Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 13, 2010 / Proposed Rules 62739 

the draft proposed rule, the 

Administrator may sign the proposed 

regulation for publication in the Federal 

Register anytime after the 30-day 

period. 

III. Do any statutory and executive 

order reviews apply to this notification? 

No. This document is not a proposed 

rule; it is merely a notification of 

submission to the Secretary of 

Agriculture. As such, none of the 

regulatory assessment requirements 

apply to this document. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 26 

Environmental protection, Human 

research, Pesticides. 

Dated: October 4, 2010. 

Steven Bradbury, 

Director, Office of Pesticide Programs. 

[FR Doc. 2010–25787 Filed 10–12–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 85, 86, and 600 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Parts 531 and 533 

[FRL–9212–4] 

RIN 2127–AK79 

2017 and Later Model Year Light Duty 

Vehicle GHG Emissions and CAFE 

Standards; Notice of Intent 

AGENCIES: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) and the National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

(NHTSA), Department of Transportation 

(DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of intent to conduct a 

joint rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: On May 21, 2010, President 

Obama issued a Presidential 

Memorandum requesting that the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

and the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration (NHTSA), on behalf of 

the Department of Transportation 

develop, through notice and comment 

rulemaking, a coordinated National 

Program under the Clean Air Act (CAA) 

and the Energy Policy and Conservation 

Act (EPCA), as amended by the Energy 

Independence and Security Act (EISA) 

to improve fuel efficiency and to reduce 

greenhouse gas emissions of light-duty 

vehicles for model years 2017–2025. 

President Obama requested that the 

agencies issue a Notice of Intent to issue 

a proposed rule that announces plans 

for setting stringent fuel economy and 

greenhouse gas emissions standards for 

light-duty vehicles of model year 2017 

and beyond. This joint Notice describes 

the agencies’ initial assessment of 

potential levels of stringency for a 

National Program for model years 2017– 

2025, and describes additional work 

that the agencies will undertake over the 

next two months to refine this 

assessment further. This Notice fulfills 

that request and discusses the agencies’ 

plans to issue a Supplemental Notice of 

Intent by November 30, 2010 that will 

describe plans for the National Program, 

including an updated analysis of 

potential GHG and fuel economy 

standards for model years 2017–2025. 

This joint Notice also announces the 

plans by the two agencies to propose 

such a coordinated National Program by 

the fall of 2011. 

DATES: Comments: In order for 

comments to be most helpful to this 

ongoing process of ultimately 

developing a proposed rulemaking, the 

agencies encourage parties wishing to 

comment on this Notice to submit their 

comments by October 31, 2010. See the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, Section I 

(Introduction), for more information 

about the rulemaking process. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–0799 and/or NHTSA–2010–0131, 

by one of the following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov. 

• Fax: EPA: (202) 566–1741; NHTSA: 

(202) 493–2251. 

• Mail: 

Æ EPA: Environmental Protection 

Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460, Attention: Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0799. 

Æ NHTSA: Docket Management 

Facility, M–30, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, West Building, Ground 

Floor, Rm. W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: 

Æ EPA: EPA Docket Center, EPA/ 

DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20004, Attention: Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–0799. Such deliveries 

are only accepted during the Docket’s 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Æ NHTSA: West Building, Ground 

Floor, Rm. W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, 

between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. Eastern Time, 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

Holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–0799 

and/or Docket ID No. NHTSA–2010– 

0131. NHTSA and EPA request 

comment on all aspects of this joint 

Notice. See the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section on ‘‘Public 

Participation’’ for more information 

about submitting written comments. 

Docket: All documents listed in the 

dockets are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., confidential 

business information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically at http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the following locations: EPA: EPA 

Docket Center, EPA/DC, EPA West, 

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., 

NW., Washington, DC. The Public 

Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The telephone 

number for the Public Reading Room is 

(202) 566–1744. NHTSA: Docket 

Management Facility, M–30, U.S. 

Department of Transportation, West 

Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12–140, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. The Docket 

Management Facility is open between 9 

a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

EPA: Tad Wysor, Office of 

Transportation and Air Quality, 

Assessment and Standards Division, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 

Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 

48105; telephone number: (734) 214– 

4332; fax number: (734) 214–4816; email address: wysor.tad@epa.gov or 

Assessment and Standards Division 

Hotline, telephone number (734) 214– 

4636; e-mail address asdinfo@epa.gov. 

DOT/NHTSA: Rebecca Yoon, Office of 

Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. 

Telephone: (202) 366–2992. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Participation 

NHTSA and EPA request comment on 

all aspects of this Notice and the 

accompanying Interim Joint Technical 

Assessment Report discussed below. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
62740 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 13, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

1This statement constitutes notice to commenters 

pursuant to 40 CFR 2.209(c) that EPA will share 

confidential information received with NHTSA 

unless commenters specify that they wish to submit 

their CBI only to EPA and not to both agencies. 

This section describes how you can 

participate in this process. 

How do I prepare and submit 

comments? 

For the convenience of all parties, 

comments submitted to the EPA docket 

will be considered comments submitted 

to the NHTSA docket, and vice versa. 

Therefore, the public only needs to 

submit comments to either one of the 

two agency dockets. Comments that are 

submitted for consideration by one 

agency should be identified as such, and 

comments that are submitted for 

consideration by both agencies should 

be identified as such. 

Further instructions for submitting 

comments to either the EPA or NHTSA 

docket are described below. 

EPA: Direct your comments to Docket 

ID No EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0799. EPA’s 

policy is that all comments received 

will be included in the public docket 

without change and may be made 

available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by 

statute.1 Do not submit information that 

you consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

NHTSA: Your comments must be 

written and in English. To ensure that 

your comments are correctly filed in the 

Docket, please include the Docket 

number NHTSA–2010–0131 in your 

comments. Your comments must not be 

more than 15 pages long. NHTSA 

established this limit to encourage you 

to write your primary comments in a 

concise fashion. However, you may 

attach necessary additional documents 

to your comments. There is no limit on 

the length of the attachments. If you are 

submitting comments electronically as a 

PDF (Adobe) file, we ask that the 

documents submitted be scanned using 

the Optical Character Recognition (OCR) 

process, thus allowing the agencies to 

search and copy certain portions of your 

submissions. Please note that pursuant 

to the Data Quality Act, in order for the 

substantive data to be relied upon and 

used by the agencies, it must meet the 

information quality standards set forth 

in the OMB and Department of 

Transportation (DOT) Data Quality Act 

guidelines. Accordingly, we encourage 

you to consult the guidelines in 

preparing your comments. OMB’s 

guidelines may be accessed at http:// 

www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/ 

reproducible.html. DOT’s guidelines 

may be accessed at http://www.dot.gov/ 

dataquality.htm. 

Tips for Preparing Your Comments 

When submitting comments, 

remember to: 

• Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

• Explain why you agree or disagree, 

suggest alternatives, and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

• Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

• If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

• Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

• Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

How can I be sure that my comments 

were received? 

NHTSA: If you submit your comments 

by mail and wish Docket Management 

to notify you upon its receipt of your 

comments, enclose a self-addressed, 

stamped postcard in the envelope 

containing your comments. Upon 

receiving your comments, Docket 

Management will return the postcard by 

mail. 

How do I submit confidential business 

information? 

Any confidential business 

information (CBI) submitted to one of 

the agencies will also be available to the 

other agency. However, as with all 

public comments, any CBI information 

only needs to be submitted to either one 

of the agencies’ dockets and it will be 

available to the other. Following are 

specific instructions for submitting CBI 

to either agency. 

EPA: Do not submit CBI to EPA 

through http://www.regulations.gov or 

e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of 

the information that you claim to be 

CBI. For CBI information in a disk or 

CD–ROM that you mail to EPA, mark 

the outside of the disk or CD–ROM as 

CBI and then identify electronically 

within the disk or CD–ROM the specific 

information that is claimed as CBI. In 

addition to one complete version of the 

comment that includes information 

claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment 

that does not contain the information 

claimed as CBI must be submitted for 

inclusion in the public docket. 

Information so marked will not be 

disclosed except in accordance with 

procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 

NHTSA: If you wish to submit any 

information under a claim of 

confidentiality, you should submit three 

copies of your complete submission, 

including the information you claim to 

be confidential business information, to 

the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the 

address given below under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. When you send a 

comment containing confidential 

business information, you should 

include a cover letter setting forth the 

information specified in our 

confidential business information 

regulation. 

In addition, you should submit a copy 

from which you have deleted the 

claimed confidential business 

information to the Docket by one of the 

methods set forth above. 

How can I read the comments submitted 

by other people? 

You may read the materials placed in 

the docket for this document (e.g., the 

comments submitted in response to this 

document by other interested persons) 

at any time by going to http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for accessing the dockets. 

You may also read the materials at the 

EPA Docket Center or NHTSA Docket 

Management Facility by going to the 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 13, 2010 / Proposed Rules 62741 

2See 75 FR 25324 (May 7, 2010). 

3Upon publication of the NPRM, the agencies 

will open a public comment period for receiving 

written comments and will hold at least one joint 

public hearing to receive oral comments. We will 

announce all of these avenues for public 

involvement in the Federal Register notice 

announcing the NPRM and we will post this 

information on each agency’s Web site associated 

with this rulemaking. 

4The Presidential Memorandum is found at: 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/ 

presidential-memorandum-regarding-fuelefficiency-standards. 

5The joint final rules were published at 75 FR 

25324 (May 7, 2010). 

street addresses given above under 

ADDRESSES. 

I. Introduction 

This joint Notice announces plans by 

the Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) and the National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), on 

behalf of the Department of 

Transportation, to propose stringent 

Federal greenhouse gas and fuel 

economy standards for light-duty 

vehicles for the 2017–2025 model years 

(MY) as part of a coordinated National 

Program. This rulemaking will build on 

the first phase of the National Program 

for fuel economy and greenhouse gas 

(GHG) emissions standards, for MY 

2012–2016 vehicles, which was issued 

in April 2010.2 This Notice of Intent 

does not propose specific standards, but 

along with the accompanying Interim 

Joint Technical Assessment Report 

(TAR) discussed later in this Notice, is 

an important step in the process that 

will lead to a formal proposal. 

NHTSA and EPA welcome comment 

on all aspects of this Notice and the 

accompanying TAR. Although this 

Notice discusses important initial 

assessments performed by the agencies, 

it also discusses the significant 

additional work that must be done to 

provide the agencies with information 

to support a joint Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM). EPA and NHTSA 

will continue to seek input from a broad 

range of stakeholders over the coming 

months, and we will continue to work 

closely with the California Air 

Resources Board (CARB) in order to 

ensure the continuation of a National 

Program. In an effort to guide the 

eventual development of the NPRM, 

over the next two months, EPA and 

NHTSA, working closely with CARB, 

will continue to analyze potential GHG 

and fuel economy standards for MYs 

2017–2025 by developing and reviewing 

additional technical data and 

information and by considering 

additional stakeholder input. Based on 

this additional work, EPA and NHTSA 

expect to issue, by November 30, 2010, 

a Supplemental Notice of Intent that 

will describe further design elements for 

the National Program and present an 

updated analysis of potential 

stringencies for model years 2017–2025 

standards for GHGs and fuel economy. 

A principal goal of the Supplemental 

Notice will be to narrow the range of 

potential stringencies for the future 

proposed standards, as well as to reflect 

new technical data and information and, 

as appropriate, further analysis 

supplementing the Interim Joint TAR. 

While the agencies do not intend to 

issue another TAR we do plan to do 

additional analysis and make it 

available as a part of the Supplemental 

Notice of Intent. In recent months, the 

agencies have had important 

discussions with many individual 

automobile manufacturers and other 

stakeholders, and our intention is to 

continue such discussions. In order for 

comments to be most helpful to this 

ongoing process, the agencies encourage 

parties wishing to comment at this stage 

of the process to submit their comments 

by the end of October 2010. The May 21, 

2010 Presidential Memorandum 

discussed below called for EPA and 

NHTSA to include in this Notice of 

Intent a ‘‘schedule for setting those 

standards as expeditiously as possible, 

consistent with providing sufficient 

leadtime to vehicle manufacturers.’’ The 

agencies plan to issue a joint Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) by 

September 30, 2011 and a Final Rule by 

July 31, 2012. 

As with any notice-and-comment 

rulemaking process, the agencies will 

provide full opportunity for the public 

to participate in the rulemaking process, 

consistent with the Administrative 

Procedure Act, other applicable law, 

and Administration policies on 

openness and transparency in 

government.3 EPA and NHTSA have 

established dockets to receive such 

information: EPA’s Docket is located at 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010– 

0799 and NHTSA’s docket is located at 

Docket ID No. NHTSA–2010–0131. The 

ADDRESSES section at the beginning of 

this Notice provides several methods for 

submitting information into these 

dockets. 

A. President’s May 21, 2010, 

Memorandum 

On May 21, 2010, President Obama 

issued a Presidential Memorandum 

requesting that the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) and the 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration (NHTSA), on behalf of 

the Department of Transportation, take 

‘‘* * * additional coordinated steps 

* * * to produce a new generation of 

clean vehicles.’’ He specifically 

requested that the agencies develop 

‘‘, * * * a coordinated national program 

under the CAA [Clean Air Act] and the 

EISA [Energy Independence and 

Security Act of 2007] to improve fuel 

efficiency and to reduce greenhouse gas 

emissions of passenger cars and lightduty trucks of model years 2017–2025.’’ 4

The President recognized that by acting 

expeditiously, our country could take a 

leadership role in addressing the global 

challenges of improving energy security 

and reducing greenhouse gas pollution, 

stating that ‘‘America has the 

opportunity to lead the world in the 

development of a new generation of 

clean cars and trucks through 

innovative technologies and 

manufacturing that will spur economic 

growth and create high-quality domestic 

jobs, enhance our energy security, and 

improve our environment.’’ 

As a first step in the process, the 

President requested EPA and NHTSA to 

‘‘[t]ake all measures consistent with law 

to issue by September 30, 2010, a Notice 

of Intent to Issue a Proposed Rule that 

announces plans for setting stringent 

fuel economy and greenhouse gas 

emissions standards for light-duty 

vehicles of model year 2017 and 

beyond, including plans for initiating 

joint rulemaking and gathering any 

additional information needed to 

support regulatory action. The Notice 

should describe the key elements of the 

program that the EPA and the NHTSA 

intend jointly to propose, under their 

respective statutory authorities, 

including potential standards that could 

be practicably implemented nationally 

for the 2017–2025 model years and a 

schedule for setting those standards as 

expeditiously as possible, consistent 

with providing sufficient lead time to 

vehicle manufacturers.’’ 

The Presidential Memorandum also 

called on the agencies, working with the 

State of California, to develop a 

technical assessment to inform a 

potential rulemaking. The EPA, NHTSA, 

and CARB have completed this 

assessment, which is discussed in 

Section I.E below. 

B. Background on the MY 2012–2016 

National Program 

On April 1, 2010, NHTSA and EPA 

issued joint final rules establishing 

standards for GHG emissions and fuel 

economy for MYs 2012–2016 passenger 

cars, light-duty-trucks, and mediumduty passenger vehicles (‘‘light-duty 

vehicles’’), collectively referred to as the 

National Program.5 The agencies 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
62742 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 13, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

6For a detailed discussion of NHTSA’s and EPA’s 

respective statutory authorities, see 75 FR 25324, 

25348 (May 7, 2010) and 74 FR 49454, 49460 

(September 28, 2009). 

7See 74 FR 32744, July 8, 2009. 

8See CARB April 1, 2010 action at http:// 

www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2010/ghgpv10/ghgpv10.htm. 

9These commitment letters are posted at http:// 

www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/regulations.htm and at 

http://www.nhtsa.gov/Laws+&+Regulations/CAFE+- 

+Fuel+Economy/ 

Stakeholder+Committment+Letters. 

10Presidential Memorandum, section 2(a). 

11 ‘‘Interim Joint Technical Assessment Report: 

Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission 

Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy 

Standards for Model Years 2017–2025,’’ issued 

jointly by EPA, NHTSA and CARB, September 

2010. Available at http://www.nhtsa.gov/fueleconomy and http://www.epa.gov/OTAQ/climate/ 

regulations.htm. 

concluded that the automobile industry 

will achieve the substantial benefits of 

that first phase of the National Program 

based on technology that is already 

being commercially applied in many 

cases and that can be incorporated in 

these future model year vehicles at a 

reasonable expense and with benefits far 

in excess of costs. This initial phase of 

the National Program will result in large 

fuel savings and large reductions in 

GHG emissions and oil use, and thus in 

increased energy security and 

reductions in the rate of climate change. 

This joint rulemaking was consistent 

with the President’s announcement on 

May 19, 2009 of a National Fuel 

Efficiency Policy for establishing 

consistent, harmonized, and 

streamlined requirements that would 

reduce GHG emissions and improve fuel 

economy for new cars and light trucks 

sold in the United States. 

In this recent rulemaking, EPA and 

NHTSA established two separate but 

harmonized sets of standards, each 

under its respective statutory 

authorities.6 The standards for both 

agencies begin with model year 2012, 

with standards increasing in stringency 

through model year 2016. EPA set 

national CO2 emissions standards for 

light-duty vehicles under section 202(a) 

of the Clean Air Act (CAA), and NHTSA 

set corporate average fuel economy 

(CAFE) standards in accordance with 

the Energy Policy and Conservation Act 

(EPCA), as amended by the Energy 

Independence and Security Act of 2007 

(EISA). The EPA standards will require 

light-duty vehicles to meet an estimated 

combined average emissions level of 

250 grams/mile of CO2 in model year 

2016, equivalent to a fuel economy level 

of 35.5 miles per gallon if all the 

reductions were achieved through 

improvements in fuel economy. The 

CO2 standards also allow manufacturers 

to earn credits for air conditioning 

system improvements that reduce GHGs 

other than CO2. 

The NHTSA CAFE standards are only 

based on technologies that improve fuel 

economy and are not based on 

consideration of air conditioning 

improvements (which NHTSA cannot 

consider given that the federal test 

procedures used to calculate fuel 

economy for passenger cars may not 

include air conditioning usage). The 

maximum feasible CAFE standards 

should require manufacturers of 

passenger cars and light trucks to meet 

an estimated combined average fuel 

economy level of 34.1 mpg in model 

year 2016. These standards represent a 

harmonized approach that will allow 

industry to build a single national fleet 

that will satisfy both the GHG 

requirements under the CAA and CAFE 

requirements under EPCA/EISA. 

The NHTSA and EPA standards were 

informed in part by state regulatory 

action. In 2004, the California Air 

Resources Board (CARB) adopted GHG 

standards for new light-duty vehicles 

covering MYs 2009–2016. Subsequently, 

thirteen states and the District of 

Columbia, comprising approximately 40 

percent of the light-duty vehicle market, 

have adopted California’s standards. On 

June 30, 2009, EPA granted California’s 

request for a waiver of preemption 

under section 209(b) of the CAA.7 The 

granting of the waiver allows California 

and the other states to proceed with 

implementing the California emission 

standards. To promote the National 

Program for MYs 2012–2016 vehicles, in 

April 2010 California revised its GHG 

emissions program for MYs 2012–2016 

vehicles such that compliance with 

EPA’s GHG standards will be deemed to 

be in compliance with California’s GHG 

emission standards.8 This action makes 

it possible for automakers to produce a 

single fleet of vehicles nationwide that 

meets all the requirements of the two 

federal programs as well as those of the 

California program. 

As described in the recent final rule, 

EPA and NHTSA expect that automobile 

manufacturers will meet the MYs 2012– 

2016 CAFE and GHG standards 

primarily by using currently-available 

technologies, and simply incorporating 

these technologies more broadly across 

the light-duty vehicle fleet. These 

technologies include improvements to 

engines, transmissions, and vehicles, 

including increased use of start-stop 

technology, improvements in air 

conditioning systems, and increased use 

of hybrid and other advanced 

technologies. The program also provides 

incentives for the initial 

commercialization of electric vehicles 

and plug-in hybrids. NHTSA’s and 

EPA’s assessment of likely vehicle 

technologies that manufacturers could 

employ to meet the MYs 2012–2016 

standards provides an important 

foundation for the agencies’ 

consideration of potential 2017–2025 

standards. 

The MY 2012–2016 standards also 

provide a number of compliance 

flexibilities to manufacturers. These 

flexibilities are discussed further in 

Section III.B below. As noted above, the 

benefits of these standards far exceed 

the costs. 

C. Stakeholder Support for Continuing 

the National Program in 2017 and 

Beyond 

During the public comment period for 

the MY 2012–2016 proposed 

rulemaking, many stakeholders strongly 

encouraged EPA and NHTSA to begin 

working toward standards for MY 2017 

and beyond that would maintain a 

single nationwide program. Following 

the President’s May announcement, 

several major automobile manufacturers 

and the CARB sent letters to EPA and 

NHTSA in support of the 2017 to 2025 

MY rulemaking initiative outlined in 

the President’s Memorandum.9

D. Presidential Memorandum’s Request 

for EPA, NHTSA, and California to 

Develop a Technical Assessment 

In addition to the President’s request 

for EPA and NHTSA to issue this Notice 

announcing plans ‘‘for setting stringent 

fuel economy and greenhouse gas 

emissions standards for light-duty 

vehicles of model year 2017 and 

beyond,’’ the May 21, 2010 Presidential 

Memorandum also requested that the 

agencies work with the State of 

California to develop a technical 

assessment to inform the rulemaking 

process. The memorandum states that 

the report should reflect input from an 

array of stakeholders on relevant factors, 

including ‘‘viable technologies, costs, 

benefits, lead time to develop and 

deploy new and emerging technologies, 

incentives and other flexibilities to 

encourage development and 

deployment of new and emerging 

technologies, impacts on jobs and the 

automotive manufacturing base in the 

United States, and infrastructure for 

advanced vehicle technologies.’’ 10

EPA and NHTSA have worked 

collaboratively with CARB to develop 

this technical assessment based on 

currently available data, consistent with 

the President’s request. The agencies are 

releasing an Interim Joint Technical 

Assessment Report (TAR) in 

conjunction with this Notice.11 The 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 13, 2010 / Proposed Rules 62743 

TAR provides an initial technical 

assessment for this Notice and discusses 

the significant additional technical 

information and analysis that will be 

needed to support the rulemaking 

development process. While the TAR is 

an important step in a continuation of 

the National Program, significant work 

remains to be done to support a future 

federal rulemaking, as discussed below 

in Section I.E.4. The key elements and 

findings of the TAR are discussed 

further in this Notice. 

1. Stakeholder Outreach Conducted To 

Inform the Technical Assessment 

During June through August 2010, 

EPA, NHTSA, and CARB held 

numerous meetings with a wide variety 

of stakeholders to gather input to 

consider in developing the TAR, and to 

ensure that the agencies had available to 

them the most recent technical 

information. These stakeholders 

included the automobile original 

equipment manufacturers (OEMs), 

automotive suppliers, non-governmental 

organizations, states and state 

organizations, infrastructure providers, 

and labor unions. The agencies sought 

these stakeholders’ technical input and 

perspectives, consistent with the 

President’s request, on the key issues 

that should be considered in assessing 

a continued National Program to reduce 

greenhouse gas emissions and improve 

fuel economy for light-duty vehicles in 

model years 2017–2025. The input from 

these stakeholders is discussed in detail 

in Chapter 2 of the TAR. 

In response to the agencies’ request, 

OEMs provided detailed and 

confidential input regarding several key 

areas including technology 

development, key regulatory design 

elements, infrastructure issues, 

perspective on the impacts on the U.S. 

manufacturing base and jobs, costs, and 

potential regulatory incentives and 

flexibilities. A common theme across 

the auto firms is that they are all heavily 

investing in advanced technologies 

including hybrids (HEVs), plug-in 

hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs), 

electric vehicles (EVs), next generation 

internal combustion engines, and mass 

reduction technologies, and companies 

expect to increase their offerings and 

sales of these technologies significantly 

in the future. The companies generally 

stated, however, that the degree to 

which these advanced technologies will 

penetrate the U.S. market in the MYs 

2017–2025 timeframe is dependent 

upon a number of challenges and 

factors, including future gasoline fuel 

prices, future decreases in battery costs, 

future regulatory fuel economy/GHG 

requirements, and government 

incentives for vehicle purchasers and 

owners such as the existing tax credits 

for EVs and PHEVs. EPA, NHTSA and 

CARB also met with a cross section of 

automotive suppliers as well as 

advanced technology infrastructure 

providers. 

The agencies also requested input 

from numerous non-governmental 

organizations, including environmental 

organizations and labor organizations, 

and from state and local governments 

and their organizations. These 

stakeholders strongly supported the 

President’s call for continuing the 

National Program approach and setting 

new fuel economy and greenhouse gas 

standards for light-duty vehicles for the 

2017–2025 model years. Chapter 2 of 

the TAR provides an overview of the 

input we received during discussions 

with these organizations. 

2. Overview of Initial Assessment of 

Available Technologies, Costs, 

Technology Effectiveness, and Leadtime 

EPA and NHTSA, working with 

CARB, have conducted an initial 

assessment of the expected technology 

costs, effectiveness, and lead-time for 

potential MYs 2017–2025 GHG emission 

standards and the equivalent fuel 

economy. The agencies and CARB 

assessed over 30 vehicle technologies 

that manufacturers could use to improve 

the fuel economy and reduce the CO2

emissions of their vehicles during MYs 

2017–2025. The technologies 

considered fall into five broad 

categories: Engine technologies, 

transmission technologies, vehicle 

technologies (including mass 

reduction), electrification/accessory 

technologies, and hybrid/vehicle 

electrification technologies. The 

agencies and CARB considered not only 

technologies that are readily available 

today, but also other technologies that 

may not currently be in production but 

are beyond the research phase and 

under development, and which are 

expected to be in production in the MYs 

2017–2025 timeframe. To be sure, the 

assessment of new technologies up to 15 

years in the future has uncertainties. 

Nonetheless, the agencies and CARB 

have determined, on the basis of the 

initial analysis in the TAR, that 

automotive technologies are available, 

or are expected to be available, to 

support a reduction in greenhouse gas 

emissions and commensurate increase 

in fuel economy in 2017–2025 MY 

timeframe for the full range of scenarios 

examined in the TAR. The agencies 

have also determined, on the basis of 

the initial analysis, that increases come 

at increasing incremental cost. Of course 

the agencies must take into account the 

statutory obligations that have not been 

fully considered in this analysis. 

Consistent with stakeholder input 

obtained over the summer, we believe 

that in addition to advanced gasoline 

and diesel vehicles, electric drive 

vehicles can be an important part of the 

vehicle mix that will likely be used to 

meet future fuel economy and GHG 

emission standards. Electric drive 

vehicles including HEVs, PHEVs, EVs, 

and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (FCVs), 

can dramatically reduce petroleum 

consumption and tailpipe GHG 

emissions compared to conventional 

technologies. 

The initial assessment by EPA, 

NHTSA, and CARB of technology costs, 

effectiveness and lead-time issues is 

presented in Chapter 3 of the TAR. The 

TAR introduces a number of new 

studies that are in progress and several 

that have been completed since the 

2012–2016 MY light duty vehicle rule 

was issued. These studies have resulted 

in new estimates for costs and 

effectiveness for a number of 

technologies including engines, 

transmissions, batteries, and mass 

reduction. All of these are critical 

technologies in the 2017–2025 MY 

timeframe. The agencies and CARB 

expect to update these estimates going 

forward as more information becomes 

available from on-going studies of 

technology, effectiveness, and costs, as 

well as mass reduction and safety, as 

discussed in Section I.E.4 below. 

3. Other Issues Addressed in the 

Technical Assessment 

Beyond the issues of the technology 

cost, effectiveness, and lead time for 

potential MYs 2017–2025 standards, the 

Presidential Memorandum requested 

that the technical assessment include 

input on some other areas, including 

impacts on jobs and the automotive 

manufacturing sector, and infrastructure 

for advanced vehicle technologies. 

In the TAR, the agencies and CARB 

include a discussion of input from 

stakeholders, including the OEMs and 

labor unions, on the potential impacts of 

standards on jobs and the automotive 

sector. Several OEMs and the labor 

unions noted that Federal government 

Recovery Act investments, as well as 

incentives provided by some state and 

local governments, were an important 

factor in locating manufacturing 

operations for advanced battery, electric 

motor, and vehicle assembly plants in 

the U.S., and that continuation of this 

type of investment would be an 

important consideration in the decision 

whether to locate future facilities in the 

U.S. Chapter 7 of the TAR also includes 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
62744 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 13, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

12 ‘‘Recovery Act Awards for Electric Drive 

Vehicle Battery and Component Manufacturing 

Initiative’’ and ‘‘Recovery Act Awards for 

Transportation Electrification,’’ http:// 

www1.eere.energy.gov/recovery/pdfs/ 

battery_awardee_list.pdf. 

13This ongoing work is discussed in Chapter 3 of 

the TAR. 14The modeled stringencies, like the EPA’s MY 

2012–2016 standards, include the potential use of 

air conditioning emission reductions, estimated at 

15 grams (compared to a 2008 baseline) in 2025 for 

all four technology paths. The estimates for further 

air conditioning reductions are largely due to an 

anticipated increase in the use of alternative 

refrigerants. 

a discussion of the key issues 

surrounding the potential employment 

impacts of more stringent light duty 

vehicle GHG and fuel economy 

standards. With the global drivers of 

competitiveness and increased 

importance of clean and efficient 

technologies, auto companies have 

already begun to invest in new 

technologies that can help meet future 

GHG/fuel economy standards. These 

investments will help the U.S. auto 

sector to stay on the cutting edge of auto 

technology. The agencies expect that the 

new standards will have effects on 

vehicle sales. For the forthcoming 

rulemaking, EPA and NHTSA will 

further investigate the impacts of the 

proposed standards on the auto 

industry, including employment. 

The TAR also includes a discussion of 

the electric charging and infrastructure 

development needed to support 

successful deployment of certain types 

of advanced technology vehicles. In the 

case of EVs and PHEVs, electric 

charging systems are needed to facilitate 

market penetration of these vehicle 

technologies. On the basis of 

stakeholder input, the agencies expect 

that these charging systems will be 

located most often at homes. In 

addition, charging systems at 

workplaces and potentially also at 

public facilities such as parking lots or 

retail stores could become important 

enablers for significant market 

penetration of these vehicles. In the case 

of fuel cell vehicles, hydrogen fueling 

stations are needed to support 

commercialization. Chapter 4 of the 

TAR provides an assessment of current 

charging systems and infrastructure 

technologies and costs, prospects for 

technology improvement, infrastructure 

deployment programs underway, and 

further infrastructure needs. The 

agencies and CARB worked closely with 

the Department of Energy (DOE) in our 

assessment of infrastructure issues, as 

well as other aspects of the TAR. 

The agencies also discuss the major 

relevant factors which can impact future 

automotive manufacturing jobs in the 

United States in Chapter 7 of the TAR. 

The TAR does not provide a 

quantitative assessment of these effects, 

rather, the agencies discuss the potential 

impacts of advanced technologies on the 

auto industry in general and 

employment in the auto sector. The 

automotive market is becoming 

increasingly global. The U.S. auto 

companies produce and sell 

automobiles around the world, and 

foreign auto companies produce and sell 

in the U.S. As a result, the industry has 

become increasingly competitive. 

Staying at the cutting edge of 

automotive technology, while 

maintaining profitability and consumer 

acceptance, has become increasingly 

important for the sustainability of auto 

companies. Trends in the world 

automotive market suggest that 

investments in improved fuel economy 

and advanced technology vehicles are a 

necessary component for maintaining 

competitiveness in coming years. As 

automakers seek greater commonality 

across the vehicles they produce for the 

domestic and foreign markets, 

improving fuel economy and reducing 

GHGs in U.S. vehicles should have 

spillovers to foreign production, and 

vice versa, thus yielding the ability to 

amortize investment in research and 

production over a broader product and 

geographic spectrum. The effects of the 

use of advanced technologies on U.S. 

auto sector employment depend on how 

the standards affect several factors: the 

number of vehicles produced, the labor 

intensity of vehicle production, 

potential changes in automotive sales, 

and any changes in market shares 

between domestically produced and 

imported vehicles and auto parts. With 

respect to this last factor, the location of 

production will depend on how 

domestic production costs, especially 

for advanced technologies, compare to 

foreign production costs, and on the 

cost of transporting vehicles and parts 

between the U.S. and other countries. 

Investments in advanced technology 

production facilities, such as battery 

manufacturing and vehicle 

electrification projects, supported by the 

Recovery Act (for example) reduce the 

need for importing these parts from 

overseas.12 These investments by the 

Department of Energy have created 

immediate jobs in building this 

capacity, and they also help ensure that 

these components can be produced in 

the U.S. Tax breaks and other 

manufacturing incentives provided by a 

number of local and state governments 

for advanced vehicle technologies, such 

as in Michigan, have also contributed 

incentives for domestic production. For 

the forthcoming notice of proposed 

rulemaking for 2017–2025 GHG and 

CAFE standards, EPA and NHTSA will 

further investigate the impacts of the 

proposed standards on the auto industry 

and employment. 

The TAR also includes an initial 

assessment of the costs, benefits, and 

technology that could be used to 

achieve a range of potential future 

stringencies, as discussed in section II.A 

below. 

4. Future Technical Work and Analysis 

for the Joint Federal Rulemaking 

The two agencies have a number of 

significant, on-going projects that will 

inform the joint proposed rule for MYs 

2017–2025 vehicles. These include new 

technical assessments of advanced 

gasoline, diesel, and hybrid vehicle 

technology effectiveness; several new 

projects to evaluate the cost, feasibility, 

and safety impacts of mass reduction 

from vehicles; and an ongoing project to 

improve our cost estimates for advanced 

technologies.13 For the MYs 2017–2025 

rulemaking, NHTSA and EPA will 

conduct an analysis of the effects of the 

proposed standards on vehicle safety, 

including societal effects. EPA and 

NHTSA are coordinating with CARB on 

their study of the safety effects of a 

future vehicle designed for high levels 

of mass reduction. In addition, EPA and 

NHTSA will continue to meet with and 

consider input from the full range of 

stakeholders as we develop the joint 

Federal rulemaking. All of this future 

information will enhance the accuracy 

of our technological assessment. 

II. Key Elements of the MY 2017–2025 

National Program 

A. Initial Assessment of a Range of 

Potential MY 2017–2025 GHG and 

CAFE Scenarios 

1. Overview of Scenarios Analyzed and 

the Agencies’ Approach to the Analysis 

In the technical assessment, the 

agencies and CARB conducted an initial 

fleet-level analysis of improvements in 

overall average GHG emissions and fuel 

economy levels. We analyzed a range of 

potential stringencies for model years 

2020 and 2025. Specifically, we 

analyzed four potential GHG targets, 

representing a 3, 4, 5, and 6 percent per 

year decrease in GHG levels from the 

MY 2016 fleet-wide average of 250 

gram/mile (g/mi). Thus, the MY 2025 

targets analyzed range from 190 g/mi 

(equivalent to 47 mpg) under the 3 

percent per year reduction scenario to 

143 g/mi (equivalent to 62 mpg) under 

the 6 percent per year scenario.14 For 

purposes of an initial assessment, this 

range represents a reasonably broad 

range of stringency increases for 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 13, 2010 / Proposed Rules 62745 

15Further information on the four technology 

pathways is provided in Section II.A.3. below and 

Section 6.3 of the TAR. 

16See section II.B.1 for more information on 

attribute based curves. 

17The fuel prices used are based on the Energy 

Information Administration’s Annual Energy 

Outlook 2010, which includes an estimated 

gasoline price in 2025 of approximately $3.50 per 

gallon. 

18See the TAR, Chapter 3 for a full discussion of 

technology costs and effectiveness, Chapter 6 for a 

full description of the modeling methods, Appendix 

A for a description of the future vehicle fleet 

projections, and Appendix E for the key inputs used 

in the modeling analysis. 

19See 75 FR at 25446 (May 7, 2010). 

potential future GHG emissions 

standards and is also consistent with the 

increases suggested by CARB in its letter 

of commitment in response to the 

President’s memorandum. 

The specific average required GHG 

and MPG equivalent levels analyzed are 

shown in Table 1: 

TABLE 1—GHG AND MPG

EQUIVALENT LEVELS ANALYZED FOR

SCENARIOS 1

Scenario 

Level in MY 

2025 

(gram CO2/ 

mile) 

MPGequivalent 

3% per year ...... 190 47 

4% per year ...... 173 51 

5% per year ...... 158 56 

6% per year ...... 143 62 

1 Real-world CO2 is typically 25 percent 

higher and real-world fuel economy is typically 

20 percent lower. Thus the 3% to 6% range 

evaluated in this assessment would span a 

range of real-world fuel economy values of approximately 37 to 50 mpg, which correspond 

to the regulatory test procedure values of 47 

to 62, respectively. 

For each of these levels of stringency, 

we also analyzed four ‘‘technological 

pathways’’ by which they could be met. 

We chose this ‘‘technological pathway’’ 

approach to capture both the diversity 

in strategies expressed by OEMs in this 

summer’s stakeholder meetings, and 

uncertainties in forecasting 10–15 years 

into the future the potential costs and 

use of various advanced technologies in 

the light-duty vehicle fleet. We defined 

each of these technology pathways to 

emphasize a different mix of advanced 

technologies, by assuming various 

degrees of penetration of advanced 

gasoline technologies, mass reduction, 

hybrids, plug-in hybrids, and electric 

vehicles. For purposes of the 

assessment, the agencies denominated 

the pathways as Pathway A, Pathway B, 

Pathway C and Pathway D, respectively. 

• Pathway A represents an approach 

where the industry focuses on HEVs, 

with less reliance on advanced gasoline 

vehicles and mass reduction, relative to 

Pathways B and C. 

• Pathway C represents an approach 

where the industry focuses most on 

advanced gasoline vehicles and mass 

reduction, and to a lesser extent on 

HEVs. 

• Pathway B represents an approach 

where the industry utilizes advanced 

gasoline vehicles and mass reduction at 

a more moderate level, higher than in 

Pathway A but less than in Pathway C. 

• Pathway D represents an approach 

where the industry focuses on the use 

of PHEV, EV, and HEV technology, and 

relies less on advanced gasoline 

vehicles and mass reduction.15

All four of these technology pathways 

include significant amounts of mass 

reduction, relative to 2008 model year 

vehicles, ranging from 15 to 30 percent 

in 2025. The ability of the industry to 

reduce mass at the higher end of this 

range, while not adversely affecting 

safety and other vehicle attributes, is an 

open technical issue which the agencies 

are carefully evaluating and will 

continue to as we move forward. The 

agencies and CARB note that these 

pathways are meant to represent ways 

that manufacturers could respond to 

eventual standards, and do not 

represent ways that they must or 

necessarily will respond to those 

standards. We further believe it is 

appropriate to consider more than one 

potential technology pathway, since 

NHTSA, EPA, and CARB have on-going 

technology cost, effectiveness, and 

safety work which has not been 

completed, as discussed further in 

Section I.E.4 above. 

For this initial assessment, we 

analyzed the vehicle fleet as one single 

industry-wide fleet, irrespective of 

individual manufacturer differences. 

This analysis focuses on the technology 

itself, independent of the individual 

manufacturer, and produces results that 

indicate how the single fleet could 

hypothetically achieve greater GHG 

reductions and improved fuel economy 

in the most efficient manner. Treating 

the entire fleet as a single fleet assumes, 

for example, averaging GHG 

performance across all vehicle platforms 

is possible irrespective of who the 

individual manufacturer is for a 

particular vehicle platform. This can be 

thought of as analyzing the fleet as if 

there was a single large manufacturer, 

instead of multiple individual 

manufacturers. In addition, this analysis 

assumes there are no statutory or other 

limits on manufacturers’ ability to 

transfer credits between passenger car 

and light truck fleets, no limits on the 

ability to trade credits between 

manufacturers, and that all 

manufacturers fully utilize such 

flexibilities with no transfer costs in 

doing so. This approach also allows an 

assessment to be performed without 

consideration of the particular shapes of 

the passenger car and light truck 

attribute-based curves.16

These analyses build upon methods 

and information applied for the final 

rule for MY 2012–2016 vehicles, as well 

as updated forecasts of the future lightduty vehicle fleet, updated projections 

of technology costs and effectiveness, 

and updates to several key inputs such 

as fuel prices 17 and vehicle miles 

traveled projections.18 We did not 

explicitly model any crediting schemes 

in this analysis. However the 

assumption of full car-truck credit 

transfer and inter-manufacturer trading 

is inherent in analyzing a single 

industry-wide fleet. Air conditioning 

emission reductions were also 

accounted for, as a fundamental 

component of EPA’s MYs 2012–2016 

program. The agencies used the OMEGA 

model, developed by EPA for the MY 

2012–2016 light-duty vehicle 

rulemaking.19 The key inputs for this 

analysis (e.g., the technology costs and 

effectiveness) are a result of the joint 

technical assessment of EPA, CARB, and 

NHTSA, as described in Chapter 3 of the 

TAR. 

EPA and NHTSA believe that the 

approach used for these analyses 

permits an initial and approximate 

evaluation of the potential costs and 

benefits of the fleetwide stringency 

levels modeled. This approach 

incorporates significant simplifying 

assumptions that are useful for this 

initial assessment. However, the 

simplified analyses would not be 

appropriate in the context of the future 

joint federal rulemaking, taking into 

account each agency’s respective 

statutory requirements. Consequently, 

in the full rulemaking analysis, both 

EPA and NHTSA will perform 

additional analyses before proposing 

standards. These simplifying 

assumptions and their relationship to 

the future federal rulemaking are 

discussed in detail in Section II.A.4 

below and in Chapter 6 of the TAR. 

2. Summary of Preliminary Costs and 

Benefits for Potential Scenarios 

The agencies and CARB assessed four 

scenarios for potential fleet-wide 

average GHG levels, with annual CO2

reductions in the range of 3 to 6 percent 

per year, which would be equivalent to 

47 to 62 mpg if all improvements were 

due to fuel-economy improving 

technologies, for MY 2025 light-duty 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
62746 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 13, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

20 In Chapter 6 of the TAR, the agencies also 

present results for MY 2020 for Pathways A, B, and 

C. 

21The gasoline price used for this estimate is 

$3.49/gallon in 2025 and increases over time to a 

maximum of $4.34/gallon in 2050. 

22For comparison, the MY 2016 standards by 

themselves are projected to result in fuel reductions 

of 0.6 billion barrels and CO2-e reductions of 325 

million metric tons (MMT) over the lifetime of MY 

2016 vehicles. 

23While fuel savings are the same for each 

technology pathway at a given stringency level, CO2

reductions vary as a function of the penetration of 

PHEVs and EVs projected for a given technology 

pathway, due to an increase in upstream CO2

emissions. 

24See Environmental Protection Agency and 

Department of Transportation, ‘‘Light-Duty Vehicle 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Corporate 

Average Fuel Economy Standards; Final Rule,’’ 

Federal Register 75(88) (May 7, 2010): Section 

III.H.1 (pp. 25510–25513) and Section IV.G.6 (pp. 

25651–25657). 

vehicles, and four potential technology 

pathways, as described above, for each 

of these stringency levels.20 We 

evaluated the costs and benefits of these 

scenarios based on five broad metrics: 

increased cost per vehicle, lifetime fuel 

reductions, lifetime greenhouse gas 

reductions, consumer net lifetime 

savings, and payback period. 

The results presented in Tables 2 and 

3 indicate that substantial reductions in 

fuel consumption and GHGs can be 

achieved with the use of advanced 

technologies. The preliminary estimated 

per-vehicle cost increases for a MY 2025 

vehicle ranged from $770 to $3,500 

across the range of stringency targets 

and technology pathways. Due to the 

fuel savings consumers experience by 

purchasing vehicles with improved fuel 

economy, the net lifetime owner savings 

would be $5,000 to $7,400, or a payback 

period of 1.4 to 4.2 years, for these same 

scenarios.21 The aggregate fuel 

reductions achieved by these scenarios 

would range from 0.7 to 1.3 billion 

barrels over the lifetime of MY 2025 

vehicles.22 Total greenhouse gas 

reductions would range from 340 to 590 

million metric tons (MMT) over the 

lifetime of MY 2025 vehicles, depending 

on the stringency target and technology 

pathway.23 It is also important to 

recognize that the preliminary estimates 

in Tables 2 and 3 do not include all 

relevant costs, which will be analyzed 

in detail in connection with the 

rulemaking. 

TABLE 2—PROJECTIONS FOR MY 2025 PRELIMINARY PER-VEHICLE COST ESTIMATES, VEHICLE OWNER PAYBACK, AND

NET OWNER LIFETIME SAVINGS 1

Scenario Technology path 

Preliminary pervehicle cost estimates 

($) 

Payback period 

(years) 

Net lifetime owner 

savings 

($) 

3%/year .................................................. A ............................................................ 930 1.6 5,000 

B ............................................................ 850 1.5 5,100 

C ............................................................ 770 1.4 5,200 

D ............................................................ 1,050 1.9 4,900 

4%/year .................................................. A ............................................................ 1,700 2.5 5,900 

B ............................................................ 1,500 2.2 6,000 

C ............................................................ 1,400 1.9 6,200 

D ............................................................ 1,900 2.9 5,300 

5%/year .................................................. A ............................................................ 2,500 3.1 6,500 

B ............................................................ 2,300 2.8 6,700 

C ............................................................ 2,100 2.5 7,000 

D ............................................................ 2,600 3.6 5,500 

6%/year .................................................. A ............................................................ 3,500 4.1 6,200 

B ............................................................ 3,200 3.7 6,600 

C ............................................................ 2,800 3.1 7,400 

D ............................................................ 3,400 4.2 5,700 

1Per-vehicle costs represent the increase in costs to consumers from the MY 2016 standards, including the direct manufacturing costs for the 

new technologies, indirect costs for the auto manufacturer (e.g., product development, warranty) as well as auto manufacturer profit, and indirect 

costs at the dealership—see Chapter 3.2.5 of the TAR for additional detail on our estimation of indirect costs. Payback period and lifetime owner 

savings use a 3% discount rate and AEO 2010 reference case energy prices. The gasoline price used for this estimate is $3.49/gallon in 2025 

and increases over time to a maximum of $4.34/gallon in 2050. 

TABLE 3—ESTIMATED TOTAL CO2e 

AND FUEL REDUCTIONS FOR THE

LIFETIME OF MY 2025 VEHICLES 1, 2, 3

Scenario 

Lifetime 

CO2e 

reduction 

(million 

metric tons, 

MMT) 

Lifetime fuel 

reduction 

(billion 

barrels) 

3%/year ............. 340 0.7 

4%/year ............. 440 0.9 

5%/year ............. 520–530 1.1 

6%/year ............. 530–590 1.3 

1Fuel reductions are the same for each of 

the four technology pathways, but CO2e reductions vary as a function of the penetration 

of EVs and PHEVs in each of the four technology pathways evaluated (due to an increase in upstream emissions). 

2For reference, the National Program in MY 

2016 is projected to reduce 0.6 billion barrels 

of fuel and 325 MMT CO2e over the lifetime of 

MY 2016 vehicles. 3We note that the total lifetime benefits of 

the program over MYs 2017–2025 will be significantly greater than those of MY 2025 

alone. 

The results in Table 2 shows high 

positive net lifetime fuel savings are 

estimated to accrue to the vehicle 

owners, for each of the stringency 

scenario’s examined and for each of the 

technology paths. Because these benefits 

will show up as direct savings to 

consumers who buy these vehicles, the 

question arises whether private markets 

will provide these benefits, or whether 

there may be unidentified additional 

costs associated with these technologies 

or other economic assumptions not 

included in the analysis. In the 2012– 

2016 light-duty GHG/CAFE rule, both 

EPA and NHTSA discussed these issues 

in detail, and the agencies will continue 

to evaluate this issue as we work 

towards the development of a joint 

NPRM.24 The results presented for this 

initial assessment represent what the 

agencies expect a hypothetical full-line 

vehicle manufacturer could achieve, if 

the composition of the manufacturer’s 

fleet has the same vehicle types and 

sales mix as the aggregate fleet and the 

availability, cost, and effectiveness of 

various technologies are the same as 

estimated in this assessment. Note that 

the results presented here assume 

trading between auto firms, which may 

or may not occur in the future. The 

results also assume that the transfer of 

credits between car and light truck fleets 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 13, 2010 / Proposed Rules 62747 

25All other things being equal, limiting credit 

transfers between passenger cars and light trucks 

within a firm, and limiting credit trading among 

manufacturers, are two factors that would likely 

lead to higher cost estimates. 

26Further description of these technology 

pathways can be found in Chapter 6 of the TAR. 

are unlimited, whereas there are 

statutory limits for CAFE. Among actual 

full-line vehicle manufacturers, we 

expect that a manufacturer-specific 

assessment based on footprint-attribute 

standard curves will result in costs 

which are in aggregate higher than those 

presented here and will be higher for 

some manufacturers and lower for 

others due to the differences among 

their offerings.25 With respect to smaller 

volume manufacturers and very low 

volume manufacturers (many of whom 

only produce high-performance luxury 

vehicles), the agencies would expect 

that, in general, the level of technology 

they would require and the costs they 

would incur would generally be higher 

than for full line manufacturers. 

In the full analysis for the rulemaking, 

as required by EPCA/EISA and as 

permitted by the CAA, the agencies will 

make more refined assessments, 

including separate analyses for car and 

light truck vehicle fleets, year-by-year 

attribute-based standards, and 

manufacturer-specific estimates of 

potential attribute-based standard 

targets and costs, and other statutory 

requirements. The agencies note that 

consideration of these statutory factors 

may affect the potential range of 

standards. NHTSA and EPA also will 

perform a more thorough assessment of 

the impacts of proposed standards, as 

was done for the MY 2012–2016 

rulemaking, including analysis of 

improved energy security, monetized 

benefits of CO2 reductions, co-pollutant 

impacts, an assessment of the societal 

costs and benefits of potential 

standards, an assessment of potential 

safety impacts, an assessment of impacts 

on automobile sales and related 

employment, and other relevant 

impacts. 

3. Potential Technology Penetration 

Estimates for Various Pathways 

As described above, the agencies and 

CARB analyzed four potential 

technology pathways to achieve more 

stringent targets, recognizing there are a 

wide range of pathways manufacturers 

could pursue. To illustrate several 

alternative ways that the industry as a 

whole could achieve a given level of 

stringency, each of these four 

technology pathways was applied to 

each of the four stringency targets. As 

noted above, Pathway A focuses on 

HEVs, Pathway C focuses most on 

advanced gasoline vehicles and mass 

reduction, Pathway B represents a more 

moderate level of advanced gasoline 

vehicles, between Pathway A and 

Pathway C, and Pathway D focuses most 

on PHEV, EV, and HEV technology.26

The results of the assessment presented 

in the TAR are presented in Table 4. 

TABLE 4—TECHNOLOGY PENETRATION ESTIMATES FOR MY 2025 VEHICLE FLEET

Scenario Technology 

path 

New vehicle fleet technology penetration 

Mass 

reduction 1

(percent) 

Gasoline & 

diesel 

vehicles 

(percent) 

HEVs 

(percent) 

PHEVs 2

(percent) 

EVs 

(percent) 

3%/year .......................................................................... Path A ......... 15 89 11 0 0 

Path B ......... 18 97 3 0 0 

Path C ......... 18 97 3 0 0 

Path D ......... 15 75 25 0 0 

4%/year .......................................................................... Path A ......... 15 65 34 0 0 

Path B ......... 20 82 18 0 0 

Path C ......... 25 97 3 0 0 

Path D ......... 15 55 41 0 4 

5%/year .......................................................................... Path A ......... 15 35 65 0 1 

Path B ......... 20 56 43 0 1 

Path C ......... 25 74 25 0 0 

Path D ......... 15 41 49 0 10 

6%/year .......................................................................... Path A ......... 14 23 68 2 7 

Path B ......... 19 48 43 2 7 

Path C ......... 26 53 44 0 4 

Path D ......... 14 29 55 2 14 

1 Mass reduction is the overall reduction of the 2025 fleet relative to MY 2008 vehicles. 

2Our assessment considered both PHEVs and EVs. These initial results indicate a higher relative percent of EVs compared to PHEVs. The 

agencies do believe that PHEV technology may be used more broadly than what this analysis indicates. 

The penetration of HEVs, EVs, and 

PHEV in MY 2025 varies considerably 

depending on the technology pathway 

and scenario, as can be seen in Table 4. 

As discussed in Chapter 6.3 of the TAR, 

Pathway A is intended to portray a 

technology path focused on HEV 

technology, with less reliance on 

advanced gasoline vehicles mass 

reduction, relative to Pathways B and C. 

Thus, in the 3%/year scenario, Pathway 

A results in 11% HEV penetration, and 

the most stringent 6% scenario 

increases HEV penetration to 68% for 

Path A, all with approximately a 15% 

reduction in mass for the new vehicle 

fleet. Pathway C represents an approach 

where the industry focuses most on 

advanced gasoline vehicles and mass 

reduction, and to a lesser extent on 

HEVs, resulting in a penetration of 

HEVs that ranges from 3% up to 44% 

of the new vehicle fleet. Given the 

approach that Pathway C represents, the 

penetration of gasoline and diesel 

vehicles for each of the stringency 

scenarios is highest for Pathway C, as is 

the degree of mass reduction. Pathway 

B represents an approach where 

advanced gasoline vehicles and mass 

reduction are utilized at a more 

moderate level, higher than for Pathway 

A but less than for Pathway C. Pathway 

D represents an approach focused on the 

use of PHEV, EV, and HEV technology, 

and less reliance on advanced gasoline 

vehicle and mass reduction. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
62748 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 13, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

27For further information on the kinds of 

comprehensive analyses performed for the MYs 

2012–2016 rulemaking, see 75 FR 25348–396. 28See 75 FR 25412–413. 

4. Future Analysis of Potential 

Standards for MY 2017–2025 

The agencies emphasize that the 

analysis presented in this notice, while 

reasonable for conducting an initial 

assessment, is a first step. Much more 

work must be completed for the 

upcoming NPRM. As noted above, we 

expect to issue updated assessments by 

November 30 of this year. The 

upcoming rulemaking to develop the 

next phase of the National Program will 

be based on a full analysis that is 

consistent with both the statutory 

framework that NHTSA must account 

for, and the flexibilities that EPA may 

account for, just as the detailed analysis 

for the MYs 2012–2016 was 

conducted.27 For purposes of this initial 

assessment, the agencies examined 

stringencies in the 3% to 6% per year 

range. However, the agencies have not 

reached any conclusions at this time 

regarding the appropriate level of 

stringency for MY 2017 and later, and 

the assessment presented in this Joint 

Notice does not preclude the agencies 

from considering standards outside of 

this range for the upcoming rulemaking. 

The future Joint NPRM will consider a 

number of alternative levels of 

stringency, including an alternative 

which is estimated to maximize net 

benefits. While the single fleet analysis 

approach simplifies some aspects of the 

analysis and offers some advantages, 

there are also important limitations 

which will be addressed during the 

rulemaking process. 

For the same reasons discussed in 

detail in the MYs 2012–2016 

rulemaking, NHTSA and EPA expect to 

develop new standards for CAFE and 

GHG emissions that are consistent with 

each other and can be met by each auto 

manufacturer through the production of 

one single fleet. NHTSA and EPA 

believe the TAR provides a useful 

means of comparing the scenarios 

discussed above. 

As the agencies proceed to develop a 

joint proposed rulemaking for light-duty 

vehicle GHG emissions and fuel 

economy, we will continue technical 

and policy discussions with a broad 

range of stakeholders. We expect to gain 

information through these 

conversations, as well as from ongoing 

technical assessments by the agencies 

and other parties, that will build on the 

work presented in this Notice and the 

TAR as we continue to respond to the 

May 21, 2010 Presidential 

Memorandum. 

B. Form of the Standards, Compliance 

and Flexibilities, and Other Key 

Elements 

EPA and NHTSA sought initial input 

about the appropriate design of a MYs 

2017–2025 National Program from a 

range of stakeholders. Most of the 

program design input that we have 

received to date has come from OEMs, 

although many of their suggestions 

relate to specific potential compliance 

strategies that the companies consider 

confidential. However, there was 

consensus among stakeholders that a 

National Program should continue, and 

that the program’s design should allow 

a single national fleet to comply with 

Federal GHG standards, Federal CAFE 

standards, and California GHG 

standards. 

1. Form of the Standards 

In the future rulemaking, the agencies 

plan to continue an attribute-based 

approach to setting the MYs 2017–2025 

standards, as was done for the MYs 

2012–2016 program and as required for 

CAFE standards per EPCA/EISA. In our 

outreach with stakeholders, we heard 

general support for continuing an 

attribute-based approach and for 

continuing to use vehicle footprint as 

the attribute. Under an attribute-based 

standard, each manufacturer has a 

required GHG and CAFE fleet average 

unique to its fleet, depending on the 

attributes and production levels of the 

vehicle models that a manufacturer 

produces. The MYs 2012–2016 rule was 

based on vehicle footprint, which is 

essentially the area enclosed by the 

points at which the four wheels meet 

the ground. In developing a proposed 

rule, we plan to consider continuing the 

footprint-based attribute, for which most 

stakeholders generally offered support. 

A key consideration for the MYs 

2017–2025 standards that has not yet 

been addressed will be development of 

the separate attribute-based standards, 

or ‘‘curves,’’ for passenger cars and light 

trucks. The attribute-based curves for 

passenger cars and light trucks 

essentially assign a GHG/fuel economy 

level or ‘‘target’’ to an individual 

vehicle’s footprint value. For each 

manufacturer, the CO2/mpg values are 

then weighted, based on that 

manufacturer’s production mix to 

determine that manufacturer’s fleet 

average standard for its cars and trucks. 

Compliance is determined by comparing 

the actual CO2 or mpg values for the 

vehicles, production-weighted, to this 

fleet average standard. 

In developing the MYs 2012–2016 

footprint-based curves, the agencies 

considered many key issues, including 

the steepness of the slopes of the curves 

and the difference between the car and 

truck curves for vehicles of the same 

footprint. We expect that these issues 

will again be key considerations in 

developing the methodology and the 

shape of the curves for the MYs 2017– 

2025 standards. Several OEMs 

expressed support for the continuation 

of separate attribute-based standards for 

cars and trucks, which is required for 

CAFE standards under EPCA/EISA and 

which the agencies will also evaluate 

further for the rulemaking. 

2. Potential Regulatory Flexibilities 

During the agencies’ outreach 

discussions with stakeholders, 

manufacturers provided early input that 

several of the flexibility provisions in 

place for MYs 2012–2016 should be 

retained for MY 2017 and later. 

Environmental groups also provided 

early input, as discussed below. As EPA 

and NHTSA develop the proposal for 

the MYs 2017–2025 program, the 

agencies will continue to consider the 

potential need for and benefits of 

incentives and flexibility provisions 

beyond those mandated by statute. The 

agencies will consider whether and how 

some of the flexibility provisions 

included in the MYs 2012–2016 

program might be applied to the new 

program, consistent with each agency’s 

statutory authority. 

The EPCA/EISA statutory framework 

for the CAFE program includes a 5-year 

credit carry-forward provision and a 

3-year credit carry-back provision. In 

the MYs 2012–2016 program, EPA chose 

to follow this approach to maintain 

consistency between the agencies’ 

provisions. Most manufacturers support 

EPA’s continuing to incorporate a 3-year 

credit carry-back provision to cover 

prior debits, a 5-year credit carryforward provision, credit transfers 

between car and truck categories, and 

credit trading between manufacturers. 

For EPA’s purposes, these kinds of 

provisions, collectively termed here as 

Averaging, Banking, and Trading (ABT), 

have been an important part of many 

mobile source programs under CAA 

Title II, both for fuels programs as well 

as for engine and vehicle programs.28

Manufacturers have stated that ABT 

options are important to address many 

issues of technological feasibility and 

lead time, as well as considerations of 

cost. The agencies plan to propose to 

continue flexibility provisions in the 

MYs 2017–2025 program, since these 

types of compliance flexibilities will 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 13, 2010 / Proposed Rules 62749 

29See Chapter 6 and Appendix D of the TAR. 

30See 75 FR 25438–440 for more on the Federal 

Test Procedure and Highway Fuel Economy Test. 

31See 75 FR 25434. 

32See 49 U.S.C. 32905 and 49 U.S.C. 32906. 

33See 75 FR 25434–437. 

34The May 19, 2010 support letters from OEMs 

and the two major automotive trade associations 

also supported the concept of a mid-term 

technology review. 

likely remain important as standards 

become more stringent. 

Several smaller volume manufacturers 

have expressed continued concerns 

regarding lead-time, and support 

additional flexibility to address the 

unique needs of small volume 

manufacturers. EPA’s GHG standards 

provided smaller volume manufacturers 

additional lead time to meet the GHG 

standards, recognizing their higher CO2

baseline levels and more limited vehicle 

product lines across which to average 

compared to other manufacturers. The 

need for this type of flexibility for the 

standards will be tied closely to the 

level of stringency of those standards. 

Several manufacturers also have 

expressed support for the continuation 

of air conditioning (A/C) system credits. 

EPA is strongly considering A/C credits 

for the MYs 2017–2025 program. EPA 

has included A/C reductions in the 

initial emissions modeling done to 

support the technical assessment.29 EPA 

plans to evaluate further the 

methodology used to determine A/Crelated reductions, including A/Crelated test procedures. 

Some manufacturers also have 

expressed support for the continuation 

of EPA’s off-cycle credits program.30

This program provides an option for 

manufacturers to generate credits for 

employing new and innovative 

technologies that achieve GHG 

reductions that are not reflected on 

current test procedures. Credits must be 

based on real additional reductions of 

CO2 emissions and must be quantifiable 

and verifiable with a repeatable 

methodology. The off-cycle credits for 

new and innovative technologies are 

currently available only through MY 

2016. Manufacturers have noted that as 

long as the credits represent real-world 

off-cycle emissions reductions, the 

credits should be able to be generated 

for innovations that are introduced after 

MY 2016, providing additional 

incentives for investment in innovation 

and research and development. EPA 

recognizes this perspective and will 

evaluate the off-cycle credits provisions 

in the context of the MYs 2017–2025 

program. 

Some manufacturers encouraged EPA 

to continue to offer flexible fuel vehicle 

(FFV) credits. EPA finalized provisions 

in the MYs 2012–2016 Final Rule to 

treat MY 2016 and later FFVs similarly 

to conventional fueled vehicles, in that 

FFV emissions would be based on 

actual CO2 results from emissions 

testing on the fuels on which it 

operates.31 In calculating the emissions 

performance of an FFV, manufacturers 

may base FFV emissions in part on 

vehicle emissions test results on the 

alternative fuel, if they can demonstrate 

that the alternative fuel is being used in 

the vehicles. EPA will consider whether 

it is appropriate to retain this approach 

in the MYs 2017–2025 rulemaking, or to 

consider other approaches. NHTSA will 

continue to provide incentives for dual 

fueled vehicles as defined in statute.32

Under the statute, for all dual fueled 

vehicles such as FFVs, the maximum 

credit that a manufacturer can apply to 

CAFE compliance will be limited to 0.6 

mpg in 2017, 0.4 mpg in 2018, 0.2 mpg 

in 2019, and zero in MY 2020 or after. 

Dual fueled electric vehicles, such as 

PHEVs, are not subject to this limitation. 

For EVs and PHEVs, manufacturers 

have generally expressed strong support 

for a tailpipe-only CO2 measurement 

approach in the form of a 0 g/mile 

compliance value for electric operation 

for the MY 2017–2025 program. Some 

manufacturers also expressed support 

for additional credits in the form of 

‘‘bonus’’ credits or multipliers for EVs 

and PHEVs. EPA proposed a credit 

multiplier for MYs 2012–2016 

electricity-based advanced technology 

vehicles but did not finalize it, for a 

number of reasons described in the 

preamble to the Final Rule.33 Some 

environmental and public interest 

groups expressed concern that the 

0 g/mi value does not capture upstream 

emissions from the charging of 

electrified vehicles, and believe an 

upstream emissions factor should be 

included in the compliance calculation 

for electrified vehicles. The agencies 

understand that the treatment of 

upstream emissions generated in the 

production of electricity and other 

energy sources used to fuel vehicles in 

GHG compliance calculations is an 

important issue for the upcoming 

rulemaking. EPA will fully evaluate this 

issue for the MY 2017–2025 Joint NPRM 

based on the status of 

commercialization of EVs, PHEVs, and 

FCVs, the potential of these 

technologies to provide long-term GHG 

emissions savings, the status of and 

outlook for upstream GHG control 

programs, and other relevant factors. For 

CAFE, NHTSA will continue to follow 

EPCA/EISA statutory guidance to 

calculate fuel economy for EVs and 

PHEVs, and will continue to use a 

petroleum-equivalency factor (PEF) 

defined by the DOE to determine fuel 

economy for EVs and a PEF and 

incentives for dual fueled automobiles 

that are defined in 49 U.S.C. 32905(b) 

for PHEVs. 

3. Other Key Issues 

a. Duration of NHTSA CAFE Standards 

EPCA/EISA states that ‘‘The Secretary 

[of Transportation] shall * * * issue 

regulations under this title prescribing 

average fuel economy standards for at 

least 1, but not more than 5, model 

years.’’ NHTSA is assessing how 

rulemaking will be structured to support 

the MYs 2017–2025 National Program. 

In particular, we are examining how to 

ensure that CAFE standards for MY 

2017–MY 2025, while harmonized with 

final EPA greenhouse gas emissions 

standards, would still meet the 

independent standards development 

framework of EPCA/EISA. 

b. Potential Mid-Term Standards 

Review 

Many OEMs have stressed the 

importance of a mid-term technology 

review that would occur after the MYs 

2017–2025 standards are promulgated.34

Some OEMs believe the future 

standards, especially those for MY 2020 

and beyond, should be reevaluated at 

some future point based on the actual 

progress of advanced vehicle technology 

development. Several environmental 

groups emphasized that a mid-term 

technology review, if conducted, should 

not undermine innovation, and may not 

be necessary if the MYs 2017–2025 

standards can be achieved through 

multiple technology pathways. The 

agencies believe it is appropriate to 

consider a mid-term technology review. 

As we develop the proposed standards, 

the agencies will consider the potential 

form that such a review could take as 

well as other potential ways to address 

the issues of uncertainty in longer-term 

standards setting. 

c. Non-Regulatory Incentives 

The agencies recognize that there are 

many non-regulatory approaches, 

outside of the scope of this rulemaking, 

that can help promote the successful 

commercialization of low-GHG lightduty vehicle technologies. Some 

automaker stakeholders told the 

agencies that federal and state income 

tax credits and grants, targeted at 

consumers who purchased new 

advanced technology vehicles, played 

an important role in sparking the initial 

market for conventional hybrid electric 

vehicles, and could play an even more 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
62750 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 13, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

important role in promoting future 

technologies such as plug-in hybrid 

electric and dedicated battery electric 

vehicles as well. Additional examples of 

non-regulatory approaches include 

federal research and development 

activities, federal financial assistance to 

the private sector to support research 

and development, vehicle and 

component manufacturing capacity, and 

infrastructure to support advanced 

technologies, and non-economic 

incentives such as use of high 

occupancy vehicle lanes and 

preferential parking, which are typically 

local decisions. While these are useful 

approaches for promoting low GHG 

technologies they cannot be 

accomplished by the agencies in the 

upcoming rulemaking. 

III. EPA’s Evaluation of Need for 

Potential Further Standards for Criteria 

Pollutants and Gasoline Fuel Quality 

In addition to addressing GHGs and 

fuel consumption, the May 21, 2010 

Presidential Memorandum also 

requested that EPA examine its broader 

motor vehicle air pollution control 

program. In the Memorandum, the 

President requested that ‘‘[t]he 

Administrator of the EPA review for 

adequacy the current nongreenhouse 

gas emissions regulations for new motor 

vehicles, new motor vehicle engines, 

and motor vehicle fuels, including 

tailpipe emissions standards for 

nitrogen oxides and air toxics, and 

sulfur standards for gasoline. If the 

Administrator of the EPA finds that new 

emissions regulations are required, then 

I request that the Administrator of the 

EPA promulgate such regulations as 

part of a comprehensive approach 

toward regulating motor 

vehicles. * * *’’ 

EPA is currently in the process of 

conducting an assessment of the 

potential need for additional controls on 

light-duty vehicles’ non-greenhouse gas 

emissions and gasoline fuel quality. 

EPA will engage in technical 

conversations with the automobile 

industry, the oil industry, nongovernmental organizations, the states, 

and other stakeholders on the potential 

need for new regulatory action, 

including the areas that are specifically 

mentioned in the Presidential 

Memorandum. EPA expects to 

coordinate the timing of any final action 

on new non-greenhouse gas emissions 

regulations for light-duty vehicles and 

gasoline with the final action on 

greenhouse gas emissions and CAFE 

regulations discussed in this Notice of 

Intent. 

IV. Conclusions 

EPA and NHTSA believe that the 

recent final rule addressing MYs 2012– 

2016 light-duty vehicle GHG emissions 

and fuel economy provides an 

important starting point for developing 

a continued National Program for MY 

2017 and later vehicles. The agencies 

have received important input from a 

range of stakeholders to inform the 

extension of the National Program to 

MYs 2017–2025. Auto manufacturers, 

states, environmental groups and the 

United Auto Workers have expressed 

support for a continuation of the 

National Program. All auto firms are 

seriously committed to developing 

advanced technologies which can 

reduce fuel consumption and GHGs 

significantly beyond the MYs 2012– 

2016 standards. Manufacturers are 

developing many technologies that 

would enable them to eventually 

achieve appreciable improvements in 

fuel economy levels, including 

advanced gasoline engines, hybrid 

electric vehicles, EVs, and PHEVs. 

As discussed in Section III above, the 

agencies and CARB have performed an 

initial assessment of potential 

stringencies with annual reductions in 

the range of 3 to 6% per year, or 47 to 

62 mpg-equivalent in 2025, which 

demonstrates that substantial reductions 

in fuel consumption and GHGs can be 

achieved with the use of advanced 

technologies. EPA and NHTSA 

emphasize that this is an initial 

assessment, and significant data and 

additional analysis will be done to 

support the future joint Federal 

rulemaking. 

EPA and NHTSA will continue to 

meet with stakeholders and assess new 

technical information as we develop the 

new proposed program. Over the next 

two months, EPA and NHTSA will work 

to update our analysis of potential 

standards for 2017–2025. EPA and 

NHTSA will work closely with CARB in 

developing and reviewing additional 

technical data and information as part of 

conducting this more refined joint 

analysis. EPA and NHTSA expect to 

issue, by the end of November 2010, a 

Supplemental Notice of Intent that will 

outline additional details regarding the 

design of a National Program, including 

a more refined analysis of potential 

scenarios for MY 2017–2025 standards 

for GHGs and fuel economy. The 

agencies expect to issue a joint proposed 

rulemaking by September 30, 2011 and 

to issue a final rule by July 31, 2012. 

Dated: September 30, 2010. 

Ray LaHood, 

Secretary, Department of Transportation. 

Dated: September 30, 2010. 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator, Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

[FR Doc. 2010–25444 Filed 10–12–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency 

44 CFR Part 67 

[Docket ID FEMA–2010-0003; Internal 

Agency Docket No. FEMA–B–1137] 

Proposed Flood Elevation 

Determinations 

Correction 

In proposed rule document 2010– 

24144 beginning on page 59181 in the 

issue of Monday, September 27, 2010, 

make the following corrections: 

§67.4 [Corrected] 

1. On page 59182, in § 67.4, the table 

which begins three lines from the 

bottom of the page is corrected to have 

a centered heading above the first row 

of the table, which should read ‘‘Putnam 

County, New York (All Jurisdictions)’’. 

2. On page 59183, in § 67.4, the table 

on that page is corrected to have a 

centered heading above the row of that 

table whose first column entry reads 

‘‘East Branch Tunungwant Creek.’’, 

which should read ‘‘McKean County, 

Pennsylvania (All Jurisdictions)’’. 

[FR Doc. C1–2010–24144 Filed 10–12–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1505–01–D 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency 

44 CFR Part 67 

[Docket ID FEMA–2010-0003; Internal 

Agency Docket No. FEMA–B–1140] 

Proposed Flood Elevation 

Determinations 

Correction 

In proposed rule document 2010– 

24370 beginning on page 60013 in the 

issue of Wednesday, September 28, 

2010, make the following corrections: 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS