[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 66 (Wednesday, April 6, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-8132]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: April 6, 1994]


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 533

[Docket No. 94-20; Notice 1]
RIN 2127-AF16

 

Light Truck Average Fuel Economy Standards, Model Years 1998-2006

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In a final rule published elsewhere in today's edition of the 
Federal Register, NHTSA is establishing light truck average fuel 
economy standards for model years 1996 and 1997. The purpose of this 
advance notice is to announce that the agency is beginning to develop a 
proposal for light truck average fuel economy standards for model years 
after 1997, and to request comments to assist the agency in developing 
the proposal. NHTSA plans to propose standards for some or all of model 
years 1998 to 2006. The agency is seeking information that will help it 
assess the extent to which manufacturers can improve light truck fuel 
economy during the period in question, the benefits and costs to 
consumers of improved fuel economy, the benefits to the nation of 
reducing fuel consumption, and the number of model years that should be 
covered by the proposal.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 4, 1994.

ADDRESSES: Comments must refer to the docket and notice numbers set 
forth above and be submitted (preferably in 10 copies) to Docket 
Section, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, room 5109, 400 
Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20590. The Docket is open 9:30 a.m. 
to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. Submissions containing information 
for which confidential treatment is requested should be submitted (in 
three copies) to Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, room 5219, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 
20590, and seven additional copies from which the purportedly 
confidential information has been deleted should be sent to the Docket 
section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Orron Kee, Chief, Motor Vehicle 
Requirements Division, Office of Market Incentives, National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 
20590, (202) 366-0846.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

    In December 1975, Congress enacted the Energy Policy and 
Conservation Act (EPCA) because of a national concern with the 
depletable nature and uncertain availability of most of the energy upon 
which the Nation relies for its economic and social well being, and the 
need to implement a national program for conserving energy. Among other 
things, EPCA added Title V, ``Improving Automotive Efficiency,'' to the 
Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (Cost Savings Act). 
Title V provides for the establishment of corporate average fuel 
economy (CAFE) standards for passenger cars and light trucks.
    While Title V provides that the CAFE standard for passenger cars is 
27.5 mpg for each model year after model year (MY) 1984 unless NHTSA 
amends it, the statute does not specify any particular level of light 
truck CAFE standards. Instead, Title V requires the agency to set light 
truck CAFE standards for each model year, at least 18 months before the 
beginning of the model year. In a final rule published elsewhere in 
today's edition of the Federal Register, NHTSA is establishing light 
truck CAFE standards for MYs 1996 and 1997 at 20.7 mpg. The final rule 
follows a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published by the agency 
in the Federal Register (57 FR 61377) on December 24, 1992. That NPRM 
did not address standards for model years after 1997.
    With the rulemaking for the MYs 1996-1997 light truck CAFE 
standards completed, NHTSA is turning its attention to developing a 
proposal for light truck average fuel economy standards for model years 
after MY 1997. While the agency has in the last decade set light truck 
CAFE standards for only one or two model years at a time, it believes 
that it may be appropriate now to set standards for a much longer 
period, i.e., for some or all of the period including MYs 1998 to 2006.
    Since the early 1980's, NHTSA has established light truck CAFE 
standards as little as 18 months and not more than 30 months before the 
beginning of the model year. The effect of this practice has been to 
limit the CAFE increases that could be required because there was 
insufficient leadtime for the manufacturers to change their product 
plans and improve their light truck fuel economy by means of 
significant technological improvements. In this period, the light truck 
CAFE standard changed very little. For MY 1984, it was 20 mpg; for MY 
1994, it is 20.5 mpg.
    NHTSA explained the impact of such limited leadtime as follows in 
its December 1992 NPRM to establish the MYs 1995-97 light truck CAFE 
standards:

    NHTSA recognizes that the leadtime necessary to implement 
significant improvements in engines, transmissions, aerodynamics and 
rolling resistance is typically at least three years. Also, * * * 
once a new design is established and tested as feasible for 
production, the leadtime necessary to design tools and test 
components is typically 30 to 36 months. Some potential major 
changes may take even longer. Leadtimes for new vehicles are usually 
at least three years. Further, light trucks have a long model life, 
i.e., 8-10 years or more. If a manufacturer must make a major model 
change ahead of its normal schedule, this change may have a 
significant, unprogrammed impact.
    Given the leadtime constraints, the agency does not believe that 
manufacturers can achieve significant improvements in their 
projected CAFE levels for these model years by additional 
technological actions.

57 FR 61379, December 14, 1992. The agency notes that manufacturers 
commenting on the December 1992 NPRM argued that the leadtimes 
discussed above are more typical for passenger cars and that light 
truck leadtimes are even longer.
    If the upcoming light truck CAFE rulemaking is to be effective in 
encouraging manufacturers to improve their light truck fuel economy by 
means of significant technological improvements, it must address model 
years for which the manufacturers would have substantial leadtime. 
Thus, the rulemaking must address model years well beyond MY 1997, the 
last model year for which a standard has been established.
    There are several reasons why it appears necessary now for the 
agency to change the way it has been setting light truck CAFE standards 
and to establish them high enough and far enough in advance to require 
significant fuel economy improvements.
    First, the need of the Nation to conserve energy is increasing. The 
import share of oil is growing, as is the percentage from Arab OPEC 
sources. The United States imported 15 percent of its oil needs in 
1955. The import share reached 36.8 percent in 1975, the year EPCA was 
passed, and peaked at 46.4 percent in 1977, at a cost of $91 billion 
(stated in 1992 dollars). Although the share declined to below 30 
percent in the mid-1980's, lately the United States has again become 
increasingly dependent on imported oil. In 1992, imports totaled 43.6 
percent. The Department of Energy projects that imports will rise to 
between 52 percent and 72 percent of total use in 2010.
    Thus, the United States now imports a higher percentage of its oil 
needs than it did during 1975, the year EPCA was passed. Despite the 
establishment of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in the late 1970s, 
concern still exists over the stability of the oil import supply. The 
trend during the 1980s toward increasing diversity in sources of oil 
imports appears to be reversing. In 1975, OPEC accounted for 61 percent 
of U.S. oil imports; by 1984, OPEC's share had dropped to 43 percent. 
However, in 1992 OPEC accounted for 59 percent of U.S. oil imports. 
Moreover, the percentage of total U.S. oil consumption supplied by Arab 
OPEC sources was 11.6 percent in 1992, higher than the 8.5 percent 
level for 1975. Oil continues to account for over 40 percent of all 
energy used in the United States, and 97 percent of the energy consumed 
in the transportation sector. Despite legislation such as the Clean Air 
Act Amendments of 1990 and California's strict ``clean fuel'' and 
emissions standards, fuels derived from petroleum will likely remain 
the predominant fuels in the transportation sector.
    Domestic oil production has declined steadily since reaching a peak 
of 10.6 million barrels per day in 1985. By 1992, it had dropped to 9.0 
million barrels per day. Domestic production is expected to continue 
declining by roughly 200,000 barrels per day each year through the year 
2000. While the United States is currently the world's second largest 
oil producer, it contains only about three percent of the world's known 
oil reserves. Persian Gulf countries contain 63 percent of known world 
reserves, and former Communist countries contain 9 percent. The 
Department of Energy projects a continuing decline in domestic oil 
production to between 3.54 and 6.73 million barrels per day in 2010.
    A second reason why NHTSA believes there may be a need now to 
change its approach to setting light truck CAFE standards is the 
current lack of consumer demand or other market pressure for 
manufacturers to improve light truck fuel economy. In the early 1980's, 
during the energy crisis brought on by events in Iran, gasoline prices 
rose rapidly. That rise significantly increased consumer demand for 
more fuel-efficient vehicles. Thereafter, however, gasoline prices fell 
sharply and have remained at very low levels for a decade. Consumers 
now place much greater emphasis on high performance, and make little 
demand for improved light truck fuel economy. Performance levels are 
now higher than they were when EPCA was enacted.
    In the absence of strong consumer demand or other market pressure 
for improved light truck fuel economy, there is no reason to expect 
manufacturers to make significant technological improvements for the 
purpose of improving light truck fuel economy, absent higher light 
truck CAFE standards or other government measures. Indeed, light truck 
CAFE has not changed appreciably in the last six years and is not 
expected to do so in the next several years. The average light truck 
fuel economy of the domestic manufacturers was 20.5 mpg in MY 1987, and 
20.4 mpg in MY 1992, five model years later. (The import manufacturers' 
average light truck CAFE, representing a relatively small market share, 
declined significantly during this time, from slightly more than 25 mpg 
in MY 1987 to less than 23 mpg in MY 1992.) Moreover, as discussed in 
today's final rule establishing the MY 1996-97 light truck CAFE 
standards, GM currently projects a MY 1997 CAFE of 20.5 mpg, Ford 21.6 
mpg, and Chrysler 20.9 mpg.
    A third reason why effective light truck CAFE standards assume 
increased importance now is the continued growth in market share of 
those vehicles. Light truck production increased from 1.9 million in MY 
1980 to 4.1 million in MY 1992. Data Resources, Inc., projects sales of 
6 million light trucks in MY 1998 and close to 7 million by MY 2004. 
Light trucks comprised nearly 33 percent of the total light vehicle 
production in MY 1992, almost double their share in MY 1980. That share 
is expected to increase to 39 percent in MY 1998 and 42 percent by MY 
2004. As light trucks increase in market share, so does their impact on 
energy consumption and the importance of their potential contribution 
in addressing the Nation's need to conserve energy.
    The impact of the growing light truck population on energy 
conservation efforts can be more fully appreciated when the CAFE of the 
total light truck fleet is compared with that of the total passenger 
car fleet. The light truck CAFE is approximately 21 mpg, while the 
passenger car CAFE is approximately 28 mpg.
    NHTSA also notes that there has been increasing concern in recent 
years about the impact of cars, light trucks and other personal 
vehicles on global warming. There is an almost direct relationship 
between fuel consumption and emission of carbon dioxide, a primary 
``greenhouse'' gas. In other words, reducing fuel consumption also 
reduces carbon dioxide emissions.
    As part of the Administration's Climate Change Action Plan, issued 
in October 1993, the White House's National Economic Council, the 
Office on Environmental Policy and the Office of Science and Technology 
Policy will co-chair a process to develop measures to significantly 
reduce greenhouse gas emissions from personal motor vehicles. The 
efforts of the task force may have a bearing on future light truck fuel 
economy standards.
    NHTSA also notes that the Administration is supporting research in 
improving vehicle fuel efficiency in a number of areas, including the 
Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles. However, the purpose of 
this notice is a limited one--requesting comments to assist NHTSA in 
developing a proposal for light truck CAFE average fuel economy 
standards for model years after 1997, possibly through MY 2006. To aid 
the agency in obtaining useful comments, this notice discusses a 
variety of issues which are considered by NHTSA in developing a CAFE 
standard proposal, and asks a number of questions and makes a number of 
requests for data. For easy reference, the questions and requests are 
numbered consecutively throughout the document.
    In providing a comment on a particular matter or in responding to a 
particular question, interested persons are requested to provide any 
relevant factual information to support their conclusions or opinions, 
including but not limited to test data, statistical and cost data, and 
the source of such information.
    In addition to the questions in the body of this notice, NHTSA is 
also including an appendix to this notice which consists of a number of 
additional questions directed primarily toward light truck 
manufacturers. The appendix questions address their product plans 
through MY 2006 and the assumptions underlying those plans. The agency 
recognizes that the manufacturers' product plans may not be approved 
formally for even the earlier model years addressed in this notice and 
that some of the questions may be difficult to answer. Setting 
standards well in advance instead of only one or two years in advance 
necessitates reliance on less definitive information. However, that 
approach is necessary in order for the agency to attain greater CAFE 
improvements. The agency would appreciate answers that are as 
responsive as possible so that appropriate weight can be given to the 
many factors whose magnitude now can only be estimated. While the 
questions in the appendix are directed toward manufacturers, the agency 
welcomes comments from all interested persons in response to those 
questions.

II. The Statute

    Section 502(b) of the Cost Savings Act requires the Secretary of 
Transportation to issue light truck fuel economy standards for each 
model year. The Act provides that the fuel economy standards must be 
set at the maximum feasible average fuel economy level. In determining 
maximum feasible average fuel economy level, the Secretary is required 
under section 502(e) of the Act to consider four factors: Technological 
feasibility; economic practicability; the effect of other Federal motor 
vehicle standards on fuel economy; and the need of the nation to 
conserve energy. The Secretary is permitted but not required to set 
separate standards for different classes of light trucks. 
(Responsibility for the automotive fuel economy program was delegated 
by the Secretary of Transportation to the Administrator of NHTSA (41 FR 
25015, June 22, 1976.)
    Based on definitions and judicial interpretations of similar terms 
in other statutes, the agency interprets ``feasible'' to refer to 
something that is capable of being done. Therefore, a standard set at 
the maximum feasible average fuel economy level must: (1) Be capable of 
being done and (2) be at the highest level that is capable of being 
done, taking account of what manufacturers are able to do in light of 
technological feasibility, economic practicability, how other Federal 
motor vehicle standards affect average fuel economy, and the need of 
the nation to conserve energy.
    The statute does not expressly state whether the concept of 
feasibility is to be determined on a manufacturer-by-manufacturer basis 
or on an industry-wide basis. As discussed in many fuel economy 
notices, it is clear from the legislative history that Congress did not 
intend that standards simply be set at the level of the least capable 
manufacturer. Instead, NHTSA must take industry-wide considerations 
into account in determining the maximum feasible average fuel economy 
level. NHTSA has consistently set light truck standards at a level that 
can be achieved by manufacturers whose vehicles constitute a 
substantial share of the market. Because of the relatively high volume 
of production by those manufacturers, their capability bears a strong 
and close relationship to that of the industry as a whole.

III. Issues in Developing a Proposal for MY 1998-2006

    Among the significant issues involved in developing a proposal for 
the MY 1998-2006 light truck CAFE standards is the ability of 
manufacturers to improve their light truck fuel economy during that 
period. In order to help it analyze that issue, NHTSA requests 
information or comments on the questions which follow.
    NHTSA is interested in the technology that will be available for 
improving fuel economy. It is particularly interested in technological 
advancements. For example, the development of two-cycle engines may 
have progressed to the point that their introduction to the light truck 
fleet would be feasible some time in the MY 1998-2006 period. Another 
example is the development of aluminum and nonmetal composites for 
automotive applications. These high performance materials, which have 
become less expensive, are providing new opportunities for lightweight, 
high-performance automotive components. The Miller cycle engine or 
other variations on the internal combustion engine may offer 
improvements in fuel economy.
    1. What is the technological feasibility and economic 
practicability of the various fuel efficiency enhancing technologies, 
including, but not limited to each of the following, which were noted 
in the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) study discussed below: Multi-
valve and variable valve timing engines; electronic engine controls; 
port fuel injection; lean burn-fast burn combustion; engine friction 
reduction; two-stroke engines; turbocharging; improved transmissions, 
including continuously variable transmissions and electronic controls; 
redesigning vehicles for weight reduction and aerodynamic enhancement; 
substitution of lighter-weight materials; lowering rolling resistance; 
low-friction lubricants; and reducing parasitic losses, for improving 
manufacturers' CAFE for MY 1998-2006? In answering this question, 
please address, for each of these technologies, as well as any other 
relevant technologies not yet available:
    (a) The impact on fuel efficiency;
    (b) Costs and benefits to the consumer;
    (b) Manufacturer costs;
    (c) Leadtime;
    (d) Potential fleet penetration.
    2. What is the cost-effectiveness of each technology identified in 
Question 1, as well as any other relevant technologies, assuming 
alternative plausible gasoline prices forecast for MY 1998-2006, and 
assuming alternative payback periods ranging from 3 years to 10 years?
    3. Taking into account the response to Question 1, indicate the 
ability of each manufacturer to improve its light truck CAFE for each 
model year during the MY 1998-2006 timeframe. By what model year would 
maximum penetration of all current fuel economy enhancing technologies 
be feasible? Why wouldn't such maximum penetration be feasible earlier 
than that model year?
    4. What analyses of manufacturer light truck fuel economy 
capabilities for MY 1998-2006 are available? What are the strengths and 
weaknesses of each such analysis?
    NHTSA notes that, in 1991, it joined with the Federal Highway 
Administration in commissioning the NAS to estimate the practically 
achievable levels of fuel economy for various classes of passenger cars 
and light trucks. The NAS report, Automotive Fuel Economy--How Far 
Should We Go?, was published in April 1992. NAS did not reach 
conclusions on what the ``practically achievable'' levels of fuel 
economy were because it stated that it could not determine the correct 
balance of the variables that would affect such an estimate. The 
variables include the ``technically achievable'' levels of fuel economy 
(described below), the economic effects in terms of jobs, higher 
vehicle prices, and competitiveness, the effects on vehicle safety and 
petroleum consumption, etc.
    The NAS report did venture to offer ``technically achievable'' 
predictions of fuel economy capabilities in MYs 2001 and 2006. The 
``technically achievable'' values were based on certain assumptions. 
The assumptions were that only currently existing technologies would be 
used, that fleets would meet the Tier I emissions standards of the 
Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990, that vehicle interior volume 
and acceleration performance would be equivalent to those of the MY 
1990 fleet, and that the technologies used would be cost-effective at 
gasoline prices of $5-10 or less.
    NAS offered two estimates for the light truck fleet for both MYs 
2001 and 2006. One estimate was given with a high degree of confidence 
that the light truck fleet could achieve such a level. The other 
estimate, for a higher CAFE level, was given with a lower degree of 
confidence that the fleet could achieve that level due to unidentified 
uncertainties. These values are as follows: 

   Table 1.--``Technically Achievable'' Fuel Economy Levels: New Light  
                      Truck Fleet (From NAS Report)                     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     MY 2001    MY 2006 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Higher confidence.................................         24         26
Lower confidence..................................         25        28 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The figures in the table have several limitations. They do not 
represent the capability of any particular manufacturer. Instead, they 
are intended to represent the light truck fleet as a whole. However, 
the fleet used by NAS did not include all light trucks. The fleet 
included small pickups, small vans, small utility vehicles, and large 
pickups, but not large vans and large utility vehicles. While those 
last two types of vehicles make up a small percentage of the light 
truck market, they have low fuel economies.
    NHTSA is particularly interested in receiving comments concerning 
the NAS report and whether, and how, it should be used in rulemaking 
for the MY 1998-2006 light truck CAFE standards.
    Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc. has prepared a report for 
the Department of Energy that analyzes the domestic manufacturers' 
light duty truck fuel economy potential to 2005. NHTSA is including it 
in the docket for this notice, and would welcome comments on the 
relevance of the report to this rulemaking.
    NHTSA and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have mandated a 
number of safety and emissions standards for light trucks that become 
effective in the next few years and that are likely to contribute to 
increased weight (and, hence, decreased fuel economy) and increased 
cost of these vehicles. Among the safety requirements are the addition 
of air bags (which phase-in through MY 1999), quasi-static side impact 
protection (by MY 1995), roof crush resistance (by MY 1995), and 
interior head impact protection (with an effective date to be 
determined). The Clean Air Act Amendments mandated a phase-in of more 
stringent emission standards for light trucks. The U.S. has agreed 
under the Montreal Protocol to phase-out the chloroflourocarbons used 
in vehicle air conditioners. This will result in somewhat heavier and 
less efficient air conditioners. Finally, EPA has also issued several 
final rules relating to test procedures which could require calibration 
changes that reduce fuel economy and to onboard diagnostics which could 
add weight.
    5. To what extent are other Federal standards likely to affect 
manufacturers' CAFE capabilities in MYs 1998-2006? Answers to this 
question should include not only the effects of such standards when 
first implemented, but also the prospect for reducing those effects 
subsequently.
    6. Assuming that NHTSA establishes a single light truck CAFE 
standard for each of MYs 1998-2006, what would be the manufacturers' 
responses to CAFE standards set at alternative levels, and what would 
the energy savings be from those levels? For example, what would be the 
effect of setting a CAFE standard at x-y mpg versus x mpg versus x+y 
mpg for a given model year? NHTSA requests that, at a minimum, 
commenters answer the questions in this paragraph based on the standard 
levels discussed in the NAS report.
    Another issue that the agency must consider in setting light truck 
CAFE standards is the basic structure of the standards. As indicated 
above, Title V provides the agency with discretion concerning whether 
to establish a single standard for all light trucks or separate 
standards for different classes of light trucks. While NHTSA has in the 
past used its authority to set separate standards for different classes 
of light trucks, most notably for two-wheel drive and four-wheel drive 
light trucks, it has more recently established a single standard for 
all light trucks.
    A single standard has the advantage of maximizing manufacturer 
flexibility, e.g., enabling a manufacturer to decide where in its light 
truck fleet to make fuel efficiency improvements. On the other hand, 
since the agency sets standards at a level that can be achieved by 
manufacturers whose vehicles constitute a substantial share of the 
market, it is possible that a single large manufacturer with a mix 
toward larger, less fuel-efficient vehicles could skew the single 
standard downward for the entire industry. It might be possible to 
address this potential problem by establishing separate standards for 
different classes of light trucks. The agency requests comments on the 
following question:
    7. For MYs 1998-2006, should NHTSA propose a single standard for 
all light trucks or separate standards for different classes of light 
trucks? Should the answer to this question vary depending on the extent 
to which the CAFE capabilities of manufacturers differ? If the agency 
should propose separate standards for different classes of light 
trucks, how should the different classes be defined?
    In the final rule issued today establishing light truck CAFE 
standards for MYs 1996-1997, NHTSA stated it believes that CAFE 
standards for the last decade have not had any measurable effect on 
light truck weight or size; and, hence, safety. In support of that 
belief, the agency noted that the levels of the light truck CAFE 
standards have not varied significantly for more than a decade. The 
light truck CAFE standards for MY 1987-89 and MY 1994 were set at 20.5 
mpg, and, as far back as MY 1984, the standard was only slightly lower 
at 20.0 mpg. NHTSA also noted that, in setting the light truck CAFE 
standards over the last decade, the agency has not included in its 
analyses of manufacturer capabilities any product plan actions that 
would significantly affect the weight, size or cost of the vehicles the 
manufacturers planned to offer. Further, the average equivalent test 
weight of light trucks increased from 3,805 pounds in MY 1984 to 4,200 
pounds in MY 1993.
    8. NHTSA requests comments on the extent to which the increases in 
light truck CAFE feasible during MYs 1998-2006 involve means, such as 
significant weight or size reduction, that could adversely affect 
safety. Would achievement during that period of NAS' estimated 
``technically achievable'' levels necessarily depend on such means?
    In setting CAFE standards, the agency takes into consideration that 
there are often technological risks associated with actually achieving 
the full potential fuel economy improvement from a particular type of 
technology.
    9. How should the agency take technological risks into account in 
setting the light truck CAFE standards? What technological risks are 
associated with gaining the full potential fuel economy improvements 
from any of the available types of fuel economy enhancing technologies? 
What are the prospects for overcoming those risks or offsetting their 
effects on CAFE capability?

IV. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and the 
Departmental Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    This rulemaking was reviewed under E.O. 12866. The agency has 
considered the potential economic implications of this rulemaking and 
determined that it is significant within the meaning of the 
Department's regulatory policies and regulatory procedures. A 
preliminary regulation evaluation has been prepared for this notice and 
placed in the public docket.

B. 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 it is likely that CAFE standards for MYs 1998-2006 will not have 
sufficient Federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a 
Federalism Assessment.

C. Civil Justice Reform

    This rule, when proposed, would not have any retroactive effect. 
Under section 509(a) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 2009(a)), whenever a Federal 
motor vehicle fuel economy standard is in effect, a state may not adopt 
or enforce any law or regulation relating to fuel economy standards or 
average fuel economy standards applicable to vehicles covered by the 
Federal standard. Under section 509(b) of the Cost Savings Act (15 
U.S.C. 2009(b)), a state may not require fuel economy labels on 
vehicles covered by section 506 of the Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 
2006) which are not identical to those required by the Federal 
requirement. Section 509 does not apply to vehicles procured for the 
State's use. Section 504 of the Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 2004) sets 
forth a procedure for judicial review of final rules establishing, 
amending or revoking Federal average fuel economy standards. That 
section does not require submission of a petition for reconsideration 
or other administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in 
court.
Comments
    NHTSA solicits public comments on the questions presented in this 
ANPRM and on other relevant issues. It is requested but not required 
that 10 copies be submitted.
    All comments must not exceed 15 pages in length. (49 CFR 553.21). 
Necessary attachments may be appended to these submissions without 
regard to the 15-page limit. This limitation is intended to encourage 
commenters to detail their primary arguments in a concise fashion.
    If a commenter wishes to submit certain information under a claim 
of confidentiality, three copies of the complete submission, including 
purportedly confidential business information, should be submitted to 
the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the street address given above, and seven 
copies from which the purportedly confidential information has been 
deleted should be submitted to the Docket Section. A request for 
confidentiality should be accompanied by a cover letter setting forth 
the information specified in the agency's confidential business 
information regulation. 49 CFR Part 512.
    All comments received before the close of business on the comment 
closing date indicated above for the advance proposal will be 
considered. To the extent possible, comments filed after the closing 
date will also be considered. Comments on the advance proposal will be 
available for inspection in the docket. After the closing date, NHTSA 
will continue to file relevant information in the docket as this 
information becomes available, and recommends that interested persons 
continue to examine the docket for new material.
    Those persons desiring to be notified upon receipt of their 
comments in the rules docket should enclose a self-addressed, stamped 
postcard in the envelope with their comments. Upon receiving the 
comments, the docket supervisor will return the postcard by mail.
    A regulatory information number (RIN) is assigned to each 
regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. 
The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda 
in April and October of each year. The RIN contained in the heading of 
this document can be used to cross reference this action with the 
Unified Agenda.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 533

    Energy conservation, Gasoline, Imports, Motor vehicles.

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2002; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 
1.50.

    Dated: March 31, 1994.
Barry Felrice,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.

APPENDIX

I. Definitions

    As used in this appendix--
    1. ``Automobile,'' ``fuel economy,'' ``manufacturer,'' and 
``model year,'' have the meaning given them in Section 501 of the 
Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, 15 U.S.C. 2001.
    2. ``Cargo-carrying volume,'' ``gross vehicle weight rating'' 
(GVWR), and ``passenger-carrying volume'' are used as defined in 49 
CFR 523.2.
    3. ``Basic engine'' has the meaning given in 40 CFR 600.002-
85(a)(21). When identifying a basic engine, respondent should 
provide the following information:
    (i) Engine displacement (in cubic inches).
    (ii) Number of cylinders or rotors.
    (iii) Number of valves per cylinder.
    (iv) Cylinder configuration (V, in-line, etc.).
    (v) Number of carburetor barrels, if applicable.
    (vi) Other engine characteristics, abbreviated as follows:
DD--Direct Injection Diesel
ID--Indirect Injection Diesel
R--Rotary
TB--Throttle Body Fuel Injection S.I. (Spark Ignition)
MP--Multipoint Fuel Injection S.I.
TD--Turbocharged Diesel
TS--Turbocharged S.I.
FFS--Feedback Fuel System
2C--Two--Cycle
OHC--Overhead camshaft
DOHC--Dual overhead camshafts

    4. ``Domestically manufactured'' is used as defined in Section 
503(b)(2)(E) of the Act.
    5. ``Light truck'' means an automobile of the type described in 
49 CFR Part 523.5.
    6. A ``model'' of light truck is a line, such as the Chevrolet 
C-10 or Astro, Ford F150 or E150, Jeep Wrangler, etc., which exists 
within a manufacturer's fleet.
    7. ``Model Type'' is used as defined in 40 CFR 600.002-
85(a)(19).
    8. ``Percent fuel economy improvements'' means that percentage 
which corresponds to the amount by which respondent could improve 
the fuel economy of vehicles in a given model or class through the 
application of a specified technology, averaged over all vehicles of 
that model or in that class which feasibly could use the technology. 
Projections of percent fuel economy improvement should be based on 
the assumption of maximum efforts by respondent to achieve the 
highest possible fuel economy increase through the application of 
the technology. The baseline for determination of percent fuel 
economy improvement is the level of technology and vehicle 
performance with respect to acceleration and gradeability for 
respondent's 1994 model year light trucks in the equivalent class.
    9. ``Percent production implementation rate'' means that 
percentage which corresponds to the maximum number of light trucks 
of a specified class which could feasibly employ a given type of 
technology if respondent made maximum efforts to apply the 
technology by a specified model year.
    10. ``Production percentage'' means the percent of respondent's 
light trucks of a specified model projected to be manufactured in a 
specified model year.
    11. ``Project'' or ``projection'' refers to the best estimates 
made by respondent, whether or not based on less than certain 
information.
    12. ``Redesign'' means any change, or combination of changes, to 
a vehicle that would change its weight by 50 pounds or more or 
change its frontal area or aerodynamic drag coefficient by 2 percent 
or more.
    13. ``Relating to'' means constituting, defining, containing, 
explaining, embodying, reflecting, identifying, stating, referring 
to, dealing with, or in any way pertaining to.
    14. ``Respondent'' means each manufacturer (including all its 
divisions) providing answers to the questions set forth in this 
appendix, and its officers, employees, agents or servants.
    15. ``Test weight'' is used as defined in 40 CFR 86.082-2.
    16. ``Transmission class'' is used as defined in 40 CFR 600.002-
05(22)(a). When identifying a transmission class, respondent also 
must indicate whether the transmission is equipped with a lockup 
torque converter (LUTC), a split torque converter (STC), and/or a 
wide gear ratio range (WR) and specify the number of forward gears 
or whether the transmissions a continuously variable design (CVT).
    17. ``Truckline'' means the name assigned by the Environmental 
Protection Agency to a different group of vehicles within a make or 
car division in accordance with that agency's 1994 model year 
pickup, van (cargo vans and passenger vans are considered separate 
truck lines), and special purpose vehicle criteria.
    18. ``Utility vehicle'' means a form of light truck, either two-
wheel drive (4x2) or four-wheel drive (4x4), and is exemplified by a 
Jeep Wrangler or Cherokee, a Chevrolet Blazer, Ford Explorer, or a 
Toyota Land Cruiser.
    19. The term ``van'' is used as defined in 40 CFR 86.082-2.
    20. ``Variants of existing engines'' means versions of an 
existing basic engine that differ from that engine in terms of 
displacement, method of aspiration, induction system or that weigh 
at least 25 pounds more or less than that engine.

II. Assumptions

    All assumptions concerning emission standards, damageability 
regulations, safety standards, etc., should be listed and described 
in detail by the respondent.

III. Specifications

    1. Identify all light truck models currently offered for sale in 
MY 1994 whose production you project discontinuing before MY 1999 
and identify the last model year in which each will be offered.
    2. Identify all basic engines offered by respondent in MY 1994 
light trucks which respondent projects it will cease to offer for 
sale in light trucks before MY 1999, and identify the last model 
year in which each will be offered.
    3. Does the respondent currently project offering for sale for 
the time period of MY 1998-2006 any new or redesigned light trucks, 
including vehicles smaller than those now produced? If so, provide 
the following information for each model (e.g., Chevrolet C-10, Ford 
F150). Model types which are essentially identical except for their 
nameplates (e.g., Dodge Caravan/Plymouth Voyager) may be combined 
into one item. See Table A for a sample format; 4x2 and 4x4 light 
trucks are different models.
    a. Body types to be offered for sale (e.g., regular cab, super 
cab).
    b. Description of basic engines, including optional horsepower 
and torque ratings, if any; displacement; number and configuration 
of cylinders; type of carburetor or fuel injection system; fuel 
type; number of valves per cylinder, and whether it is 2-cycle or 4-
cycle.
    c. Transmission type (manual, automatic, number of forward 
speeds, overdrive, etc., as applicable), including gear ratios and 
final drive, alternative ratios offered, driveline configuration, 
and special features such as torque converter lockup clutches, 
electronic controls or CVT design.
    d. (i) The range of GVW ratings to be offered for each body 
type.
    (ii) The range of test weights for each body type.
    e. All wheelbases.
    f. Estimated power absorption unit (PAU) setting, in hp.
    g. The range of projected EPA composite fuel economies for each 
body type in the initial model year of production.
    h. Projected introduction date (model year).
    i. Projected sales for each model year from the projected year 
of introduction through MY 2006, expressed both as an absolute 
number of units sold and as percentage of all light trucks sold by 
respondent.
    j. Projections of:
    (i) Existing models replaced by new models.
    (ii) Reduced sales of respondent's existing models as a result 
of the sale of each of the new models.
    (iii) New sales not captured from any of the respondent's 
existing models.
    4. Does respondent project introducing any variants of existing 
basic engines or any new basic engines, other than those mentioned 
in your response to Question 3, in its light truck fleets in MYs 
1998-2006? If so, for each basic engine or variant indicate:
    a. The projected year of introduction,
    b. Type (e.g., spark ignition, direct injection diesel, 2-cycle, 
alternative fuel use),
    c. Displacement,
    d. Type of induction system (e.g., fuel injection with 
turbocharger, naturally aspirated, 2 barrel carburetor),
    e. Cylinder configuration (e.g., V-8, V-6, I-4),
    f. Number of valves per cylinder (e.g., 2, 3, 4),
    g. Horsepower and torque ratings,
    h. Models in which engines are to be used, giving the 
introduction model year for each model if different from ``a,'' 
above.
    (See Table B for a sample format.)
    5. Relative to MY 1994 levels, for MYs 1998-2006, please provide 
information, by truckline and as an average effect on a 
manufacturer's entire light truck fleet, on the weight and/or fuel 
economy impacts of the following standards or equipment:
    a. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS 208) Automatic 
Restraints,
    b. FMVSS 214 Side Door Strength,
    c. FMVSS 216 Roof Crush Resistance,
    d. Voluntary installation of safety equipment (i.e., antilock 
brakes),
    e. Environmental Protection Agency regulations,
    f. California Air Resources Board requirements,
    g. Other applicable motor vehicle regulations affecting fuel 
economy.
    6. For each of the model years 1998-2006, and for each light 
truck model projected to be manufactured by respondent (if answers 
differ for the various models), provide the requested information 
for each of items ``6a'' through ``6o'' listed below:
    (i) Description of the nature of the technological improvement;
    (ii) The percent fuel economy improvement averaged over the 
model;
    (iii) The basis for your answer to 6(ii), (e.g., data from 
dynamometer tests conducted by respondent, engineering analysis, 
computer simulation, reports of test by others);
    (iv) The percent production implementation rate and the reasons 
limiting the implementation rate;
    (v) A description of the 1994 baseline technologies and the 1994 
implementation rate; and
    (vi) The reasons for differing answers you provide to items (ii) 
and (iv) for different models in each model year. Include as a part 
of your answer to 6(ii) and 6(iv) a tabular presentation, a sample 
portion of which is shown in Table C.
    a. Improved automatic transmissions. Projections of percent fuel 
economy improvements should include benefits of lock-up or bypassed 
torque converters, electronic control of shift points and torque 
converter lock-up, and other measures which should be described.
    b. Improved manual transmissions. Projections of percent of fuel 
economy improvement should include the benefits of increasing 
mechanical efficiency, using improved transmission lubricants, and 
other measures (specify).
    c. Overdrive transmissions. If not covered in ``a'' or ``b'' 
above, project the percentage of fuel economy improvement 
attributable to overdrive transmissions (integral or auxiliary gear 
boxes), two-speed axles, or other similar devices intended to 
increase the range of available gear ratios. Describe the devices to 
be used and the application by model, engine, axle ratio, etc.
    d. Use of engine crankcase lubricants of lower viscosity or with 
additives to improve friction characteristics or accelerate engine 
break-in, or otherwise improved lubricants to lower engine friction 
horsepower. When describing the 1994 baseline, specify the viscosity 
of and any fuel economy-improving additives used in the factory-fill 
lubricants.
    e. Reduction of engine parasitic losses through improvement of 
engine-driven accessories or accessory drives. Typical engine-driven 
accessories include water pump, cooling fan, alternator, power 
steering pump, air conditioning compressor, and vacuum pump.
    f. Reduction of tire rolling losses, through changes in 
inflation pressure, use of materials or constructions with less 
hysteresis, geometry changes (e.g., increased aspect ratio), 
reduction in sidewall and tread deflection, and other methods. When 
describing the 1994 baseline, include a description of the tire 
types used and the percent usage rate of each type.
    g. Reduction in other driveline losses, including losses in the 
non-powered wheels, the differential assembly, wheel bearings, 
universal joints, brake drag losses, use of improved lubricants in 
the differential and wheel bearing, and optimizing suspension 
geometry (e.g., to minimize tire scrubbing loss).
    h. Reduction of aerodynamic drag.
    i. Turbocharging or supercharging.
    j. Improvements in the efficiency of 4-cycle spark ignition 
engines including (1) increased compression ratio; (2) leaner air-
to-fuel ratio; (3) revised combustion chamber configuration; (4) 
fuel injection; (5) electronic fuel metering; (6) interactive 
electronic control of engine operating parameters (spark advance, 
exhaust gas recirculation, air-to-fuel ratio); (8) variable valve 
timing or valve lift; (9) multiple valves per cylinder; (10) 
friction reduction by means such as low tension piston rings and 
roller cam followers; (11) higher temperature operation; and (12) 
other methods (specify).
    k. Naturally aspirated diesel engines, with direct or indirect 
fuel injection.
    l. Turbocharged or supercharged diesel engines with direct or 
indirect fuel injection.
    m. Stratified-charge reciprocating or rotary engines, with 
direct or indirect fuel injection.
    n. Two cycle spark ignition engines.
    o. Other technologies for improving fuel economy.
    7. For each model of respondent's light truck fleet projected to 
be manufactured in each of MYs 1998-2006, describe the methods used 
to achieve reductions in average test weight. For each specified 
model year and model, describe the extent to which each of the 
following methods for reducing vehicle weight will be used. Separate 
listings are to be used for 4x2 light trucks and 4x4 light trucks.
    a. Substitution of materials.
    b. ``Downsizing'' of existing vehicle design to reduce weight 
while maintaining interior roominess and comfort for passengers, and 
utility, i.e., the same or approximately the same, payload and cargo 
volume, using the same basic body configuration and driveline layout 
as current counterparts.
    c. Use of new vehicle body configuration concepts which provides 
reduced weight for approximately the same payload and cargo volume.
    8. For each model year 1998-2006, list all projected light truck 
model types and provide the information specified in ``a'' through 
``k'' below for each model type.
    The information should be in tabular form, with a separate table 
for each model year. Each grouping is to be subdivided into separate 
listings for models with 4 x 2 and 4 x 4 drive systems. Engines 
having the same displacement but belonging to different engine 
families are to be grouped separately. The vehicles are to be sorted 
first by truckline, second by basic engine, and third by 
transmission type. For these groupings, the average test weights are 
to be placed in ascending order. List the categories in terms ``a'' 
through ``k'' below in the order specified from left to right across 
the top of the table. Include in the table for each model year the 
total sales-weighted harmonic average fuel economy and average test 
weight for imported and domestic light trucks for each truckline and 
for all of the respondent's light trucks.
    a. Truckline, e.g., C-10, F-150, B-150. Model types which are 
essentially identical except for their nameplates (e.g., Chevrolet 
S-10/GMC S-15 and Dodge Caravan/Plymouth Voyager) may be combined 
into one line item.
    b. Light truck vehicle type, e.g., compact pickup, cargo van, 
passenger van, utility, truck-based station wagon, and chassis cab. 
Other light truck designations, which are adequately defined, can be 
used if these are not suitable.
    c. Basic engine: Include the engine characteristics used in 
Definition 3.
    d. Transmission class (e.g., A3, L4, A40D, M5, CVT): Include the 
characteristics used in Definition 16.
    e. Average ratio of engine speed to vehicle speed in top gear 
(N/V), rounded to one decimal place.
    f. Average test weight.
    g. Average PAU setting: Provide the value and show whether the 
value (or estimated value) is based on coastdown testing (T) or 
calculated from the vehicle frontal area (C). Round the PAU value to 
one decimal place.
    h. Composite fuel economy (Sales weighted, harmonically averaged 
over the specified vehicles, rounded to the nearest 0.1 mpg).
    i. Projected sales for the vehicles described in each line item.
    9. For each transmission identified in response to 8(d) above, 
provide a listing showing whether the transmission is manual or 
automatic, the gear ratios for the transmission, and the models 
which will use the transmission.
    10. Indicate any MY 1998-2006 light truck model types which have 
higher average test weights than comparable MY 1994 model types. 
Describe the reasons for any weight increases (e.g., increased 
option content, less use of premium materials) and provide 
supporting justification.
    11. For each new or redesigned vehicle identified in response to 
Question 3 and each new engine or fuel economy improvement 
identified in your response to Questions 3, 5, and 6, provide your 
best estimate of the following, in terms of constant 1993 dollars:
    (a) Total capital costs required to implement the new/redesigned 
model or improvement according to the implementation schedules 
specified in your response. Subdivide the capital costs into 
tooling, facilities, launch, and engineering costs.
    (b) The maximum production capacity, expressed in units of 
capacity per year, associated with the capital expenditure in (a) 
above. Specify the number of production shifts on which your 
response is based and define ``maximum capacity'' as used in your 
answer.
    (c) The actual capacity that is planned to be used each year for 
each new/redesigned model or fuel economy improvement.
    (d) The increase in variable costs per affected unit, based on 
the production volume specified in (b) above.
    (e) The equivalent retail price increase per affected vehicle 
for each new/redesigned model or improvement. Provide an example 
describing methodology used to determine the equivalent retail price 
increase.
    12. Please provide respondent's actual and projected U.S. light 
truck sales, 4 x 2 and 4 x 4, 0-8,500 lbs. GVWR and 8501-10,000 
lbs., GVWR for each model year from 1994 thorough 2006, inclusive. 
Please subdivide the data into the following vehicle categories:

i. Standard Pickup Heavy (e.g., C-20/30, F-250/350, D-250/350)
ii. Standard Pickup Light (e.g., C-10, F-150, D-150)
iii. Compact Pickup (e.g., S-10, Ranger)
iv. Standard Cargo Vans Heavy (e.g., G-30, E-250/350, B-350)
v. Standard Cargo Vans Light (e.g., G-10/20, E-150, B-150/250)
vi. Standard Passenger Vans Heavy (e.g., G-30, E-250/350, B-350)
vii. Standard Passenger Vans Light (e.g., G-10/20, E-150, B-150/250)
viii. Compact Cargo Vans (e.g., Astro, Aerostar, Mini Ram Van)
ix. Compact Passenger Vans (e.g., Astro, Villager, Voyager)
x. Standard Utilities (e.g., K1500 Blazer, Bronco)
xi. Compact Utilities (e.g., S-10 Blazer, Explorer, Wrangler)
xii. Other (e.g., Suburban, Loyale)

    See Table D for a sample format.
    13. Please provide your estimates of projected total industry 
U.S. light (0-10,000 lbs, GVWR) truck sales for each model year from 
1994 through 2008, inclusive. Please subdivide the data into 4 x 2 
and 4 x 4 sales and into the vehicle categories listed in the sample 
format in Table E.
    14. Please provide your company's assumptions for U.S. gasoline 
and diesel fuel prices during 1994 through 2006.
    15. Please provide projected production capacity available for 
the North American market (at standard production rates) for each of 
your company's light truckline designations during MYs 1994-2006.
    16. Please provide your estimate of production leadtime for new 
models, your expected model life in years, and the number of years 
over which tooling costs are amortized. 

                                              Table A.--New Models                                              
             [Model: A-1 Standard Pickups Drivetrain Configuration: 4 x 2, Front Engine/Rear Drive]             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Passenger      No. of       Cargo                      PAU    
                Body type (3a.)                    volume,      seating      volume,     Wheelbase,    setting, 
                                                    ft\3\      positions      ft\3\      in. (3e.)    hp. (3f.) 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regular cab, short bed.........................           50            3           48          115          7.5
Regular cab, long bed..........................           50            3           64          133          7.8
Extended cab, long bed.........................           75            4           64          151          8.2
Crew cab, long bed.............................          100            6           64          170          9.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Config./No.                                              
                 Engine options (b.)                     of cyl.     Fuel system     Hp @ RPM      Torque @ RPM 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
160 CID, turbocharged\1\............................  I-4.........  MPI.........        140@4200         90@3400
235 CID.............................................  V-6.........  TBI.........        150@3800        125@2800
235 CID, 4-valve\2\.................................  V-6.........  MPI.........        180@4500        130@3200
285 CID.............................................  V-8.........  MPI.........        200@4200        150@3000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Not available with crew cab.                                                                                 
\2\Available with automatic transmission only.                                                                  


------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Transmission type            
                               -----------------------------------------
                                                              Automatic 
         Ratios (c.)                                            with    
                                   Manual        Manual      electronic 
                                  overdrive      creeper    controls and
                                                                TCLU    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1st gear......................          4.50          6.50          3.20
2nd gear......................          3.00          3.60          2.50
3rd gear......................          1.75          1.80          1.50
4th gear......................          1.00          1.00          1.00
5th gear......................          0.80  ............  ............
Reverse gear..................          4.70          6.10          3.00
Torque converter..............  ............  ............          2.10
Axle..........................     3.54/3.73     3.54/3.73     3.23/3.54
------------------------------------------------------------------------


------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Range of  
                                  Range of      Range of      composite 
        Body type (3a.)             GVWR      test weights  fuel economy
                                  (3d.(i))      (3d.(ii))      ratings  
                                                                (3g.)   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regular cab, short bed........   6,050-7,000   4,250-4,500     16.0-17.5
Regular cab, long bed.........   6,100-7,200   4,250-4,500     16.0-17.2
Extended cab, long bed........   6,100-7,400   4,500-5,000     15.5-17.0
Crew cab, long bed............   6,300-7,800   4,500-5,000     14.5-16.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Share of                                            
                                             Production      fleet,                                             
                Model year                      (3i.)        percent                Notes (3h., 3j.)            
                                                              (3i.)                                             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1998......................................        36,000             5  Mid-year introduction, North American   
                                                                         production.                            
1999......................................        78,000            10  ........................................
2000......................................       110,000            13  Extended cab introduced.                
2001......................................       120,000            14  Facelift.                               
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   New Models                                                   
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                          Sales      Additional 
     Model year (3k.)           New model designation          Model replaced or      derived from      sales   
                                                                   augmented            old model    anticipated
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1998.......................  A-Std Pickup...............  T-Std Pickup..............        20,000        10,000
1999.......................  .....do....................  .....do...................        50,000        30,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                                 Table B.--New Engines                                                                  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 New/Redesigned Engines                                                                 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                      Valves per  Horsepower  Torque, lb-
  Year of introduction by             Type (4b.)          Displacement,     Induction system (4d.)    Configuration    cylinder      @ rpm     ft @ rpm 
       model (4a./h.)                                        L. (4c.)                                     (4e.)         (4f.)        (4g.)       (4g.)  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1998--Std Pickups..........  2-cycle, diesel............          4.42   Turbocharged, direct                  W-9             3  250 @ 4000  190 @ 3500
                                                                          injection.                                                                    
1999--Std Vans                                                                                                                                          
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                        Table C.--Technology Improvements                                       
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Percent                  Percent production share              
                                                   fuel    -----------------------------------------------------
          Technological improvement              economy                                                        
                                               improvement    1998     1999     2000     2001     2002     2003 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Improved auto trans. (6a.):                                                                                     
    LT-1.....................................          7.0        0        0       15       25       55       60
    LT-2.....................................          6.5        0        0        0       20       25       30
    LT-3.....................................          5.0        0       10       30       60       60       60
Improved Manual Trans. (6b):                                                                                    
    LV-1.....................................          1.0        2        5        5        5        5        5
    U-1......................................          0.7        0        0        0        8       10       10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                   Table D.--Actual and Projected U.S. Sales                                    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Amalgamated Motors 2WD light truck sales projections                              
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Model Year                                 
         Model Line (12.)          -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        1994         1995         1996         1997         1998         etc.   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0-8,500 lbs. GVWR:                                                                                              
    Std pickup, heavy.............       43,500  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
    Std pickup, light.............      509,340  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
Compact pickup....................      120,000  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
Std cargo van, heavy..............       60,000  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
Std cargo van, light..............       20,000  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
Compact cargo van.................       29,310  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
Std passenger van, heavy..........       54,196  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
Std passenger van, light..........       38,900  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
Compact passenger van.............       30,000  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
Std utility.......................       53,800  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
Compact utility...................       44,000  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
Other (specify)...................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
8,501-10,000 lbs. GVWR:                                                                                         
    Std pickup heavy..............        5,500  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
    Std vans, heavy...............        4,000  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
Other (specify)...................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.......................    1,012,546  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                        Table E.--Total U.S. Truck Sales                                        
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Model type (13.)               1994         1995         1996         1997         1998        etc.    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 2WD light trucks:                                                                                            
  a. Pickup:                                                                                                    
    Compact.......................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
    Mid-size......................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
    Standard......................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
  b. Cargo vans:                                                                                                
    Compact.......................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
    Standard......................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
  c. Passenger vans:                                                                                            
    Compact.......................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
    Standard......................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
  d. Utilities:                                                                                                 
    Compact.......................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
    Standard......................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
    Pass. car based...............  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
  e. Truck based station wagons...  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
  f. Other (specify)..............  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
2. 4WD light trucks [same breakout                                                                              
 as 2WD]..........................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
3. Total light trucks [2WD + 4WD].  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 94-8132 Filed 3-31-94; 4:00 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P