[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 26 (Thursday, February 7, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 5767-5780]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-2874]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 533

[Docket No. 2002-11419]
RIN 2127-AI70


Request for Comments; National Academy of Science Study and 
Future Fuel Economy Improvements, Model Years 2005-2010

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

ACTION: Request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The National Energy Policy directs the Secretary of 
Transportation to:
    Review and provide recommendations on establishing Corporate 
Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards with due consideration of the 
National Academy of Sciences (NAS) study to be released in July 2001. 
Responsibly crafted CAFE standards should increase efficiency without 
negatively impacting the U.S. automotive industry. The determination of 
future fuel economy standards must therefore be addressed analytically 
and based on sound science.
    Consider passenger safety, economic concerns and disparate impact 
on the U.S. versus foreign fleet of automobiles.
    Look at other market-based approaches to increasing the national 
average fuel economy of new motor vehicles.
    The agency is requesting comment on these policy recommendations, 
particularly the conclusions of the recently completed NAS report on 
fuel economy, as it looks beyond 2004. The purpose of this request is 
to acquire information to assist the agency in developing a proposal 
for those years beyond 2004. NHTSA currently plans to cover some or all 
of model years 2005 to 2010 in the proposal. The agency is seeking 
information that will help it assess the extent to which manufacturers 
can improve light truck fuel economy during those years, the benefits 
and costs to consumers of fuel economy improvements, the benefits to 
the nation of reducing fuel consumption, and the number of model years 
that should be covered by the proposal. NHTSA is also seeking comments 
on possible reforms to the Corporate Average Fuel Economy program, as 
it applies to both passenger cars and light trucks, to protect 
passenger safety, advance fuel-efficient technologies, and obtain 
benefits of market-based approaches.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 8, 2002.

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, SW., Washington, DC, 
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 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, call Ken Katz, 
Lead Engineer, Consumer Programs Division, 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. Introduction

    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 (EPCA). 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 has been amended from time to time and 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

[[Page 5768]]

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, 
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).
    We 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 the model years from 1998 to 2006.
    On November 15, 1995, the Department of Transportation and Related 
Agencies Appropriations Act for FY 1996 was enacted. Pub. L. 104-50. 
Section 330 of that Act provided:

    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, proposing 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). This 20.7 mpg-standard was adopted by 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 provided:

    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 each of 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. Pub. L. 
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 final report is being released in January 2002. The 
report points out that technologies exist that could significantly 
increase passenger car and light truck fuel economy within 15 years. 
However, the study found that ``the fuel economy improvement that 
occurred during the 1970s and early 1980s involved considerable 
downweighting and downsizing'' and that that downweighting and 
downsizing, ``some of which was due to CAFE standards,'' resulted in 
additional fatalities. (NAS, 4-14 and 6-1) Specifically, ``to the 
extent that the size and weight of the fleet have been constrained by 
CAFE requirements * * * those requirements have caused more injuries 
and fatalities on the road than would otherwise have occurred.'' (NAS, 
2-29). However, the NAS found that if future weight reductions occur in 
only the heaviest of the light-duty vehicles, that can produce overall 
improvements in vehicle safety. (NAS, 4-14) NAS also found that to 
minimize financial impacts on manufacturers, their suppliers, their 
employees, and consumers, sufficient lead time, consistent with normal 
product life cycles, should be given. The report stated that there are 
advanced technologies that could be employed, without negatively 
affecting the automobile industry, if sufficient lead time were 
provided to the manufacturers. In NAS' view, the selection of fuel 
economy levels will require uncertain and difficult trade-offs among 
environmental benefits, vehicle safety, cost, energy independence, and 
consumer preferences. It also suggests that changing the CAFE 
regulatory program to one based on vehicle attributes, such as weight, 
and allowing ``credit trading'' could eliminate the current CAFE 
program's encouragement of downweighting or the production and sale of 
more small cars and also reduce costs. (NAS, 6-5) Recognizing the many 
trade-offs that must be considered in setting fuel economy standards, 
the committee took no position on what the appropriate CAFE standards 
should be for future years, leaving that question for policymakers to 
answer.
    Secretary of Transportation Norman Y. Mineta asked House and Senate 
Appropriations Committees to lift the restriction on the agency 
spending funds on CAFE in the summer of 2001. The Department of 
Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for FY 2002 
(Public Law 107-87) was enacted on December 18, 2001, and does not 
contain a provision restricting the Secretary's authority to prescribe 
fuel economy standards. Accordingly, the agency will fully consider the 
NAS report and other factors in its future CAFE rulemaking.
    As the agency has been unable to spend any funds in violation of 
the terms of Section 320 of the FY 2001 Appropriations Act and the 
predecessor restrictions in earlier appropriations acts, it has not 
been able to lay the factual or analytical foundation necessary for 
rulemaking to establish new CAFE levels. To prepare for any fuel 
economy standard, the agency must collect information relating to 
prospective CAFE levels, analyze and

[[Page 5769]]

weigh the information in light of the statutory criteria for 
determining the practicable maximum feasible average fuel economy 
level, and incorporate its information and analysis into a rulemaking 
action to set the standard, with opportunity for notice and comment.
    To allow the agency to begin developing a proposal for light truck 
average fuel economy standards for model years after MY 2004, NHTSA is 
issuing this notice.
    There are several important developments in the oil and vehicle 
markets that provide a useful context for today's notice.
    With respect to the oil market, the United States imported 15 
percent of its oil needs in 1955. The import share reached 35.8 percent 
in 1975, the year in which EPCA was passed, and rose to 46.5 percent in 
1977. Although the share declined to below 30 percent in the early 
1980s, lately, the United States has again become increasingly 
dependent on imported oil. Since 1991, import share has risen from 39.6 
percent to 52.9 percent in 2000, which is an all time high level of oil 
imports.
    Thus, the United States now imports a substantially higher 
percentage of its oil needs than it did during 1975. Moreover, the 
percentage of its oil supplied by OPEC is similar to that of 1975. Oil 
continues to account for nearly 40 percent of all energy used in the 
United States, and 95 percent of the energy consumed in the 
transportation sector. Petroleum demand is projected to grow at an 
average annual rate of 1.5 percent through 2020, led by growth in the 
transportation sector, which is expected to account for more than 70 
percent of petroleum demand in 2020.
    Domestic oil production has declined steadily since reaching a peak 
of 10.6 million barrels per day in 1985. By 1992, it dropped to 9.0 
million barrels per day. Domestic production is expected to continue 
declining by roughly 0.2 percent from 2000 to 2020, with 2020 
production estimated at 5.6 million barrels per day. While the United 
States is currently the world's second largest oil producer, it 
contains only about three percent of the world's known oil reserves. 
Persian Gulf countries contain 63 percent of known world reserves, and 
Eastern European countries contain 9 percent. The Department of Energy 
projects a continuing decline in domestic oil production to between 
3.77 and 7.21 million barrels per day in 2010.
    With respect to the vehicle market, in the early 1980's, during the 
energy crisis brought on by events in Iran, gasoline prices rose 
rapidly. That rise significantly increased consumer demand for more 
fuel-efficient vehicles. Thereafter, however, gasoline prices fell 
sharply and have remained at very low levels for a decade. The 
inflation-adjusted price of gasoline in the U.S. reached a post-World 
War II low in the 1993-1995 period and has risen slightly since. The 
fuel cost of vehicle travel in constant dollars is only half of what it 
was before the price shocks of the 1970s. Consumers place much greater 
emphasis on safety, cost, and high performance, and make little demand 
for improved light truck fuel economy. Vehicle performance levels 
(e.g., ability to accelerate) are now significantly higher than they 
were when EPCA was enacted. The NAS study found that ``recent increases 
in vehicle weight, while resulting in some loss of fuel economy, have 
probably resulted in a reduction of motor vehicle crash fatalities.'' 
(NAS, 2-29)
    In the absence of strong consumer demand or other market pressure 
for increased efficiency, there is little motivation for manufacturers 
to make significant technological improvements to light truck fuel 
economy. Indeed, light truck fuel economy has been gradually declining 
since MY 1987 and is not expected to change in the next several years. 
The average light truck fuel economy was 20.7 mpg in MY 1985, and 20.5 
mpg in MY 1995, ten model years later. Lately, light truck CAFE has 
hovered near 21.0 mpg, with the levels for the past three years ranging 
from 20.9 to 21.3 mpg. Fuel economy data reported by the Environmental 
Protection Agency shows that unadjusted light truck fuel economy levels 
have been below 21.0 mpg since 1993, with levels hovering near 20.5 mpg 
over the past 5 years or so.
    A third reason why light truck CAFE standards assume increased 
importance now is the continued growth in market share of those 
vehicles. In 2001, for the first time, sales of light trucks surpassed 
those of passenger cars, accounting for 50.46 percent of all vehicles 
sold. In contrast, light trucks comprised 48.78 percent of the market 
in 2000. According to the Automotive News Data Center, there were 
8,667,089 light trucks and 8,510,356 passenger cars sold in 2001, for a 
total of 17,177,445 vehicles sold. In addition, the sales of light 
trucks set a monthly record with 908,474 units sold in October 2001. 
That figure surpassed the previous record of 827,692, set in March 2000 
(Bureau of Transportation Statistics).
    The growth in the light truck market has been substantial and 
according to some estimates is achieving sales figures today that were 
not predicted until several years in the future. For example, the 
Automotive News Data Center and J.D. Power projected sales of 8.24 
million light trucks in MY 2003 and 8.67 million by MY 2005. Thus, 
because 8.67 million light trucks were sold in 2001, the estimated 
market size for light trucks was accomplished four years earlier than 
predicted. Some of this increase in the light truck sales may be 
accounted for by the 0 percent financing offers made by most of the 
major manufacturers starting in October 2001, however none of these 
offers was limited to light trucks only. Further historical evidence 
for this rapid growth is the fact that light trucks comprised 40 
percent of the total light vehicle production in MY 1995, which was 
more than double their share in MY 1980. The increase in light truck 
market share is vitally important, because as light trucks increase 
their market share, so does their impact on energy consumption and the 
importance of their potential contribution in addressing the Nation's 
need to conserve energy.
    Additionally, the National Energy Policy, released in May 2001, 
included recommendations regarding the path that the Administration's 
energy policy should take and included specific recommendations 
regarding vehicle fuel economy and CAFE. The National Energy Policy was 
designed to promote dependable, affordable and environmentally sound 
energy for the future. The Policy envisions a comprehensive long-term 
strategy that uses leading edge technology to produce an integrated 
energy, environmental and economic policy. The report recommends that--
     The President direct the Secretary of Transportation to 
review and provide recommendations on establishing CAFE standards with 
due consideration of the National Academy of Sciences study released in 
July 2001. The President further directs that the CAFE standards be 
responsibly crafted and increase efficiency without negatively 
impacting the U.S. automotive industry; and that, the determination of 
future fuel economy standards be addressed analytically and based on 
sound science.
     The President direct the Secretary of Transportation to 
consider passenger safety, economic concerns, and disparate impact on 
the U.S. versus foreign fleet of automobiles.
     The President direct the Secretary of Transportation to 
look at other market-based approaches to increasing the national 
average fuel economy of new motor vehicles.

[[Page 5770]]

    This notice requests comments to assist NHTSA in developing a 
proposal for light truck CAFE standards for model years after 2004, 
possibly through MY 2010. In addition, this notice requests comments on 
possible modifications and/or reforms to the CAFE program. Any 
significant reforms to the CAFE program may affect NHTSA's decision 
about the number of model years that should be covered by a proposed 
rule under the current CAFE program structure.
    To aid the agency in obtaining useful comments, this notice 
discusses a variety of issues that are considered by NHTSA in 
evaluating fuel economy, and asks a number of questions and makes a 
number of requests for data. For easy reference, the questions and 
requests are numbered consecutively throughout the document.
    In providing a comment on a particular matter or in responding to a 
particular question, interested persons are requested to provide any 
relevant factual information to support their conclusions or opinions, 
including but not limited to test data, statistical and cost data, and 
the source of such information.
    In addition to the questions in the body of this notice, NHTSA is 
also including an appendix to this notice, which consists of a number 
of additional questions directed primarily toward light truck 
manufacturers. The appendix questions address their product plans 
through MY 2010 and the assumptions underlying those plans. The agency 
would appreciate answers that are as responsive as possible so that 
appropriate weight can be given to the many factors whose magnitude now 
can only be estimated. While the questions in the appendix are directed 
toward manufacturers, the agency welcomes comments from all interested 
persons in response to those questions.

II. The Statute

    Chapter 329 of Title 49 of the U.S. Code requires the Secretary of 
Transportation to issue light truck fuel economy standards for each 
model year. The Code provides that the fuel economy standards must be 
set at the maximum feasible average fuel economy level. In determining 
the maximum feasible average fuel economy level, the Secretary is 
required under section 32902(f) of Title 49 to consider four factors: 
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. The Secretary is permitted but 
not required to set separate standards for different classes of light 
trucks. (Responsibility for the automotive fuel economy program was 
delegated by the Secretary of Transportation to the Administrator of 
NHTSA (41 FR 25015, June 22, 1976).)
    Based on definitions and judicial interpretations of similar terms 
in other statutes, the agency interprets ``feasible'' to refer to 
something that is capable of being done. Therefore, a standard set at 
the maximum feasible average fuel economy level must: (1) be capable of 
being done and (2) be at the highest level that is capable of being 
done, taking account of what manufacturers are able to do in light of 
technological feasibility, economic practicability, how other motor 
vehicle standards of the Government affect average fuel economy, and 
the need of the United States to conserve energy.
    Executive Order 12866 requires that the findings of cost-benefit 
analysis be considered in the development of major rules. When 
considering the appropriate design and stringency of future standards, 
NHTSA will consider the incremental costs and benefits of alternative 
options.
    The statute does not expressly state whether the concept of 
feasibility is to be determined on a manufacturer-by-manufacturer basis 
or on an industry-wide basis. As discussed in many fuel economy 
notices, it is clear from the legislative history that Congress did not 
intend that standards simply be set at the level of the least capable 
manufacturer. Instead, NHTSA must take industry-wide considerations 
into account in determining the maximum feasible average fuel economy 
level.
    NHTSA has consistently set light truck standards at a level that 
can be achieved by manufacturers whose vehicles constitute a 
substantial share of the market. Because of the relatively high volume 
of production by those manufacturers, their capability bears a strong 
and close relationship to that of the industry as a whole.

III. Issues in Developing a Proposal for MY 2005-2010

    Among the significant issues involved in developing a proposal for 
the MY 2005-2010 light truck CAFE standards is the extent of the 
ability of manufacturers to improve their light truck fuel economy 
during that period. In the last 18 months, Ford, General Motors and 
DaimlerChrysler have all issued statements regarding the fuel economy 
level their vehicles will be able to achieve over the next five or so 
years. In July 2000, Ford made a voluntary commitment to increase the 
fuel economy of its sport utility vehicle (SUV) fleet in the United 
States by 25 percent by the 2005 calendar year. General Motors stated 
that its SUV fleet would have an even higher average fuel economy than 
Ford's sport utility vehicle fleet, and that its overall average fuel 
economy for light trucks in 2005 would also be higher than Ford's. 
DaimlerChrysler stated that the fleet average fuel economy of all its 
vehicles--both passenger cars and light trucks--would match or exceed 
those of other full-line manufacturers. However, no timetable was set 
for achieving this goal, nor did DaimlerChrysler commit to achieving 
fuel economy goals in specific market segments such as SUVs. In order 
to help it analyze manufacturer capabilities for improving light truck 
fuel economy, NHTSA requests information or comments on the questions 
that follow.
    NHTSA is interested in the technology that could be available for 
improving fuel economy. It is particularly interested in technological 
advancements and on manufacturers' future plans for the inclusion of 
technologies that have been developed under the Partnership for a New 
Generation of Vehicles (PNGV). The Department of Energy announced a new 
Freedom CAR initiative earlier this month that will aim at higher risk, 
higher reward technologies that will apply to vehicle models that are 
in high demand, including minivans, SUVs, and pickups. The National 
Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences also found that 
the structure and goals of the PNGV program were wrong. We are 
interested in adopting specific changes recommended by NAS to improve 
the program. Ford, General Motors and DaimlerChrysler have all 
introduced concept cars that achieve at least 70 mpg. It is anticipated 
that many of the technologies employed on these vehicles will be 
included in future product plans and that significant gains on fuel 
economy can be achieved by their application.
    1. The NAS Study found that the CAFE program, as currently 
structured, has contributed to traffic fatalities and injuries. As an 
agency whose primary responsibility is safety and is therefore deeply 
concerned about the NAS finding, NHTSA requests comments on this NAS 
finding. Among our questions are: Is the safety impact understated or 
overstated? Would NAS's proposed changes to CAFE reduce this safety 
penalty? Could CAFE standards be modified so that manufacturers are 
encouraged to achieve improved fuel economy through application of 
technology instead of through downsizing and downweighting?

[[Page 5771]]

NHTSA requests comments on the extent to which increases in light truck 
fuel efficiency are feasible during MYs 2005-2010 and on whether any of 
these increases would involve means--such as significant weight and 
size reduction--that could adversely affect safety. We note that the 
NAS found that if future weight reductions occur in only the heaviest 
of the light-duty vehicles, that can produce overall improvements in 
vehicle safety. If there would be adverse effects, how could they be 
mitigated?
    2. What is the technological feasibility and economic 
practicability of various fuel efficiency enhancing technologies that 
fall under the general headings of engine, vehicle and transmission 
technologies? Please comment on each of the following technologies, 
listed under the general headings below:

Engine Technologies

    Engine friction and other mechanical/hydrodynamic loss reduction; 
advanced low-friction lubricants; multi-valve, overhead camshaft valve 
trains; variable valve timing; variable valve lift and timing; intake 
valve throttling; cylinder deactivation; engine accessory improvement; 
engine downsizing and supercharging; camless valve actuation; variable 
compression ratio engines; electronic engine controls; direct fuel 
injection for spark ignition or diesel engines; lean burn-fast burn 
combustion; and two-stroke engines.

Transmission Technologies

    Five-speed automatic transmission; six-speed automatic 
transmission; continuously variable transmission; advanced continuously 
variable transmission; automatic shift manual transmission; and 
automatic transmission with aggressive shift logic.

Vehicle Technologies

    Aerodynamic drag reduction; and electronic controls; lowering 
rolling resistance; vehicle weight reduction; substitution of lighter-
weight materials; 42 Volt electrical system; integrated starter/
generator; hybrid drive trains; and fuel cells.
    In answering this question, please address, for each of these 
technologies, as well as any other relevant/related technologies:
    (a) The impact on fuel efficiency;
    (b) Costs and benefits to the consumer;
    (c) Manufacturer costs;
    (d) Lead time;
    (e) Degree of current use in passenger cars and light trucks;
    (f) Impacts on safety, including injuries and fatalities; and
    (g) Potential fleet penetration.
    (h) Effects of environmental (especially vehicles emissions 
standards) and other regulations on their application/penetration.
    In considering fleet penetration, please address whether some 
technologies might be appropriate for use on light truck models that 
would not need high load carrying or towing capability because of 
primarily personal passenger car type usage. For reference, NHTSA, at 
the direction of the Congress, commissioned a study entitled Light 
Truck Capabilities, Utility Requirements and Uses: Implications for 
Fuel Economy which was published in April 1996. (This study is 
available from the agency as report number DOT HS 808 378.) Included in 
that study is a brief summary of fuel economy technologies, their 
benefits, and their potential conflicts with light truck attributes.
    3. What is the cost-effectiveness of each technology identified in 
Question 2, as well as any other relevant technologies, assuming 
alternative plausible gasoline prices forecast for MY 2005-2010, and 
assuming alternative payback periods ranging from 3 years to 10 years?
    4. Taking into account the response to Question 2, and the 
statements recently made by Ford and General Motors about the fuel 
economy of their vehicles by 2005, and DaimlerChrysler's response, 
indicate the ability of each manufacturer to improve its light truck 
CAFE for each model year during the MY 2005-2010 timeframe. Specify the 
fuel economy improvements on a vehicle-by-vehicle basis that will 
result in the achievement of the manufacturer's fuel economy pledges. 
For each vehicle, please list the specific technologies that will be 
employed and the increase in fuel economy attributed to such 
technology. By what model year would maximum penetration of all current 
fuel economy enhancing technologies be feasible? Why wouldn't such 
maximum penetration be feasible earlier than that model year?
    5. What analyses of manufacturer light truck fuel economy 
capabilities for MY 2005-2010 are available? What are the strengths and 
weaknesses of each such analysis?
    6. What data are available on the usage characteristics of light 
trucks, i.e., how many passengers and/or how much cargo the different 
types of light trucks typically carry? What survey and other data are 
available on the importance that consumers place on the fuel economy of 
light trucks relative to other vehicle attributes?
    7. By their nature, fuel economy standards lower the marginal cost 
of driving. What effect does this cost difference have on vehicle miles 
traveled?
    8. To what extent are other Federal standards likely to affect 
manufacturers' CAFE capabilities in MYs 2005-2010? Answers to this 
question should include not only the effects of such standards when 
first implemented, but also the prospect for reducing those effects 
subsequently.
    In the final rule establishing light truck CAFE standards for MYs 
1996-1997 (59 FR 16312 (April 6, 1994)), NHTSA stated that it believed 
that CAFE standards for the last decade have not had any measurable 
effect on light truck weight or size; and, hence, safety. In support of 
that belief, the agency noted that the levels of the light truck CAFE 
standards have not varied significantly for more than a decade. The 
light truck CAFE standards for MY 1987-89 and MY 1994 were set at 20.5 
mpg, and, as far back as MY 1984, the standard was only slightly lower 
at 20.0 mpg. NHTSA also noted that, in setting the light truck CAFE 
standards over the last decade, the agency has not included in its 
analyses of manufacturer capabilities any product plan actions that 
would significantly affect the weight, size or cost of the vehicles the 
manufacturers planned to offer. Further, the average equivalent test 
weight of light trucks increased from 3,805 pounds in MY 1984 to 4,360 
pounds in MY 1996.
    9. In setting CAFE standards, the agency takes into consideration 
that there are often technological risks associated with actually 
achieving the full potential fuel economy improvement from a particular 
type of technology. How should the agency take technological risks into 
account in setting these light truck CAFE standards? What technological 
risks are associated with gaining the full potential fuel economy 
improvements from any of the available types of fuel economy enhancing 
technologies? What are the prospects for overcoming those risks or 
offsetting their effects on CAFE capability?

The National Academy of Sciences Study and CAFE Reform

    On July 30, 2001, the National Academy of Sciences released its 
report entitled, ``Effectiveness and Impact of Corporate Average Fuel 
Economy (CAFE) Standards.'' This report included fifteen findings and 
seven recommendations. Several of the recommendations address possible 
modifications to the CAFE program.

[[Page 5772]]

Possible modifications to the CAFE program (as it applies to passenger 
cars as well as light trucks) could include changes to the current 
structure (i.e., changing the vehicle classification definitions) or 
could involve more significant reforms (i.e., weight-based standards, 
credit trading).
    A possible modification to CAFE, which has received considerable 
attention, is an approach with fuel economy targets that are dependent 
on vehicle attributes, such as vehicle weight, size or load. The NAS 
recommended this approach, referred to as an attribute-based system, 
because it would ``create incentives to reduce the variance in vehicle 
weights between large and small vehicles, thus providing for overall 
vehicle safety. It has the potential to increase fuel economy with 
fewer negative effects on safety and consumer choice.'' Under the 
current CAFE program, each manufacturer must meet a production-weighted 
harmonic average for each fleet of vehicles sold. In an attribute-based 
system, each manufacturer might have to meet an overall production-
weighted fuel economy average, and/or each manufacturer might have to 
meet a different fuel economy average for the vehicles that were 
produced in each specific size, weight or load class.
    10. Please comment on the idea of an attribute-based system. 
Provide feedback on which attribute(s) such a system should be based on 
and the specific classes of vehicles that might fall under each class. 
In addition, please suggest the fuel economy level associated with each 
specific class of that attribute-based system (e.g., vehicles weighing 
from 2,000 lbs. GVWR to 2,500 GVWR would have to meet an average of 
xx.x MPG).
    Another modification that has been suggested is fuel economy 
credits that could be traded among vehicle manufacturers. The NAS found 
that ``changing the current CAFE system to one featuring tradable fuel 
economy credits and a `cap' on the price of these credits appears to be 
particularly attractive. It would provide incentives for all 
manufacturers, including those that exceed the fuel economy targets, to 
continually increase fuel economy, while allowing manufacturers 
flexibility to meet consumer preferences.'' Currently, each 
manufacturer can only earn credits if it exceeds the standards in any 
particular year. A manufacturer can carry the credits earned for a 
particular class of vehicles forward or backward to offset CAFE 
shortfalls within that same class of vehicles. However, it can neither 
apply the credits to another of its classes of vehicles nor trade them 
with other manufacturers. (Thus, if the agency used its authority to 
set standards for different classes of light trucks, the statute would 
prevent trading credits between those classes.) If the CAFE program 
could be modified to allow manufacturers to apply fuel economy credits 
throughout their own fleets and to trade them with other manufacturers. 
Credits could be obtained directly from other manufacturers or 
indirectly from the U.S. Government. This modification has the 
potential to increase the economic efficiency and flexibility of the 
CAFE system.
    11. Please comment on the possibility of tradable fuel economy 
credits and the potential cost and benefits to each manufacturer.
    The elimination of the two-fleet rule, providing for a domestic 
passenger car fleet and an import passenger car fleet, has been 
suggested as a possible modification to CAFE. The distinction is based 
on the proportion of the car's value that is defined as being domestic; 
an import is defined as a car with less than 75 percent domestic 
content. If a manufacturer has both a domestic passenger car fleet and 
an import passenger car fleet, each fleet must separately meet the 
passenger car standard. If this rule were eliminated, such a 
manufacturer could place all its passenger cars in a single fleet.
    12. Please comment on the effect that elimination of the two-fleet 
rule would have on manufacturers, consumers, employment, the U.S. 
marketplace, and on the automotive industry in general.
    A possible modification that has also received considerable 
attention in Congress and the media is the 
re-classification of vehicles under the CAFE system. When CAFE was 
originally conceived, it provided for setting different standards for 
passenger vehicles and work/cargo vehicles, classified as light trucks. 
This has allowed light trucks to have higher fuel consumption because 
extra power, different gearing, and other attributes that were 
considered necessary for their utilitarian, load-carrying attributes. 
At that point, in 1975, these vehicles comprised about 20 percent of 
the market. Light trucks now comprise approximately 50 percent of new 
vehicles sold. Most important, the functional distinction between cars 
and trucks (cars for personal use and trucks for work cargo use) has 
broken down, initially with the introduction of minivans, and more 
recently with sport utility and cross-over vehicles that are used 
almost exclusively for passenger transport. NHTSA has the statutory 
authority to change how these vehicles are classified and may do so in 
the future to reflect the usage of many types of light trucks as 
passenger vehicles. However, any modification would accommodate the 
inability of true work/cargo vehicles to achieve as high fuel economy, 
due to their utilitarian nature.
    13. Please provide suggestions for modifications of the vehicle 
classification. These suggestions should be as detailed as possible and 
should state the logic and rationale for the modification, as well as 
suggested definitions. An analysis of the pros and cons of each 
suggested modification should also be provided.
    Another possible modification to the CAFE program would be raising 
the maximum gross vehicle weight rating of vehicles covered by the CAFE 
standards from 8,500 lbs. to 10,000 lbs. Manufacturers currently are 
selling several models of large sport utility vehicles over the 8,500 
lbs. weight limit that are being utilized as passenger vehicles. 
Because the gross vehicle weight rating is based on manufacturer 
supplied information on the load carrying capacity of their vehicles, 
the agency is concerned that some vehicles, which are primarily used as 
passenger vehicles, are not included in manufacturers' light truck 
fleets. The agency has the statutory authority to make this change.
    14. Please provide comments on the possibility of raising the 
maximum gross vehicle weight rating and on the effects that this would 
have on manufacturers, consumers, U.S. automotive industry employment 
and the automotive industry in general.
    15. NHTSA requests comments on the above possible modifications to 
the CAFE program and other modifications that have been discussed, such 
as those mentioned in the National Academy of Sciences study. In 
addressing these possible modifications, please identify their 
positives and negatives; their estimated costs and benefits; their 
effect on manufacturers, suppliers, employees, and consumers; and the 
policy implications of each. The agency requests that each manufacturer 
specify how much lead time would be needed to respond to each possible 
modification and provide that information in terms of product planning 
cycles. To assist NHTSA, please be as specific as possible and provide 
any information that you believe will be helpful.
    The National Academy of Sciences report also included an assessment 
of the technological potential for improving the fuel efficiency of 10 
different classes of vehicles (subcompact cars, compact cars, SUVs, 
pickups, minivans, etc.), and included a

[[Page 5773]]

``break-even'' analysis for each of these classes. The report 
identified packages of existing and emerging technologies that could be 
introduced over the next ten years and that would result in fuel 
economy improvement up to the point at which further increases in fuel 
economy would not be reimbursed by fuel savings. It placed these 
technologies into three product development paths for each of ten 
vehicle classes. The paths were chosen to represent potential vehicle 
development steps that would offer increasing levels of fuel economy 
gain at incrementally increasing costs. In doing the analysis, the 
committee kept the size and performance characteristics of the 
vehicles' constant, while increasing vehicle weight five percent to 
account for future safety requirements.
    Two break-even analyses were done for each path. One covered a 14-
year period that reflects the entire life of the vehicle, while the 
other covered a 3-year period that reflects the first purchaser's 
ownership period. The committee theorized that all consumers do not 
take the same things into consideration when purchasing a vehicle, and 
realized that some consumers will be trading in their vehicles on a 
constant cycle. The 3-year period also represents the average lease 
term, and thus can serve as a starting point for analyzing the emphasis 
that vehicle leasers place on fuel economy and advanced technology.
    To assist NHTSA in its rulemaking, we ask you to comment on the 
following:
    16. In examining the three paths that were chosen, please comment 
on whether they represent likely scenarios for technology bundling. If 
not, please comment on which technologies are likely to be bundled 
together and please identify the specific vehicle types and vehicles/
models that might include them. In addition, please comment on the 
technologies already included on the vehicle types/models, the 
projected vehicle weight and the percent of total model sales 
anticipated for each model (i.e., CVT--45%, 5-Speed Automatic--40%, 5-
Speed Manual--5%). Finally, please comment on the assumptions the NAS 
made in evaluating the three paths. Are there more plausible 
alternative assumptions?
    17. Should hybrid and fuel cell vehicles have been included in the 
paths? If so, which ones and which specific vehicle types? What 
technologies would be included with these types of vehicles?
    18. Do you believe that the NAS study over or under estimated the 
fuel economy benefits from specific technologies? If so, which ones and 
why? Please provide NHTSA with your data that suggest a different 
benefit resulting from the application of these technologies.
    19. Do you agree with the figures derived in the NAS break-even 
analysis? If not, why? Please address specific areas of differences, 
explain your reason(s) why, and provide supporting data for your 
reasons and arguments.
    20. For the forthcoming rulemaking and future CAFE rulemakings, 
benefit analysis will play an important role in NHTSA decisionmaking. 
NHTSA therefore seeks comments on the following specific benefit 
issues: Can you provide, in addition to the material in the NAS report, 
any methods and data that would be helpful in identifying, quantifying, 
and expressing in dollar units the potential benefits of alternative 
CAFE standards (including energy security, environmental, and other 
considerations)? Are there any ancillary studies that NHTSA or other 
federal agencies should commission to provide a stronger technical 
foundation for making benefit estimates in future CAFE rulemakings?

IV. Impact Analyses

A. Economic Impacts

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

B. Environmental Impacts

    We have not conducted an evaluation of the impacts of this request 
for comments under the National Environmental Policy Act. There is no 
requirement for such an evaluation where, as here, the agency is 
requesting comments on a possible future rulemaking.

C. Impacts on Small Entities

    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the agency has 
considered the impact this request for comments 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 a possible proposed rule 
subsequent to this notice would be classified as a ``small business'' 
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Public Law 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 request for 
comments and any subsequent proposal would not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

D. 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 request for comments and any subsequent proposal would not 
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 as 
specified in E.O. 13132. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the 
Executive Order do not apply to this notice.

[[Page 5774]]

E. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 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.

F. Paperwork Reduction Act

    There are no information collection requirements in this proposal.

G. 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.

H. Plain Language

    Executive Order 12866 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 notice clearly stated?
--Does the notice contain technical language or jargon that is not 
clear?
--Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of 
headings, paragraphing) make the notice 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 notice 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, SW., Washington, DC 20590.

I. 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 request for comments and any subsequent proposal does not have 
a disproportionate effect on children. The primary effect of this 
request for comments and any subsequent proposal is to conserve energy 
resources by setting fuel economy standards for light trucks.

J. 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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In issuing this notice, the agency is simply seeking information to 
help it establishing a future goal for manufacturers to meet. 
Therefore, setting this future standard does not involve the use of any 
voluntary standards.

V. Comments

Submission of Comments

How Can I Influence NHTSA's Thinking on This Notice?
    In developing this notice, we tried to address the concerns of all 
our stakeholders. Your comments will help us determine what standards 
should be set for light truck fuel economy. We invite you to provide 
different views on questions we ask, new approaches and technologies we 
did not ask about, new data, how this notice may affect you, or other 
relevant information. We welcome your views on all aspects of this 
notice, but request comments on specific issues throughout this notice. 
We grouped these specific requests near the end of the sections in 
which we discuss the relevant issues. Your comments will be most 
effective if you follow the suggestions below:
     Explain your views and reasoning as clearly as possible.
     Provide empirical evidence, wherever possible, 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.
     Refer your comments to specific sections of the notice, 
such as the units or page numbers of the preamble, or the regulatory 
sections.
     Be sure to include the name, date, and docket number of 
the proceeding 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, stamped postcard in the 
envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket 
Management will return the postcard by mail.

[[Page 5775]]

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 proposed 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 Asearch.''
    (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. However, since the comments are imaged 
documents, instead of word processing documents, the downloaded 
comments are not 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.

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

    Issued on: February 1, 2002.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.

APPENDIX

I. Definitions

    As used in this appendix--
    1. ``Automobile,'' ``fuel economy,'' ``manufacturer,'' and 
``model year,'' have the meaning given them in Section 501 of the 
Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, 15 U.S.C. 2001.
    2. ``Cargo-carrying volume,'' ``gross vehicle weight rating'' 
(GVWR), and ``passenger-carrying volume'' are used as defined in 49 
CFR 523.2.
    3. ``Basic engine'' has the meaning given in 40 CFR 600.002-
85(a)(21). When identifying a basic engine, respondent should 
provide the following information:
    (i) Engine displacement (in cubic inches).
    (ii) Number of cylinders or rotors.
    (iii) Number of valves per cylinder.
    (iv) Cylinder configuration (V, in-line, etc.).
    (v) Number of carburetor barrels, if applicable.
    (vi) Other engine characteristics, abbreviated as follows:

DD--Direct Injection Diesel
ID--Indirect Injection Diesel
TB--Throttle Body Fuel Injection S.I. (Spark Ignition)
MP--Multipoint Fuel Injection S.I.
TD--Turbocharged Diesel
TS--Turbocharged S.I.
FFS--Feedback Fuel System
2C--Two-stroke engines
VVT--Variable valve timing
VVLT--Variable valve lift and timing
SOHC--Single overhead camshaft
DOHC--Dual overhead camshafts
CYDA--Cylinder deactivation
IVT--Intake valve throttling
CVA--Camless valve actuation
VCR--Variable compression ratio
LBFB--lean burn-fast burn combustion

    4. ``Domestically manufactured'' is used as defined in Section 
503(b)(2)(E) of the Act.
    5. ``Light truck'' means an automobile of the type described in 
49 CFR part 523.5.
    6. A ``model'' of light truck is a line, such as the Chevrolet 
C1500 or Astro, Ford F150 or E150, Jeep Wrangler, etc., which exists 
within a manufacturer's fleet.
    7. ``Model Type'' is used as defined in 40 CFR 600.002-
85(a)(19).
    8. ``Percent fuel economy improvements'' means that percentage 
which corresponds to the amount by which respondent could improve 
the fuel economy of vehicles in a given model or class through the 
application of a specified technology, averaged over all vehicles of 
that model or in that class which feasibly could use the technology. 
Projections of percent fuel economy improvement should be based on 
the assumption of maximum efforts by respondent to achieve the 
highest possible fuel economy increase through the application of 
the technology. The baseline for determination of percent fuel 
economy improvement is the level of technology and vehicle 
performance with respect to acceleration and gradeability for 
respondent's 2001 model year light trucks in the equivalent class.
    9. ``Percent production implementation rate'' means that 
percentage which corresponds to the maximum number of light trucks 
of a specified class, which could feasibly employ a given type of 
technology if respondent made maximum efforts to apply the 
technology by a specified model year.
    10. ``Production percentage'' means the percent of respondent's 
light trucks of a specified model projected to be manufactured in a 
specified model year.
    11. ``Project'' or ``projection'' refers to the best estimates 
made by respondent, whether or not based on less than certain 
information.
    12. ``Redesign'' means any change, or combination of changes, to 
a vehicle that would change its weight by 50 pounds or more or 
change its frontal area or aerodynamic drag coefficient by 2 percent 
or more.
    13. ``Relating to'' means constituting, defining, containing, 
explaining, embodying, reflecting, identifying, stating, referring 
to, dealing with, or in any way pertaining to.
    14. ``Respondent'' means each manufacturer (including all its 
divisions) providing answers to the questions set forth in this 
appendix, and its officers, employees, agents or servants.
    15. ``Test Weight'' is used as defined in 40 CFR 86.082-2.
    16. ``Transmission class'' is used as defined in 40 CFR 600.002-
05(22)(a). When identifying a transmission class, respondent also 
must indicate whether the type of transmission, and whether it is 
equipped with a lockup torque converter (LUTC), a split torque 
converter (STC), and/or a wide gear ratio range (WR) and specify the 
number of forward gears or whether the transmissions a continuously 
variable design (CVT). If the transmission is of a hybrid type, that 
should also be indicated.
    17. ``Truckline'' means the name assigned by the Environmental 
Protection Agency to a different group of vehicles within a make or 
car division in accordance with that agency's 1994 model year 
pickup, van (cargo vans and passenger vans are considered separate 
truck lines), and special purpose vehicle criteria.
    18. ``Utility vehicle'' means a form of light truck, either two-
wheel drive (4x2) or four-wheel drive (4x4), and is exemplified by a 
Jeep Wrangler or Cherokee, a Chevrolet Blazer, Ford Explorer, or a 
Toyota Land Cruiser.
    19. The term ``van'' is used as defined in 40 CFR 86.082-2.
    20. ``Variants of existing engines'' means versions of an 
existing basic engine that

[[Page 5776]]

differ from that engine in terms of displacement, method of 
aspiration, induction system or that weigh at least 25 pounds more 
or less than that engine.

II. Assumptions

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

III. Specifications

    1. Identify all light truck models currently offered for sale in 
MY 2001 whose production you project discontinuing before MY 2005 
and identify the last model year in which each will be offered.
    2. Identify all basic engines offered by respondent in MY 2001 
light trucks which respondent projects it will cease to offer for 
sale in light trucks before MY 2005, and identify the last model 
year in which each will be offered.
    3. Does the respondent currently project offering for sale for 
the time period of MY 2005-2010 any new or redesigned light trucks, 
including vehicles smaller than those now produced? If so, provide 
the following information for each model (e.g., Chevrolet C1500, 
Ford F150). Model types that are essentially identical except for 
their nameplates (e.g., Dodge Caravan/Plymouth Voyager) may be 
combined into one item. See Table A for a sample format; 4x2 and 4x4 
light trucks are different models.
    a. Body types to be offered for sale (e.g., regular cab, super 
cab).
    b. Description of basic engines, or power sources (i.e., fuel 
cell) including optional horsepower and torque ratings, if any; 
displacement; number and configuration of cylinders; type of fuel 
injection system; fuel type; number of valves per cylinder, and 
whether it is 2-cycle or 4-cycle or uses variable valve timing.
    c. Transmission type (manual, automatic, number of forward 
speeds, hybrid, overdrive, etc., as applicable), including gear 
ratios and final drive, alternative ratios offered, driveline 
configuration, and special features such as torque converter lockup 
clutches, electronic controls or CVT design.
    d. (i) The range of GVW ratings to be offered for each body 
type.
    (ii) The range of test weights for each body type.
    e. All wheelbases.
    f. Estimated power absorption unit (PAU) setting, in hp.
    g. The range of projected EPA composite fuel economies for each 
body type in the initial model year of production.
    h. Projected introduction date (model year).
    i. Projected sales for each model year from the projected year 
of introduction through MY 2010, expressed both as an absolute 
number of units sold and as percentage of all light trucks sold by 
respondent.
    j. Projections of:
    (i) Existing models replaced by new models.
    (ii) Reduced sales of respondent's existing models as a result 
of the sale of each of the new models.
    (iii) New sales not captured from any of the respondent's 
existing models.
    4. Does respondent project introducing any variants of existing 
basic engines or any new basic engines, other than those mentioned 
in your response to Question 3, in its light truck fleets in MYs 
2005-2010? If so, for each basic engine or variant indicate:
    a. The projected year of introduction,
    b. Type (e.g., spark ignition, direct injection diesel, 2-cycle, 
alternative fuel use),
    c. Displacement,
    d. Type of induction system (e.g., fuel injection with 
turbocharger, naturally aspirated),
    e. Cylinder configuration (e.g., V-8, V-6, 
I-4),
    f. Number of valves per cylinder (e.g., 2, 3, 4, 6),
    g. Horsepower and torque ratings,
    h. Models in which engines are to be used, giving the 
introduction model year for each model if different from ``a,'' 
above. (See Table B for a sample format.)
    5. Relative to MY 2001 levels, for MYs 2005-2010, please provide 
information, by truckline and as an average effect on a 
manufacturer's entire light truck fleet, on the weight and/or fuel 
economy impacts of the following standards or equipment:
    a. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS 208) Automatic 
Restraints
    b. FMVSS 201 Occupant Protection in Interior Impact
    c. Voluntary installation of safety equipment (e.g., antilock 
brakes)
    e. Environmental Protection Agency regulations
    f. California Air Resources Board requirements
    g. Other applicable motor vehicle regulations affecting fuel 
economy.
    6. For each of the model years 2005-2010, and for each light 
truck model projected to be manufactured by respondent (if answers 
differ for the various models), provide the requested information 
for each of items ``6a'' through ``6o'' listed below:
    (i) description of the nature of the technological improvement;
    (ii) the percent fuel economy improvement averaged over the 
model;
    (iii) the basis for your answer to 6(ii), (e.g., data from 
dynamometer tests conducted by respondent, engineering analysis, 
computer simulation, reports of test by others);
    (iv) the percent production implementation rate and the reasons 
limiting the implementation rate;
    (v) a description of the 2001 baseline technologies and the 2001 
implementation rate; and
    (vi) the reasons for differing answers you provide to items (ii) 
and (iv) for different models in each model year. Include as a part 
of your answer to 6(ii) and 6(iv) a tabular presentation, a sample 
portion of which is shown in Table C.
    a. Improved automatic transmissions. Projections of percent fuel 
economy improvements should include benefits of lock-up or bypassed 
torque converters, electronic control of shift points and torque 
converter lock-up, and other measures which should be described.
    b. Improved manual transmissions. Projections of percent of fuel 
economy improvement should include the benefits of increasing 
mechanical efficiency, using improved transmission lubricants, and 
other measures (specify).
    c. Overdrive transmissions. If not covered in ``a'' or ``b'' 
above, project the percentage of fuel economy improvement 
attributable to overdrive transmissions (integral or auxiliary gear 
boxes), two-speed axles, or other similar devices intended to 
increase the range of available gear ratios. Describe the devices to 
be used and the application by model, engine, axle ratio, etc.
    d. Use of engine crankcase lubricants of lower viscosity or with 
additives to improve friction characteristics or accelerate engine 
break-in, or otherwise improved lubricants to lower engine friction 
horsepower. When describing the 2001 baseline, specify the viscosity 
of and any fuel economy-improving additives used in the factory-fill 
lubricants.
    e. Reduction of engine parasitic losses through improvement of 
engine-driven accessories or accessory drives. Typical engine-driven 
accessories include water pump, cooling fan, alternator, power 
steering pump, air conditioning compressor, and vacuum pump.
    f. Reduction of tire rolling losses, through changes in 
inflation pressure, use of materials or constructions with less 
hysteresis, geometry changes (e.g., increased aspect ratio), 
reduction in sidewall and tread deflection, and other methods. When 
describing the 2001 baseline, include a description of the tire 
types used and the percent usage rate of each type.
    g. Reduction in other driveline losses, including losses in the 
non-powered wheels, the differential assembly, wheel bearings, 
universal joints, brake drag losses, use of improves lubricants in 
the differential and wheel bearing, and optimizing suspension 
geometry (e.g., to minimize tire scrubbing loss).
    h. Reduction of aerodynamic drag.
    i. Turbocharging or supercharging.
    j. Improvements in the efficiency of 4-cycle spark ignition 
engines including (1) increased compression ratio; (2) leaner air-
to-fuel ratio; (3) revised combustion chamber configuration; (4) 
fuel injection; (5) electronic fuel metering; (6) interactive 
electronic control of engine operating parameters (spark advance, 
exhaust gas recirculation, air-to-fuel ratio); (8) variable valve 
timing or valve lift; (9) multiple valves per cylinder; (10) 
friction reduction by means such as low tension piston rings and 
roller cam followers; (11) higher temperature operation; and (12) 
other methods (specify).
    k. Naturally aspirated diesel engines, with direct or indirect 
fuel injection.
    l. Turbocharged or supercharged diesel engines with direct or 
indirect fuel injection.
    m. Stratified-charge reciprocating or rotary engines, with 
direct or indirect fuel injection.
    n. Two cycle spark ignition engines.
    o. Use of hybrid drivetrains
    p. Use of fuel cells; provide a thorough description of the fuel 
cell technology employed, including fuel type and power output.
    q. Other technologies for improving fuel economy or efficiency.
    7. For each model of respondent's light truck fleet projected to 
be manufactured in

[[Page 5777]]

each of MYs 2005-2010, describe the methods used to achieve 
reductions in average test weight. For each specified model year and 
model, describe the extent to which each of the following methods 
for reducing vehicle weight will be used. Separate listings are to 
be used for 4x2 light trucks and 4x4 light trucks.
    a. Substitution of materials.
    b. ``Downsizing'' of existing vehicle design to reduce weight 
while maintaining interior roominess and comfort for passengers, and 
utility, i.e., the same or approximately the same, payload and cargo 
volume, using the same basic body configuration and driveline layout 
as current counterparts.
    c. Use of new vehicle body configuration concepts, which 
provides reduced weight for approximately the same payload and cargo 
volume.
    8. For each model year 2005-2010, list all projected light truck 
model types and provide the information specified in ``a'' through 
``k'' below for each model type.
    The information should be in tabular form, with a separate table 
for each model year. Each grouping is to be subdivided into separate 
listings for models with 4x2 and 4x4 drive systems. Engines having 
the same displacement but belonging to different engine families are 
to be grouped separately.
    The vehicles are to be sorted first by truckline, second by 
basic engine, and third by transmission type. For these groupings, 
the average test weights are to be placed in ascending order. List 
the categories in terms ``a'' through ``k'' below in the order 
specified from left to right across the top of the table. Include in 
the table for each model year the total sales-weighted harmonic 
average fuel economy and average test weight for imported and 
domestic light trucks for each truckline and for all of the 
respondent's light trucks.
    a. Truckline, e.g., C1500, F-150, B-150. Model types that are 
essentially identical except for their nameplates (e.g., Chevrolet 
S-10/GMC S-15 and Dodge Caravan/Plymouth Voyager) may be combined 
into one line item.
    b. Light truck vehicle type, e.g., compact pickup, cargo van, 
passenger van, utility, truck-based station wagon, and chassis cab. 
Other light truck designations, which are adequately defined, can be 
used if these are not suitable.
    c. Basic engine: Include the engine characteristics used in 
Definition 3.
    d. Transmission class (e.g., A3, L4, A40D, M5, CVT): Include the 
characteristics used in Definition 16.
    e. Average ratio of engine speed to vehicle speed in top gear 
(N/V), rounded to one decimal place.
    f. Average test weight.
    g. Average PAU setting: Provide the value and show whether the 
value (or estimated value) is based on coastdown testing (T) or 
calculated from the vehicle frontal area (C). Round the PAU value to 
one decimal Place.
    h. Composite fuel economy (Sales weighted, harmonically averaged 
over the specified vehicles, rounded to the nearest 0.1 mpg).
    i. Projected sales for the vehicles described in each line item.
    9. For each transmission identified in response to 8(d) above, 
provide a listing showing whether the transmission is manual or 
automatic, the gear ratios for the transmission, and the models that 
will use the transmission.
    10. Indicate any MY 2005-2010 light truck model types that have 
higher average test weights than comparable MY 2001 model types. 
Describe the reasons for any weight increases (e.g., increased 
option content, less use of premium materials) and provide 
supporting justification.
    11. For each new or redesigned vehicle identified in response to 
Question 3 and each new engine or fuel economy improvement 
identified in your response to Questions 3, 5, and 6, provide your 
best estimate of the following, in terms of constant 1996 dollars:
    (a) Total capital costs required to implement the new/redesigned 
model or improvement according to the implementation schedules 
specified in your response. Subdivide the capital costs into 
tooling, facilities, launch, and engineering costs.
    (b) The maximum production capacity, expressed in units of 
capacity per year, associated with the capital expenditure in (a) 
above. Specify the number of production shifts on which your 
response is based and define ``maximum capacity'' as used in your 
answer.
    (c) The actual capacity that is planned to be used each year for 
each new/redesigned model or fuel economy improvement.
    (d) The increase in variable costs per affected unit, based on 
the production volume specified in (b) above.
    (e) The equivalent retail price increase per affected vehicle 
for each new/redesigned model or improvement. Provide an example 
describing methodology used to determine the equivalent retail price 
increase.
    12. Please provide respondent's actual and projected U.S. light 
truck sales, 4x2 and 4x4, 0-8,500 lbs. GVWR and 8501-10,000 lbs., 
GVWR for each model year from 1996 through 2002, inclusive. Please 
subdivide the data into the following vehicle categories:
    i. Standard Pickup Heavy (e.g., C2500/3500, F-250/350, Ram 2500/
3500)
    ii. Standard Pickup Light (e.g., C1500, 
F-150, Ram 1500)
    iii. Compact Pickup (e.g., S-10, Ranger, Dakota)
    iv. Standard Cargo Vans Heavy (e.g., G3500, E-250/350, B3500)
    v. Standard Cargo Vans Light (e.g., G1500/2500, E-150, B1500/
2500)
    vi. Standard Passenger Vans Heavy (e.g., G3500, E-250/350, 
B3500)
    vii. Standard Passenger Vans Light (e.g., G1500/2500, E-150, 
B1500/2500)
    viii. Compact Cargo Vans (e.g., Astro, Aerostar, Mini Ram Van)
    ix. Compact Passenger Vans (e.g., Astro, Villager, Voyager)
    x. Standard Utilities (e.g., K1500 Tahoe, Expedition)
    xi. Compact Utilities (e.g., Blazer, Explorer, Wrangler, RAV4)
    xii. Other (e.g., Suburban)
    See Table D for a sample format.
    13. Please provide your estimates of projected total industry 
U.S. light (0-10,000 lbs, GVWR) truck sales for each model year from 
2005 through 2010, inclusive. Please subdivide the data into 4x2 and 
4x4 sales and into the vehicle categories listed in the sample 
format in Table E.
    14. Please provide your company's assumptions for U.S. gasoline 
and diesel fuel prices during 2005 through 2010.
    15. Please provide projected production capacity available for 
the North American market (at standard production rates) for each of 
your company's light truckline designations during MYs 2005-2010.
    16. Please provide your estimate of production lead time for new 
models, your expected model life in years, and the number of years 
over which tooling costs are amortized.

    Note: The parenthetical numbers in Tables A through E refer to 
the items in section III, specifications.


                                               Table A--New Models
              [Model: A-1 Standard Pickup; Drivetrain Configuration: 4x2, Front Engine/Rear Drive]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 No. of       Cargo                      PAU
                Body type  (3a.)                  Passenger     seating      volume,     Wheelbase,    setting,
                                                 volume  ft3   positions       ft3       in.  (3e.)    hp (3f.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regular cab, short bed.........................           50            3           48          115          7.5
Regular cab, long bed..........................           50            3           64          133          7.8
Extended cab, long bed.........................           75            4           64          151          8.2
Crew cab, long bed.............................          100            6           64          170          9.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 5778]]


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Config./
                    Engine options  (3b.)                      number of       Fuel       HP @ RPM     Torque @
                                                                  cyl.        system                     RPM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
160 CID, Turbocharged \1\...................................          I-4          MPI   140 @ 4200    90 @ 3400
235 CID.....................................................          V-6          TBI   150 @ 3800    125 @2800
235 CID, 4-valve \2\........................................          V-6          MPI   180 @ 4500   130 @ 3200
285 CID.....................................................          V-8          MPI   200 @ 4200   150 @ 3000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Not available with crew cab.
\2\ Available with automatic transmission only.


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


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


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Production       Share of
                 Model year                       (3i)       fleet, %  (3i)             Notes (3h, 3j)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001.......................................          36,000               5  Mid-year introduction, North
                                                                              American production
2002.......................................          78,000              10  ...................................
2004.......................................         110,000              13  Extended cab introduced
2005.......................................         120,000              14  Facelift
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   New models
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Additional
         Model year  (3j.)                New model          Model  replaced or    Sales derived       sales
                                         designation             augmented        from old model    anticipated
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002..............................  A-Std Pickup.........  T-Std Pickup.........          20,000          10,000
2003..............................  A-Std Pickup.........  T-Std Pickup.........          50,000          30,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                                  Table B--New Engines
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 New/Redesigned engines
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Displace-                                                     Valves  per     Horse-      Torque,
Year of  introduction  by model  (4a./ Type  (4b.)   ment,  L.   Induction  system  (4d.)      Config- uration       cylinder     power  @   lb-ft @ rpm
                 h.)                                   (4c.)                                        (4e.)             (4f.)      rpm (4g.)      (4g.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002--Std Pickups....................     2-cycle,         4.42  Turbo-charged, Direct     W-9                               3     250@4000   190 @ 3500
                                            Diesel                injection.
2004--StdVans
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 5779]]


                                        Table C--Technology Improvements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Percent fuel                       Percent production share
   Technological improvement         economy    ----------------------------------------------------------------
                                 improvement, %      2002         2003         2004         2005         2006
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(6a) Improved Auto Trans.
    LT-1.......................             7.0            0            0           15           25           55
    LT-2.......................             6.5            0            0            0           20           25
    LT-3.......................             5.0            0           10           30           60           60
(6b) Improved Manual Trans.
    LV-1.......................             1.0            2            5            5            5            5
    U-1........................             0.7            0            0            0            8           10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                 Table D--Actual and Projected U.S. Sales (12.)
                             [Amalgamated Motors 2WD Light Truck Sales Projections]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Model Year
            Model Line             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        2001         2002         2003         2004         2005         etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0-8,500 lbs.GVWR
    Std Pickup Heavy..............       43,500  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
    Std Pickup Light..............      509,340  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
    Compact Pickup................      120,000  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
    Std Cargo Van Heavy...........       60,000  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
    Std Cargo Van Light...........       20,000  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
    Compact Cargo Van.............       29,310  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
    Std Passenger Van Heavy.......       54,196  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
    Std Passenger Van Light.......       38,900  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
    Compact Passenger Van.........       30,000  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
    Std Utility...................       53,800  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
    Compact Utility...............       44,000  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
    Other (Specify)...............  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
8,501-10,000 Lbs.GVWR               ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
    Std Pickup Heavy..............        5,500  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
    Std Vans Heavy................        4,000  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
    Other (Specify)...............  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
        Total.....................    1,012,546  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                          Table E--Total U.S. Truck Sales (13.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Model type                              2001            2002            2003            2004            2005            etc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 2WD Light Trucks                                       ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
    a. Pickup                                             ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
        Compact                                           ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
        Mid-size                                          ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
        Standard                                          ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
    b. Cargo Vans                                         ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
        Compact                                           ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
        Standard                                          ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
    c. Passenger Vans                                     ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
        Compact                                           ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
        Standard                                          ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
    d. Utilities                                          ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
        Compact                                           ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
        Standard                                          ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
        Pass. Car Based                                   ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
    e. Truck Based Station Wagons                         ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
    f. Other (Specify)                                    ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
2. 4WD Light Trucks [Same Breakout as 2WD]                ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
3. Total Light Trucks [2WD + 4WD]                         ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 02-2874 Filed 2-1-02; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P