[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 122 (Monday, June 26, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 32918-32921]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-15525]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 575
RIN 2127-AE61
[Docket No. 92-65; Notice 2]
Consumer Information Regulations; Vehicle Stopping Distance
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule amends the Consumer Information Regulations by
rescinding the requirement that motor vehicle manufacturers provide
information about vehicle stopping distance. Upon reevaluation of the
vehicle stopping distance information requirements, NHTSA concludes
that this information is of little safety value to consumers and might
even be misleading. Rescinding the requirement eliminates an
unnecessary Federal regulatory burden on the industry.
DATES: Effective Date. The amendment becomes effective July 26, 1995.
Petitions for Reconsideration: Any petitions for reconsideration of
this rule must be received by NHTSA no later than July 26, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration of this rule should refer to
Docket 92-65; Notice 2 and should be submitted to: Administrator,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street,
SW., Washington, DC 20590.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Henrietta Spinner, Office of
Market Incentives, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590 (202-366-4802).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background Information
Pursuant to the March 4, 1995 directive, ``Regulatory Reinvention
Initiative,'' from the President to the heads of departments and
agencies, NHTSA has undertaken a review of all its regulations and
directives. During the course of this review, the agency identified
several requirements and regulations that are potential candidates for
rescission. One candidate\1\ was the consumer information regulation
about a passenger car's or motorcycle's stopping distance
performance.\2\ Manufacturers are currently required to provide an
information sheet at automobile dealers that specifies each model's
stopping distance from at least 60 miles per hour (mph) on dry pavement
with (a) fully operational service brakes under light load and maximum
load conditions, (b) partially failed service brakes, and (c)
inoperative brake power assist unit or brake power unit (i.e., the
power assist part of the brake system is disabled).
\1\Prior to the President's directive, NHTSA had previously
identified the stopping distance requirement as a candidate for
rescission and had published a notice proposing to rescind it (57 FR
54962, November 23, 1992).
\2\The Consumer Information Regulations (49 CFR part 575) are
intended to provide prospective purchasers of new motor vehicles
with information about vehicle safety performance in several areas.
One type of information is the stopping distance of new passenger
cars and motorcycles under specified speed, brake, loading, and
pavement conditions (49 CFR 575.101).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the November 1992 notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) preceding
this rule, NHTSA explained that the information currently supplied by
manufacturers pursuant to the stopping distance requirement did not
help consumers compare between vehicles, because it did not
meaningfully distinguish the relative stopping ability among different
makes and models of vehicles. The information's lack of value was
confirmed by the agency's dealership audits which found that little, if
any, use was being made of the vehicle stopping distance information.
The agency further stated that there was no feasible, cost effective
method for obtaining stopping distance information that would properly
compare differences in stopping ability among various vehicles. Costly
and extensive [[Page 32919]] testing of large samples of each model
would be necessary to determine that two or more models really had
different stopping distances. Since there was no information supporting
a contrary decision, the agency re-identified the requirement as a
candidate for rescission as part of the current review.
II. Comments on the NPRM
In response to the NPRM, NHTSA received comments from motor vehicle
manufacturers (American Honda, BMW, Chrysler, Fiat, Ford, General
Motors (GM), and Volkswagen), advocacy groups (the Coalition for
Consumer Health and Safety (Coalition) and Advocates for Highway and
Auto Safety (Advocates)), the Association of International Automobile
Manufacturers (AIAM), and an individual interested in automobile
safety. Fiat, BMW, and Mr. John Kourik agreed with the agency's
proposal to rescind the requirements related to stopping distance
information. Honda, Chrysler, Volkswagen, GM, Ford, and AIAM believe
that the current requirements were unnecessary but were concerned that
States or local governments could require manufacturers to provide
information about vehicle stopping distance if the Federal requirements
were rescinded. In support of rescission, the manufacturers argued that
the required information is potentially misleading, that the
information is an unnecessary economic burden on vehicle manufacturers,
and that the information is not actually used by consumers.
The Coalition and Advocates opposed the proposal to rescind the
stopping distance information requirement. These commenters stated that
rather than rescinding this consumer information regulation, NHTSA
should expand and strengthen it. Advocates further stated that NHTSA
must determine that dissemination of stopping distance information is
no longer necessary to the furtherance of the National Traffic and
Motor Vehicle Safety Act.\3\
\3\Subsequent to the comments, Congress codified this Act at 49
U.S.C. section 30101 et seq.
III. Agency Response to Comments
A. Summary of Agency Decision and Rationale
After considering the comments and other available information,
NHTSA has decided to rescind the stopping distance information
requirements. The agency reached this decision after concluding that
the current stopping distance requirement is not providing meaningful
information to consumers about the differences between different
vehicle models in stopping distance and that an upgraded requirement
would be prohibitively expensive and might not provide significant
safety benefits.
B. Rationale for Agency Decision to Rescind.
1. Current stopping distance information is not meaningful. NHTSA
has decided to rescind the stopping distance information requirement of
Sec. 575.101 because it is not providing meaningful information to
consumers about stopping ability among different models. The agency
notes that Chrysler, Ford, and GM, which together manufacture over 60
percent of new passenger cars, list only the maximum allowable stopping
distance permitted under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105,
Hydraulic brake systems for all of their cars. Information (e.g., GM
and Chrysler's comments on the NPRM) indicates that manufacturers
appear to do this in part out of a concern that listing specific
stopping distance information could mislead vehicle owners about their
vehicle's braking ability. The stopping distance measurements are taken
under optimum conditions of vehicle loading, tire-to-road peak friction
coefficient, environment, and driver braking skills. Manufacturers are
concerned that a consumer could mistakenly believe that his or her
vehicle will stop in the listed distance under conditions that are less
than optimum, e.g., under wet road conditions with a unskilled driver.
They have thus listed under Sec. 575.101 the maximum allowable stopping
permitted under Standard No. 105.
As a result of the practice of listing the maximum allowable
stopping distances permitted under Standard No. 105, consumers cannot
use stopping distance information to identify which vehicles have the
best stopping distance. Given this, it is not surprising that dealers
reported to NHTSA that consumers typically neither ask for stopping
distance information nor rely upon it in making purchase decisions.
2. Improving stopping distance information would be prohibitively
expensive. NHTSA believes that the requirement should be rescinded
because improving stopping distance information would be prohibitively
expensive. Several manufacturers stated their belief that there is no
cost effective method for obtaining adequate stopping distance
information. For instance, GM stated that there was no cost effective
method for obtaining stopping distance information that properly
compares differences in stopping ability among various models. In
contrast, Advocates suggested that, as an alternative to rescission,
NHTSA should adopt a ``more stringent'' requirement and require
manufacturers to provide actual model-specific stopping distance
information for each make and model.
In considering whether to rescind Sec. 575.101, NHTSA analyzed
several alternatives to rescission, including an alternative to require
manufacturers to provide model-specific stopping information. NHTSA
believes that such stopping distance information would be unduly
burdensome for manufacturers to obtain, based on its assessment of the
costs of such a program and the small safety benefits, if any, that
might result. Tests measuring stopping distance would have to be
conducted for each of over 400 car models. Each stopping distance test
costs approximately $1000 to conduct, and manufacturers typically
conduct tests on three or four different vehicles of the same model,
since no two vehicles have the same stopping distance. Therefore, the
aggregate costs of the 60 mph dry surface stops would be greater than a
million dollars.
NHTSA has decided not to adopt more stringent stopping distance
information requirements because it does not appear that consumers will
use the stopping distance information in making their purchasing
decisions. Consumers typically consider and value such attributes as
reliability, styling, price, reputation, roominess, and safety. While
stopping distance relates to safety, NHTSA does not believe the
information would impact purchasing decisions because precise stopping
distance information would in many, perhaps most, cases yield
differences insufficiently large to make stopping distance a factor in
consumers' selections among similar vehicle models. For example, based
on compiled information from NHTSA compliance stopping distance tests
for several passenger cars, these family size vehicles achieved the
following stopping distances: Buick Park Avenue--161.7 feet; Chevrolet
Caprice--166.3 feet; Volkswagen Passat--170 feet; and Nissan Infiniti
G20--171.3 feet. These small differences are insignificant and are
unlikely to provide any meaningful comparative data to consumers.
3. Alternative methods. In considering whether to rescind the
stopping distance information requirements, NHTSA considered the
suitability of alternative methods to characterize braking performance,
including an array of stopping distance tests and braking efficiency
tests. However, any comprehensive, meaningful information about braking
performance could only [[Page 32920]] be derived from a battery of
tests that evaluated stopping performance at different speeds and on
different surfaces. Monetary constraints have precluded (and in all
likelihood will continue to preclude) the agency from spending
additional money to further develop brake performance tests for
consumer information.
4. NAS Study. While NHTSA has rescinded the stopping distance
requirement, this decision does not signal that the agency disfavors
consumer information. On the contrary, the agency believes that certain
consumer information provides valuable information to the public. NHTSA
is working with the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to review and
possibly expand the agency's consumer information efforts related to
motor vehicle safety. According to the House Appropriations Committee
report addressing the NAS study, ``The study should focus on the
validity of current programs, public and private, in providing accurate
information to consumers on the real-world safety of vehicles, the
possibility of improving the system in a cost effective and realistic
manner, and the best methods of providing useful information to
consumers.'' This study is currently in process with a legislative due
date of March 31, 1996 for a final report on the NAS findings to the
House and Senate Appropriations Committees. NHTSA will review the NAS
study for insights into whether there is an effective means to provide
consumers with information about vehicle stopping ability. However,
since all parties agree that the current information is not meaningful
or helpful to consumers, no purpose is served by retaining section
575.101.
C. Impacts of Rescission
1. Economic costs and burdens of the regulation. In the NPRM, NHTSA
stated that rescinding the stopping distance information requirement
would eliminate an unnecessary regulatory burden on vehicle
manufacturers. The agency estimated that the costs associated with
providing the stopping distance information to prospective customers
was approximately $600,000 a year. The agency reasoned that rescinding
this provision would relieve the automobile industry of this cost,
without depriving consumers of any truly meaningful information.
Several manufacturers stated their belief that rescinding the
requirement would eliminate administrative costs. Chrysler, Volkswagen,
AIAM, and Mr. Kourik agreed that rescinding the stopping distance
requirement would relieve administrative costs. Ford believed that no
substantial cost results from requiring vehicle manufacturers to
furnish stopping distance information to consumers.
NHTSA notes that the testing required by this requirement results
in an unwarranted cost for the agency as well as the manufacturers. The
agency incurs costs associated with monitoring the information reported
by manufacturers. Similarly, manufacturers incur costs associated with
testing to generate the stopping distance information as well as
printing and distributing materials. These costs to the agency and
manufacturers, while not large in absolute terms, serve no real safety
purpose and are thus an unnecessary expense.
2. Preemption. Chrysler, GM, Ford, Honda, and Volkswagen were
concerned about States or local jurisdictions issuing their own
stopping distance information requirements if the Federal regulation
was rescinded. Chrysler stated that where a Federal agency has
determined that no regulation is appropriate, the United States Supreme
Court has recognized a form of negative preemption. This led Chrysler
to request that NHTSA ``express its intent that all other levels of
government be preempted from establishing any related or similar
regulation.'' AIAM also requested that the agency state that other
levels of government would be preempted from establishing similar
requirements. It stated that such a statement would be consistent with
the previous position taken by NHTSA in its revocation of Standard No.
127, Speedometers and Odometers, (47 FR 7250, February 18, 1982).
NHTSA believes that the States and local governments should not
adopt requirements similar to the current Federal stopping distance
information requirement. As noted elsewhere in this notice, the agency
has concluded that the current Federal requirement has been ineffective
in providing meaningful information to consumers about the stopping
performance of passenger vehicles. Similar State and local government
requirements would be likewise ineffective.
However, NHTSA lacks the authority to preempt the States from
adopting such requirements. The agency reaches this conclusion because
there is no express preemption in the area of stopping distance
information, as there is in connection with Federal motor vehicle
safety standards. See 49 U.S.C. 30103(b). Likewise, there would be no
implied preemption of State action in this area. The agency does not
``occupy the field.'' Further, there would be no conflict between such
a State or local government requirement and the Federal motor vehicle
safety law.
The commenters appear to have an overly broad view of the potential
for negative preemption under the Federal motor vehicle safety law.
Contrary to Chrysler's apparent belief, negative preemption will not
always be recognized when NHTSA has determined that no Federal standard
or regulation on a particular subject is appropriate. A State
information regulation addressing the same subject as a rescinded
Federal information regulation would be preempted (under the doctrine
of implied preemption) only if the State regulation conflicted with or
otherwise frustrated the Federal statute or regulatory scheme.
Moreover, according to recent judicial decisions, negative preemption
will exist only if the Federal agency has affirmatively manifested an
intention to shut out State action. See Toy Manufacturers of America v.
Blumenthal, 986 F.2d 615 (2nd Cir 1992), citing Hillsborough County v.
Automated Medical Labs., Inc., 471 U.S. 707, 718, 105 S.Ct 2371, 2377,
85 L.Ed.2d 714 (1985). NHTSA is not taking that step here because the
agency believes that there is no basis for asserting that State
stopping distance information regulations would conflict with Federal
law. Even if one State were to take one approach to informing its
citizens about vehicle stopping distance and another State were to take
a different approach, the agency does not believe that the differences
in the approaches would conflict with any Federal program or have a
deleterious effect on motor vehicle safety.
E. Effective Date
Each order is required to take effect no sooner than 180 days from
the date the order is issued unless ``good cause'' is shown that an
earlier effective date is in the public interest. Since this amendment
eliminates a requirement with which manufacturers currently have to
comply and since the public interest is served by not needlessly
delaying when this rescission takes place, the agency has determined
that there is good cause to adopt an effective date 30 days after
publication of the final rule.
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
Executive Order 12866 (Federal Regulation) and DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures
NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under
E.O. 12866 and the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies
and procedures. This [[Page 32921]] rulemaking document was not
reviewed under E.O. 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review.'' This
action has been determined to be not ``significant'' under the
Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures.
NHTSA believes that there would be no gain or loss of safety benefits
as a result of rescission of the stopping distance information
requirements. The main effect of the rulemaking is to relieve
manufacturers of passenger cars and motorcycles of an unnecessary
regulatory burden associated with providing information that is not
meaningful to consumers.
The agency anticipates that the amendment will result in a cost
savings because it will no longer be necessary for manufacturers to
assemble, print, and distribute the data required under Sec. 575.101.
The agency estimates that the costs associated with providing the
stopping distance information to prospective customers was
approximately $600,000 in 1991. This estimate is derived from General
Motors' estimate made in 1977 adjusted for the intervening inflation
between 1977 and 1991. Accordingly, the agency believes that rescinding
this provision will relieve the automobile industry of this cost,
without depriving consumers of any truly meaningful comparative
information.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, NHTSA has
evaluated the effects of this action on small entities. Based upon this
evaluation, I certify that the amendment will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Few vehicle
manufacturers qualify as small entities. Further, the small vehicle
manufacturers will not be affected since impact of this rule on the
cost of new vehicles will be negligible. Accordingly, a regulatory
flexibility analysis has not been prepared.
Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)
This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, and it has been determined
that the rule will not have sufficient Federalism implications to
warrant preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
National Environmental Policy Act
The agency has considered the environmental implications of this
rule in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and determined that the rule will not significantly affect the human
environment.
Civil Justice Reform
This rule will not have any retroactive effect. Under 49 U.S.C.
30103, whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in effect, a
State may not adopt or maintain a safety standard applicable to the
same aspect of performance which is not identical to the Federal
standard, except to the extent that the state requirement imposes a
higher level of performance and applies only to vehicles procured for
the State's use. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets forth a procedure for judicial
review of final rules establishing, amending or revoking Federal motor
vehicle safety standards. That section does not require submission of a
petition for reconsideration or other administrative proceedings before
parties may file suit in court.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 575
Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, Rubber and rubber
products, Tires.
In consideration of the foregoing, Title 49 of the Code of Federal
Regulations at part 575 is amended as follows:
PART 575--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 575 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
Sec. 575.101 [Removed and Reserved]
2. Section 575.101 is removed and reserved.
Issued on: June 20, 1995.
Ricardo Martinez,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 95-15525 Filed 6-23-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P