Insurance Cost Information Regulation |
---|
Topics: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
|
Barry Felrice
Federal Register
March 22, 1994
[Federal Register: March 22, 1994] _______________________________________________________________________ Part X Department of Transportation _______________________________________________________________________ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration _______________________________________________________________________ 49 CFR Part 582 Insurance Cost Information Regulation; Rule and Notice DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 49 CFR Part 582 [Docket No. 74-40; Notice 6] Insurance Cost Information Regulation AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT. ACTION: Denial of petition for reconsideration. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: This notice denies a petition submitted by the National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA) for NHTSA to stay the effective date of and reconsider its final rule requiring new automobile dealers to distribute insurance cost information to prospective purchasers without charge. The petitioner urges that in place of making dealers responsible for reproducing copies of the booklet containing the information, the agency undertake that responsibility. After reviewing the petition, the agency has concluded that the final rule is consistent with section 201(e) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act. Similarly, the agency continues to believe that the final rule is consistent with the rulemaking record. Finally, this notice rejects the argument by the petitioner that the final rule is unreasonable because the cost of reproducing copies of the insurance cost information is substantially greater for dealers than for the agency. Based on these conclusions, NHTSA has decided to deny the petitioner's request that the agency amend the final rule. In view of this action, and of the fact that, subsequent to the filing of NADA's petition, the agency provided NADA with five additional copies per dealer of the 1993 insurance cost information booklet in return for NADA's agreement to mail these copies to each new car dealer, there is no basis for a stay of the effective date of the final rule. Accordingly, the request for a stay is likewise denied. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Orron Kee, Office of Market Incentives, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20590 (202) 366-4936. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background On March 5, 1993, NHTSA published a final rule amending the Insurance Cost Information Regulation (49 CFR part 582) to require dealers of new automobiles to distribute to prospective purchasers comparative insurance cost information that is prepared and provided annually by the agency (58 FR 12545). The information consists of data compiled by the Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI). The rule was issued to further implement section 201(e) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (Cost Savings Act), which states that the Secretary of Transportation Shall by rule establish procedures requiring automobile 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. NHTSA commenced this rulemaking proceeding in response to a lawsuit filed by Consumers Union of the United States against the Secretary of Transportation and NHTSA's Administrator to compel the agency to ``develop and ensure disclosure of comparative insurance cost information'' in accordance with section 201(e). (Consumers Union v. Pena, No. 90-2369, D.D.C., filed September 26, 1990, dismissed May 20, 1993). After meeting with representatives of Consumers Union and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) and further analyzing insurance data, the agency tentatively concluded that collision loss experience data collected and reported by HLDI are the best available indicators of the effect of damage susceptibility on insurance costs, although they bear no relationship to vehicle crashworthiness. Based on the above, NHTSA published a proposal to require that new automobile dealers make available to prospective purchasers collision loss experience data that HLDI collects, updates, and publishes annually (56 FR 56963, November 7, 1991). In response to comments on the proposal, the March 5, 1993 final rule addressed such issues as the use of HLDI information as the data source, the format of data presentation, the mandatory text to accompany the HLDI data, the exclusion of personal injury protection data, the responsibility for printing and distributing the information, the timing of publication and dealer compliance, and the costs associated with the rulemaking. On March 24, 1993, NHTSA published a notice containing the 1993 text and data that new automobile dealers are required to include in an insurance cost information booklet that they must make available to prospective purchasers (58 FR 16098). NHTSA also mailed a sample copy of the 1993 booklet to each new automobile dealer on the mailing list used by the Department of Energy to distribute the ``Gas Mileage Guide.'' The notice noted that dealers are responsible for reproducing sufficient numbers of copies of the booklet to assure that they are available to be given to prospective purchasers as of April 21, 1993. II. Petition for Reconsideration On April 5, 1993, the National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA) petitioned NHTSA to reconsider certain aspects of the March 1993 final rule. NADA is a national trade association that represents over 19,000 new automobile and truck dealers across the country. In petitioning the agency to reconsider the final rule, NADA claimed that requiring dealers to reproduce or otherwise obtain sufficient copies of the insurance cost information was (1) inconsistent with and contrary to section 201(e) of the Cost Savings Act, (2) contrary to the public interest and to the rulemaking record, and (3) unreasonable. Each of these contentions and the agency's response to them are discussed below. III. Agency's Response to the Petition A. Congress Did Not Direct NHTSA to Bear the Costs of Reproducing and Distributing Copies of Insurance Cost Information In its petition for reconsideration, NADA stated that its principal objection to the final rule ``arises from NHTSA's mandate that automobile dealers, rather than the government, reproduce the insurance cost information published in 49 CFR Sec. 582.5.'' NADA contended that Congress' intent was for NHTSA to be responsible for reproducing the requisite number of copies of the insurance cost information booklets and distributing these copies to the dealers at no charge. After reviewing the Cost Savings Act and its legislative history, NHTSA continues to interpret section 201(e) as not requiring NHTSA to bear the responsibility for reproducing and/or distributing the insurance cost information. The agency's responsibility under section 201(e) is to ``develop'' the insurance cost information and ``provide'' it to dealers. The dealers have the responsibility under that same section to ``distribute'' the information to prospective purchasers. By sending a copy of the insurance cost information to new automobile dealers, the agency fully met its legal duty to ``provide'' the insurance cost information to dealers. Nothing in section 201(e) requires the agency to supply dealers with multiple copies of such information. While section 201(e) does not expressly specify the party responsible for reproducing this information, the agency believes that the requirement for dealers to distribute the information necessarily includes all actions necessary to comply with that requirement. The only exception is that the information, as opposed to the booklets or pamphlets containing the information, must be supplied by this agency. Therefore, the responsibility for reproduction may properly be assigned to the dealers. Section 201(e) is similar to the provision of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Vehicle Safety Act) that governs another NHTSA consumer information program. Under section 112(d) of the Vehicle Safety Act, the agency is authorized to require vehicle manufacturers to give prospective purchasers of vehicles notification of performance data and technical data related to performance and safety. Although section 112(d) does not explicitly state that the manufacturers must bear the responsibility of reproduction, NHTSA has consistently required manufacturers to do so to comply with 49 CFR Part 575, Consumer Information Regulations. Section 575.6(c) requires, among other things, that vehicle manufacturers provide consumer information to prospective vehicle purchasers ``* * * without charge and in sufficient quantity to be available for retention * * *.'' Section 201(e) stands in marked contrast to section 506(b) of the Cost Savings Act, which requires the Environmental Protection Agency not only to ``compile'' fuel economy information, but also to ``prepare'' a booklet containing that information. Further, it requires the Department of Energy to ``publish and distribute'' the ``Gas Mileage Guide'' (emphasis added). The language of section 506(b) demonstrates that when Congress wishes to require a government agency to bear the expense of publishing and distributing consumer information, it knows how to do so, and can do so unambiguously. NHTSA concludes from the absence in section 201(e) of the clear language found in section 506(b) that Congress did not intend to require that NHTSA be responsible for the publication, reproduction, or distribution of the insurance cost booklets. In its petition, NADA focused on the legislative history of section 201(e), suggesting that the Conference Committee specifically rewrote the House version of the section to clarify its intent that NHTSA bear the responsibility to reproduce the insurance cost information and provide dealers with a sufficient number of copies. As explained below, NHTSA believes that NADA has not accurately characterized this legislative history. The House version of section 201(e) would have required the agency to issue procedures requiring dealers to provide insurance premium rate information to prospective purchasers. The Conference Committee revised the section in two ways. First, it changed the nature of the information to be provided. Instead of premium rate information, prospective purchasers were to be provided information on differences in insurance costs based on differences in damage susceptibility and crashworthiness. Second, the Conference Committee made the agency responsible for developing the information to be distributed by the dealers. However, the Conference Committee did not make any change to indicate that the agency would be responsible for reproducing or distributing the information. In fact, that Committee did not mention that issue. B. NHTSA is Authorized to Require Dealers to Furnish the Information Without Charge NADA contended that NHTSA has no authority to require automobile dealers to distribute the insurance cost information without charge to prospective purchasers. The agency disagrees. Section 201(e) directs the agency to ``establish procedures requiring automobile dealers to distribute [insurance cost information] to prospective purchasers.'' This mandate necessarily includes the authority to establish procedures that will ensure, to the extent possible, achieving the purposes of the section. The agency believes that prohibiting dealers from charging consumers for the information is reasonably necessary to ensure that the information is distributed as widely as possible. Allowing dealers to charge for the information would create a disincentive for consumers to request that information, thus undermining the purposes of section 201(e). It is also noteworthy that the requirement that the material be provided without charge was, as discussed above, included in the original version of part 582 as it was promulgated in 1975. It was not challenged at that time, and none of the commenters during the recent rulemaking suggested that this requirement should be modified. C. Although NHTSA Has the Authority To Assume the Costs of Reproduction and Distribution, NHTSA Does Not Have the Funds To Do So NHTSA agrees that it has the legal authority to assume the responsibility for reproducing and mailing multiple copies of the insurance cost booklets to dealers. However, as a practical matter, the agency cannot do this because it lacks sufficient appropriated funds to publish and distribute sufficient copies of the information booklet to the thousands of new automobile dealers on an annual basis. NADA disagreed with NHTSA's statement about lack of funds by suggesting that Congress has over the years provided NHTSA with ``huge resources specifically earmarked by Congress for the production and reproduction of the insurance cost information document.'' NADA's suggestion is incorrect. Congress has not ``earmarked'' any funds for that specific purpose. While Congress has authorized funds for the general purpose of implementing Title II of the Cost Savings Act, it has not expressly appropriated these funds for the insurance cost information program. Rather, Congress has intended that these funds help implement the New Car Assessment Program (NCAP). See, e.g., ``Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriation Bill, 1993,'' 102d Congress, 2d Session, S. Rep. 102-351, July 30, 1992; ``Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriation Bill, 1992,'' 102d Congress, 1st Session, S. Rep. 102-148, September 12, 1991. None of the funds actually appropriated by Congress were for reproducing or publishing the insurance cost information. All of the funds appropriated for NCAP are earmarked for that purpose. Moreover, the agency cannot shift funds at will in disregard of Congressional appropriations. Thus, the funds that would be necessary to publish and distribute the insurance cost information booklet are simply not available. D. The Decision To Require Dealers To Bear the Costs of Reproducing and Distributing the Booklet Was Appropriate Notwithstanding Public Comments Urging the Agency To Bear Those Costs NADA suggested that NHTSA's decision to require dealers to reproduce sufficient copies of the insurance cost information was inappropriate because the commenters on the NPRM generally favored making the agency responsible for providing all necessary copies. The agency disagrees. In the NPRM, NHTSA proposed that automobile dealers would be required to make the insurance cost information available to prospective purchasers within 30 days of NHTSA's annual publication of the updated information in the Federal Register. The proposal suggested that vehicle manufacturers or dealer trade associations could provide the booklets to dealers. The agency solicited comments about alternative methods of distribution, including having the government publish booklets and send copies to dealers or having the government supply a sample booklet to each dealer, who would be responsible for making copies of the booklet. No commenter specifically addressed the costs of any of the distribution options. NADA and several other commenters requested that the distribution be patterned after DOE's method for publishing and distributing the ``Gas Mileage Guide'' to dealers. As explained in the preamble to the Final Rule, NHTSA concluded, after reviewing the public comments and other available information, that the most appropriate method of distribution, given the constraints on the agency's resources, would be to provide each dealer with a single copy of the booklet and have dealers reproduce the booklet so that it would be available to prospective purchasers. The agency concluded that including the information in DOE's ``Gas Mileage Guide'' would be unworkable, given problems with differences in presentation and timing, as the categories in the gas mileage guide do not correspond to those in the insurance guide and could lead to confusion. NHTSA also explained that it did not have sufficient appropriated funds available to publish and distribute multiple copies of the booklets to the thousands of new automobile dealers in the country. Including this information in the DOE guide would not alleviate this funding shortage. See 58 FR 12545, 12548. Notwithstanding this discussion in the preamble to the final rule, NADA stated that NHTSA's decision to provide each dealer with a single copy ``ignored'' the docket comments. In particular, NADA contended that ``Every comment addressing the specific issue of who should produce or reproduce the insurance cost document urged NHTSA to recognize that it was the government's responsibility.'' The agency recognizes that the commenters who addressed this issue urged the government to assume the responsibility for reproduction. However, in reaching a final decision after seeking public comments on a proposed rule, an agency is neither required nor expected to tally the comments and fashion a rule in accordance with the majority position. Procedurally, an agency is required under the Administrative Procedure Act to carefully consider the comments on all significant issues and explain its reasons for accepting or rejecting those comments. Substantively, an agency is required to issue a rule consistent with the statute authorizing the rulemaking. The agency regards its actions in preparing and issuing the final rule as being consistent with these requirements. After reviewing NADA's petition, NHTSA continues to believe that requiring dealers to reproduce the insurance cost information booklets is consistent with section 201(e) and is appropriate and necessary, especially in light of the agency's limited funds. The commenters opposing the final rule generally did not suggest that the agency lacked authority to place the responsibility for reproducing the booklet on the dealers. Instead, they simply suggested that, as a matter of policy, it was preferable to place the responsibility on the government, either through direct distribution by NHTSA or by adding the insurance cost information to the DOE ``Gas Mileage Guide.'' However, as explained above, those options were not feasible. E. NHTSA Considered the Interests of the Dealers NADA also stated that the requirement did not adequately consider the interests of the nation's light duty motor vehicle dealers, over 85 percent of which are small businesses. NHTSA recognizes that most dealers are small businesses. However, the agency disagrees with the suggestion that it did not adequately consider the interests of the dealers. The agency notes that in the final rule it fully discussed the effects of the rule on small entities in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act. NHTSA acknowledged that while many automobile dealers that will be affected by the regulation are small businesses, the regulation will not have a significant economic impact on dealers, either individually or collectively. Indeed, the economic impact on any dealer is likely to be minimal. The agency estimated in the final rule that a dealer's annual duplicating costs associated with the rule would not exceed $175.00 and that the actual costs would probably be much lower. Based on these considerations, the agency determined that no final regulatory flexibility analysis was required to be prepared. In view of the discussion below about the costs of reproducing the insurance cost information, NHTSA continues to believe that these conclusions are appropriate. F. Requiring Dealers To Reproduce Sufficient Copies Is Reasonable Notwithstanding Any Difference in the Cost of Government Versus Individual Dealer Reproduction In the preamble to the final rule, the agency estimated photocopying costs to be approximately five cents per page or 40 cents for each of the eight-page booklets. That estimate was based on commonly available commercial copying rates. The agency further stated that even that low estimated cost could be significantly reduced if two-sided copying were used or if a central source, such as a trade association, printed the booklet in large volume and made it available to dealers. In its petition, NADA claimed that the cost of private reproduction of the booklet would be far greater than the cost of governmental reproduction and that therefore it was unreasonable for NHTSA to require dealers to reproduce the booklet. NADA disagreed with the agency's estimate that copying would cost five cents per page, claiming that it would cost between 15 cents and 25 cents per page to copy the information. Assuming that between 8,000,000 and 10,000,000 pages (i.e., 1,000,000 to 1,250,000 booklets) would need to be copied, NADA claimed that the rulemaking would cost its members between $1,200,000 and $2,500,000. NADA also stated that it would be far less expensive for the government to reproduce and distribute the information than for each automobile dealer to do so. NHTSA has again examined the costs related to making multiple copies of the insurance cost information and continues to believe that the dealers' duplicating costs are slight. NHTSA stands by its figures for commonly available commercial copying costs. Indeed, the agency has learned of a large midwestern printer who has offered to provide 50 copies of the booklet for $20.00 plus shipping costs, a figure directly in line with the agency's estimate of 40 cents per booklet. NADA did not suggest in its petition that the commonly available commercial copying costs are actually higher than the agency's figure. Instead, it made estimates based on dealers making copies with their own reproduction facilities and included in those estimates a variety of overhead costs. If a dealer's cost for internal reproduction were as high as NADA estimates, it is difficult to understand why the dealer would not choose instead to have the booklet reproduced commercially. In addition, the agency notes that NADA's petition did not address the possible cost savings available from two-sided copying or from having NADA or State automobile dealer associations publish this information in large quantities. NHTSA recognizes that the per-copy cost of printing a large number of copies is less than the cost of photocopying 50 or fewer copies. However, it should also be noted that the agency's approach minimizes mailing costs, which would be much higher if the government had to send 50 copies of the booklet to each dealer, rather than one copy. In addition, the agency's approach minimizes waste, since dealers will only have to produce the number of copies they actually need. If the government were to send a specific number of copies (such as 50) to each dealer, it is likely that many copies would go to waste. G. Prior Agency Statements Do Not Suggest That the Agency Would Bear the Cost of Reproducing and Distributing Copies of Insurance Cost Information NADA has also contended that language in NHTSA notices in 1975 and 1990 indicated that the agency believed at those times that reproduction and distribution costs should be borne by the agency. The preamble to the 1975 final rule establishing Part 582 does not suggest that the agency believed that section 201(e) required NHTSA to bear those costs. NADA has cited the agency's statement in that preamble that it ``will prepare comparative indices for the dealers to distribute to prospective purchasers.'' However, this statement was nothing more than a reflection of the agency's duty to develop the substance of the text of the booklets. The statement did not address, directly or indirectly, the issue of who would pay for reproduction and distribution of the information. Moreover, in the notice of proposed rulemaking leading to the 1975 final rule, NHTSA stated that section 582.4(b), which requires dealers to provide the insurance cost information without charge, was modeled after the identical provision in 49 CFR part 575, NHTSA's Consumer Information Regulations, which is discussed in section III.A. of this Notice. The agency noted that section 575.6(c) was intended to prevent manufacturers or dealers from undermining the consumer information program by charging consumers for the covered information. Had NHTSA intended to bear the responsibility for reproducing the insurance cost information, there would have been no need to incorporate language from Part 575 in the 1975 insurance cost information rule. NHTSA's 1990 denial of a Consumers Union rulemaking petition requesting the agency to generate and distribute consumer information regarding bumper performance does not indicate a contrary view. The agency's statement in its denial notice that implementing the Consumers Union request ``would require an unwarranted expenditure of the agency's limited resources'' was a reference to the costs of obtaining and analyzing the information necessary for a bumper performance information program, not the costs of reproducing or distributing it. H. NHTSA-NADA Actions Regarding Reproduction and Distribution of the Information Booklets Eased the Burden on Dealers for the First Year of the Program After the filing of NADA's petition, NHTSA decided to take action in cooperation with NADA to facilitate compliance by the dealers in the first year of the insurance cost information program. In an effort to help dealers to implement this regulation in a smooth fashion in its first year, NHTSA and NADA agreed to provide dealers with five additional copies of the 1993 insurance cost information booklet. NHTSA reproduced these copies of the booklet, and NADA mailed them to all new automobile dealers (approximately 24,000), including dealers who are not members of that organization. While this program may not have provided many dealers with sufficient copies of the booklet to satisfy their responsibilities under the final rule, any dealer needing additional copies bore the responsibility for reproducing or otherwise obtaining them from private sources. With respect to 1994, NHTSA advised the House and Senate appropriations committees that additional funds would be needed if more than one copy of the booklet were to be provided to each dealer. The funds were not provided. The agency will therefore provide a single sample copy of the 1994 booklet to each automobile dealer on the Department of Energy's mailing list for the ``Gas Mileage Guide.'' The copy will enable the dealers to reproduce and distribute the booklet to prospective purchasers. I. Agency Decision After considering NADA's petition for reconsideration and the other relevant information, NHTSA has decided not to amend Part 582 as requested by the petitioner. Accordingly, NADA's petition for reconsideration is denied. In view of this denial, and of the NHTSA- NADA action to provide dealers with additional copies of the 1993 booklet, there is no basis for a stay of the effective date of the final rule. Accordingly, the request for a stay is likewise denied. Issued on: March 17, 1994. Barry Felrice, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. [FR Doc. 94-6678 Filed 3-21-94; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-59-P