[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 72 (Friday, April 13, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19132-19134]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-8650]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 537

[Docket No. NHTSA-98-3965, Notice 01]
RIN 2127-AG00


Automotive Fuel Economy; Semi-Annual Reports

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

ACTION: Termination of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This document terminates a rulemaking proceeding to amend the 
required form and content of the semi-annual reports that automobile 
manufacturers are required to submit under the Federal automotive fuel 
economy program. The purpose of the proposal was to simplify the 
existing reporting requirements and thereby reduce the paperwork 
burdens imposed on manufacturers, without inhibiting the agency's 
ability to comply with its statutory requirements. The agency undertook 
this action as part of an effort to make its regulations easier to 
understand and apply. However, the agency has determined that the 
changes it proposed would increase, rather than reduce, the regulatory 
burdens of the manufacturers (e.g., computer reprogramming costs) and 
the administrative tasks of NHTSA, and the Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA). Accordingly, we are terminating the rulemaking 
proceeding.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues: Ms. Henrietta L. 
Spinner, Office of Planning and Consumer Programs, Safety Performance 
Standards, NPS-32, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 
20590. Telephone: (202) 366-4802.
    For legal issues: Otto Matheke, Office of the Chief Counsel, NCC-
20, telephone (202) 366-5253, facsimile (202) 366-3820.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NHTSA undertook a review of its regulations 
and directives and identified rules that it could propose to eliminate 
as unnecessary or to amend to improve their comprehensibility, 
usefulness, and appropriateness. NHTSA identified the Semi-Annual 
Reports for Automotive Fuel Economy as a candidate for review and, as 
noted below, issued a proposal to amend the semi-annual report 
requirements.

Background

    Section 32907 of title 49, United States Code (49 U.S.C. 32907) 
requires automobile manufacturers to submit semi-annual reports to 
NHTSA. These reports indicate whether the manufacturer will comply with 
applicable fuel economy standards for a model year, state the actions 
that the manufacturer has taken or intends to take to comply with the 
standard, and provide other information required by regulation (49 
U.S.C. 32907(a)(1)). Section 32907(a)(2) specifies that two reports 
must be filed for each model year (49 U.S.C. 32907(a)(2)). One report 
is due before the beginning of each model year, and the second is due 
within 30 days of the 180th day of the model year. In the event that a 
manufacturer determines, after having previously reported that it would 
comply with the applicable standard for that model year, that the 
actions it has taken in an effort to comply with an applicable fuel 
economy standard are not sufficient to ensure compliance with that 
standard, the manufacturer is required by section 32907(a)(3) (49 
U.S.C. 32907(a)(3)) to report additional actions that the manufacturer 
intends to take to comply and whether those actions will be sufficient 
to ensure compliance. However, if a manufacturer is subject to an 
alternative fuel economy standard under Section 32902(d)(2) (49 U.S.C. 
32902(d)(2)), it is not required to submit any of the foregoing 
reports.
    NHTSA published a final rule in the Federal Register on December 
12, 1977 (42 FR 62374), implementing the provisions of Section 32907 
and adding several requirements to those expressly contemplated by that 
section's provisions. In the final rule, the agency observed that since 
manufacturers have different annual production periods, there was no 
single model year designation applicable to all companies. Accordingly, 
NHTSA determined to use the calendar year to specify the timing of the 
section 32907 reports, making the pre-model year report for a model 
year due in December (49 CFR 537.5(b)(1)) (e.g., the pre-model year 
report for the 2001 model year was due in December 2000) and the mid-
model year report for that model year due in July (49 CFR 537.5(b)(2)) 
(e.g., the mid-model year report for the 2001 model year is due in July 
2001). For the major domestic manufacturers, this means that the pre-
model year report is submitted during the early part of their 
production period and the mid-model year report is due near the end of 
that period. The final rule also established requirements for the 
content of the reports (49 CFR 537.6,

[[Page 19133]]

537.7), as well as for the supplemental reports that are required when 
a manufacturer determines that it cannot meet applicable fuel economy 
standards (49 CFR 537.8).

The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    In a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) issued on May 13, 1996 
(61 FR 22010), the agency proposed revisions to simplify the reporting 
requirements contained in Part 537. The agency proposal sought to 
reverse the order in which the most detailed information must be 
submitted by manufacturers. Instead of submitting the detailed data in 
the pre-model year report, the NPRM proposed that these data be 
presented in the mid-model year report. This change was intended to 
lead to the submission of more complete and correct data because the 
data would be gathered later in the typical production period for each 
model. The proposal sought to reduce the amount of detailed data 
required in the mid-model year report by requesting data at the model 
level instead of requiring data about different configurations within 
model lines. The proposal also sought to modify the format for the 
reports so that data would be submitted in a form more closely matching 
the format used by the agency in analyzing manufacturer fleets in the 
annual Automotive Fuel Economy Report to Congress and other special 
reports and studies. The proposal also sought to eliminate some 
categories of information (SAE horsepower, Engine Code, Emission 
Control System, Existence of Overdrive, and data relating to 
classification as a passenger car or light truck), modified other 
categories (Number of Carburetor Barrels, and Projected Sales), and 
added new categories (Number of Engine Cylinders and Road Load power at 
50 miles per hour). Further, for both the pre and mid-model year 
reports, the proposal indicated that model type information be provided 
in order of increasing equivalent test weight, replacing the prior 
specification that these data be provided in order of increasing 
average inertia weight.
    The NPRM also proposed to delete Sec. 537.8 in its entirety. This 
section contains the requirements for supplementary reports. The 
proposal explained that in the event that a supplementary report is 
filed or requested in the future, revisions in Sec. 537.7(b)(4) would 
incorporate the supplemental report into the mid-model year reports.

Comments Received in Response to the NPRM

    The agency received comments on the proposed revisions from two 
trade associations and three manufacturers. The American Automobile 
Manufacturers Association and the Association of International 
Automobile Manufacturers (AAMA/AIAM) submitted joint comments and 
Chrysler Corporation (Chrysler), Ford Motor Company (Ford), and General 
Motors Corporation (GM) also submitted comments. Manufacturers were 
generally supportive of the intent of the proposed revisions, but 
expressed concerns that some changes might impose significant financial 
burdens by requiring computer reprogramming and the expenditure of 
resources for the collection and preparation of information that is not 
used by the industry or other federal government agencies. All of the 
commenters objected to the proposal's specification of ``equivalent 
test weight'' as a replacement for ``average inertia weight'' in 
Sec. 537.7(c). The commenters argued that ``equivalent test weight'' is 
a term that is used to describe vehicles at the model level as opposed 
to the configuration level. As Sec. 537.7(c) currently specifies 
``average inertia weight,'' which applies at the configuration level, 
the commenters indicated that use of ``equivalent test weight'' would 
require submission of more complex reports.
    In addition to these general concerns, both AAMA/AIAM and each of 
the manufacturers had individual concerns regarding discrete elements 
of the agency's proposal.
    AAMA/AIAM argued for several alterations to the proposed 
modifications of Sec. 537.7(c)(4). In light of the agency's stated goal 
of simplifying the detailed information proposed to be incorporated 
into the mid-model year reports by requiring it at the model level, 
AAMA/AIAM requested that two other specifications--road load power and 
equivalent test weight--be changed or discarded. The associations also 
contended that other proposed parameters would be of little value, 
since ``loaded vehicle weight,'' as well as ``total drive ratio'' are 
data that relate to vehicle configurations rather than model types. 
Instead of using equivalent test weight and loaded vehicle weight, 
AAMA/AIAM suggested that ``inertia weight class'' be used instead. The 
organizations stated that ``loaded vehicle weight'' and ``total drive 
ratio'' are not used by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for 
calculating model fuel economy and should be stricken from the proposed 
requirements. AAMA/AIAM also suggested that the manufacturers' final 
CAFE reports should be submitted concurrently to the EPA. AAMA/AIAM 
also stated that this process would allow the EPA time to review the 
calculations and to properly notify (i.e., within 60 days) both NHTSA 
and the manufacturers that the calculations are either correct or 
require modification. AAMA/AIAM recommended reducing the pre-model year 
report to only a projected fleet average corporate average fuel economy 
(CAFE) level and a projected production volume. Finally, AAMA/AIAM 
strongly suggested that the proposal's requirement that specific data 
be included in the mid-model year report be stricken entirely and that 
both the pre- and mid-model year reports contain only fleet averages 
and projected total production volumes.
    GM indicated its belief that the proposed changes would not 
necessarily simplify reporting tasks or lessen manufacturer burdens. 
The company suggested that the model type report format in the proposal 
be modified to list each model type with its associated projected 
volume, combined fuel economy, and average equivalent test weight 
class. GM also argued for changes in the proposed format for mid-model 
year reports. The company noted that the proposal's revision of 
Sec. 537.7(c)(3)--which sought to replace a requirement that 
information be provided at the configuration level for only those 
vehicles that had been tested with a requirement that the same 
information be provided at the model level--would increase the 
regulatory burden of manufacturers instead of reduce it. In addition, 
the revisions proposed for Sec. 537.7(c)(4) would, in GM's view, 
require the expenditure of additional resources to acquire data and 
change their computer systems to include SAE power, road load 
horsepower, total drive ratio, and loaded vehicle weight. GM also 
contended that, in deleting Sec. 537.8, relating to supplementary 
reports, and inserting a provision for supplementary reports into part 
537, which outlines requirements for pre- and mid-model year reports, 
the proposal created a new requirement, as supplementary reports would 
have to be incorporated into the mandatory pre- and mid-model year 
reports. GM also observed that Sec. 537.7(c)(3) of the proposal 
indicated that mid-model year report data be provided either in tabular 
form or electronically. The company suggested that it would be prudent 
to require that

[[Page 19134]]

the data be submitted both electronically and on paper.
    Chrysler also argued that the proposed changes to data formats and 
content would require significant computer reprogramming efforts. The 
company also recommended reducing the pre-model year report to only a 
projected fleet average corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) level and 
a projected production volume. Finally, Chrysler indicated that it was 
unsure why NHTSA departed from English units of HP to SAE net rated 
power in kilowatts.
    Ford recommended deleting some categories of data the proposal 
would require in the mid-model year report. The company indicated that 
final production volumes classified by loaded test weight, total drive 
ratio, and road load power are not known at the time of mid-model 
report submission. In Ford's view, the proposed requirements would 
force the company to submit reports that could be both inaccurate and 
misleading. Ford also noted that Sec. 537.7(c)(5) of the proposed 
regulatory text specified that certain data be provided for light 
trucks classified as being capable of off-highway operation under 49 
CFR Part 523 and indicated that this reference should specifically 
refer to Sec. 523.5(b).

Interagency Consultation

    Following its review of the comments, NHTSA sought EPA's views of 
the proposal and the impact that adoption of the proposal would have on 
that agency's role in the administration of the CAFE program. The EPA 
said that the agency's proposal would be detrimental in several 
respects. EPA opposed the relaxation of the semi-annual report 
requirements. In particular, EPA urged this agency to not change the 
requirement that data be submitted on the configuration level. As that 
agency analyzes fuel economy data in detail, it urged NHTSA to retain 
existing requirements that vehicle configuration, transmission 
configuration, and axle ratios be reported. In addition, EPA indicated 
that the continued reporting of SAE horsepower is necessary to allow 
EPA to continue to calculate and employ a ``performance index.'' EPA 
also suggested that NHTSA continue to require both pre- and mid-model 
year reports. Although it acknowledged that pre-model year reports are, 
by their nature, incomplete and preliminary, these reports do contain 
valuable information on projected sales, vehicle performance, and 
vehicle characteristics.
    EPA also noted that one of the aspects of the NHTSA proposal that 
had been favored by commenters--the direct concurrent submission of 
fuel economy reports to both agencies--was recently addressed in a rule 
issued by the EPA. In that rulemaking (64 FR 23976), EPA modified 40 
CFR 600.512-01(a) to require reports to be submitted to NHTSA at the 
same time they are submitted to the EPA.

Analysis

    The agency proposal sought to amend Part 537 to simplify the 
requirements for the submission of fuel economy reports. After review 
of the comments submitted in response to that proposal and discussions 
between NHTSA and the EPA, it has become apparent that the agency's 
proposal would add additional burdens to manufacturers and increase 
their reporting costs while depriving EPA of some of the information it 
needs to complete its mission.

Conclusion

    For the reasons stated above, NHTSA is terminating this rulemaking 
action.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166; 
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

    Issued on: April 4, 2001.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 01-8650 Filed 4-12-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P