Light Truck Average Fuel Economy Standards, Model Years 1998-2006

Light Truck Average Fuel Economy Standards, Model Years 1998-2006

Topics: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Light Truck Average Fuel Economy Standards, Model Years 1998-2006

Barry Felrice
Federal Register
April 6, 1994

[Federal Register: April 6, 1994]

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 533

[Docket No. 94-20; Notice 1]
RIN 2127-AF16

Light Truck Average Fuel Economy Standards, Model Years 1998-2006

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

ACTION: Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM).

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

SUMMARY: In a final rule published elsewhere in today's edition of the
Federal Register, NHTSA is establishing light truck average fuel
economy standards for model years 1996 and 1997. The purpose of this
advance notice is to announce that the agency is beginning to develop a
proposal for light truck average fuel economy standards for model years
after 1997, and to request comments to assist the agency in developing
the proposal. NHTSA plans to propose standards for some or all of model
years 1998 to 2006. The agency is seeking information that will help it
assess the extent to which manufacturers can improve light truck fuel
economy during the period in question, the benefits and costs to
consumers of improved fuel economy, the benefits to the nation of
reducing fuel consumption, and the number of model years that should be
covered by the proposal.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 4, 1994.

ADDRESSES: Comments must refer to the docket and notice numbers set
forth above and be submitted (preferably in 10 copies) to Docket
Section, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, room 5109, 400
Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20590. The Docket is open 9:30 a.m.
to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. Submissions containing information
for which confidential treatment is requested should be submitted (in
three copies) to Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, room 5219, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC
20590, and seven additional copies from which the purportedly
confidential information has been deleted should be sent to the Docket
section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Orron Kee, Chief, Motor Vehicle
Requirements Division, Office of Market Incentives, National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC
20590, (202) 366-0846.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

In December 1975, Congress enacted the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act (EPCA) because of a national concern with the
depletable nature and uncertain availability of most of the energy upon
which the Nation relies for its economic and social well being, and the
need to implement a national program for conserving energy. Among other
things, EPCA added Title V, ``Improving Automotive Efficiency,'' to the
Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (Cost Savings Act).
Title V provides for the establishment of corporate average fuel
economy (CAFE) standards for passenger cars and light trucks.
While Title V provides that the CAFE standard for passenger cars is
27.5 mpg for each model year after model year (MY) 1984 unless NHTSA
amends it, the statute does not specify any particular level of light
truck CAFE standards. Instead, Title V requires the agency to set light
truck CAFE standards for each model year, at least 18 months before the
beginning of the model year. In a final rule published elsewhere in
today's edition of the Federal Register, NHTSA is establishing light
truck CAFE standards for MYs 1996 and 1997 at 20.7 mpg. The final rule
follows a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published by the agency
in the Federal Register (57 FR 61377) on December 24, 1992. That NPRM
did not address standards for model years after 1997.
With the rulemaking for the MYs 1996-1997 light truck CAFE
standards completed, NHTSA is turning its attention to developing a
proposal for light truck average fuel economy standards for model years
after MY 1997. While the agency has in the last decade set light truck
CAFE standards for only one or two model years at a time, it believes
that it may be appropriate now to set standards for a much longer
period, i.e., for some or all of the period including MYs 1998 to 2006.
Since the early 1980's, NHTSA has established light truck CAFE
standards as little as 18 months and not more than 30 months before the
beginning of the model year. The effect of this practice has been to
limit the CAFE increases that could be required because there was
insufficient leadtime for the manufacturers to change their product
plans and improve their light truck fuel economy by means of
significant technological improvements. In this period, the light truck
CAFE standard changed very little. For MY 1984, it was 20 mpg; for MY
1994, it is 20.5 mpg.
NHTSA explained the impact of such limited leadtime as follows in
its December 1992 NPRM to establish the MYs 1995-97 light truck CAFE
standards:

NHTSA recognizes that the leadtime necessary to implement
significant improvements in engines, transmissions, aerodynamics and
rolling resistance is typically at least three years. Also, * * *
once a new design is established and tested as feasible for
production, the leadtime necessary to design tools and test
components is typically 30 to 36 months. Some potential major
changes may take even longer. Leadtimes for new vehicles are usually
at least three years. Further, light trucks have a long model life,
i.e., 8-10 years or more. If a manufacturer must make a major model
change ahead of its normal schedule, this change may have a
significant, unprogrammed impact.
Given the leadtime constraints, the agency does not believe that
manufacturers can achieve significant improvements in their
projected CAFE levels for these model years by additional
technological actions.

57 FR 61379, December 14, 1992. The agency notes that manufacturers
commenting on the December 1992 NPRM argued that the leadtimes
discussed above are more typical for passenger cars and that light
truck leadtimes are even longer.
If the upcoming light truck CAFE rulemaking is to be effective in
encouraging manufacturers to improve their light truck fuel economy by
means of significant technological improvements, it must address model
years for which the manufacturers would have substantial leadtime.
Thus, the rulemaking must address model years well beyond MY 1997, the
last model year for which a standard has been established.
There are several reasons why it appears necessary now for the
agency to change the way it has been setting light truck CAFE standards
and to establish them high enough and far enough in advance to require
significant fuel economy improvements.
First, the need of the Nation to conserve energy is increasing. The
import share of oil is growing, as is the percentage from Arab OPEC
sources. The United States imported 15 percent of its oil needs in
1955. The import share reached 36.8 percent in 1975, the year EPCA was
passed, and peaked at 46.4 percent in 1977, at a cost of $91 billion
(stated in 1992 dollars). Although the share declined to below 30
percent in the mid-1980's, lately the United States has again become
increasingly dependent on imported oil. In 1992, imports totaled 43.6
percent. The Department of Energy projects that imports will rise to
between 52 percent and 72 percent of total use in 2010.
Thus, the United States now imports a higher percentage of its oil
needs than it did during 1975, the year EPCA was passed. Despite the
establishment of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in the late 1970s,
concern still exists over the stability of the oil import supply. The
trend during the 1980s toward increasing diversity in sources of oil
imports appears to be reversing. In 1975, OPEC accounted for 61 percent
of U.S. oil imports; by 1984, OPEC's share had dropped to 43 percent.
However, in 1992 OPEC accounted for 59 percent of U.S. oil imports.
Moreover, the percentage of total U.S. oil consumption supplied by Arab
OPEC sources was 11.6 percent in 1992, higher than the 8.5 percent
level for 1975. Oil continues to account for over 40 percent of all
energy used in the United States, and 97 percent of the energy consumed
in the transportation sector. Despite legislation such as the Clean Air
Act Amendments of 1990 and California's strict ``clean fuel'' and
emissions standards, fuels derived from petroleum will likely remain
the predominant fuels in the transportation sector.
Domestic oil production has declined steadily since reaching a peak
of 10.6 million barrels per day in 1985. By 1992, it had dropped to 9.0
million barrels per day. Domestic production is expected to continue
declining by roughly 200,000 barrels per day each year through the year
2000. 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 former Communist countries contain 9 percent. The
Department of Energy projects a continuing decline in domestic oil
production to between 3.54 and 6.73 million barrels per day in 2010.
A second reason why NHTSA believes there may be a need now to
change its approach to setting light truck CAFE standards is the
current lack of consumer demand or other market pressure for
manufacturers to improve light truck fuel economy. 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. Consumers
now place much greater emphasis on high performance, and make little
demand for improved light truck fuel economy. Performance levels are
now higher than they were when EPCA was enacted.
In the absence of strong consumer demand or other market pressure
for improved light truck fuel economy, there is no reason to expect
manufacturers to make significant technological improvements for the
purpose of improving light truck fuel economy, absent higher light
truck CAFE standards or other government measures. Indeed, light truck
CAFE has not changed appreciably in the last six years and is not
expected to do so in the next several years. The average light truck
fuel economy of the domestic manufacturers was 20.5 mpg in MY 1987, and
20.4 mpg in MY 1992, five model years later. (The import manufacturers'
average light truck CAFE, representing a relatively small market share,
declined significantly during this time, from slightly more than 25 mpg
in MY 1987 to less than 23 mpg in MY 1992.) Moreover, as discussed in
today's final rule establishing the MY 1996-97 light truck CAFE
standards, GM currently projects a MY 1997 CAFE of 20.5 mpg, Ford 21.6
mpg, and Chrysler 20.9 mpg.
A third reason why effective light truck CAFE standards assume
increased importance now is the continued growth in market share of
those vehicles. Light truck production increased from 1.9 million in MY
1980 to 4.1 million in MY 1992. Data Resources, Inc., projects sales of
6 million light trucks in MY 1998 and close to 7 million by MY 2004.
Light trucks comprised nearly 33 percent of the total light vehicle
production in MY 1992, almost double their share in MY 1980. That share
is expected to increase to 39 percent in MY 1998 and 42 percent by MY
2004. As light trucks increase in 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.
The impact of the growing light truck population on energy
conservation efforts can be more fully appreciated when the CAFE of the
total light truck fleet is compared with that of the total passenger
car fleet. The light truck CAFE is approximately 21 mpg, while the
passenger car CAFE is approximately 28 mpg.
NHTSA also notes that there has been increasing concern in recent
years about the impact of cars, light trucks and other personal
vehicles on global warming. There is an almost direct relationship
between fuel consumption and emission of carbon dioxide, a primary
``greenhouse'' gas. In other words, reducing fuel consumption also
reduces carbon dioxide emissions.
As part of the Administration's Climate Change Action Plan, issued
in October 1993, the White House's National Economic Council, the
Office on Environmental Policy and the Office of Science and Technology
Policy will co-chair a process to develop measures to significantly
reduce greenhouse gas emissions from personal motor vehicles. The
efforts of the task force may have a bearing on future light truck fuel
economy standards.
NHTSA also notes that the Administration is supporting research in
improving vehicle fuel efficiency in a number of areas, including the
Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles. However, the purpose of
this notice is a limited one--requesting comments to assist NHTSA in
developing a proposal for light truck CAFE average fuel economy
standards for model years after 1997, possibly through MY 2006. To aid
the agency in obtaining useful comments, this notice discusses a
variety of issues which are considered by NHTSA in developing a CAFE
standard proposal, 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 2006 and the assumptions underlying those plans. The agency
recognizes that the manufacturers' product plans may not be approved
formally for even the earlier model years addressed in this notice and
that some of the questions may be difficult to answer. Setting
standards well in advance instead of only one or two years in advance
necessitates reliance on less definitive information. However, that
approach is necessary in order for the agency to attain greater CAFE
improvements. 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

Section 502(b) of the Cost Savings Act requires the Secretary of
Transportation to issue light truck fuel economy standards for each
model year. The Act provides that the fuel economy standards must be
set at the maximum feasible average fuel economy level. In determining
maximum feasible average fuel economy level, the Secretary is required
under section 502(e) of the Act to consider four factors: Technological
feasibility; economic practicability; the effect of other Federal motor
vehicle standards on fuel economy; and the need of the nation 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 Federal
motor vehicle standards affect average fuel economy, and the need of
the nation to conserve energy.
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 1998-2006

Among the significant issues involved in developing a proposal for
the MY 1998-2006 light truck CAFE standards is the ability of
manufacturers to improve their light truck fuel economy during that
period. In order to help it analyze that issue, NHTSA requests
information or comments on the questions which follow.
NHTSA is interested in the technology that will be available for
improving fuel economy. It is particularly interested in technological
advancements. For example, the development of two-cycle engines may
have progressed to the point that their introduction to the light truck
fleet would be feasible some time in the MY 1998-2006 period. Another
example is the development of aluminum and nonmetal composites for
automotive applications. These high performance materials, which have
become less expensive, are providing new opportunities for lightweight,
high-performance automotive components. The Miller cycle engine or
other variations on the internal combustion engine may offer
improvements in fuel economy.
1. What is the technological feasibility and economic
practicability of the various fuel efficiency enhancing technologies,
including, but not limited to each of the following, which were noted
in the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) study discussed below: Multi-
valve and variable valve timing engines; electronic engine controls;
port fuel injection; lean burn-fast burn combustion; engine friction
reduction; two-stroke engines; turbocharging; improved transmissions,
including continuously variable transmissions and electronic controls;
redesigning vehicles for weight reduction and aerodynamic enhancement;
substitution of lighter-weight materials; lowering rolling resistance;
low-friction lubricants; and reducing parasitic losses, for improving
manufacturers' CAFE for MY 1998-2006? In answering this question,
please address, for each of these technologies, as well as any other
relevant technologies not yet available:
(a) The impact on fuel efficiency;
(b) Costs and benefits to the consumer;
(b) Manufacturer costs;
(c) Leadtime;
(d) Potential fleet penetration.
2. What is the cost-effectiveness of each technology identified in
Question 1, as well as any other relevant technologies, assuming
alternative plausible gasoline prices forecast for MY 1998-2006, and
assuming alternative payback periods ranging from 3 years to 10 years?
3. Taking into account the response to Question 1, indicate the
ability of each manufacturer to improve its light truck CAFE for each
model year during the MY 1998-2006 timeframe. 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?
4. What analyses of manufacturer light truck fuel economy
capabilities for MY 1998-2006 are available? What are the strengths and
weaknesses of each such analysis?
NHTSA notes that, in 1991, it joined with the Federal Highway
Administration in commissioning the NAS to estimate the practically
achievable levels of fuel economy for various classes of passenger cars
and light trucks. The NAS report, Automotive Fuel Economy--How Far
Should We Go?, was published in April 1992. NAS did not reach
conclusions on what the ``practically achievable'' levels of fuel
economy were because it stated that it could not determine the correct
balance of the variables that would affect such an estimate. The
variables include the ``technically achievable'' levels of fuel economy
(described below), the economic effects in terms of jobs, higher
vehicle prices, and competitiveness, the effects on vehicle safety and
petroleum consumption, etc.
The NAS report did venture to offer ``technically achievable''
predictions of fuel economy capabilities in MYs 2001 and 2006. The
``technically achievable'' values were based on certain assumptions.
The assumptions were that only currently existing technologies would be
used, that fleets would meet the Tier I emissions standards of the
Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990, that vehicle interior volume
and acceleration performance would be equivalent to those of the MY
1990 fleet, and that the technologies used would be cost-effective at
gasoline prices of $5-10 or less.
NAS offered two estimates for the light truck fleet for both MYs
2001 and 2006. One estimate was given with a high degree of confidence
that the light truck fleet could achieve such a level. The other
estimate, for a higher CAFE level, was given with a lower degree of
confidence that the fleet could achieve that level due to unidentified
uncertainties. These values are as follows:

Table 1.--``Technically Achievable'' Fuel Economy Levels: New Light
Truck Fleet (From NAS Report)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MY 2001 MY 2006
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Higher confidence................................. 24 26
Lower confidence.................................. 25 28
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The figures in the table have several limitations. They do not
represent the capability of any particular manufacturer. Instead, they
are intended to represent the light truck fleet as a whole. However,
the fleet used by NAS did not include all light trucks. The fleet
included small pickups, small vans, small utility vehicles, and large
pickups, but not large vans and large utility vehicles. While those
last two types of vehicles make up a small percentage of the light
truck market, they have low fuel economies.
NHTSA is particularly interested in receiving comments concerning
the NAS report and whether, and how, it should be used in rulemaking
for the MY 1998-2006 light truck CAFE standards.
Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc. has prepared a report for
the Department of Energy that analyzes the domestic manufacturers'
light duty truck fuel economy potential to 2005. NHTSA is including it
in the docket for this notice, and would welcome comments on the
relevance of the report to this rulemaking.
NHTSA and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have mandated a
number of safety and emissions standards for light trucks that become
effective in the next few years and that are likely to contribute to
increased weight (and, hence, decreased fuel economy) and increased
cost of these vehicles. Among the safety requirements are the addition
of air bags (which phase-in through MY 1999), quasi-static side impact
protection (by MY 1995), roof crush resistance (by MY 1995), and
interior head impact protection (with an effective date to be
determined). The Clean Air Act Amendments mandated a phase-in of more
stringent emission standards for light trucks. The U.S. has agreed
under the Montreal Protocol to phase-out the chloroflourocarbons used
in vehicle air conditioners. This will result in somewhat heavier and
less efficient air conditioners. Finally, EPA has also issued several
final rules relating to test procedures which could require calibration
changes that reduce fuel economy and to onboard diagnostics which could
add weight.
5. To what extent are other Federal standards likely to affect
manufacturers' CAFE capabilities in MYs 1998-2006? 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.
6. Assuming that NHTSA establishes a single light truck CAFE
standard for each of MYs 1998-2006, what would be the manufacturers'
responses to CAFE standards set at alternative levels, and what would
the energy savings be from those levels? For example, what would be the
effect of setting a CAFE standard at x-y mpg versus x mpg versus x+y
mpg for a given model year? NHTSA requests that, at a minimum,
commenters answer the questions in this paragraph based on the standard
levels discussed in the NAS report.
Another issue that the agency must consider in setting light truck
CAFE standards is the basic structure of the standards. As indicated
above, Title V provides the agency with discretion concerning whether
to establish a single standard for all light trucks or separate
standards for different classes of light trucks. While NHTSA has in the
past used its authority to set separate standards for different classes
of light trucks, most notably for two-wheel drive and four-wheel drive
light trucks, it has more recently established a single standard for
all light trucks.
A single standard has the advantage of maximizing manufacturer
flexibility, e.g., enabling a manufacturer to decide where in its light
truck fleet to make fuel efficiency improvements. On the other hand,
since the agency sets standards at a level that can be achieved by
manufacturers whose vehicles constitute a substantial share of the
market, it is possible that a single large manufacturer with a mix
toward larger, less fuel-efficient vehicles could skew the single
standard downward for the entire industry. It might be possible to
address this potential problem by establishing separate standards for
different classes of light trucks. The agency requests comments on the
following question:
7. For MYs 1998-2006, should NHTSA propose a single standard for
all light trucks or separate standards for different classes of light
trucks? Should the answer to this question vary depending on the extent
to which the CAFE capabilities of manufacturers differ? If the agency
should propose separate standards for different classes of light
trucks, how should the different classes be defined?
In the final rule issued today establishing light truck CAFE
standards for MYs 1996-1997, NHTSA stated it believes 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 4,200
pounds in MY 1993.
8. NHTSA requests comments on the extent to which the increases in
light truck CAFE feasible during MYs 1998-2006 involve means, such as
significant weight or size reduction, that could adversely affect
safety. Would achievement during that period of NAS' estimated
``technically achievable'' levels necessarily depend on such means?
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.
9. How should the agency take technological risks into account in
setting the 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?

IV. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and the
Departmental Regulatory Policies and Procedures

This rulemaking 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 regulation evaluation has been prepared for this notice and
placed in the public docket.

B. Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)

This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, and it has been determined
that it is likely that CAFE standards for MYs 1998-2006 will not have
sufficient Federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a
Federalism Assessment.

C. Civil Justice Reform

This rule, when proposed, would not have any retroactive effect.
Under section 509(a) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 2009(a)), whenever a Federal
motor vehicle fuel economy standard is in effect, a state may not adopt
or enforce any law or regulation relating to fuel economy standards or
average fuel economy standards applicable to vehicles covered by the
Federal standard. Under section 509(b) of the Cost Savings Act (15
U.S.C. 2009(b)), a state may not require fuel economy labels on
vehicles covered by section 506 of the Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C.
2006) which are not identical to those required by the Federal
requirement. Section 509 does not apply to vehicles procured for the
State's use. Section 504 of the Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 2004) sets
forth a procedure for judicial review of final rules establishing,
amending or revoking Federal average fuel economy standards. That
section does not require submission of a petition for reconsideration
or other administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in
court.
Comments
NHTSA solicits public comments on the questions presented in this
ANPRM and on other relevant issues. It is requested but not required
that 10 copies be submitted.
All comments must not exceed 15 pages in length. (49 CFR 553.21).
Necessary attachments may be appended to these submissions without
regard to the 15-page limit. This limitation is intended to encourage
commenters to detail their primary arguments in a concise fashion.
If a commenter wishes to submit certain information under a claim
of confidentiality, three copies of the complete submission, including
purportedly confidential business information, should be submitted to
the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the street address given above, and seven
copies from which the purportedly confidential information has been
deleted should be submitted to the Docket Section. A request for
confidentiality should be accompanied by a cover letter setting forth
the information specified in the agency's confidential business
information regulation. 49 CFR Part 512.
All comments received before the close of business on the comment
closing date indicated above for the advance proposal will be
considered. To the extent possible, comments filed after the closing
date will also be considered. Comments on the advance proposal will be
available for inspection in the docket. After the closing date, NHTSA
will continue to file relevant information in the docket as this
information becomes available, and recommends that interested persons
continue to examine the docket for new material.
Those persons desiring to be notified upon receipt of their
comments in the rules docket should enclose a self-addressed, stamped
postcard in the envelope with their comments. Upon receiving the
comments, the docket supervisor will return the postcard by mail.
A regulatory information number (RIN) is assigned 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. The RIN contained in the heading of
this document can be used to cross reference this action with the
Unified Agenda.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 533

Energy conservation, Gasoline, Imports, Motor vehicles.

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

Dated: March 31, 1994.
Barry Felrice,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.

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
R--Rotary
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--Cycle
OHC--Overhead camshaft
DOHC--Dual overhead camshafts

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
C-10 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 1994 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 transmission 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).
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 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 1994 whose production you project discontinuing before MY 1999
and identify the last model year in which each will be offered.
2. Identify all basic engines offered by respondent in MY 1994
light trucks which respondent projects it will cease to offer for
sale in light trucks before MY 1999, 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 1998-2006 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 C-10, Ford
F150). Model types which 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, including optional horsepower
and torque ratings, if any; displacement; number and configuration
of cylinders; type of carburetor or fuel injection system; fuel
type; number of valves per cylinder, and whether it is 2-cycle or 4-
cycle.
c. Transmission type (manual, automatic, number of forward
speeds, 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 2006, 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
1998-2006? 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, 2 barrel carburetor),
e. Cylinder configuration (e.g., V-8, V-6, I-4),
f. Number of valves per cylinder (e.g., 2, 3, 4),
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 1994 levels, for MYs 1998-2006, 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 214 Side Door Strength,
c. FMVSS 216 Roof Crush Resistance,
d. Voluntary installation of safety equipment (i.e., 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 1998-2006, 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 1994 baseline technologies and the 1994
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 1994 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 1994 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 improved 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. Other technologies for improving fuel economy.
7. For each model of respondent's light truck fleet projected to
be manufactured in each of MYs 1998-2006, 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 1998-2006, 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 4 x 2 and 4 x 4 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., C-10, F-150, B-150. Model types which 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
which will use the transmission.
10. Indicate any MY 1998-2006 light truck model types which have
higher average test weights than comparable MY 1994 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 1993 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, 4 x 2 and 4 x 4, 0-8,500 lbs. GVWR and 8501-10,000
lbs., GVWR for each model year from 1994 thorough 2006, inclusive.
Please subdivide the data into the following vehicle categories:

i. Standard Pickup Heavy (e.g., C-20/30, F-250/350, D-250/350)
ii. Standard Pickup Light (e.g., C-10, F-150, D-150)
iii. Compact Pickup (e.g., S-10, Ranger)
iv. Standard Cargo Vans Heavy (e.g., G-30, E-250/350, B-350)
v. Standard Cargo Vans Light (e.g., G-10/20, E-150, B-150/250)
vi. Standard Passenger Vans Heavy (e.g., G-30, E-250/350, B-350)
vii. Standard Passenger Vans Light (e.g., G-10/20, E-150, B-150/250)
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 Blazer, Bronco)
xi. Compact Utilities (e.g., S-10 Blazer, Explorer, Wrangler)
xii. Other (e.g., Suburban, Loyale)

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
1994 through 2008, inclusive. Please subdivide the data into 4 x 2
and 4 x 4 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 1994 through 2006.
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 1994-2006.
16. Please provide your estimate of production leadtime for new
models, your expected model life in years, and the number of years
over which tooling costs are amortized.

Table A.--New Models
[Model: A-1 Standard Pickups Drivetrain Configuration: 4 x 2, Front Engine/Rear Drive]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Passenger No. of Cargo PAU
Body type (3a.) volume, seating volume, Wheelbase, setting,
ft\3\ positions ft\3\ 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Config./No.
Engine options (b.) of cyl. Fuel system Hp @ RPM Torque @ 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
Ratios (c.) with
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
Range of Range of composite
Body type (3a.) GVWR test weights fuel economy
(3d.(i)) (3d.(ii)) ratings
(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
------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Share of
Production fleet,
Model year (3i.) percent Notes (3h., 3j.)
(3i.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1998...................................... 36,000 5 Mid-year introduction, North American
production.
1999...................................... 78,000 10 ........................................
2000...................................... 110,000 13 Extended cab introduced.
2001...................................... 120,000 14 Facelift.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Models
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sales Additional
Model year (3k.) New model designation Model replaced or derived from sales
augmented old model anticipated
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1998....................... A-Std Pickup............... T-Std Pickup.............. 20,000 10,000
1999....................... .....do.................... .....do................... 50,000 30,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table B.--New Engines
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New/Redesigned Engines
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Valves per Horsepower Torque, lb-
Year of introduction by Type (4b.) Displacement, Induction system (4d.) Configuration cylinder @ rpm ft @ rpm
model (4a./h.) L. (4c.) (4e.) (4f.) (4g.) (4g.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1998--Std Pickups.......... 2-cycle, diesel............ 4.42 Turbocharged, direct W-9 3 250 @ 4000 190 @ 3500
injection.
1999--Std Vans
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table C.--Technology Improvements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent Percent production share
fuel -----------------------------------------------------
Technological improvement economy
improvement 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Improved auto trans. (6a.):
LT-1..................................... 7.0 0 0 15 25 55 60
LT-2..................................... 6.5 0 0 0 20 25 30
LT-3..................................... 5.0 0 10 30 60 60 60
Improved Manual Trans. (6b):
LV-1..................................... 1.0 2 5 5 5 5 5
U-1...................................... 0.7 0 0 0 8 10 10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table D.--Actual and Projected U.S. Sales
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amalgamated Motors 2WD light truck sales projections
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model Year
Model Line (12.) -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model type (13.) 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 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. 94-8132 Filed 3-31-94; 4:00 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P