• Clean and Safe Transportation



• Power to Protect: Regulatory Policy



• Consumer Protections




• Take Action!

DOT Docket No. NHTSA 2002-11419
Docket Management
U.S. Department of Transportation
Room PL-401
400 Seventh Street, SW
Washington, DC 20590

Public Citizen’s initial comments to the docket primarily addressed the safety question raised by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in their Request for Comments of February 7, 2002 (67 FR 5767 et seq.). We are now addressing, in brief, some of the other important questions asked by the agency regarding the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report on Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE). Our responses are listed using the numbers chosen by the agency for each question.

6. What survey and other data are available on the importance that consumers place on the fuel economy of light trucks relative to other vehicle attributes?

Recent polling of light truck owners has shown them to be very supportive of increased fuel economy standards and even revealed a willingness to pay considerably more for vehicles that deliver more miles to the gallon.

The most recent polling done on this question, performed in March 2002 by the Mellman Group, revealed that 72 percent of Americans favored required increases in fuel economy, even when presented with an argument that doing so would raise the price of vehicles, cost jobs, and not save enough energy. This impressive majority held in rural states, and was even greater for light truck owners in many states. Sizeable majorities (from 61 to 75 percent) in all states polled were willing to pay 1300 dollars more for light trucks with improved fuel economy.(1)

A poll conducted in July 2001 for Public Citizen by Lou Harris asked Americans whether they would be willing to pay 3 percent (or about $900 on a $30,000-vehicle) more for their sport utility vehicles in order to solve emissions problems stemming from their use, and 63 percent of respondents answered yes.(2) In a separate Gallup poll a decade ago, 61 percent of Americans favored increasing the fuel efficiency requirements to 40 miles per gallon (mpg), even if it increased the price of cars.(3)

Other Gallup polls conducted over the years support this result. Ninety-three percent of Americans believe the United States should require cars to get better gas mileage to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.(4)

10. Comment on the idea of an attribute-based system.

    Public Citizen opposes any move to an attribute-based system. Our main comments explain our disagreement with the conclusions of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report on safety – increases in CAFE standards, especially increases in the light truck standard, do not carry with them any "safety penalty." Consequently, there is no need for adjusting the CAFE structure to accommodate the perceived penalty. Adjusting the structure of CAFE could even have the adverse consequence of increasing the amount of fuel consumed across the fleet.

    The attribute that is most frequently suggested as a possible basis for an attribute-based system is vehicle weight, because of its assumed centrality to the question of passenger safety. Unfortunately, our heaviest vehicles are also our most dangerous to other drivers, as demonstrated in studies performed by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Hans Joksch, David Greene, and the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. Their work is described at length in our original comments, but their shared point can be stated briefly: the damage heavy vehicles inflict on drivers and passengers of other vehicles, as well as pedestrians and motorcyclists, in crashes is huge compared to the damage done by lighter vehicles and far outweighs the additional protection heavier vehicles offer their occupants.

    A weight-based system, whereby vehicles are assigned a CAFE number on the basis of their weight, would presumably allow heavier vehicles to achieve worse gas mileage. Given the broad direction of the market for passenger vehicles today, this is an unwise choice. Automakers exploit the current light truck loophole and produce overlarge, dangerous, gas-guzzling vehicles that make a mockery of the outdated distinction between car and light truck. Their response to a tiered system would unquestionably be to nudge as many vehicles as possible into a higher weight category, thereby lowering overall fleet fuel economy and allowing them to construct more vehicles within the heaviest categories. This result would threaten safety and could lead to an overall increase in fleet fuel consumption.

    Some advocates of a weight-based approach favor a maximum vehicle weight class beyond which the CAFE standard for a vehicle would not be reduced. Designing the system in this way would eliminate manufacturers’ incentive to raise vehicle weight beyond the maximum amount. However, even if fuel economy performance was capped at the lower end, there would still be an incentive for automakers to design as many vehicles as possible in the heaviest category and increase the weight of vehicles in the lower categories, nudging vehicles over the borderline to offset the behemoths at the high end of each category’s weight range.

    Given the uncertain consequences of a weight-based system for fleet fuel economy and the certain gaming that will result from this system to the detriment of safety, NHTSA should discard it as a possibility for adjustments to the CAFE structure.

11. Comment on the possibility of tradable fuel economy credits and the potential cost and benefit to each manufacturer.

    NHTSA should be extremely skeptical of a credit trading system that allows manufacturers to purchase credits from one another in order to offset their inability to meet the CAFE standard for a given year. While such a system could theoretically lead to increased efficiency in the economic sense, it would also be open to possible gaming by manufacturers. Initial trading regimes should be designed as conservatively as possible, so as to avoid creating unexpected loopholes for compliance. For this reason, we oppose linking any credit system to a broader greenhouse gas reduction registry or credit system.

    If NHTSA were to pursue a credit trading system, it should not have a "seller of last resort" system that sets a fixed cap on credit prices and labels them as such. Such a system would artificially limit innovation among manufacturers and provide a implicitly approved way for manufacturers who fail to comply with CAFE standards to pay "market price" to make up for their deficiencies. The current system of fines (encoded at 49 USC 32912) should be strengthened, with fines for failure to comply adjusted upward at double the average market price of a credit for three years preceding the fine. This would ensure that the fines themselves do not become price caps, while providing for a situation in which CAFE deficiencies exceed available credits.

    Public Citizen would oppose all but the most carefully monitored and limited credit trading regime.

12. Please comment on the effect that elimination of the two-fleet rule would have on manufacturers, consumers, employment, the U.S. marketplace and on the automotive industry in general.

    The two-fleet rule is outdated and its elimination would reflect the fact that there is no longer a meaningful distinction to be made between vehicles produced domestically and those produced abroad. Since the definition of vehicles "not manufactured domestically" does not include vehicles manufactured in Mexico, there is no meaningful impact of the provision on U.S. employment levels. Repeal of this provision would result in reduced prices for consumers and increased efficiency for manufacturers, as they would not have to juggle manufacturing decisions to ensure compliance with CAFE for both imported and domestically produced vehicles.

     

13. Please provide suggestions for modification of the vehicle classification.

    As noted in the main body of Public Citizen’s comments to this docket, the current regulatory distinction between light trucks and passenger automobiles is harmful to the goals of safety, fuel savings, and environmental protection. Elimination of the light truck loophole would be an important step toward achieving the promise of CAFE and reducing the fatalities that result from a bifurcated fleet.

    Public Citizen urges NHTSA to adopt the strictest possible standard in determining what constitutes a light truck. The original intent of the CAFE legislation was to recognize the different ways that light trucks and "passenger vehicles" were used in the 1970s. At that time, light trucks constituted just 20 percent of the total vehicle market. As light trucks approach 50 percent of the total new vehicle market, a much smaller percentage are used for towing, hauling equipment or produce, or travelling off road for commercial purposes. The distinction between commercial trucks and vehicles used primarily for family transportation must be redrawn.

    Public Citizen asks that the agency create a new set of criteria for vehicles that qualify for light truck status. These criteria could include: ground clearance of at least 8 inches, 4-wheel drive capability, the ability to safely tow a trailer with a weight equivalent to the weight of the vehicle in question, or other benchmarks that would effectively limit light truck classification to vehicles that could be used commercially.

    Above all, the agency should not retain the status quo or extend the definition of light truck to incorporate more of the car-truck hybrids that make a mockery of the present classification system. Due to the dangers and waste of treating light trucks as a separate class of vehicles for CAFE purposes, the classification (if it is kept) should be restricted to include as few vehicles as possible.

14. Please provide comments on possibility of raising the maximum gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR).

The current maximum weight under which vehicles are included in a manufacturers’ CAFE number (8,500 lbs.), like all exceptions provided under the CAFE system, has been exploited to the fullest by vehicle manufacturers whose interest is in selling as many vehicles as possible that fall outside the purview of CAFE. The 2002 Ford Excursion, an 8 passenger SUV, crushes the scales at 8,900 lbs. The 2002 Chevrolet Suburban is also untouchable under CAFE with a weight of 8,600 lbs. It is no coincidence that these vehicles barely exceed the maximum weight for CAFE enforcement; manufacturers are encouraged by the current limit to add weight to their heaviest vehicles. The maximum GVWR should be increased to at least 10,000 lbs.

17. Should hybrid and fuel cell vehicles have been included in the [NAS] paths?

Absolutely. Hybrid vehicles have become a part of the U.S. vehicle fleet and are a readily available solution for automakers that are asked to comply with higher CAFE standards. Honda has released a version of their popular Civic with a hybrid drivetrain for 2003. Ford is planning to release a hybrid version of the Escape, a small SUV, in 2003. GM also plans to release a full-size pickup with a hybrid drivetrain in 2004 Clearly manufacturers are planning to work hybrid engines into their fleets even without the impetus provided by higher CAFE standards, and well within the timeline laid out by the NAS.

Unfortunately the NAS did not take the pattern of manufacturer interest in hybrid drivetrains as seriously as it took interest in other technologies that have not yet made their way into the fleet. Hybrids should have been included in all projections, since they meet the minimal Path 1 criteria as "likely market-responsive or competition-driven advances using production-intent technology." (NAS report, at p.40) Now that both the federal government and many state governments are offering consumers tax deductions and/or credits for purchasing a hybrid vehicle, the economic hurdles for this technology will no longer slow its widespread adoption. Indeed, the NAS report, by not including these vehicles in its calculations is missing a nationwide legislative trend toward creating incentives for the purchase of these vehicles.

Fuel cell powered vehicles will not be as widely adopted as hybrid drivetrains in the next 5 years, but the industry investment and interest in this technology suggests that fuel cells have a place in the fleet of the medium-term future. Prototype vehicles are already on the road, with one shortly due to arrive in Washington following a cross-country journey. A number of technical obstacles remain, but the automotive community generally believes that these can be surmounted, as statements in support of the administration’s "Freedom Car" initiative have made clear.(5)

NHTSA should take into account the tremendous potential of both hybrid and fuel cell technology to improve fuel economy and minimize pollution as it crafts CAFE standards for the next 10 to 15 years. The agency should recognize the impact that tax incentives and planned public investment in developing these vehicles will have on their initial penetration into the vehicle fleet, and calculate the impact of this penetration accordingly.(6)

2. Lou Harris, Conducted by Peter Harris Research Group, July 2001.

3. Gallup Poll, for CNN/USA Today, September 11-15, 1992.

4. Gallup Poll, Conducted for Chicago Council on Foreign Relations, October 23-November 15, 1990.

5. "We are working hard for lower emissions and better fuel economy. We have several ways to improve, but hydrogen fuel cells by far represent the bulk of where we want to invest." - General Motors’ Chief Executive Richard Wagoner, at the North American International Auto Show, January 2002.

more resources

Because Public Citizen does not accept funds from corporations, professional associations or government agencies, we can remain independent and follow the truth wherever it may lead. But that means we depend on the generosity of concerned citizens like you for the resources to fight on behalf of the public interest. If you would like to help us in our fight, click here.