Draft NOI 9-29-10 Staff Deliberative Material

1

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[FRL-XXXX-X]

RIN A2060-XXXX

Notice of Upcoming Joint Rulemaking to Establish 2017 and Later Model Year Light 

Duty Vehicle GHG Emissions and CAFE Standards 

AGENCIES: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and 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 the end of October, 2010. See the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, Section I (Introduction), for more information about 

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:

www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.

Email: a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov.

Fax: EPA: (202) 566-1741; NHTSA: (202) 493-2251.
2

Mail: 

o EPA: Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, AttentionDocket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR2010-0799.

o 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: 

o 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.

o 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: 
Draft NOI 9-29-10 Staff Deliberative Material

3

Public Participation

NHTSA and EPA request comment on all aspects of this Notice and the 

accompanying Interim Joint Technical Assessment Report discussed below. 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 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 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 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 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. 

 

1 This 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.
4

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 
Draft NOI 9-29-10 Staff Deliberative Material

5

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 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 

 

2

See 75 FR 25324 (May 7, 2010).
6

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. 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 light-duty 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 

 

3 Upon 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 website associated with this rulemaking. 

4 The Presidential Memorandum is found at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/presidentialmemorandum-regarding-fuel-efficiency-standards.
Draft NOI 9-29-10 Staff Deliberative Material

7

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 

medium-duty passenger vehicles (“light-duty vehicles”), collectively referred to as the 

National Program.5 The agencies 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 

 

5 The joint final rules were published at 75 Fed. Reg. 25324 (May 7, 2010).

6

For a detailed discussion of NHTSA’s and EPA’s respective statutory authorities, see 75 Fed. Reg. 25324, 

25348 (May 7, 2010) and 74 Fed. Reg. 49454, 49460 (September 28, 2009).
8

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 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 

 

7

See 74 Fed Reg 32744, July 8, 2009. 

8

See CARB April 1, 2010 action at http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2010/ghgpv10/ghgpv10.htm.
Draft NOI 9-29-10 Staff Deliberative Material

9

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 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 

 

9 These 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.

10 Presidential 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 www.nhtsa.gov/fuel-economy.
10

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 Lead-time

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
Draft NOI 9-29-10 Staff Deliberative Material

11

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. Although the 

assessment of new technologies up to 15 years in the future has uncertainties, the agencies 

and CARB have determined that there are a wide range of technologies capable of achieving 

significant reductions in CO2 emissions and significant improvements in fuel economy and 

available at reasonable costs in the 2017 to 2025 MY timeframe. 

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 a discussion of the key issues 

surrounding the potential employment impacts of more stringent light duty vehicle GHG and 
12

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 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.12 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.

 

12 This ongoing work is discussed in Chapter 3 of the TAR.
Draft NOI 9-29-10 Staff Deliberative Material

13

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.13 For purposes of an initial assessment, this range represents a reasonably broad 

range of stringency increases for 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 Scenarios1

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.

 

13 The 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. 
14

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.14 

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 

 

14 Further information on the four technology pathways is provided in Section II.A.3. below and Section 6.3 of 

the TAR. 
Draft NOI 9-29-10 Staff Deliberative Material

15

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.15 

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 light-duty vehicle fleet, updated 

projections of technology costs and effectiveness, and updates to several key inputs such as 

fuel prices16 and vehicle miles traveled projections.17 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.18 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 vehicles, and four potential technology pathways, as 

described above, for each of these stringency levels.19 We evaluated the costs and benefits of 

 

15 See section II.B.1 for more information on attribute based curves.

16 The 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.

17 See 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.

18 See 75 Fed. Reg. at 25446 (May 7, 2010). 

19 In Chapter 6 of the TAR, the agencies also present results for MY 2020 for Pathways A, B, and C.
16

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.

20 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.

21

 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.22 

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 

Per-Vehicle 

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 

 

20 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

21 For 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.

22 While 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.
Draft NOI 9-29-10 Staff Deliberative Material

17

B $3,200 3.7 $6,600 

C $2,800 3.1 $7,400 

D $3,400 4.2 $5,700

1. Per-vehicle costs represent the increase in costs to consumers from the MY 2016 standards. 

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 

Vehicles1,2,3

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

1. Fuel 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). 

2. For 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 MY2016 vehicles.

3. We 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.23 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 

 

23 See 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)
18

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 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.24 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 manufacturerspecific 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, copollutant 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.25 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 

Reduction1

Gasoline & 

Diesel 

Vehicles HEVs PHEVs2EVs

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

 

24 All 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.

25 Further description of these technology pathways can be found in Chapter 6 of the TAR.
Draft NOI 9-29-10 Staff Deliberative Material

19

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.

2. Our 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. 

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 
20

analysis for the MYs 2012-2016 was conducted.26 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 

 

26 For further information on the kinds of comprehensive analyses performed for the MYs 2012-2016 

rulemaking, see 75 Fed. Reg. at 25348-396.
Draft NOI 9-29-10 Staff Deliberative Material

21

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 carry-forward 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.27 Manufacturers 

have stated that ABT options are important to address many issues of technological feasibility 

 

27 See 75 FR at 25412-413. 
22

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 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.28 EPA plans to evaluate further the methodology used to 

determine A/C-related reductions, including A/C-related test procedures. 

Some manufacturers also have expressed support for the continuation of EPA’s offcycle credits program.

29

 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.30 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.31 

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 

 

28 See Chapter 6 and Appendix D of the TAR.

29 See 75 FR at 25438-440 for more on the Federal Test Procedure and Highway Fuel Economy Test. 

30 See 75 FR at 25434. 

31 See 49 U.S.C. 32905 and 49 U.S.C. 32906
Draft NOI 9-29-10 Staff Deliberative Material

23

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.32 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.33 Some OEMs believe the 

 

32 See 75 FR at 25434-437. 

33 The May 19, 2010 support letters from OEMs and the two major automotive trade associations also supported 

the concept of a mid-term technology review. 
24

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 lowGHG light-duty 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 moreHere 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, non-governmental 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.
Draft NOI 9-29-10 Staff Deliberative Material

25

IV. Conclusions

EPA and NHTSA believe that the recent final rule addressing MYs 2012-2016 lightduty 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 __ , 2010.

Ray LaHood, Secretary, Department of Transportation.

Dated: September __ , 2010.

Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency.