Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 162 / Monday, August 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 42639 

on the slant range distance, which is the 

line-of-sight distance from the 

measurement antenna to the overhead 

line. Alternatively, a site-specific 

extrapolation factor may be used in lieu 

of the 30 dB/decade standard. This 

extrapolation factor shall be derived 

from a best fit straight line fit 

determined by a first-order regression 

calculation from measurements for at 

least four lateral distances from the 

overhead line. Compliance 

measurements for Access BPL and use 

of site-specific extrapolation factors 

shall be made in accordance with the 

Guidelines for Access BPL systems 

specified by the Commission. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. E9–20336 Filed 8–21–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

GENERAL SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATION 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND 

SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

48 CFR Parts 2, 17, 22, 36, and 52 

[FAR Case 2009–005; Docket 2009–0024; 

Sequence 2] 

RIN 9000–AL31 

Federal Acquisition Regulation; FAR 

Case 2009–005, Use of Project Labor 

Agreements for Federal Construction 

Projects 

AGENCIES: Department of Defense (DoD), 

General Services Administration (GSA), 

and National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: The Civilian Agency 

Acquisition Council and the Defense 

Acquisition Regulations Council 

(Councils) are proposing to amend the 

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to 

implement Executive Order (E.O.) 

13502, Use of Project Labor Agreements 

for Federal Construction Projects. The 

comment period is being reopened for 

an additional 30 days to provide 

additional time for interested parties to 

review the proposed FAR changes. 

DATES: Interested parties should submit 

written comments to the Regulatory 

Secretariat on or before September 23, 

2009 to be considered in the 

formulation of a final rule. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments 

identified by FAR case 2009–005 by any 

of the following methods: 

• Regulations.gov: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

Submit comments via the Federal 

eRulemaking portal by inputting ‘‘FAR 

Case 2009–005’’ into the field 

‘‘Keyword’’. Select the link that 

corresponds with FAR Case 2009–005. 

Follow the instructions provided to 

submit your comments. Please include 

your name, company name (if any), and 

‘‘FAR Case 2009–005’’ on your attached 

document. 

• Fax: 202–501–4067. 

• Mail: General Services 

Administration, Regulatory Secretariat 

(VPR), 1800 F Street, NW, Room 4041, 

ATTN: Hada Flowers, Washington, DC 

20405. 

Instructions: Please submit comments 

only and cite FAR case 2009–005 in all 

correspondence related to this case. All 

comments received will be posted 

without change to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal and/or business confidential 

information provided. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

clarification of content, contact Mr. 

Ernest Woodson, Procurement Analyst, 

at (202) 501–3775. For information 

pertaining to status or publication 

schedules, contact the Regulatory 

Secretariat at (202) 501–4755. Please 

cite FAR case 2009–005. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Background 

The Councils published a proposed 

rule in the Federal Register at 74 FR 

33953, July 14, 2009. The comment 

period is being reopened for an 

additional 30 days to provide additional 

time for interested parties to review the 

proposed FAR changes. 

Dated: August 18, 2009 

Edward Loeb, 

Deputy Director, Acquisition Policy Division. 

[FR Doc. E9–20305 Filed 8–21–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6820–EP–S 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 571 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2009–0150] 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 

No. 108; Lamps, Reflective Devices 

and Associated Equipment 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT. 

ACTION: Denial of petition for 

rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: This document responds to a 

petition for rulemaking regarding the 

Federal motor vehicle safety standard 

for lighting. The Groupe de Travail 

‘‘Bruxelles 1952’’ (GTB) and the Society 

of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Lighting 

Committee requested that new 

specifications be added for optional 

lower beam and upper beam headlamp 

patterns on the basis they would 

increase harmonization with European 

requirements. After completing a 

technical review of the petition, NHTSA 

is denying this petition. The agency 

notes the petitioners did not provide 

data to demonstrate that the requested 

new optional specifications would 

provide safety benefits comparable to 

those of the existing standard or that 

cost savings would be realized without 

compromising safety. Additionally, 

NHTSA is pursuing a more 

comprehensive review of the lighting 

standard and is currently studying the 

feasibility of many issues and potential 

regulatory changes, some of which 

would address issues raised in this 

petition. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

non-legal issues, you may call Mr. David 

Hines, Office of Crash Avoidance 

Standards (Phone: 202–493–0245; FAX: 

202–366–7002). 

For legal issues, you may call Mr. Ari 

Scott, Office of the Chief Counsel 

(Phone: 202–366–2992; FAX: 202–366– 

3820). 

You may send mail to these officials 

at: National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. The Petition 

II. Agency Technical Evaluation 

III. Agency Conclusions 

I. The Petition 

On July 21, 2004, the SAE Lighting 

Committee and GTB petitioned the 

agency to add new specifications to 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 

(FMVSS) No. 108; Lamps, reflective 

devices, and associated equipment, for 

optional upper and lower beam patterns 

based on specifications pending 

approval by the United Nations’ 

Economic Commission for Europe (ECE) 

under ECE R112. If these requested 

amendments were adopted, 

manufacturers of vehicles sold in the 

U.S. would be able to choose to certify 

products to either the existing 

requirements of FMVSS No. 108 or the 

requested alternative new requirements. 

Modifications to the agency’s test 

procedures were also requested. The 

petitioners stated that Japan had 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
42640 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 162 / Monday, August 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

1 In our photometry test point specifications, D 

means down and R means right (in addition, L 

means left, U means up, H means horizontal and 

V means vertical). 

adopted some of the requested lower 

beam headlamp test points into its 

national regulation and that approval 

was pending to incorporate changes into 

ECE R112. 

The primary elements of the 

requested new option for FMVSS No. 

108 included: 

(1) Lower beam headlamp pattern: 

The petitioners stated that the core of 

the pattern was based upon 4 critical 

test points, three of which address main 

forward seeing light and one 

establishing a glare limit. Additional 

test points were added, along with lines 

and zones. Some test points that are 

currently regulated under FMVSS No. 

108 would be eliminated. 

(2) Upper beam headlamp pattern: 

The petitioners stated that the primary 

change was increasing the current 

maximum intensity from 75,000 candela 

at test point H–V to 140,000 candela 

anywhere in the pattern. In addition, 

several downward test points with 

minimum specified intensities would be 

eliminated. 

(3) Test procedures: The petitioners 

stated that ECE currently performs 

photometric tests with an ‘‘accurate 

rated light source’’ that provides a 

reference luminous flux at 12.0 volts 

and this is similar to the FMVSS No. 

108 test procedure for signaling lamps, 

except that approximately 12.8 volts is 

used. However, for FMVSS No. 108’s 

headlamp photometry test requirements, 

manufacturers must certify that 

headlamps meet specified requirements 

using any compliant, replaceable light 

source of the type intended for use in 

the system. In addition, the petitioners 

stated that efforts were underway to 

obtain agreement on a common 

worldwide test voltage. 

In support of their request, the 

petitioners cited long-running efforts to 

establish the preferred harmonized 

beam patterns and the approach utilized 

to consider the most relevant factors for 

drivers’ visual performance. The 

petitioners stated that because driving 

environments are different between the 

United States, Europe, and Japan, 

drivers’ needs may vary but, core 

principles, such as adequate roadway 

illumination while controlling glare, are 

consistent. For example, in the United 

States sign illumination is an important 

function of headlamps so applicable 

photometric minimums exist for test 

points in the lower beam pattern while 

these test points do not exist in the ECE 

pattern, which is more focused on 

preventing glare to oncoming drivers. 

The stated goal of the requested optional 

beam patterns would be to balance the 

needs of drivers in different parts of the 

world and establish a workable middle 

ground. 

The petitioners stated that the 

optional beam patterns could provide 

the following benefits to consumers and 

industry: 

Consumer benefits: (1) Glare may be 

reduced because the most relevant 

maximum intensity is reduced from 

1,000 cd to 500 cd; (2) For lower beams, 

minimum requirements for sign lighting 

are increased over current levels; (3) For 

upper beams, object detection and curve 

following will be improved due to the 

expanded width of the pattern; (4) For 

upper beam, seeing distance will be 

improved by 5–10% due to the increase 

in maximum intensity; and (5) 

Globalized headlamps present the 

potential for reducing consumer costs. 

Industry benefits: (1) Cost savings on 

design, engineering, testing, and tooling 

costs because the same lamp can be 

used for multiple markets; (2) 

Potentially quicker expansion into new 

markets due to reduced trade barriers; 

(3) Reduced inventory because of 

reduced market variants; and (4) 

Potential savings due to stocking only 

one lamp for multiple markets rather 

than multiple lamps for multiple 

markets. 

II. Agency Technical Evaluation 

NHTSA reviewed the requested 

changes made by the petitioners and 

analyzed the impact they would have on 

FMVSS No. 108. During our evaluation 

of the petition, the agency noted several 

concerns regarding different provisions, 

as well as an absence of supporting data 

which might have assisted in addressing 

such concerns. 

Regarding the requested optional set 

of 4 new lower beam test points, the 

agency is particularly concerned with 

the request to replace the existing test 

point at 1.5D–2R1 with a new test point, 

characterized as emphasizing placement 

of the high intensity part of the beam 

further down the road, at 0.6D–1.3R. 

This requested test point would have a 

specified minimum intensity of 10,000 

candela and no maximum, compared to 

the current test point’s specified 

minimum intensity of 15,000 candela 

and no maximum. While FMVSS No. 

108 does not specify that headlamps be 

aimed within a certain tolerance at the 

time of sale, an industry recommended 

practice, SAE J 599c Lighting Inspection 

Code, specifies a tolerance of +/¥ 0.76 

degrees. Because 1.5 degrees is well 

outside, and 0.6 degrees is within, this 

stated allowable tolerance, the agency is 

concerned about the impact the 

requested change could have on real 

world glare levels. NHTSA believes an 

unintended consequence of this 

requested change could be that vehicles 

certified to the new option could have 

headlamps with a level of mis-aim such 

that high intensities of light are placed 

above the horizontal, resulting in 

unacceptable levels of glare to other 

motorists. The potential effects of this 

change were not addressed by the 

petitoners. 

The agency also considered the other 

cited potential benefits of the new lower 

beam option, such as sign lighting 

improvements. We believe the cited 

potential benefits likely would not 

provide measurable safety benefits in 

the United States. For sign lighting, the 

agency notes that while the requested 

lower beam photometry table contains 3 

additional points with specified 

minimum intensities, 135 cd at 2U–V 

and 2U–4R and 64 cd at 4U–V (which 

we believe many headlamps may 

already meet without the points being 

specified), it would permit combining 

the output from parking lamps to meet 

the lower beam headlamp photometry 

requirements. We believe this may 

actually result in a reduction in real 

world lower beam headlamp 

performance at the existing test points 

related to sign lighting. 

The agency does believe there may be 

value in adopting the new photometry 

zone requirements as contained in the 

requested lower beam pattern. Our 

current lower beam photometry 

requirements are mostly unchanged 

since their adoption several decades ago 

and are therefore based on a technology 

(sealed beam headlamps) that has since 

greatly evolved. Given changes in 

technology, the agency believes there 

may be value in revisiting this issue. For 

example, the original photometry 

requirements were such that by 

specifying certain points, the 

performance between those points was 

predictable due to the headlamp designs 

prevalent then. However, this may not 

be true today as a variety of headlamp 

optics can be designed to produce 

significantly different beam patterns. 

Adopting zones to better characterize 

the intended performance of today’s 

headlamps is an issue of interest to the 

agency as it may be helpful in reducing 

glare, often from unregulated test zones, 

which may not have been as prevalent 

when FMVSS No. 108 was first adopted. 

The primary change requested by the 

petitioners for upper beam photometry 

was to almost double the current 

maximum intensity value of 75,000 

candela at test point H–V to 140,000 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 162 / Monday, August 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 42641 

candela anywhere in the beam pattern. 

The petitioners stated that this request 

was based on UMTRI Report No. 

UMTRI–2000–41, ‘‘Relative Merits of 

the U.S. and ECE High-Beam Maximum 

Intensities and of Two- and FourHeadlamp Systems’’ but the agency 

notes this research did not evaluate 

upper beams with the requested 140,000 

candela value. Instead, it evaluated 

intensities between the existing and 

newly requested maximum values. Due 

to the diminishing returns of increasing 

upper beam intensity, the petitioners 

cited a 5–10% improvement in seeing 

distance (due to the almost 87% 

increase in the maximum value from 

75,000 to 140,000 candela). However, 

the petitioners did not quantify how this 

might affect safety benefits, and in 

particular whether any improvements 

would outweigh any associated 

disbenefits associated with potential 

increases in glare due to higher intensity 

upper beam headlamps. 

With regard to the requested test 

procedures for this option, which would 

require testing with ‘‘accurate rated light 

sources,’’ this would be a significant 

departure from the current approach of 

specifying requirements using any 

compliant, replaceable light source of 

the type intended for use in the system 

and could, in the agency’s opinion, have 

a negative impact on safety. The agency 

believes that requiring headlamps to 

meet specified requirements with 

production light sources is the best 

approach because it ensures consumers 

will obtain the specified performance 

with the products they purchase, i.e., it 

requires manufacturers to take into 

account typical production tolerances 

and variation in light sources. 

Modifying the standard to instead 

specify requirements utilizing testing 

with ‘‘accurate rated light sources,’’ 

which do not represent normal 

production variation, would mean that 

the performance might not be obtained 

in the real world. Absent additional 

changes to ensure that typical 

production variation was accounted for 

in the test requirements, the agency 

believes that the requested change could 

lead to reduced headlamp performance. 

The petitioners did not provide any 

evidence this would not occur. 

Regarding the other potential industry 

benefits cited by the petitioners, the 

agency notes that no data were 

submitted to quantify associated cost 

impacts on consumers. Similarly, the 

petitioners did not quantify the amount 

of cost savings related to reduced 

inventory levels, potentially quicker 

expansion into new markets due to 

reduced trade barriers, and less 

complexity in stocking replacement 

lamps for multiple markets. We note 

that the pending approval of the 

requested changes into ECE R112 cited 

by the petitioners as anticipated for fall 

2004 still has not occurred. 

IV. Agency Conclusion 

NHTSA notes that while adding a 

new option would provide some 

additional flexibility for manufacturers 

in terms of being able to choose a new 

beam pattern, we are concerned that 

there may be a negative impact on safety 

associated with increased glare levels if 

the agency were to allow the newly 

requested lower beam photometry test 

points and higher intensity upper beam 

headlamps. The petitioners did not 

provide sufficient data to demonstrate 

otherwise or sufficient data to show 

there would be cost savings to 

consumers and manufacturers at 

comparable safety levels. Therefore, 

NHTSA is denying the petition. 

However, the agency is separately 

pursuing a more comprehensive effort to 

evaluate possible modifications to 

FMVSS No. 108, with the primary goal 

being to translate, to the extent possible, 

the existing provisions (along with their 

associated underlying assumptions) into 

performance-oriented terms 

independent of technology. We 

anticipate this thorough evaluation will 

take some time, but in the process, the 

agency will consider harmonization 

opportunities and, based upon the 

results, the agency anticipates it may 

then be in a position to consider 

proposing regulatory action to modify 

our lighting standard. 

Issued on: August 18, 2009. 

Julie Abraham, 

Director, Office of International Policy, Fuel 

Economy and Consumer Programs. 

[FR Doc. E9–20258 Filed 8–21–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 665 

[Docket No. 0908131233–91234–01] 

RIN 0648–XQ14 

Fisheries in the Western Pacific; 

Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish 

Fisheries; 2009–10 Main Hawaiian 

Islands Bottomfish Total Allowable 

Catch 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed specification; request 

for comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes to specify 

establish a total allowable catch (TAC) 

for the 2009–10 fishing year of 254,050 

lb (115,235 kg) of Deep 7 bottomfish in 

the main Hawaiian Islands (MHI). The 

TAC would be set in accordance with 

regulations established to support longterm sustainability of Hawaii bottomfish 

in the Hawaiian Archipelago. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

September 8, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Comments on this proposed 

specification, identified by 0648–XQ14, 

may be sent to either of the following 

addresses: 

• Electronic Submission: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal 

www.regulations.gov; or 

• Mail: William L. Robinson, 

Regional Administrator, NMFS, Pacific 

Islands Region (PIR), 1601 Kapiolani 

Blvd, Suite 1110, Honolulu, HI 96814– 

4700. 

Instructions: All comments received 

are a part of the public record and will 

generally be posted to 

www.regulations.gov without change. 

All personal identifying information 

(e.g., name, address, etc.) submitted 

voluntarily by the commenter may be 

publicly accessible. Do not submit 

confidential business information, or 

otherwise sensitive or protected 

information. NMFS will accept 

anonymous comments (if you wish to 

remain anonymous, enter ‘‘NA’’ in the 

required name and organization fields). 

Attachments to electronic comments 

will be accepted in Microsoft Word or 

Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file 

formats only. 

Copies of the Fishery Management 

Plan for Bottomfish and Seamount 

Groundfish Fisheries of the Western 

Pacific Region (Bottomfish FMP) and 

the related Environmental Impact 

Statement are available from the 

Western Pacific Fishery Management 

Council (Council), 1164 Bishop St., 

Suite 1400, Honolulu, HI 96813, tel 

808–522–8220, fax 808–522–8226, or 

www.wpcouncil.org. 

An environmental assessment (EA) 

was prepared that describes the impact 

on the human environment that would 

result from this proposed action. This 

action, specification of a TAC, is exempt 

from the procedures of E.O. 12866 

because this action contains no 

implementing regulations and therefore 

a Regulatory Impact Review was not 

prepared. Based on the environmental 

impact analyses presented in the EA, 

NMFS prepared a finding of no 

significant impact (FONSI) for the 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1