Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 1997 / Proposed Rules 375

allowability of IR&D/B&P costs on

contracts for foreign military sales not

wholly paid for from funds made

available on a nonrepayable basis shall

be limited to the contract’s allocable

share of the contractor’s total IR&D/B&P

expenditures. In pricing contracts for

such foreign military sales—

(1) Use the best estimate of reasonable

costs in forward pricing.

(2) Use actual expenditures, to the

extent that they are reasonable, in

determining final cost.

* * * * *

PART 231—CONTRACT COST

PRINCIPLES AND PROCEDURES

3. Section 231.205–18 is revised to

read as follows:

231.205–18 Independent research and

development and bid and proposal costs.

(a) Definition. Major contractor, as

used in this subsection, means a

contractor with more than $11,000,000

in IR&D/B&P costs in the preceding

fiscal year allocated to DoD prime

contracts and subcontracts whose values

exceed the simplified acquisition

threshold, except for fixed-price

contracts and subcontracts without cost

incentives.

(c) Allowability. (i) Departments/

agencies shall not supplement this

regulation in any way that limits IR&D/

B&P cost allowability.

(ii) See 225.7303–2(c) for allowability

provisions affecting foreign military sale

contracts.

(iii) For major contractors (see

paragraph (a) of this subsection), the

following limitation applies—

(A) The amount of IR&D/B&P costs

allowable under DoD contracts shall not

exceed the lesser of—

(1) Such contracts’ allocable share of

total incurred IR&D/B&P costs; or

(2) The amount of incurred IR&D/B&P

costs for projects having potential

interest to DoD.

(B) Allowable IR&D/B&P costs are

limited to those for projects which are

of potential interest to the DoD,

including activities intended to

accomplish any of the following—

(1) Enable superior performance of

future U.S. weapon systems and

components;

(2) Reduce acquisition costs and lifecycle costs of military systems;

(3) Strengthen the defense industrial

and technology base of the United

States;

(4) Enhance the industrial

competitiveness of the United States;

(5) Promote the development of

technologies identified as critical under

10 U.S.C. 2522;

(6) Increase the development and

promotion of efficient and effective

applications of dual-use technologies;

(7) Provide efficient and effective

technologies for achieving such

environmental benefits as: improved

environmental data gathering,

environmental cleanup and restoration,

pollution reduction in manufacturing,

environmental conservation, and

environmentally safe management of

facilities.

(iv) For major contractors, the

contracting officer will—

(i) Determine whether IR&D/B&P

projects are of potential interest to DoD;

and

(ii) Provide the results of the

determination to the contractor.

(v) The cognizant contract

administration office shall furnish

contractors with guidance on financial

information needed to support IR&D/

B&P costs and on technical information

needed from major contractors to

support the potential interest to DoD

determination (see also 242.771–3(a)).

PART 242—CONTRACT

ADMINISTRATION

4. Sections 242.771 through 242.771–

3 are revised to read as follows:

242.771 Independent research and

development/bid and proposal.

242.771–1 Scope of subpart.

This section implements 10 U.S.C.

2372, Independent research and

development and bid and proposal

costs: payments to contractors.

242.771–2 Policy.

Defense contractors are encouraged to

engage in IR&D/B&P activities of

potential interest to DoD, including

activities cited in 231.205–18(c)(iii)(B).

242.771–3 Responsibilities.

(a) The cognizant administrative

contracting officer (ACO) or corporate

ACO shall—

(1) Determine cost allowability of

IR&D/B&P costs as set forth in 231.205–

18 and FAR 31.205–18.

(2) Determine whether IR&D/B&P

projects performed by major contractors

(see 231.205–18(a)) are of potential

interest to DoD. Notify the contractor

promptly of any IR&D/B&P activities

which are not of potential interest to

DoD.

(b) The Defense Contract Management

Command of the Defense Logistics

Agency or the Military Department

responsible for performing contract

administration functions is responsible

for—

(1) Providing contractors with

guidance on financial information

needed to support IR&D/B&P costs.

(2) Providing Defense Contract Audit

Agency (DCAA) with IR&D/B&P

statistical information, as necessary, to

assist DCAA in its annual reporting

requirement (see paragraph (c) of this

subsection).

(c) The Defense Contract Audit

Agency is responsible for submitting an

annual report to the Director of Defense

Procurement (USD (A&T) DP) setting

forth required statistical information

relating to the DoD-wide IR&D/B&P

program.

(d) The Director, Defense Research

and Engineering (USD (A&T) DDR&E), is

responsible for establishing a regular

method for communication—

(1) From DoD to contractors, of timely

and comprehensive information

regarding planned or expected DoD

future needs; and

(2) From contractors to DoD, of brief

technical descriptions of contractor

IR&D projects.

[FR Doc. 97–43 Filed 1–2–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5000–04–M

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
376 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 1997 / Proposed Rules

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:

1

0 5

28 5

0 5

90

43 4 .

.

.

.8

. /

+

= miles gallon

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
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 1997 / Proposed Rules 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
378 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 1997 / Proposed Rules

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 nonelectric 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
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 1997 / Proposed Rules 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 advancedtechnology 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 electriconly 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
380 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 1997 / Proposed Rules

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
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 1997 / Proposed Rules 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 selfaddressed, 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.

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 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
382 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 1997 / Proposed Rules

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 300

[Docket No. 961217359–6359–01; I.D.

121196B]

RIN 0648–AJ11

Pacific Halibut Fisheries; Catch

Sharing Plan

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Proposed rule and proposed

catch sharing plan.

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes to approve

and implement revisions to the Catch

Sharing Plan (Plan) for sport harvests of

Pacific halibut off Oregon under

authority of the Northern Pacific Halibut

Act of 1982 (Halibut Act). NMFS also

proposes sport fishery regulations to

implement the Plan in 1997. The

proposed rule is intended to carry out

the objectives of the Plan for 1997.

DATES: Comments on the changes to the

Plan must be received by January 19,

1997; comments on the proposed sport

fishery regulations must be received by

February 15, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Send comments or requests

for the Plan to William Stelle, Jr.,

Director, Northwest Region, NMFS,

7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA

98115.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joe

Scordino, 206–526–6140.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Halibut Act of 1982 at 16 U.S.C. 773c

provides that the Secretary of Commerce

(Secretary) shall have general

responsibility to carry out the Halibut

Convention between the United States

and Canada and that the Secretary shall

adopt such regulations as may be

necessary to carry out the purposes and

objectives of the Convention and the

Halibut Act. Section 773c(c) also

authorizes the regional fishery

management council having authority

for the geographic area concerned to

develop regulations governing the

Pacific halibut catch in U.S. Convention

waters that are in addition to, but not in

conflict with, regulations of the

International Pacific Halibut

Commission (IPHC). Accordingly, catch

sharing plans to allocate the total

allowable catch (TAC) of Pacific halibut

between treaty Indian and non-Indian

harvesters, and among non-Indian

commercial and sport fisheries in IPHC

statistical Area 2A (off Washington,

Oregon, and California) have been

developed each year since 1988 by the

Pacific Fishery Management Council

(Council) in accordance with the

Halibut Act. In 1995, NMFS

implemented a Council-recommended

long-term Plan (60 FR 14651, March 20,

1995) which was revised in 1996 (61 FR

11337, March 20, 1996). The Plan

allocates 35 percent of the Area 2A TAC

to Washington treaty Indian tribes in

Subarea 2A–1 and 65 percent to nonIndian fisheries in Area 2A. The

allocation to non-Indian fisheries is

divided into three shares, with the

Washington sport fishery (north of the

Columbia River) receiving 36.6 percent,

the Oregon/California sport fishery

receiving 31.7 percent, and the

commercial fishery receiving 31.7

percent. The commercial fishery is

further divided into two sectors; a

directed (traditional longline)

commercial fishery that is allocated 85

percent of the 31.7 percent (26.945

percent of the non-Indian commercial

harvest), and incidental (troll salmon)

commercial fishery is allocated 15

percent of the 31.7 percent (4.755

percent of the non-Indian commercial

harvest). The directed commercial

fishery in Area 2A is confined to

southern Washington (south of

46°53’18’’ N. lat.), Oregon and

California. The Plan also divides the

sport fisheries into seven geographic

areas each with separate allocations,

seasons, and bag limits.

Proposed Changes to the Plan

At its August 1996 public meeting,

the Council adopted, for public

comment, proposed changes to the Plan

on: (1) Re-structuring the Oregon sport

fisheries from quota managed seasons to

fixed-length seasons that are determined

and set preseason, and (2) deleting the

rollover provisions for unused quota in

the commercial incidental halibut catch

(salmon troll) fishery. At its October

1996 public meeting, the Council made

final recommendations for modifying

the Plan to restructure the May and

August seasons in the Oregon Central

Coast subarea sport fishery (Cape Falcon

to Florence north jetty) from a quota

managed to a fixed-length season

fishery. At the request of the Oregon

Department of Fish and Wildlife

(ODFW), the Oregon South Coast

subarea sport fishery in May was not

recommended for modification based on

input from sport users in that area;

however, the August season, which is

combined with the Central Coast

subarea, was recommended for

modification to a fixed-length season.

The commercial, incidental halibut

catch (salmon troll) fishery was not

recommended for change because of the

Council’s desire to maintain its original

intent in the Plan to roll over any

remaining quota not incidentally

harvested during the May/June chinook

salmon troll fishery to the directed

commercial (longline) fishery.

NMFS is proposing to implement the

Council-recommended changes to the

Plan.

Proposed Revised Section of the Plan

for the Oregon Sport Fisheries

Oregon Central Coast Subarea

If the Area 2A TAC is 388,350 lb

(176.2 mt) and greater, this Oregon

Central Coast subarea extends from

Cape Falcon to the Siuslaw River at the

Florence north jetty (44°01’08’’ N. lat.)

and the sport fishery is allocated 88.4

percent of the Oregon/California sport

allocation, which is 18.21 percent of the

Area 2A TAC. If the Area 2A TAC is less

than 388,350 lb (176.2 mt), this subarea

extends from Cape Falcon to the

California border and the sport fishery

is allocated 95.4 percent of the Oregon/

California sport allocation. The

structuring objectives for this subarea

are to provide two fixed-length periods

of fishing opportunity in May and in

August in productive deeper water areas

along the coast, principally for charter

and larger private boat anglers, and

provide a period of fishing opportunity

in the summer for nearshore waters for

small boat anglers. Fixed-length seasons

will be established preseason for the

May and August openings and will not

be modified inseason. The average catch

per day observed in the previous 3 years

in May and August will be used to

estimate the number of open days for

each fixed season. ODFW will monitor

landings and provide a post-season

estimate of catch within 2 weeks of the

end of the fixed season. If sufficient