42752 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 11, 2000 / Notices

days after the 30 day notice is

published. 44 U.S.C. 3507 (b)–(c); 5 CFR

1320.12(d); see also 60 FR 44978, 44983,

Aug. 29, 1995. OMB believes that the 30

day notice informs the regulated

community to file relevant comments

and affords the agency adequate time to

digest public comments before it

renders a decision. 60 FR 44983, Aug.

29, 1995. Therefore respondents should

submit their respective comments to

OMB within 30 days of publication to

best ensure having their full effect. 5

CFR 1320.12(c); see also 60 FR 44983,

Aug. 29, 1995.

The summaries below describe the

nature of the information collection

requirements (ICRs) and the expected

burden. The revised requirements are

being submitted for clearance by OMB

as required by the PRA.

Title: Hours of Service Regulations.

OMB Control Number: 2130–0005.

Type of Request: Extension of a

currently approved collection.

Affected Public: Businesses.

Form(s): FRA F 6180.3.

Abstract: The collection of

information is due to the railroad hours

of service regulations set forth in 49 CFR

Part 228 which require railroads to

collect hours of duty for covered

employees, and records of train

movements. Railroads whose employees

have exceeded maximum duty

limitations must report the

circumstances. Also, a railroad that has

developed plans for construction or

reconstruction of sleeping quarters

(Subpart C of 49 CFR Part 228) must

obtain approval of the Federal Railroad

Administration (FRA) by filing a

petition conforming to the requirements

of Sections 228.101, 228.103, and

228.105.

Annual Estimated Burden Hours:

4,067,432.

Title: Railroad Operating Rules.

OMB Control Number: 2130–0035.

Type of Request: Extension of a

currently approved collection.

Affected Public: Businesses.

Form(s): N/A.

Abstract: The collection of

information is due to the railroad

operating rules set forth in 49 CFR Part

217 which require Class I and Class II

railroads to file with FRA copies of their

operating rules, timetables, and

timetable special instructions, and

subsequent amendments thereto. Class

III railroads are required to retain copies

of these documents at their system

headquarters. Also, 49 CFR 220.21(b)

prescribes the collection of information

which requires railroads to retain one

copy of their current operating rules

with respect to radio communications

and one copy of each subsequent

amendment thereto. These documents

must be made available to FRA upon

request.

Annual Estimated Burden Hours:

131,192.

Title: State Safety Participation

Regulations and Remedial Actions.

OMB Control Number: 2130–0509.

Type of Request: Extension of a

currently approved collection.

Affected Public: Businesses.

Form(s): FRA F 6180.10/29/29A/33

/61/67/68/68A/69/96/96A/96B

Abstract: The collection of

information is set forth under 49 CFR

Part 212, and requires qualified state

inspectors to provide various reports

concerning state investigative,

inspection, and surveillance activities

regarding railroad compliance with

Federal railroad safety laws and

regulations to FRA for monitoring and

enforcement purposes. Additionally,

railroads are required to report to FRA

actions taken to remedy certain alleged

violations of law.

Annual Estimated Burden Hours:

9,467.

Title: Rear-End Marking Devices.

OMB Control Number: 2130–0523.

Type of Request: Extension of a

currently approved collection.

Affected Public: Businesses.

Form(s): N/A.

Abstract: The collection of

information is set forth under 49 CFR

Part 221 which requires railroads to

furnish a detailed description of the

type of marking device to be used for

the trailing end of rear cars in order to

ensure rear cars meet minimum

standards for visibility and display.

Railroads are required to furnish a

certification that the device has been

tested in accordance with current

‘‘Guidelines for Testing of FRA Rear

End Marking Devices.’’ Additionally,

railroads are required to furnish detailed

test records which include the testing

organizations, description of tests,

number of samples tested, and the test

results in order to demonstrate

compliance with the performance

standard.

Annual Estimated Burden Hours: 8.

Title: Certification of Glazing

Materials.

OMB Control Number: 2130–0525.

Type of Request: Extension of a

currently approved collection.

Affected Public: Businesses.

Form(s): FRA F 6180.3.

Abstract: The collection of

information is set forth under 49 CFR

Part 223 which requires the certification

and permanent marking of glazing

materials by the manufacturer along

with the responsibility of the

manufacturer to make available test

verification data to railroads and FRA

upon request.

Annual Estimated Burden Hours:

1,010.

ADDRESSES: Send comments regarding

these information collections to the

Office of Information and Regulatory

Affairs, Office of Management and

Budget, 725 Seventeenth Street, NW.,

Washington, D.C., 20503. Attention:

FRA Desk Officer.

Comments are invited on the

following: Whether the proposed

collections of information are necessary

for the proper performance of the

functions of FRA, including whether the

information will have practical utility;

the accuracy of FRA’s estimates of the

burden of the proposed information

collections; ways to enhance the quality,

utility, and clarity of the information to

be collected; and ways to minimize the

burden of the collections of information

on respondents, including the use of

automated collection techniques or

other forms of information technology.

A comment to OMB is best assured of

having its full effect if OMB receives it

within 30 days of publication of this

notice in the Federal Register.

Authority: 44 U.S.C. §§ 3501–3520.

Margaret B. Reid,

Acting Director, Office of Information

Technology and Support Systems, Federal

Railroad Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–17497 Filed 7–10–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–06–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

Automotive Fuel Economy Program;

Report to Congress

The attached document, 24th Annual

Report to Congress on the Automotive

Fuel Economy Program, was prepared

pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 32916 et seq.

which requires that ‘‘the Secretary shall

transmit to each House of Congress, and

publish in the Federal Register, a

review of the average fuel economy

standards under this part.’’

The 24th Annual Report to Congress

on the Automotive Fuel Economy

Program summarizes the fuel economy

performance of the vehicle fleet and the

activities of the National Highway

Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)

during 1999. Included in this report is

a section summarizing rulemaking

activities during 1999. This report is

available on the Internet at: http://

www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/problems/

studies/fuelecon/index.html. To obtain

paper copies of this document, you may

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 11, 2000 / Notices 42753

contact NHTSA’s Publications Ordering

and Distribution Services on (202) 366–

1566.

Issued on: June 28, 2000.

Stephen R. Kratzke,

Acting Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards.

Automotive Fuel Economy Program;

Twenty-Fourth Annual Report to

Congress, Calendar Year 1999

Table of Contents

Section I: Introduction

Section II: Vehicle Fuel Economy

Performance and Characterisitics

A. Fuel Economy Performance by

Manufacturer

B. Characteristics of the MY 1999

Passenger Car Fleet

C. Characteristics of the MY 1999 Light

Truck Fleet

D. Passenger Car and Light Truck Fleet

Economy Averages

E. Domestic and Import Fleet Fuel

Economy Averages

Section III: 1999 Activities

A. Light Truck CAFE Standards

B. Enforcement

Section I: Introduction

The Twenty-fourth Annual Report to

Congress on the Automotive Fuel

Economy Program summarizes the fuel

economy performance of the vehicle

fleet and the activities of the National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration

(NHTSA) during 1999, in accordance

with 49 U.S.C. 32916 et seq., which

requires the submission of a report each

year. Included in this report is a section

summarizing rulemaking activities

during 1999.

The Secretary of Transportation is

required to administer a program for

regulating the fuel economy of new

passenger cars and light trucks in the

United States market. The authority to

administer the program was delegated

by the Secretary to the Administrator of

NHTSA, 49 CFR 1.50(f).

NHTSA’s responsibilities in the fuel

economy area include:

(1) Establishing and amending average

fuel economy standards for

manufacturers of passenger cars and

light trucks, as necessary;

(2) Promulgating regulations

concerning procedures, definitions, and

reports necessary to support the fuel

economy standards;

(3) Considering petitions for

exemption from established fuel

economy standards by low volume

manufacturers (those producing fewer

than 10,000 passenger cars annually

worldwide) and establishing alternative

standards for them;

(4) Preparing reports to Congress

annually on the fuel economy program;

(5) Enforcing fuel economy standards

and regulations; and

(6) Responding to petitions

concerning domestic production by

foreign manufacturers, and other

matters.

Passenger car fuel economy standards

were established by Congress for Model

Year (MY) 1985 and thereafter at a level

of 27.5 miles per gallon (mpg). NHTSA

is authorized to amend the standard

above or below that level. The agency

has established light truck standards

each year, but Congress has mandated

through the DOT Appropriations Acts

for fiscal years 1996 through 2000, no

increase from the MY 1996 value of 20.7

mpg for MYs 1998 through 2002. All

current standards are listed in Table

I–1.

TABLE I–1.—FUEL ECONOMY STANDARDS FOR PASSENGER CARS AND LIGHT TRUCKS MODEL YEARS 1978 THROUGH

2001

[In mpg]

Model year Passenger

cars

Light Trucks (1)

Two-wheel

drive

Four-wheel

drive

Combined (2) (3)

1978 ................................................................................................................. (4)18.0 ........................ ........................ ........................

1979 ................................................................................................................. (4)19.0 17.2 15.8 ........................

1980 ................................................................................................................. (4) 20.0 16.0 14.0 (5)

1981 ................................................................................................................. 22.0 (6)16.7 15.0 (5)

1982 ................................................................................................................. 24.0 18.0 16.0 17.5

1983 ................................................................................................................. 26.0 19.5 17.5 19.0

1984 ................................................................................................................. 27.0 20.3 18.5 20.0

1985 ................................................................................................................. (4) 27.5 (7)19.7 (7)18.9 (7)19.5

1986 ................................................................................................................. (8) 26.0 20.5 19.5 20.0

1987 ................................................................................................................. (9) 26.0 21.0 19.5 20.5

1988 ................................................................................................................. (9) 26.0 21.0 19.5 20.5

1989 ................................................................................................................. (10) 26.5 21.5 19.0 20.5

1990 ................................................................................................................. (4) 27.5 20.5 19.0 20.0

1991 ................................................................................................................. (4) 27.5 20.7 19.1 20.2

1992 ................................................................................................................. (4) 27.5 ........................ ........................ 20.2

1993 ................................................................................................................. (4) 27.5 ........................ ........................ 20.4

1994 ................................................................................................................. (4) 27.5 ........................ ........................ 20.5

1995 ................................................................................................................. (4) 27.5 ........................ ........................ 20.6

1996 ................................................................................................................. (4) 27.5 ........................ ........................ 20.7

1997 ................................................................................................................. (4) 27.5 ........................ ........................ 20.7

1998 ................................................................................................................. (4) 27.5 ........................ ........................ 20.7

1999 ................................................................................................................. (4) 27.5 ........................ ........................ 20.7

2000 ................................................................................................................. (4) 27.5 ........................ ........................ 20.7

2001 ................................................................................................................. (4) 27.5 ........................ ........................ 20.7

1Standards for MY 1979 light trucks were established for vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 6,000 pounds or less. Standards for MY 1980 and beyond are for light trucks with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less. 2For MY 1979, light truck manufacturers could comply separately with standards for four-wheel drive, general utility vehicles and all other light

trucks, or combine their trucks into a single fleet and comply with the standard of 17.2 mpg. 3For MYs 1982–1991, manufacturers could comply with the two-wheel and four-wheel drive standards or could combine all light trucks and

comply with the combined standard. 4Established by Congress in Title V of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act.

42754 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 11, 2000 / Notices

5A manufacturer whose light truck fleet was powered exclusively by basic engines which were not also used in passenger cars could meet

standards of 14 mpg and 14.5 mpg in MYs 1980 and 1981, respectively. 6 Revised in June 1979 from 18.0 mpg.

7 Revised in October 1984 from 21.6 mpg for two-wheel drive, 19.0 mpg for four-wheel drive, and 21.0 mpg for combined.

8 Revised in October 1985 from 27.5 mpg.

9 Revised in October 1986 from 27.5 mpg.

10 Revised in September 1988 from 27.5 mpg.

Section II: Vehicle Fuel Economy

Performance and Characteristics

A. Fuel Economy Performance by

Manufacturer

The fuel economy achievements for

domestic and foreign-based

manufacturers in MY 1999 were

updated to include final EPA

calculations, where available, since the

publication of the Twenty-third Annual

Report to the Congress. These fuel

economy achievements and current

projected data for MY 1999 are listed in

Tables II–1 and II–2.

Overall fleet fuel economy for

passenger cars was 28.3 mpg in MY

1999, a decrease of 0.4 mpg from the

MY 1998 level. For MY 1999, CAFE

values increased above MY 1998 levels

for six of 17 passenger car

manufacturers’ fleets. (See Table II–1.)

These six companies accounted for

more than 12 percent of the total MY

1999 production. Manufacturers

continued to introduce new

technologies and more fuel-efficient

models, and some larger, less fuelefficient models. For MY 1999, the

overall domestic manufacturers’ fleet

average fuel economy was 28.2 mpg. For

MY 1999, Honda and Toyota domestic

passenger car CAFE values rose 4.9 mpg

and 4.7 mpg from their 1998 levels,

while Ford/Mazda and General Motors

fell 0.4 mpg and 0.2 mpg, respectively,

from their MY 1998 levels. Nissan

remained at its MY 1998 level of 29.9

mpg. Overall, the domestic

manufacturers’ combined CAFE

increased 0.1 mpg above the MY 1998

level.

TABLE II–1.—PASSENGER CAR FUEL

ECONOMY PERFORMANCE BY

MANUFACTURER* MODEL YEARS

1998 AND 1999

Manufacturer

Model year

CAFE

(mpg)

1998 1999

Domestic:

Chrysler ......................... 28.7 ..........

DaimlerChrysler ............. .......... 27.5

Ford/Mazda ................... 27.6 27.2

General Motors .............. 27.8 27.6

Honda ............................ 29.5 34.4

Mitsubishi ....................... .......... 28.8

TABLE II–1.—PASSENGER CAR FUEL

ECONOMY PERFORMANCE BY

MANUFACTURER* MODEL YEARS

1998 AND 1999—Continued

Manufacturer

Model year

CAFE

(mpg)

1998 1999

Nissan ............................ 29.9 29.9

Toyota ............................ 28.6 33.3

Sales weighted average (domestic) ............................... 28.1 28.2

Import:

BMW .............................. 25.4 25.4

Chrysler ......................... 25.8 ..........

DaimlerChrysler ............. .......... 26.3

Fiat ................................. 13.5 13.6

Ford/Mazda ................... 28.9 30.1

General Motors .............. 28.9 27.9

Honda ............................ 34.6 29.4

Hyundai ......................... 31.5 31.4

Kia ................................. 30.9 31.2

Mercedes-Benz ............. 27.2 ..........

Mitsubishi ....................... 29.7 29.6

Nissan ............................ 30.7 29.5

Porsche ......................... 24.5 24.2

Subaru ........................... 27.6 27.5

Suzuki ............................ 35.9 35.4

Toyota ............................ 30.7 28.0

Volvo .............................. 25.6 26.2

Volkswagen ................... 28.7 28.2

Sales weighted average (import) ................................... 30.0 28.4

Total fleet average ................ 28.7 28.3

Fuel economy standards ...... 27.5 27.5

TABLE II–2.—LIGHT TRUCK FUEL

ECONOMY PERFORMANCE BY MANUFACTURER MODEL YEARS 1998 AND

1999

Manufacturer

Model year

CAFE (mpg)

combined

1998 1999

Chrysler ................................ 20.5 ..........

DaimlerChrysler .................... .......... 20.7

Ford/Mazda ........................... 20.1 20.4

General Motors ..................... 21.1 20.0

Honda ................................... 27.1 24.2

Isuzu ..................................... 21.4 21.5

Kia ......................................... 24.4 24.2

Land Rover ........................... 17.2 17.0

Mercedes-Benz ..................... 21.3 ..........

Mitsubishi .............................. 22.5 22.3

Nissan ................................... 22.2 21.1

Suzuki ................................... 27.4 24.3

Toyota ................................... 23.5 22.6

Volkswagen .......................... .......... 19.1

Total fleet average ................ 20.9 20.7

TABLE II–2.—LIGHT TRUCK FUEL

ECONOMY PERFORMANCE BY MANUFACTURER MODEL YEARS 1998 AND

1999—Continued

Manufacturer

Model year

CAFE (mpg)

combined

1998 1999

Fuel economy standards ...... 20.7 20.7

In MY 1999, the fleet average fuel

economy for import passenger cars

decreased by 1.6 mpg from the MY 1998

CAFE level to 28.4 mpg. Five of the 16

import car manufacturers increased

their CAFE values between MYs 1998

and 1999. Figure II–1 illustrates the

changes in total new passenger car fleet

CAFE from MY 1978 to MY 1999.

The total light truck fleet CAFE

decreased 0.2 mpg below the MY 1998

CAFE level of 20.9 mpg (see Table II–

2). Figure II–2 illustrates the trends in

total light truck fleet CAFE from MY

1979 to MY 1999.

Six passenger cars (BMW,

DaimlerChrysler import, Fiat, Ford/

Mazda domestic, Porsche and Volvo)

and four light truck manufacturers

(Ford/Mazda, General Motors, Land

Rover and Volkswagen) are projected to

fail to achieve the levels of the MY 1999

CAFE standards. However, NHTSA is

not yet able to determine which of these

manufacturers may be liable for civil

penalties for non-compliance. Some MY

1999 CAFE values may change when

final figures are provided to NHTSA by

EPA in mid-2000. In addition, several

manufacturers are not expected to pay

civil penalties because the credits they

earned by exceeding the fuel economy

standards in earlier years offset later

shortfalls. Other manufacturers may file

carryback plans to demonstrate that they

anticipate earning credits in future

model years to offset current deficits.

Mitsubishi achieved 75 percent

domestic content for its United States

built passenger cars to become the

fourth foreign-based manufacturer with

a domestic fleet. These domestic-built

vehicles do not appreciably affect the

domestic fleet CAFE.

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 11, 2000 / Notices 42755

42756 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 11, 2000 / Notices

In November 1998, a domestic

manufacturer, Chrysler Corporation,

merged with an import manufacturer,

Daimler-Benz AG, to form a new

company, DaimlerChrysler, making it

the fifth-largest automaker in the world.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 11, 2000 / Notices 42757

B. Characteristics of the MY 1999

Passenger Car Fleet

The characteristics of the MY 1999

passenger car fleet reflect a continuing

trend toward satisfying consumer

demand for higher performance cars.

(See Table II–3.) From MY 1998 to MY

1999, horsepower/100 pounds, a

measure of vehicle performance,

increased from 5.11 to 5.30 for domestic

passenger cars and from 4.93 to 5.03 for

import passenger cars. The total fleet

average for passenger cars increased

from 5.05 horsepower/100 pounds in

MY 1998 to 5.21 in MY 1999, the

highest level in the 43 years for which

the agency has data. Compared with MY

1998, the average curb weight for MY

1999 increased by five pounds for the

domestic fleet and increased by 108

pounds for the import fleet. The average

curb weight for the total fleet of

passenger cars increased from 3,075

pounds in MY 1998 to 3,116 pounds in

MY 1999, primarily because of the

average curb weight increase for the

import fleet. Average engine

displacement increased from 174 to 176

cubic inches for domestic passenger cars

and increased from 137 to 146 cubic

inches for import passenger cars from

MY 1998 to MY 1999.

The 0.1 mpg fuel economy

improvement for the MY 1999 domestic

passenger car fleet may be attributed in

part to mix shifts (in the segmentation

by EPA size class), improved engine

technology and the use of more

automatic four-speed transmissions and

automatic transmissions with lockup

clutches.

TABLE II–3.—PASSENGER CAR FLEET CHARACTERISTICS FOR MYS 1998 AND 1999

Characteristics

Total fleet Domestic fleet Import fleet

1998 1999 1998 1999 1998 1999

Fleet Average Fuel Economy, mpg ................................................................................. 28.7 28.3 28.1 28.2 30.0 28.4

Fleet Average Curb Weight, lbs ...................................................................................... 3075 3116 3119 3124 2992 3100

Fleet Average Equivalent Test Weight, lbs ..................................................................... 3372 3418 3421 3432 3278 3392

Fleet Average Engine Displacement, cu. in .................................................................... 161 166 174 176 137 146

Fleet Average Horsepower/Weight ratio, HP/100 lbs ...................................................... 5.05 5.21 5.11 5.30 4.93 5.03

% of Fleet ......................................................................................................................... 100 100 65.7 66.2 34.3 33.8

Segmentation by EPA Size Class, %

Two-Seater ....................................................................................................................... 0.7 1.4 0.2 0.6 1.7 2.8

Minicompact ..................................................................................................................... 0.4 0.6 0.0 0.3 1.2 1.2

Subcompact* .................................................................................................................... 16.7 15.6 10.4 14.7 28.7 17.4

Compact* ......................................................................................................................... 35.8 31.7 35.8 35.1 35.8 25.1

Mid-Size* .......................................................................................................................... 34.1 38.2 35.4 30.8 31.6 52.9

Large* ............................................................................................................................... 12.3 12.5 18.2 18.6 1.0 0.6

Diesel Engines ................................................................................................................. 0.19 0.16 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.5

Turbo or Supercharged Engines ..................................................................................... 2.0 4.4 1.2 3.9 3.6 5.4

Fuel Injection .................................................................................................................... 100 100 100 100 100 100

Front-Wheel Drive ............................................................................................................ 87.0 86.0 90.9 90.9 79.5 76.4

Automatic Transmissions ................................................................................................. 86.4 86.0 90.4 90.8 78.9 76.6

Automatic Transmissions with Lockup Clutches ............................................................. 99.2 99.8 99.0 99.8 99.8 99.8

Automatic Transmissions with Four or more Forward Speeds ....................................... 92.0 95.1 90.8 94.0 94.8 98.1

% Electric ......................................................................................................................... 0.0 0.002 0.0 0.003 0.0 0.0

*Includes associated station wagons.

The size/class breakdown shows an

increased trend primarily toward twoseater, minicompact, mid-size passenger

and large cars with the reduction of

subcompact and compact passenger cars

for the overall fleet. The size/class mix

in the domestic fleet showed a decrease

in compact and mid-size passenger cars

and an increase in two-seater,

minicompact, subcompact and large

passenger cars. The size/class mix in the

import fleet showed a decrease in

subcompact, compact and large

passenger cars and an increase in twoseater and mid-size passenger cars. The

import share of the passenger car market

declined in MY 1999, as more foreignbased manufacturers achieved 75

percent domestic content for their U.S.

and Canadian-assembled passenger cars.

The domestic fleet rose above its MY

1998 level in the share of turbocharged

and supercharged engines. Diesel

engines were only offered on certain

Mercedes and Volkswagen models

during MY 1999. Consequently, diesel

engine shares decreased in MY 1999.

Passenger car fleet average

characteristics have changed

significantly since MY 1978 (the first

year of fuel economy standards). (See

Table II–4.) After substantial initial

weight loss (from MY 1978 to MY 1982,

the average passenger car fleet curb

weight decreased from 3,349 to 2,808

pounds), the curb weight stabilized

between 2,800 and 3,120 pounds. Table

II–4 shows that the MY 1999 passenger

car fleet has nearly equal interior

volume and higher performance, but

with more than 42 percent better fuel

economy, than the MY 1978 fleet. (See

Figure II–3.)

TABLE II–4.—NEW PASSENGER CAR FLEET AVERAGE CHARACTERISTICS MODEL YEARS 1978–1999

Model year Fuel economy

(mpg) Curb weight (lbs.) Equivalent testweight (lbs.)

Interior space (cu.

ft.)

Engine size (cu.

in.)

Horsepower/

weight (hp/100 lb.)

1978 ..................... 19.9 3349 3627 112 260 3.68

1979 ..................... 20.3 3180 3481 110 238 3.72

1980 ..................... 24.3 2867 3162 105 187 3.51

1981 ..................... 25.9 2883 3154 108 182 3.43

42758 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 11, 2000 / Notices

TABLE II–4.—NEW PASSENGER CAR FLEET AVERAGE CHARACTERISTICS MODEL YEARS 1978–1999—Continued

Model year Fuel economy

(mpg) Curb weight (lbs.) Equivalent testweight (lbs.)

Interior space (cu.

ft.)

Engine size (cu.

in.)

Horsepower/

weight (hp/100 lb.)

1982 ..................... 26.6 2808 3098 107 173 3.47

1983 ..................... 26.4 2908 3204 109 182 3.57

1984 ..................... 26.9 2878 3170 108 178 3.66

1985 ..................... 27.6 2867 3177 108 177 3.84

1986 ..................... 28.2 2821 3127 106 169 3.89

1987 ..................... 28.5 2805 3100 109 162 3.98

1988 ..................... 28.8 2831 3100 107 161 4.11

1989 ..................... 28.4 2879 3181 109 163 4.24

1990 ..................... 28.0 2908 3192 108 163 4.53

1991 ..................... 28.4 2934 3228 108 164 4.42

1992 ..................... 27.9 3007 3307 108 169 4.56

1993 ..................... 28.4 2971 3328 109 164 4.62

1994 ..................... 28.3 3011 3317 109 169 4.79

1995 ..................... 28.6 3047 3335 109 166 4.87

1996 ..................... 28.5 3047 3352 109 164 4.92

1997 ..................... 28.7 3071 3364 109 164 4.95

1998 ..................... 28.7 3075 3372 109 161 5.05

1999 ..................... 28.3 3116 3418 110 166 5.21

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 11, 2000 / Notices 42759

42760 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 11, 2000 / Notices

C. Characteristics of the MY 1999 Light

Truck Fleet

The characteristics of the MY 1999

light truck fleet are shown in Table II–

5. Light truck manufacturers are not

required to divide their fleets into

domestic and import fleets based on the

75-percent domestic content threshold

used for passenger car fleets. The light

truck fleet is subdivided into two-wheel

drive or four-wheel drive classifications.

The MY 1999 average test weight of

the total light truck fleet increased by 95

pounds over that for MY 1998. The

average fuel economy of the fleet

decreased by 0.2 mpg to 20.7 mpg.

Diesel engine usage increased slightly in

light trucks to 0.05 percent in MY 1999

from 0.02 percent in MY 1998. The

share of the MY 1999 two-wheel drive

fleet decreased by 1.9 percent from the

MY 1998 level of 57.4 percent.

CAFE levels for light trucks in the 0–

8,500 pounds gross vehicle weight

(GVW) class increased from 18.5 mpg in

MY 1980 to 21.7 mpg in MY 1987,

before declining to 20.7 mpg in MY

1999, influenced by an increase in

performance. Light truck production

increased from 1.9 million units in MY

1980 to 6.4 million units in MY 1999.

Light trucks comprised 43 percent of the

total light duty vehicle fleet production

in MY 1999, nearly 2.5 times more than

the share in MY 1980.

D. Passenger Car and Light Truck Fleet

Economy Averages

Figure II–4 illustrates an increase in

the light duty fleet (combined passenger

cars and light trucks) average fuel

economy through MY 1987, followed by

a gradual decline. (Also, see Table II–6.)

Passenger car average fuel economy

remained relatively constant for MYs

1987–1999. The overall decline in fuel

economy illustrates a larger decrease in

car fuel economy compared to light

truck fuel economy.

TABLE II–5.—LIGHT TRUCK FLEET CHARACTERISTICS FOR MYS 1998 AND 1999

Characteristics

Total fleet Two-wheel drive Four-wheel drive

1998 1999 1998 1999 1998 1999

Fleet Average Fuel Economy, mpg ......................................................... 20.9 20.7 22.4 22.2 19.1 19.1

Fleet Average Equivalent Test Weight, lbs ............................................. 4435 4530 4255 4356 4679 4747

Fleet Average Engine Displacement, cu. in ............................................ 243 251 228 239 263 267

Fleet Average Horsepower/Weight ratio, HP/100 lbs .............................. 4.23 4.24 4.20 4.29 4.26 4.17

% of Fleet ................................................................................................. 100 100 57.4 55.5 42.6 44.5

% of Fleet from Foreign-based Manufacturers ........................................ 15.5 15.6 11.4 11.8 21.1 20.2

Segmentation by Type, %

Passenger Van ........................................................................................ 18.5 17.1 31.4 29.9 1.3 1.2

Cargo Van ................................................................................................ 3.3 3.5 5.6 6.2 0.2 0.2

Small Pickup ............................................................................................ 7.3 3.2 12.8 5.8 0.0 0.0

Large Pickup:

Two-Wheel Drive .............................................................................. 17.1 17.9 29.7 32.3 0.0 0.0

Four-Wheel Drive .............................................................................. 13.3 13.7 0.0 0.0 31.3 30.9

Special Purpose:

Two-Wheel Drive .............................................................................. 11.8 14.3 20.6 25.8 0.0 0.0

Four-Wheel Drive .............................................................................. 28.7 30.2 0.0 0.0 67.3 67.8

Diesel Engines ......................................................................................... 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.08 0.04 0.03

Turbo/Supercharged Engines .................................................................. 0.25 0.52 0.01 0.08 0.56 1.1

Fuel Injection ............................................................................................ 100 100 100 100 100 100

Automatic Transmissions ......................................................................... 86.1 89.8 85.0 88.6 87.6 91.3

Automatic Transmissions with Lockup Clutches ..................................... 99.3 99.6 99.1 99.3 100 100

Automatic Transmissions with Four or More Forward Speeds ............... 95.1 98.1 92.2 97.5 94.6 98.9

% Electric ................................................................................................. 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 11, 2000 / Notices 42761

42762 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 11, 2000 / Notices

While passenger car and light truck

fleet fuel economy decreased from MY

1998 to MY 1999 by 0.4 mpg and 0.2

mpg respectively, the total fleet fuel

economy for MY 1999 decreased to 24.5

mpg from 24.6 mpg. The shift to light

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 11, 2000 / Notices 42763

trucks for general transportation has had

a significant effect on fuel consumption.

E. Domestic and Import Fleet Fuel

Economy Averages

Domestic and import passenger car

fleet average fuel economies have

improved since MY 1978, although the

increase is far more dramatic for the

domestic fleet. In MY 1999, the

domestic passenger car fleet average fuel

economy was 28.2 mpg. The import

passenger car fleet average fuel economy

was 28.4 mpg. Compared with MY 1978,

this reflects an increase of 9.5 mpg for

domestic cars and 1.1 mpg for import

cars.

Since MY 1980, the average fuel

economy for the total light truck fleet

and the domestic light truck

manufacturers has shown overall

improvement, however, both have

remained below the fuel economy level

for the imported light truck fleet. The

import light truck average fuel economy

has decreased significantly since its

highest level of 27.4 mpg for MY 1981

to 22.2 mpg for MY 1996, the last year

the agency divided the light truck fleet

into domestic and import.

The disparity between the average

CAFEs of the import and domestic

manufacturers has declined in recent

years as domestic manufacturers have

maintained relatively stable CAFE

values while the import manufacturers

moved to larger vehicles, and more fourwheel drive light trucks, thus lowering

their CAFE values.

Section III: 1999 Activities

A. Light Truck CAFE Standards

On April 7, 1999, NHTSA published

a final rule establishing a combined

standard of 20.7 mpg for light trucks for

MY 2001. The Department of

Transportation and Related Agencies

Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1999,

Pub. L. 105–66, precluded the agency

from setting the MY 2001 standard at a

level other than the level for MY 2000.

B. Enforcement

49 U.S.C. 32912(b) imposes a civil

penalty of $5.50 for each tenth of a mpg

by which a manufacturer’s CAFE level

falls short of the standard, multiplied by

the total number of passenger

automobiles or light trucks produced by

the manufacturer in that model year.

Credits earned for exceeding the

standard in any of the three model years

immediately prior to or subsequent to

the model years in question can be used

to offset the penalty.

Table III–1 shows CAFE fines paid by

manufacturers in calendar year 1999. In

calendar year 1999, manufacturers paid

civil penalties totaling $16,275,722 for

failing to comply with the fuel economy

standards of 27.5 mpg for passenger cars

and 20.7 mpg for light trucks in MYs

1997 and 1998.

TABLE III–1.—CAFE FINES COLLECTED DURING CALENDAR YEAR 1999

Model year Manufacturer Amount fined Date paid

1997 .......................... Land Rover ................................................................................................................... $68 01/99

Volkswagen .................................................................................................................. 176,220 04/99

Lotus ............................................................................................................................. 36,890 05/99

1998 .......................... Fiat ............................................................................................................................... 527,450 04/99

Mercedes-Benz ............................................................................................................ 1,683,525 07/99

BMW of North America ................................................................................................ 13,851,569 12/99

[FR Doc. 00–16922 Filed 7–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA–99–6857, Notice 2]

Intac Automotive Products, Inc.; Grant

of Application for Decision That

Noncompliance Is Inconsequential to

Motor Vehicle Safety

Intac Automotive Products, Inc.,

(Intac) has determined that certain brake

fluid containers manufactured by its

supplier, Gold Eagle, are not in

compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle

Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 116,

‘‘Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids’’, and has

filed appropriate reports pursuant to 49

CFR Part 573, ‘‘Defect and

Noncompliance Reports.’’ Intac has also

applied to be exempted from the

notification and remedy requirements of

49 U.S.C. chapter 301—‘‘Motor Vehicle

Safety’’ on the basis that the

noncompliance is inconsequential to

motor vehicle safety.

Notice of receipt of the application

was published, with a 30-day comment

period, on February 18, 2000, in the

Federal Register (65 FR 8472). NHTSA

received no comments on this

application.

Paragraph S5.2.2.2 of FMVSS No. 116

requires that certain information,

including a serial number identifying

the packaged lot and date of packaging

specified in S5.2.2.2(d), be clearly

marked on each brake fluid container or

label permanently affixed to the

container. Paragraph S5.2.2.2 further

requires that this information be legible

after being subjected to the test

procedures in S6.14, Container

information. S6.14 requires that each

container be immersed in the same

brake fluid contained therein for 15

minutes and dried within 5 minutes of

its removal from the brake fluid.

Intac filed a Part 573 report informing

the agency that, on November 4, 1997,

it manufactured approximately 9,000

containers of brake fluid which it

shipped to Petrochemical, Inc., for

Mazda. On April 6, 1999, Intac

manufactured approximately 30,500

containers of brake fluid which it

shipped to Nissan and, on August 12,

1999, it manufactured approximately

16,800 containers of brake fluid which

it shipped to Petrochemical, Inc., for

Subaru. According to Intac, some of

these brake fluid containers have labels

that do not comply with the

requirements of S5.2.2.2 of FMVSS No.

116. Additionally, to the best of Intac’s

knowledge, all of that company’s brake

fluid containers with labels that are

potentially noncompliant with these

requirements were manufactured on the

aforementioned dates. For some of these

containers, the packaged lot and date

code information on the label

(S5.2.2.2(d)) were not legible after the

container was subjected to the test

procedures in S6.14. The containers and

labels were manufactured by the Gold

Eagle Company, which also packaged

the brake fluid in the containers under

contract to Intac. Intac believes this

noncompliance to be inconsequential to

motor vehicle safety.

Intac supported its application for

inconsequential noncompliance by

stating that all the substantive safety

warnings concerning proper storage and

use of the contents of the referenced

brake fluid containers were legible after

durability testing in accordance with