[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 111 (Friday, June 9, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30506-30510]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-14329]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. 95-28; Notice 1]
RIN 2127-AF73
Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment; Establishment
of Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA); DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposal to form a negotiated rulemaking advisory
committee and request for representation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NHTSA proposes to establish a Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory
Committee under the Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1990 and the Federal
Advisory Committee Act to develop recommended specifications for
altering the U.S. lower headlamp beam pattern to be more sharply
defined. Such a pattern would facilitate visual
[[Page 30507]] aimability of headlamps and might be the basis for a
world-wide lower beam pattern. The Committee would develop its
recommendations through a negotiation process. The Committee would be
composed of persons who represent the interests affected by the rule
such as domestic and foreign manufacturers of motor vehicles,
headlamps, and headlamp aimers, motor vehicle inspection facilities,
consumers, and State and Federal governments. NHTSA invites interested
persons to submit nominations and applications for membership on the
Committee, and comments on the subject matter.
DATES: NHTSA must receive written comments and requests for
representation or membership not later than July 10, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Comments should mention the docket and notice number shown
above and be submitted in triplicate to Docket Clerk, room 5109, 400
Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590. Docket hours are from 9:00
a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jere Medlin, Office of Vehicle Safety
Standards, NHTSA (202-366-5276).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
(A) Petition for Rulemaking Submitted by General Motors
General Motors Corporation (GM) petitioned NHTSA for rulemaking to
amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective
Devices, and Associated Equipment to allow fractional balance optical
amiability of certain replaceable bulb and integral beam headlamps. GM
wants to use headlamps that can not be aimed with external mechanical
aimers, or with the on-vehicle mechanical aimers now specified by the
standard. Lamps that used fractional balance optical aim could be aimed
only by means of a new optical aimer, which is estimated to cost about
$3,000. The cost of a current mechanical aimer capable of achieving
accurate headlamp aim is about $250.
Information submitted by GM with its petition indicates that most
facilities performing motor vehicle inspections, whether owned
privately or by the State, choose to check and adjust headlamp aim
visually, rather than with the more objective mechanical aimers. In the
most common form, aim in State inspections is judged subjectively by
the eye of an inspector viewing a headlamp beam pattern cast upon a
distant vertical surface, such as a wall or screen. Based on this
subjective observation, the inspector decides whether the beam pattern
falls in the area (s)he believes is correct. Another form of visual
inspection involves the use of optical machines which condense the beam
pattern onto an internal aiming screen so that the longer separation
distance between lamp and target necessary for the other form of visual
aiming is not necessary. The cost of these machines is moderate.
Until 1983, headlamps were required to be sealed beam in
construction, of specific shapes and sizes and capable of mechanical
aim. There was a standardized location for aiming pads on headlamp
lenses, and only four simple adapters were required for the base
mechanical aimer to fulfill its function. When Standard No. 108 was
amended to permit replaceable bulb headlamps of no specific shape and
size, headlamps began growing both smaller and larger for reasons of
weight and drag reduction and style, requiring additional, adjustable
adapters for aiming by mechanical means. To preclude designing separate
adapters for mechanical aimers, and to permit even smaller headlamps
not capable of using adapters, manufacturers developed on-board
mechanical aiming devices, and Standard No. 108 was further amended to
permit these ``vehicle headlamp aiming devices'' (VHADs). While this
added modestly to vehicle cost, it eliminated the need to use external
means to mechanically aim the headlamps. However, because of the need
to reduce time and costs, the GM data indicate that inspection stations
have resorted to judging aim visually, rather than through on-board or
exterior mechanical aimers.
NHTSA granted GM's petition in order to engage in a review of the
subject of headlamp aim and amiability.
(B) Regulatory Goals
Visual aim of headlamps conforming to Standard No. 108 has a
potential negative safety effect because U.S. lower beam patterns lack
clearly defined borders which, if present, would permit a more
objective visual determination of aim. Visual aiming of U.S. lower beam
patterns introduces an element of subjectivity into the inspection
process and substantial aim error that does not exist with mechanical
or on-board aimers. Beam patterns with clearly defined fiducial marks
or cutoffs, such as those typical of European or Japanese market
headlamps, permit a more objective and more accurate determination of
whether the aim of the headlamp is correct when the headlamp is
visually aimed.
For some years, NHTSA has been engaged in harmonization efforts to
find and implement windows of overlapping performance between the
lighting requirements of Standard No. 108 and those of Europe and
Japan. With respect to headlamps, to achieve such a window where a
headlamp could comply with regulations worldwide, Standard No. 108
would need to move toward a beam pattern with more clearly defined
features in it for visual amiability. Such a move would recognize the
current reality of headlamp aiming inspection in the United States, and
ultimately enhance safety by increasing the objectivity and accuracy of
determining correct headlamp aim with the naked eye.
The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) has addressed the issue
of a modified beam pattern in SAE Standard J1735 Harmonized Vehicle
Headlamp Performance Requirement. SAE members from vehicle and lighting
manufacturers around the world have participated in this effort for the
sole purpose of developing a lower beam pattern that could be the model
for a world-wide specification, if not the specification itself. It is
similar, but not identical, to the European, Japanese and U.S. lower
beam patterns, combining important features of each, while trying not
to compromise features deemed essential by those regulatory
jurisdictions.
In summary, given the trend away from mechanical aiming by those
who aim headlamps and the desire to not offer a mechanically amiable
headlamp on vehicles, the optimal solution for improving headlamp aim
in the United States appears to be the development of a beam pattern
that provides an objective visual determination of the accuracy of that
aim.
II. Regulatory Negotiation
Due to the increasing complexity and formalization of the written
rulemaking process, it can be difficult for an agency to craft
effective regulatory solutions to certain problems. During the
rulemaking process, the participants may develop adversarial
relationships that prevent effective communication and creative
solutions. The exchange of ideas that can lead to solutions acceptable
to all interested groups sometimes do not occur in the traditional
notice and comment context. As the Administrative Conference of the
United States (ACUS) noted in its Recommendation 82-4:
Experience indicates that if the parties in interest work
together to negotiate the text of a proposed rule, they might be
able in some circumstances to identify the major issues, gauge their
importance to the respective [[Page 30508]] parties, identify the
information and data necessary to resolve the issues, and develop a
rule that is acceptable to the respective interests, all within the
contours of the substantive statute.
ACUS adopted this recommendation in ``Procedures for Negotiating
Proposed Regulations,'' 47 FR 30708. The thrust of the recommendation
is that representatives of all interests should be assembled to discuss
the issue and all potential solutions, reach consensus, and prepare a
proposed rule for consideration by the agency. After public comment on
any proposal issued by the agency, the group would reconvene to review
the comments and make recommendations for a final rule. This inclusive
process is intended to make the rule more acceptable to all affected
interests and prevent the need for petitions for reconsideration (and
litigation) that often follow issuance of a final rule.
The movement toward negotiated rulemaking gained impetus with
enactment of the Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1990 (RegNeg), 5 U.S.C.
Sec. 561 et seq. In 1993, Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735) added to
this impetus:
In particular, before issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking,
each agency should, where appropriate, seek the involvement of those
who are intended to benefit from and those expected to be burdened
by any regulation * * * Each agency is also directed to explore and,
where appropriate, use consensual mechanisms for developing
regulations, including negotiated rulemaking.
(Sec. 6(a), p. 51740)
Although relatively new, negotiated rulemakings have been used
successfully by agencies within DOT: the Federal Aviation
Administration, Federal Highway Administration, Federal Railroad
Administration, and the United States Coast Guard. NHTSA now intends to
begin this process in a formal manner for the first time in
promulgating a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. It welcomes the
opportunity to work with those who will be affected directly by such a
rule, and is confident that the agency, industry, and the public will
benefit with the creation of an effective and reasonable regulation.
Pursuant to section 563(a) of RegNeg, an agency considering
rulemaking by negotiation should consider whether:
(1) There is need for the rule;
(2) There is a limited number of identifiable interests;
(3) These interests can be adequately represented by persons
willing to negotiate in good faith to reach a consensus;
(4) There is a reasonable likelihood that the committee will
reach consensus within a fixed period of time;
(5) The negotiated rulemaking procedure will not unreasonably
delay the notice of proposed rulemaking;
(6) The agency has adequate resources and is willing to commit
such resources to the process; and
(7) The agency is committed to use the result of the negotiation
in formulating a proposed rule if at all possible.
For the reasons stated in this Notice, NHTSA believes that these
criteria have been met with regard to headlamp amiability and beam
pattern issues.
The regulatory negotiation NHTSA proposes would be carried out by
an advisory committee (Committee) created under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (FACA), as amended, 5 U.S.C. App., and in a manner that
reflects appropriate rulemaking directives, including pertinent
executive Orders. NHTSA will be represented on the Committee and will
take an active part in the negotiations as a Committee member. However,
pursuant to section 566(c) of RegNeg, those representing NHTSA would
not facilitate or otherwise chair the proceedings.
III. Procedures and Guidelines
The following proposed procedures and guidelines would apply to
NHTSA's negotiated rulemaking process, subject to appropriate changes
made as a result of comments received on this Notice or as are
determined to be necessary during the negotiating process.
(A) Facilitator: The Facilitator will not be involved with
substantive development of this regulation. This individual will chair
the negotiations, may offer alternative suggestions toward the desired
consensus, and will determine the feasibility of negotiating particular
issues. The Facilitator may ask members to submit additional
information or to reconsider their position. NHTSA has contracted with
the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service for a Facilitator.
(B) Feasibility: NHTSA has examined the issues and interests
involved and has made a preliminary inquiry among representatives of
those interests to determine whether it is possible to reach agreement
on: (a) individuals to represent those interests; (b) the preliminary
scope of the issues to be addressed; and (c) a schedule for developing
a notice of proposed rulemaking. The results are sufficiently
encouraging to believe that a workable proposal could be developed, and
that there are potential participants who could adequately represent
the affected interests.
(C) Participants and Interests: The number of Committee
participants generally should not exceed 25. However, it is not
necessary that each individual or organization affected by a final rule
have its own representative on the Committee. Rather, each interest
must be adequately represented, and the Committee should be fairly
balanced. However, individuals who are not part of the Committee may
attend sessions and confer with or provide their views to Committee
members.
The following interests have been tentatively identified as those
that are likely to be significantly affected by the rule:
(1) Motor vehicle manufacturers
(2) Motor vehicle headlamp manufacturers
(3) Manufacturers of headlamp aiming devices
(4) International standards organizations
(5) State and Federal governments
(6) General public
NHTSA proposes that persons selected by the various interests be
named to the Committee. In addition to NHTSA, the following interests
have been tentatively identified as those that would supply Committee
members:
(1) American Automobile Manufacturers Association (AAMA)
(2) Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, Inc. (AIAM)
(3) Society of Automotive Engineers, Road Illumination Devices
Subcommittee
(4) Hopkins Manufacturing Corporation
(5) Groupe de Travail Brussels
(6) Liaison Committee for the Manufacturers of Automobile Equipment and
Spare Parts
(7) Japanese Automobile Standards Internationalization Center
(8) American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA)
(9) National Automobile Dealers Association
(10) Automotive Service Association
(11) Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety
(12) Federal Highway Administration
As indicated previously in this Notice, NHTSA invites applications for
representation from any interests that will be affected by a final rule
on the subject but are not named in this list or who may not be
represented or be able to be represented by the interests on the list.
Such applications must be filed within thirty days from the date of
publication of this Notice, and must meet the requirements set forth
herein. Also, such interests should provide the name(s) of the
individual(s) they propose to represent their interest. As noted, the
Committee should not exceed 25 members.
(D) Good Faith: Participants must be committed to negotiate in good
faith. It [[Page 30509]] is therefore important that senior individuals
within each interest group be designated to represent that interest. No
individual will be required to ``bind'' the interest represented, but
the individual should be at a high enough level to represent the
interest with confidence. For this process to be successful, the
interests represented should be willing to accept the final Committee
product.
(E) Notice of Intent to Establish Advisory Committee and Request
for Comment: In accordance with the requirements of FACA, an agency of
the Federal government cannot establish or utilize a group of people in
the interest of obtaining consensus advice or recommendations unless
that group is chartered as a Federal advisory committee. It is the
purpose of this Notice to indicate NHTSA's intent to create a Federal
advisory committee, to identify the issues involved in the rulemaking,
to identify the interests affected by the rulemaking, to identify
potential participants who will adequately represent those interests,
and to ask for comment on the use of regulatory negotiation and on the
identification of the issues, interests, procedures, and participants.
(F) Requests for Representation: One purpose of this notice is to
determine whether interests exist that may be substantially affected by
a rule, but have not been represented in the list of prospective
Committee members. Commenters should identify such interests if they
exist. Each application or nomination to the Committee should include
(i) the name of the applicant or nominee and the interests such person
would represent; (ii) evidence that the applicant or nominee is
authorized to represent parties related to the interest the person
proposes to represent; and (iii) a written commitment that the
applicant or nominee would participate in good faith. If any additional
person or interest requests membership or representation on the
Committee, NHTSA shall determine (i) whether that interest will be
substantially affected by the rule, (ii) if such interest would be
adequately represented by an individual on the Committee, and (iii)
whether the requested organization should be added to the group or
whether interests can be consolidated to provide adequate
representation.
(G) Final Notice: After evaluating the comments received in
response to this Notice, NHTSA will issue a further notice announcing
the establishment of the Federal advisory committee, unless it
determines that such action is inappropriate in light of comments
received, and the composition of the Committee. After the Committee is
chartered, the negotiations should begin.
(H) Administrative Support and Meetings: Staff support would be
provided by NHTSA and meetings would take place in Washington, D.C.
unless agreed otherwise by the Committee.
(I) Tentative Schedule: If the Committee is established and
selected, NHTSA will publish a schedule for the first meeting in the
Federal Register. The first meeting will focus on procedural matters,
including dates, times, and locations of further meetings. Notice of
subsequent meetings would also be published in the Federal Register
before being held.
NHTSA expects that the Committee would reach consensus and prepare
a report recommending a proposed rule within ten months of the first
meeting. However, if unforeseen delays occur, the Administrator may
agree to an extension of that time if it is the consensus of the
Committee that additional time will result in agreement. The process
may end earlier if the Facilitator so recommends.
(J) Committee Procedures: Under the general guidance of the
Facilitator, and subject to legal requirements, the Committee would
establish the detailed procedures for meetings which it considers
appropriate.
(K) Records of Meetings: In accordance with FACA's requirements,
NHTSA would keep a summary record of all Committee meetings. This
record would be placed in Docket No. 95-28. Meetings of the Committee
would be open to the public to observe, but not to participate.
(L) Consensus: The goal of the negotiating process is consensus.
NHTSA proposes that the Committee would develop its own definition of
consensus, which may include unanimity, a simple majority, or
substantial agreement such that no member will disapprove the final
recommendation of the Committee. However, if the Committee does not
develop its own definition, consensus shall mean unanimous concurrence.
(M) Regulatory Approach: The Committee's first objective is to
prepare a report recommending a regulatory approach for resolving the
issues discussed in the BACKGROUND section of this notice. If consensus
is not obtained on some issues, the report should identify the areas of
agreement and disagreement, and explanations for any disagreement. It
is expected that participants will be mindful of cost/benefit
considerations.
NHTSA will issue a notice of proposed rulemaking based upon the
approach recommended by the Committee.
(N) Key Issues for Negotiation: NHTSA has reviewed correspondence,
reports, petitions, relevant data, and other information. Based on this
information and rulemaking requirements, NHTSA has tentatively
identified major issues that should be considered in this negotiated
rulemaking. Other issues related to headlamp amiability and beam
pattern not specifically listed in this Notice may be addressed as they
arise in the course of the negotiation. Comments are invited concerning
the appropriateness of these issues for consideration and whether other
issues should be added. These issues are:
1. Should NHTSA be involved in specifying headlamp amiability
requirements? Standard No. 108 applies only to the manufacture and sale
of new vehicles and new equipment. It is the States that specify
headlamp aim regulations for vehicles in service. Some States, at
present, specify procedures for visually aiming headlamps, even though
headlamps are not intended to be visually aimed. Is it appropriate for
NHTSA to try to develop a single approach to visual aim or any other
aim? Should NHTSA delete amiability requirements from Standard No. 108
and leave this subject to be regulated at the State level?
2. If negotiations produce a result, is it likely that the States
and individual inspection stations would follow the results to adjust
the aim of headlamps on vehicles in service, or would those groups
continue to use inappropriate procedures to aim headlamps? If they
would choose not to follow the procedures of the potential solution, is
there any reason to proceed with negotiations?
3. Is SAE Standard J1735 Harmonized Vehicle Headlamp Performance
Requirement acceptable to all parties as a starting point from which to
begin negotiating the details of a visual aim provision in Standard No.
108?
IV. Public Participation
NHTSA invites comments on all issues, procedures, guidelines,
interests, and suggested participants embodied in this Notice. All
comments and requests for participation should be submitted to the
Docket Clerk, NHTSA, Room 5109, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington,
D.C. 20590.
[[Page 30510]] Issued on: June 7, 1995.
Barry Felrice,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 95-14329 Filed 6-7-95; 12:50 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
