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

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