicability of beam

patterns among various vehicle types, the effect of changing headlamp

patterns on research completed by the FHWA for minimum replacement

values for signs and pavement markings, the impact of beam pattern on

conspicuity of other vehicles and legibility of front mounted license

plates.'' These appear to be relevant concerns and, as a Committee

member, 3M may raise them when appropriate.

The University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute

(``UMTRI'') expressed concern that the driving public was

underrepresented on the proposed committee. UMTRI did not request that

it be added to the committee, but asked that the committee keep in mind

the needs of older drivers as it negotiates. 3M also asked that the

committee consider ``the elderly driver's response to glare.'' NCUTCD

pointed out that ``[t]he ability to see and react to traffic control

devices is even more critical for the older driver.'' NHTSA shares

these concerns, and anticipates that a proposal based upon the

recommendations of the committee will accommodate the needs of older

drivers in no less a fashion that do current headlighting

specifications.

V. Procedure and Schedule

Two comments were received on the Committee procedure regarding

establishment of a definition of consensus. The American Automobile

Manufacturers Association (AAMA), a Committee member, is concerned that

``if the advisory committee is unable to initially agree on the voting

rules, that by default, the voting rules for subsequent votes will be

required to be unanimous.'' In its view ``this possible occurrence

could negate the efforts to arrive at constructive rulemaking in this

area.'' It recommends that the ``default voting rules'' be set for

``substantial agreement'' in order ``to eliminate the potential for one

vote to stymie the process.'' Volkswagen of America expressed the same

concern, and recommended that consensus be ``substantial agreement or

some defined plurality such as \2/3\ of the members voting

acceptance.'' The voting rules are set during the Organization Meeting

of the Committee, and NHTSA will make the Committee aware of the

recommendations of the commenters.

NHTSA anticipates that all of the negotiation sessions will take

place at DOT headquarters in Washington, D.C.

Consistent with requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act,

NHTSA will keep a summary record of all Committee meetings. This record

will be placed in Docket No. 95-28.

The objective of the negotiation, in NHTSA's view, is for the

Committee to prepare a report recommending a regulatory approach for

resolving the issues discussed above. If consensus is not obtained on

some issues, the report will identify the areas of agreement and

disagreement, and explanations for any disagreement. NHTSA will issue a

notice of proposed rulemaking based on the approach recommended by the

Committee.

The negotiation process will proceed according to a schedule of

specific dates that the Committee devises at the first meeting to be

held on July 25-27, 1995. NHTSA will publish notices of future meetings

in the Federal Register. The first meeting is scheduled to begin at

9:30 a.m. in Room 2230 of the Nassif Building, DOT headquarters, 400

Seventh Street, SW., Washington, D.C. This session will commence with

an orientation and regulatory negotiation training program conducted by

a facilitator from the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. An

orientation in headlamp aiming will then be presented. After the

training program, the Committee will devise its procedures and

calendar, and will then begin substantive deliberations. NHTSA has

given advance notice of this meeting to all Committee members and

believes that all members will be present for this first and important

meeting.

Title 41 CFR Sec. 101-6.1015 requires that establishment notices

and notices of advisory committee meetings must be published at least

15 calendar days before the committee charter is filed and at least 15

calendar days prior to a meeting. However, that section also provides

that the Secretariat may approve less than 15 days for the

establishment notice when requested by the agency for good cause. In

exceptional circumstances, the agency may give less than 15 days notice

of a meeting, provided that the reasons for doing so are included in

the committee meeting notice published in The Federal Register. In

developing the schedule for the first meeting, the agency determined

that an early date was most convenient for the identified interests.

The date chosen did not permit the notice of establishment and first

meeting to be published not less than 15 days before the charter was

filed and the scheduled date for the meeting. However, representatives

of the identified interests were informed of the meeting date well in

advance of the 15 day period.

Issued: July 12, 1995.

Barry Felrice,

Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 95-17452 Filed 7-12-95; 12:02 pm]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P