16902 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 1995 / Notices

3The participants’ reasons for requesting this

amendment is that the above requirements were

established over twenty years ago. Today’s digital

data feed and other technologies make high speed

lines cheaper and easier to access. 4 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(27) (1989).

administrator under each plan, a

calendar quarter’s high speed line

revenues allocated to Network B under

the plan as soon as the calculation

becomes available for that quarter.

B. Determination of High Speed Line

Access Fees

Both plans currently require

participants: (a) to set high speed line

access fees at levels that allow the

participants to recover the operating

expenses that the Processor incurs in

making the high speed line available,

and (b) to set indirect high speed line

access fees at a level that equals one-half

of the direct access fees. The proposed

amendments would eliminate these two

requirements and thereby alter the

manner in which participants determine

high speed line access fees.3 The

participants, however, are not proposing

to amend the actual fees at this time.

II. Solicitation of Comments

Rule 11Aa3–2(c)(2) under the Act

provides that the proposed amendment

shall be approved by the Commission

with such changes or subject to such

conditions as the Commission may

deem necessary or appropriate in the

public interest, for the protection of

investors and maintenance of fair and

orderly markets, to remove impediments

to and perfect the mechanisms of a

National Market System, or otherwise in

furtherance of the purposes of the Act

within 120 days of the date of

publication of notice of filing, or within

such longer period as the Commission

may designate up to 180 days of such

date pursuant to Rule 11Aa3–2(c)(2).

Interested persons are invited to

submit written data, views, and

arguments concerning the foregoing.

Persons making written submissions

should file six copies thereof with the

Secretary, Securities and Exchange

Commission, 450 Fifth Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20549. Copies of the

submission, all subsequent

amendments, all written statements

with respect to the proposed rule

change that are filed with the

Commission, and all written

communications relating to the

proposed rule change between the

Commission and any person, other than

those that may be withheld from the

public in accordance with the

provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be

available for inspection and copying in

the Commission’s Public Reference

Room. Copies of such filing will also be

available for inspection and copying at

the principal office of the CTA/CQ. All

submissions should refer to the file

number in the caption above and should

be submitted by April 24, 1995.

For the Commission by the Division of

Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated

authority.4

Margaret H. McFarland,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–8091 Filed 3–31–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

Buffalo District Advisory Council

Meeting; Public Meeting

The U.S. Small Business

Administration Buffalo District

Advisory Council will hold a public

meeting on Thursday, April 27, 1995 at

2:00 p.m. at the Key Bank of New York,

Key Center at Fountain Plaza, 16th floor

conference room, Buffalo, New York to

discuss matters as may be presented by

members, staff of the U.S. Small

Business Administration, or others

present.

For further information, write or call

Mr. Franklin J. Sciortino, District

Director, U.S. Small Business

Administration, 111 West Huron Street,

Room 1311, Buffalo, New York 14201,

(716) 846–4301.

Dated: March 27, 1995.

Dorothy A. Overal,

Director, Office of Advisory Council.

[FR Doc. 95–8105 Filed 3–31–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8025–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

[CGD01–95–032]

Marine Inspection Office New York/

Captain of the Port New York Industry

Day

AGENCY: Coast Guard DOT.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

SUMMARY: Coast Guard Marine

Inspection Office New York and Captain

of the Port, New York are sponsoring an

Industry Day to exchange information

with the maritime community. The

meeting will be open to the public.

DATES: The meeting will be held on

April 11, 1995.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at

the State University of New York

Maritime College at Fort Schuyler, New

York.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

LCDR James Candee, USCG Marine

Inspection Office, Battery Park Building,

New York, New York, 10004, telephone

(212) 668–7850, facsimile (212) 668–

7863.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Rear

Admiral John L. Linnon, Commander,

First Coast Guard District and Rear

Admiral James C. Card, Chief, Office of

Marine Safety, Security and

Environmental Protection will be

featured speakers. Topics to be

addressed include President Clinton’s

‘‘Presidential Regulation Reinvention

Initiative,’’ Port State Control, and the

Alternative Compliance and Prevention

through People Initiatives. Feedback

received in the past from small

passenger vessel owners and operators

indicated a need to provide a separate

Industry Day addressing their concerns.

That was accomplished during Marine

Inspection Office New York’s small

passenger vessel public forums. While

small passenger vessel issues will not be

specifically addressed during the April

11th meeting, small passenger vessel

operators are still encouraged to attend.

Attendance is open to the public.

Advance registration is requested.

Registration and agendas may be

obtained by contacting the person listed

in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Dated: March 22, 1995.

J.L. Linnon,

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,

First Coast Guard District.

[FR Doc. 95–8128 Filed 3–31–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–14–M

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

Automotive Fuel Economy Program

Report to Congress

The attached document, Automotive

Fuel Economy Program, Nineteenth

Annual Report to the Congress, was

prepared pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 32916

which requires in pertinent part that

‘‘the Secretary shall submit to each

House of Congress, and publish in the

Federal Register, a review of average

fuel economy standards under this

part.’’
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 1995 / Notices 16903

Issued: March 20, 1995.

Barry Felrice,

Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards.

Automotive Fuel Economy Program

Nineteenth Annual Report to Congress

Calendar Year 1994

Table of Contents

Section I: Introduction

Section II: Fuel Economy Improvement by

Manufacturers

Section III: 1994 Activities

A. Passenger Car CAFE Standards

B. Light Truck CAFE Standards

C. Low Volume Petitions

D. Enforcement

E. Partnership for a New Generation of

Vehicles

F. Advisory Committee on Personal Motor

Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Reductions

G. General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade

(GATT) Decision

Section IV: Use of Advanced Technology

A. New Models

B. Engine and Transmission Technology

C. Electronics

D. Materials

E. Summary

Section I: Introduction

The Nineteenth Annual Report to Congress

on Automotive Fuel Economy Program

summarizes the activities of the National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration

(NHTSA) during 1994, in accordance with 49

U.S.C. 32916 et seq., which requires the

submission of a report each year. Included in

this report are sections summarizing

rulemaking activities during 1994 and a

discussion of the use of advanced automotive

technology by the industry as required by

section 305, Title III, of the Department of

Energy Act of 1978 (Pub. L. 95–238).

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. Standards for light trucks were

established by NHTSA for MYs 1979 through

1997. NHTSA set a combined standard of

20.7 mpg for light truck fuel economy

standard for MYs 1996 and 1997. 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

1997 (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 ................................................................................................................................. 420.0 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

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 17.2 mpg standard. 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 Act.

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.
16904 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 1995 / Notices

Section II: Fuel Economy Improvement by

Manufacturers

The fuel economy achievements for

domestic and foreign manufacturers in MY

1993 were updated to include final

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

calculations, where available, since the

publication of the Eighteenth Annual Report

to the Congress. These fuel economy

achievements and current projected data for

MY 1994 are listed in Tables II–1 and II–2.

Overall fleet fuel economy for passenger

cars was 28.2 mpg in MY 1994, a decline of

0.2 mpg from the MY 1993 level. For MY

1994, CAFE values decreased below MY 1993

levels for 14 of 22 passenger car

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

14 companies accounted for over 44 percent

of the total MY 1994 production.

Manufacturers continued to introduce new

technologies and more fuel-efficient models,

as well as some larger, less fuel-efficient

models. For MY 1994, the overall domestic

manufacturers’ fleet average fuel economy

was 27.3 mpg. For MY 1994, Chrysler, Ford,

and Mazda domestic passenger car CAFE

values fell 1.6 mpg, 0.7 mpg, and 0.6 mpg,

respectively, from their 1993 levels, while

GM remained at its MY 1993 level. Overall,

the domestic manufacturers’ combined CAFE

declined 0.5 mpg below MY 1993 levels.

TABLE II–1.—PASSENGER CAR FUEL ECONOMY PERFORMANCE BY MANUFACTURER*

[Model Years 1993 and 1994]

Manufacturer

Model year cafe

(mpg)

1993 1994

Domestic:

Chrysler ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 27.8 26.2

Ford ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 28.3 27.6

GM ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 27.4 27.4

Mazda ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 29.7 29.1

Sales weighted average (domestic) ...................................................................................................................................... 27.8 27.3

Imported:

BMW ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 25.2 25.1

Chrysler Imports ....................................................................................................................................................................... 31.0 31.3

Fiat ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 23.9 19.8

Ford Imports ............................................................................................................................................................................. 26.7 25.7

GM Imports ............................................................................................................................................................................... 30.5 24.6

Honda ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 32.5 32.5

Hyundai ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 31.3 32.5

Isuzu ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 33.0 ...........

Kia ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 31.7 30.8

Mazda ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 31.0 31.2

Mercedes-Benz ......................................................................................................................................................................... 22.9 23.8

Mitsubishi .................................................................................................................................................................................. 29.4 28.9

Nissan ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 29.4 29.7

Porsche ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 22.5 22.0

Subaru ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 29.3 28.3

Suzuki ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 46.4 43.8

Toyota ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 29.1 29.0

Volvo ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 25.9 25.7

VW ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 27.2 28.1

Sales weighted average (imported) ...................................................................................................................................... 29.6 29.6

Total fleet average ............................................................................................................................................................. 28.4 28.2

Fuel economy standards ................................................................................................................................................... 27.5 27.5

* Manufacturers or importers of fewer than 1,000 passenger cars annually are not listed.

Note: Some MY 1993 CAFE values differ from those used in the Eighteenth Annual Report to the Congress due to the use of final EPA calculations.

In MY 1994, the fleet average fuel economy

for imported passenger cars remained at the

MY 1993 CAFE level. Import CAFE was 29.6

mpg in MY 1994. Eleven of the 19 imported

car manufacturers decreased their CAFE

values between MYs 1993 and 1994,

including 5 of the 9 Asian importers. Figure

II–1 illustrates the changes in total new

passenger car fleet CAFE from MY 1978 to

MY 1994.

The total light truck fleet CAFE decreased

0.3 mpg below the MY 1993 CAFE level of

20.9 mpg. Figure II–2 illustrates the trends in

total fleet CAFE from MY 1979 to MY 1994

for light trucks.

A number of passenger car and a few light

truck manufacturers are projected to fail to

achieve the levels of the MY 1994 CAFE

standards. However, NHTSA is not yet able

to determine which of these manufacturers

may be liable for civil penalties for

noncompliance. Some MY 1994 CAFE values

may change when final figures are provided

to NHTSA by EPA, in mid-1995. 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.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 1995 / Notices 16905

TABLE II–2.—LIGHT TRUCK FUEL ECONOMY PERFORMANCE BY MANUFACTURER

[Model years 1993 and 1994]

Manufacturer

Model year cafe

(mpg)

Combined

1993 1994

Captive Import:

Chrysler Imports ....................................................................................................................................................................... 24.3 ...........

Others:

Chrysler ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 21.2 20.5

Ford ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 20.9 20.8

GM ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 19.8 19.9

Isuzu ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 21.8 20.8

Mazda ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 23.6 21.2

Mitsubishi .................................................................................................................................................................................. 21.3 22.0

Nissan ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 23.7 22.5

PAS ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 18.5 ...........

Land Rover ............................................................................................................................................................................... 15.5 16.4

Subaru ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 29.1 29.6

Suzuki ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 28.9 28.5

Toyota ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 22.3 22.0

UMC .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 18.8 18.5

VW ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 21.0 21.0

Total fleet average ................................................................................................................................................................ 20.9 20.6

Fuel economy standard ........................................................................................................................................................ 20.4 20.5

Note: Some MY 1993 CAFE values differ from those used in the Eighteenth Annual Report to the Congress due to the use of final EPA calculations.

Fleet average fuel economy for all MY 1994

passenger cars combined and for all light

trucks combined exceeded the levels of the

MY 1994 standards.

BILLING CODE 4910–59–M
16906 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 1995 / Notices
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 1995 / Notices 16907

BILLING CODE 4910–59–C
16908 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 1995 / Notices

Isuzu terminated sales of its passenger cars

in the United States after MY 1993; however,

the manufacturer continues to sell its light

trucks. Isuzu accumulated substantial CAFE

credits during its 13-year marketing span of

its passenger cars in the United States, but

these vehicles sales reached such a low level

that it apparently decided it was

economically infeasible for their passenger

cars to remain.

The characteristics of the MY 1994

passenger car fleet reflect a continuing trend

toward increased consumer demand for

higher performance cars. (See Table II–3.)

From MY 1993 to MY 1994, horsepower/100

pounds, a measure of vehicle performance,

increased from 4.56 to 4.79 for domestic

passenger cars. However, it decreased

slightly from 4.72 to 4.71 for imported

passenger cars. The total fleet average for

passenger cars increased from 4.62 in MY

1993 to 4.76 horsepower/100 pounds in MY

1994, the highest level in the 38 years for

which the agency has data. Compared to MY

1993, the average curb weight for MY 1994

increased 52 pounds for the domestic fleet

and 23 pounds for the imported fleet. The

total new passenger car fleet is 41 pounds

heavier than it was in MY 1993, primarily

because of the larger share held by the

domestic fleet. Average engine displacement

increased from 184 to 188 cubic inches for

domestic passenger cars and 136 to 137 cubic

inches for imported passenger cars.

The 0.5 mpg fuel economy reduction for

the MY 1994 domestic passenger car fleet

may be attributed to increases in performance

and average curb weight. Some of the weight

increase reflects increased applications of

safety features such as airbags, improved side

impact protection, and antilock braking

systems.

The size class breakdown shows an

increased trend towards subcompact,

compact, and large passenger cars and a

decrease in two-seater, minicompact, and

midsize passenger cars for the overall fleet.

The domestic fleet shift is from midsize

passenger cars to subcompact, compact, and

large passenger cars. The shift of imported

cars to compact size is particularly

pronounced; compact cars increased to 41.6

percent of the imported fleet in MY 1994

from just 36.6 percent in MY 1993. The

imported share of the passenger car market

declined slightly in MY 1994. However, for

the fifth consecutive year, imports exceeded

40 percent of the new passenger car fleet.

The domestic fleet had a dramatic decrease

in share of turbocharged and supercharged

engines. Diesel engines declined in share

after a small increase in MY 1993. Diesel

engines were offered only on certain

Mercedes models during MY 1994.

TABLE II–3.—PASSENGER CAR FLEET CHARACTERISTICS FOR MYS 1993 AND 1994

Characteristics

Total fleet Domestic fleet Imported fleet

1993 1994 1993 1994 1993 1994

Fleet average fuel economy, mpg ............................................................................ 28.4 28.2 27.8 27.3 29.6 29.6

Fleet average curb weight, lbs. ................................................................................. 2971 3012 3046 3098 2861 2884

Fleet average engine displacement, cu. in. .............................................................. 164 167 184 188 136 137

Fleet average horsepower/weight ratio, hp/100 lbs. ................................................. 4.62 4.76 4.56 4.79 4.72 4.71

Percent of fleet .......................................................................................................... 100 100 59.4 59.8 40.6 40.2

Segmentation by EPA size class, Percent:

Two-seater ................................................................................................................. 1.4 1.2 0.5 0.5 2.8 2.1

Minicompact .............................................................................................................. 1.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.7

Subcompact* ............................................................................................................. 23.0 23.4 14.4 17.0 35.4 32.8

Compact* ................................................................................................................... 33.7 36.0 31.7 32.2 36.6 41.6

Mid-size* .................................................................................................................... 29.4 25.6 37.8 31.2 17.2 17.3

Large* ........................................................................................................................ 11.5 13.6 15.6 19.1 5.6 5.5

Percent diesel engines .............................................................................................. 0.04 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.02

Percent turbo or supercharged engines .................................................................... 1.1 0.9 0.5 0.4 1.9 1.7

Percent fuel injection ................................................................................................. 100 100 100 100 100 100

Percent front-wheel drive .......................................................................................... 84.4 83.9 86.0 83.6 82.1 84.4

Percent automatic transmissions .............................................................................. 79.9 81.7 87.4 87.8 69.1 72.6

Percent automatic transmissions with lockup clutches ............................................. 93.1 94.9 93.3 94.8 92.6 95.0

Percent automatic transmissions with four or more forward speeds 77.2 84.7 69.2 79.8 91.9 92.4

*Includes associated station wagons.

Passenger car fleet average characteristics

have changed significantly since MY 1978

(the first year of fuel economy standards).

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 passenger car fleet average

curb weight stabilized around 2,800 pounds

from MY 1982 to MY 1987, but has risen to

approximately 3,000 pounds since then.

Table II–4 shows that the MY 1994 passenger

car fleet has nearly equal interior volume and

higher performance, but with over 40 percent

better fuel economy than the MY 1978 fleet.

(See Figure II–3)

The characteristics of the MY 1994 light

truck fleet are shown in Table II–5. Since

light truck manufacturers are not required the

divide their fleets into domestic and import

fleets based on the 75-percent domestic

content threshold used for passenger car

fleets, the domestic and imported fleet

characteristics in Table II–5 are estimated,

based mainly on manufacturer name. The

agency assumed that all products of foreignbased manufacturers would not meet the

domestic content threshold, whether they

were assembled in the United States of

Canada, or in another country. The exception

to this is the assumption that the importbadged products of a domestic

manufacturer’s assembly plant were

‘‘domestic’’ (Mazda Navajo and pickup and

Nissan Quest).

BILLING CODE 4910–59–M
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 1995 / Notices 16909

BILLING CODE 4910–59–C
16910 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 1995 / Notices

TABLE II–4.—NEW PASSENGER CAR FLEET AVERAGE CHARACTERISTICS

[Model years 1978–1993]

Model year Fuel economy (mpg)

Curb weight

(lb.)

Interior

space

(cu. ft.)

Engine size

(cu. in.)

Hosrepower/

weight

(hp/100 lb.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1991 ......................................................................................................... 28.3 2934 108 164 4.42

1992 ......................................................................................................... 27.8 3007 108 169 4.56

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

1994 ......................................................................................................... 28.2 3012 108 167 4.76

TABLE II–5.—LIGHT TRUCK FLEET CHARACTERISTICS FOR MYS 1993 AND 1994

Characteristics

Total fleet Domestic fleet Imported fleet

1993 1994 1993 1994 1993 1994

Fleet average fuel economy, mpg .................................................................................... 20.9 20.6 20.6 20.4 22.7 22.0

Fleet average equivalent test weight, lbs ......................................................................... 4,201 4,274 4,284 4,340 3,727 3,832

Fleet average engine displacement, cu. in ...................................................................... 237 243 249 255 167 165

Fleet average horsepower/weight ratio, hp/100 lbs ......................................................... 3.89 3.86 3.97 3.89 3.47 3.65

Percent of fleet ................................................................................................................. 100 100 85.1 87.0 14.9 13.0

Segmentation by type, percent:

Passenger van:

Compact ................................................................................................................. 23.6 17.0 25.8 18.6 11.1 6.3

Large ...................................................................................................................... 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.6

Cargo van:

Compact ................................................................................................................. 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7

Large ...................................................................................................................... 4.7 4.7 5.6 5.4

Small pickup* ............................................................................................................. 7.9 6.2 6.6 5.3 15.2 12.2

Large pickup* ............................................................................................................ 34.3 40.0 33.4 40.5 39.8 36.8

Special purpose ......................................................................................................... 27.8 30.0 26.7 27.8 33.9 44.7

Percent diesel engines .............................................................................................. 0.07 0.30 0.09 0.30

Percent fuel injection ................................................................................................. 99.0 99.7 100 100 93.0 97.7

Percent automatic transmissions .............................................................................. 76.2 77.3 82.5 82.5 39.9 45.7

Percent automatic transmissions with lockup clutches ............................................. 98.6 98.3 99.1 98.5 92.3 94.0

Percent automatic transmissions with four forward speeds ..................................... 90.5 92.1 89.9 91.6 97.1 98.9

Percent 4-wheel drive ............................................................................................... 33.7 36.1 32.3 34.1 41.2 49.5

*Including cab chassis.

The average test weight of the total light

truck fleet increased by 73 pounds over that

for MY 1993. Increased popularity of large

pickups, special purpose vehicles, heavier,

and higher performance trucks contributed to

a 0.3 mpg fleet fuel economy decline for MY

1994, offsetting the small increase in the use

of fuel injection and automatic transmissions

with four forward speeds. Diesel engine

usage increased in light truck to 0.30 percent

in MY 1994 from 0.07 percent in MY 1993.

The imported share of the MY 1994 light

truck fleet decreased to 13.0 percent, 1.9

percent lower than MY 1993 and the lowest

share since light truck fuel economy

standards were established.

During MYs 1980 through 1994, CAFE

levels for light trucks in the 0–8,500 pounds

gross vehicle weight (GVW) class increased,

beginning at 18.5 mpg in MY 1980 and

reaching 21.7 mpg in MY 1987 before

dropping to lower values in MY 1988

through MY 1994, as average weight, engine

size, and performance increased. During

these years, light truck production increased

from 1.9 million in MY 1980 to 4.7 million

in MY 1994. Light trucks comprised 40

percent of the total light duty vehicle fleet

production in MY 1994, more than double its

share in MY 1980.

Figure II–4 illustrates that the light duty

fleet (passenger cars and light trucks

together) average fuel economy steadily

increased to MY 1987, but subsequently has

been below the MY 1987 level. (See Table II–

6). Light truck average fuel economy

declined, but the passenger car average fuel

economy remained relatively constant for

MYs 1987–1994. Thus, the overall decline

illustrates the growing influence of light

trucks in the light duty fleet.

While both passenger car and light truck

fleet fuel economies decreased from MY 1993

to MY 1994 by 0.2 mpg and 0.3 mpg,

respectively, the total fleet fuel economy for

MY 1994 decreased 0.5 mpg over the MY

1993 level (25.1 mpg for MY 1993 and 24.6

mpg for MY 1994). This is attributed to

increased sales of light trucks, since the total

light truck fleet fuel economy is far less than

that of passenger cars. The shift to light

trucks for general transportation is an

important trend in consumers’ preference

and has a significant fleet fuel consumption

effect.

Domestic and imported passenger car fleet

average fuel economies have improved since
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 1995 / Notices 16911

MY 1978, although the increase is far more

dramatic for the domestic fleet. In MY 1994,

the domestic passenger car fleet average fuel

economy decreased from the prior year to

27.3 mpg, and imported passenger car fleet

average fuel economy remained at 29.6 mpg.

Compared to MY 1978, this reflects an

increase of 8.6 mpg for domestic cars. For

imported cars, the MY 1994 average fuel

economy is only 2.3 mpg higher than that of

MY 1978.

BILLING CODE 4910–59–M
16912 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 1995 / Notices

BILLING CODE 4910–59–C
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 1995 / Notices 16913

TABLE II–6.—DOMESTIC AND IMPORTED PASSENGER CAR AND LIGHT TRUCK FUEL ECONOMY AVERAGES FOR MODEL

YEARS 1978–1994

[In MPG]

Model year

Domestic Imported

Total

fleet Car Light

truck

Combined Car Light

truck

Combined

1978 .................................................................................................................. 18.7 27.3

1979 .................................................................................................................. 19.3 17.7 19.1 26.1 20.8 25.5 20.1

1980 .................................................................................................................. 22.6 16.8 21.4 29.6 24.3 28.6 23.1

1981 .................................................................................................................. 24.2 18.3 22.9 31.5 27.4 30.7 24.6

1982 .................................................................................................................. 25.0 19.2 23.5 31.1 27.0 30.4 25.0

1983 .................................................................................................................. 24.4 19.6 23.0 32.4 27.1 31.5 24.8

1984 .................................................................................................................. 25.5 19.3 23.6 32.0 26.7 30.6 25.0

1985 .................................................................................................................. 26.3 19.6 24.0 31.5 26.5 30.3 25.4

1986 .................................................................................................................. 26.9 20.0 24.4 31.6 25.9 29.8 25.9

1987 .................................................................................................................. 27.0 20.5 24.6 31.2 25.2 29.6 26.2

1988 .................................................................................................................. 27.4 20.6 24.5 31.5 24.6 30.0 26.0

1989 .................................................................................................................. 27.2 20.4 24.2 30.8 23.5 29.2 25.6

1990 .................................................................................................................. 26.9 20.3 23.9 29.9 23.0 28.5 25.4

1991 .................................................................................................................. 27.3 20.9 24.4 30.0 23.0 28.4 25.6

1992 .................................................................................................................. 27.0 20.5 23.8 29.1 22.6 27.8 25.0

1993 .................................................................................................................. 27.8 20.6 24.2 29.6 22.7 28.0 25.1

1994 .................................................................................................................. 27.3 20.4 23.5 29.6 22.0 27.8 24.6

Since MY 1980, the total light truck fleet

average fuel economy and the average for

domestic manufacturers have improved.

However, the imported light truck average

fuel economy has decreased significantly.

The domestic manufacturers continued to

dominate the light truck market. Domestic

light trucks comprised 87.0 percent of the

total light truck fleet. For MY 1994, the

domestic light truck fleet has an average fuel

economy 1.6 mpg lower than the imported

light truck fleet. The imported light truck

fleet fuel economy improved substantially up

to MY 1981, but has been declining steadily

since then. For MY 1994, the imported light

truck fleet fuel economy decreased 0.7 mpg

below MY 1993 to 22.0 mpg.

The gap between the average CAFEs of the

imported and domestic manufacturers is

smaller than in earlier years as domestic

manufacturers maintain relatively stable

CAFE values while the import manufacturers

move to larger, higher performance vehicles

and more 4-wheel drive light trucks.

Section III: 1994 Activities

A. Passenger Car CAFE Standards

The following synopsis describes recent

litigation challenging NHTSA actions under

the CAFE program.

Competitive Enterprise Institute v. NHTSA,

D.C. Cir., No. 93–1210

This case challenges NHTSA’s January 15,

1993, decision (D.C. Circuit’s remand in Case

No. 89–1422) to again terminate the

rulemaking it commenced to consider

amending the MY 1990 passenger car CAFE

standard. The petition for review was filed

on March 15, 1993. Briefs were filed between

February and April 1994, and oral argument

was held on May 16, 1994. To date, the Court

has not issued a decision.

B. Light Truck CAFE Standards

NHTSA published a final rule establishing

the MYs 1996 and 1997 light truck fuel

economy standards on April 6, 1994, (59 FR

16312). The agency set a combined standard

of 20.7 mpg for MYs 1996 and 1997.

In the final rule for MYs 1996 and 1997

light trucks, the agency determined that GM

is the ‘‘least capable’’ manufacturer with a

combined fuel economy capability of 20.7

mpg. The agency concluded upon balancing

the relevant statutory factors, that the

relatively small and uncertain energy savings

that would be associated with setting a

standard above GM’s capability would not

justify the economic harm to the company

and the economy as a whole. The agency

projected that GM could not achieve a

combined fuel economy level higher than

20.7 mpg for MYs 1966 and 1997. In contrast,

NHTSA concluded that Chrysler and Ford

can achieve CAFE levels somewhat above

20.7 mpg.

The agency selected 20.7 mpg for MYs

1996 and 1997 as the final combined

standards because these values balance the

potentially serious adverse economic

consequences associated with market and

technological risks for GM to further increase

its fuel economy levels. Since GM produces

more than 30 percent of all light trucks that

are subject to the fuel economy standards, its

capability significantly affects the industry’s

capability and, therefore, the level of the

standard.

The agency issued an advance notice of

proposed rulemaking for Light Truck Average

Fuel Economy Standards for MYs 1998–2006

(59 FR 16324; April 6, 1994). The agency

sought information that would help to assess

the extent to which manufacturers can

improve light truck fuel economy, the

benefits and costs to consumers of improved

fuel economy, the benefits to the Nation of

reducing fuel consumption, and the number

of model years that should be covered by the

proposal.

C. Low Volume Petitions

Article 49 U.S.C. 32902 (d) provides that a

low volume manufacturer of passenger cars

may be exempted from the generally

applicable passenger car fuel economy

standards if these standards are more

stringent than the maximum feasible average

fuel economy for that manufacturer and if

NHTSA establishes an alternative standard

for that manufacturer at its maximum feasible

level. A low volume manufacturer is one that

manufactured fewer than 10,000 passenger

cars worldwide, in the model year for which

the exemption is sought (the affected model

year) and in the second model year preceding

that model year.

The agency acted on two low volume

petitions in 1994, which were filed by

Bugatti International Holding, SA (Bugatti

International) and MedNet, Inc.

Bugatti International filed a joint low

volume petition for Bugatti and Lotus high

performance vehicles. Bugatti International

requested alternative standards for its

passenger cars for MYs 1994, 1995 and 1996.

Another petitioner, MedNet, Inc., requested

an alternative standard for its recently

acquired Dutcher PTV vehicles for MYs 1995,

1996, and 1997. NHTSA is reviewing these

petitions and will respond in early 1995.

D. Enforcement

Article 49 U.S.C. 23912 (b) imposes a civil

penalty for $5 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 manufacture in that

model year. Credits that were 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.

With completion by EPA of final CAFE

computations for MY 1993 for most

passenger car fleets, the agency initiated

appropriate enforcement actions for

manufacturers that did not meet the CAFE

standard.

Table III–1 shows the most recent CAFE

fines paid by manufacturers.
16914 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 1995 / Notices

TABLE III–1.—CAFE FINES COLLECTED DURING FISCAL YEAR 1994

Model year and manufacturer Amount fined Date paid

1991:

Land Rover ............................................................................................................................................................. $520,520 10/93

Sterling .................................................................................................................................................................... 254,840 12/93

Porsche ................................................................................................................................................................... 1,871,470 02/94

Fiat (revised) ........................................................................................................................................................... 416,385 08/94

1992:

Land Rover ............................................................................................................................................................. 607,620 10/93

Porsche ................................................................................................................................................................... 781,575 02/94

Volvo ....................................................................................................................................................................... 5,361,515 04/94

BMW ....................................................................................................................................................................... 12,888,750 05/94

Vector ...................................................................................................................................................................... 1,740 05/94

Fiat (revised)* ......................................................................................................................................................... (2,250) 08/94

1993:

Volvo ....................................................................................................................................................................... 5,764,800 06/94

Fiat .......................................................................................................................................................................... 194,220 07/94

Panoz ...................................................................................................................................................................... 3,080 07/94

Vector ...................................................................................................................................................................... 870 07/94

* Fiat was refunded $2,250 after revised calculation of its CAFE.

E. Partnership for a New Generation of

Vehicles (PNGV)

At a White House ceremony on September

29, 1993, President Clinton and Vice

President Gore, together with the Chief

Executive Officers of Chrysler, Ford, and

General Motors, formally announced the

Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles

(PNGV). PNGV (previously known as the

‘‘Clean Car Initiative’’) is a historic new

partnership between the United States

Government and the U.S. Council for

Automotive Research (USCAR) which

represents Chrysler, Ford, and General

Motors. It is aimed at strengthening U.S.

competitiveness by developing technologies

for a new generation of vehicles.

PNGV focuses its research and

development toward attaining three

interrelated goals:

• Improve the productivity of the U.S.

manufacturing base by significantly

upgrading U.S. manufacturing technology,

including the adoption of agile, flexible

manufacturing and the reduction of cost and

lead time, while reducing the environmental

impact and improving quality.

• Pursue advances in vehicles that can

lead to improvements in fuel efficiency and

emissions of standard vehicle designs, while

pursuing safety advances to maintain safety

performance. Research will focus on

technologies that reduce the demand for

energy from the engine and the drive train.

• Within a decade, achieve automotive

fuel efficiency improvements up to three

times that of the average 1994 Chrysler

Concorde/Ford Taurus/Chevrolet Lumina

with equivalent performance, size, and

utility, and with customer purchase price

comparable to today’s sedans adjusted for

economics, while also meeting all current

and future safety and emissions

requirements, and preserving in-use safety

compared to the target cars.

The development of energy efficient, low

emission vehicles is economically and

environmentally critical. From an economic

level, the introduction of a new generation of

vehicles will preserve American jobs and

improve the Nation’s competitiveness. From

an environmental level, a new generation of

fuel efficient vehicles will produce less

carbon dioxide (greenhouse gas emissions)

and decrease American dependency on

imported oil.

The following timetable illustrates

probable goals the PNGV expects to

achieve within five to ten years. PNGV

anticipates a concept vehicle by year

2000 and a prototype vehicle by year

2005.

BILLING CODE 4910–59–M

BILLING CODE 4910–59–C

NHTSA’s PNGV Role

NHTSA’s role in the PNGV initiative

is to provide technical support to ensure

that the selected PNGV vehicles meet

existing and anticipated safety

standards and to insure in-use safety

equivalent to today’s mid-size passenger

cars. NHTSA will also ensure that the

overall safety of the PNGV vehicles is

not compromised.

NHTSA technical support includes:

• Develop advanced computer

models of the PNGV platforms and

selected vehicles which represent the

fleet in order to evaluate the

crashworthiness of conceptual designs

and their safety compatibility with

contemporary vehicles.

• Conduct and evaluate research of

light weight materials such as advanced

composites and develop new, unique

material models for usage in the finite

element model work.

• Provide require PNGV

transportation infrastructure analyses.

• Provide peer review study of PNGV

programs, including conceptual designs.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 1995 / Notices 16915

F. Advisory Committee on Personal

Motor Vehicle Greenhouse Gas

Reductions

As part of the Administration’s

‘‘Climate Change Action Plan,’’ the

White House formed an advisory

committee to develop recommendations

to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by

light vehicles to the year 1990 level. The

committee is comprised of a number of

stakeholders, including environmental

and public interest groups, automotive

manufacturers, fuel suppliers, vehicle

users, and representatives of state and

local governments.

The goal of the committee is to

develop policy options that will costeffectively reduce greenhouse gas

emissions from the use of light vehicles

(cars and light trucks) to the 1990 level

by years 2005, 2015, and 2025.

Policy options being considered

encompass vehicle-miles-traveled

(VMT) reductions, efficiency

enhancement, and alternative fuels.

These policies include:

• Vehicle technologies.

• Fuels with lower carbon content.

• Vehicle-based regulatory strategies

such as CAFE.

• Vehicle taxes and/or rebates.

• Market-based actions to reduce

VMT (fuel taxes, congestion pricing, and

pay-at-the-pump insurance).

• Others approaches (e.g., changed

land-use patterns, increased mass

transit, telecommuting, Intelligent

Vehicle-Highway Systems (IVHS), and

increased carpooling).

The advisory group has conducted

four meetings: September 28–29,

October 19–20, November 14–15, and

December 15–16, 1994. This project will

run for approximately one year, and it

is expected to contribute to a broadbased approach by the Administration

to address light vehicle greenhouse gas

emissions.

G. General Agreement on Tariffs and

Trade (GATT) Decision

On September 30, 1994, a ruling by a

panel under the General Agreement on

Tariffs and Trade (GATT) upheld key

provisions of the United States CAFE

law, as well as the ‘‘gas guzzler’’ tax and

luxury tax. The panel rejected a

challenge under GATT by the European

Union (EU) which alleged that the CAFE

requirements, the gas guzzler tax, and

the luxury tax discriminated against

cars manufactured by Mercedes, BMW

and other European luxury auto

manufacturers. Those manufacturers

have paid a large share of penalties and

taxes under these laws. The panel

agreed with EU complaints on one

technical issue—the CAFE accounting

rules that establish separate ‘‘domestic’’

and ‘‘import’’ fleets for determining

overall fuel economy. Because these

rules do not have any actual economic

impact on EU auto manufacturers, and

therefore no trade damage results from

this requirement, U.S. Trade

Representative Michael Kantor stated

that the United States does not intend

to make any changes in the CAFE rules.

Section IV: Use of Advanced

Technology

This section fulfills the statutory

requirement of Section 305 of Title III of

the Department of Energy Act of 1978

(Pub. L. 95–238), which directs the

Secretary of Transportation to submit an

annual report to Congress on the use of

advanced technologies by the

automotive industry to improve motor

vehicle fuel economy. This report

focuses on the introduction of new

models, the application of materials to

save weight, and the advances in

electronic technology which improved

fuel economy in MY 1994.

A. New Models

The domestic automakers introduced

and replaced several completely new

cars models and, in addition,

introduced updates and redesigns of

many previous passenger car models.

Chrysler introduced the New Yorker

and the Chrysler LHS, two all-new

luxury sedans, with an average fuel

economy of 22 mpg each for MY 1994.

Ford redesigned the Mustang, the first

major redesign since MY 1979. The car

is 4.1 inches longer and 200 pounds

heavier than the model it replaced, and

already meets some Federal rules of the

newly issued emissions and safety

standards which are being phased in for

future years. Ford also redesigned the

Lincoln Continental to include a

rounded grille, suspension

modifications, and a smaller bumper.

The fuel economy of that model has

improved 1 mpg for city driving.

General Motors (GM) introduced two

all-new vehicles, the Cadillac De Ville

and the Cadillac De Ville Concours for

MY 1994. The De Ville has a 4.9 liter (L)

V–8 engine, a new automatic

transmission, speed sensitive

suspension and steering. The upscale

Concours gets the 270-hp 4.6 L doubleoverhead cam (DOHC) Northstar V–8

engine and the electronically controlled

4T80–E transmission. Both models have

an average fuel economy of 21 mpg.

Automobile importers also introduced

a variety of new passenger cars and

updates of their previous models for MY

1994. The BMW 325i convertible is

powered by a 2.5 L DOHC I–6 engine

and a 5-speed manual transmission and

has improved its average fuel economy

over last year’s model by 3 mpg. The 5-

series has three new models for MY

1994, the 530i sedan, Touring wagon

and 540i sedan, all powered with a V–

8 engine. The average fuel economy of

the 530i and the 540i is 19.5 mpg and

the Touring wagon is 21.5 mpg. The

535i model has been discontinued.

BMW also has an all-new 840Ci model

with a 4.0 L 32-valve all aluminum V–

8 engine with average fuel economy of

19.5 mpg and a 850CSi model with a 5.6

L 292-horsepower (hp) V–12 engine

with an average fuel economy of 16

mpg.

Honda completely redesigned the

Accord with a 2.2L SOHC I–4 engine.

The fuel economy has improved by 0.5

mpg over its MY 1993 counterpart.

Honda’s Acura division completely

redesigned the Integra to include a 1.8L

142 hp DOHC I–4 engine on the RS and

LS model and a 1.8 L 170 hp VTEC

variable-valve-timing I–4 engine on the

GS–R model. Acura also has a new topof-the-line Legend sedan with a 230 hp

single overhead cam (SOHC) V–6 engine

and a six-speed manual transmission.

Kia Motor Corporation introduced its

first U.S.-vehicle entries under the Kia

badge. Kia has three compact models,

front-wheel-drive 4-door sedans

powered by a 1.6 L 88 hp SOHC I–4

engine with an average fuel economy of

30 mpg.

Mercedes-Benz introduced its new Cclass sedan to the line, powered by a 2.2

L I–4 engine with an average fuel

economy of 25 mpg. The C280 model

has a new 2.8 L I–6 engine with an

average fuel economy of 23 mpg.

Saab has two all-new hatchback 900

series models with a larger 4-cylinder

engine and an optional V–6 engine for

the first time. The Saab 900 moved from

the EPA compact size class to the

midsize class for MY 1994. The average

fuel economy of this model is 21.5 mpg

for MY 1994.

Toyota introduced a new 2-door

Camry with a 3.0 L aluminum V–6

engine with a 4-speed electronic

controlled automatic transmission and

an average fuel economy of 21 mpg.

Also Toyota has introduced a new

liftback Celicia model with an all-new

110 hp 1.8 L engine and an average fuel

economy of 30.5 mpg for MY 1994.

Volvo introduce an all front-wheel

drive 850 wagon in both touring and

turbo versions with a 2.4 L engine and

a average fuel economy of 24 mpg. This

model replaced the 240 wagon which

also had a fuel economy of 24 mpg.

In the domestic light truck area,

Chrysler introduced the full-sized T300

Ram pickup replacing a model which

had been in production since MY 1972.
16916 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 1995 / Notices

The new model averages 16.8 mpg, the

same as its predecessor despite being

substantially larger and heavier. GM’s

GMC division completely redesigned

the Sonoma’s exterior and interior with

a 2.2L I–4 engine and a 5-speed manual

transmission. The Sonoma average fuel

economy is 25.5 mpg an improvement

of 0.5 mpg over MY 1993 light truck.

GM also redesigned the companion

Chevrolet S–10 pickup.

B. Engine and Transmission

Technology

Some manufacturers made significant

improvements in engine technology for

model year 1994. GM has a new

pushrod engine, which bears a close

resemblance to familiar engines. The

base Chevy Caprices gets a 4.3 L V–8

variant of the LT1 V–8 to replace the 5.0

L V–8. The 4.3 L engine produces 200

hp at 5200 revolutions per minute (rpm)

(30 hp more than last year’s 5.0 L) and

245-pound-feet of torque at 2400 rpm.

Ford introduced a more powerful

engine controller called EEC–V on the

MY 1994 Thunderbird, Cougar, and

Mustang. Compared with EEC–IV, the

new unit operates 20 percent faster and

has 66 percent more memory.

Developed in part through Ford’s

Formula 1 racing program, EEC–V

features a ‘‘Flash Erasable Electrically

Programmable Read Only Memory’’

chip (Flash-EEPROM) that allows

service technicians to reprogram the

computer, rather than replace it, when

defects arise or upgrades becomes

available.

Still in development at Ford is a new

two-stroke gasoline engine. A major

obstacle to two-stroke engine

development in the United States is the

Tier II emissions requirement of 0.2

grams per mile nitrogen oxide (NOx)

which is, at best, marginally achievable

with current lean-system two-stroke

technology. According to Ward’s

Automotive Yearbook 1994, GM’s twostroke development program is winding

down. GM preferred to proceed with

development of its simpler dry-sump,

roller-bearing version but reportedly

was experiencing piston cooling and

cylinder-bore distortion problems. Ford

and Chrysler are moving ahead with

two-stroke programs. Ford is field

testing a two-stroke hybrid vehicle in

Europe, and press reports indicate that

Chrysler expects to show what it

believes is a marketable wet-sump,

externally scavenged engine some time

in the near future.

C. Electronics

Applications of electronic

components in vehicles continue to rise.

Some of the applications include fourwheel steering, tire-pressure sensing,

instrumentation, and in-car

entertainment grouping. However, the

main concentration is in engine

management, powertrain management,

antilock braking systems, air bags, air

conditioning, and, increasingly,

suspension control.

Electronic controllers are gradually

being incorporated in all modern

automatic transmissions, and this year

Ford’s 4R70W four-speed automatic

truck transmission and GM’s 4L60–E

rear-drive four-speed automatic, both

have electronic controls. The GM unit

features a performance mode that

provides quicker shifts and higher shift

point speeds. In a quest for consistent

shift quality, the controller alters

shifting strategies at high altitudes, as

components wear, and as temperatures

rise.

D. Materials

For MY 1994, automakers chose

aluminum, high strength steel, powder

metal (P/M), and magnesium for a

number of significant new component

applications in their cars, and light

trucks. The reduced weight of these

components contributes to improved

fuel economy of the models using them.

Aluminum usage has increased by

five-eight pounds (lbs.) annually per

vehicle since 1990 in North America, as

reported in Ward’s Automotive

Yearbook 1994. Since 1990, the annual

increase of plastic usage has been cut in

half every year and is likely to increase

only 0.5 lbs. per vehicle during MY

1994.

Even as the use of plastics and

aluminum has grown, steel continue as

the primary material in U.S.-built

vehicles, comprising well over 50

percent of the weight of the average

passenger car according to Ward’s 1994

Automotive Yearbook. The amount of

steel used in vehicles continues to grow,

due mainly to redesigned vehicles that

are longer, wider and/or taller than

those they replaced. These models

include the redesigned compact GMC

Sonoma and Chevrolet S–10 pickup

trucks, Cadillac’s new Sedan De Ville

and De Ville Concours, Chrysler’s Dodge

Ram pickup, and Ford’s Mustang. The

new Sonoma/S10 grew 10.6 inches and

added 262 lbs. in MY 1994 over MY

1993. The long-box version of the truck

gained 384 lbs. from the previous year.

Ford added 200 lbs. to the Mustang, and

Chrysler’s new Dodge Ram full-size

pickup has added 226 lbs.

New safety features added to vehicles

also increase the amount of steel usage

in todays vehicles. It is the material

used for most door intrusion beams, roof

structures and undercarriage

reinforcements designed to protect

occupants in crashes, rollovers and side

impacts. The light-truck market has

particularly shown an increase in steel

usage as regulations and consumer

demands force light truck manufacturers

to incorporate the same safety features

as cars. The GMC Jimmy, for instance,

adds new side-door steel guard beams

running the full length of the door. Steel

intrusion beams also are standard in MY

1994 Ford’s F-series pickups.

Other new applications include

composite steel camshafts in GM’s 3.1 L

V–6s and 2.2 L 4-cylinder engines, and

steel tubing on the Dodge Ram’s radiator

enclosure panels. Also the use of

medium-strength steels, mostly bakehardenable varieties, increased in MY

1994.

P/M makes up about 27 lbs. of weight

of a typical family vehicle accordingly

to Ward’s Automotive Yearbook 1994. It

continues to play an increasingly

significant role because it can be used

to make strong and lightweight parts

that have very complex shapes.

Applications for P/M have been growing

steadily in recent years, and several new

and expanded applications were

introduced in MY 1994, including P/M

bearing caps on GM’s 3100 and 3800

series V–6 engines and P/M inserts in

the bearing cap girdles for Ford’s new

aluminum 2.5 L and 3 L V–6 engines.

Magnesium use has risen every year

since 1988 by 10 to 16 percent.

Magnesium firsts in MY 1994 included

knee-bolster retainers, steering wheel

armatures, and seat pedestals, or

stanchions. The knee-bolster retainers,

the first large structural magnesium

component application in the U.S. auto

industry, debuted on several of GM’s

standard-size, front-drive cars,

including the Buick Park Avenue. Ford

replaced steel wheel armature

subassemblies with magnesium on its

Thunderbird, Cougar, Taurus, and

Sable.

E. Summary

The stabilization of oil prices and

supply has been a factor resulting in a

shift of consumer demand in recent

years to more powerful and roomier

passenger cars and light trucks. The

auto industry, responding to this shift,

has increased the horsepower of its

engines and shifted its production mix

to somewhat larger cars. Still, there

were some considerable technical gains,

particularly in lightweight material

usage, that contributed to improvements

in fuel economy on some models in MY

1994.

[FR Doc. 95–7428 Filed 3–31–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–M