[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 16 (Thursday, January 24, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3470-3474]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-1675]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 533

[Docket No. NHTSA-2001-11048]
RIN 2127-AI68


Light Truck Average Fuel Economy Standard, Model Year 2004

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This document proposes to establish the corporate average fuel 
economy standard for light trucks manufactured in model year (MY) 2004. 
The establishment of the standard is required by statute. The proposed 
standard is 20.7 mpg.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 25, 2002. The 
comment period has been shortened due to a statutory deadline.

[[Page 3471]]


ADDRESSES: You should mention the docket number of this document in 
your comments and submit your comments in writing to: Docket 
Management, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C., 
20590. Comments may also be submitted to the docket electronically by 
logging onto the Dockets Management System website at http://dms.dot.gov. Click on ``Help & Information'' or ``Help/Info'' to obtain 
instructions for filing the document electronically. You may call 
Docket Management at 202-366-9324. You may visit the Docket from 10:00 
a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, call Ken Katz, 
Office of Planning and Consumer Programs, at (202) 366-0846, facsimile 
(202) 493-2290, electronic mail [email protected]. For legal issues, 
call Otto Matheke, Office of the Chief Counsel, at 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. The Act established an automotive fuel economy 
regulatory program by adding Title V, ``Improving Automotive 
Efficiency,'' to the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Saving Act. 
Title V was amended from time to time, and was codified 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, at least eighteen months prior to the beginning 
of each model year, prescribe by regulation corporate average fuel 
economy (CAFE) standards for light trucks for that 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, we 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. Using this authority, we have set light 
truck CAFE standards through MY 2003. See 49 CFR 533.5(a). The standard 
for MY 2003 is 20.7 miles per gallon (mpg)(66 FR 17513; April 12, 
2001).
    From 1995 through mid-December 2001, the standards-setting process 
for light truck CAFE standards was affected by restrictions imposed in 
the Department of Transportation's annual Appropriations Acts.
    On November 15, 1995, the Department of Transportation and Related 
Agencies Appropriations Act for FY 1996 was enacted. Public Law 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.

    We then issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), limited to 
MY 1998, that proposed to set the light truck CAFE standard for that 
year at 20.7 mpg, the same standard as had been set for MY 1997. 61 FR 
145 (January 3, 1996). We adopted this 20.7 mpg-standard in a final 
rule issued on March 29, 1996. 61 FR 14680 (April 3, 1996).
    On September 30, 1996, the Department of Transportation and Related 
Agencies Appropriations Act for FY 1997 was enacted. Pub. L. 104-205. 
Section 323 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.

    On March 31, 1997, we issued a final rule (62 FR 15859) 
establishing light truck fuel economy standards for MY 1999. This final 
rule was not preceded by an NPRM. The agency concluded that the 
restriction contained in Section 323 of the FY 1997 Appropriations Act 
prevented us from issuing any standards at a level other than the 
standard set for MY 1998. Because we had no other course of action, we 
determined that issuing an NPRM was unnecessary and contrary to the 
public interest.
    Because the same limitation on the setting for CAFE standards was 
included in the appropriations acts for FYs 1998-2001, we followed that 
same procedure during those fiscal years and did not issue any NPRMs in 
the series of rulemakings we conducted to establish the light truck 
fuel economy standards for MYs 2000-2003. The agency concluded in those 
rulemakings, as it had when setting the MY 1999 standard, that the 
restrictions contained in the appropriations acts prevented us from 
issuing any standards other than the standard set for the prior model 
year. We also determined that issuing an NPRM was unnecessary and 
contrary to the public interest because we had no other course of 
action.
    The Department of Transportation and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act for FY 2001 was enacted on October 23, 2000. Public 
Law 106-346. This law provided appropriations for the Department of 
Transportation for FY 2001, and is the law under which we issued the 
light truck CAFE standard for MY 2003. While Section 320 of that Act 
contains a restriction on CAFE rulemaking identical to that contained 
in prior appropriation acts, the Conference Committee Report for that 
Act directed the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to conduct a study 
to evaluate the effectiveness and impacts of CAFE standards (H.R. Conf. 
Rep. No. 106-940, at 117-118).
    The NAS submitted its report to the Department of Transportation on 
July 30, 2001. The report contains a number of key findings and 
recommendations. The Department of Transportation is in the process of 
evaluating and responding to the issues raised by the report. With 
regard to this proposal, however, it is important to note that the NAS 
also found that any policy change that is implemented in too short a 
period of time has the potential to adversely affect manufacturers, 
their suppliers, their employees, and consumers.
    The series of restrictions on appropriations ended with the 
enactment of the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act for FY 2002 on December 18, 2001. Public Law 107-87. 
The FY 2002 Appropriations Act, unlike the appropriations acts for 
fiscal years 1996-2001, does not prevent NHTSA from expending funds to 
prepare, propose or promulgate fuel economy standards. Accordingly, for 
the first time since 1995, NHTSA is authorized to expend funds to 
establish fuel economy standards for non-passenger automobiles at the 
maximum feasible average fuel economy level in accordance with section 
32902(a) of Chapter 329.
    The availability of these funds does not, as a practical matter, 
translate into an effective ability to conduct its customary level of 
analysis of potential MY 2004 light truck fuel economy standards. NHTSA 
cannot delay the beginning of rulemaking to establish the

[[Page 3472]]

MY 2004 standard to provide time for that analysis. As noted above, 
NHTSA must establish the fuel economy standard for a given model year 
at least 18 months before that model year begins. In the case of MY 
2004, this statutory deadline requires NHTSA to issue a fuel economy 
standard on or before April 1, 2002. As the agency was unable, from 
1995 until mid-December 2001, to spend any funds for the collection and 
analysis of data relating to CAFE levels, it has not been able to lay 
the factual or analytical foundation necessary to develop a proposed 
standard other than one at 20.7 mpg, the level of the MY 1996-2003 
standards.

II. Agency Proposal

    The agency is proposing to establish the MY 2004 fuel economy 
standard for all light trucks manufactured by a manufacturer at 20.7 
mpg, the same level previously adopted for MY 2003. The agency's 
proposal reflects the absence of any current information or analysis 
regarding the impact of any change in CAFE standards and the 
capabilities of manufacturers.
    The agency is inviting comments, however, on the maximum feasible 
level of average fuel economy, including comments as to whether motor 
vehicle manufacturers can, with the limited leadtime available and 
product plans essentially established, achieve a level higher than 20.7 
mpg in MY 2004. In establishing CAFE standards, NHTSA is commanded by 
section 32902(f) to determine the maximum feasible average fuel economy 
after considering technological feasibility, economic practicability, 
the effect of other Government motor vehicle standards on fuel economy, 
and the need of the United States to conserve energy. NHTSA has 
traditionally performed the analysis required by section 32902(f) 
through the publication of requests for information (similar to the one 
published concurrently with this notice) seeking data from 
manufacturers and other interested parties regarding technical 
capabilities, future product plans, anticipated model mix, impact of 
safety and emissions regulations, the economic impacts of changes in 
fuel economy standard, the need of the nation to conserve energy and 
other factors. Once these data are obtained, the agency traditionally 
assesses the accuracy of manufacturer projections, the likelihood that 
certain technical innovations may increase fuel efficiency, the 
potential impact of consumer demand on the composition of manufacturer 
fleets, the capability of different manufacturers to attain a minimum 
levels of fuel efficiency, and the effects of weight and other 
penalties imposed by changes in safety and emissions standards. While 
this process must be considerably compressed due to the limited time 
remaining for setting the MY 2004 standard, we will nonetheless 
consider all comments, including comments with data and analysis 
suggesting a level higher or lower than 20.7 mpg.

III. Impact Analyses

A. Economic Impacts

    This proposal rule was reviewed by the Office of Management and 
Budget under Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review. 
Although our proposed standard for MY 2004 does not differ from the 
fuel economy standards for the preceding model years, we are treating 
this rule as ``economically significant'' under Executive Order 12866 
and ``major'' under the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., 
as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 
1996. This proposal is also considered significant under the 
Department's regulatory policies and procedures.
    As noted above, the agency has been operating under a restriction 
on the use of appropriations for the last six fiscal years. The 
restriction has prevented the agency from gathering and analyzing data 
relating to fuel economy capabilities and the costs and benefits of 
improving the level of fuel economy. Particularly since that 
restriction was lifted only very recently, on December 18, 2001, the 
agency has been unable to prepare an economic analysis for this 
rulemaking.

B. Environmental Impacts

C. Energy Impacts

    NHTSA is not proposing to change the light truck CAFE standard for 
the 2004 model year. Assuming that this proposal is adopted in a final 
rule, this action will not have ``a significant adverse effect on the 
supply, distribution, or use of energy,'' as defined by Executive Order 
13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use. At this point, therefore, this action is 
not a ``significant energy action'' under Executive Order 13211 and no 
``Statement of Energy Effects'' is required.

D. Impacts on Small Entities

    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the agency has 
considered the impact this rulemaking would have on small entities. I 
certify that this action would not have a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, a regulatory 
flexibility analysis is not required for this action. Few, if any, 
light truck manufacturers subject to the proposed rule would be 
classified as a ``small business'' under the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act.
    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires 
each agency to evaluate the potential effects of a rule on small 
businesses. Establishment of a fuel economy standard for light trucks 
affects motor vehicle manufacturers, few of which are small entities. 
The Small Business Administration (SBA) has set size standards for 
determining if a business within a specific industrial classification 
is a small business. The Standard Industrial Classification code used 
by the SBA for Motor Vehicles and Passenger Car Bodies (3711) defines a 
small manufacturer as one having 1,000 employees or fewer.
    Very few single stage manufacturers of motor vehicles within the 
United States have 1,000 or fewer employees. Those that do are not 
likely to have sufficient resources to design, develop, produce and 
market a light truck. For this reason, we certify that this proposal 
regarding the corporate average fuel economy of light trucks would not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.

E. Federalism

    E.O. 13132 requires NHTSA to develop an accountable process to 
ensure ``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in 
the development of regulatory policies that have federalism 
implications.'' E.O. 13132 defines the term ``Policies that have 
federalism implications'' to include regulations that have 
``substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between 
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' Under 
E.O. 13132, NHTSA may not issue a regulation that has federalism 
implication, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that 
is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the 
funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State 
and local governments, or NHTSA consults with State and local officials 
early in the process of developing the proposed regulation.
    This proposal would not have substantial direct effects on the 
States, on the relationship between the national government and the 
States, or on the

[[Page 3473]]

distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government as specified in E.O. 13132. Thus, the requirements of 
section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this proposal.

F. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires 
agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits and 
other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate 
likely to result in the expenditure by State, local or tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than 
$100 million annually. For the same reasons discussed in the section 
above on economic impacts, the agency has been unable to prepare an 
assessment.

G. Paperwork Reduction Act

    There are no information collection requirements in this proposal.

H. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)

    The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier 
number (RIN) 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. You may 
use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document 
to find this action in the Unified Agenda.

I. Plain Language

    Executive Order 12866 and the President's memorandum of June 1, 
1998, require each agency to write all rules in plain language. 
Application of the principles of plain language includes consideration 
of the following questions:
    --Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
    --Are the requirements in the proposal clearly stated?
    --Does the proposal contain technical language or jargon that is 
not clear?
    --Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of 
headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
    --Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
    --Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or diagrams?
    --What else could we do to make the proposal easier to understand?
    If you have any responses to these questions, please forward them 
to Otto Matheke, Office of Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20590.

J. Executive Order 13045

    Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any 
rule that: (1) is determined to be economically significant as defined 
under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental, health or safety 
risk that NHTSA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate 
effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, we 
must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned 
rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable 
to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives 
considered by us.
    This rulemaking does not have a disproportionate effect on 
children. The primary effect of this rulemaking is to conserve energy 
resources by setting a fuel economy standard for light trucks.

K. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act (NTTAA) requires NHTSA to evaluate and use existing voluntary 
consensus standards \1\ in its regulatory activities unless doing so 
would be inconsistent with applicable law (e.g., the statutory 
provisions regarding NHTSA's vehicle safety authority) or otherwise 
impractical. In meeting that requirement, we are required to consult 
with voluntary, private sector, consensus standards bodies. Examples of 
organizations generally regarded as voluntary consensus standards 
bodies include the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), 
the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), and the American National 
Standards Institute (ANSI). If NHTSA does not use available and 
potentially applicable voluntary consensus standards, we are required 
by the Act to provide Congress, through OMB, an explanation of the 
reasons for not using such standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards 
developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. 
Technical standards are defined by the NTTAA as ``performance-based 
or design-specific technical specifications and related management 
systems practices.'' They pertain to ``products and processes, such 
as size, strength, or technical performance of a product, process or 
material.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are not aware of any available and potentially applicable 
voluntary consensus standards, i.e., ones regarding the maximum 
feasible level of corporate average fuel economy for MY 2004 light 
trucks. Therefore, this proposal is not based on any voluntary 
consensus standards.

L. Department of Energy Review

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 32902(j), we submitted this proposal 
to the Department of Energy for review. That Department did not make 
any comments that we have not responded to.

IV. Comments

Submission of Comments

How Can I Influence NHTSA's Thinking on This Proposed Rule?
    In developing our rules, we try to address the concerns of all our 
stakeholders. Your comments will help us improve this rule. We invite 
you to provide views on our proposal, new data, a discussion of the 
effects of this proposal on you, or other relevant information. We 
welcome your views on all aspects of this proposed rule. Your comments 
will be most effective if you follow the suggestions below:
     Explain your views and reasoning as clearly as possible.
     Provide solid technical and cost data to support your 
views.
     If you estimate potential costs, explain how you arrived 
at the estimate.
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
     Offer specific alternatives.
     Be sure to include the name, date, and docket number with 
your comments.
How Do I Prepare and Submit Comments?
    Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your 
comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket 
number of this document in your comments.
    Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 553.21). 
We established this limit to encourage you to write your primary 
comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary 
additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length 
of the attachments.
    Please submit two copies of your comments, including the 
attachments, to Docket Management at the address given above under 
ADDRESSES. Comments may also be submitted to the docket electronically 
by logging onto the Dockets Management System website at http://dms.dot.gov. Click on ``Help & Information'' or ``Help/Info'' to obtain 
instructions for filing the document electronically.
How Can I Be Sure That My Comments Were Received?
    If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of 
your comments, enclose a self-addressed,

[[Page 3474]]

stamped postcard in the envelope containing your comments. Upon 
receiving your comments, Docket Management will return the postcard by 
mail.
How Do I Submit Confidential Business Information?
    If you wish to submit any information under a claim of 
confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete 
submission, including the information you claim to be confidential 
business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given 
above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, you should 
submit two copies, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential 
business information, to Docket Management at the address given above 
under ADDRESSES. When you send a comment containing information claimed 
to be confidential business information, you should include a cover 
letter setting forth the information specified in our confidential 
business information regulation. (49 CFR Part 512.)
Will the Agency Consider Late Comments?
    We will consider all comments that Docket Management receives 
before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated 
above under DATES. To the extent possible, we will also consider 
comments that Docket Management receives after that date. If Docket 
Management receives a comment too late for us to consider it in 
developing a final rule (assuming that one is issued), we will consider 
that comment as an informal suggestion for future rulemaking action.
How Can I Read the Comments Submitted by Other People?
    You may read the comments received by Docket Management at the 
address given above under ADDRESSES. The hours of the Docket are 
indicated above in the same location.
    You may also see the comments on the Internet. To read the comments 
on the Internet, take the following steps:
    (1) Go to the Docket Management System (DMS) Web page of the 
Department of Transportation (http://dms.dot.gov/).
    (2) On that page, click on ``search.''
    (3) On the next page (http://dms.dot.gov/search/), type in the 
four-digit docket number shown at the beginning of this document. 
Example: If the docket number were ``NHTSA-1998-1234,'' you would type 
``1234.'' After typing the docket number, click on ``search.''
    (4) On the next page, which contains docket summary information for 
the docket you selected, click on the desired comments. You may 
download the comments. The ``pdf'' versions of the documents are word 
searchable.
    Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will 
continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes 
available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly, 
we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material.
Plain Language
    Executive Order 12866 and the President's memorandum of June 1, 
1998, require each agency to write all rules in plain language. 
Application of the principles of plain language includes consideration 
of the following questions:
    --Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
    --Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
    --Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that is not 
clear?
    --Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of 
headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
    --Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
    --Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or diagrams?
    --What else could we do to make the rule easier to understand?
    If you have any responses to these questions, please include them 
in your comments on this proposal.

V. Conclusion

    Based on the foregoing, we are proposing to establish the combined 
average fuel economy standard for non-passenger automobiles (light 
trucks) for MY 2004 at 20.7 mpg.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 533

    Energy conservation, Fuel economy, Motor vehicles.
    In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR Part 533 is amended as 
follows:

PART 533--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 533 continues to read as 
follows:

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

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


Sec. 533.5  Requirements.

    (a) * * *

                                Table IV
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Model year                            Standard
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996.........................................................       20.7
1997.........................................................       20.7
1998.........................................................       20.7
1999.........................................................       20.7
2000.........................................................       20.7
2001.........................................................       20.7
2002.........................................................       20.7
2003.........................................................       20.7
2004.........................................................       20.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

    Issued on: January 17, 2002.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 02-1675 Filed 1-18-02; 12:25 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P