Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 88 / Monday, May 6, 1996 / Notices 20311

applicable requirements. This

determination is effective on April 30,

1996. FAA’s determination on an airport

operator’s noise exposure maps is

limited to finding that the maps were

developed in accordance with the

procedures contained in Appendix A of

FAR part 150. Such determination does

not constitute approval of the

applicant’s data, information or plans,

or a commitment to approve a noise

compatibility program or to fund the

implementation of that program.

If questions arise concerning the

precise relationship of specific

properties to the noise exposure maps

submitted under section 103 of the Act,

it should be noted that the FAA is not

involved in any way in determining the

relative locations of specific properties

with regard to the depicted noise

contours, or in interpreting the noise

maps to resolve questions concerning,

for example, which properties should be

covered by the provisions of section 107

of the Act. These functions are

inseparable from the ultimate land use

control and planning responsibilities of

local government. These local

responsibilities are not changed in any

way under part 150 or through FAA’s

review of noise exposure maps.

Therefore, the responsibility for the

detailed overlaying of noise exposure

contours onto the map depicting

properties on the surface rests

exclusively with the airport operator

which submitted those maps, or with

those public agencies and planning

agencies with which consultation is

required under section 103 of the Act.

The FAA has relied on the certification

by the airport operator under § 150.21 of

Part 150, that the statutorily required

consultation has been accomplished.

The FAA formally received on March

15, 1996, the noise compatibility

program for Albany County Airport, also

effective April 30, 1996. Preliminary

review of the submitted material

indicates that it conforms to the

requirements for the submittal of noise

compatibility programs, but that further

review will be necessary prior to the

approval or disapproval of the program.

The formal review period, limited to

law to a maximum of 180 days, will be

completed on or before October 28,

1996.

The FAA’s detailed evaluation will be

conducted under the provisions of 14

CFR 150.33. The primary considerations

in the evaluation process are whether

the proposed measures may reduce the

level of aviation safety, create an undue

burden on interstate or foreign

commerce, or be reasonably consistent

with obtaining the goal of reducing

existing non-compatible land uses and

preventing the introduction of

additional non-compatible land uses.

Interested persons are invited to

comment on the proposed program with

specific reference to the factors. All

comments, other than those properly

addressed to local land use authorities,

will be considered by the FAA to the

extent practical. The public comment

period ends July 1, 1996.

Copies of the noise exposure maps,

the FAA’s evaluation of the maps, and

the proposed noise compatibility

program, are available for examination

at the following locations:

FAA

Eastern Regional Office, Fitzgerald

Federal Building, Airports Division,

Room 337, JFK International Airport,

Jamaica, New York 11430

FAA

New York Airports District Office, 600

Old Country Road, Suite 446, Garden

City, New York 11530

Albany County Airport, Airport

Director’s Office, Albany County

Airport Authority, ARFF Building,

2nd Floor, Albany, New York 12211

Questions may be directed to the

individual name above under the

heading FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT.

Issued in Jamaica, New York on April 30,

1996

Anthony P. Spera,

Acting Manager, Airports Division, Eastern

Region.

[FR Doc. 96–11253 Filed 5–3–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

Executive Committee of the Aviation

Rulemaking Advisory Committee;

Meeting

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice

to advise the public of a meeting of the

Executive Committee of the Federal

Aviation Administration Aviation

Rulemaking Advisory Committee.

DATES: The meeting will be held on May

15, 1996, at 10 a.m. Arrange for oral

presentations by May 10, 1996.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at

the Regional Airline Association (RAA),

1101 Connecticut Avenue, Suite 700,

Washington DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Manuel Vega, Federal Aviation

Administration (ARM–20) 800

Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, DC 20591, telephone (202)

267–5575; fax (202) 267–5075.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant

to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal

Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–

463; 5 U.S.C. App. II), notice is hereby

given of a meeting of the Executive

Committee to be held on May 15, 1996,

at the Regional Airline Association

(RAA), 1101 Connecticut Avenue, Suite

700, Washington, DC, 10 a.m. The

agenda will include:

• Digital Information Working Group

briefing

• Review of open action items since the

last meeting

• Report on status of all outstanding

recommendations

• Notable comments on specific issues

• Other business

Attendance is open to the interested

public but will be limited to the space

available. The public must make

arrangements by May 10, 1996, to

present oral statements at the meeting.

The public may present written

statements to the executive committee at

any time by providing 25 copies to the

Executive Director, or by bringing the

copies to him at the meeting. In

addition, sign and oral interpretation

can be made available at the meeting, as

well as an assistive listening device, if

requested 10 calendar days before the

meeting. Arrangements may be made by

contacting the person listed under the

heading FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT.

Issued in Washington, DC, on April 30,

1996.

Chris A. Christie,

Executive Director, Aviation Rulemaking

Advisory Committee.

[FR Doc. 96–11251 Filed 5–3–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–03–M

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

Automotive Fuel Economy Program

Report to Congress

The attached document, Automotive

Fuel Economy Program, Twentieth

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.’’
20312 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 88 / Monday, May 6, 1996 / Notices

Issued on: April 29, 1996.

Barry Felrice,

Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards.

Automotive Fuel Economy Program

Twentieth Annual Report to Congress

Calendar Year 1995

Table of Contents

Section I: Introduction

Section II: Fuel Economy Improvement by

Manufacturers

Section III: 1995 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. Contract Activities

Section IV: Use of Advanced Technology

A. New Models

B. Engine and Transmission Technology

C. Electronics

D. Materials

E. Summary

Section I: Introduction

The Twentieth Annual Report to

Congress on the Automotive Fuel

Economy Program summarizes the

activities of the National Highway

Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)

during 1995, 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 1995 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 (P.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 C.F.R. 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 12 3

1978 .................................................................................................................................. 4 18.0 .................... .................... ....................

1979 .................................................................................................................................. 4 19.0 17.2 15.8 ....................

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

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

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

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

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

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

1986 .................................................................................................................................. 8 26.0 20.5 19.5 20.0

1987 .................................................................................................................................. 9 26.0 21.0 19.5 20.5

1988 .................................................................................................................................. 9 26.0 21.0 19.5 20.5

1989 .................................................................................................................................. 10 26.5 21.5 19.0 20.5

1990 .................................................................................................................................. 4 27.5 20.5 19.0 20.0

1991 .................................................................................................................................. 4 27.5 20.7 19.1 20.2

1992 .................................................................................................................................. 4 27.5 .................... .................... 20.2

1993 .................................................................................................................................. 4 27.5 .................... .................... 20.4

1994 .................................................................................................................................. 4 27.5 .................... .................... 20.5

1995 .................................................................................................................................. 4 27.5 .................... .................... 20.6

1996 .................................................................................................................................. 4 27.5 .................... .................... 20.7

1997 .................................................................................................................................. 4 27.5 .................... .................... 20.7

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.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 88 / Monday, May 6, 1996 / Notices 20313

Section II: Fuel Economy Improvement

by Manufacturers

The fuel economy achievements for

domestic and foreign-based

manufacturers in MY 1994 were

updated to include final Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) calculations,

where available, since the publication of

the Nineteenth Annual Report to the

Congress. These fuel economy

achievements and current projected data

for MY 1995 are listed in Tables II–1

and II–2.

Overall fleet fuel economy for

passenger cars was 28.5 mpg in MY

1995, an increase of 0.3 mpg from the

MY 1994 level. For MY 1995, Corporate

Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) values

increased above MY 1994 levels for 16

of 22 passenger car manufacturers’

fleets. (See Table II–1.) These 16

companies accounted for over 57

percent of the total MY 1995

production. Manufacturers continued to

introduce new technologies and more

fuel-efficient models, as well as some

larger, less fuel-efficient models. For

MY 1995, the overall domestic

manufacturers’ fleet average fuel

economy was 27.7 mpg. For MY 1995,

Chrysler, Ford, and Mazda domestic

passenger car CAFE values rose 2.4

mpg, 0.1 mpg, and 1.0 mpg,

respectively, from their 1994 levels,

while General Motors remained at its

MY 1994 level. Overall, the domestic

manufacturers’ combined CAFE

increased 0.4 mpg above MY 1994

levels.

TABLE II–1.—PASSENGER CAR FUEL ECONOMY PERFORMANCE BY MANUFACTURER* MODEL YEARS 1994 AND 1995

Manufacturer

Model year cafe (MPG)

1994 1995

Domestic:

Chrysler ..................................................................................................................................................................... 26.2 28.6

Ford ........................................................................................................................................................................... 27.6 27.7

General Motors ......................................................................................................................................................... 27.4 27.4

Mazda ....................................................................................................................................................................... 29.1 30.1

Sales Weighted Average (Domestic) ............................................................................................................................... 27.3 27.7

Import:

BMW ......................................................................................................................................................................... 25.1 25.3

Chrysler Imports ........................................................................................................................................................ 31.3 30.4

Fiat ............................................................................................................................................................................ 19.8 16.0

Ford Imports .............................................................................................................................................................. 25.7 33.9

GM Imports ............................................................................................................................................................... 24.6 26.2

Honda ........................................................................................................................................................................ 32.5 31.7

Hyundai ..................................................................................................................................................................... 32.5 30.7

Kia ............................................................................................................................................................................. 30.8 31.3

Mazda ....................................................................................................................................................................... 31.2 31.4

Mercedes-Benz ......................................................................................................................................................... 23.7 24.6

Mitsubishi .................................................................................................................................................................. 28.9 29.5

Nissan ....................................................................................................................................................................... 29.7 30.0

Porsche ..................................................................................................................................................................... 22.0 22.7

Subaru ....................................................................................................................................................................... 28.3 28.6

Suzuki ....................................................................................................................................................................... 43.8 40.6

Toyota ....................................................................................................................................................................... 29.0 30.3

Volvo ......................................................................................................................................................................... 25.7 26.0

Volkswagen ............................................................................................................................................................... 28.1 28.5

Sales Weighted Average (Import) .................................................................................................................................... 29.6 29.9

Total Fleet Average ........................................................................................................................................... 28.2 28.5

Fuel Economy Standards .................................................................................................................................. 27.5 27.5

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

Note.—Mercedes-Benz’s MY 1994 CAFE value differs from that used in the Nineteenth Annual Report to the Congress due to the use of the

final EPA calculation.

TABLE II–2.—LIGHT TRUCK FUEL ECONOMY PERFORMANCE BY MANUFACTURER MODEL YEARS 1994 AND 1995

Manufacturer

Model year cafe (MPG)

Combined

1994 1995

Domestic:

Chrysler ..................................................................................................................................................................... 20.5 20.1

Ford ........................................................................................................................................................................... 20.8 20.6

General Motors ......................................................................................................................................................... 19.9 19.8

UMC .......................................................................................................................................................................... 18.5 (1)

Sales Weighted Average (Domestic) ............................................................................................................................... 20.4 20.1

Import:

Isuzu .......................................................................................................................................................................... 20.8 20.6

Land Rover ............................................................................................................................................................... 16.4 16.3

Mazda ....................................................................................................................................................................... 21.2 20.9

Mitsubishi .................................................................................................................................................................. 22.0 21.0

Nissan ....................................................................................................................................................................... 22.5 22.5
20314 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 88 / Monday, May 6, 1996 / Notices

TABLE II–2.—LIGHT TRUCK FUEL ECONOMY PERFORMANCE BY MANUFACTURER MODEL YEARS 1994 AND 1995—

Continued

Manufacturer

Model year cafe (MPG)

Combined

1994 1995

Subaru ....................................................................................................................................................................... 29.6 (1)

Suzuki ....................................................................................................................................................................... 28.5 28.2

Toyota ....................................................................................................................................................................... 22.0 21.2

Volkswagen ............................................................................................................................................................... 21.0 19.6

Sales Weighted Average (Import) .................................................................................................................................... 22.0 21.6

Total Fleet Average .......................................................................................................................................................... 20.6 20.4

Fuel Economy Standards ................................................................................................................................................. 20.5 20.6

1Subaru and UMC did not produce light trucks for MY 1995.

In MY 1995, the fleet average fuel

economy for import passenger cars

increased by 0.3 mpg from the MY 1994

CAFE level to 29.9 mpg. Thirteen of the

18 import car manufacturers increased

their CAFE values between MYs 1994

and 1995, including six of the nine

Asian manufacturers. Figure II–1

illustrates the changes in total new

passenger car fleet CAFE from MY 1978

to MY 1995.

The total light truck fleet CAFE

decreased 0.2 mpg below the MY 1994

CAFE level of 20.6 mpg. Figure II–2

illustrates the trends in total light truck

fleet CAFE from MY 1979 to MY 1995.

A number of passenger car and a few

light truck manufacturers are projected

to fail to achieve the levels of the MY

1995 CAFE standards. However,

NHTSA is not yet able to determine

which of these manufacturers may be

liable for civil penalties for noncompliance. Some MY 1995 CAFE

values may change when final figures

are provided to NHTSA by EPA, in mid1996. 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.

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 88 / Monday, May 6, 1996 / Notices 20315
20316 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 88 / Monday, May 6, 1996 / Notices

BILLING CODE 4910–59–C
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 88 / Monday, May 6, 1996 / Notices 20317

Fleet average fuel economy for all MY

1995 passenger cars combined exceeded

the level of the MY 1995 standard by 1.0

mpg.

Subaru terminated sales of its light

trucks in the United States after MY

1994; however, the manufacturer

continues to sell its passenger cars.

Subaru accumulated substantial CAFE

credits during its 11-year marketing

span of its light trucks in the United

States.

The characteristics of the MY 1995

passenger car fleet reflect a continuing

trend toward satisfying consumer

demand for higher performance cars.

(See Table II–3.) From MY 1994 to MY

1995, horsepower/100 pounds, a

measure of vehicle performance,

increased from 4.84 to 4.91 for domestic

passenger cars. However, it decreased

slightly from 4.71 to 4.52 for import

passenger cars. The total fleet average

for passenger cars decreased slightly

from 4.79 horsepower/100 pounds in

MY 1994 to 4.77 in MY 1995. Compared

to MY 1994, the average curb weight for

MY 1995 increased by 28 pounds for the

domestic fleet and 61 pounds for the

import fleet. The total new passenger

car fleet is 45 pounds heavier than it

was in MY 1994, primarily because of

the larger share held by the domestic

fleet. Average engine displacement

decreased from 188 to 186 cubic inches

for domestic passenger cars, and from

137 to 135 cubic inches for import

passenger cars, from MY 1994 to MY

1995.

TABLE II–3.—PASSENGER CAR FLEET CHARACTERISTICS FOR MYS 1994 AND 1995

Characteristics

Total fleet Domestic fleet Import fleet

1994 1995 1994 1995 1994 1995

Fleet Average Fuel Economy, mpg ...................... 28.2 28.5 27.3 27.7 29.6 29.9

Fleet Average Curb Weight, lbs. .......................... 3011 3056 3098 3126 2870 2931

Fleet Average Engine Displacement, cu. in. ........ 169 168 188 186 137 135

Fleet Average Horsepower/Weight ratio, HP/100

lbs ...................................................................... 4.79 4.77 4.84 4.91 4.71 4.52

% of Fleet .............................................................. 100 100 61.7 64.1 38.3 35.9

Segmentation by EPA Size Class, %

Two-Seater .................................................... 1.1 0.8 0.5 0.4 2.1 1.5

Minicompact ................................................... 0.4 0.8 0.00 0.00 1.1 2.1

Subcompact* .................................................. 23.3 16.0 17.9 10.3 31.9 26.2

Compact* ....................................................... 34.4 40.3 29.5 37.4 42.2 45.4

Mid-Size* ........................................................ 25.1 27.9 30.0 31.3 17.1 21.8

Large* ............................................................ 15.7 14.3 22.1 20.7 5.5 3.0

Diesel Engines ............................................... 0.01 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.14

Turbo or Supercharged Engines ................... 0.9 0.6 0.4 0.00 1.7 1.8

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

Front-Wheel Drive .......................................... 84.7 84.4 85.0 83.9 84.3 85.1

Automatic Transmissions ............................... 82.8 83.3 89.0 88.9 72.7 73.2

Automatic Transmissions with Lockup

Clutches ..................................................... 95.2 97.6 95.2 99.3 95.1 94.0

Automatic Transmissions with Four or more

Forward Speeds ......................................... 83.6 87.4 78.6 84.5 93.4 93.7

*Includes associated station wagons.

The 0.4 mpg fuel economy

improvement for the MY 1995 domestic

passenger car fleet may be attributed in

part to mix shifts and in part to

technology changes in several areas: a

pronounced increase in the use of more

automatic transmissions with lockup

torque converters and more automatic

transmissions with four speeds.

The size/class breakdown shows an

increased trend towards minicompact,

compact, and mid-size passenger cars

and a decrease in two-seater,

subcompact, and large passenger cars

for the overall fleet. The size/class mix

in both the domestic and import fleet

shifted from subcompact and large

passenger cars to compact and mid-size

passenger cars. The import share of the

passenger car market declined slightly

in MY 1995.

The domestic fleet had a decrease in

share of turbocharged and supercharged

engines. Diesel engines rose slightly in

share in MY 1995, but were offered only

by one import manufacturer.

Passenger car fleet average

characteristics have changed

significantly since MY 1978 (the first

year of fuel economy standards). (See

Table II–4.) After substantial initial

weight loss (from MY 1978 to MY 1982,

the average passenger car fleet curb

weight decreased from 3,349 to 2,808

pounds), then stabilized between 2,800

and 3,000 pounds. Table II–4 shows that

the MY 1995 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 1995

light truck fleet are shown in Table II–

5. Since light truck manufacturers are

not required to divide their fleets into

domestic and import fleets based on the

75-percent domestic content threshold

used for passenger car fleets, the

domestic and import 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 or Canada, or in another country.

The exception to this is the assumption

that the import-badged products of a

domestic manufacturer’s assembly plant

were ‘‘domestic’’ (Mazda B-Series

pickup and Nissan Quest).
20318 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 88 / Monday, May 6, 1996 / Notices

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

[Model Years 1978–1995]

Model year

Fuel economy

(mpg)

Curb weight

(lb.)

Interior

space

(cu. ft.)

Engine size

(cu. in.)

Horsepower/

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 .......................................................................................................... 28.4 2934 108 164 4.42

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

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

1994 .......................................................................................................... 28.2 3011 109 169 4.79

1995 .......................................................................................................... 28.5 3056 110 168 4.77

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 88 / Monday, May 6, 1996 / Notices 20319

BILLING CODE 4910–59–C
20320 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 88 / Monday, May 6, 1996 / Notices

TABLE II–5—LIGHT TRUCK FLEET CHARACTERISTICS FOR MYS 1994 AND 1995

Characteristics

Total fleet Domestic fleet Import fleet

1994 1995 1994 1995 1994 1995

Fleet Average Fuel Economy, mpg ...................... 20.6 20.4 20.4 20.1 22.0 21.6

Fleet Average Equivalent Test Weight, lbs .......... 4274 4338 4340 4409 3832 3938

Fleet Average Engine Displacement, cu. in ......... 243 244 255 257 165 171

Fleet Average Horsepower/ Weight ratio, HP/100

lbs ...................................................................... 3.86 3.87 3.89 3.93 3.65 3.54

% Fleet .................................................................. 100 100 87.0 84.8 13.0 15.2

Segmentation by Type, %:

Passenger Van Compact ............................... 18.0 19.6 19.7 22.3 6.3 4.7

Large .............................................................. 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 ...................... ......................

Cargo Van Compact ...................................... 1.5 1.7 1.7 2.0 ...................... ......................

Large .............................................................. 4.7 4.9 5.4 5.8 ...................... ......................

Small Pickup * ................................................ 6.6 7.7 5.3 5.7 14.8 20.2

Large Pickup * ................................................ 40.0 32.0 40.5 33.3 36.8 24.5

Special Purpose ............................................. 28.7 33.6 26.7 30.6 42.2 50.6

Diesel Engines ............................................... 0.30 0.18 0.30 0.22 ...................... ......................

Fuel Injection ................................................. 99.7 99.6 100 100 97.7 97.5

Automatic Transmissions ............................... 77.3 78.8 82.4 83.5 42.7 52.3

Automatic Transmissions with Lockup

Clutches ..................................................... 98.3 99.0 98.6 99.3 94.0 95.4

Automatic Transmissions with Four Forward

Speeds ....................................................... 92.1 93.3 91.6 92.6 98.9 99.3

4–Wheel Drive ............................................... 36.1 38.0 34.1 35.5 50.6 52.2

*Including Cab Chassis.

The MY 1995 average test weight of

the total light truck fleet increased by 64

pounds over that for MY 1994.

Increased popularity of special purpose

vehicles, heavier trucks, and trucks with

4-wheel drive (4WD) lowered the fleet

fuel economy in MY 1995 but was offset

slightly by an increase in the use of

automatic transmissions with four

forward speeds resulting in an overall

decline of 0.2 mpg to 20.4 mpg. Diesel

engine usage decreased in light trucks to

0.18 percent in MY 1995 from 0.30

percent in MY 1994. The share of the

MY 1995 import light truck fleet

increased to 15.2 percent.

CAFE levels for light trucks in the 0–

8,500 pounds gross vehicle weight

(GVW) class increased from 18.5 mpg in

MY 1980 to 21.7 mpg in MY 1987,

before declining to 20.4 mpg in MY

1995, influenced by an increase in

average weight, engine size, and

performance. Light truck production

increased from 1.9 million in MY 1980

to 5.7 million in MY 1995. Light trucks

comprised 38 percent of the total light

duty vehicle fleet production in MY

1995, more than triple the share in MY

1980.

Figure II–4 illustrates an increase in

the light duty fleet (combined passenger

cars and light trucks) average fuel

economy through MY 1987, followed by

a gradual decline. (See Table II–6.)

Passenger car average fuel economy

remained relatively constant for MYs

1987–1995. The overall decline in fuel

economy illustrates the growing

influence of light trucks and their

significant impact on the light duty

fleet.

While passenger car fleet fuel

economy increased from MY 1994 to

MY 1995 by 0.3 mpg and light truck

fleet fuel economy decreased by 0.2

mpg, the total fleet fuel economy for MY

1995 increased 0.1 mpg over the MY

1994 level (24.6 mpg for MY 1994 and

24.7 mpg for MY 1995). 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 import passenger car

fleet average fuel economies have

improved since MY 1978, although the

increase is far more dramatic for the

domestic fleet. In MY 1995, both

domestic and import passenger car fleet

average fuel economies increased from

the prior year to 27.7 mpg and 29.9 mpg,

respectively. Compared to MY 1978,

this reflects an increase of 9.0 mpg for

domestic cars and 2.6 mpg for import

cars.

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

1978–1995

(IN MPG)

Model year

Domestic Import

All cars All light

trucks Total fleet

Car Light

truck

Combined Car Light

truck

Combined

1978 ............................................... 18.7 ................ ................ 27.3 ................ ................ 19.9 ................ ................

1979 ............................................... 19.3 17.7 19.1 26.1 20.8 25.5 20.3 18.2 20.1

1980 ............................................... 22.6 16.8 21.4 29.6 24.3 28.6 24.3 18.5 23.1

1981 ............................................... 24.2 18.3 22.9 31.5 27.4 30.7 25.9 20.1 24.6

1982 ............................................... 25.0 19.2 23.5 31.1 27.0 30.4 26.6 20.5 25.1

1983 ............................................... 24.4 19.6 23.0 32.4 27.1 31.5 26.4 20.7 24.8

1984 ............................................... 25.5 19.3 23.6 32.0 26.7 30.6 26.9 20.6 25.0

1985 ............................................... 26.3 19.6 24.0 31.5 26.5 30.3 27.6 20.7 25.4

1986 ............................................... 26.9 20.0 24.4 31.6 25.9 29.8 28.2 21.5 25.9
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 88 / Monday, May 6, 1996 / Notices 20321

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

1978–1995—Continued

(IN MPG)

Model year

Domestic Import

All cars All light

trucks Total fleet

Car Light

truck

Combined Car Light

truck

Combined

1987 ............................................... 27.0 20.5 24.6 31.2 25.2 29.6 28.5 21.7 26.2

1988 ............................................... 27.4 20.6 24.5 31.5 24.6 30.0 28.8 21.3 26.0

1989 ............................................... 27.2 20.4 24.2 30.8 23.5 29.2 28.4 20.9 25.6

1990 ............................................... 26.9 20.3 23.9 29.9 23.0 28.5 28.0 20.8 25.4

1991 ............................................... 27.3 20.9 24.4 30.1 23.0 28.4 28.4 21.3 25.6

1992 ............................................... 27.0 20.5 23.8 29.2 22.7 27.9 27.9 20.8 25.1

1993 ............................................... 27.8 20.7 24.2 29.6 22.8 28.1 28.4 21.0 25.2

1994 ............................................... 27.3 20.4 23.5 29.6 22.0 27.8 28.2 20.6 24.6

1995 ............................................... 27.7 20.1 23.7 29.9 21.6 27.6 28.5 20.4 24.7

BILLING CODE 4910–59–C
20322 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 88 / Monday, May 6, 1996 / Notices

Since MY 1980, the total light truck

fleet average fuel economy and the

average for domestic light truck

manufacturers have improved overall,

but both have remained below the fuel

economy level for the imported light

truck fleet. The imported light truck

average fuel economy has decreased

significantly since its highest level of

27.4 mpg for MY 1981 to 21.6 mpg for

MY 1995. For MY 1995, the domestic

light truck fleet has an average fuel

economy level of 20.1 mpg, which is 1.5

mpg lower than the import light truck

fleet. For MY 1995, the imported light

truck fleet fuel economy decreased 0.4

mpg below the MY 1994 level to 21.6

mpg. The domestic manufacturers

continued to dominate the light truck

market, comprising 85 percent of the

total light truck fleet.

The disparity between the average

CAFEs of the import and domestic

manufacturers has declined in recent

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: 1995 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 involves a challenge by the

Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) to

NHTSA’s January 15, 1993, decision to

again terminate rulemaking the agency

commenced to consider amending the

MY 1990 passenger car CAFE standard.

The D.C. Circuit had reversed NHTSA’s

original termination decision in 1992.

Competitive Enterprise Institute v.

NHTSA, 956 F.2d 321, (D.C. Cir. 1992).

On February 3, 1995, the court issued a

unanimous decision dismissing the

petition for review and upholding the

agency’s decision not to amend the MY

1990 passenger car CAFE standard.

Competitive Enterprise Institute v.

NHTSA, 45 F.3d 481, (D.C. Cir. 1995).

CEI filed a petition for rehearing on

March 20, 1995, the agency filed its

response, opposing rehearing, on April

24, 1995. On May 17, 1995, the Court

denied rehearing and rehearing en banc.

B. Light Truck CAFE Standards

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.

The Department of Transportation

and Related Agencies Appropriations

Act for Fiscal Year 1996, P.L. 104–50,

directed the agency not to expend funds

‘‘to prepare, propose, or promulgate any

regulations * * * prescribing CAFE

standards for automobiles, as defined in

such title, in any model year that differs

from standards promulgated for such

automobiles prior to enactment of this

section.’’ The Act was passed while the

agency was considering the MY 1998

light truck standard. Subsequently, the

agency issued a notice of proposed

rulemaking proposing a light truck fuel

economy standard for MY 1998 of 20.7

mpg, which is the current standard. A

final rule will be issued early in 1996.

C. Low Volume Petitions

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.

NHTSA acted on four low volume

petitions in 1995, which were filed by

Bugatti International Holding, SA

(Bugatti International), MedNet, Inc.,

Rolls-Royce, and Lamborghini.

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. Because of the

financial instability of Bugatti, Lotus

resubmitted to the agency its own low

volume petition. The agency is

reviewing Lotus’ petition and will

respond in early 1996.

MedNet, Inc., requested an alternative

standard for its recently acquired

Dutcher PTV vehicles for MYs 1995,

1996, and 1997. NHTSA established an

alternative standard of 17.0 mpg for the

three model years (60 FR 47877;

September 15, 1995).

Rolls-Royce requested an alternative

standard for its passenger cars for MY

1997. NHTSA issued a proposed

decision to grant an alternative standard

of 15.1 mpg for MY 1997 (60 FR 37861;

July 24, 1995).

Lamborghini filed a joint low volume

petition for Lamborghini and Vector

high performance vehicles. Lamborghini

requested alternative standards for its

passenger cars for MYs 1995, 1996, and

1997. NHTSA is reviewing this petition

and will respond in early 1996.

Rolls Royce filed a low volume

petition for MYs 1998 and 1999 in

December 1995. NHTSA will respond to

this petition during 1996.

D. Enforcement

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

penalty of $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

manufacturer 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.

Table III–1 shows the most recent

CAFE fines paid by manufacturers.

Final CAFE figures for MY 1994 were

not available for most manufacturers.

TABLE III–1.—CAFE FINES COLLECTED DURING FY 1995

Model year Manufacturer Amount fined Date paid

1990 ................................................... Callaway Cars, Inc. ....................................................................................... ($20,400) 12/94

Consulier Industries ....................................................................................... 50 01/95

1991 ................................................... Maserati ......................................................................................................... 1,600 12/94

Consulier Industries ....................................................................................... 50 01/95

1992 ................................................... Mercedes-Benz .............................................................................................. 18,122,440 12/94

Consulier Industries ....................................................................................... 50 01/95

1993 ................................................... Peugeot ......................................................................................................... 910 10/94

Porsche .......................................................................................................... 668,500 10/94
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 88 / Monday, May 6, 1996 / Notices 20323

TABLE III–1.—CAFE FINES COLLECTED DURING FY 1995—Continued

Model year Manufacturer Amount fined Date paid

Mercedes-Benz .............................................................................................. 13,531,590 12/94

Land Rover .................................................................................................... 1,094,660 01/95

Autokraft Ltd .................................................................................................. 2,590 08/95

BMW .............................................................................................................. 7,427,160 09/95

1994 ................................................... Mercedes-Benz .............................................................................................. 11,254,080 12/94

1995 ................................................... Mercedes-Benz .............................................................................................. 7,498,995 12/94

E. Partnership for a New Generation of

Vehicles (PNGV)

The agency has been assisting, within

existing resources, the PNGV

participants in the early stages of

subsystem development and systems

analysis in support of the objectives of

the program. In addition to limited staff

participation by NHTSA and the Volpe

National Transportation Systems Center

(Volpe Center) in selected materials and

systems analysis activities, the

Department, along with the Department

of Commerce, has funded the National

Research Council’s annual review of the

PNGV program.

The Joint Conference Report on the

DOT budget for FY 1996 removed funds

for agency support of PNGV activities in

safety and infrastructure analysis. The

reasoning for this deletion of funds was

that the Congress felt that the agency

did not need funds until the PNGV

vehicles were further defined.

Nevertheless, the agency will continue

to make its staff available wherever they

can be of use in the PNGV program.

F. Advisory Committee on Personal

Motor Vehicle Greenhouse Gas

Reductions

As part of the Administration’s

‘‘Climate Change Action Plan,’’ the

White House formed a one-year

advisory committee to develop

recommendations to reduce greenhouse

gas emissions by light vehicles to the

year 1990 level. The committee

comprised 29 members representing

environmental and public interest

groups, automotive manufacturers, fuel

suppliers, vehicle users, and state and

local governments.

The goal of the committee was 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. These

policy options encompassed reductions

in vehicle-miles-traveled (VMT), vehicle

efficiency enhancement, and alternative

fuels. The committee examined:

• 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; and pricing,

and pay-at-the-pump insurance)

• other approaches (e.g., changed landuse patterns, increased mass transit,

telecommuting, Intelligent

Transportation Systems (ITS), and

increased carpooling).

On September 20, 1995, the advisory

group conducted its final meeting and

failed to form a consensus report for the

Administration on the recommendation

to reduce light vehicle greenhouse gas

emissions.

G. Contract Activities

During 1995, NHTSA continued to

fund the maintenance of a database that

details the finances, products, and

production capacities of North

American automobile manufacturing

plants. This program is administered by

the Volpe Center with annual funding of

$60,000.

In response to a request in the

Conference Report on the FY 1995 DOT

Appropriations Act, NHTSA also

initiated a study of the unique

capabilities, uses, and utility

requirements of light trucks that result

in design constraints for fuel economy

improvement. This study is also being

conducted by the Volpe Center, using

the $300,000 appropriation designated

by Congress for the study. The final

report will be available early in 1996.

Finally, the agency has awarded a

small contract of $46,750 to study the

potential fuel economy improvements

that could be achieved by the

application of variable valve timing to

conventional engines. This study will

include an analysis of the cost

implications of the technology. The

report will be published in 1996.

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

(P.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, advances in engine and

transmission technology, the

application of materials to save weight,

and the advances in electronic

technology which improved fuel

economy in MY 1995.

A. New Models

Domestic auto manufacturers

introduced a number of significant new

products and made major changes to

several existing models for MY 1995.

Chrysler replaced its compact Sundance

and Shadow models with the Neon

which has a larger interior, but weighs

about 100 lbs less and achieves an

average fuel economy of over 34 mpg,

5.5 mpg higher than the predecessor

models. Chrysler also replaced the midsize Spirit and Acclaim with the Dodge

Stratus and Chrysler Cirrus. These

models weigh about the same as their

predecessors, but the average fuel

economy is about 1 mpg lower due to

more emphasis on higher performance

engine options. Chrysler introduced the

Chrysler Sebring and Dodge Avenger

sports coupes which averaged 27.7 mpg.

They replace certain Chrysler LeBaron

models and the Dodge Daytona which

had been previously discontinued. Both

cars are produced for Chrysler by

Mitsubishi at its Illinois assembly plant.

Mitsubishi also produced a new Eagle

Talon for Chrysler which has better

performance and improved

aerodynamics, but is similar to the

previous model in fuel economy.

Ford introduced a front-wheel drive

minivan, the Windstar, supplementing

the Aerostar rear-wheel drive model

which remains in production. The

Windstar achieved an average fuel

economy of 22.8 mpg, 1 mpg better than

the Aerostar. The Ford Explorer sport

utility was restyled for MY 1995 and

included dual airbags, side door beams,

and redesigned front suspension. The

new Explorer weighs an average of

about 250 lbs more than its predecessor,

but achieves about the same fuel

economy. The Ford Tempo/Mercury

Topaz model was replaced by an

entirely new model, the Ford Contour/

Mercury Mystique, and featured new
20324 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 88 / Monday, May 6, 1996 / Notices

engines and transmissions, as well. This

is a world car program with a European

counterpart known as the Ford Mondeo.

The Contour/Mystique is over 200 lbs

heavier than the Tempo/Topaz, but fuel

economy is better by about 2.5 mpg.

Ford also redesigned the Lincoln

Continental which becomes the first

front-wheel drive Ford product to use a

V–8 engine. The engine is a 4-valve-percylinder dual overhead cam (DOHC)

design. The Continental has dual

airbags, four-wheel disc brakes, a load

leveling suspension, and driver-selected

modes for power steering effort and ride

control. The new model weighs about

400 lbs more than the 1994 model, and

the fuel economy is about 0.8 mpg

lower.

The General Motors Blazer and Jimmy

compact sport utilities were restyled for

improved aerodynamics and featured

better ride and handling. The new

models achieved about the same fuel

economy as the 1994 models. A 4-door

model was added to the large sport

utility models of the Chevrolet Tahoe

and GMC Yukon. This 4-door model is

lighter and 14 in. shorter than the

Suburban and is also available with

either 2WD or 4WD. The subcompact

Geo Metro was redesigned to have a

larger interior and a 4-cylinder engine in

the 4-door models. The weight of the

new models increases by 200 lbs. and

the fuel economy declines to an average

of 44 mpg, still one of the best in the

industry. The compact Chevrolet

Cavalier and Pontiac Sunfire were

completely redesigned for the first time

since their introduction in 1982. The

new models have longer wheelbases,

but shorter overall length, offer an

optional 4-valve-per-cylinder engine,

and have an average fuel economy more

than 1 mpg higher than the 1994

models. Compared to the original 1982

models, the 1995 Cavalier/Sunfire

models weigh about 250 lbs more due

to a higher content of convenience,

safety, and emissions equipment but

still deliver about 1.8 mpg more in fuel

economy. The mid-size Chevrolet

Lumina was extensively redesigned and

the coupe was redesignated as the

Monte Carlo. The weight remains about

the same, but the average fuel economy

has declined by about 0.5 mpg. Finally,

GM introduced entirely new mid-size

Buick Riviera and Oldsmobile Aurora

models. These replace the Riviera and

Toronado models that were

discontinued after MY 1993. The

Riviera uses a significantly redesigned

version of the pushrod 3.8 L V–6 engine

with a supercharger option while the

Aurora uses a new 4 L DOHC V–8. Both

models are heavier and have lower fuel

economies than their predecessors.

Among the import manufacturers,

BMW redesigned its 7-series models for

greater body rigidity, improved

suspension, longer wheelbase, and dual

airbags. The average weight of the series

is unchanged, but the fuel economy has

improved by about 0.6 mpg.

Honda introduced its first minivan,

the Odyssey, which was based on the

Accord platform. It has 3 rows of seats,

accommodating up to 7 passengers and

an average fuel economy of 25.5 mpg.

Hyundai introduced a redesigned

mid-size Sonata model with a new

platform, interior, suspension, longer

wheelbase, and dual airbags. Fuel

economy improved by about 0.8 mpg.

Hyundai also replaced its subcompact

Excel with a compact Accent model.

This model also features a new

suspension, dual airbags, and a longer

wheelbase. Average fuel economy is

improved by about 1 mpg to 36.9 mpg.

Another South Korean Manufacturer,

Kia, expanded its line of vehicles

offered for sale in the U.S. by adding a

compact sports utility model, the

Sportage. The Sportage is available in

both 2WD and 4WD versions and

averaged 25.5 mpg for MY 1995.

Mazda introduced a redesigned

compact Protege with dual airbags, a

larger interior, two optional DOHC

engines, and an average fuel economy

that, at 35.5 mpg, was 3 mpg higher than

the previous model. Mazda also

introduced a new line of sedans called

the Millenia. One of the engine options

on the Millenia is the 2.3 L, 4-valve-percylinder, DOHC Miller cycle V–6 with

a supercharger. This model achieves

about 1 mpg better fuel economy than

the conventional 2.5 L standard engine.

As a companion to the Eagle Talon,

Mitsubishi introduced a redesigned

Eclipse sports model. It was over 100 lbs

heavier than the predecessor model, but

achieved about the same fuel economy.

Nissan introduced major redesigns of

three passenger car lines for MY 1995:

the Sentra, the 240SX, and the Maxima.

All three lines now include dual

airbags, and each has a fuel economy

rating of about 2 mpg higher than the

previous model and a larger interior

volume. The Maxima includes a

redesigned 3 L DOHC V–6 engine.

Land Rover introduced the first major

redesign in 25 years of its luxury sport

utility, the Range Rover 4.0 SE. The new

model has better ride and handling,

dual airbags, and somewhat higher fuel

economy with the redesigned 4 L V–8

engine.

The compact Subaru Legacy was

redesigned to include greater interior

volume and dual airbags. Fuel economy

improved by over 1 mpg on both the

2WD and 4WD versions of this model.

The subcompact Suzuki Swift was

redesigned like the companion Geo

Metro to have a longer wheelbase, larger

interior, and dual airbags. Average fuel

economy increased by nearly 1 mpg to

44.4 mpg.

Toyota’s new models for MY 1995

included a redesign of the subcompact

Tercel to include dual airbags and a new

1.5 L 4- valve-per-cylinder DOHC

engine that yielded an average fuel

economy of 39.5 mpg, nearly 4 mpg

higher than the 1994 model. Toyota also

introduced the new Avalon, Toyota’s

first large car with 6-passenger seating.

Its fuel economy averaged 26.9 mpg, one

of the highest values for a large car.

Toyota’s Lexus LS400 was redesigned to

have a longer wheelbase, larger interior,

and a new 4 L V–8. The LS400 is lighter

by about 250 lbs and delivers nearly 2

mpg higher fuel economy than its

predecessor. Toyota’s compact pickup

line was redesigned for MY 1995 and

renamed the Tacoma. The base engine

for the 4WD models was enlarged to 2.7

L and the optional engine on both lines

is a new 3.4 L DOHC V–6. The 4WD

models are lighter and achieve about 0.5

mpg higher average fuel economy. The

2WD models, however, weigh about the

same as their predecessors, but have

about 1 mpg lower average fuel

economy.

Volkswagen redesigned its compact

Passat line to be mid-size without

changing the average weight or fuel

economy of these models. The Cabriolet

model was replaced after a year’s

absence with a new, larger Cabrio model

that weighed about 300 lbs more but

achieved nearly the same fuel economy

as the 16-year old design.

B. Engine and Transmission Technology

Several new engine designs and some

significant engine redesigns were

introduced on light vehicles for sale in

the U.S. for MY 1995. The new engines

for Chrysler include a 2 L, 4-valve-percylinder, 4-cylinder engine for use in

the Neon, the Stratus, and the Talon in

various versions. It is produced in

single-overhead camshaft (SOHC) and

DOHC configurations, and the DOHC

design is offered in naturally aspirated

and turbocharged versions. Another

new Chrysler engine is a similar, but

larger, 2.4 L DOHC, 4-valve, 4-cylinder

engine with a balance shaft for the

Cirrus and Stratus. Chrysler also

introduced a 2.5 L SOHC, 4-valve V–6

for the Cirrus and Stratus. All of these

engines use cast iron blocks with

aluminum cylinder heads. The 2 L

DOHC engine has the highest specific
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 88 / Monday, May 6, 1996 / Notices 20325

output of any naturally aspirated engine

that Chrysler has ever produced.

Ford developed two new engines for

its new Contour and Mystique models—

the 2 L 4-cylinder ‘‘Zetec,’’ and the 2.5

L V–6 ‘‘Duratec.’’ Both engines use 4

valves per cylinder. The Zetec is SOHC

with cast iron block and aluminum

cylinder head while the Duratec is

DOHC with aluminum block and

cylinder heads. Ford claims the Duratec

engine is the smallest and lightest V–6

engine in the world for its displacement,

and Ford has established a 100,000-mile

interval for major service of the engine.

A significant engine modification at

Ford was the adaptation of the 4.6 L

DOHC 4-valve V–8 for a transverse,

FWD installation for the Lincoln

Continental. This is Ford’s first

application of a V–8 engine in a FWD

car. This engine was previously used

only in the rear-wheel drive Mark VIII.

GM introduced a 4 L version of its

Premium V engine family for the

Oldsmobile Aurora. This engine is a

DOHC V–8 with 4 valves per cylinder

and uses an aluminum block and

cylinder heads. A 1.3 L SOHC 4-

cylinder was added to the Geo Metro

line to augment the previous 1 L 3-

cylinder engine. The engine has an

aluminum block and cylinder head and

produces 40 percent more horsepower

than the 3-cylinder. GM also refined the

2.3 L Quad 4 engine by adding two

balance shafts to reduce the engine

vibration. The GM 3.8 L V–6 received

extensive improvements with larger

valves, lighter pushrod valve train, and

a lower, lighter engine block. The

redesigned engine produces more

power, better fuel economy, and less

emissions than its predecessor.

Mazda introduced a modification of

the conventional spark ignition engine

called the ‘‘Miller cycle.’’ By using a late

closing of the intake valves coupled

with a supercharger, the Miller cycle

design reduces pumping losses while

retaining high power and mid-range

torque. The optional 2.3 L DOHC 4-

valve V–6 Miller cycle engine produces

better fuel economy and better

performance in the Mazda Millenia than

the similar, but conventional cycle, 2.5

L standard engine. Mazda also claims

that its Miller cycle engine will have 1.3

times better durability than

conventional engines.

Mercedes-Benz introduced a 4-valveper-cylinder, naturally aspirated diesel

engine with a catalytic converter that

meets 50 state emissions standards. The

new engine is an indirect injection

design with a variable resonance intake

manifold to improve the torque

performance. It was offered in the 3,500-

lb E300 sedan where it achieved an

average fuel economy of 34.2 mpg, the

highest fuel economy of any car of over

2,700 lbs curb weight.

Nissan developed a 3 L DOHC V–6

‘‘VQ’’ engine with aluminum block and

cylinder heads for use in its Maxima

passenger cars. The engine has lower

internal friction and lighter rotating

parts than its predecessor, resulting in

improved performance and fuel

economy for the Maxima. This engine is

expected to be produced in other sizes

in the future for other Nissan models.

Saab began offering its ‘‘Light

Pressure Turbo (LPT)’’ 2.3 L engine in

U.S. models of the 9000. This engine

has a lower turbocharger boost pressure

that achieves better fuel economy with

smoother power flow by reducing the

typical turbocharger lag. The Saab 9000

with this LPT engine had the best fuel

economy of any large car in MY 1995.

New transmissions for MY 1995

include the Ford 4-speed automatic for

the Contour and Mystique which

features a belt-rather than gear-drive to

the final drive. Ford claims this

electronically controlled transmission is

the most compact 4-speed automatic for

its torque capacity. Ford also designed

a new 5-speed manual transmission for

these models that has low friction

bearings and is synchronized in all

gears. GM developed its first 4-speed

transverse automatic transmission for

use in compact cars.

C. Electronics

As electronic devices for safety and

convenience proliferate, much of the

improvements in electronics are

centered on further integration of the

control systems. MY 1995 saw an

increase in the application of anti-lock

braking systems, traction control, antitheft devices, and remote locking

systems. New or more advanced

electronic systems are being applied to

engine diagnostics, more sophisticated

air bag systems, vehicle stability

controls, and navigation systems. The

auto industry and its suppliers are

developing computers, integrated

circuits, and multiplex wiring to

simplify and improve the operation of

the variety of electronic systems

contained in the modern vehicle.

D. Materials

Although the average weight of the

new passenger car and light truck fleets

increased for MY 1995, auto

manufacturers introduced significant

new applications of lighter or stronger

materials that precluded greater weight

increases on some models. According to

information included in Ward’s

Automotive Yearbook 1995, several

materials have increased their share of

the composition of the typical family

vehicle between 1990 and 1995. These

materials include high- and mediumstrength steel, stainless steel, plastics

and plastic composites, aluminum,

powder metal (PM), magnesium, and

glass. These increases have been at the

expense of several of the more

traditional automotive materials: regular

steel, cast iron, copper and brass, and

zinc.

Some of the notable applications of

lighter or stronger materials are

discussed in the following paragraphs.

Examples of new model uses of highand medium-strength steels include

medium-strength steel for the hood,

door, and rear-hatch outer panels of the

Eagle Talon/Mitsubishi Eclipse and

high-strength steel for the longitudinal

frame rails. The front door inner panels

and hinge reinforcements of the Dodge/

Plymouth Neon are high-strength steel.

Ford uses bake-hardenable mediumstrength steel for outer body panels on

the Windstar minivan and the Contour

and Mystique sedans.

New applications for plastics for MY

1995 have been mainly in small parts

and conversions from one type of plastic

to another. Some of the notable

applications include sheet molding

composite (SMC) hoods for the Ford

Windstar and hoods and front fenders

for the Lincoln Continental. Plastic

intake manifolds are widely used, and

new applications for MY 1995 include

the Ford 2 L, 16-valve engine, the

Cadillac Northstar and Olds Aurora

V–8s, and the Ford Windstar 3.8 L V–

6.

Much of the growth in use of

aluminum in MY 1995 vehicles can be

attributed to Ford Motor Company

applications. The Duratec V–6 engine

for the Contour/Mystique models is the

first U.S.-production 6-cylinder engine

with both the block and heads of

aluminum. The new Lincoln

Continental uses the Ford modular V–8

for the first time, and this engine

contains about 70 lbs of aluminum. The

restyled Ford Crown Victoria and

Mercury Grand Marquis use aluminum

deck lids. Aluminum wheels are

standard equipment on more cars from

all manufacturers and are also popular

options. Also of note is the Ford test

fleet of 20 Mercury Sables designed

with aluminum body structures and

body panels. These vehicles weigh

about 400 lbs less than the production

Sable and are being evaluated

extensively in a 42-month program with

a number of organizations at a variety of

locations.

PM connecting rods are approaching

universal application in U.S. production

spark ignition engines. New for MY
20326 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 88 / Monday, May 6, 1996 / Notices

1The ICC Termination Act of 1995, Pub. L. No.

104–88, 109 Stat. 803 (the Act), which was enacted

on December 29, 1995, and took effect on January

1, 1996, abolished the Interstate Commerce

Commission (ICC) and transferred certain functions

and proceedings to the Surface Transportation

Board (Board). Section 204(b)(1) of the Act

provides, in general, that proceedings pending

before the ICC on the effective date of that

legislation shall be decided under the law in effect

prior to January 1, 1996, insofar as they involve

functions retained by the Act. This notice relates to

a proceeding that was pending with the ICC prior

to January 1, 1996, and to functions that are subject

to Board jurisdiction pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 10903.

Therefore, this notice applies the law in effect prior

to the Act, and citations are to the former sections

of the statute, unless otherwise indicated.

1995 are PM connecting rods for the

Ford Duratec V–6, 3.8 L V–6, and the

modular V–8 for the Lincoln

Continental. Chrysler uses PM for the

connecting rods of the 2 and 2.4 L

engines, and GM added PM rods to the

Aurora and Northstar Premium V

engines which completes GM’s

conversion to PM connecting rods. GM

also used PM gears for the parking brake

of its new 4-speed automatic

transmission for small cars.

The GM Aurora V–8 engine uses

magnesium camshaft covers, baffles,

and oil filter adapters for MY 1995. Ford

uses magnesium for some of the seat

stanchions for the Windstar minivan.

On the experimental side, Chrysler built

a light-weight version of the Neon

compact car, reducing the weight by 600

lbs. This vehicle employs an aluminum

body and engine block but also uses

magnesium for seat frames, instrument

panel structures, and parts of the

steering column.

E. Summary

The continued availability and low

cost of gasoline has encouraged the

production and sale of larger, heavier

passenger cars and light trucks. The

increased popularity of light trucks

relative to passenger cars and the

popularity of accessories that add

weight and draw additional power from

the engine have reduced the fuel

economy of the vehicles. Nevertheless,

there was still progress in improving

fuel economy evident in many new

model introductions. Much of the

improvement was due to innovations in

engine technology, but there was also

some weight reduction accomplished

through more efficient packaging design

and the use of lighter or stronger

materials.

[FR Doc. 96–10963 Filed 5–3–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

[Docket No. 96–11; Notice 2]

Decision that Nonconforming 1990

Porsche 944 S2 2-Door Hatchback

Passenger Cars are Eligible for

Importation

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of decision by NHTSA

that nonconforming 1990 Porsche 944

S2 2-door hatchback passenger cars are

eligible for importation.

SUMMARY: This notice announces the

decision by NHTSA that 1990 Porsche

944 S2 2-door hatchback passenger cars

not originally manufactured to comply

with all applicable Federal motor

vehicle safety standards are eligible for

importation into the United States

because they are substantially similar to

a vehicle originally manufactured for

importation into and sale in the United

States and certified by its manufacturer

as complying with the safety standards

(the U.S.-certified version of the 1990

Porsche 944 S2 2-door hatchback), and

they are capable of being readily altered

to conform to the standards.

DATES: This decision is effective May 6,

1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

George Entwistle, Office of Vehicle

Safety Compliance, NHTSA (202–366–

5306).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A)

(formerly section 108(c)(3)(A)(i) of the

National Traffic and Motor Vehicle

Safety Act (the Act)), a motor vehicle

that was not originally manufactured to

conform to all applicable Federal motor

vehicle safety standards shall be refused

admission into the United States unless

NHTSA has decided that the motor

vehicle is substantially similar to a

motor vehicle originally manufactured

for importation into and sale in the

United States, certified under 49 U.S.C.

30115 (formerly section 114 of the Act),

and of the same model year as the

model of the motor vehicle to be

compared, and is capable of being

readily altered to conform to all

applicable Federal motor vehicle safety

standards.

Petitions for eligibility decisions may

be submitted by either manufacturers or

importers who have registered with

NHTSA pursuant to 49 CFR Part 592. As

specified in 49 CFR 593.7, NHTSA

publishes notice in the Federal Register

of each petition that it receives, and

affords interested persons an

opportunity to comment on the petition.

At the close of the comment period,

NHTSA decides, on the basis of the

petition and any comments that it has

received, whether the vehicle is eligible

for importation. The agency then

publishes this decision in the Federal

Register.

LPC of New York, Inc. of

Ronkonkoma, New York (Registered

Importer R–96–100) petitioned NHTSA

to decide whether 1990 Porsche 944 S2

2-door hatchback passenger cars are

eligible for importation into the United

States. NHTSA published notice of the

petition on February 22, 1996 (61 FR

6891) to afford an opportunity for public

comment. The reader is referred to that

notice for a thorough description of the

petition. No comments were received in

response to the notice. Based on its

review of the information submitted by

the petitioner, NHTSA has decided to

grant the petition.

Vehicle Eligibility Number for Subject

Vehicles

The importer of a vehicle admissible

under any final decision must indicate

on the form HS–7 accompanying entry

the appropriate vehicle eligibility

number indicating that the vehicle is

eligible for entry. VSP–152 is the

vehicle eligibility number assigned to

vehicles admissible under this decision.

Final Decision

Accordingly, on the basis of the

foregoing, NHTSA hereby decides that a

1990 Porsche 944 S2 2-door hatchback

not originally manufactured to comply

with all applicable Federal motor

vehicle safety standards is substantially

similar to a 1990 Porsche 944 S2 2-door

hatchback originally manufactured for

importation into and sale in the United

States and certified under 49 U.S.C.

30115, and is capable of being readily

altered to conform to all applicable

Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30141 (a)(1)(A) and

(b)(1); 49 CFR 593.8; delegations of authority

at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8.

Issued on: April 30, 1996.

Marilynne Jacobs,

Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.

[FR Doc. 96–11112 Filed 5–3–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–M

Surface Transportation Board 1

[Docket No. AB–57 (Sub-No. 33X)]

Soo Line Railroad Company—

Abandonment Exemption—in the

Counties of Beltrami, Clearwater, and

Polk Counties, MN

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board.

ACTION: Notice of exemption.

SUMMARY: Under 49 U.S.C. 10505, the

Board exempts from the requirements of