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

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A95-17452

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Proposed Rule
- **Published:** July 14, 1995
- **Citation:** 60 FR 36253

## Text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A95-17452. Public record. Not legal advice.