2946 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 30, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

This Final Rule does not contain any

information collection requirements

subject to Office Management and

Budget review under the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501

et seq.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 228

Water Pollution Control.

Dated: November 2, 1995.

Patrick M. Tobin,

Acting Regional Administrator.

In consideration of the foregoing, 40

CFR Chap. I, Subchapter H is amended

as set forth below.

PART 228—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 228

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. Sections 1412 and

1418.

2. Section 228.14 is amended by

removing paragraph (h)(6).

3. Section 228.15 is amended by

adding paragraph (h)(19) to read as

follows:

§ 228.15 Dumping sites designated on a

final basis

* * * * *

(h) * * *

(19) Miami, Florida; Ocean Dredged

Material Disposal Site.

(i) Location:

25°45′30′′ N 80°03′54′′ W;

25°45′30′′ N 80°02′50′′ W;

25°44′30′′ N 80°03′54′′ W;

25°44′30′′ N 80°02′50′′ W.

Center coordinates are 25°45′00′′ N and

80°03′22′′ W.

(ii) Size: Approximately 1 square

nautical mile.

(iii) Depth: Ranges from 130 to 240

meters.

(iv) Primary use: Dredged material.

(v) Period of use: Continuing use.

(vi) Restriction: Disposal shall be

limited to suitable dredged material

from the greater Miami, Florida vicinity.

Disposal shall comply with conditions

set forth in the most recent approved

Site Management and Monitoring Plan.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 96–1709 Filed 1–29–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

49 CFR Part 575

[Docket No. 92–65; Notice 3]

RIN 2127–AE61

Consumer Information Regulations;

Vehicle Stopping Distance

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA),

Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Response to petition for

reconsideration.

SUMMARY: In response to a petition for

reconsideration submitted by Advocates

for Highway and Auto Safety, this

document reaffirms NHTSA’s decision

to rescind the requirement that motor

vehicle manufacturers provide

consumers with information about

vehicle stopping distance. The agency is

taking this action because the

information provided pursuant to that

requirement did not permit consumers

to distinguish between many of the new

vehicles and was not used by consumers

in their vehicle purchasing decisions.

Further, upgrading the requirement

would be unduly burdensome on

manufacturers and could actually be

counterproductive since it might

mislead consumers about the ability of

their vehicles to stop under varied

circumstances.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For non-legal issues: Ms. Henrietta

Spinner, NPS–21, Office of Market

Incentives, National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration, 400 Seventh

Street SW., Washington, DC 20590

(202–366–4802).

For legal issues: Mr. Marvin L. Shaw,

NCC–20, Rulemaking Division, Office of

Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration, 400 Seventh

Street SW., Washington, DC 20590

(202–366–2992).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. June 1995 Final Rule

On June 26, 1995, the National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration

(NHTSA) published a final rule that

rescinded the stopping distance

information requirements in § 575.101

of Title 49 of the Code of Federal

Regulations (60 FR 32918). The agency

explained that it reached this decision

after concluding that the stopping

distance requirement was not resulting

in the provision of meaningful

information to consumers about the

differences between vehicle models in

stopping distance and that an upgraded

requirement to mandate model specific

stopping distance information would

have been costly and might not have

provided significant safety benefits. The

agency stated that mandating model

specific stopping distance information

might not reveal sufficiently large

differences between vehicles in

stopping distance to affect vehicle

purchasing decisions. Further, such

information might mislead some vehicle

owners about their vehicle’s braking

ability under varied circumstances. The

stopping distance measurements reflect

the ability of a vehicle to stop only

under optimum conditions of vehicle

loading, tire-to-road peak friction

coefficient, environment, and driver

braking skills.

In considering whether to rescind

§ 575.101, NHTSA analyzed several

alternatives to rescission, including the

alternative of requiring manufacturers to

provide model-specific stopping

information. NHTSA concluded that

generating 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.

NHTSA also explained its decision

not to adopt more stringent

requirements for stopping distance

information because it did not appear

that consumers would use the

information in making their vehicle

purchasing decisions. The agency stated

that consumers typically consider and

value such attributes as reliability,

styling, price, reputation, roominess,

and safety. While stopping distance

relates to safety, NHTSA believed that

the upgraded information would not

impact purchasing decisions because

precise stopping distance information

would not yield differences sufficiently

large to make stopping distance a factor

in consumers’ selections among similar

vehicle models.

NHTSA stated that it remained

committed to ensuring that consumers

received appropriate safety information

and noted that the agency is working

with the National Academy of Sciences

(NAS) to review and possibly expand

the agency’s consumer information

efforts. 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
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 30, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 2947

methods of providing useful information to

consumers.

This study is expected to be

completed by the statutory due date of

March 31, 1996, for the submission of a

final report on the NAS findings to the

House and Senate Appropriations

Committees. NHTSA stated that it will

review the NAS study for insights into

whether there is an effective means to

provide consumers with information

about vehicle stopping ability. NHTSA

nevertheless concluded that since

commenters agreed that the previously

required information is not meaningful

or helpful to consumers, no purpose is

served by retaining section 575.101.

II. Petition for Reconsideration

On July 25, 1995, Advocates for

Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates)

petitioned NHTSA to reconsider its

decision to rescind the vehicle stopping

distance consumer information

regulation. Advocates stated that

NHTSA’s decision to rescind this

regulation is ‘‘ill-timed and

inappropriate.’’ That organization

requested the agency to reconsider its

decision to rescind the regulation, given

the previously mentioned NAS study of

consumer information programs. It

stated that the agency should not have

rescinded this regulation until after the

NAS study is completed.

III. NHTSA’s Decision

After reviewing Advocates’ petition,

NHTSA continues to believe that its

decision to rescind the vehicle stopping

distance consumer information

requirement was appropriate. The

information provided pursuant to that

requirement did not permit consumers

to distinguish among many of the new

vehicles and was not used by consumers

in their vehicle purchasing decisions.

The agency disagrees with the

petitioner that it should have waited to

rescind the stopping distance

requirements until completion of the

NAS study on consumer information.

That study will not address the

rescinded requirements and thus will

not yield any information or

conclusions bearing on the merits of the

agency’s rescission decision. Further,

the agency believes that no useful

purpose would be served by reinstating

the requirement until the NAS study is

completed and the agency has a chance

to analyze the findings and

recommendations.

If the NAS study suggests an approach

that would make the stopping distance

information meaningful and helpful to

consumers at reasonable cost, the

agency would propose adopting such an

approach. However, NHTSA notes that

it is unlikely that the NAS study will

emphasize vehicle stopping distance as

a significant consumer information

concern. Standard Numbers 105 and

135 regulate the stopping performance

of light vehicles, thereby ensuring that

these vehicles have safe braking

performance. Further, NHTSA

continues to believe that, in making

their purchasing decisions, consumers

will typically not be concerned with

stopping performance.

Based on the above considerations,

NHTSA again concludes that the

previously required stopping distance

information is not useful. The agency

therefore has decided to reaffirm its

decision to rescind its requirement for

that information.

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

30117, and 30166; delegation of authority at

49 CFR 1.50.

Issued on: January 24, 1996.

Ricardo Martinez,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 96–1653 Filed 1–29–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P