Minimum Driving Range for Dual Fueled Electric Passenger Automobiles

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 538

[Docket No. 94-35; Notice 2]

RIN 2127-AF37

Minimum Driving Range for Dual Fueled Electric Passenger

Automobiles

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),

Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: In this document, NHTSA proposes to set the minimum driving

range only for dual fueled electric passenger automobiles, otherwise

known as hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs), at 17.7 miles when operating

on electricity alone. The purpose of establishing the range is to meet

a statutory requirement intended to encourage the production of HEVs.

An HEV which meets the range requirement would qualify to have its fuel

economy calculated according to a special procedure that would

facilitate the efforts of its manufacturer to comply with the corporate

average fuel economy standards. NHTSA is also proposing to

[[Page 376]]

establish a procedure through which manufacturers of HEVs that do not

meet the minimum driving range requirements may petition the agency for

relief.

DATES: Comments must be received by March 4, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this document must refer to the docket and

notice numbers set forth above and be submitted (preferably 10 copies)

to the Docket Section, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,

Room 5313, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20590. (Docket hours

are 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. P. L. Moore, Office of Planning

and Consumer Programs, NPS-32, Room 5315, National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20590.

Telephone: (202) 366-5222.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

A. Alternative Motor Fuels Act of 1988

Section 6 of the Alternative Motor Fuels Act of 1988 (AMFA) (P.L.

100-494) amended the fuel economy provisions of the Motor Vehicle

Information and Cost Savings Act (Cost Savings Act) by adding a new

section 513, ``Manufacturing Incentives for Automobiles.'' Section 513

contained incentives for the manufacture of vehicles designed to

operate on alcohol or natural gas, including dual fuel vehicles; i.e.,

vehicles capable of operating on one of those alternative fuels and

either gasoline or diesel fuel.

Section 513 provided that dual fuel vehicles meeting specified

criteria qualify for special treatment in the calculation of their fuel

economy for purposes of the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE)

standards. The fuel economy of a qualifying vehicle is calculated in a

manner that results in a relatively high fuel economy value, thus

encouraging its production as a way of facilitating a manufacturer's

compliance with the CAFE standards. One of the qualifying criteria for

passenger automobiles was to meet a minimum driving range, which was to

be established by NHTSA.

NHTSA was required to establish two minimum driving ranges, one for

``dual energy'' (alcohol/gasoline or diesel fuel) passenger automobiles

when operating on alcohol, and the other for ``natural gas dual

energy'' (natural gas/gasoline or diesel fuel) passenger automobiles

when operating on natural gas. In establishing the driving ranges,

NHTSA was to consider the purposes of AMFA, consumer acceptability,

economic practicability, technology, environmental impact, safety,

drivability, performance, and any other factors deemed relevant.

The AMFA and its legislative history made it clear that the driving

ranges were to be low enough to encourage the production of dual fuel

passenger automobiles, yet not so low that motorists would be

discouraged by a low driving range from actually fueling their vehicles

with the alternative fuels. The agency accordingly promulgated driving

range regulations at 49 CFR Part 538 (55 FR 17616).

B. Energy Policy Act of 1992

The Energy Policy Act of 1992 (Pub. L. 102-486) amended section 513

of the Cost Savings Act to expand the scope of the alternative fuels it

promotes. The amended section provided incentives for the production of

vehicles using, in addition to alcohol and natural gas, liquefied

petroleum gas, hydrogen, coal derived liquid fuels, fuels (other than

alcohol) derived from biological materials, electricity (including

electricity from solar energy), and any fuel NHTSA determines, by rule,

is substantially not petroleum and would yield substantial energy

security benefits and substantial environmental benefits.

Section 513 continued to provide incentives for the production of

dual fuel vehicles; i.e., vehicles that operate on one of a now

expanded list of alternative fuels, including electricity, and on

gasoline or diesel fuel. For example, the calculated fuel economy of a

dual fueled vehicle is based on the harmonic average of the fuel

economy when operated on gasoline or diesel fuel and the credited fuel

economy when operated on the alternative fuel. A hybrid electric

vehicle operating on gasoline may have a combined city/highway fuel

economy average of 28.5 miles per gallon, and a combined city/highway

energy consumption of 422 watt-hours/mile when operated on electricity.

Using the petroleum equivalency factor of 38322 watt-hours per gallon

(Wh/gal) proposed by the Department of Energy on February 4, 1994 (59

FR 5336) to derive a miles per gallon equivalent, the mpg of such an

electric vehicle with no petroleum powered accessories is derived by

dividing the petroleum equivalency by the electric energy consumed per

mile:

38322/422 =90.81 miles/gallon

The harmonic average of 90.81 mpg and 28.5 mpg is:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03JA97.001

NHTSA notes that some statutory terminology was changed by the 1992

amendments. Among other things, the terms ``dual energy'' and ``natural

gas dual energy'' were dropped, and the terms ``alternative fueled

automobile,'' ``dedicated automobile,'' and ``dual fueled automobile''

were added.

Section 513 also continued to require dual fueled passenger

automobiles to meet specified criteria, including meeting a minimum

driving range, in order to qualify for the special treatment in the

calculation of their fuel economy for purposes of the CAFE standards.

The

[[Page 377]]

1992 Energy Policy Act necessitates amending Part 538. The agency must

establish a minimum driving range for the expanded scope of dual fueled

vehicles. Minimum driving range standards for all dual energy vehicles

except electric vehicles were established by a final rule issued on

March 21, 1996 (61 FR 14507). Pursuant to the 1992 amendments, the

March 21, 1996, final rule also eliminated the exemption from the

minimum driving range requirements for all non-electric dual fueled

vehicles. Establishment of a minimum driving range for HEVs requires

reinstating the availability of an exemption for these vehicles.

On July 5, 1994, the Cost Savings Act was revised and codified

``without substantive change.'' The provisions formerly found in

section 513 of the Cost Savings Act are now at 49 U.S.C. 32901, 32905,

and 32906. In setting the minimum driving range for dual energy

electric vehicles, NHTSA is required by 49 U.S.C. 32901(c)(3) to

consider the purposes set forth in section 3 of the AMFA as amended by

the Energy Policy Act:

(1) To encourage the development and widespread use of methanol,

ethanol, natural gas, other gaseous fuels, and electricity as

transportation fuels by consumers; and

(2) To promote the production of alternatively fueled motor

vehicles.

Section 32901(c)(3) also requires that the agency consider consumer

acceptability, economic practicibility, technology, environmental

impact, safety, drivability, performance, and other relevant factors in

setting a minimum driving range.

Proposal

In this document, NHTSA is proposing to amend Part 538 pursuant to

the Energy Policy Act. As discussed below, the agency is proposing to

set the minimum driving range for all hybrid electric dual fueled

passenger automobiles while operating on electricity alone at 17.7

miles and to establish application procedures for manufacturers of HEVs

seeking exemption from the minimum range requirement.

To encourage the development and production of alternative fuel

vehicles, the AMFA provides that such vehicles meeting an appropriate

minimum driving range will qualify for special treatment in the

calculation of their fuel economy for the purpose of their

manufacturers' compliance with CAFE standards.

The inclusion of electricity in the list of alternative fuels

covered by the AMFA necessitates that a minimum driving range be

established for HEVs for fuel economy purposes. The AMFA specifies a

minimum driving range of 200 miles for dual fueled passenger cars

(other than dual fueled electric) when operating on the alternative

fuel, but allows the Secretary of Transportation to establish the

minimum driving range for HEVs.

The AMFA and Energy Policy Act provisions, which are now codified

at 49 U.S.C. sections 32901(c) and 32905, require the Secretary of

Transportation to establish a minimum driving range for HEVs. This

minimum range requirement applies to passenger automobiles only. It

does not apply to dual fueled light trucks.

In seeking to carry out its goals, the Act attempts to balance two

competing objectives:

(1) Encouraging the production of alternatively fueled vehicles by

offering CAFE standard compliance incentives, and

(2) Encouraging the purchase of alternatively fueled vehicles by

consumers by providing the incentives only to those vehicles whose

range of operation is large enough to meet consumer needs.

The setting of a minimum driving range for HEVs must balance the

needs of the consumer with the technical and economic considerations

that are faced by the manufacturers. A low minimum driving range

eligibility criterion might encourage the production of dual fueled

cars, but lead to HEVs being designed with such a low alternative fuel

driving range that consumers do not buy them or, if they buy them,

infrequently operate them on the alternative fuel. Conversely, an

excessively high minimum driving range eligibility criterion might

discourage the production of dual fueled electric cars and

unnecessarily compromise other vehicle attributes and aspects of

performance. Manufacturers would be discouraged by an overly-stringent

minimum range because a vehicle which does not meet the minimum driving

range for its type is unlikely to be built since the manufacturer would

not receive any of the benefits or incentives provided by the Act.

From the viewpoint of the consumer, the necessary driving range may

be dictated by the convenience of a range that corresponds to a typical

workweek travel distance, or a daily travel distance for a fleet car.

Also, if the majority of consumers would use an HEV in an urban area

with more recharging stations or in a fleet application with a central

recharging station, a large driving range may be less critical.

To aid the agency in relating the data on driving range for HEVs to

the unique characteristics of dual fueled passenger automobiles, NHTSA

published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) on September

22, 1994 (59 FR 48589). In the ANPRM, the agency posed a number of

questions on the use of HEVs relating to the determination of a driving

range that would serve the purposes of Alternative Motor Fuels Act and

the Energy Policy Act.

A. Response to the ANPRM

The agency received four comments in response to the September 22,

1994, ANPRM. Comments were submitted by Volvo Cars of North America,

Inc. (Volvo), National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA),

Mitsubishi Motors America, Inc. (Mitsubishi), and American Automobile

Manufacturers Association (AAMA). NADA did not provide responses to the

individual questions; Volvo commented on most of the questions, and

Mitsubishi and AAMA commented on all questions.

One of the questions contained in the ANPRM requested views on the

minimum driving range for HEV passenger cars when operating on

electricity. Volvo stated that a minimum driving range of approximately

60 to 80 miles would be appropriate. Mitsubishi declined to recommend

an explicit minimum driving range, but did recommend that the agency

consider the application of a driving cycle that is at a lower speed

than the current EPA urban/highway driving cycle since the EPA urban/

highway driving cycle's speeds (60+ mph) are too high for some HEVs.

AAMA recommended that NHTSA set a zero minimum driving range for HEVs

so that no HEV technologies (including those with little or no all-

electric range) that still offer energy and/or emissions benefits will

be excluded by regulatory design. AAMA believes that this approach to

setting minimum driving range is consistent with the intent of the

Energy Policy Act.

The ANPRM also solicited comments on what the appropriate method

for determining minimum driving ranges should be, whether the EPA

driving cycle should be used to determine the range and whether driving

range measurements should be undertaken with the vehicle using electric

power alone or a combination of electricity and other fuels. Volvo

stated that dual fueled vehicles should incorporate the same driving

range on the two fuels combined as a normal gasoline fueled vehicle,

which is 350-400 miles. However, Volvo believes that it is possible for

a hybrid vehicle to complete the EPA driving cycle solely on electric

power. Mitsubishi believes

[[Page 378]]

that the minimum driving range should be determined based on the hybrid

vehicle's role and purpose; e.g., in a high pollution urban area, the

range should be based on all electric operation and in suburban or

rural areas the range should be based on operation with the other power

source running as well. Mitsubishi also stated that whether the hybrid

can operate solely on electricity depends on the design and purpose of

the vehicle. AAMA stated that the range should be determined on the

combination of both power sources and it believes that there may be

vehicles that can operate solely on electricity while others may

require the auxiliary power source as well. AAMA also noted that a

hybrid with electric power and an alternative fueled engine is a

dedicated alternative fueled automobile since it operates entirely on

alternative fuels, albeit two types of alternative fuel.

The ANPRM also requested comments regarding the suitability of the

Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) J1711 Hybrid Electric Vehicle

Test Procedure. This test procedure, which is still under development,

might be used in the future for determining range. Among other

requests, the NPRM sought information regarding the adaptability of the

SAE procedure for use with the EPA driving cycle, and the

appropriateness of other tests. Mitsubishi's opinion was that the SAE

procedure should be adopted, but with lower speeds since the EPA cycle

speeds are too high for hybrids. AAMA stated that the SAE procedure

could be used once it is fully developed since it does contain

procedures for computing an all-electric range. AAMA further added that

it was unaware of other test procedures that would be applicable in

determining the range for hybrid vehicles.

In addition to addressing the basic concerns of how to determine a

driving range for HEVs and what the potential ranges for such vehicles

may be in light of existing technology, the ANPRM also solicited

information relating to consumer acceptability, economic

practicability, technology, environmental impact, safety, drivability,

and performance. Comments received in response to the ANPRM as well as

the agency's own research indicate that consumer expectations and

requirements for range, safety, drivability and performance place a

great burden on existing HEV technologies, particularly when the

economic practicibility of these vehicles is considered. In regard to

consumer demands and expectations, Volvo thinks that hybrid vehicles

will be used mainly in urban areas and recharging will take place at

the consumer's residence or, for fleets, at central recharging

facilities. Mitsubishi believes that the primary use will be in urban

areas and for fleets with central recharging. AAMA expects that hybrids

will be used in urban areas for commuting and fleet use. Recharging is

expected to be at residences and centralized stations or parking

garages.

In response to questions directed at specific consumer expectations

of minimum driving range, Volvo commented that the consumer can accept

a shorter driving range if the hybrid or dual fueled vehicle

incorporates an auxiliary power unit as opposed to a vehicle solely

powered by an electrical source. Volvo also stated that the minimum

driving range for a vehicle operating on electricity should be defined

so that the majority of people who commute, for example in the Los

Angeles metropolitan area (or any other mandated metropolitan area),

have the capability to get to work and then back home (and with some

margin) using the vehicle's stored electrical energy supply. Mitsubishi

offered the fact that 90% of daily round-trip commutes are less than 60

miles in urban areas. AAMA commented that the minimum driving range

should be based on convenience to the customer. Volvo, Mitsubishi, and

AAMA all indicated that until technology allows more rapid recharging

and electric recharging facilities become widely available, that the

range of HEVs operating on electricity alone will be constrained by the

need to recharge vehicles at their base of operations.

Consumer requirements such as performance, utility and comfort also

have an impact on range. Mitsubishi noted that about 1 kW of electrical

power is expected to be needed to operate normal heating and cooling

systems in Electric passenger cars. With a heat pump system, driving in

the city may decrease the range by 15 to 20%. Using a heater adequate

to meet FMVSS 103 requirements would consume more than 5 kW of

electricity. Mitsubishi stated that such a heater would easily meet the

defrosting requirements, but heating the interior could reduce the

driving range in half. AAMA indicated that heaters and air conditioners

reduce the range of the vehicle depending on the ambient temperature

and type of system. While new technology is being developed, it cannot

be considered at this time because of high cost and unknown

reliability. While NADA did not comment on this question specifically,

it submitted information about the GM Impact electric vehicle cold

weather experience and noted that minimum HEV range calculations must

also reflect climate variations. Results of prototype tests in colder

ambient air temperatures indicated that these vehicles suffered

drastically reduced driving range with the expected 55 mile range

reduced by 40% when the temperature falls from 70 degrees Fahrenheit to

20 degrees and a 55% reduction when the temperature falls to 0 degrees.

In offering its comments on utility and space Mitsubishi indicated

that if the minimum driving range is set too high, there may not be

enough space for the batteries in a typical sedan-type vehicle. AAMA

stated that there is always a trade-off between appearance and

aerodynamics versus function when designing a vehicle and that with

current technology, storage space is likely to be reduced if a large

minimum driving range is required. Passenger and cargo space must be

utilized to increase range to higher levels.

In examining the economic practicability of HEVs, the range of the

vehicle appears to be directly related to its cost. AAMA stated, and

the responses submitted by Volvo and Mitsubishi indicate, that even

without significant driving range requirements, one of the HEVs most

serious issues is battery cost. High driving range requirements can

lead to excessive cost and weight of powertrains and energy storage

devices. The increased weight due to the dual fuel capability of HEVs

requires increased vehicle structural strength and additional chassis

components which increase the overall weight and cost of the HEV and

reduce energy efficiency.

Higher range requirements have other costs as well, particularly

when existing technologies are considered. Greater range under electric

power requires larger and heavier battery packs. Volvo indicated that

the bigger the battery, the longer the range, since battery pack size

is in direct proportion to the consumer's available driving range.

Volvo also stated that the bigger the battery, the heavier the vehicle,

thus providing a shorter driving range when a non-electric source of

energy is used to propel the vehicle. Mitsubishi reasoned that if the

battery pack is larger, it may take longer to discharge the battery,

which would result in a longer HEV driving range. However, Mitsubishi

believes that HEVs may actually have a shorter driving range since the

reduction in fuel economy resulting from the increased weight may not

offset the amount of energy gained by a larger battery pack.

AAMA indicated that batteries occupying the same space as a

gasoline fuel tank would weigh about 1.7 times

[[Page 379]]

as much while providing only a fraction of the operating range

(approximately 3%). In an HEV, an oversized energy storage device

reduces the space available for the gasoline or diesel fuel storage.

Higher range in the electric-only mode of operation would also

invoke penalties affecting performance and safety. Mitsubishi believes

that the balance of the vehicle, and consequently the vehicle's

handling, will be affected if a large number of batteries are used to

provide longer driving ranges. Mitsubishi indicated that an HEV with

the range of a standard gasoline powered vehicle would weigh

approximately 5000 lbs. Mitsubishi further added that while the

majority of driving performance depends on the vehicle weight and the

motor's power capacity, the most important parameter is weight balance

to improve handling. In addition to performance and handling,

Mitsubishi indicated that it did not have sufficient data regarding the

safety risk related to longer driving ranges on electric power, but

believed that if the battery capacity is smaller, the safety risk is

lower, and the driving range is shorter. AAMA explained that an

electric powertrain can be made to produce the same performance

capability as a gasoline vehicle, but, like a gasoline vehicle,

increased performance generally results in decreased range when holding

all other variables constant. If longer range requires larger battery

storage, then cost and packaging constraints will lead toward smaller

engines, which, if the battery is near depletion, leads to performance

and drivability degradation.

B. The Proposed Minimum Driving Range

The setting of a minimum driving range for HEVs must carefully

balance what the potential purchaser expects from the vehicle and what

technical and economic considerations the manufacturer will encounter

in successfully bringing these vehicles to the marketplace. The

agency's goal is to allow maximum flexibility to manufacturers of this

emerging technology while encouraging the purchase of alternatively

fueled vehicles by consumers, with the expectation that those vehicles

produced will satisfy vehicle performance requirements and contain

attributes desired by the purchaser.

In comparison to a normal gasoline fueled vehicle driving range of

350-400 miles, the typical electric-only vehicle has a driving range of

60-80 miles or less. Recent developments in electric vehicle technology

appear to be extending driving ranges. New battery types, such as the

fiber-nickel-cadmium battery previously used only in the aerospace

industry, may change existing constraints on range. Vehicles based on

these batteries are expected to have a range of 100 to 150 miles, can

partially recharge in as little as five minutes, and have a battery

life of more than 200,000 miles. These batteries, however, along with a

host of other advanced-technology batteries are still in the

developmental stage, and are not expected to be available on a

commercial scale for many years. Meanwhile, lead-acid and possibly

nickel-cadmium are the only commercially available and economical

battery technologies suitable for electric vehicles in the near term.

Therefore, for the immediate future, it is expected that the battery

used in electric and hybrid vehicles will be the lead-acid battery.

This battery configuration has considerable constraints, such as an

extremely low charge density and a long recharge time. Based on NHTSA's

review of comments forwarded in response to the ANPRM, a review of

current literature, studies of current industry capabilities, an

assessment of the available technology, and existing statutory

requirements, the agency is proposing to set the minimum driving range

for HEVs, when operating solely on electricity at 17.7 miles--the range

required to complete one EPA urban/highway cycle under the current

Federal Test Procedure (FTP).

In the agency's view, setting a minimum driving range at 17.7 miles

ensures that HEVs will have sufficient driving range to meet the needs

of consumers while also encouraging HEV development. A 17.7 mile

minimum range is not so stringent as to foreclose the development of

vehicles relying on new technologies or entry into the market without

unduly large expenditures of capital resources. The proposed range is

also sufficient to meet the needs of many vehicle users. According to

the 1990 National Personal Transportation Survey (NPTS), a 17.7 mile

range would be adequate for 85% of daily vehicle trips and 45% of daily

vehicle miles traveled. In addition, setting the minimum driving range

at 17.7 miles allows use of EPA test procedures, where one complete

highway and urban cycle consists of 17.7 mi. The agency is, therefore,

proposing that those vehicles that finish one complete circuit of the

EPA highway and urban cycle in the electric-only mode without

recharging shall be deemed to have met the minimum range requirement.

The agency notes that the proposed minimum driving range

contemplates operation of the vehicle solely on electric power when

some hybrid designs under consideration are full time hybrids. In these

vehicles, electric and internal combustion engines are designed to

complement each other and may not have sufficient power alone to

adequately propel the vehicle. Similarly, other designs in which the

vehicle may be operated on electric power alone may not have sufficient

range to meet the proposed 17.7 mile minimum range. However,

calculation of the fuel economy of a dual fueled automobile under

Section 513 of the AMFA (now 49 U.S.C. 32905) requires that the vehicle

be operated solely on the alternative fuel and, as set forth in 49

U.S.C. 32904(c), have its energy consumption measured through use of

the EPA combined urban and highway cycle. This statutory requirement

compels a minimum driving range specifying electric only operation for

a distance equivalent to one EPA cycle.

In order to assist the agency in setting the minimum driving range

and evaluating the environmental consequences of this proposal, NHTSA

requests that vehicle manufacturers provide answers to the following

questions: (1) If there were no CAFE incentives for producing dual fuel

electric vehicles, how many of these vehicles would you manufacture in

the next ten years? What type of battery would the vehicles have? What

range do you expect the vehicle to have when operating on electric

power, conventional fuels, or both? (2) With CAFE incentives available

only for dual fuel electric vehicles that have a range of at least 17.7

miles, how many of these vehicles would you produce in each of the next

ten years? What kind of battery would it employ? (3) Is there a minimum

driving range different than 17.7 miles that would give you an

incentive to build substantially more vehicles? How many vehicles would

you manufacture in the next ten years in this case? What types of

batteries would you use? (4) What is the highest driving range at which

you would manufacture at least 80% of the number of vehicles projected

in your answer to question 3, and what type of batteries would you use

to achieve that range?

Adopting a range lower than 17.7 miles might provide additional

flexibility to manufacturers seeking to develop new technologies.

However, it is NHTSA's current view that the agency is precluded by the

explicit language of 49 U.S.C. 32905 from setting

[[Page 380]]

a minimum driving range that does not require operation on electricity

alone. In addition, determining the fuel economy of a hybrid electric

vehicle while operating on electricity alone requires that the vehicle

complete at least one EPA driving cycle. In addition, allowing

manufacturers to obtain CAFE credits by producing a vehicle that may

not be capable of any meaningful operation while using electricity as a

fuel, is contrary to the intent of the statute in that credits would be

made available without any corresponding benefit. Those manufacturers

who are unable, because of technological or other burdens, to produce a

vehicle capable of meeting the 17.7 mile range requirement, may apply

for exemption under the procedures proposed in this notice.

Regulatory Impacts

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

This notice has not been reviewed under Executive Order 12866.

NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action and has

determined that the action is not ``significant'' under the Department

of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. In this NPRM,

the agency proposes to set the minimum driving range for electric dual

fueled passenger automobiles when operating solely on electricity at

17.7 miles. The establishment of a minimum driving range implements

statutory incentives to encourage the manufacture of alternative fuel

vehicles and does not add any additional burdens. For these reasons,

NHTSA believes that any impacts on manufacturers will be so minimal as

not to warrant preparation of a full regulatory evaluation.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The agency has also considered the effects of this rulemaking

action under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. I certify that this

proposed rule, if made final, will not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small entities. The rationale for

this certification is that, to the extent that any passenger automobile

manufacturers qualify as small entities, their number would not be

substantial. Moreover, conversion of vehicles to dual fuel status with

the minimum ranges that would be established by this regulation would

be undertaken voluntarily. Therefore, no significant costs would be

imposed on any manufacturers or other small entities.

C. Federalism

This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and

criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, and it has been determined

that the rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to

warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

D. Civil Justice Reform

This proposed rule would not have any retroactive effect and it

does not preempt any State law. 49 U.S.C. 32909 sets forth a procedure

for judicial review of automobile fuel economy regulations. That

section does not require submission of a petition for reconsideration

or other administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in

court.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

This proposed rule includes new ``collections of information'' as

that term is defined by the Office of Management and Budget. For Part

538, OMB has previously approved a collection of information (OMB

Control Number 2127-00554 ``Minimum Driving Range for Dual Energy and

Natural Gas Dual Energy Passenger Vehicles--49 CFR 538'') for use

through June 30, 1996. This approval has now lapsed as the petitioning

process for non-electric alternative fuel vehicles was rescinded in the

last revision of Part 538 (61 FR 14507). NHTSA will prepare a new

request for collection of information approval for the petitioning

process proposed in this notice and will include in the request an

estimate of the new collection of information burden that would result

if this proposed rule is made final. To assist the agency in estimating

the new collection of information burden that would result if this

proposed rule is made final, the agency requests that potential

petitioners provide comments to the following questions: (1) Do you

anticipate petitioning the agency for a reduction in the minimum

driving range requirement for a particular vehicle? If so, identify

yourself as a member of one of the following; household, business, for-

profit entity, non-profit entity, and/or federal, state, local, or

tribal government. (2) What are the estimated annual reporting and

recordkeeping hours required to submit a petition for a model-specific

reduction of the minimum driving range? Indicate whether this

information could be collected and transmitted electronically either in

whole or in part and what percentage of the information could be

collected or transmitted electronically. (3) What is your estimate of

the annual reporting and recordkeeping costs required to petition for a

model-specific reduction of the minimum range requirement? (4) What is

your estimate of the total annualized capital/startup costs required

for submitting a petition for a model-specific reduction? (5) What is

your estimate of your total annual costs for reporting and

recordkeeping for petitioning for a model-specific reduction?

Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and OMB's

regulations at 5 CFR section 1320.5(b)(2), NHTSA informs the potential

persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such

persons are not required to respond to the collection of information

unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. As of the

publication of this notice, there is no valid OMB control number

applicable to the collection of information associated with the driving

range reduction petition process proposed in this notice. As noted

above, the agency intends to obtain a valid OMB control number prior to

promulgation of a final rule.

Public Comments

NHTSA solicits public comments on the issues presented in this

notice. 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

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 NPRM will be considered, and will

be available for examination in the docket at the above address both

before and after that date. To the extent possible, comments filed

after the closing date will also be considered. Comments received too

late in regard to the final

[[Page 381]]

rule will be considered as suggestions for further rulemaking action.

Comments on this notice will be available for inspection in the docket.

NHTSA will continue to file relevant information as it becomes

available in the docket after the closing date, and it is recommended

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.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 538

Energy conservation, Gasoline, Imports, Motor vehicles.

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR part 538 is proposed to

be revised to read as follows:

PART 538--MANUFACTURING INCENTIVES FOR ALTERNATIVE FUEL VEHICLES

Sec.

538.5 Minimum driving range.

538.6 Measurement of driving range.

538.7 Petitions for reduction of minimum driving range.

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 32901, 32905, and 32906; delegation of

authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

Sec. 538.5 Minimum driving range.

(a) The minimum driving range that a passenger automobile must have

in order to be treated as a dual fueled automobile pursuant to 49

U.S.C. 32901(c) is 200 miles when operating on its nominal usable fuel

tank capacity of the alternative fuel, except when the alternative fuel

is electricity.

(b) The minimum driving range that a passenger automobile using

electricity as an alternative fuel must have in order to be treated as

a dual fueled automobile pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 32901(c) is 17.7 miles

when operating on its nominal storage capacity of electricity.

Sec. 538.6 Measurement of driving range.

(a) The driving range of a passenger automobile model type not

using electricity as an alternative fuel is determined by multiplying

the combined EPA city/highway fuel economy rating when operating on the

alternative fuel, by the nominal usable fuel tank capacity (in

gallons), of the fuel tank containing the alternative fuel.

(b) The combined EPA city/highway fuel economy rating is the value

determined by the procedures established by the Administrator of the

EPA under 49 U.S.C. 32904 and set forth in 40 CFR part 600.

(c) The driving range of a passenger automobile model type using

electricity as an alternative fuel is determined by operating the

vehicle in the electric-only mode of operation through the EPA combined

city/highway cycle.

(d) Passenger automobile types using electricity as an alternative

fuel that have completed the EPA combined city/highway cycle once

without recharging shall be deemed to have a range of 17.7 miles.

Sec. 538.7 Petitions for reduction of minimum driving range.

(a) A manufacturer of a model type of passenger automobile capable

of operating on both electricity and either gasoline or diesel fuel may

petition for a reduced minimum driving range for that model type in

accordance with paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.

(b) Each petition shall:

(1) Be addressed to: Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.

(2) Be submitted not later than the beginning of the first model

year in which the petitioner seeks to have the model type treated as an

electric dual fueled automobile.

(3) Be written in the English language.

(4) State the full name, address, and title of the official

responsible for preparing the petition, and the name and address of the

petitioner.

(5) Set forth in full data, views, and arguments of the petitioner,

including the information and data specified in paragraph (c) of this

section, and the calculations and analyses used to develop that

information and data. No documents may be incorporated by reference in

a petition unless the documents are submitted with the petition.

(6) Specify and segregate any part of the information and data

submitted under this section that the petitioner wishes to have

withheld from public disclosure in accordance with part 512 of this

chapter.

(c) Each petitioner shall include the following information in his/

her petition:

(1) Identification of the model type or types for which a lower

driving range is sought under this section.

(2) For each model type identified in accordance with paragraph

(c)(1) of this section:

(i) The driving range sought for that model type.

(ii) The number of years for which that driving range is sought.

(iii) A description of the model type, including car line

designation, engine displacement and type, electric storage capacity,

transmission type, and average fuel economy when operating on:

(A) Electricity, and

(B) Gasoline or diesel fuel.

(iv) An explanation of why the petitioner cannot modify the model

type so as to meet the generally applicable minimum range, including

the steps taken by the petitioner to improve the minimum range of the

vehicle, as well as additional steps that are technologically feasible,

but have not been taken. The costs to the petitioner of taking these

additional steps shall be included.

(3) A discussion of why granting the petition would be consistent

with the following factors:

(i) The purposes of 49 U.S.C. chapter 329, including encouraging

the development and widespread use of electricity as a transportation

fuel by consumers, and the production of passenger automobiles capable

of being operated on both electricity and gasoline/diesel fuel;

(ii) Consumer acceptability;

(iii) Economic practicability;

(iv) Technology;

(v) Environmental impact;

(vi) Safety;

(vii) Drivability; and

(viii) Performance.

(d) If a petition is found not to contain the information required

by this section, the petitioner is informed about the areas of

insufficiency and advised that the petition will not receive further

consideration until the required information is received.

(e) The Administrator may request the petitioner to provide

information in addition to that required by this section.

(f) The Administrator publishes in the Federal Register a notice of

receipt for each petition containing the information required by this

section. Any interested person may submit written comments regarding

the petition.

(g) In reaching a determination on a petition submitted under this

section, the Administrator takes into account:

(1) The purposes of 49 U.S.C. chapter 329, including encouraging

the development and widespread use of alternative fuels as

transportation fuels by consumers, and the production of alternative

fuel powered motor vehicles;

(2) Consumer acceptability;

(3) Economic practicability;

(4) Technology;

(5) Environmental impact;

(6) Safety;

(7) Drivability; and

(8) Performance.

(h) If the Administrator grants the petition, the petitioner is

notified in writing, specifying the reduced

[[Page 382]]

minimum driving range, and specifying the model years for which the

reduced driving range applies. The Administrator also publishes a

notice of the grant in the Federal Register and the reasons for the

grant.

(i) If the Administrator denies the petition, the petitioner is

notified in writing. The Administrator also publishes a notice of the

denial of the petition in the Federal Register and the reasons for the

denial.

Issued on: December 26, 1996.

L. Robert Shelton,

Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 97-85 Filed 1-2-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P