Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 57 / Friday, March 24, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 15509

impact on the quality of the human

environment.

Paperwork Reduction Act

In accordance with the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1980, P.L. 96–511, the

agency notes that there are no

information collection requirements

associated with this rulemaking action.

Civil Justice Reform

This rule does not have any

retroactive effect. Under 49 U.S.C.

30103(b), whenever a Federal motor

vehicle safety standard is in effect, a

state or political subdivision of a state

may prescribe or continue in effect a

standard applicable to the same aspect

of performance of a motor vehicle only

if the standard is identical to the Federal

standard. However, a state may

prescribe a standard for a motor vehicle

or equipment obtained for its own use

that imposes a higher performance

requirement than the Federal standard.

49 U.S.C. 30161 sets forth a procedure

for judicial review of final rules

establishing, amending or revoking

Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

A petition for reconsideration or other

administrative proceedings is not

required before parties may file suit in

court.

List of Subjects

49 CFR Part 571

Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor

vehicles, Rubber and rubber products,

Tires.

In consideration of the foregoing, 49

CFR Part 571 is amended as follows:

PART 571—FEDERAL MOTOR

VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

1. The authority citation for Part 571

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115,

30117, and 30166; delegation of authority at

49 CFR 1.50.

2. Section 571.3 is amended by

revising the definition of ‘‘designated

seating position’’ in Section 571.3(b) to

read as follows:

§ 571.3 Definitions.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

Designated seating position means

any plan view location capable of

accommodating a person at least as large

as a 5th percentile adult female, if the

overall seat configuration and design

and vehicle design is such that the

position is likely to be used as a seating

position while the vehicle is in motion,

except for auxiliary seating

accommodations such as temporary or

folding jump seats. Any bench or splitbench seat in a passenger car, truck or

multipurpose passenger vehicle with a

GVWR less than 4,536 kilograms (10,000

pounds), having greater than 127

centimeters (50 inches) of hip room

(measured in accordance with SAE

Standard J1100(a)) shall have not less

than three designated seating positions,

unless the seat design or vehicle design

is such that the center position cannot

be used for seating. For the sole purpose

of determining the classification of any

vehicle sold or introduced into

interstate commerce for purposes that

include carrying students to and from

school or related events, any location in

such vehicle intended for securement of

an occupied wheelchair during vehicle

operation shall be regarded as four

designated seating positions.

* * * * *

Issued on March 20, 1995.

Ricardo Martinez,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–7350 Filed 3–23–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–M

49 CFR Part 582

[Docket No. 94–73; Notice 2]

RIN 2127–AF44

Insurance Cost Information Regulation

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: In this document, NHTSA

adopts technical amendments to the

insurance cost information regulations.

Among the changes adopted are

postponing, from January until March,

the availability date of the insurance

cost information booklet, and revising

the term ‘‘passenger motor vehicles’’ to

read ‘‘passenger cars, utility vehicles,

light duty trucks, and vans.’’ NHTSA

also adds language making more explicit

the limitations of the collision loss data,

and language recommending that

prospective purchasers contact

insurance agents or insurance

companies for more information. The

amendments are adopted to make the

insurance cost information more

accurate.

DATES: These amendments are effective

April 24, 1995, and will apply to the

insurance cost information to be made

available in March 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Orron Kee, Office of Market Incentives,

NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20590. Mr. Kee’s

telephone number is (202) 366–0846.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Insurance Cost Information Regulation

49 U.S.C. 32302(c) states that the

Secretary of Transportation (the

Secretary) shall prescribe regulations

that require passenger motor vehicle

dealers to distribute to prospective

purchasers, information developed by

the Secretary and provided to the

dealer, which compares differences in

insurance costs for different makes and

models of passenger motor vehicles

based upon differences in damage

susceptibility and crashworthiness. By

delegation from the Secretary, NHTSA

has been authorized to carry out the

statute.

On January 31, 1975, NHTSA

published 49 CFR part 582, Insurance

Cost Information Regulation (40 FR

4918). Part 582, as then promulgated,

required that automobile dealers ‘‘make

available to prospective purchasers

information reflecting differences in

insurance costs for different makes and

models of passenger motor vehicles

based upon differences in damage

susceptibility and crashworthiness.’’

Part 582, however, did not specify

information that dealers must provide.

On March 5, 1993 (58 FR 12545),

NHTSA published a final rule amending

part 582. The rule complemented the

1975 rulemaking, and completed

implementation of section 32302(c). The

March 1993 final rule, which became

effective April 5, 1993, requires dealers

of new automobiles to make collision

loss experience data available in

booklets to prospective purchasers. The

information to be provided in the

booklet is specified in section 582.5,

which requires inclusion of a complete

explanatory text and updated data on

auto insurance costs published annually

by NHTSA.

The mandatory text specified by part

582 relates to, among other topics, the

limitations of the auto insurance cost

data as a predictor of differences in

insurance premiums. Essentially, those

limitations result from the fact that most

of the factors that insurance companies

use to establish premiums relate to

driver characteristics and, except for the

vehicle’s value, are not directly related

to the vehicle itself. Thus, as the text

explains, the fact that a vehicle’s

historical claims experience is

somewhat better or worse than that of

other vehicles in its class may not be

reflected in the premium that an

insurance company establishes for that

vehicle. If the claims experience is

reflected, it is likely to have only a small

impact on the premium.
15510 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 57 / Friday, March 24, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

The mandatory text also urges

consumers to contact insurance

companies if they wish to obtain precise

information about actual premiums for

particular makes and models of

vehicles. Previous studies by NHTSA

have revealed that the difference

between the premiums charged by

different insurance companies for the

same car and driver is greater than the

difference between the premiums

charged by a given company for

comparably-valued cars that have

different claims experience. NHTSA

believed the mandatory text would help

to minimize consumer confusion by

providing customers with an

understanding of the uses and

limitations of the auto insurance cost

data.

In specifying the yearly insurance cost

data that accompanied the required text,

NHTSA decided to rely on collision loss

experience data collected and reported

by the Highway Loss Data Institute

(HLDI), as the best available indicator of

the effect of damage susceptibility on

insurance costs. In the March 1993 final

rule, NHTSA specified HLDI’s

December Insurance Collision Report as

the data source for part 582. NHTSA

decided to specify HLDI’s December

Report because it contains more current

data and covers more vehicle models

than other HLDI publications. The HLDI

data is presented in a format that ranks

the vehicles in each class from best to

worst (with numerical values given for

each vehicle). NHTSA specified this

format because it determined that the

use of this ranking system should assist

customers in evaluating the comparative

performance of comparable vehicles.

In the March 1993 final rule, NHTSA

stated its belief that the HLDI

information should be made available as

soon as possible after its publication

date. Therefore, NHTSA stated its intent

to publish the annual Federal Register

document updating HLDI’s December

Insurance Collision Report data no later

than January of the calendar year that

follows HLDI’s publication of the data.

The NPRM

In a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM) issued on September 13, 1994

(59 FR 46952), NHTSA proposed to

amend part 582 by making certain

changes in § 582.5, in which the text of

the insurance cost information booklet

is specified. Originally, the text

specified the date ‘‘January [Year to be

Inserted].’’ NHTSA proposed to

substitute ‘‘March’’ for ‘‘January,’’ in

order to allow itself adequate time to

publish and distribute the comparative

insurance cost information booklet. In

practice, HLDI does not send the

December Insurance Collision Report

data to NHTSA until mid-January.

NHTSA then formats the data for

printing, and arranges for the printing

and distribution by mail of a single copy

of the booklet to each of the nation’s

approximately 27,000 automobile

dealers. NHTSA can thus reasonably

expect that the booklet will be

published by March of each year.

Part 582 originally specified a

comparison of insurance costs for

‘‘passenger motor vehicles.’’ In the

NPRM, NHTSA proposed to revise the

term ‘‘passenger motor vehicles,’’ at

appropriate places in § 582.5, to read

‘‘passenger cars, utility vehicles, light

duty trucks and vans.’’ The revisions

were intended to make clear that the

term ‘‘passenger motor vehicles’’

includes many vehicle types besides

‘‘passenger car.’’

NHTSA also proposed to make certain

changes to the required text that would

make more explicit the limitations of

the collision loss data. In the final rule,

the text in § 582.5 that explains the

data’s limitations stated that the

collision loss data table does not

include information about new models,

models that have been substantially

redesigned, and models without enough

claim experience. In order to make clear

that certain data should not be relied

upon, NHTSA proposed to revise the

third paragraph in § 582.5 to state:

The table is not relevant for new models

or models that have been substantially

redesigned for [ YEAR TO BE INSERTED ],

and it does not include information about

models without enough claim experience.

Also, in the final rule, the fourth

paragraph in § 582.5 stated that it is

unlikely that a consumer’s total

premium will vary more than five

percent depending upon the collision

loss experience of a particular vehicle.

Subsequently, a representative of the

Insurance Services Organization (ISO),

which recommends insurance premium

rates to its members, indicated to

NHTSA that the collision cost data

could result in an insurance premium

reduction of ten percent rather than the

five percent mentioned in the booklet.

Accordingly, NHTSA tentatively

concluded that it would be more

accurate to state that it is unlikely that

a consumer’s total premium will vary

more than ten percent.

Finally, § 582.5 originally stated that

consumers should contact insurance

companies directly to determine the

actual premium that a consumer will be

charged for insuring a particular vehicle

or for complete information about

insurance premiums. NHTSA proposed

to revise § 582.5 to advise the consumer

to contact insurance company agents

directly in order to obtain premium

information. This proposal was

intended to reflect the fact that the

consumer’s first point of contact with

many insurance companies is the

insurance company agent.

Summary of Comments and Agency

Responses

NHTSA received comments from

three entities on the issues raised in the

NPRM. These included Advocates for

Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates),

the National Automobile Dealers

Associations (NADA), and Volkswagen

of America (VW). Each commenter

generally supported the proposed

amendment, but raised individual

suggestions concerning specific portions

of the proposed text.

a. Publication date: No commenter

objected to the change of the publication

date from January to March, and NADA

affirmatively supported this change.

NADA also suggested that NHTSA

should ‘‘reconsider working towards

publishing’’ the insurance cost data in

the same booklet as DOE/EPA’s

comparative fuel economy data. In the

March 1993 final rule, NHTSA rejected

earlier proposals (by NADA and others)

to publish all of the data in a single

document. NHTSA continues to believe

that this proposal is unworkable. The

HLDI insurance cost information does

not become available until late January.

This time frame is too late to permit

publication of the data simultaneously

with DOE/EPA’s ‘‘Gas Mileage Guide,’’

which is made available at the

beginning of the model year (ordinarily

in the preceding October), when new

models arrive at dealers’ show rooms.

Furthermore, the data in the Gas

Mileage Guide, which are arranged

according to criteria such as interior

roominess, engine, and transmission,

are presented differently from the HLDI

data, which is arranged according to

wheelbase and vehicle type.

b. Covered Vehicles: Both NADA and

Advocates supported the agency’s

proposal to change the description of

the vehicles covered by making it more

specific. NADA suggested that the

agency use the terms ‘‘station wagon/

passenger van, pickup, and utility

vehicle,’’ throughout the text, to reflect

the groupings into which the HLDI data

is already broken out. NHTSA agrees

that this suggestion has merit, and has

decided to adopt it by revising the end

of the first paragraph of § 582.5 to state:

‘‘COMPARISON OF DIFFERENCES IN

INSURANCE COSTS FOR PASSENGER

CARS, STATION WAGONS/

PASSENGER VANS, PICKUPS, AND
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 57 / Friday, March 24, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 15511

UTILITY VEHICLES ON THE BASIS OF

DAMAGE SUSCEPTIBILITY.’’

c. Discussion of the limitations of the

data: Two commenters addressed the

agency’s proposal to modify the textual

discussion of the limitations of the data.

NADA requested that the agency further

emphasize and explain those

limitations. On the other hand,

Advocates expressed its concern that

consumers may infer from the proposed

language that the insurance cost data is

of little value, and suggested that the

agency emphasize the usefulness of the

data. Accordingly, it proposed that, in

addition to the textual changes

proposed in the NPRM, the final rule

adopt language that affirmatively states

that the table ‘‘can be used to compare

insurance premiums of most vehicle

makes and models * * *.’’ In addition,

it proposed dropping the reference to

‘‘new models’’ in the description of

vehicles to which the tables do not

apply.

NHTSA has concluded that the

presentation of the insurance cost

information is clear and adequate. The

agency disagrees with Advocates’

conclusion that the fact that the

proposed revision points out the

limitations of the data will lead

consumers to conclude that the

insurance cost information is of little

value. Since the issuance of the final

rule in March 1993, the text of the

insurance cost booklet has always

contained a description of the

limitations of the data; the revision

merely clarifies those limitations.

Therefore, NHTSA has decided against

adopting Advocates’ suggested

affirmative statement concerning the

appropriate uses of the data.

Advocates’ suggestion that the

reference to ‘‘new models’’ in the

proposed revision to the third paragraph

of the text should be deleted was based

on its assertion that previous cost

information is applicable to new models

of the same vehicle make if the vehicle

line has not been substantially

redesigned. Although NHTSA believes

that the term ‘‘new models’’ is

ordinarily understood to mean an

entirely new or substantially redesigned

model, the agency has concluded that

the term ‘‘new models’’ is superfluous

in this context. Accordingly, the agency

is accepting Advocates’ proposal to

delete the reference.

d. Advice about contacting insurance

agents: Advocates suggested a change to

the agency’s proposed language advising

consumers to contact insurance agents

in order to obtain relevant insurance

cost information. Advocates agreed that

it was appropriate to advise consumers

to contact insurance agents, but

suggested that the regulatory text should

provide consumers with the option of

contacting either their insurance agent

or their insurance company. NHTSA has

concluded that this suggestion

appropriately recognizes the fact that

while in many instances, consumers

contact individual agents with respect

to their existing or prospective policies,

there are other instances in which

insurance companies do not work

through individual agents and

consumers instead must contact the

company directly. Therefore, the agency

has decided to adopt Advocates’

suggestion to clarify the advice by

referring both to insurance agents and

insurance companies.

e. Description of NCAP test results:

VW recommended changing the

description of the New Car Assessment

Program (NCAP) test results to

emphasize that they are based on a

single, 35 mph, barrier crash test of a

new vehicle. NHTSA does not agree

with VW that a change in wording is

necessary. The present text is consistent

with the description of the NCAP

program that appears in other NHTSA

publications. VW’s recommended

change would cause the description of

the NCAP program in the insurance cost

information booklet to differ from the

text that already appears elsewhere.

Moreover, while cost considerations

limit the NCAP testing to one test per

new vehicle model, the agency has

access to other crash test data, both from

manufacturers and from its own

compliance test programs. The agency

has concluded from its review of all

available data that the statement that

‘‘NCAP test results demonstrate relative

frontal crash protection in new

vehicles’’ is accurate, and has decided

to retain it.

f. Variation in premiums: No

commenter addressed the agency’s

proposal to amend the statement as to

the amount by which collision cost data

could result in an insurance premium

reduction. Accordingly, in order to

increase the accuracy of the booklet, the

agency is adopting its proposal to state

that it is unlikely that a consumer’s total

premium will vary more than 10

percent.

Regulatory Impacts

1. Executive Order 12866 and DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures

This notice has not been reviewed

under Executive Order 12866. NHTSA

has considered the impact of this

rulemaking action and has determined

the action not to be ‘‘significant’’ under

the Department of Transportation’s

regulatory policies and procedures. The

agency has determined that the

economic effects of the proposed

amendments are minimal, so that a full

regulatory evaluation is not required.

This notice adopts minor amendments

to the insurance cost information

regulation, to increase the accuracy of

the information provided to potential

motor vehicle purchasers. The amount

of extra text that must be included in

the information booklet as a result of

this amendment is minuscule.

2. Regulatory Flexibility Act

In accordance with the Regulatory

Flexibility Act, NHTSA has evaluated

the effects of this amendment on small

entities. NHTSA estimates there are

about 27,000 dealers of new passenger

motor vehicles. Many of the dealers that

may be affected by this amendment are

considered to be small business entities.

However, NHTSA believes that this

amendment will not have a significant

economic impact on any of these small

dealers. This rulemaking adopts minor

editorial changes, that result in the

addition of a small amount of extra text

to the insurance cost information

booklet. The minimal cost increments to

the dealers that may be associated with

this amendment should have negligible

effects on the purchase price of new

passenger motor vehicles. For these

reasons, I certify that this amendment

will not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities.

3. National Environmental Policy Act

In accordance with the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the

agency has considered the

environmental impacts of this

amendment and determined that it will

not have a significant impact on the

quality of the human environment.

4. Federalism

This action has been analyzed in

accordance with the principles and

criteria contained in Executive Order

12623, and it has been determined that

the rule does not have sufficient

federalism implications to warrant the

preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

5. Civil Justice Reform

This amendment would not have any

retroactive effect, and it does not

preempt any State law. Chapter 323—

Consumer Information of 49 U.S.C. does

not provide for judicial review of rules

issued pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 32302. The

Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.

701 et seq., provides generally for

judicial review of final agency action,

which in certain circumstances may

include this proposed rule. The
15512 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 57 / Friday, March 24, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

Administrative Procedure Act 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 582

Administrative practice and

procedure, Insurance, Motor vehicles.

In consideration of the foregoing,

NHTSA amends 49 CFR part 582 as

follows:

PART 582—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 582

is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 32303; delegation of

authority at 49 CFR 1.50(f).

2. Section 582.5 is revised to read as

follows:

§ 582.5 Information form.

The information made available

pursuant to § 582.4 shall be presented in

writing in the English language and in

not less than 10-point type. It shall be

presented in the format set forth below,

and shall include the complete

explanatory text and the updated data

published annually by NHTSA.

MARCH [YEAR TO BE INSERTED]

COMPARISON OF DIFFERENCES IN

INSURANCE COSTS FOR PASSENGER

CARS, STATION WAGONS/PASSENGER

VANS, PICKUPS AND UTILITY VEHICLES

ON THE BASIS OF DAMAGE

SUSCEPTIBILITY

The National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration (NHTSA) has provided the

information in this booklet in compliance

with Federal law as an aid to consumers

considering the purchase of a new vehicle.

The booklet compares differences in

insurance costs for different makes and

models of passenger cars, station wagons/

passenger vans, pickups, and utility vehicles

on the basis of damage susceptibility.

However, it does not indicate a vehicle’s

relative safety.

The following table contains the best

available information regarding the effect of

damage susceptibility on insurance

premiums. It was taken from data compiled

by the Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI) in

its December [YEAR TO BE INSERTED]

Insurance Collision Report, and reflects the

collision loss experience of passenger cars,

utility vehicles, light trucks, and vans sold in

the United States in terms of the average loss

payment per insured vehicle year for [THREE

APPROPRIATE YEARS TO BE INSERTED].

NHTSA has not verified the data in this table.

The table represents vehicles’ collision loss

experience in relative terms, with 100

representing the average for all passenger

vehicles. Thus, a rating of 122 reflects a

collision loss experience that is 22 percent

higher (worse) than average, while a rating of

96 reflects a collision loss experience that is

4 percent lower (better) than average. The

table is not relevant for models that have

been substantially redesigned for [YEAR TO

BE INSERTED], and it does not include

information about models without enough

claim experience.

Although many insurance companies use

the HLDI information to adjust the ‘‘base

rate’’ for the collision portion of their

insurance premiums, the amount of any such

adjustment is usually small. It is unlikely

that your total premium will vary more than

ten percent depending upon the collision

loss experience of a particular vehicle.

If you do not purchase collision coverage

or your insurance company does not use the

HLDI information, your premium will not

vary at all in relation to these rankings.

In addition, different insurance companies

often charge different premiums for the same

driver and vehicle. Therefore, you should

contact insurance companies or their agents

directly to determine the actual premium that

you will be charged for insuring a particular

vehicle.

Please Note: In setting insurance

premiums, insurance companies mainly rely

on factors that are not directly related to the

vehicle itself (except for its value). Rather,

they mainly consider driver characteristics

(such as age, gender, marital status, and

driving record), the geographic area in which

the vehicle is driven, how many miles are

traveled, and how the vehicle is used.

Therefore, to obtain complete information

about insurance premiums, you should

contact insurance companies or their agents

directly.

Insurance companies do not generally

adjust their premiums on the basis of data

reflecting the crashworthiness of different

vehicles. However, some companies adjust

their premiums for personal injury protection

and medical payments coverage if the

insured vehicle has features that are likely to

improve its crashworthiness, such as air bags

and automatic seat belts.

Test data relating to vehicle

crashworthiness are available from NHTSA’s

New Car Assessment Program (NCAP). NCAP

test results demonstrate relative frontal crash

protection in new vehicles. Information on

vehicles that NHTSA has tested in the NCAP

program can be obtained by calling the

agency’s toll-free Auto Safety Hotline at (800)

424–9393.

[Insert Table To Be Published Each March by

the National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration]

If you would like more details about the

information in this table, or wish to obtain

the complete Insurance Collision Report,

please contact HLDI directly, at: Highway

Loss Data Institute, 1005 North Glebe Road,

Arlington, VA 22201, Tel: (703) 247–1600.

Issued on: March 20, 1995.

Ricardo Martinez,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–7266 Filed 3–23–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 227

[Docket No. 950309069–5069–01; I.D.

060694A]

RIN 0648–AG71

Sea Turtle Conservation; Restrictions

Applicable to Shrimp Trawling

Activities; Flotation Device

Requirements

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule; technical

amendments.

SUMMARY: NMFS issues this final rule to

require shrimp trawlers using Turtle

Excluder Devices (TEDs) in the Gulf and

Atlantic Areas to attach specified

flotation devices to hard TEDs or special

hard TEDs with bottom escape

openings. This action is necessary to

improve the ability of bottom-opening,

hard TEDs, and special hard TEDs to

safely exclude sea turtles. In addition,

NMFS is making technical amendments

to the sea turtle conservation regulations

to expand TED configuration options or

to clarify gear descriptions, thereby

reducing the chances of incidental

capture and mortality of endangered

and threatened sea turtles.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective

March 31, 1995, except for

§ 227.72(e)(4)(i)(I)(2)(ii), which contains

information collection requirements that

have not yet been approved by the

Office of Management and Budget

(OMB). Once OMB approves these

requirements, a document will be

published in the Federal Register

announcing the effective date.

ADDRESSES: Requests for a copy of the

environmental assessment (EA)

prepared for this action, and comments

on this action, should be addressed to

the Office of Protected Resources,

NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver

Spring, MD 20910.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Charles A. Oravetz, Chief, Protected

Species Management Branch, NMFS,

Southeast Region (813/570–5312), or

Barbara Schroeder, Acting National Sea

Turtle Coordinator, NMFS Office of

Protected Resources (301/713–1401).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

All sea turtles that occur in U.S.

waters are listed as either endangered or