[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 2 (Friday, January 3, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 375-382]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-85]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 538

[Docket No. 94-35; Notice 2]
RIN 2127-AF37


Minimum Driving Range for Dual Fueled Electric Passenger 
Automobiles

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

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: In this document, NHTSA proposes to set the minimum driving 
range only for dual fueled electric passenger automobiles, otherwise 
known as hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs), at 17.7 miles when operating 
on electricity alone. The purpose of establishing the range is to meet 
a statutory requirement intended to encourage the production of HEVs. 
An HEV which meets the range requirement would qualify to have its fuel 
economy calculated according to a special procedure that would 
facilitate the efforts of its manufacturer to comply with the corporate 
average fuel economy standards. NHTSA is also proposing to

[[Page 376]]

establish a procedure through which manufacturers of HEVs that do not 
meet the minimum driving range requirements may petition the agency for 
relief.

DATES: Comments must be received by March 4, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this document must refer to the docket and 
notice numbers set forth above and be submitted (preferably 10 copies) 
to the Docket Section, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 
Room 5313, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20590. (Docket hours 
are 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. P. L. Moore, Office of Planning 
and Consumer Programs, NPS-32, Room 5315, National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20590. 
Telephone: (202) 366-5222.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

A. Alternative Motor Fuels Act of 1988

    Section 6 of the Alternative Motor Fuels Act of 1988 (AMFA) (P.L. 
100-494) amended the fuel economy provisions of the Motor Vehicle 
Information and Cost Savings Act (Cost Savings Act) by adding a new 
section 513, ``Manufacturing Incentives for Automobiles.'' Section 513 
contained incentives for the manufacture of vehicles designed to 
operate on alcohol or natural gas, including dual fuel vehicles; i.e., 
vehicles capable of operating on one of those alternative fuels and 
either gasoline or diesel fuel.
    Section 513 provided that dual fuel vehicles meeting specified 
criteria qualify for special treatment in the calculation of their fuel 
economy for purposes of the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) 
standards. The fuel economy of a qualifying vehicle is calculated in a 
manner that results in a relatively high fuel economy value, thus 
encouraging its production as a way of facilitating a manufacturer's 
compliance with the CAFE standards. One of the qualifying criteria for 
passenger automobiles was to meet a minimum driving range, which was to 
be established by NHTSA.
    NHTSA was required to establish two minimum driving ranges, one for 
``dual energy'' (alcohol/gasoline or diesel fuel) passenger automobiles 
when operating on alcohol, and the other for ``natural gas dual 
energy'' (natural gas/gasoline or diesel fuel) passenger automobiles 
when operating on natural gas. In establishing the driving ranges, 
NHTSA was to consider the purposes of AMFA, consumer acceptability, 
economic practicability, technology, environmental impact, safety, 
drivability, performance, and any other factors deemed relevant.
    The AMFA and its legislative history made it clear that the driving 
ranges were to be low enough to encourage the production of dual fuel 
passenger automobiles, yet not so low that motorists would be 
discouraged by a low driving range from actually fueling their vehicles 
with the alternative fuels. The agency accordingly promulgated driving 
range regulations at 49 CFR Part 538 (55 FR 17616).

B. Energy Policy Act of 1992

    The Energy Policy Act of 1992 (Pub. L. 102-486) amended section 513 
of the Cost Savings Act to expand the scope of the alternative fuels it 
promotes. The amended section provided incentives for the production of 
vehicles using, in addition to alcohol and natural gas, liquefied 
petroleum gas, hydrogen, coal derived liquid fuels, fuels (other than 
alcohol) derived from biological materials, electricity (including 
electricity from solar energy), and any fuel NHTSA determines, by rule, 
is substantially not petroleum and would yield substantial energy 
security benefits and substantial environmental benefits.
    Section 513 continued to provide incentives for the production of 
dual fuel vehicles; i.e., vehicles that operate on one of a now 
expanded list of alternative fuels, including electricity, and on 
gasoline or diesel fuel. For example, the calculated fuel economy of a 
dual fueled vehicle is based on the harmonic average of the fuel 
economy when operated on gasoline or diesel fuel and the credited fuel 
economy when operated on the alternative fuel. A hybrid electric 
vehicle operating on gasoline may have a combined city/highway fuel 
economy average of 28.5 miles per gallon, and a combined city/highway 
energy consumption of 422 watt-hours/mile when operated on electricity. 
Using the petroleum equivalency factor of 38322 watt-hours per gallon 
(Wh/gal) proposed by the Department of Energy on February 4, 1994 (59 
FR 5336) to derive a miles per gallon equivalent, the mpg of such an 
electric vehicle with no petroleum powered accessories is derived by 
dividing the petroleum equivalency by the electric energy consumed per 
mile:

38322/422 =90.81 miles/gallon

    The harmonic average of 90.81 mpg and 28.5 mpg is:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03JA97.001
    
NHTSA notes that some statutory terminology was changed by the 1992 
amendments. Among other things, the terms ``dual energy'' and ``natural 
gas dual energy'' were dropped, and the terms ``alternative fueled 
automobile,'' ``dedicated automobile,'' and ``dual fueled automobile'' 
were added.
    Section 513 also continued to require dual fueled passenger 
automobiles to meet specified criteria, including meeting a minimum 
driving range, in order to qualify for the special treatment in the 
calculation of their fuel economy for purposes of the CAFE standards. 
The

[[Page 377]]

1992 Energy Policy Act necessitates amending Part 538. The agency must 
establish a minimum driving range for the expanded scope of dual fueled 
vehicles. Minimum driving range standards for all dual energy vehicles 
except electric vehicles were established by a final rule issued on 
March 21, 1996 (61 FR 14507). Pursuant to the 1992 amendments, the 
March 21, 1996, final rule also eliminated the exemption from the 
minimum driving range requirements for all non-electric dual fueled 
vehicles. Establishment of a minimum driving range for HEVs requires 
reinstating the availability of an exemption for these vehicles.
    On July 5, 1994, the Cost Savings Act was revised and codified 
``without substantive change.'' The provisions formerly found in 
section 513 of the Cost Savings Act are now at 49 U.S.C. 32901, 32905, 
and 32906. In setting the minimum driving range for dual energy 
electric vehicles, NHTSA is required by 49 U.S.C. 32901(c)(3) to 
consider the purposes set forth in section 3 of the AMFA as amended by 
the Energy Policy Act:

    (1) To encourage the development and widespread use of methanol, 
ethanol, natural gas, other gaseous fuels, and electricity as 
transportation fuels by consumers; and
    (2) To promote the production of alternatively fueled motor 
vehicles.

    Section 32901(c)(3) also requires that the agency consider consumer 
acceptability, economic practicibility, technology, environmental 
impact, safety, drivability, performance, and other relevant factors in 
setting a minimum driving range.

Proposal

    In this document, NHTSA is proposing to amend Part 538 pursuant to 
the Energy Policy Act. As discussed below, the agency is proposing to 
set the minimum driving range for all hybrid electric dual fueled 
passenger automobiles while operating on electricity alone at 17.7 
miles and to establish application procedures for manufacturers of HEVs 
seeking exemption from the minimum range requirement.
    To encourage the development and production of alternative fuel 
vehicles, the AMFA provides that such vehicles meeting an appropriate 
minimum driving range will qualify for special treatment in the 
calculation of their fuel economy for the purpose of their 
manufacturers' compliance with CAFE standards.
    The inclusion of electricity in the list of alternative fuels 
covered by the AMFA necessitates that a minimum driving range be 
established for HEVs for fuel economy purposes. The AMFA specifies a 
minimum driving range of 200 miles for dual fueled passenger cars 
(other than dual fueled electric) when operating on the alternative 
fuel, but allows the Secretary of Transportation to establish the 
minimum driving range for HEVs.
    The AMFA and Energy Policy Act provisions, which are now codified 
at 49 U.S.C. sections 32901(c) and 32905, require the Secretary of 
Transportation to establish a minimum driving range for HEVs. This 
minimum range requirement applies to passenger automobiles only. It 
does not apply to dual fueled light trucks.
    In seeking to carry out its goals, the Act attempts to balance two 
competing objectives:
    (1) Encouraging the production of alternatively fueled vehicles by 
offering CAFE standard compliance incentives, and
    (2) Encouraging the purchase of alternatively fueled vehicles by 
consumers by providing the incentives only to those vehicles whose 
range of operation is large enough to meet consumer needs.
    The setting of a minimum driving range for HEVs must balance the 
needs of the consumer with the technical and economic considerations 
that are faced by the manufacturers. A low minimum driving range 
eligibility criterion might encourage the production of dual fueled 
cars, but lead to HEVs being designed with such a low alternative fuel 
driving range that consumers do not buy them or, if they buy them, 
infrequently operate them on the alternative fuel. Conversely, an 
excessively high minimum driving range eligibility criterion might 
discourage the production of dual fueled electric cars and 
unnecessarily compromise other vehicle attributes and aspects of 
performance. Manufacturers would be discouraged by an overly-stringent 
minimum range because a vehicle which does not meet the minimum driving 
range for its type is unlikely to be built since the manufacturer would 
not receive any of the benefits or incentives provided by the Act.
    From the viewpoint of the consumer, the necessary driving range may 
be dictated by the convenience of a range that corresponds to a typical 
workweek travel distance, or a daily travel distance for a fleet car. 
Also, if the majority of consumers would use an HEV in an urban area 
with more recharging stations or in a fleet application with a central 
recharging station, a large driving range may be less critical.
    To aid the agency in relating the data on driving range for HEVs to 
the unique characteristics of dual fueled passenger automobiles, NHTSA 
published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) on September 
22, 1994 (59 FR 48589). In the ANPRM, the agency posed a number of 
questions on the use of HEVs relating to the determination of a driving 
range that would serve the purposes of Alternative Motor Fuels Act and 
the Energy Policy Act.

A. Response to the ANPRM

    The agency received four comments in response to the September 22, 
1994, ANPRM. Comments were submitted by Volvo Cars of North America, 
Inc. (Volvo), National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA), 
Mitsubishi Motors America, Inc. (Mitsubishi), and American Automobile 
Manufacturers Association (AAMA). NADA did not provide responses to the 
individual questions; Volvo commented on most of the questions, and 
Mitsubishi and AAMA commented on all questions.
    One of the questions contained in the ANPRM requested views on the 
minimum driving range for HEV passenger cars when operating on 
electricity. Volvo stated that a minimum driving range of approximately 
60 to 80 miles would be appropriate. Mitsubishi declined to recommend 
an explicit minimum driving range, but did recommend that the agency 
consider the application of a driving cycle that is at a lower speed 
than the current EPA urban/highway driving cycle since the EPA urban/
highway driving cycle's speeds (60+ mph) are too high for some HEVs. 
AAMA recommended that NHTSA set a zero minimum driving range for HEVs 
so that no HEV technologies (including those with little or no all-
electric range) that still offer energy and/or emissions benefits will 
be excluded by regulatory design. AAMA believes that this approach to 
setting minimum driving range is consistent with the intent of the 
Energy Policy Act.
    The ANPRM also solicited comments on what the appropriate method 
for determining minimum driving ranges should be, whether the EPA 
driving cycle should be used to determine the range and whether driving 
range measurements should be undertaken with the vehicle using electric 
power alone or a combination of electricity and other fuels. Volvo 
stated that dual fueled vehicles should incorporate the same driving 
range on the two fuels combined as a normal gasoline fueled vehicle, 
which is 350-400 miles. However, Volvo believes that it is possible for 
a hybrid vehicle to complete the EPA driving cycle solely on electric 
power. Mitsubishi believes

[[Page 378]]

that the minimum driving range should be determined based on the hybrid 
vehicle's role and purpose; e.g., in a high pollution urban area, the 
range should be based on all electric operation and in suburban or 
rural areas the range should be based on operation with the other power 
source running as well. Mitsubishi also stated that whether the hybrid 
can operate solely on electricity depends on the design and purpose of 
the vehicle. AAMA stated that the range should be determined on the 
combination of both power sources and it believes that there may be 
vehicles that can operate solely on electricity while others may 
require the auxiliary power source as well. AAMA also noted that a 
hybrid with electric power and an alternative fueled engine is a 
dedicated alternative fueled automobile since it operates entirely on 
alternative fuels, albeit two types of alternative fuel.
    The ANPRM also requested comments regarding the suitability of the 
Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) J1711 Hybrid Electric Vehicle 
Test Procedure. This test procedure, which is still under development, 
might be used in the future for determining range. Among other 
requests, the NPRM sought information regarding the adaptability of the 
SAE procedure for use with the EPA driving cycle, and the 
appropriateness of other tests. Mitsubishi's opinion was that the SAE 
procedure should be adopted, but with lower speeds since the EPA cycle 
speeds are too high for hybrids. AAMA stated that the SAE procedure 
could be used once it is fully developed since it does contain 
procedures for computing an all-electric range. AAMA further added that 
it was unaware of other test procedures that would be applicable in 
determining the range for hybrid vehicles.
    In addition to addressing the basic concerns of how to determine a 
driving range for HEVs and what the potential ranges for such vehicles 
may be in light of existing technology, the ANPRM also solicited 
information relating to consumer acceptability, economic 
practicability, technology, environmental impact, safety, drivability, 
and performance. Comments received in response to the ANPRM as well as 
the agency's own research indicate that consumer expectations and 
requirements for range, safety, drivability and performance place a 
great burden on existing HEV technologies, particularly when the 
economic practicibility of these vehicles is considered. In regard to 
consumer demands and expectations, Volvo thinks that hybrid vehicles 
will be used mainly in urban areas and recharging will take place at 
the consumer's residence or, for fleets, at central recharging 
facilities. Mitsubishi believes that the primary use will be in urban 
areas and for fleets with central recharging. AAMA expects that hybrids 
will be used in urban areas for commuting and fleet use. Recharging is 
expected to be at residences and centralized stations or parking 
garages.
    In response to questions directed at specific consumer expectations 
of minimum driving range, Volvo commented that the consumer can accept 
a shorter driving range if the hybrid or dual fueled vehicle 
incorporates an auxiliary power unit as opposed to a vehicle solely 
powered by an electrical source. Volvo also stated that the minimum 
driving range for a vehicle operating on electricity should be defined 
so that the majority of people who commute, for example in the Los 
Angeles metropolitan area (or any other mandated metropolitan area), 
have the capability to get to work and then back home (and with some 
margin) using the vehicle's stored electrical energy supply. Mitsubishi 
offered the fact that 90% of daily round-trip commutes are less than 60 
miles in urban areas. AAMA commented that the minimum driving range 
should be based on convenience to the customer. Volvo, Mitsubishi, and 
AAMA all indicated that until technology allows more rapid recharging 
and electric recharging facilities become widely available, that the 
range of HEVs operating on electricity alone will be constrained by the 
need to recharge vehicles at their base of operations.
    Consumer requirements such as performance, utility and comfort also 
have an impact on range. Mitsubishi noted that about 1 kW of electrical 
power is expected to be needed to operate normal heating and cooling 
systems in Electric passenger cars. With a heat pump system, driving in 
the city may decrease the range by 15 to 20%. Using a heater adequate 
to meet FMVSS 103 requirements would consume more than 5 kW of 
electricity. Mitsubishi stated that such a heater would easily meet the 
defrosting requirements, but heating the interior could reduce the 
driving range in half. AAMA indicated that heaters and air conditioners 
reduce the range of the vehicle depending on the ambient temperature 
and type of system. While new technology is being developed, it cannot 
be considered at this time because of high cost and unknown 
reliability. While NADA did not comment on this question specifically, 
it submitted information about the GM Impact electric vehicle cold 
weather experience and noted that minimum HEV range calculations must 
also reflect climate variations. Results of prototype tests in colder 
ambient air temperatures indicated that these vehicles suffered 
drastically reduced driving range with the expected 55 mile range 
reduced by 40% when the temperature falls from 70 degrees Fahrenheit to 
20 degrees and a 55% reduction when the temperature falls to 0 degrees.
    In offering its comments on utility and space Mitsubishi indicated 
that if the minimum driving range is set too high, there may not be 
enough space for the batteries in a typical sedan-type vehicle. AAMA 
stated that there is always a trade-off between appearance and 
aerodynamics versus function when designing a vehicle and that with 
current technology, storage space is likely to be reduced if a large 
minimum driving range is required. Passenger and cargo space must be 
utilized to increase range to higher levels.
    In examining the economic practicability of HEVs, the range of the 
vehicle appears to be directly related to its cost. AAMA stated, and 
the responses submitted by Volvo and Mitsubishi indicate, that even 
without significant driving range requirements, one of the HEVs most 
serious issues is battery cost. High driving range requirements can 
lead to excessive cost and weight of powertrains and energy storage 
devices. The increased weight due to the dual fuel capability of HEVs 
requires increased vehicle structural strength and additional chassis 
components which increase the overall weight and cost of the HEV and 
reduce energy efficiency.
    Higher range requirements have other costs as well, particularly 
when existing technologies are considered. Greater range under electric 
power requires larger and heavier battery packs. Volvo indicated that 
the bigger the battery, the longer the range, since battery pack size 
is in direct proportion to the consumer's available driving range. 
Volvo also stated that the bigger the battery, the heavier the vehicle, 
thus providing a shorter driving range when a non-electric source of 
energy is used to propel the vehicle. Mitsubishi reasoned that if the 
battery pack is larger, it may take longer to discharge the battery, 
which would result in a longer HEV driving range. However, Mitsubishi 
believes that HEVs may actually have a shorter driving range since the 
reduction in fuel economy resulting from the increased weight may not 
offset the amount of energy gained by a larger battery pack.
    AAMA indicated that batteries occupying the same space as a 
gasoline fuel tank would weigh about 1.7 times

[[Page 379]]

as much while providing only a fraction of the operating range 
(approximately 3%). In an HEV, an oversized energy storage device 
reduces the space available for the gasoline or diesel fuel storage.
    Higher range in the electric-only mode of operation would also 
invoke penalties affecting performance and safety. Mitsubishi believes 
that the balance of the vehicle, and consequently the vehicle's 
handling, will be affected if a large number of batteries are used to 
provide longer driving ranges. Mitsubishi indicated that an HEV with 
the range of a standard gasoline powered vehicle would weigh 
approximately 5000 lbs. Mitsubishi further added that while the 
majority of driving performance depends on the vehicle weight and the 
motor's power capacity, the most important parameter is weight balance 
to improve handling. In addition to performance and handling, 
Mitsubishi indicated that it did not have sufficient data regarding the 
safety risk related to longer driving ranges on electric power, but 
believed that if the battery capacity is smaller, the safety risk is 
lower, and the driving range is shorter. AAMA explained that an 
electric powertrain can be made to produce the same performance 
capability as a gasoline vehicle, but, like a gasoline vehicle, 
increased performance generally results in decreased range when holding 
all other variables constant. If longer range requires larger battery 
storage, then cost and packaging constraints will lead toward smaller 
engines, which, if the battery is near depletion, leads to performance 
and drivability degradation.

B. The Proposed Minimum Driving Range

    The setting of a minimum driving range for HEVs must carefully 
balance what the potential purchaser expects from the vehicle and what 
technical and economic considerations the manufacturer will encounter 
in successfully bringing these vehicles to the marketplace. The 
agency's goal is to allow maximum flexibility to manufacturers of this 
emerging technology while encouraging the purchase of alternatively 
fueled vehicles by consumers, with the expectation that those vehicles 
produced will satisfy vehicle performance requirements and contain 
attributes desired by the purchaser.
    In comparison to a normal gasoline fueled vehicle driving range of 
350-400 miles, the typical electric-only vehicle has a driving range of 
60-80 miles or less. Recent developments in electric vehicle technology 
appear to be extending driving ranges. New battery types, such as the 
fiber-nickel-cadmium battery previously used only in the aerospace 
industry, may change existing constraints on range. Vehicles based on 
these batteries are expected to have a range of 100 to 150 miles, can 
partially recharge in as little as five minutes, and have a battery 
life of more than 200,000 miles. These batteries, however, along with a 
host of other advanced-technology batteries are still in the 
developmental stage, and are not expected to be available on a 
commercial scale for many years. Meanwhile, lead-acid and possibly 
nickel-cadmium are the only commercially available and economical 
battery technologies suitable for electric vehicles in the near term. 
Therefore, for the immediate future, it is expected that the battery 
used in electric and hybrid vehicles will be the lead-acid battery. 
This battery configuration has considerable constraints, such as an 
extremely low charge density and a long recharge time. Based on NHTSA's 
review of comments forwarded in response to the ANPRM, a review of 
current literature, studies of current industry capabilities, an 
assessment of the available technology, and existing statutory 
requirements, the agency is proposing to set the minimum driving range 
for HEVs, when operating solely on electricity at 17.7 miles--the range 
required to complete one EPA urban/highway cycle under the current 
Federal Test Procedure (FTP).
    In the agency's view, setting a minimum driving range at 17.7 miles 
ensures that HEVs will have sufficient driving range to meet the needs 
of consumers while also encouraging HEV development. A 17.7 mile 
minimum range is not so stringent as to foreclose the development of 
vehicles relying on new technologies or entry into the market without 
unduly large expenditures of capital resources. The proposed range is 
also sufficient to meet the needs of many vehicle users. According to 
the 1990 National Personal Transportation Survey (NPTS), a 17.7 mile 
range would be adequate for 85% of daily vehicle trips and 45% of daily 
vehicle miles traveled. In addition, setting the minimum driving range 
at 17.7 miles allows use of EPA test procedures, where one complete 
highway and urban cycle consists of 17.7 mi. The agency is, therefore, 
proposing that those vehicles that finish one complete circuit of the 
EPA highway and urban cycle in the electric-only mode without 
recharging shall be deemed to have met the minimum range requirement.
    The agency notes that the proposed minimum driving range 
contemplates operation of the vehicle solely on electric power when 
some hybrid designs under consideration are full time hybrids. In these 
vehicles, electric and internal combustion engines are designed to 
complement each other and may not have sufficient power alone to 
adequately propel the vehicle. Similarly, other designs in which the 
vehicle may be operated on electric power alone may not have sufficient 
range to meet the proposed 17.7 mile minimum range. However, 
calculation of the fuel economy of a dual fueled automobile under 
Section 513 of the AMFA (now 49 U.S.C. 32905) requires that the vehicle 
be operated solely on the alternative fuel and, as set forth in 49 
U.S.C. 32904(c), have its energy consumption measured through use of 
the EPA combined urban and highway cycle. This statutory requirement 
compels a minimum driving range specifying electric only operation for 
a distance equivalent to one EPA cycle.
    In order to assist the agency in setting the minimum driving range 
and evaluating the environmental consequences of this proposal, NHTSA 
requests that vehicle manufacturers provide answers to the following 
questions: (1) If there were no CAFE incentives for producing dual fuel 
electric vehicles, how many of these vehicles would you manufacture in 
the next ten years? What type of battery would the vehicles have? What 
range do you expect the vehicle to have when operating on electric 
power, conventional fuels, or both? (2) With CAFE incentives available 
only for dual fuel electric vehicles that have a range of at least 17.7 
miles, how many of these vehicles would you produce in each of the next 
ten years? What kind of battery would it employ? (3) Is there a minimum 
driving range different than 17.7 miles that would give you an 
incentive to build substantially more vehicles? How many vehicles would 
you manufacture in the next ten years in this case? What types of 
batteries would you use? (4) What is the highest driving range at which 
you would manufacture at least 80% of the number of vehicles projected 
in your answer to question 3, and what type of batteries would you use 
to achieve that range?
    Adopting a range lower than 17.7 miles might provide additional 
flexibility to manufacturers seeking to develop new technologies. 
However, it is NHTSA's current view that the agency is precluded by the 
explicit language of 49 U.S.C. 32905 from setting

[[Page 380]]

a minimum driving range that does not require operation on electricity 
alone. In addition, determining the fuel economy of a hybrid electric 
vehicle while operating on electricity alone requires that the vehicle 
complete at least one EPA driving cycle. In addition, allowing 
manufacturers to obtain CAFE credits by producing a vehicle that may 
not be capable of any meaningful operation while using electricity as a 
fuel, is contrary to the intent of the statute in that credits would be 
made available without any corresponding benefit. Those manufacturers 
who are unable, because of technological or other burdens, to produce a 
vehicle capable of meeting the 17.7 mile range requirement, may apply 
for exemption under the procedures proposed in this notice.

Regulatory Impacts

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    This notice has not been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. 
NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action and has 
determined that the action is not ``significant'' under the Department 
of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. In this NPRM, 
the agency proposes to set the minimum driving range for electric dual 
fueled passenger automobiles when operating solely on electricity at 
17.7 miles. The establishment of a minimum driving range implements 
statutory incentives to encourage the manufacture of alternative fuel 
vehicles and does not add any additional burdens. For these reasons, 
NHTSA believes that any impacts on manufacturers will be so minimal as 
not to warrant preparation of a full regulatory evaluation.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The agency has also considered the effects of this rulemaking 
action under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. I certify that this 
proposed rule, if made final, will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The rationale for 
this certification is that, to the extent that any passenger automobile 
manufacturers qualify as small entities, their number would not be 
substantial. Moreover, conversion of vehicles to dual fuel status with 
the minimum ranges that would be established by this regulation would 
be undertaken voluntarily. Therefore, no significant costs would be 
imposed on any manufacturers or other small entities.

C. Federalism

    This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and 
criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, and it has been determined 
that the rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to 
warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

D. Civil Justice Reform

    This proposed rule would not have any retroactive effect and it 
does not preempt any State law. 49 U.S.C. 32909 sets forth a procedure 
for judicial review of automobile fuel economy regulations. That 
section does not require submission of a petition for reconsideration 
or other administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in 
court.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This proposed rule includes new ``collections of information'' as 
that term is defined by the Office of Management and Budget. For Part 
538, OMB has previously approved a collection of information (OMB 
Control Number 2127-00554 ``Minimum Driving Range for Dual Energy and 
Natural Gas Dual Energy Passenger Vehicles--49 CFR 538'') for use 
through June 30, 1996. This approval has now lapsed as the petitioning 
process for non-electric alternative fuel vehicles was rescinded in the 
last revision of Part 538 (61 FR 14507). NHTSA will prepare a new 
request for collection of information approval for the petitioning 
process proposed in this notice and will include in the request an 
estimate of the new collection of information burden that would result 
if this proposed rule is made final. To assist the agency in estimating 
the new collection of information burden that would result if this 
proposed rule is made final, the agency requests that potential 
petitioners provide comments to the following questions: (1) Do you 
anticipate petitioning the agency for a reduction in the minimum 
driving range requirement for a particular vehicle? If so, identify 
yourself as a member of one of the following; household, business, for-
profit entity, non-profit entity, and/or federal, state, local, or 
tribal government. (2) What are the estimated annual reporting and 
recordkeeping hours required to submit a petition for a model-specific 
reduction of the minimum driving range? Indicate whether this 
information could be collected and transmitted electronically either in 
whole or in part and what percentage of the information could be 
collected or transmitted electronically. (3) What is your estimate of 
the annual reporting and recordkeeping costs required to petition for a 
model-specific reduction of the minimum range requirement? (4) What is 
your estimate of the total annualized capital/startup costs required 
for submitting a petition for a model-specific reduction? (5) What is 
your estimate of your total annual costs for reporting and 
recordkeeping for petitioning for a model-specific reduction?
    Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and OMB's 
regulations at 5 CFR section 1320.5(b)(2), NHTSA informs the potential 
persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such 
persons are not required to respond to the collection of information 
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. As of the 
publication of this notice, there is no valid OMB control number 
applicable to the collection of information associated with the driving 
range reduction petition process proposed in this notice. As noted 
above, the agency intends to obtain a valid OMB control number prior to 
promulgation of a final rule.

Public Comments

    NHTSA solicits public comments on the issues presented in this 
notice. 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 
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 NPRM will be considered, and will 
be available for examination in the docket at the above address both 
before and after that date. To the extent possible, comments filed 
after the closing date will also be considered. Comments received too 
late in regard to the final

[[Page 381]]

rule will be considered as suggestions for further rulemaking action. 
Comments on this notice will be available for inspection in the docket. 
NHTSA will continue to file relevant information as it becomes 
available in the docket after the closing date, and it is recommended 
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.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 538

    Energy conservation, Gasoline, Imports, Motor vehicles.

    In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR part 538 is proposed to 
be revised to read as follows:

PART 538--MANUFACTURING INCENTIVES FOR ALTERNATIVE FUEL VEHICLES

Sec.
538.5  Minimum driving range.
538.6  Measurement of driving range.
538.7  Petitions for reduction of minimum driving range.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 32901, 32905, and 32906; delegation of 
authority at 49 CFR 1.50.


Sec. 538.5  Minimum driving range.

    (a) The minimum driving range that a passenger automobile must have 
in order to be treated as a dual fueled automobile pursuant to 49 
U.S.C. 32901(c) is 200 miles when operating on its nominal usable fuel 
tank capacity of the alternative fuel, except when the alternative fuel 
is electricity.
    (b) The minimum driving range that a passenger automobile using 
electricity as an alternative fuel must have in order to be treated as 
a dual fueled automobile pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 32901(c) is 17.7 miles 
when operating on its nominal storage capacity of electricity.


Sec. 538.6  Measurement of driving range.

    (a) The driving range of a passenger automobile model type not 
using electricity as an alternative fuel is determined by multiplying 
the combined EPA city/highway fuel economy rating when operating on the 
alternative fuel, by the nominal usable fuel tank capacity (in 
gallons), of the fuel tank containing the alternative fuel.
    (b) The combined EPA city/highway fuel economy rating is the value 
determined by the procedures established by the Administrator of the 
EPA under 49 U.S.C. 32904 and set forth in 40 CFR part 600.
    (c) The driving range of a passenger automobile model type using 
electricity as an alternative fuel is determined by operating the 
vehicle in the electric-only mode of operation through the EPA combined 
city/highway cycle.
    (d) Passenger automobile types using electricity as an alternative 
fuel that have completed the EPA combined city/highway cycle once 
without recharging shall be deemed to have a range of 17.7 miles.


Sec. 538.7  Petitions for reduction of minimum driving range.

    (a) A manufacturer of a model type of passenger automobile capable 
of operating on both electricity and either gasoline or diesel fuel may 
petition for a reduced minimum driving range for that model type in 
accordance with paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.
    (b) Each petition shall:
    (1) Be addressed to: Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.
    (2) Be submitted not later than the beginning of the first model 
year in which the petitioner seeks to have the model type treated as an 
electric dual fueled automobile.
    (3) Be written in the English language.
    (4) State the full name, address, and title of the official 
responsible for preparing the petition, and the name and address of the 
petitioner.
    (5) Set forth in full data, views, and arguments of the petitioner, 
including the information and data specified in paragraph (c) of this 
section, and the calculations and analyses used to develop that 
information and data. No documents may be incorporated by reference in 
a petition unless the documents are submitted with the petition.
    (6) Specify and segregate any part of the information and data 
submitted under this section that the petitioner wishes to have 
withheld from public disclosure in accordance with part 512 of this 
chapter.
    (c) Each petitioner shall include the following information in his/
her petition:
    (1) Identification of the model type or types for which a lower 
driving range is sought under this section.
    (2) For each model type identified in accordance with paragraph 
(c)(1) of this section:
    (i) The driving range sought for that model type.
    (ii) The number of years for which that driving range is sought.
    (iii) A description of the model type, including car line 
designation, engine displacement and type, electric storage capacity, 
transmission type, and average fuel economy when operating on:
    (A) Electricity, and
    (B) Gasoline or diesel fuel.
    (iv) An explanation of why the petitioner cannot modify the model 
type so as to meet the generally applicable minimum range, including 
the steps taken by the petitioner to improve the minimum range of the 
vehicle, as well as additional steps that are technologically feasible, 
but have not been taken. The costs to the petitioner of taking these 
additional steps shall be included.
    (3) A discussion of why granting the petition would be consistent 
with the following factors:
    (i) The purposes of 49 U.S.C. chapter 329, including encouraging 
the development and widespread use of electricity as a transportation 
fuel by consumers, and the production of passenger automobiles capable 
of being operated on both electricity and gasoline/diesel fuel;
    (ii) Consumer acceptability;
    (iii) Economic practicability;
    (iv) Technology;
    (v) Environmental impact;
    (vi) Safety;
    (vii) Drivability; and
    (viii) Performance.
    (d) If a petition is found not to contain the information required 
by this section, the petitioner is informed about the areas of 
insufficiency and advised that the petition will not receive further 
consideration until the required information is received.
    (e) The Administrator may request the petitioner to provide 
information in addition to that required by this section.
    (f) The Administrator publishes in the Federal Register a notice of 
receipt for each petition containing the information required by this 
section. Any interested person may submit written comments regarding 
the petition.
    (g) In reaching a determination on a petition submitted under this 
section, the Administrator takes into account:
    (1) The purposes of 49 U.S.C. chapter 329, including encouraging 
the development and widespread use of alternative fuels as 
transportation fuels by consumers, and the production of alternative 
fuel powered motor vehicles;
    (2) Consumer acceptability;
    (3) Economic practicability;
    (4) Technology;
    (5) Environmental impact;
    (6) Safety;
    (7) Drivability; and
    (8) Performance.
    (h) If the Administrator grants the petition, the petitioner is 
notified in writing, specifying the reduced

[[Page 382]]

minimum driving range, and specifying the model years for which the 
reduced driving range applies. The Administrator also publishes a 
notice of the grant in the Federal Register and the reasons for the 
grant.
    (i) If the Administrator denies the petition, the petitioner is 
notified in writing. The Administrator also publishes a notice of the 
denial of the petition in the Federal Register and the reasons for the 
denial.

    Issued on: December 26, 1996.
L. Robert Shelton,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 97-85 Filed 1-2-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P