[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 65 (Wednesday, April 3, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 14680-14682]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8156]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

49 CFR Part 533

[Docket No. 94-20; Notice 4]
RIN 2127-AF16


Light Truck Average Fuel Economy Standard, Model Year 1998

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule establishes the average fuel economy standard 
for light trucks manufactured in model year (MY) 1998. The issuance of 
the standard is required by statute. Pursuant to section 330 of the 
fiscal year (FY) 1996 DOT Appropriations Act, the light truck standard 
for MY 1998 is 20.7 mpg.

DATES: The amendment is effective May 3, 1996. The standard applies to 
the 1998 model year. Petitions for reconsideration must be submitted 
within 45 days of publication.

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration should be submitted to: 
Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 
Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Otto G. Matheke, III, Office of 
Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 
Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20590 (202-366-5263).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    In December 1975, during the aftermath of the energy crisis created 
by the oil embargo of 1973-74, Congress enacted the Energy Policy and 
Conservation Act. Congress included a provision in that Act 
establishing an automotive fuel economy regulatory program. That 
provision added Title V, ``Improving Automotive Efficiency,'' to the 
Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Saving Act. Title V has been amended 
and recodified without substantive change as Chapter 329 of Title 49 of 
the United States Code. Chapter 329 provides for the issuance of 
average fuel economy standards for passenger automobiles and 
automobiles that are not passenger automobiles (light trucks).
    Section 32902(a) of Chapter 329 states that the Secretary of 
Transportation shall prescribe by regulation corporate average fuel 
economy (CAFE) standards for light trucks for each model year. That 
section also states that ``[e]ach standard shall be the maximum 
feasible average fuel economy level that the Secretary decides the 
manufacturers can achieve in that model year.'' (The Secretary has 
delegated the authority to implement the automotive fuel economy 
program to the Administrator of NHTSA. 49 CFR 1.50(f).) Section 
32902(f) provides that in determining the maximum feasible average fuel 
economy level, NHTSA shall consider four criteria: technological 
feasibility, economic practicability, the effect of other motor vehicle 
standards of the Government on fuel economy, and the need of the United 
States to conserve energy. Pursuant to this authority, the agency has 
set light truck CAFE standards through MY 1997. See 49 CFR 533.5(a). 
The standard for MY 1997 is 20.7 mpg. 59 FR 16312 (April 6, 1994).
    NHTSA began the process of establishing light truck CAFE standards 
for model years after MY 1997 by publishing an Advance Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) in the Federal Register. 59 FR 16324 (April 
6, 1994). The ANPRM outlined the agency's intention to set standards 
for some or all of model years 1998 to 2006.
    Subsequent to reviewing the comments submitted in response to the 
ANPRM, the agency decided to defer rulemaking for MY's 1999-2006. NHTSA 
thereafter issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) limited to MY 
1998, which proposed to set the light truck CAFE standard for that year 
at 20.7 mpg. 61 FR 145 (January 3, 1996). On November 15, 1995, the 
Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act 
for Fiscal Year 1996 was enacted. Pub. L. 104-50. Section 330 of that 
Act provides:

    None of the funds in this Act shall be available to prepare, 
propose, or promulgate any regulations * * * prescribing corporate 
average fuel economy standards for automobiles * * * in any model 
year that differs from standards promulgated for such automobiles 
prior to enactment of this section.

    Because light truck CAFE standards must be set no later than 
eighteen months before the beginning of the model year in question, the 
deadline for NHTSA to set the MY 1998 standard is approximately April 
1, 1996. However, the agency cannot promulgate such a standard without 
the expenditure of funds, and it may not spend any funds in violation 
of the terms of section 330 of the FY 1996 Appropriations Act. 
Therefore, to ascertain the limits of its authority to promulgate CAFE 
standards during FY 1996, NHTSA must interpret the phrase ``differs 
from standards promulgated for such automobiles prior to enactment of 
this section.''
    In the agency's view, the most compelling meaning of the phrase is 
to preclude the expenditure of funds to adopt a CAFE standard for any 
model year at any level other than the level of the CAFE standards 
previously established for MY 1997; i.e., 20.7 mpg for light trucks and 
27.5 mpg for passenger cars.
    The agency examined the legislative history of section 330 to seek 
additional insight into Congressional intent. Section 330 was reported 
out of the House Committee on Appropriations in its enacted form as 
part of H.R. 2002. The original Committee print of the House Report to 
accompany H.R. 2002 stated, at page 112, that the section precluded 
NHTSA from prescribing CAFE standards that ``differ from those 
previously enacted:''

    The Committee has adopted a general provision (Sec. 330) that 
prohibits NHTSA or the Department from prescribing corporate average 
fuel economy standards for automobiles that differ from those 
previously enacted.

    This language was modified somewhat in the final version of the 
House report to accompany H.R. 2002, but repeated the command that CAFE 
standards promulgated in FY 1996 should not ``differ from those 
previously enacted.'' The report stated:

    The Committee has adopted a general provision (Sec. 330) that 
prohibits funds to be used to prepare, prescribe or promulgate 
corporate average fuel economy standards for automobiles that differ 
from those previously enacted. The limitation does not preclude the 
Secretary of Transportation, in order to meet

[[Page 14681]]
lead time requirements of the law, from preparing, proposing and 
issuing a CAFE standard for model year 1998 automobiles that is 
identical to the CAFE standard for such automobiles for model year 
1997.

H.R. Rep. 104-177, at 113.
    The addition of the second sentence to this report language 
suggests that the Committee wanted to clarify that, regardless of what 
the maximum feasible average fuel economy level might be for MY 1998 
light trucks, NHTSA was not precluded from setting the CAFE standard 
for such automobiles at a level ``identical'' to the MY 1997 level of 
20.7 mpg. There is no indication that the Committee intended to 
authorize the MY 1998 light truck standard to be set at any other 
level.
    The next relevant item of legislative history is the remarks during 
the House floor debate on H.R. 2002 by Congressman DeLay, who 
originally offered this provision during consideration of the bill by 
the Transportation Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee. 
Congressman DeLay began by describing the section as imposing ``a 1-
year freeze on the ability of NHTSA to increase the CAFE standards for 
passenger cars and light trucks and vans.'' He added:

    [I]t was my intent that NHTSA would withhold any further action 
directed toward increasing CAFE standards, and that the CAFE 
standards for light trucks and vans for the 1998 model year, which 
must be issued during fiscal 1996 to meet industry's lead time 
requirements, should be identical to the standard that is currently 
in effect for those vehicles for the 1997 model year. This intent is 
clearly stated in the committee report which accompanies the 
legislation.

141 Cong. Rec. H7605 (daily ed. July 25, 1995) (emphasis supplied).
    These comments, offered by the sponsor of the provision in 
question, clearly reflect Congressman DeLay's intent that NHTSA should 
set the MY 1998 light truck standard ``identical to'' the 20.7 mpg 
level in effect for MY 1997, without regard to any determination the 
agency might otherwise have reached with respect to the maximum 
feasible average fuel economy level for MY 1998. His remarks also 
characterize the Committee report as reflecting the same intent.
    In its original consideration of H.R. 2002, the Senate deleted 
section 330. See S. Rep. No. 104-126, at 145. However, the provision 
was restored by the Conference Committee, which described its action as 
follows:

    Amendment No. 155: Restores House language deleted by the Senate 
that prohibits the use of funds to prepare, propose or promulgate 
any regulations that prescribe changes in the corporate average fuel 
economy standards for automobiles.

H.R. Rep. 104-286, at 73.
    Numerous courts have held that, compared to other items of 
legislative history, the Conference Report is generally the most 
authoritative source of Congressional intent. In this case, that report 
unambiguously describes section 330 as prohibiting the use of FY 1996 
funds to promulgate ``any regulations that prescribe changes'' in CAFE 
standards.
    As described above, each of the relevant items of legislative 
history supports the agency's view that section 330 precludes NHTSA 
from preparing, proposing, or issuing any CAFE standard that is not 
identical to those previously established for MY 1997. Accordingly, 
NHTSA is setting the MY 1998 light truck CAFE standard at the MY 1997 
level of 20.7 mpg.
    NHTSA recognizes that setting the MY 1998 standard at 20.7 mpg 
without making a determination as to the maximum feasible average fuel 
economy level for that model year could be inconsistent with the second 
sentence of 49 U.S.C. Sec. 32902(a), which states that ``[e]ach [light 
truck] standard shall be the maximum feasible average fuel economy 
level that the Secretary decides the manufacturers can achieve in that 
model year.''
    However, the only other possible interpretation of the language 
``differs from standards promulgated for such automobiles prior to 
enactment of this section'' in section 330 is that NHTSA may issue CAFE 
standards at a level equal to that of any previously promulgated 
standard. Under this interpretation, during FY 1996 NHTSA would be able 
to set the ``combined'' (i.e., two-wheel drive and four-wheel drive) 
light truck CAFE standard for MY 1998 (and for future model years) at 
one of 10 specific levels as follows (see 49 CFR 533.5(a)):

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Combined Standard (MPG)                    Model Years 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
17.5....................................................            1982
19.0....................................................            1983
19.5....................................................            1985
20.0....................................................     1984, 1986,
                                                                    1990
20.2....................................................      1991, 1992
20.4....................................................            1993
20.5....................................................     1987, 1988,
                                                              1989, 1994
20.6....................................................            1995
20.7....................................................      1996, 1997
21.0....................................................           *1985
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*In model year 1985, the combined standard was originally promulgated as
  21.0 mpg before it was amended to 19.5 mpg.                           

    Similarly, under this interpretation, the agency would be 
authorized to amend the passenger car CAFE standard to one of seven 
specific levels, ranging from 18.0 mpg to 27.0 mpg, but to no points in 
between. See 49 CFR 531.5(a).
    Such an interpretation, however, could also conflict with the 
``maximum feasible'' provision of 49 U.S.C. Sec. 32902(a) because the 
maximum feasible level calculated by NHTSA under the criteria it has 
traditionally applied might not be identical to one of the previously 
promulgated standards. Moreover, those previously promulgated standards 
include 21.0 mpg, a level in excess of the MY 1997 standard, which 
would clearly contravene the intent, expressed in every item of 
relevant legislative history, to ``freeze'' NHTSA's ability to increase 
the CAFE standards above the MY 1997 level of 20.7 mpg.
    Finally, it is inherently illogical to assume that Congress 
intended to limit so arbitrarily the possible levels at which NHTSA can 
set future CAFE standards; i.e., that previously promulgated standards 
of 20.0 mpg, 20.2 mpg, or 20.4 mpg are permissible, but 20.1 mpg and 
20.3 mpg are not permissible, even if one of them were determined to be 
the maximum feasible level. In contrast, the interpretation adopted by 
the agency in this notice is logical in the context of the 
Appropriations Act restrictions. ``Freezing'' the MY 1998 standard at 
20.7 mpg comports with Congressman DeLay's declaration that ``[t]he 
purpose of Section 330 is to establish a pause in this rulemaking 
process, to give the Congress an opportunity to review the CAFE 
program,'' 141 Cong. Rec. H7605 (daily ed. July 25, 1995), and the 
expectation that the established standard for MY 1997 of 20.7 mpg would 
not be an unreasonable level for the industry to achieve in MY 1998.
    The agency is of course aware that repeals by implication of 
substantive statutory provisions are generally disfavored, particularly 
where the claimed repeal rests upon language in an appropriations act. 
However, as demonstrated above, both of the theoretically plausible 
textual readings of the 1996 DOT Appropriations Act language could 
conflict with the ``maximum feasible'' requirement, so the agency must 
choose the one which is most consistent with the legislative intent 
expressed in the legislative history.
    Further, under the present circumstances, where issuance of a light 
truck standard at a level other than 20.7 mpg is prohibited by a recent 
Act of Congress, the only other alternative would be to decline to 
issue any light truck standard at all for MY 1998. That course of 
action would also constitute a ``repeal'' of the statutory duty set 
forth in the first sentence of section 32902(a)

[[Page 14682]]
to issue annual light truck CAFE standards. It would also do more 
violence to the statutory scheme of Chapter 329 than the establishment 
of a 20.7 mpg standard for MY 1998. Finally, failure to set any 
standard would conflict with Congress's express direction in the House 
Committee report that NHTSA not be precluded ``from preparing, 
proposing and issuing a CAFE standard for model year 1998 automobiles 
that is identical to the CAFE standard for such automobiles for model 
year 1997.''

II. Impact Analyses

A. Economic Impacts

    The agency has not prepared a Final Regulatory Impact Analysis 
because of the restrictions imposed by Section 330 of the FY 1996 DOT 
Appropriations Act. The rule was reviewed by the Office of Management 
and Budget under Executive Order 12866 and is considered significant 
under the Department's regulatory procedures.

B. Environmental Impacts

    NHTSA has not conducted an evaluation of the impacts of this action 
under the National Environmental Policy Act. There is no requirement 
for such an evaluation where Congress has eliminated the agency's 
discretion by precluding any action other than the one announced in 
this notice.

C. Impacts on Small Entities

    NHTSA has not conducted an evaluation of this action pursuant to 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act. As Congress has eliminated the agency's 
discretion by precluding any action other than the one taken in this 
notice, such an evaluation is unnecessary. Past evaluations indicate, 
however, that few, if any, light truck manufacturers would have been 
classified as a ``small business'' under the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act.

D. Impact of Federalism

    This action has been not been analyzed in accordance with the 
principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 12612. The 
preparation of a Federalism Assessment is not required where Congress 
has precluded any action other than the one published in this notice. 
As a historical matter, prior light truck standards have not had 
sufficient Federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a 
Federalism Assessment.

E. Department of Energy Review

    In accordance with section 49 U.S.C. Sec. 32902(j), NHTSA submitted 
this final rule to the Department of Energy for review. That Department 
made no unaccommodated comments.

III. Conclusion

    Based on the foregoing, the agency is establishing a combined 
average fuel economy standard for non-passenger automobiles (light 
trucks) for MY 1998 at 20.7 mpg.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 533

49 CFR Part 533

    Energy conservation, Motor vehicles.

PART 533--[AMENDED]

    In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR Part 533 is amended as 
follows:
    1. The authority citation for part 533 is revised to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 32902; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 
1.50.

    2. Section 533.5(a) is amended by revising Table IV to read as 
follows:


Sec. 533.5  Requirements.

* * * * *

                                 Table IV                               
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Model year                            Standard
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996.........................................................       20.7
1997.........................................................       20.7
1998.........................................................       20.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    Issued On: March 29, 1996.
Ricardo Martinez,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-8156 Filed 3-29-96; 3:38 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P