[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