State of California

AIR RESOURCES BOARD



### STAFF REPORT: INITIAL STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR

RULEMAKING

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER PROPOSED

AMENDMENTS TO NEW PASSENGER MOTOR VEHICLE

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION STANDARDS

Date of Release: August 7, 2009 Scheduled for Consideration: September 24-25, 2009

This report has been reviewed by the staff of the C alifornia Air Resources Board and approved for publication. Approval does not signif y that the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Air Resources Board, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.2 

### State of California

AIR RESOURCES BOARD

Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Rulemaking

PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO

NEW PASSENGER MOTOR VEHICLE GREENHOUSE GAS

EMISSION STANDARDS

Date of Release: August 7, 2009 Scheduled for Consideration: September 24-25, 2009

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND..................... .............................................. 2 II. DESCRIPTION OF PUBLIC PROBLEM, ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCUMSTANCE PROPOSAL IS INTENDED TO ADDRESS; PROPO SED

SOLUTIONS AND RATIONALE FOR EACH REGULATORY PROVISI ON..... 3

III. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED ACTION................. ........................................... 5 IV. AIR QUALITY, ENVIRONMENTAL, AND ECONOMIC IMPACT S ................... 7

A. Air Quality

................................................... ................................................... .... 7

B. Economic Impact

................................................... .......................................... 7

C. Alternatives

................................................... ................................................... .. 8

V. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ...........................

................................................... ...... 9

VI. LIST OF APPENDICES .............................

................................................... .............. 10

VII. REFERENCES....................................

................................................... ....................... 11

I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

Climate change is critically important to Californi a. If left unchecked, its far-reaching consequences will dramatically affect many aspects of our lives including public health, the economy, and the environment. In 2002, in response to the threat of global warming, California adopted AB 1493 (Pavley (Chap. 200, Stats.2002)), which directed the Air Resources Board (ARB) to develop r egulations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the new passenger veh icle fleet (passenger vehicles are responsible for approximately 30 perce nt of the total greenhouse gas emissions in California).

In September 2004, the ARB adopted regulations (kno wn as the “Pavley regulations”) requiring significant reductions in g reenhouse gas emissions from passenger cars and light-duty trucks (i.e., vehicle s less than 8,500 lbs. gross vehicle3

weight) and sport utility vehicles (i.e., medium-du ty passenger vehicles). These requirements, which are phased-in from 2009 through 2016, will reduce emissions from the new vehicle fleet by 30 percent within thi s timeframe.

The Pavley regulations reduce greenhouse gas emissi ons from new passenger vehicles by requiring that each year between 2009 a nd 2016, manufacturers meet separate increasingly stringent fleet average green house gas levels based on the size of the vehicles – a lower one for passenger ca rs and the smallest of the lightduty trucks (PC + LDT1), and a higher one for large r light-duty trucks and mediumduty passenger vehicles (LDT2 + MDPV). The greenho use gas emissions that are included within the scope of the Pavley regulations include carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), methane (CH 4 ), and nitrous oxide (N 2 O). In addition a manufacturer may earn credits toward complying with the requirements by e quipping vehicles with an advanced “low-leak” air conditioning system or one that uses a refrigerant with a lower global-warming potential than HFC-134a, which is most commonly used today.

To demonstrate compliance with the fleet average gr eenhouse gas requirements, a manufacturer must first group the vehicles in its f leet based on similarities, such as engine, transmission type, or weight, that impact g reenhouse gas emissions. A manufacturer must then conduct testing to determine the greenhouse gas emissions from each group of vehicles. Using this data, and applying any emission credits that may be earned for vehicles that are equipped with a dvanced air conditioning systems, the average grams per mile of “CO 2 – equivalent” emissions is calculated for each vehicle group. A manufacturer must then c alculate its overall fleet average greenhouse gas level by calculating the sales – wei ghted average CO 2 – equivalent

emissions from its PC + LDT1 fleet and from its LDT 2 + MDPV fleet. Manufacturers are required to submit emissions testing data and s ales data in sufficient detail to allow staff to verify a manufacturer’s fleet averag e greenhouse gas levels for each model year.

II. DESCRIPTION OF PUBLIC PROBLEM, ADMINISTRATIVE C IRCUMSTANCE PROPOSAL IS INTENDED TO ADDRESS; PROPOSED SOLUTIONS AND

RATIONALE FOR EACH REGULATORY PROVISION

Since Board approval in 2004, motor vehicle manufac turers and their trade associations have challenged the Pavley regulations in numerous federal and state court proceedings and have opposed California’s req uest to (U.S. EPA) for a required waiver of preemption under the federal Cle an Air Act to allow California to enforce its adopted standards. In the waiver conte xt and elsewhere they have also argued that other states, exercising their right un der section 177 of the Clean Air Act to adopt California’s vehicle emission standards, w ill create an unmanageable “patchwork” of different programs due to variations in the mix of vehicles sold in

each of the states.

On May 19, 2009, challenging parties, automakers, C alifornia, and the federal government reached agreement on a series of actions that would resolve these current and potential future disputes over the stan dards through model year 2016. In summary, the U. S. Environmental Protection Agen cy and the U. S. Department of4

Transportation agreed to adopt a federal program to reduce greenhouse gases and improve fuel economy, respectively, from passenger vehicles, to achieve equivalent or greater greenhouse gas benefits as the Pavley re gulations for the 2012 – 2016 model years. Manufacturers agreed to ultimately dr op current, and forego similar future legal challenges, including challenging a wa iver grant, which occurred June 30, 2009. 74 Fed.Reg. 32744 (July 8, 2009). For i ts part, California committed to: (1) revise its standards to allow manufacturers to demonstrate compliance with the fleet average greenhouse gas emission standard by “ pooling” California and Section 177 State vehicle sales; (2) revise its standards f or 2012-16 model year vehicles such that compliance with EPA-adopted greenhouse ga s standards would serve as compliance with California’s standards; and (3) rev ise its standards as necessary to

allow manufacturers to use emission data from the f ederal Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) program to demonstrate compliance wi th the Pavley regulations. The current proposed amendments to the Pavley regul ations, which are discussed in greater detail below, address the first and third c ommitments made by California. Amendments to the regulations that will be needed t o implement the second commitment are scheduled for presentation to the Bo ard for consideration in December of this year.

As to the second commitment, revising the standards to allow compliance with the EPA-adopted greenhouse gas standards in lieu of com pliance with California standards, EPA is anticipated to issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on the national program in August 2009. While the par ticulars of the federal program are unknown at this time, we anticipate that its co mpliance provisions will be similar to California’s in that manufacturers will be requi red to meet a fleet average greenhouse gas requirement and will accrue credits for over compliance with the fleet average and debits for under compliance.

Under either the existing regulations requiring Cal ifornia-only sales data or under the proposed pooling option, we foresee compliance and no debits in 2009 and 2010, and for most manufacturers, none in 2011 either. H owever, in the unlikely event that debits are incurred they must be equalized within t he five model years provided in the regulation, at which time California will be pa rticipating in the federal program with its own scheme for the generation of credits a nd debits. In order to ensure that debits incurred in the 2009 through 2011 model year s are equalized, California will likely require that manufacturers opting into the f ederal program will offset any debits incurred in California by earning a commensurate nu mber of credits in the federal program and retiring those credits rather than usin g them to meet their federal obligations. Staff will consider amending the Pavl ey regulations at the December Board hearing, to address this issue. Manufacturer s that do not equalize debits within the five model years provided in the regulat ions shall be subject to penalties under the provisions of section 43211 of the Health & Safety Code. Under the proposed pooling option, debits that are not equali zed in the time specified must be apportioned between California and the Section 177 states according to their new vehicle sales in the model year the debits are firs t accrued. However, as EPA indicated in granting California’s waiver, (74 Fed. Reg. 32744, 32778 (July 8, 2009)), while debits from model year 2009 may offset credit s generated in later years and reduce available credits, noncompliance or civil pe nalties cannot be based on 2009 MY debits. While it is currently unknown exactly h ow credits earned under the5

Pavley program in the 2009 through the 2011 model y ears will be treated under the federal program, this issue will presumably be addr ess by EPA in their final rule.

III. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED ACTION

Consistent with the aforementioned agreement, staff is proposing two types of modifications to the Pavley regulations to address manufacturers’ concerns.

Allow Manufacturers to Meet the Fleet Average Green house Gas Emission Standard by “Pooling” the California and Section 17 7 State Vehicles

First, staff proposes to allow a manufacturer to co mply with the fleet average greenhouse gas requirement based on the combined sa les of passenger cars and light-duty trucks in California and the other state s that have adopted California’s vehicle regulations (“Section 177” states). Manufa cturers have stated that this approach will allow them to reduce overall complian ce costs and implementation concerns, since they will be able to develop a comp liance plan for all states subject to the Pavley requirements, without having to addre ss the particular vehicle mix in

each individual state

Accordingly, manufacturers that choose to comply wi th the fleet average GHG requirements by pooling GHG emissions for Californi a and Section 177 states must state their intention to do so prior to the start o f the model year. Since the certification process for model year 2009 and 2010 is already underway, manufacturers must notify the Executive Officer of their intent to comply by pooling emissions in writing within 30 days of the effectiv e date of the amendments. Beginning with the 2011 model year, manufacturers m ust notify the Executive Officer in writing prior to the start of the applicable mod el year. A manufacturer choosing emission pooling as a compliance option must commit to pooling emissions from

California and all Section 177 states. A manufactu rer that chooses to pool GHG emissions for any model year may not opt-out for th at model year, however, it may opt out for future model years.

Any manufacturer that chooses to comply with the Pa vley regulations by meeting the fleet average greenhouse gas requirements based on the combined sales of new passenger vehicles in California and the Section 17 7 states will be required to submit emission testing data and sales data for the combined fleet. The data must

be submitted in sufficient detail to allow staff to verify the manufacturer’s average greenhouse gas levels for each model year. This is an additional reporting requirement. A manufacturer must still provide to the Air Resources Board California-specific test data and sales data in suf ficient detail to allow staff to easily calculate the fleet average greenhouse gas emission s for new passenger cars and light-duty trucks sold in California in each model year. This data is needed in order to track progress in meeting the targeted GHG emiss ion reductions from the transportation sector called for in AB 32. Manufac turers must also provide statespecific test data and sales data for each of the S ection 177 states. In many cases, these states have their own GHG programs similar to California’s AB 32 program that require emission reductions from sectors other than the transportation sector.6

Accordingly, these states too will need to track pr ogress in reducing GHG emission data from the transportation sector. The state-spe cific test and sales data must be submitted separately from the combined California p lus Section 177 state data.

Allow the Use of Data from the Federal CAFÉ Program to Demonstrate Compliance with the Pavley Regulations

The second change that staff is proposing is to all ow manufacturers to use emission test data from the federal CAFE program to demonstr ate compliance with California’s Pavley regulations. This change will also reduce costs to the manufacturers, by reducing the number of tests that must be conducted solely for the purpose of California’s regulations.

To demonstrate compliance, manufacturers must submi t GHG emission data for the worst case vehicle for each test group. Manufactur ers may submit additional test data for vehicles within the test group with lower GHG emissions than the worst case configuration. Consistent with the May 19, 2009 ag reement, manufacturers may use emission data from tests conducted as part of the f ederal CAFE program. When submitting emission data from the federal CAFE prog ram, manufacturers must make a demonstration that the appropriate vehicle emissi on test data, consistent with the regulatory requirements, has been selected. A manu facturer that elects to use CAFE Program data to demonstrate compliance with th e greenhouse requirements must use all acceptable data from the program, and may forego testing of the “worstcase” configuration.

Furthermore, because manufacturers are not required to measure methane (CH 4 ) and nitrous oxide (N 2 O) emissions under the CAFE Program, a manufacturer that uses CAFE data to demonstrate compliance with the g reenhouse gas requirements

will be allowed to substitute the term 1.9 CO 2 -equivalent grams per mile for the

terms “296 x N 2 O + 23 x CH 4 ” in the following equation, which is used to calcu late

the CO 2 -equivalent values for the vehicles.

CO 2 -Equivalent Value = CO 2 + 296 x N 2 O + 23 x CH 4 - A/C Direct Emissions

Allowance - A/C Indirect Emissions Allowance

The 1.9 CO2-equivalent grams per mile value was der ived from EMFAC, California’s inventory model for on-road vehicles. Specifically , an emission rate of 0.005 grams of CH 4 per mile was derived from the EMFAC emission rate for CH 4 for 2019 model year light-duty vehicles. An emission rate o f 0.006 grams of N 2 O per mile

driven was derived from the ratio of N 2 O to oxides of nitrogen (NOx) determined from emission test data generated at ARB’s vehicle test facility (Behrentz, E., Ling, R., Rieger, P., and Winer, A.M. Measurements of nit rous oxide emissions from lightduty motor vehicles: a pilot study. Submitted to Jo urnal of Atmospheric Environment, April 2004). This ratio was then applied to the EM FAC emission rate for NOx for 2019 model year light-duty vehicles. These values, expressed as CO 2 -equivalent, were then used to establish the fleet average green house gas values (Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Rulemaking, Publi c Hearing to Consider Adoption of Regulations to Control Greenhouse Gas E missions Form Motor Vehicles,” August 6, 2004). Therefore, for CAFE ve hicles, it is appropriate to allow7

use of this default value to account for N 2 O and CH 4 emissions, when no actual N 2 O

and CH 4 test data is available.

Adopt Minor Changes to the Test Procedures

Staff is also proposing a number of minor amendment s to the test procedures for light- and medium-duty vehicles, to align them with current federal requirements. These amendments consist primarily of updating the test procedures to ensure that the applicable dates of the sections of the Code of Federal Regulations that are

referenced therein are current.

IV. AIR QUALITY, ENVIRONMENTAL, AND ECONOMIC IMPACT S

A. Air Quality

Pooling emissions for all states may result in mino r changes in greenhouse gas

reductions within the individual states due to the portability of credits and debits incurred by the manufacturers. Because exactly how manufacturers will comply under an emission pooling scheme is unknown at this time, staff is unable to quantify the emissions impact for the individual states. No netheless, staff anticipates that there will be no significant emissions impact from this proposal because it does not fundamentally change the fleet average greenhouse g as requirements to which a manufacturer must certify its fleet.

B. Economic Impact

The proposed amendments will provide vehicle manufa cturers that are subject to the requirements of California’s passenger vehicle gree nhouse gas regulations with an optional method for complying with the Pavley regul ations. Staff expects that the proposed amendments could reduce the cost of compli ance for vehicle

manufacturers that choose to meet these alternative requirements. In any instances where the proposed amendments would increase compli ance costs, manufacturers retain the option to comply with the regulations as originally written.

Manufacturers are already required to conduct emiss ion testing to measure the CO 2 emissions from their passenger fleet as part of the CAFE program. So, allowing a manufacturer to use these data to demonstrate compl iance with California’s greenhouse gas requirements would reduce the number of emission tests that will need to be conducted solely for the California prog ram. However, this economic impact, while positive, is expected to be minimal. If a manufacturer chooses to comply with the Pavley regulations as they currentl y are written, there would be no economic impact from these amendments on that manuf acturer.

Similarly, staff does not expect there to be any ec onomic impacts due to the test procedure revisions, since manufacturers will conti nue to use the same test procedures for both California and federal purposes rather than having to conduct two different procedures.8

The proposed amendments also may impose additional reporting requirements if manufacturers choose to calculate fleet average emi ssions across all states that have adopted the Pavley regulations. While manufac turers are currently required to report California sales data that are used to demon strate compliance with the Pavley regulations, the amendments would require manufactu rers to also report sales data from the other states that have adopted the Pavley regulations. The additional reporting requirements are needed as part of the mu lti-state pooled sales compliance option, the proposal of which is an esse ntial element in the May 2009

commitments. This and the other commitments best e nsure that California achieves the greenhouse gas emission reductions required by AB 1493 and assumed toward meeting AB 32. Thus with this Initial Statement of Reasons staff proposes that the Board find it is necessary for the health and welfa re of the people of the State that any additional reporting required by the proposed a mendments apply to the affected

businesses.

The additional cost due to this amendment is not ex pected to be significant, since under the current regulations, each state already r equires manufacturers to submit sales data for each of these states. The proposed amendments will simply require

this data to also be submitted to the Air Resources Board. Manufacturers may choose to submit only California sales data and com ply with the regulations on an individual state basis as they currently are writte n, in which case there would be no economic impact from these amendments on that manuf acturer.

There will be no fiscal impacts to the State from t he proposed amendments, either in terms of tax revenue or personnel requirements. Th ese amendments are not expected to change vehicle prices in a way that wou ld alter vehicle purchase decisions. The inclusion of alternative compliance options does not substantially increase the volume of data to review that would ju stify hiring additional staff.

C. Alternatives



### 1. Evaluation of alternatives considered and reasons f or rejecting them

Staff considered the following regulatory alternati ve to the proposed amendments.

Do not amend current Pavley regulations. The significant proposed changes to the Pavley regulations (allowing manufacturers to compl y with a single greenhouse gas fleet average level for California and all the othe r states that have adopted our regulations, and allowing manufacturers to demonstr ate compliance with the Pavley regulations using data from the federal CAFE progra m) are, according to manufacturers, needed to reduce their costs and sim plify their compliance demonstration. These changes could provide cost b enefits for manufacturers, and they would maintain the emission benefits of the cu rrent regulations. The proposed changes to the test procedure – in addition to thos e changes simply implementing proposed changes in the regulatory text – are neede d to maintain alignment with federal testing requirements.9

This alternative was rejected because California co mmitted to making the proposed amendments as part of the agreement that was signed by California, the federal government, and other parties on May 19, 2009, as d iscussed in section II. Furthermore, maintaining the Pavley regulations in their current form would provide no greater emissions benefit than the proposed chan ges, but at a likely higher cost to the affected industry.



### 2. Description of reasonable alternatives considered t hat would lessen impact on small business

No alternatives were considered to lessen the impac t on small business, because small businesses will not be impacted by these prop osed amendments.



### 3. Evidence relied upon to support initial determinati on in the notice that the regulation will not have a signific ant adverse economic impact on business

The proposed amendments will not significantly affe ct businesses, since vehicle purchase price and model availability will not be a dversely impacted. Vehicle manufacturers will not be required to expend any mo ney to comply with the new requirements. Rather, this proposal could save the m money.



### 4. Justification for adoption regulations different fr om federal regulations contained in the Code of Federal Regula tions

There are currently no federal regulations to reduc e greenhouse gas emissions from passenger vehicles. However, climate change threat ens California’s public health, water resources, agricultural industry, ecology, an d economy. Due to this threat Chapter 200, Statutes of 2002 (AB 1493, Pavley) spe cifically directed the Air Resources Board to adopt regulations to control gre enhouse gas emissions from

motor vehicles.

V. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

"Environmental Justice" is defined as the fair trea tment of people of all races, cultures, and incomes with respect to the developme nt, adoption, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies (Government Code §65040.12(c).

Staff does not believe that this proposal will have any adverse environmental justice impacts because the stringency of California’s pass enger vehicle greenhouse gas requirements is not affected by the proposed change s to the regulations. Furthermore, since the criteria pollutant regulatio ns must still be met on an individual state-by-state basis, there will be no increase in criteria pollutants in California due to mix shifting of vehicles between California and other states.10 VI. LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A: Proposed Regulation Order

Appendix B: Proposed Amendments to the California Exhaust Emis sion Standards and Test Procedures for 2001 and Subsequent Model P assenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks, and Medium-Duty Vehicles11 VII. REFERENCES

1. Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, Letter fro m The Honorable David McCurdy, President and Chief Executive Officer, to The Honorable Ray LaHood, Secretary, United States Department of Tran sportation and The Honorable Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator, United St ates Environmental Protection Agency, May 18, 2009

2. American Honda Motor Company, Inc., Letter from John Mendel, Executive Vice President, Automobile Sales, American Honda Mo tor Company, Inc., to The Honorable Ray LaHood, Secretary, United States Department of Transportation and The Honorable Lisa P. Jackson, A dministrator, United States Environmental Protection Agency, May 17, 200 9

3. Behrentz, E., Ling, R., Rieger, P., and Winer, A .M. Measurements of nitrous oxide emissions from light-duty motor vehicles: a p ilot study. Submitted to Journal of Atmospheric Environment, April 2004

4. BMW, Letter from Dr.-Ing. Norbert Reithofer, Cha irman of the Board of Management, BMW, to The Honorable Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator, United States Environmental Protection Agency and The Hono rable Ray LaHood, Secretary, United States Department of Transportati on, May 18, 2009

5. California Air Resources Board, Letter from Mary D. Nichols, Chairman, to
The Honorable Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator, Unite d States Environmental Protection Agency and The Honorable Ray LaHood, Sec retary, United States Department of Transportation, May 18, 2009

6. Chrysler LLC, Letter from Robert L. Nardelli, Ch airman and Chief Executive Officer, Chrysler LLC to The Honorable Ray LaHood, Secretary, United States Department of Transportation and The Honorab le Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator, United States Environmental Protecti on Agency, May 17, 2009

7. Daimler AG, Letter from Dr. Dieter Zetsche, Chai rman of the Board of Management of Daimler AG and Head of Mercedes-Benz Cars, and Dr. Thomas Weber, Member of the Board of Management, Gr oup Research & Mercedes-Benz Cars Development, to The Honorable Ra y LaHood, Secretary, United States Department of Transportati on and The Honorable Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator, United States Envir onmental Protection Agency, May 18, 2009

8. EMFAC, 2003. Version 2.2, Updated April 23, 2002

.

9. Federal Register, Volume 74, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 8, 2009 / Noti ce, Environmental Protection Agency, “California State Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Standards; Notice of Decision Granting a Wa iver of Clean Air Act Preemption for California’s 2009 and Subsequent Mod el Year Greenhouse

Gas Emission Standards for New Motor Vehicles.”12

10. Ford Motor Company, Letter from Alan R. Mulally , President and Chief Executive Officer, Ford Motor Company, to The Honor able Ray LaHood, Secretary, United States Department of Transportati on and The Honorable Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator, United States Envir onmental Protection Agency, May 17, 2009

11. General Motors Corporation, Letter from Frederi ck A. Henderson, Chief Executive Officer, General Motors Corporation, to T he Honorable Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator, United States Environmental Protection Agency and The Honorable Ray LaHood, Secretary, United States Department of Transportation, May 17, 2009

12. Mazda North American Operations, Letter from Ji m O’Sullivan, President and Chief Executive Officer, Mazda North American Opera tions, to The Honorable Ray LaHood, Secretary, United States Department of Transportation and The Honorable Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator, United St ates Environmental Protection Agency, May 18, 2009

13. State of California, Air Resources Board, “Init ial Statement of Reasons for proposed Rulemaking, Public Hearing to Consider Ado ption of Regulations to

Control Greenhouse Gas Emissions Form Motor Vehicle s,” August 6, 2004

14. State of California, Letter from Governor Arnol d Schwarzenegger to The Honorable Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator, United St ates Environmental Protection Agency and The Honorable Ray LaHood, Sec retary, United States Department of Transportation, May 18, 2009

15. State of California, Office of the Attorney Gen eral, Letter from Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, State of California, to The Honorable Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator, United States Environmental Protection Agency and The Honorable Ray LaHood, Secretary, United States Department of Transportation, May 18, 2009

16. Toyota Motor Sales, Letter from James E. Lentz, President, Toyota Motor Sales, to The Honorable Lisa P. Jackson, Administra tor, United States Environmental Protection Agency and The Honorable R ay LaHood, Secretary, United States Department of Transportati on, May 17, 2009

17. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. D epartment of Transportation, “Notice of Upcoming Joint Rulemakin g to Establish Vehicle GHG Emissions and CAFE Standards,” http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/DOT/NHTSA/Rulemaki ng/Rules/Associated% 20Files/Joint_CAFE_GHG_Emissions.pdf

18. Volkswagen Group of America, Letter from Stefan Jacoby, President and Chief Executive Officer, Volkswagen Group of Americ a, to The Honorable Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator, United States Envir onmental Protection13

Agency and The Honorable Ray LaHood, Secretary, Uni ted States Department of Transportation, May 17, 2009