[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 64 (Friday, April 3, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16617-16628]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-8410]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Automotive Fuel Economy Program; Report to Congress
The attached document Automotive Fuel Economy Program, Twenty-
Second Annual Report to Congress, was prepared pursuant to 49 U.S.C.
32916 et seq. which requires that ``the Secretary shall transmit to
each House of Congress, and publish in the Federal Register, a review
of the average fuel economy standards under this part.''
Issued on: March 26, 1998.
L. Robert Shelton,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
Automotive Fuel Economy Program
Twenty-Second Annual Report to Congress
Calendar Year 1997
This publication is distributed by the United States Department
of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
in the interest of information exchange. The opinions, findings, and
conclusions expressed in this publication are those of the author(s)
and not necessarily those of the Department of Transportation or the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The United States
Government assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof. If
trade or manufacturers' name or products are mentioned, it is
because they are considered essential to the object of the
publication and should not be construed as an endorsement. The
United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers.
Table of Contents
Section I: Introduction
Section II: Fuel Economy Improvement by Manufacturers
A. Fuel Economy Performance by Manufacturer
B. Characteristics of the MY 1997 Passenger Car Fleet
C. Characteristics of the MY 1997 Light Truck Fleet
D. Passenger Car and Light Truck Fleet Economy Averages
E. Domestic and Import Fleet Fuel Economy Averages
Section III: 1997 Activities
A. Light Truck CAFE Standards
B. Low Volume Petitions
C. Enforcement
D. Carryback Plans
E. Contract Activities
Section I: Introduction
The Twenty-second Annual Report to Congress on the Automotive Fuel
Economy Program summarizes the activities of the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) during 1997, in accordance with
49 U.S.C. 32916 et seq., which requires the submission of a report each
year. Included in this report is a section summarizing rulemaking
activities during 1997.
The Secretary of Transportation is required to administer a program
for regulating the fuel economy of new passenger cars and light trucks
in the
[[Page 16618]]
United States market. The authority to administer the program was
delegated by the Secretary to the Administrator of NHTSA, 49 CFR
1.50(f).
NHTSA's responsibilities in the fuel economy area include:
(1) Establishing and amending average fuel economy standards for
manufacturers of passenger cars and light trucks, as necessary;
(2) Promulgating regulations concerning procedures, definitions,
and reports necessary to support the fuel economy standards;
(3) Considering petitions for exemption from established fuel
economy standards by low volume manufacturers (those producing fewer
than 10,000 passenger cars annually worldwide) and establishing
alternative standards for them;
(4) Preparing reports to Congress annually on the fuel economy
program;
(5) Enforcing fuel economy standards and regulations; and
(6) Responding to petitions concerning domestic production by
foreign manufacturers, and other matters.
Passenger car fuel economy standards were established by Congress
for Model Year (MY) 1985 and thereafter at a level of 27.5 miles per
gallon (mpg). NHTSA is authorized to amend the standard above or below
that level. Standards for light trucks were established by NHTSA for
MYs 1979 through 1999. NHTSA set a combined standard of 20.7 mpg for
light truck fleets for MY 1999. All current standards are listed in
Table I-1.
Table I-1.--Fuel Economy Standards for Passenger Cars and Light Trucks
[Model Years 1978 through 1999 (in MPG)]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Light trucks \1\
------------------------------------------------
Model year Passenger cars Two-wheel Four-wheel
drive drive Combined \2\,
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\3\------
1978........................................... \4\ 18.0 .............. .............. ...............
1979........................................... \4\ 19.0 17.2 15.8 ...............
1980........................................... \4\ 20.0 16.0 14.0 (\5\)
1981........................................... 22.0 \6\ 16.7 15.0 (\5\)
1982........................................... 24.0 18.0 16.0 17.5
1983........................................... 26.0 19.5 17.5 19.0
1984........................................... 27.0 20.3 18.5 20.0
1985........................................... \4\ 27.5 \7\ 19.7 \7\ 18.9 \7\ 19.5
1986........................................... \8\ 26.0 20.5 19.5 20.0
1987........................................... \9\ 26.0 21.0 19.5 20.5
1988........................................... \9\ 26.0 21.0 19.5 20.5
1989........................................... \10\ 26.5 21.5 19.0 20.5
1990........................................... \4\ 27.5 20.5 19.0 20.0
1991........................................... \4\ 27.5 20.7 19.1 20.2
1992........................................... \4\ 27.5 .............. .............. 20.2
1993........................................... \4\ 27.5 .............. .............. 20.4
1994........................................... \4\ 27.5 .............. .............. 20.5
1995........................................... \4\ 27.5 .............. .............. 20.6
1996........................................... \4\ 27.5 .............. .............. 20.7
1997........................................... \4\ 27.5 .............. .............. 20.7
1998........................................... \4\ 27.5 .............. .............. 20.7
1999........................................... \4\ 27.5 .............. .............. 20.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Standards for MY 1979 light trucks were established for vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR)
of 6,000 pounds or less. Standards for MY 1980 and beyond are for light trucks with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or
less.
\2\ For MY 1979, light truck manufacturers could comply separately with standards for four-wheel drive, general
utility vehicles and all other light trucks, or combine their trucks into a single fleet and comply with the
standard of 17.2 mpg.
\3\ For MYs 1982-1991, manufacturers could comply with the two-wheel and four-wheel drive standards or could
combine all light trucks and comply with the combined standard.
\4\ Established by Congress in Title V of the Act.
\5\ A manufacturer whose light truck fleet was powered exclusively by basic engines which were not also used in
passenger cars could meet standards of 14 mpg and 14.5 mpg in MYs 1980 and 1981, respectively.
\6\ Revised in June 1979 from 18.0 mpg.
\7\ Revised in October 1984 from 21.6 mpg for two-wheel drive, 19.0 mpg for four-wheel drive, and 21.0 mpg for
combined.
\8\ Revised in October 1985 from 27.5 mpg.
\9\Revised in October 1986 from 27.5 mpg.
\10\ Revised in September 1988 from 27.5 mpg.
Section II: Fuel Economy Improvement By Manufacturers
A. Fuel Economy Performance by Manufacturer
The fuel economy achievements for domestic and foreign-based
manufacturers in MY 1996 were updated to consider final production
figures, where available, since the publication of the Twenty-first
Annual Report to the Congress. These fuel economy achievements and
current projected data for MY 1997 are listed in Tables II-1 and II-2.
Overall fleet fuel economy for passenger cars was 28.6 mpg in MY
1997, a decrease of 0.1 mpg from the MY 1996 level. For MY 1997,
Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) values increased above MY 1996
levels for ten of 24 passenger car manufacturers' fleets. (See Table
II-1.) These ten companies accounted for more than 39 percent of the
total MY 1997 production. Manufacturers continued to introduce new
technologies and more fuel-efficient models, and some larger, less
fuel-efficient models. For MY 1997, the overall domestic manufacturers'
fleet average fuel economy was 27.9 mpg. For MY 1997, Ford, Mazda, and
Toyota domestic passenger car CAFE values rose 0.3 mpg, 0.5 mpg, and
0.5 mpg from their 1996 levels, while Chrysler, General Motors, and
Honda
[[Page 16619]]
fell 0.1 mpg, 0.1 mpg, and 3.3 mpg, respectively, from their MY 1996
levels. Overall, the domestic manufacturers' combined CAFE decreased
0.4 mpg below MY 1996 level.
Table II-1.--Passenger Car Fuel Economy Performance By Manufacturer*
[Model years 1996 and 1997]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model Year CAFE
(MPG)
Manufacturer -------------------
1996 1997
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Domestic:
Chrysler.......................................... 27.6 27.5
Ford.............................................. 26.8 27.1
General Motors.................................... 28.3 28.2
Honda............................................. 33.2 29.9
Mazda............................................. 29.8 30.3
Toyota............................................ 28.3 28.8
Sales Weighted Average (Domestic)................... 28.3 27.9
Import:
BMW............................................... 27.3 25.7
Chrysler Imports.................................. 28.2 26.4
Fiat.............................................. 13.8 13.5
Ford Imports...................................... 31.5 30.9
GM Imports........................................ 35.8 31.3
Honda............................................. 27.8 34.4
Hyundai........................................... 32.9 30.9
Kia............................................... 29.0 30.6
Mazda............................................. 32.7 31.3
Mercedes-Benz..................................... 25.1 24.9
Mitsubishi........................................ 29.9 30.0
Nissan............................................ 30.4 29.9
Porsche........................................... 21.5 22.0
Subaru............................................ 27.7 28.0
Suzuki............................................ 34.0 33.9
Toyota............................................ 29.8 30.2
Volvo............................................. 26.1 25.8
Volkswagen........................................ 28.2 28.6
Sales Weighted Average (Import)..................... 29.7 29.8
Total Fleet Average............................. 28.7 26.6
Fuel Economy Standards.......................... 27.5 27.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Manufacturers with low volume alternate fuel economy standards are not
listed
Table II-2.--Light Truck Fuel Economy Performance by Manufacturer
[Model Years 1996 and 1997]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model year CAFE
(MPG) Combined
Manufacturer -------------------
1996 1997
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Domestic:
Chrysler.......................................... 20.3 20.2
Ford.............................................. 20.6 20.0
General Motors.................................... 20.7 20.2
Sales Weighted Average (Domestic)................... 20.5 20.1
Import:
Honda............................................. (*) 27.1
Isuzu............................................. 19.5 19.4
Kia............................................... 23.4 23.8
Land Rover........................................ 17.2 17.2
Mazda............................................. 21.2 20.5
Mitsubishi........................................ 19.1 22.3
Nissan............................................ 23.0 22.1
Suzuki............................................ 27.5 27.4
Toyota............................................ 23.2 22.6
Volkswagen........................................ (*) 18.5
Sales Weighted Average (Import)..................... 22.1 22.1
Total Fleet Average............................. 20.7 20.4
Fuel Economy Standards.......................... 20.7 20.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Honda and Volkswagen did not produce light trucks for MY 1996.
In MY 1997, the fleet average fuel economy for import passenger
cars increased by 0.1 mpg from the MY 1996 CAFE level to 29.8 mpg.
Seven of the 18 import car manufacturers increased their CAFE values
between MYs 1996 and 1997. Figure II-1 illustrates the changes in total
new passenger car fleet CAFE from MY 1978 to MY 1997.
The total light truck fleet CAFE decreased 0.3 mpg below the MY
1996 CAFE level of 20.7 mpg (see Table II-2). Figure II-2 illustrates
the trends in total light truck fleet CAFE from MY 1979 to MY 1997.
Several passenger car and light truck manufacturers are projected
to fail to achieve the levels of the MY 1997 CAFE standards. However,
NHTSA is not yet able to determine which of these manufacturers may be
liable for civil penalties for non-compliance. Some MY 1997 CAFE values
may change when final figures are provided to NHTSA by EPA, in mid-
1998. In addition, several manufacturers are not expected to pay civil
penalties because the credits they earned by exceeding the fuel economy
standards in earlier years offset later shortfalls. Other manufacturers
may file carryback plans to demonstrate that they anticipate earning
credits in future model years to offset current deficits.
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
[[Page 16620]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN03AP98.042
[[Page 16621]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN03AP98.043
BILLING CODE 5000-04-C
[[Page 16622]]
B. Characteristics of the MY 1997 Passenger Car Fleet
The characteristics of the MY 1997 passenger car fleet reflect a
continuing trend toward satisfying consumer demand for higher
performance cars. (See Table II-3.) From MY 1996 to MY 1997,
horsepower/100 pounds, a measure of vehicle performance, increased from
5.00 to 5.02 for domestic passenger cars and from 4.76 to 4.82 for
import passenger cars. The total fleet average for passenger cars
increased from 4.93 horsepower/100 pounds in MY 1996 to 4.95 in MY
1997. Compared with MY 1996, the average curb weight for MY 1997
increased by 32 pounds for the domestic fleet and 39 pounds for the
import fleet. The total new passenger car fleet average weight
increased from 3,049 pounds in MY 1996 to 3,071 pounds in MY 1997.
Average engine displacement increased from 178 to 180 cubic inches for
domestic passenger cars and from 134 to 135 cubic inches for import
passenger cars, from MY 1996 to MY 1997.
The 0.4 mpg fuel economy decline for the MY 1997 domestic passenger
car fleet may be attributed in part to an increase in average weight,
mix shifts, and an increase in the use of automatic transmissions.
The size/class breakdown shows an increased trend primarily toward
subcompact and mid-size passenger cars with the reduction of compact
passenger cars for the overall fleet. The size/class mix in the
domestic fleet shifted from compact passenger cars to subcompact, mid-
size, and large passenger cars. The size/class mix in the import fleet
shifted from compact and mid-size passenger cars to two-seater,
minicompact, subcompact, and large passenger cars. The import share of
the passenger car market increased by 6.4 percentage points in MY 1997.
Table II-3.--Passenger Car Fleet Characteristics For MYs 1996 and 1997
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total fleet Domestic fleet Import fleet
Characteristics -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996 1997 1996 1997 1996 1997
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fleet Average Fuel Economy,
mpg........................ 28.7 28.6 28.3 27.9 29.7 29.8
Fleet Average Curb Weight,
lbs........................ 3049 3071 3111 3143 2905 2944
Fleet Average Engine
Displacement, cu. in....... 165 164 178 180 134 135
Fleet Average Horsepower/
Weight ratio, HP/100 lbs...
.......................... 4.93 4.95 5.00 5.02 4.76 4.82
Percent of Fleet............ 100 100 70.0 63.6 30.0 36.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Segmentation by EPA Size Class, %
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two-Seater.................. 0.9 1.0 0.5 0.3 2.0 2.3
Minicompact................. 0.4 0.6 0.0 0.0 1.5 1.6
Subcompact *................ 11.0 17.6 6.4 7.2 21.6 35.9
Compact *................... 44.7 37.4 44.7 39.3 44.5 33.9
Mid-Size *.................. 29.6 30.3 29.7 33.3 29.5 25.2
Large *..................... 13.4 13.1 18.7 19.9 0.9 1.2
Diesel Engines.............. 0.10 0.08 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.2
Turbo or Supercharged
Engines.................... 1.1 1.5 0.5 1.3 2.3 1.8
Fuel Injection.............. 100 100 100 100 100 100
Front-Wheel Drive........... 86.0 85.8 86.9 87.8 84.1 82.2
Automatic Transmissions..... 84.7 86.1 88.5 91.4 76.1 77.0
Automatic Transmissions with
Lockup Clutches............ 97.9 97.7 100 100 92.1 93.1
Automatic Transmissions with
Four or more Forward Speeds 88.8 92.1 89.0 90.6 88.1 95.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Includes associated station wagons.
The domestic fleet rose above its MY 1996 level in the share of
turbocharged and supercharged engines, while there was a reduction in
such engines in the import fleet. Diesel engine shares decreased
slightly in MY 1997, and diesels were offered by two manufacturers,
Mercedes-Benz and Volkswagen.
Passenger car fleet average characteristics have changed
significantly since MY 1978 (the first year of fuel economy standards).
(See Table II-4.) After substantial initial weight loss (from MY 1978
to MY 1982, the average passenger car fleet curb weight decreased from
3,349 to 2,808 pounds), the curb weight has increased in 9 of the past
10 model years, reaching 3,071 lbs in MY 1997. This is the highest
value of any year since MY 1979. Table II-4 shows that the MY 1997
passenger car fleet has nearly equal interior volume and higher
performance, but with more than 43 percent better fuel economy, than
the MY 1978 fleet. (See Figure II-3.)
C. Characteristics of the MY 1997 Light Truck Fleet
The characteristics of the MY 1997 light truck fleet are shown in
Table II-5. Light truck manufacturers are not required to divide their
fleets into domestic and import fleets based on the 75-percent domestic
content threshold used for passenger car fleets. The light truck fleet
is categorized according to two-wheel drive or four-wheel drive.
[[Page 16623]]
Table II-4.--New Passenger Car Fleet Average Characteristics
[Model Year 1978-1997]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuel Interior Horsepower/
Model years economy Curb weight space (cu. Engine size weight (hp/
(mpg) (lb.) ft.) (cu. in.) 100 lb.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1978........................................... 19.9 3349 112 260 3.68
1979........................................... 20.3 3180 110 238 3.72
1980........................................... 24.3 2867 105 187 3.51
1981........................................... 25.9 2883 108 182 3.43
1982........................................... 26.6 2808 107 173 3.47
1983........................................... 26.4 2908 109 182 3.57
1984........................................... 26.9 2878 108 178 3.66
1985........................................... 27.6 2867 108 177 3.84
1986........................................... 28.2 2821 106 169 3.89
1987........................................... 28.5 2805 109 162 3.98
1988........................................... 28.8 2831 108 161 4.11
1989........................................... 28.4 2879 109 163 4.28
1990........................................... 28.0 2906 108 163 4.53
1991........................................... 28.4 2934 108 164 4.42
1992........................................... 27.9 3007 108 169 4.56
1993........................................... 28.4 2971 109 164 4.62
1994........................................... 28.3 3011 109 169 4.79
1995........................................... 28.6 3047 109 166 4.87
1996........................................... 28.7 3049 109 165 4.93
1997........................................... 28.6 3071 109 164 4.95
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
[[Page 16624]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN03AP98.044
BILLING CODE 4910-59-C
[[Page 16625]]
Table II-5.--Light Truck Fleet Characteristics for MYS 1996 and 1997
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total fleet Two-wheel drive Four-wheel drive
Characteristics -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996 1997 1996 1997 1996 1997
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fleet Average Fuel Economy,
mpg........................ 20.7 20.4 21.9 21.7 19.3 19.0
Fleet Average Equivalent
Test Weight, lbs........... 4351 4471 4195 4283 4602 4703
Fleet Average Engine
Displacement, cu. in....... 244 249 230 235 266 266
Fleet Average Horsepower/
Weight ratio, HP/100 lbs... 4.07 4.20 3.99 4.18 4.20 4.23
Percent of Fleet............ 100 100 61.7 55.3 38.3 44.7
Percent of Fleet from
Foreign-based Manufacturers 12.1 14.2 8.7 9.6 17.7 19.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Segmentation by Type, %
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Passenger Van............... 22.6 16.4 35.4 28.1 1.3 1.9
Cargo Van................... 3.8 3.9 6.0 6.9 0.2 0.3
Small Pickup:
Two-Wheel Drive......... 7.2 6.0 11.7 10.8 ............ ............
Four-Wheel Drive........ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............
Large Pickup:
Two-Wheel Drive......... 19.2 20.8 31.5 37.6 ............ ............
Four-Wheel Drive........ 10.9 14.8 ............ ............ 28.5 33.1
Special Purpose:
Two-Wheel Drive......... 9.4 9.2 15.3 16.6 ............ ............
Four-Wheel Drive........ 26.8 28.9 ............ ............ 70.0 64.7
Diesel Engines.............. 0.07 0.03 0.04 0.01 0.12 0.04
Turbo/Supercharged Engines.. 0.07 0.11 0.04 0.13 0.12 0.10
Fuel Injection.............. 100 100 100 100 100 100
Automatic Transmissions..... 84.2 85.1 81.9 83.1 87.9 87.7
Automatic Transmissions with
Lockup Clutches............ 98.9 99.5 98.1 99.1 100 100
Automatic Transmission with
Four or More Forward Speeds 93.8 95.1 89.7 92.2 99.4 98.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The MY 1997 average test weight of the total light truck fleet
increased by 120 pounds over that for MY 1996. The average fuel economy
of the fleet decreased by 0.3 mpg to 20.4 mpg. Diesel engine usage
decreased in light trucks to 0.03 percent in MY 1997 from 0.07 percent
in MY 1996. The four-wheel drive share of the MY 1997 fleet increased
by 6.4 percentage points over that for the MY 1996 level of 38.3
percent.
CAFE levels for light trucks in the 0-8,500 pounds gross vehicle
weight (GVW) class increased from 18.5 mpg in MY 1980 to 21.7 mpg in MY
1987, before declining to 20.4 mpg in MY 1997, influenced by an
increase in average weight, engine size, and performance. Light truck
production increased from 1.9 million in MY 1980 to 6.1 million in MY
1997. Light trucks comprised 43 percent of the total light duty vehicle
fleet production in MY 1997, 2.5 times the share in MY 1980.
D. Passenger Car and Light Truck Fleet Economy Averages
Figure II-4 illustrates an increase in the light duty fleet
(combined passenger cars and light trucks) average fuel economy through
MY 1987, followed by a gradual decline. (See also Table II-6.)
Passenger car average fuel economy remained relatively constant for MYs
1987-1997. The overall decline in fuel economy illustrates the growing
influence of light trucks and their significant impact on the light
duty fleet.
Both passenger car and light truck fleet fuel economies decreased
from MY 1996 to MY 1997 by 0.1 mpg and 0.3 mpg, respectively,
contributing to the decline of the total fleet fuel economy for MY 1997
to 24.4 mpg. The shift to light trucks for general transportation is an
important trend in consumers' preference and has a significant fleet
fuel consumption effect.
E. Domestic and Import Fleet Fuel Economy Averages
Domestic and import passenger car fleet average fuel economies have
improved since MY 1978, although the increase is far more dramatic for
the domestic fleet. In MY 1997, the domestic passenger car fleet
average fuel economy decreased from the MY 1996 level to 27.9 mpg.
Import passenger car fleet average fuel economy increased slightly from
MY 1996 to 29.8 mpg. Compared with MY 1978, this reflects an increase
of 9.2 mpg for domestic cars and 2.5 mpg for import cars.
Since MY 1980, the total light truck fleet average fuel economy and
the average for domestic light truck manufacturers have improved
overall, but both have remained below the fuel economy level for the
import light truck fleet. The import light truck average fuel economy
has decreased significantly since its highest level of 27.4 mpg for MY
1981 to 22.1 mpg for MY 1997. For MY 1997, the domestic light truck
fleet has an average fuel economy level of 20.1 mpg, which is 2.0 mpg
lower than the import light truck fleet. For MY 1997, the import light
truck fleet fuel economy remains at the MY 1996 level of 22.1 mpg. The
domestic manufacturers continued to dominate the light truck market,
comprising 85 percent of the total light truck fleet.
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
[[Page 16626]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN03AP98.045
BILLING CODE 4910-59-C
[[Page 16627]]
Table II-6.--Domestic and Import Passenger Car and Light Truck Fuel Economy Averages for Model Years 1978-1997
(In mpg)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Domestic Import Light
------------------------------------------------------------------ truck
Model year All cars All light Total share of
Car Light Combined Car LIght Combined trucks fleet fleet
truck truck* (percent)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1978...................................... 18.7 ......... ......... 27.3 ......... ......... 19.9 ......... ......... .........
1979...................................... 19.3 17.7 19.1 26.1 20.8 25.5 20.3 18.2 20.1 9.8
1980...................................... 22.6 16.8 21.4 29.6 24.3 28.6 24.3 18.5 23.1 16.7
1981...................................... 24.2 18.3 22.9 31.5 27.4 30.7 25.9 20.1 24.6 17.6
1982...................................... 25.0 19.2 23.5 31.1 27.0 30.4 26.6 20.5 25.1 20.1
1983...................................... 24.4 19.6 23.0 32.4 27.1 31.5 26.4 20.7 24.8 22.5
1984...................................... 25.5 19.3 23.6 32.0 26.7 30.6 26.9 20.6 25.0 24.4
1985...................................... 26.3 19.6 24.0 31.5 26.5 30.3 27.6 20.7 25.4 25.9
1986...................................... 26.9 20.0 24.4 31.6 25.9 29.8 28.2 21.5 25.9 28.6
1987...................................... 27.0 20.5 24.6 31.2 25.2 29.6 28.5 21.7 26.2 28.1
1988...................................... 27.4 20.6 24.5 31.5 24.6 30.0 28.8 21.3 26.0 30.1
1989...................................... 27.2 20.4 24.2 30.8 23.5 29.2 28.4 20.9 25.6 30.8
1990...................................... 26.9 20.3 23.9 29.9 23.0 28.5 28.0 20.8 25.4 30.1
1991...................................... 27.3 20.9 24.4 30.1 23.0 28.4 28.4 21.3 25.6 32.2
1992...................................... 27.0 20.5 23.8 29.2 22.7 27.9 27.9 20.8 25.1 32.9
1993...................................... 27.8 20.7 24.2 29.6 22.8 28.1 28.4 21.0 25.2 37.4
1994...................................... 27.5 20.5 23.5 29.6 22.0 27.7 28.3 20.7 24.7 40.2
1995...................................... 27.7 20.3 23.8 30.3 21.5 27.9 28.6 20.5 24.9 37.4
1996...................................... 28.3 20.5 24.1 29.7 22.1 27.7 28.7 20.8 24.9 39.4
1997...................................... 27.9 20.1 23.4 29.8 22.1 27.5 28.6 20.4 24.4 42.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Light trucks from foreign-based manufacturers.
The disparity between the average CAFEs of the import and domestic
manufacturers has declined in recent years as domestic manufacturers
have maintained relatively stable CAFE values while the import
manufacturers moved to larger vehicles, and more four-wheel drive light
trucks, thus lowering their CAFE values.
Section III: 1997 Activities
A. Light Truck CAFE Standards
On April 3, 1997, NHTSA published a final rule establishing a
combined standard of 20.7 mpg for light trucks for MY 1999. The
Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act
for Fiscal Year 1997, Pub. L. 104-205, precludes the agency from
setting the MY 1999 standard at a level other than the level for MY
1998.
B. Low Volume Petitions
49 U.S.C. 32902(d) provides that a low volume manufacturer of
passenger cars may be exempted from the generally applicable passenger
car fuel economy standards if these standards are more stringent than
the maximum feasible average fuel economy for that manufacturer and if
NHTSA establishes an alternative standard for that manufacturer at its
maximum feasible level. A low volume manufacturer is one that
manufactured fewer than 10,000 passenger cars worldwide, in the model
year for which the exemption is sought (the affected model year) and in
the second model year preceding that model year.
In 1997, NHTSA acted on three low volume petitions that were filed
by Lotus, Rolls-Royce, and the Coalition of Small Volume Automobile
Manufacturers, Inc. (COSVAM).
Lotus submitted to the agency its low volume petition for MYs 1994,
1995, 1997, and 1998. NHTSA issued a final decision to grant
alternative standards of 24.2 mpg for MY 1994 and 23.3 mpg for MY 1995
and denied requests for MYs 1997 and 1998 (62 FR 37153, July 11, 1997).
In October 1996, Perusahaan Otomobil Nasional Berhad (Proton)
acquired controlling interest in Lotus Cars Ltd. That acquisition
rendered Lotus ineligible under 49 U.S.C. section 32902(d) for
exemption for MYs 1997 and 1998 because Proton has an annual worldwide
production of more than 10,000 vehicles.
Rolls-Royce requested alternative standards for its passenger cars
for MYs 1998 and 1999. NHTSA issued a final decision to grant an
alternative standard of 16.3 mpg for MYs 1998 and 1999 (62 FR 17100,
April 9, 1997).
The Coalition of Small Volume Automobile Manufacturers, Inc.
(COSVAM) submitted a petition to amend 49 Part 525.5 (limitation on
eligibility for exemptions from average fuel economy standards). COSVAM
requested that the agency not count the production of parent firms when
low volume producers apply for low volume exemption. Members of COSVAM
include Rolls-Royce, Ferrari, AM General, Aston Martin, Callaway, CSI
Laboratories, de Tomaso, Lamborghini, Lotus, Maserati, McLaren, Morgan,
and TWR Engineering. Several members of COSVAM are subsidiaries of
larger vehicle manufacturers. For example, Ferrari and Aston Martin
produce fewer than 10,000 passenger cars worldwide annually but are
owned by Fiat S.p.A. and Ford Motor Company, respectively. Ferrari and
Aston Martin are ineligible for CAFE exemption because of their
ownership by Fiat and Ford. However, Rolls-Royce, an independent
manufacturer, produces fewer than 10,000 passenger cars worldwide and
is not owned by another automaker. It is eligible for exemption from
the average fuel economy standards. The agency concluded that, for CAFE
purposes ``vehicles manufactured by a manufacturer'' includes, all
vehicles manufactured, worldwide, by any entity that controls, is
controlled by, or is under common control with the manufacturer. The
agency issued a denial of the petition to adopt COSVAM's definition
that defined the number of ``Passenger automobiles manufactured by a
manufacturer'' (62 FR 39207, July 22, 1997) because COSVAM's definition
is contrary to the language and intent of the governing statute.
In calendar year 1996, the agency acted on a joint petition filed
by Lamborghini and Vector that was not included in the previous Annual
Report to Congress. NHTSA issued a final decision to grant alternative
standards of 12.8 mpg for MY 1995, 12.6 mpg for MY 1996, and 12.5 mpg
for MY 1997 (61 FR 67491, December 23, 1996).
[[Page 16628]]
C. Enforcement
49 U.S.C. 32912(b) imposes a civil penalty for each tenth of a mpg
by which a manufacturer's CAFE level falls short of the standard,
multiplied by the total number of passenger automobiles or light trucks
produced by the manufacturer in that model year. Credits earned for
exceeding the standard in any of the three model years immediately
prior to or subsequent to the model years in question can be used to
offset the penalty.
On March 6, 1997, the civil penalty for manufacturers that violate
a fuel economy standard increased from $5.00 to $5.50 pursuant to the
inflation adjustment methodology included in the Debt Collection
Improvement Act of 1996 (62 FR 5167, February 4, 1997).
Table III-1 shows CAFE fines paid by manufacturers in calendar year
1997. In calendar year 1997, manufacturers paid civil penalties
totaling $806,465 for failing to comply with the fuel economy standards
of 27.5 mpg for passenger cars in MYs 1994 and 1995. Final CAFE values
were not available for manufacturers that may owe fines for MY 1996.
Table III-1.--CAFE Fines Collected During Calendar Year 1997
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
Model Year Manufacturer Fined Date Paid
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1994......................... Panoz.......... $3,850 8/97
1995......................... Fiat........... 801,220 07/97
Panoz.......... 1,395 08/97
------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Carryback Plans
49 U.S.C. 32903 allows an automobile manufacturer to earn fuel
economy credits during any model year in which the manufacturer's fleet
exceeds the established CAFE standard. The amount of credits a
manufacturer earns is determined by multiplying the number of tenths of
a mile per gallon by which the average fuel economy of the
manufacturer's fleet in the model year exceeds the standard by the
total number of vehicles in the manufacturer's fleet for the model
year.
Already earned fuel economy credits are carried forward by the
agency, (with affected manufacturers given an opportunity to comment on
the agency's allocation of credits) and distributed to any of the three
succeeding model years in which the manufacturer's fleet falls below
the CAFE standard. For example, credits earned in MY 1994 may be used
to offset deficiencies in MYs 1995, 1996, and/or 1997. A manufacturer
also may submit to the agency a carryback plan, which demonstrates that
it will earn sufficient credits within the following three model years
which can be allocated to offset penalties in the model year involved.
General Motors submitted a carryback plan dated August 18, 1997 to
the agency for MYs 1994 and 1995 light truck CAFE compliance. General
Motor's carryback plan was approved.
E. Contract Activities
Database Maintenance: Products and Production Capabilities
of North American Automobile Manufacturing Plants
During 1997, NHTSA continued to fund the maintenance of a database
that details the products and production capacities of North American
automobile manufacturing plants. The Volpe National Transportation
Systems Center administers this program with annual funding of $60,000.
Published Report: Fuel Economy Effects and Incremental
Cost, Weight and Lead Time Impacts of Employing Variable Valve Timing
(VVT) Engine Technology.
In calendar year 1996, NHTSA initiated a study with a consultant to
evaluate the fuel economy effects and cost and leadtime impacts of
variable valve timing engine technology. The report and an in-house
study of retail costs was published in Spring 1997.
The agency awarded Dr. Donald Patterson a contract totaling $52,000
to study the fuel economy effects, cost, and leadtime impacts of
variable valve timing engine technology. In May 1997, the study was
concluded and final results were published in a report titled, Fuel
Economy Effects and Incremental Cost, Weight and Lead Time Impacts of
Employing Variable Valve Timing (VVT) Engine Technology (DOT Report
Number: HS 808 594). The in-house cost study was published with the
same title as DOT Report Number HS 808 589.
In recent years, new mechanical inventions and electronic engine
controls have made variable valve timing (VVT) a production
possibility. Variable valve timing can improve fuel economy by lowering
idle speeds, allowing engine downsizing and improving cycle efficiency
under part load operation (mainly by reducing pumping work).
The report presents a paper study of the fuel economy benefits and
the incremental manufacturing costs, tooling costs and engine weights
as well as production leadtime for a VVT engine. Emission levels are
considered. As a base, a 4-valve, V-6 engine of 3.5 liters was used
with a 3,750 pounds passenger car. The VVT system applied to that
engine was a combination of the Atsugi cam phasing system, a modified
Mitsubishi MIVEC long and short duration cam system and intake port
throttle. Fuel economy calculations were made as well for a typical
light truck of 3,625 pounds with a 3.0 liter engine.
The study suggests that the incorporation of VVT features into a
modern V-6 engine will be costly to the vehicle buyer, at an estimated
retail price increase of $392 (1997 dollars). Fuel economy gains will
be significant over the life of the vehicle, estimated as up to 10.4
percent for a passenger car and up to 8.8 percent for a light truck.
The study presents these general findings of VVT:
VVT allows idle speed reduction due to reduced valve
overlap at idle.
VVT produces higher mid-speed torque.
VVT allows oxides of nitrogen (NOx) control by
internal gas recirculation.
VVT provides significant fuel economy gains but is
accompanied by significant costs.
Fuel economy gains with VVT were similar for the passenger
car and light truck, the light truck benefits being lower.
[FR Doc. 98-8410 Filed 4-2-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
