Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules 76337 

the potential to exceed the lead NAAQS 

(South Coast Air Quality Management 

District, 2010). Both studies are located 

in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2006– 

0735. 

II. How does this information relate to 

the Proposed Rule—revisions to lead 

ambient air monitoring requirements? 

These two studies provide 

information on the potential for lead 

emissions from the combustion of 

leaded aviation fuel at airports to exceed 

the lead NAAQS as well as other 

information (locations of maximum 

emissions and lead concentration 

gradients) that may be referenced in the 

final rule. 

The first study developed and 

evaluated an air quality modeling 

approach that could be used to evaluate 

local-scale concentrations of lead in the 

vicinity of an airport where pistonengine aircraft are operated. The study 

also included an assessment of the 

maximum 3-month average lead 

concentration and model sensitivity 

tests. The maximum 3-month average 

lead concentration was evaluated in 

order to compare the model output with 

the NAAQS for lead, 0.15 μg/m3, 

reported as the maximum 3-month 

average concentration. 

Air monitoring was conducted to 

evaluate the performance of the air 

modeling approach, to assist in the 

quantification of the contribution of 

lead from general aviation emissions to 

local air quality, and to provide 

information about the change in lead 

concentrations with distance from the 

airport. Air quality modeling was 

conducted using EPA’s American 

Meteorological Society/Environmental 

Protection Agency Regulatory Model or 

AERMOD. Inputs to the model included 

a comprehensive lead emission 

inventory incorporating on-site, time-inmode and sub-daily activity data for 

piston engine aircraft. Model inputs also 

included considerations of aircraftinduced wake turbulence, plume rise of 

the aircraft exhaust, and allocation of 

approach and climb-out emissions to 50 

meter increments in altitude. 

To evaluate the modeling approach 

used here, ambient lead concentrations 

were measured upwind and downwind 

of the Santa Monica Airport and 

compared to modeled air 

concentrations. Modeling results paired 

in both time and space with monitoring 

data showed excellent overall 

agreement. Modeling results show 

aircraft engine run-up is the most 

important source contribution to the 

maximum lead concentration. 

Sensitivity analysis shows that engine 

run-up time, lead concentration in 

aviation gasoline, and the fraction of 

piston engine aircraft that are twin 

engine are the most important 

parameters in determining near-field 

lead concentrations. Year-long air 

quality modeling for 2008 and 

sensitivity analysis for the maximum 

3-month average concentration period 

suggest the potential for 3-month 

average lead concentrations that exceed 

the current NAAQS for lead (0.15 μg/ 

m3) and help inform the process for 

identifying locations of maximum 

concentration. 

The second study is the final report 

on one of the airport studies referenced 

in the proposed rule. This report 

provides additional information on the 

approach, methods, and results of the 

study. 

III. How can I get a copy of these 

documents and other related 

information? 

1. Docket. EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2006–0735. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site. 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, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

http://www.regulations.gov or in hard 

copy at the Revisions to Lead Ambient 

Air Monitoring Requirements docket, 

Docket ID No. EPA–OAR–2006–0735, 

EPA Docket Center, EPA/DC, EPA West, 

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., 

NW., Washington, DC. This Docket 

Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m. Monday through Friday excluding 

legal holidays. The docket telephone 

number is (202) 566–1742. 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. 

2. Electronic Access. You may access 

this Federal Register document 

electronically through the EPA Internet 

under the ‘‘Federal Register’’ listings at 

http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. 

IV. References 

U.S. EPA (2010) Development and evaluation 

of an air quality modeling approach for 

lead emissions from piston-engine 

aircraft operating on leaded aviation 

gasoline. EPA–420–R–10–007. Available 

at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/ 

aviation.htm. 

South Coast Air Quality Management 

District (2010) General Aviation Airport Air 

Monitoring Study Final Report. Final Report. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 58 

Ambient air monitoring, Air pollution 

control, Environmental protection, 

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: December 2, 2010. 

Mary E. Henigin, 

Acting Director, Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards. 

[FR Doc. 2010–30849 Filed 12–7–10; 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 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0799; FRL–9235–8; 

NHTSA–2010–0131] 

RIN 2060–AQ54; RIN 2127–AK79 

2017 and Later Model Year Light-Duty 

Vehicle GHG Emissions and CAFE 

Standards: Supplemental Notice of 

Intent 

AGENCIES: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) and the National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

(NHTSA), Department of Transportation 

(DOT). 

ACTION: Supplemental 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 economy 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 (NOI) 

to issue a proposed rulemaking that 

announces plans for setting stringent 

fuel economy and greenhouse gas 

emissions standards for light-duty 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
76338 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

1 In addition to publishing the September NOI in 

the Federal Register (see supra Note 1 above), the 

agencies also posted both the September NOI and 

the Interim Joint TAR on our Web sites. Readers 

may access them at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/ 

climate/regulations.htm and http://www.nhtsa.gov/ 

fuel-economy. 2 75 FR 62741. 

vehicles for model year 2017 and 

beyond. On September 30, 2010, the 

agencies issued the requested Notice, 

which described the agencies’ initial 

assessment of potential levels of 

stringency for a National Program for 

model years 2017–2025 (See 75 FR 

62739 (Oct. 13, 2010). This 

Supplemental Notice highlights input 

on many of the key issues the agencies 

have received in response to the 

September NOI and the accompanying 

Interim Joint Technical Assessment 

(TAR) developed by EPA, NHTSA, and 

the California Air Resources Board, and 

also provides an overview of many of 

the key technical analyses the agencies 

have planned and are conducting to 

support the upcoming proposed rule. 

DATES: The agencies currently expect to 

issue a proposed rulemaking for a 

coordinated National Program for model 

year 2017–2025 light-duty vehicles by 

September 30, 2011, and a final 

rulemaking by July 31, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: See the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

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; 

e-mail 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: 

How can I get copies of this document 

and other related information? 

NHTSA and EPA have established 

dockets for the September 30, 2010 

Notice of Intent and upcoming 

rulemaking under Docket ID numbers 

NHTSA–2010–0131 and EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2010–0799, respectively. You may 

read the materials placed in the dockets 

(e.g., the comments submitted in 

response to the September 30, 2010 

Notice of Intent 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 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. 

How do I prepare and submit 

comments? 

The dockets established by the 

agencies will remain open for the 

duration of the rulemaking. While the 

agencies have not established a set 

comment period for this Supplemental 

NOI, you may continue to submit 

comments to the dockets throughout the 

course of the rulemaking. An 

explanation of how to submit comments 

to the rulemaking dockets is available in 

the September NOI, 75 FR 62739 (Oct. 

13, 2010), or you may contact the 

agency officials listed above for more 

information. 

I. Introduction 

A. Purpose of This Supplemental Notice 

of Intent (NOI) 

This Supplemental Notice of Intent 

represents a further step in the process 

that EPA and NHTSA have initiated to 

develop a proposed rulemaking to 

establish greenhouse gas (GHG) and fuel 

economy standards for model years 

2017–2025 light-duty vehicles. This 

document is meant to aid the public’s 

understanding of some of the key issues 

facing the agencies in developing the 

upcoming rulemaking. This 

Supplemental NOI highlights many of 

the key comments that the agencies 

have received in response to the initial 

Notice of Intent issued on September 30, 

2010, and to the Interim Joint Technical 

Assessment Report that accompanied 

that Notice.1 This Supplemental NOI, 

however, does not present a 

comprehensive summary of comments 

received to date. This Supplemental 

NOI also discusses the agencies’ plans 

for some of the key technical work and 

analyses that will be undertaken in 

developing the upcoming proposed 

rulemaking. 

The purpose of this Supplemental 

NOI has changed from the agencies’ 

original intent for this document. The 

September NOI stated that a principal 

goal of the Supplemental NOI would 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.’’ 2

However, given the short amount of 

time between the issuance of the 

September NOI/TAR and this 

Supplemental NOI, the agencies were 

unable to complete several additional 

pieces of technical research in time for 

inclusion in analysis to support this 

Supplemental NOI. Additionally, based 

on the stakeholder input between the 

end of September and now and on 

public comments, the agencies have 

concluded that narrowing the range of 

potential stringencies would not be 

appropriate at this time. As discussed 

further in this Notice, in order to 

develop the proposed standards, a more 

complete analysis will need to be done. 

Therefore, at this time we are not 

updating the assessment presented in 

the September NOI, and instead we will 

continue to conduct analyses for 

purposes of developing the proposal. 

Many of the public comments supported 

the agencies’ plans, noted in the 

September NOI, as to types and scope of 

analyses to be conducted for the 

proposed rulemaking. Therefore, the 

agencies are moving forward with this 

work as further described in Section III. 

As NHTSA and EPA move forward, we 

will continue to work with California in 

our technical assessments of potential 

standards, and will continue extensive 

dialogue with stakeholders. 

B. Background on the September NOI 

and Interim Joint Technical Assessment 

Report 

As discussed above, the September 

NOI was issued in response to a May 21, 

2010 Presidential Memorandum, which 

requested that NHTSA and EPA 

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 economy and reduce 

greenhouse gas emissions of light-duty 

vehicles for model years 2017–2025. 

The Presidential Memorandum stated 

‘‘The program should also seek to 

achieve substantial annual progress in 

reducing transportation sector 

greenhouse gas emissions and fossil fuel 

consumption, consistent with my 

Administration’s overall energy and 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules 76339 

3See 75 FR 25324 (May 7, 2010). 

4 ‘‘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. 

5The modeled scenarios, like the EPA’s MY 

2012–2016 standards, include the potential use of 

air conditioning emission reductions, which EPA 

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. As a result of including 

A/C-related emission reductions in the modeling, 

however, the ‘‘mpg-equivalent’’ values presented in 

the September NOI and Interim Joint TAR do not 

reflect analysis of potential CAFE improvements, 

and should be taken as merely illustrative mpg 

levels if manufacturers achieved all modeled GHG 

emission improvements through reductions in 

tailpipe emissions. The agencies note additionally 

that 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 the 

September assessment would span a range of realworld fuel economy values (again, if all 

improvements were achieved through reductions of 

tailpipe emissions) of approximately 37 to 50 mpgequivalent, which correspond to the regulatory test 

procedure values of 47 to 62, respectively. 

6Pathway A represented an approach where the 

industry would focus on HEVs, with less reliance 

on advanced gasoline vehicles and mass reduction, 

relative to Pathways B and C; Pathway B focused 

on advanced gasoline vehicles and mass reduction 

at a more moderate level (higher than in Pathway 

A but less than in Pathway C); Pathway C focused 

on advanced gasoline vehicles and mass reduction, 

and to a lesser extent on HEVs; and Pathway D 

focused on the use of PHEV, EV, and HEV 

technology, and relied less on advanced gasoline 

vehicles and mass reduction. Further information 

on the four technology pathways is provided in 

Section II.A.3 of the September NOI and in Section 

6.3 of the Interim Report. 

7Relevant social benefits would include, for 

example, the social cost of carbon, criteria pollution 

reduction and energy security improvements. A 

much more detailed discussion of caveats with 

respect to the September NOI/TAR analysis can be 

found in Section 6.2 of the Interim Joint TAR, pp. 

6–1 through 6–6. 

climate security goals, through the 

increased domestic production and use 

of existing, advanced, and emerging 

technologies, and should strengthen the 

industry and enhance job creation in the 

United States.’’ This upcoming 

rulemaking will build on the first phase 

of the National Program for fuel 

economy and GHG emissions standards, 

for model year 2012–2016 vehicles, 

which was issued on April 1, 2010.3

The Presidential Memorandum also 

requested that the agencies work with 

the State of California to develop a 

technical assessment to inform the 

rulemaking process. EPA and NHTSA 

worked with CARB to develop an initial 

technical assessment consistent with the 

President’s request. The agencies 

released the document, the Interim Joint 

Technical Assessment Report (TAR), in 

conjunction with the September NOI.4

In the Interim Joint TAR, the agencies 

and CARB conducted an initial fleetwide analysis of improvements in 

overall average GHG emissions and fuel 

economy levels. The agencies stated in 

the September NOI that 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. We analyzed a range of 

potential stringency scenarios for model 

year 2025, representing a 3, 4, 5, and 6 

percent per year estimated decrease in 

GHG levels from the model year 2016 

fleet-wide average of 250 gram/mile 

(g/mi). Thus, the model year 2025 

scenarios analyzed in the TAR range 

from 190 g/mi (calculated to be 

equivalent to 47 miles per gallon, mpg) 

under the 3 percent per year reduction 

scenario to 143 g/mi (calculated to be 

equivalent to 62 mpg) under the 6 

percent per year scenario.5 These levels 

correspond to on-road values of 37 to 50 

mpg, respectively. For each of these 

scenarios, NHTSA, EPA, and CARB also 

analyzed four ‘‘technological pathways’’ 

by which these levels could be attained. 

These pathways were meant to 

represent ways that a hypothetical 

manufacturer could increase fuel 

economy and reduce greenhouse gas 

emissions, and do not represent ways 

that they would be required to or 

necessarily would respond to future 

standards. Each technology pathway 

emphasizes a different mix of advanced 

technologies, by assuming various 

degrees of penetration of advanced 

gasoline technologies, mass reduction, 

hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs), plug-in 

hybrids (PHEVs), and electric vehicles 

(EVs).6

The TAR also discusses the 

significant additional technical 

information and analysis that will be 

needed to support the rulemaking 

development process. For the initial 

assessment in the TAR, we analyzed the 

vehicle fleet as one single industry-wide 

fleet, which did not account for 

differences among individual 

manufacturers and did not separately 

analyze car and truck fleet standards, as 

required by EPCA/EISA. By focusing the 

analysis on the technology itself, 

independent of the individual 

manufacturer, the agencies produced 

results that indicated how that single 

hypothetical fleet could achieve greater 

GHG reductions and improved fuel 

economy in the most efficient manner. 

Treating the entire fleet as a single fleet 

assumes, for example, that 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 

assumed 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. 

The approach used for the TAR 

analyses provides an initial and 

approximate evaluation of the potential 

costs and benefits of the fleet-wide 

scenarios modeled. The agencies, 

however, cautioned in the Interim Joint 

TAR that several of the simplifications 

employed in the September NOI/TAR 

evaluation would not be used for 

purposes of a full Federal rulemaking 

analysis because such analysis must 

reflect all statutory requirements and 

limitations faced by the agencies in 

setting GHG and CAFE standards. The 

agencies noted that EPCA/EISA, in 

particular, are fairly prescriptive as 

compared to the CAA. In order to ensure 

that NHTSA’s statutory framework is 

accounted for, and as permitted under 

the CAA, the agencies’ analysis for the 

NPRM will examine attribute-based 

standards under which each 

manufacturer is subject to its own 

individual passenger car and light truck 

CAFE and GHG requirements for each 

model year, where the standard for each 

manufacturer is based on the 

production-weighted average of its 

passenger car and light truck targets, 

with the targets established in the 

attribute-based curves. 

Additionally, the NPRM’s CAFE 

analysis will account for EPCA/EISA 

restrictions on credit use and transfer/ 

trading, the ability of manufacturers to 

pay fines in lieu of compliance, the 

differential impact of potential 

standards on individual manufacturers 

(historically relevant to NHTSA’s 

determinations of whether standards are 

economically practicable), and a more 

extensive analysis of relevant social 

benefits.7 The NOI also noted NHTSA’s 

practice of considering safety effects in 

determining appropriate levels of 

standards stringency, as recognized 

approvingly in case law over several 

decades. In addition, EPA has also 

considered safety impacts in previous 

mobile source rules, including for the 

2012–2016 National Program. Generally, 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
76340 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

8NHTSA, EPA, and CARB met with the 

representatives of the following OEMs: Chrysler, 

Ford, General Motors, Honda, Toyota, Hyundai, 

Nissan, BMW, Daimler, and Volkswagen. 

9NHTSA, EPA, and CARB met with 

representatives from several environmental NGOs, 

including the Natural Resources Defense Council, 

Union of Concerned Scientists, Sierra Club, 

National Wildlife Federation, ACEEE, Environment 

America, Safe Climate Campaign, and 

Environmental Defense Fund. 

10NHTSA, EPA and CARB met with 

representatives of the National Association of Clean 

Air Agencies (NACAA) and the Northeast States for 

Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM), and 

several representatives of individual State and local 

governments. 

the agencies stressed that much work 

remained to be done, and that the 

upcoming rulemaking to develop the 

standards for MYs 2017 and beyond will 

be based on a full analysis that is 

consistent with both statutes and similar 

to the analysis for the MYs 2012–2016 

rulemaking. Moreover, as noted in the 

September NOI, the agencies analyzed 

scenarios in the 3–6% range, but we 

have made no decisions on the 

appropriate standards for the NPRM. 

For the full proposed rulemaking, the 

agencies are not precluded from 

considering standards outside of this 

range. For purposes of the Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement and 

NPRM discussed below, NHTSA 

intends to analyze standards both 

within and outside this range, as well as 

an alternative which is estimated to 

maximize net benefits. 

II. Highlights of Stakeholder Input to 

Date on the September NOI and TAR 

EPA and NHTSA requested comment 

on the initial assessments contained in 

the September NOI and the TAR. The 

agencies received comments from more 

than 30 organizations and more than 

100,000 individuals. In addition to the 

public comments, NHTSA, EPA, and 

CARB met individually with the ten 

largest automobile original equipment 

manufacturers (OEMs),8 as well as 

environmental non-governmental 

organizations (NGOs),9 and 

representatives of State and local 

governments.10 We summarize below 

some key themes that we heard from 

stakeholders, both in the public 

comments and in the outreach meetings. 

This summary is meant to provide an 

overview of many key issues we heard 

from stakeholders, and is in no way 

meant to reflect a full summary of the 

public comments received. We 

encourage readers interested in more 

details to review the actual public 

comments received in the agencies’ 

dockets. The agencies will continue to 

consider all of these comments as we 

develop the proposed rulemaking. 

A. Continuing the National Program for 

Model Years 2017–2025 

There was widespread stakeholder 

support for continuing the National 

Program for improved fuel economy and 

greenhouse gas standards for model 

years 2017–2025. 

In both the written comments in 

response to the NOI and in our recent 

meetings with automotive companies 

(both the meetings held during July– 

August 2010 prior to the NOI, and in 

our meetings with automotive 

companies in October–November 2010, 

after the publication of the NOI), all 

manufacturers indicated their support 

for the continuation of the National 

Program approach, established in the 

2012–2016 Joint NHTSA–EPA final rule, 

for model years 2017 and later. The 

manufacturers emphasized the 

significant benefits in the development 

of coordinated fuel economy and 

greenhouse gas standards that can be 

met with a single fleet of vehicles that 

can be sold nationwide. OEMs were also 

supportive of the on-going coordination 

between NHTSA and EPA with CARB in 

the development of 2017–2025 program, 

including coordination on the time 

frame for the State and Federal 

rulemaking, in order to help ensure 

alignment of the State and Federal 

standards. 

Many automotive companies that 

provided comments and two OEM 

associations expressed concern 

regarding the potential effects a revised 

California Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) 

program could have on a manufacturer’s 

ability to achieve a ‘‘single national 

fleet,’’ because the ZEV program could 

drive the use of particular vehicle 

technologies that may not be chosen by 

manufacturers to meet the Federal CAFE 

and GHG standards. 

Support for the concept of the 

National Program approach was also 

included in written comments from auto 

dealers and automotive component 

manufacturers. 

The States and environmental NGOs 

also expressed strong support for the 

continuation of the National Program in 

model years 2017–2025, and stated that 

the agencies should continue to fully 

include California in this process. 

Environmental NGOs stated that 

stringent GHG and fuel economy 

standards are needed to make America 

more energy independent, reduce global 

warming pollution to curb the impacts 

of climate change, and save consumers 

money at the pump keeping it in the 

American economy. Several NGOs also 

stated that future standards can help 

ensure the U.S. auto industry remains 

competitive globally, and emphasized 

that other countries and regions are 

moving forward with strengthened 

standards and plans for vehicle 

electrification programs. 

Although the environmental NGOs 

support a National Program, some 

suggested that the goal of a ‘‘single 

national fleet’’ does not mean that the 

EPA and NHTSA standards need to be 

identical. These commenters suggested 

that, as with the MYs 2012–2016 final 

rulemaking, the two agencies’ standards 

continue to include some important 

differences based on differences in 

statutes, such as the treatment of air 

conditioning, electric vehicles, and 

credit transfers. 

In addition, we have received 

comments from more than 100,000 

individuals supporting stronger Federal 

fuel economy and greenhouse gas 

standards for model years 2017–2025. 

B. Level of the Standards 

Since publication of the September 

NOI and release of the Interim Joint 

Technical Report, the agencies have 

held further meetings with the ten 

largest auto manufacturers (OEMs), and 

from those meetings and written 

comments from OEMs and two OEM 

associations, we received a range of 

perspectives from the companies 

regarding the potential levels of 

stringency that the agencies should 

consider evaluating for model years 

2017–2025 standards in the upcoming 

full rulemaking. In general, the OEMs 

indicated that they are investing 

significantly in the full range of 

technologies discussed by the agencies 

in the September NOI and TAR, and the 

OEMs agree that many of those 

technologies offer a significant potential 

for reducing fuel consumption and GHG 

emissions. However, many OEMs also 

commented that the potential of certain 

technologies to reduce fuel 

consumption and GHG emissions was 

less than the agencies had projected, as 

discussed further below. Auto 

manufacturers indicated that they know 

how to produce a wide range of 

advanced technologies, and that they 

intend to introduce a wide range of 

vehicle models that rely upon these 

technologies, including advanced 

gasoline and diesel vehicles, hybridelectric vehicles, plug-in hybrid electric 

vehicles, and battery-electric vehicles, 

during the model years in question. 

Many OEMs also commented, however, 

that due to its fundamental approach (as 

well as specific assumptions regarding 

available technologies), the analysis 

presented in the TAR understated the 

challenges and costs that manufacturers 

would face in attempting to achieve the 

examined scenarios. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules 76341 

Manufacturers stated that EPCA does 

not allow unlimited credit transfers, and 

stated that an analysis consistent with 

EPCA would support less stringent 

CAFE standards than an analysis of the 

sort presented in the September NOI 

and TAR. 

Both manufacturers and the 

Consumer Federation of America (CFA) 

supported the agencies’ plans to assess 

manufacturers’ individual abilities to 

meet new standards. 

Both in meetings with the agencies 

and in written comments, many OEMs 

nonetheless indicated that the level of 

stringency they could achieve in the 

future was not necessarily constrained 

by the availability of technology—that 

is, that technology does exist that they 

could deploy to meet fairly stringent 

standards. However, the OEMs 

emphasized that their ability to deploy 

that technology in a way that would 

help them to meet stringent standards 

and continue to offer vehicles that 

consumers would purchase would 

depend on a number of other important 

factors, some of which are outside their 

direct control. Some of these factors 

include: the current relative high cost 

for some advanced technologies and 

uncertainty regarding the degree of cost 

reduction that will occur in the 2017– 

2025 timeframe; the future price of 

gasoline and diesel fuel; the existence of 

future consumer incentives for some 

advanced technologies; the level of 

consumer acceptance for HEV, PHEV, 

and EV technologies; and the 

willingness of consumers to pay higher 

prices for vehicles with advanced 

technologies and lower fuel 

consumption. Many OEMs also stressed 

that their ability to comply with future 

standards will be closely tied to the 

regulatory details of the model year 

2017–2025 program, including the 

specific shape of the CAFE and GHG 

footprint-based standard curves for 

passenger cars and trucks, EPA’s 

treatment of upstream CO2 emissions for 

electricity-derived vehicle power, and 

other details regarding the structure of 

the program. 

Based on the uncertainties expected 

during the 2017–2025 time frame, as 

described above, one OEM association 

stated in written comments that 

numeric commitments to rates of 

stringency increase are not possible for 

the 2017–2025 time frame, and several 

OEMs stated similarly in individual 

meetings with the agencies. However, 

just over half of the firms provided 

comments in individual meetings with 

the agencies on the maximum rate of 

increase in stringency that they thought 

their firms could achieve for that time 

frame (as opposed to rates of increase 

that they believed were feasible for the 

industry as a whole). Most were in the 

3 percent to 4 percent per year range, 

although one stated 2.5 percent per year 

and another stated between 5 percent 

and 6 percent per year. In all cases, 

these estimates of potential rates of 

increase included the assumption that 

15 g/mi worth of additional CO2 credits 

for air conditioning system 

improvements would be available for 

the MY 2017–2025 period, and the 

majority also included the assumption 

that upstream emissions from electric 

power generation would not be 

included in their compliance 

calculations for EVs and PHEVs. 

Many commenters discussed the 

merits of the agencies including a 

framework for a ‘‘mid-term review’’ of 

the MYs 2017–2025 standards. The 

majority of OEMs supported a mid-term 

review, but varied in their views of how 

to structure it. OEMs who supported a 

future review stated that it was 

necessary due to a number of factors, 

such as the long time between standards 

promulgated in 2012 and the 

implementation of the standards in the 

model year 2017–2025 timeframe, and 

also a number of key uncertainties 

regarding future events and conditions 

as mentioned above, like OEMs’ ability 

to reduce technology costs, future fuel 

prices, and the willingness of 

consumers to purchase the advanced 

technology vehicles. Many OEMs 

suggested that if the current rulemaking 

established standards from model year 

2017–2025, then a review of the later 

model year (2020–2025, or 2021–2025) 

standards should be undertaken in the 

2014 to 2017 time frame, and reexamine only the appropriateness of 

those model year standards, in part due 

to lead time concerns with changing the 

earlier model year standards. As an 

alternative, one auto industry 

association suggested that instead of 

incorporating a mid-term review, the 

agencies should break the MY 2017– 

2025 standard setting process into three 

separate rulemakings, rather than 

establishing standards for all of these 

MYs in the current rulemaking process. 

OEM recommendations also varied 

regarding how such a review should be 

undertaken, what factors should be 

considered, and what should be the role 

of the agencies (including potentially 

CARB). Many OEMs stressed that a 

review should not just examine their 

‘‘progress’’ in meeting the standards, but 

should also focus on external conditions 

(as discussed above, fuel price, 

technology costs, and consumer 

acceptance). Several manufacturers and 

one OEM association additionally 

recommended that the review process 

include using an independent panel of 

experts to periodically consider whether 

rulemaking assumptions have turned 

out to be valid. Depending on the details 

and facts that come to light during the 

review, several OEMs stated that the 

results of any future review of the 

standards could result in an increase in 

stringency, a decrease in stringency, or 

no change in stringency. Most OEMs 

stated that they would give this topic 

additional consideration as the agencies 

move forward with the development of 

the Joint NPRM. 

Many State and local governments, 

including the Northeast States for 

Coordinated Air Use Management 

(NESCAUM), the National Association 

of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA), and 

the governors of nine States, along with 

environmental NGOs, and a large 

number of individuals voiced strong 

support for proposing standards based 

on a 6 percent annual rate of 

improvement, or alternatively, a 60 mpg 

standard by 2025. Many of these 

commenters stated that the agencies’ 

analysis in the September NOI and TAR 

indicates that the 6 percent level is 

technically feasible and cost-effective, 

would provide the greatest estimated 

lifetime owner fuel savings, and is 

necessary to keep the U.S. auto industry 

competitive globally by requiring them 

to build more fuel-efficient vehicles. 

NESCAUM commented that, under the 

initial assessment, the 6 percent rate of 

increase represented the only scenario 

that projected widespread introduction 

of PHEVs and EVs. In addition, 

Environment America submitted letters 

from more than 150 State and local 

elected officials, leaders of a number of 

businesses, and organizations 

supporting standards that would require 

60 mpg by 2025. 

The Governors of nine States, 

including New York, Maine, Maryland, 

Massachusetts, New Mexico, Oregon, 

Pennsylvania, Vermont, and 

Washington, stated their support for a 

standard of 60 mpg by 2025, and cite a 

key reason that more efficient vehicles 

will reduce unnecessary consumer 

spending at the pump, keeping money 

in their State and local economies. 

Several NGOs stated that the 

September NOI and Interim TAR 

provide a strong basis for setting a 

standard of at least 6 percent annual 

improvement rate, which they believe is 

level that provides the greatest GHG 

reduction and oil saving benefits. Some 

groups stated that much of the basic 

vehicle design and technology to build 

a fleet that achieves at least 62 mpg is 

already in use in vehicles today, in the 

form of hybrids, PHEVs, and EVs 

entering the market this fall. They 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
76342 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

further stated that this fleetwide level is 

achievable for manufacturers especially 

given that the agencies are providing 6 

to 15 years of leadtime. 

The Union of Concerned Scientists 

and Natural Resources Defense Council 

conducted a joint analysis of fleetwide 

annual emission reductions in the MYs 

2017–2025 timeframe, and they stated 

the TAR substantiates their assessment’s 

conclusion that a 6% annual reduction 

is both technically feasible and cost 

effective. Further, these groups stated 

that their analysis would support a 7% 

annual reduction by model year 2025 if 

using the TAR’s 0 g/mi accounting 

method for EV upstream emissions. 

Several other groups also recommended 

that the agencies analyze scenarios more 

stringent than 6 percent, such as 7 

percent, or other approaches such as a 

rate representing the point at which net 

benefits are maximized, or a rate 

representing the point at which total 

costs are equal to total benefits. Some 

NGOs also commented that the 3 and 4 

percent scenarios fail to significantly 

advance clean vehicle technology, 

noting that the TAR analysis projected 

no use of EVs or PHEVs by 

manufacturers in meeting these 

scenarios. 

Environmental NGOs and States that 

offered comments on a mid-term review 

expressed concern that it could be used 

to weaken the standards and that it 

could cause uncertainty for 

manufacturers by implying that later 

year standards would be somehow less 

binding. These commenters suggested 

that this could undermine the 

development of advanced technologies, 

and that any review, if one must occur, 

should be limited in scope, focus only 

on later model years, occur only once, 

and consider more stringent standards. 

C. Technology Costs, Effectiveness, 

Feasibility, and Safety 

Our stakeholder meetings with the 

OEMs, as well as the written comments 

from several OEMs and two trade 

associations, raised several concerns 

with the September NOI and the TAR 

regarding the agencies’ initial 

assessment of technology cost, 

effectiveness, and feasibility. In addition 

several OEMs discussed the important 

issues regarding vehicle mass reduction 

and potential impacts on vehicle safety. 

We summarize here some of the major 

issues raised by the OEMs. 

Most automotive companies 

commented that the agencies’ estimates 

of most technology costs were in general 

too low, though for some OEMs this was 

not the case for all technologies. Nearly 

every OEM stressed that the agencies’ 

costs estimates for lithium-ion batteries 

for HEVs/PHEVs/EVs and mass 

reduction in particular were 

significantly too low compared to their 

projections for the 2020–2025 

timeframe. One OEM association 

provided a list of several reasons why 

they believe the TAR cost estimates are 

too low, including the TAR projection 

that batteries will last the life of the 

vehicle and the agencies’ estimates for 

indirect costs, which they stated are low 

compared to a 2009 National Research 

Council Report. The OEM association 

also commented that the agencies 

should consider the potential for 

stranded capital in the 2017–2025 

analysis in the event the MYs 2017– 

2025 standards result in a significant 

change in future vehicle designs 

compared to the investment 

manufactures have made and are 

making now to comply with the MYs 

2012–2016 standards. This OEM 

association also noted more generally 

that while the OEMs supported the MYs 

2012–2016 standards, they had not 

evaluated the agencies’ analysis for that 

rulemaking carefully, and upon 

revisiting it found a number of 

assumptions carried into the TAR with 

which they do not agree. 

OEMs discussed with the agencies 

their concerns that the effectiveness (the 

technologies’ ability to reduce CO2 and 

fuel consumption) of both individual 

technologies as well as the packages of 

technologies identified in the TAR were 

too optimistic. In some cases 

manufacturers stated that they thought 

the differences were due to a range of 

potential engineering considerations 

which the TAR may not properly have 

accounted for, such as vehicle 

performance, utility (e.g., towing 

capability), and comfort (e.g., noise, 

vibration, and harshness), the role of 

competing regulatory or technical 

requirements (e.g., criteria pollutant 

and/or safety standards), and 

assumptions regarding future gasoline 

fuel properties (e.g., octane levels), 

although OEMs acknowledged that their 

review of the TAR’s technical 

effectiveness assessment was still 

ongoing. However, there were a number 

of OEMs that agreed with our 

assessment of a number of specific 

packages or individual technologies. 

The agencies expect to discuss these 

issues with the OEMs in much more 

depth over the next several months in 

order to assess the basis of these 

concerns, which could be based in part 

on the possibility of different 

assumptions about baseline 

technologies by the agencies and the 

OEMs. 

With regard to the feasibility of 

applying the technologies identified in 

the TAR, in general the OEMs agreed 

with the agencies that most of the 

technologies identified in the TAR 

could be applied to at least some vehicle 

models in the 2017–2025 timeframe (as 

nearly all of the technologies considered 

are either available today or are 

expected to be introduced into the 

market within the next few years). 

However, the OEMs highlighted several 

specific areas where they did not agree 

with the assessment in the TAR, or they 

believed that challenges exist. All OEMs 

stated that mass reduction will be an 

important element of their future fuel 

economy/CO2 reduction strategy, 

however; all of the OEMs also stated 

that mass reduction cannot be done as 

aggressively as indicated by several of 

the Technology Pathways analyzed in 

the TAR. All manufacturers and one 

OEM association expressly stated that a 

30 percent net mass reduction from 

model year 2008 to model year 2025 

was not technically feasible. Reasons 

cited included, but were not limited to, 

manufacturing constraints, mass 

increases associated with known and 

potential vehicle safety requirements 

that may be developed between now 

and model year 2025, future voluntary 

standards (such as those established by 

NHTSA through the New Car 

Assessment Program (NCAP) and the 

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety 

(IIHS)), and other potential voluntary 

improvements, noise/vibration/ 

harshness considerations, and the 

potential safety implications of severe 

weight reduction. One OEM association 

noted the agencies’ commitment to ongoing work noted in the September NOI 

and stated that the agencies must 

complete these studies to inform the 

Joint NPRM, indicating that a failure by 

the agencies (and particularly NHTSA) 

to evaluate fully the potential safety 

effects of mass reduction in the 2017– 

2025 timeframe could leave the final 

rule legally vulnerable. Many 

manufacturers commented that reducing 

mass in the 20–25% range would likely 

not be practical for many vehicle 

models because of high costs and, in 

some cases, because they have already 

incorporated today some of the mass 

reduction technologies that could be 

used to reduce mass in the 20–25% 

range. Manufacturers encouraged the 

agencies to continue to analyze this 

issue carefully. 

Several environmental NGOs and the 

State organizations also expressed 

support for the continued technical 

work EPA, NHTSA, and CARB are doing 

on costs, effectiveness, mass reduction, 

and vehicle safety. 

One automotive supplier association 

(the Aluminum Association) 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules 76343 

commented that the mass reduction on 

the order of 15–30 percent discussed in 

the TAR was technologically achievable 

based in part through the use of 

aluminum. 

Several OEMs also commented during 

our stakeholder meetings on the 

relatively high level of penetration of 

full hybrids for a number of the 

Technology Pathways for the higher 

levels of stringency evaluated in the 

TAR. Some auto companies indicated 

that the HEV levels which approached 

nearly 70 percent of the new vehicle 

fleet may not be feasible from a leadtime perspective (independent of the 

OEMs’ concerns regarding the 

willingness of consumers to purchase 

those quantities of HEVs). 

D. Program Design Elements, Credit 

Opportunities and Flexibilities 

Several commenters provided 

feedback on how various credit 

programs and other flexibilities 

contained in the model year 2012–2016 

program might be assessed or adapted 

for the MYs 2017–2025 program. 

1. Program Design Elements 

Automotive OEMs, both in their 

written comments and in recent 

stakeholder meetings with the agencies, 

have stated that the agencies should 

continue many of the program design 

elements as well as flexibilities 

provided in the model year 2012–2016 

National Program. A number of OEMs 

have stated that the agencies should 

continue with the use of separate car 

and truck based standards (as required 

by EPCA/EISA) and continue to use 

vehicle footprint as the attribute for 

determining a manufacturer’s CAFE and 

CO2 standards. 

2. Credits and Flexibilities 

All automotive OEMs supported the 

agencies providing as much flexibility 

as possible through credit programs. 

Automotive OEMs generally expressed 

support for the continuation of both 

NHTSA’s and EPA’s regulatory 

provisions regarding the banking and 

trading of fuel economy/GHG credits, 

including the provisions for carryforward and carry-back of credits across 

model years. A number of OEMs 

expressed concern, that additional 

flexibilities could be particularly 

important for the MYs 2017–2025 time 

frame, given the stringency of the MY 

2012–2016 standards. Regarding other 

program flexibilities, OEMs in general 

support the continuation of the 

flexibilities included in the model year 

2012–2016 National Program, including 

the availability of emission credits for 

improvement in air conditioning GHG 

emissions under the EPA standards, and 

the availability of off-cycle GHG 

emission credits for technologies that 

produce real-world emission reductions 

but that are not captured under the 

regulatory test procedure, and 

provisions for unlimited credit trading 

between cars and trucks and between 

companies. A number of OEMs also 

supported the continuation of the 2012– 

2016 programs provisions for credit 

transfer between the car and truck fleets, 

as well as trading of credits between 

automotive firms. Some automotive 

OEMs and their trade associations 

suggested that EPA and NHTSA may 

need to consider additional program 

flexibility for small and intermediate 

volume manufacturers for model years 

2017–2025, similar to the compliance 

flexibility provided by EPA in the 

TLAAS program in the model year 

2012–2016 program. 

Some environmental groups similarly 

expressed support for provisions that 

give manufacturers greater flexibility, 

such as averaging, banking, and trading, 

but emphasized that the provisions 

must not undermine the technologyforcing nature or the emissions benefits 

of the program. Several groups also 

stressed the need for transparency to 

provide clear public accounting of any 

credits and compliance programs. One 

environmental group, however, stated 

that while flexibilities might have been 

appropriate for the early years of the 

National Program, they should not 

persist indefinitely, and the MYs 2012– 

2016 standards should have provided 

plenty of time for manufacturers to 

achieve compliance by adding 

technology to their vehicles. This 

commenter therefore argued that the 

agencies should dispense with the 

credits, incentives and flexibilities 

discussed in the September NOI, 

including averaging, banking, and 

trading (ABT). 

Environmental groups generally 

commented that EPA should establish 

air conditioning standards rather than 

continue credits based on air 

conditioning system improvements. 

Environmental groups commented 

that given the extensive amount of lead 

time contemplated for the rulemaking, 

along with the fleet improvements that 

will have arisen due to model year 

2012–2016 standards, the agencies 

should not constrain stringency levels 

in the 2017–2025 rule based on lead 

time considerations. These 

environmental groups indicated, as 

stated in the model year 2012–2016 

rulemaking and the TAR, that most 

vehicle models are redesigned (not 

merely refreshed) every five years, such 

that most manufacturers should have 

ample opportunity to apply new 

technologies prior to MY 2025. In 

addition, some environmental groups 

commented that there is no evidence or 

compelling policy rationale to support 

continuing the Temporary Lead-time 

Allowance Alternative Standards 

(TLAAS) that were provided in the 

model year 2012–2016 program. In 

addition, one NGO commenter urged 

that EPA establish standards for small 

volume manufacturers (i.e., those 

manufacturers with annual U.S. sales of 

less than 5,000 vehicles), and that 

NHTSA end the statutory exemption 

from generally-applicable CAFE 

standards allowed for manufacturers of 

less than 10,000 vehicles worldwide 

annually, as this commenter believes 

that by 2017, these manufacturers will 

have had ample time to bring their fleets 

into compliance. 

3. Treatment of Upstream Emissions 

With the exception of one company, 

all OEMs and their trade associations 

supported the use of a zero gram/mile 

CO2 tailpipe emissions value under the 

EPA regulations for all electric vehicles 

(EVs) as well as the grid-derived 

electricity for plug-in hybrid electric 

vehicles (PHEVs). OEMs provided a 

range of reasons for their position, 

including their perspectives that: 

automotive manufacturers do not have 

any control over the GHG emissions 

used to produce grid electricity, thus it 

would be unfair for EPA to require 

manufacturers to accept the burden of 

emissions for which vehicles are not 

directly (at the tailpipe) responsible; the 

inclusion of upstream emissions would 

be a significant deterrent to OEMs for 

investing the significant capital 

resources necessary to bring EVs and 

PHEVs to the market, and the resulting 

compliance value for those vehicles 

would not be significantly better than 

for non-EV and non-PHEV vehicles; 

there is too much variation across the 

national electricity grid in terms of CO2- 

generation intensity for a single 

upstream value to be meaningful; and 

such an approach is not consistent with 

EPA’s historic regulation of light-duty 

vehicles, as EPA does not account for 

the upstream emissions associated with 

gasoline and diesel production in 

vehicle compliance values (the Edison 

Electric Institute commented similarly). 

The Edison Electric Institute (EEI) 

commented that EPA should be 

consistent in the treatment of upstream 

emissions by not including upstream 

emissions for any vehicles. EEI argues 

that there is too much variation in 

upstream energy production to produce 

‘‘national average’’ values for any energy 

type. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
76344 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

The treatment of advanced technology 

vehicles continues to be a key concern 

for environmental groups. 

Environmental groups continue to 

believe that upstream CO2 emissions 

should be accounted for in determining 

vehicle emission rates for all vehicles. 

NRDC and the Union of Concerned 

Scientists also support the inclusion of 

upstream emissions accounting for 

electric vehicles, and they provided an 

analysis and comments that they believe 

support standards increasing at a 6 

percent annual rate if upstream 

emissions are included, and up to 7 

percent annual rate if a 0 g/mile CO2

emissions rate is used for the electric 

portion of vehicle operation. 

The agencies also received comments 

from Natural Gas Interests strongly 

supporting the inclusion of full lifecycle GHG emissions for all petroleum 

and non-petroleum-fueled vehicles in 

determining vehicle compliance, noting 

that natural gas vehicles have 30 percent 

lower life-cycle GHG emissions 

compared to their gasoline-fueled 

counterparts. 

Two automotive material supplier 

trade associations, the American Iron 

and Steel Institute and the World Steel 

Association, recommended that EPA 

and NHTSA include not only upstream 

emissions from fuel production (e.g., 

gasoline fuel and electricity) in the 

regulatory standard, but the entire lifecycle emissions of the vehicle 

manufacturing process as well. These 

commenters suggested that the 

inclusion of lifecycle GHG emissions at 

both the supplier and the OEM levels 

from the manufacturing process is the 

most appropriate method to ensure an 

overall reduction in GHG emissions 

from light-duty vehicles. 

The State of New York Department of 

Transportation commented that they 

recognize the valid concerns about 

upstream emissions generation in the 

production of electricity and other 

energy sources used in fuels, and 

encourage the agencies to work 

cooperatively with the Department of 

Energy to develop incentives to expand 

clean, low-carbon power generation in 

the U.S. 

E. Other Comments 

The agencies received additional 

comments in several areas including 

assumptions used in economic and 

benefit analyses (e.g., discount rates 

should be higher or lower, rebound 

effect should be higher or lower, values 

used to assess the social cost of carbon, 

potential consumer welfare effects), 

ensuring program benefits beyond fuel 

savings are properly accounted for, 

consideration of higher oil price 

scenarios, and potential employment 

impacts. Several commenters also 

provided recommendations regarding 

the need for the agencies to consider the 

role of EV/PHEV vehicle charging 

locations/infrastructure in the 

development of the 2017–2025 

standards. 

NACAA commented that they believe 

State and local governments have a key 

role to play in supporting the 

development of infrastructure for 

electric vehicle charging. State 

commenters also asked the agencies to 

work with DOE to encourage the 

installation of charging stations in 

homes and public locations, such as 

parking lots. 

NACAA also commented that there 

are potential co-benefits of improved 

fuel economy/GHG standards in helping 

meet clean air goals for criteria 

pollutants and air toxics, especially if 

the new standards are stringent enough 

to encourage meaningful penetrations of 

electrified vehicles. 

Several environmental NGOs 

recommended that the agencies should 

establish backstop standards to ensure 

that the projected fleet-wide reductions 

are still met in the event of shifts in 

sales mix and average vehicle size. 

All of these comments will be 

considered as we conduct our analyses 

for the proposed rulemaking. 

III. Plans for Developing the Proposed 

Rulemaking 

A. Continued Stakeholder Outreach and 

Key Areas of Technical Analysis in 

Developing the Proposed Rulemaking 

This Supplemental NOI is an early 

step in NHTSA’s and EPA’s plans to 

propose a coordinated National Program 

for model year 2017–2025 light-duty 

vehicles with which (as with the model 

year 2012–2016 program) manufacturers 

could comply by building a single 

vehicle fleet. As NHTSA and EPA 

proceed to develop the proposed 

rulemaking, we plan to continue our 

ongoing dialogue with stakeholders, and 

we specifically welcome additional data 

and information that can inform our 

rulemaking efforts. 

EPA and NHTSA intend to continue 

working with the California Air 

Resources Board in developing the 

underlying technical assessments that 

will inform our future proposed 

standards and we will continue to work 

with CARB on additional program 

related issues and seek their input as we 

work toward our common goal of a 

National Program. We will continue to 

coordinate on a number of on-going 

studies, including technology cost, 

effectiveness, mass feasibility, and 

mass-related safety studies. 

As we indicated in the September 

NOI and Interim Joint TAR, there are 

numerous areas of technical work that 

EPA and NHTSA have underway as part 

of developing our proposed standards. 

Some of these key areas 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; an on-going project to 

improve our cost estimates for advanced 

technologies; further consideration of 

battery life, durability, cost and safety; 

and further review of the lead time 

needed to implement advanced 

technologies. The agencies are working 

very closely with the Department of 

Energy on a number of projects related 

to these technical areas. 

In addition, for the 2017–2025 NPRM, 

NHTSA and EPA will conduct an 

analysis of the effects of the proposed 

standards on vehicle safety, including 

societal effects. CARB is undertaking 

and coordinating with EPA and NHTSA 

on a study of how a future vehicle 

design that incorporates high levels of 

mass reduction complies with vehicle 

safety standards and voluntary safety 

guidelines. NHTSA is also initiating a 

new study of the feasible amount of 

mass reduction based on a mid-size 

passenger car platform, and the effects 

of several advanced mass reduction 

design concepts on fleet safety. The 

NHTSA studies are being coordinated 

with EPA, DOE, and CARB. 

The agencies expect that several, but 

not all of these studies will be 

completed in time to inform the NPRM. 

Others are expected to be completed in 

time to inform the final rule. 

As discussed above, the agencies’ 

initial assessment in the Interim Joint 

TAR was limited to a fleet-wide level 

analysis of improvements in overall 

average GHG emissions and fuel 

economy level, which included a 

number of simplifying assumptions. 

NHTSA and EPA acknowledged in the 

September NOI that for the upcoming 

proposed rulemaking, we would 

conduct a more refined analysis, as 

required by EPCA/EISA and as allowed 

by the CAA, 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, among other statutory 

requirements. NHTSA and EPA also 

will perform a more thorough 

assessment of the impacts of proposed 

standards, as was done for the model 

year 2012–2016 rulemaking, including 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules 76345 

analysis of improved energy security, 

monetized benefits of CO2 reductions, 

impacts of other pollutants, an 

assessment of the societal costs and 

benefits of potential standards, an 

assessment of potential safety impacts, 

an assessment of impacts on automobile 

sales, an assessment of employment 

impacts, an assessment of the regulatory 

program’s key design elements and 

flexibility mechanisms, and related 

issues. 

Finally, as discussed in the September 

NOI, 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 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 

Supplemental NOI. 

In his May 21, 2010 Memorandum, 

the President highlighted the 

opportunity for the U.S. to lead the 

world in developing a new generation of 

clean cars and trucks, to spur economic 

growth and to create high-quality jobs. 

In developing the proposal, the agencies 

will continue to gather input from 

stakeholders, including the OEMs and 

labor unions, on the potential impacts of 

standards on worker productivity, jobs, 

the automotive sector, and the 

opportunities for economic growth. 

B. Anticipated Rulemaking Schedule 

The May 21, 2010 Presidential 

Memorandum called for EPA and 

NHTSA to include in the September 

Notice of Intent a ‘‘schedule for setting 

those standards as expeditiously as 

possible, consistent with providing 

sufficient leadtime to vehicle 

manufacturers.’’ As we indicated in the 

September NOI, the agencies expect to 

issue a joint Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM) by September 30, 

2011, and a final rule by July 31, 2012. 

As required by the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and 

by NHTSA and Council of 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) 

regulations, NHTSA will be developing 

a Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

(DEIS), to inform the upcoming NPRM. 

In the coming months, NHTSA will 

issue a scoping notice to request 

comment on the regulatory options that 

the DEIS should consider. A Final EIS 

(FEIS) will be issued at least 30 days 

prior to the release of the final rule. 

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 EPCA/EISA, the Clean 

Air Act, Administrative Procedure Act, 

other applicable law, and 

Administration policies on openness 

and transparency in government. Upon 

publication of the NPRM, the agencies 

will open a public comment period for 

receiving written comments and expect 

to hold at least one joint public hearing 

to receive oral comments. We will 

describe all of these opportunities for 

public involvement in the NPRM which 

will be published in the Federal 

Register, and we will post this 

information on each agency’s Web site 

associated with this rulemaking. 

Dated: November 30, 2010. 

Ray LaHood, 

Secretary, Department of Transportation. 

Dated: November 30, 2010. 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator, Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

[FR Doc. 2010–30631 Filed 12–7–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Railroad Administration 

49 CFR Chapter II 

[Docket No. FRA–2009–0038] 

RIN 2130–AC11 

Risk Reduction Program 

AGENCY: Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking (ANPRM). 

SUMMARY: The Rail Safety Improvement 

Act of 2008 requires the development 

and implementation of railroad safety 

risk reduction programs. Risk reduction 

is a comprehensive, system-oriented 

approach to safety that determines an 

operation’s level of risk by identifying 

and analyzing applicable hazards and 

develops plans to mitigate that risk. 

Each Risk Reduction Program (RRP) is 

statutorily required to be supported by 

a risk analysis and a Risk Reduction 

Program Plan (RRPP), which must 

include a Technology Implementation 

Plan and a Fatigue Management Plan. 

This ANPRM solicits public comment 

on a potential rulemaking that would 

require each Class I railroad, each 

railroad with an inadequate safety 

record, and each passenger railroad to 

submit an RRPP to FRA for its review 

and approval. Each of those railroads 

would ultimately be required to 

implement its approved RRP. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received by February 7, 2011. 

Comments received after that date will 

be considered to the extent possible 

without incurring additional expenses 

or delays. 

After all public comments are 

received, FRA may hold a public 

hearing on a date to be announced in a 

forthcoming notice. The focus of the 

meeting would be on issues raised in 

the submitted comments. 

ADDRESSES: Comments: Comments 

related to Docket No. FRA–2009–0038 

may be submitted by any of the 

following methods: 

• Online: Comments should be filed 

at the Federal eRulemaking Portal, 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility, 

U.S. DOT, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, 

SE., W12–140, Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: Room W12–140 on 

the Ground level of the West Building, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC between 9 a.m. and 

5 p.m. Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

Instructions: All submissions must 

include the agency name and docket 

number or Regulatory Identification 

Number (RIN) for this rulemaking. Note 

that all comments received will be 

posted without change to http:// 

www.regulations.gov including any 

personal information. Please see the 

Privacy Act heading in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document for Privacy Act 

information related to any submitted 

comments or materials. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Miriam Kloeppel, Staff Director, Risk 

Reduction Program Division, Office of 

Safety Analysis, FRA, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Mail Stop 25, Washington, 

DC 20590 (telephone: 202–493–6224), 

miriam.kloeppel@dot.gov. Elizabeth A. 

Gross, Trial Attorney, Office of Chief 

Counsel, FRA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, 

SE., Mail Stop 10, Washington, DC 

20590 (telephone: 202–493–1342), 

elizabeth.gross@dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

In section 103 of the Rail Safety 

Improvement Act of 2008, Public Law 

110–432, 122 Stat. 4854 (Oct. 16, 2008) 

(codified at 49 U.S.C. 20156) 

(hereinafter RSIA), Congress directed 

the Secretary of Transportation to issue 

a regulation by October 16, 2012, 

requiring certain railroads to develop a 

Risk Reduction Program (RRP). While 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS