## Monday, September 28, 2009



# Part II



# Environmental Protection Agency

40 CFR Parts 86 and 600 

# Department of Transportation

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Parts 531, 533, 537, et al.Proposed Rulemaking To Establish LightDuty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards; Proposed RuleVerDate Nov<24>2008 23:31 Sep 25, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS 

### 49454 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 186 / Monday, September 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules

**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY** 

**40 CFR Parts 86 and 600**

**DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION**

**National Highway Traffic Safety Administration** 

**49 CFR Parts 531, 533, 537, and 538**

**[EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0472; FRL–8959–4; NHTSA–2009–0059]** 

**RIN 2060–AP58; RIN 2127–AK90**

**Proposed Rulemaking To Establish Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas**  **Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards** 

**AGENCY :**  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

**ACTION :**  Proposed rule.

**SUMMARY :**  EPA and NHTSA are issuing this joint proposal to establish a National Program consisting of new standards for light-duty vehicles that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve fuel economy. This joint proposed rulemaking is consistent with the National Fuel Efficiency Policy announced by President Obama on May 19, 2009, responding to the country’s critical need to address global climate change and to reduce oil consumption. EPA is proposing greenhouse gas emissions standards under the Clean Air Act, and NHTSA is proposing Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended. These standards apply to passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles, covering model years 2012 through 2016, and represent a harmonized and consistent National Program. Under the National Program, automobile manufacturers would be able to build a single light-duty national fleet that satisfies all requirements under both programs while ensuring that consumers still have a full range of vehicle choices.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Comments: Comments must be received on or before November 27, 2009. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on the information collection provisions must be received by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on or before October 28, 2009. See the **SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION** section on ‘‘Public Participation’’ for more information about written
comments.

Hearings: NHTSA and EPA will jointly hold three public hearings on the following dates: October 21, 2009 in Detroit, Michigan; October 23, 2009 in New York, New York; and October 27, 2009 in Los Angeles, California. EPA and NHTSA will announce the addresses for each hearing location in a supplemental Federal Register Notice. The hearings will start at 9 a.m. local time and continue until everyone has had a chance to speak. See the

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION** section on ‘‘Public Participation’’ for more information about the public hearings.

**ADDRESSES :**  Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– OAR–2009–0472 and/or NHTSA–2009– 0059, by one of the following methods:

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

• E-mail: a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov

. • Fax: EPA: (202) 566–1741; NHTSA: (202)493–2251.

• Mail:
Æ EPA: Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Air and Radiation Docket, Mail Code 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2009– 0472. In addition, please mail a copy of your comments on the information collection provisions to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th St., NW., Washington, DC 20503.

Æ NHTSA: Docket Management Facility, M–30, U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.

• Hand Delivery:
Æ EPA: Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC, Attention Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2009– 0472. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket’s normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

Æ NHTSA: West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.

Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2009– 0472 and/or NHTSA–2009–0059. See the **SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION** section on ‘‘Public Participation’’ for more information about submitting written
comments.

Public Hearing: NHTSA and EPA will jointly hold three public hearings on the following dates: October 21, 2009 in Detroit, Michigan; October 23, 2009 in New York, New York; and October 27, 2009 in Los Angeles, California. EPA and NHTSA will announce the addresses for each hearing location in a supplemental Federal Register Notice. See the **SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION** section on ‘‘Public Participation’’ for more information about the public hearings.

Docket: All documents in the dockets are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the following locations: EPA: EPA Docket Center, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744. NHTSA: Docket Management Facility, M–30, U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Management Facility is open between 9

a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  EPA: Tad Wysor, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Assessment and Standards Division, Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor MI 48105; telephone number: 734–214– 4332; fax number: 734–214–4816; e-mail address: wysor.tad@epa.gov, or Assessment and Standards Division Hotline; telephone number (734) 214– 4636; e-mail address asdinfo@epa.gov. 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 :** 

A. Does This Action Apply to Me?

This action affects companies that manufacture or sell new light-duty vehicles, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles, as defined under EPA’s CAA regulations, 1

1 ‘‘Light-duty vehicle,’’ ‘‘light-duty truck,’’ and ‘‘medium-duty passenger vehicle’’ are defined in 40 CFR 86.1803–01. Generally, the term ‘‘light-dutyVerDate Nov<24>2008 23:31 Sep 25, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS 

### Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 186 / Monday, September 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

### 49455

and passenger automobiles (passenger CAFE regulations. 2 Regulated categories cars) and non-passenger automobiles and entities include: (light trucks) as defined under NHTSA’s

Category NAICS codes A Examples of potentially regulated entities

Industry ......................................................................

Industry ...................................................................... 336111 336112 811112 811198 541514 Motor vehicle manufacturers.

Commercial Importers of Vehicles and Vehicle Components.

A North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).

This list is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. To determine whether particular activities may be regulated by this action, you should carefully examine the regulations. You may direct questions regarding the applicability of this action to the person listed in **FOR**
**FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT**

. B. Public Participation

NHTSA and EPA request comment on all aspects of this joint proposed rule. This section describes how you can participate in this process. How Do I Prepare and Submit Comments?

In this joint proposal, there are many issues common to both EPA’s and NHTSA’s proposals. For the convenience of all parties, comments submitted to the EPA docket will be considered comments submitted to the NHTSA docket, and vice versa. An exception is that comments submitted to the NHTSA docket on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement will not be considered submitted to the EPA docket. Therefore, the public only needs to submit comments to either one of the two agency dockets. Comments that are submitted for consideration by one agency should be identified as such, and comments that are submitted for consideration by both agencies should be identified as such. Absent such identification, each agency will exercise its best judgment to determine whether a comment is submitted on its proposal.

Further instructions for submitting comments to either the EPA or NHTSA docket are described below.

EPA: Direct your comments to Docket ID No EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0472. EPA’s policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made

vehicle’’ means a passenger car, the term ‘‘lightduty truck’’ means a pick-up truck, sport-utility vehicle, or minivan of up to 8,500 lbs gross vehicle weight rating, and ‘‘medium-duty passenger vehicle’’ means a sport-utility vehicle or passenger available online at www.regulations.gov

, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http:// www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm

.

NHTSA: Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the Docket number NHTSA–2009–0059 in your comments. Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long. 3 NHTSA established this limit to encourage you to write your primary comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary additional documents

van from 8,500 to 10,000 lbs gross vehicle weight rating. Medium-duty passenger vehicles do not include pick-up trucks.

2 ‘‘Passenger car’’ and ‘‘light truck’’ are defined in 49 CFR part 523. to your comments. There is no limit on the length of the attachments. If you are submitting comments electronically as a PDF (Adobe) file, we ask that the documents submitted be scanned using the Optical Character Recognition (OCR) process, thus allowing the agencies to search and copy certain portions of your submissions. 4 Please note that pursuant to the Data Quality Act, in order for the substantive data to be relied upon and used by the agencies, it must meet the information quality standards set forth in the OMB and Department of Transportation (DOT) Data Quality Act guidelines. Accordingly, we encourage you to consult the guidelines in preparing your comments. OMB’s guidelines may be accessed at http:// www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/ reproducible.html. DOT’s guidelines may be accessed at http://www.dot.gov/ dataquality.htm

. Tips for Preparing Your Comments

When submitting comments, remember to:

• Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).

• Follow directions—The agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.

• Explain why you agree or disagree, suggest alternatives, and substitute language for your requested changes.

• Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/ or data that you used.

• If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.

• Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives.

3 See 49 CFR 553.21.

4 Optical character recognition (OCR) is the process of converting an image of text, such as a scanned paper document or electronic fax file, into computer-editable text.VerDate Nov<24>2008 23:31 Sep 25, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS 

### 49456 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 186 / Monday, September 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules

• Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.

Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified in the **DATES** section above. How Can I Be Sure That My Comments Were Received?

NHTSA: If you submit your comments by mail and wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket Management will return the postcard by mail. How Do I Submit Confidential Business Information?

Any confidential business information (CBI) submitted to one of the agencies will also be available to the other agency. However, as with all public comments, any CBI information only needs to be submitted to either one of the agencies’ dockets and it will be available to the other. Following are specific instructions for submitting CBI to either agency.

EPA: Do not submit CBI to EPA through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD–ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD–ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

NHTSA: If you wish to submit any information under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim to be confidential business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given above under **FOR FURTHER**
**INFORMATION CONTACT** . When you send a comment containing confidential business information, you should include a cover letter setting forth the information specified in our confidential business information regulation. 5

In addition, you should submit a copy from which you have deleted the

5 See 49 CFR part 512. claimed confidential business information to the Docket by one of the methods set forth above. Will the Agencies Consider Late Comments?

NHTSA and EPA will consider all comments received before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated above under **DATES** . To the extent practicable, we will also consider comments received after that date. If interested persons believe that any new information the agency places in the docket affects their comments, they may submit comments after the closing date concerning how the agency should consider that information for the final rule. However, the agencies’ ability to consider any such late comments in this rulemaking will be limited due to the time frame for issuing a final rule.

If a comment is received too late for us to practicably consider in developing a final rule, we will consider that comment as an informal suggestion for future rulemaking action.

How Can I Read the Comments Submitted by Other People?

You may read the materials placed in the docket for this document ( e.g., the comments submitted in response to this document by other interested persons) at any time by going to http:// www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for accessing the dockets. You may also read the materials at the EPA Docket Center or NHTSA Docket Management Facility by going to the street addresses given above under

**ADDRESSES**

. How Do I Participate in the Public Hearings?

NHTSA and EPA will jointly host three public hearings on the dates and locations described in the **DATES** and

**ADDRESSES** sections above.

If you would like to present testimony at the public hearings, we ask that you notify the EPA and NHTSA contact persons listed under **FOR FURTHER**
**INFORMATION CONTACT** at least ten days before the hearing. Once EPA and NHTSA learn how many people have registered to speak at the public hearing, we will allocate an appropriate amount of time to each participant, allowing time for lunch and necessary breaks throughout the day. For planning purposes, each speaker should anticipate speaking for approximately ten minutes, although we may need to adjust the time for each speaker if there is a large turnout. We suggest that you bring copies of your statement or other material for the EPA and NHTSA panels and the audience. It would also be helpful if you send us a copy of your statement or other materials before the hearing. To accommodate as many speakers as possible, we prefer that speakers not use technological aids ( e.g. , audio-visuals, computer slideshows). However, if you plan to do so, you must notify the contact persons in the **FOR**
**FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT** section above. You also must make arrangements to provide your presentation or any other aids to NHTSA and EPA in advance of the hearing in order to facilitate set-up. In addition, we will reserve a block of time for anyone else in the audience who wants to give testimony.

The hearing will be held at a site accessible to individuals with disabilities. Individuals who require accommodations such as sign language interpreters should contact the persons listed under **FOR FURTHER INFORMATION**
**CONTACT** section above no later than ten days before the date of the hearing.

NHTSA and EPA will conduct the hearing informally, and technical rules of evidence will not apply. We will arrange for a written transcript of the hearing and keep the official record of the hearing open for 30 days to allow you to submit supplementary information. You may make arrangements for copies of the transcript directly with the court reporter.

Table of Contents

I. Overview of Joint EPA/NHTSA National Program

A. Introduction

1. Building Blocks of the National Program
2. Joint Proposal for a National Program B. Summary of the Joint Proposal C. Background and Comparison of NHTSA and EPA Statutory Authority

1. NHTSA Statutory Authority
2. EPA Statutory Authority
3. Comparing the Agencies’ Authority D. Summary of the Proposed Standards for the National Program

1. Joint Analytical Approach
2. Level of the Standards
3. Form of the Standards E. Summary of Costs and Benefits for the Joint Proposal

1. Summary of Costs and Benefits of

Proposed NHTSA CAFE Standards
2. Summary of Costs and Benefits of

Proposed EPA GHG Standards F. Program Flexibilities for Achieving Compliance

1. CO 2/CAFE Credits Generated Based on

Fleet Average Performance
2. Air Conditioning Credits
3. Flex-Fuel and Alternative Fuel Vehicle

Credits

4. Temporary Lead-time Allowance

Alternative Standards

5. Additional Credit Opportunities Under

the CAA G. Coordinated Compliance H. ConclusionVerDate Nov<24>2008 23:31 Sep 25, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS 

### Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 186 / Monday, September 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

### 49457

II. Joint Technical Work Completed for This Proposal

A. Introduction B. How Did NHTSA and EPA Develop the Baseline Market Forecast?

1. Why Do the Agencies Establish a

Baseline Vehicle Fleet?
2. How Do the Agencies Develop the

Baseline Vehicle Fleet?
3. How Is the Development of the Baseline

Fleet for this Proposal Different From NHTSA’s Historical Approach, and Why is This Approach Preferable?

4. How Does Manufacturer Product Plan

Data Factor Into the Baseline Used in This Proposal? C. Development of Attribute-Based Curve Shapes D. Relative Car-Truck Stringency E. Joint Vehicle Technology Assumptions

1. What Technologies Do the Agencies

Consider?
2. How Did the Agencies Determine the

Costs and Effectiveness of Each of These Technologies? F. Joint Economic Assumptions

III. EPA Proposal for Greenhouse Gas Vehicle Standards

A. Executive Overview of EPA Proposal

1. Introduction
2. Why Is EPA Proposing This Rule?
3. What Is EPA Proposing?

4. Basis for the Proposed GHG Standards

Under Section 202(a) B. Proposed GHG Standards for Light-Duty Vehicles, Light-Duty Trucks, and Medium-Duty Passenger Vehicles

1. What Fleet-Wide Emissions Levels

Correspond to the CO 2 Standards?
2. What Are the CO 2 Attribute-Based

Standards?
3. Overview of How EPA’s Proposed CO 2

Standards Would Be Implemented for Individual Manufacturers

4. Averaging, Banking, and Trading

Provisions for CO 2 Standards

5. CO 2 Temporary Lead-Time Allowance

Alternative Standards
6. Proposed Nitrous Oxide and Methane

Standards

7. Small Entity Deferment C. Additional Credit Opportunities for CO 2 Fleet Average Program

1. Air Conditioning Related Credits
2. Flex Fuel and Alternative Fuel Vehicle

Credits
3. Advanced Technology Vehicle Credits

for Electric Vehicles, Plug-in Hybrids, and Fuel Cells

4. Off-cycle Technology Credits

5. Early Credit Options D. Feasibility of the Proposed CO 2 Standards

1. How Did EPA Develop a Reference

Vehicle Fleet for Evaluating Further CO 2 Reductions?
2. What Are the Effectiveness and Costs of

CO 2 -Reducing Technologies?
3. How Can Technologies Be Combined

into ‘‘Packages’’ and What Is the Cost and Effectiveness of Packages?

4. Manufacturer’s Application of

Technology

5. How Is EPA Projecting That a

Manufacturer Would Decide Between Options To Improve CO 2 Performance To Meet a Fleet Average Standard? 6. Why Are the Proposed CO 2 Standards Feasible?

7. What Other Fleet-Wide CO 2 Levels Were

Considered? E. Certification, Compliance, and Enforcement

1. Compliance Program Overview
2. Compliance With Fleet-Average CO 2

Standards
3. Vehicle Certification

4. Useful Life Compliance

5. Credit Program Implementation
6. Enforcement

7. Prohibited Acts in the CAA
8. Other Certification Issues
9. Miscellaneous Revisions to Existing

Regulations
10. Warranty, Defect Reporting, and Other

Emission-related Components Provisions

11. Light Vehicles and Fuel Economy

Labeling F. How Would This Proposal Reduce GHG Emissions and Their Associated Effects?

1. Impact on GHG Emissions
2. Overview of Climate Change Impacts

From GHG Emissions
3. Changes in Global Mean Temperature

and Sea-Level Rise Associated With the Proposal’s GHG Emissions Reductions

4. Weight Reduction and Potential Safety

Impacts G. How Would the Proposal Impact NonGHG Emissions and Their Associated Effects?

1. Upstream Impacts of Program
2. Downstream Impacts of Program
3. Health Effects of Non-GHG Pollutants

4. Environmental Effects of Non-GHG

Pollutants

5. Air Quality Impacts of Non-GHG

Pollutants H. What Are the Estimated Cost, Economic, and Other Impacts of the Proposal?

1. Conceptual Framework for Evaluating

Consumer Impacts
2. Costs Associated With the Vehicle

Program
3. Cost per Ton of Emissions Reduced

4. Reduction in Fuel Consumption and Its

Impacts
5. Impacts on U.S. Vehicle Sales and

Payback Period
6. Benefits of Reducing GHG Emissions

7. Non-Greenhouse Gas Health and

Environmental Impacts
8. Energy Security Impacts
9. Other Impacts
10. Summary of Costs and Benefits I. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

1. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory

Planning and Review
2. Paperwork Reduction Act
3. Regulatory Flexibility Act

4. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

5. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
6. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation

and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments)

7. Executive Order 13045: ‘‘Protection of

Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks’’
8. Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)
9. National Technology Transfer

Advancement Act
10. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions

to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations J. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority

IV. NHTSA Proposal for Passenger Car and Light Truck CAFE Standards for MYs 2012–
2016

A. Executive Overview of NHTSA Proposal

1. Introduction
2. Role of Fuel Economy Improvements in

Promoting Energy Independence, Energy Security, and a Low Carbon Economy
3. The National Program

4. Review of CAFE Standard Setting

Methodology Per the President’s January 26, 2009 Memorandum on CAFE Standards for MYs 2011 and Beyond

5. Summary of the Proposed MY 2012–

2016 CAFE Standards B. Background

1. Chronology of Events Since the National

Academy of Sciences Called for Reforming and Increasing CAFE Standards
2. NHTSA Issues Final Rule Establishing

Attribute-Based CAFE Standards for MY 2008–2011 Light Trucks (March 2006)
3. Ninth Circuit Issues Decision re Final

Rule for MY 2008–2011 Light Trucks (November 2007)

4. Congress Enacts Energy Security and

Independence Act of 2007 (December 2007)

5. NHTSA Proposes CAFE Standards for

MYs 2011–2015 (April 2008)
6. Ninth Circuit Revises Its Decision re

Final Rule for MY 2008–2011 Light Trucks (August 2008)

7. NHTSA Releases Final Environmental

Impact Statement (October 2008)
8. Department of Transportation Decides

not to Issue MY 2011–2015 final Rule (January 2009)
9. The President Requests NHTSA to Issue

Final Rule for MY 2011 Only (January 2009)
10. NHTSA Issues Final Rule for MY 2011

(March 2009)

11. Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as

Amended by the Energy Independence and Security Act C. Development and Feasibility of the Proposed Standards

1. How Was the Baseline Vehicle Fleet

Developed?
2. How were the Technology Inputs

Developed?
3. How Did NHTSA Develop the Economic

Assumption Inputs?
4. How Does NHTSA Use the Assumptions

in Its Modeling Analysis?

5. How Did NHTSA Develop the Shape of

the Target Curves for the Proposed Standards? D. Statutory Requirements

1. EPCA, as Amended by EISA
2. Administrative Procedure Act
3. National Environmental Policy Act E. What Are the Proposed CAFE Standards?

1. Form of the Standards
2. Passenger Car Standards for MYs 2012–

2016
3. Minimum Domestic Passenger Car

Standards

4. Light Truck Standards F. How Do the Proposed Standards Fulfill NHTSA’s Statutory Obligations?VerDate Nov<24>2008 23:31 Sep 25, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS 

### 49458 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 186 / Monday, September 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules

G. Impacts of the Proposed CAFE Standards

1. How Would These Proposed Standards

Improve Fuel Economy and Reduce GHG Emissions for MY 2012–2016 Vehicles?
2. How Would These Proposed Standards

Improve Fleet-Wide Fuel Economy and Reduce GHG Emissions Beyond MY 2016?
3. How Would These Proposed Standards

Impact Non-GHG Emissions and Their Associated Effects?

4. What Are the Estimated Costs and

Benefits of These Proposed Standards?

5. How Would These Proposed Standards

Impact Vehicle Sales?
6. What Are the Consumer Welfare Impacts

of These Proposed Standards?

7. What Are the Estimated Safety Impacts

of These Proposed Standards?
8. What Other Impacts (Quantitative and

Unquantifiable) Will These Proposed Standards Have? H. Vehicle Classification I. Compliance and Enforcement

1. Overview
2. How Does NHTSA Determine

Compliance?
3. What Compliance Flexibilities Are

Available under the CAFE Program and How Do Manufacturers Use Them?

4. Other CAFE Enforcement Issues—

Variations in Footprint J. Other Near-Term Rulemakings Mandated by EISA

1. Commercial Medium- and Heavy-Duty

On-Highway Vehicles and Work Trucks
2. Consumer Information K. Regulatory Notices and Analyses

1. Executive Order 12866 and DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures
2. National Environmental Policy Act
3. Regulatory Flexibility Act

4. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

5. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice

Reform)
6. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

7. Paperwork Reduction Act
8. Regulation Identifier Number
9. Executive Order 13045
10. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

11. Executive Order 13211
12. Department of Energy Review
13. Plain Language

14. Privacy Act

I. Overview of Joint EPA/NHTSA National Program

A. Introduction

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are each announcing proposed rules whose benefits would address the urgent and closely intertwined challenges of energy independence and security and global warming. These proposed rules call for a strong and coordinated Federal greenhouse gas and fuel economy program for passengercars, light-duty-trucks, and mediumduty passenger vehicles (hereafter lightduty vehicles), referred to as the National Program. The proposed rules can achieve substantial reductions of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and improvements in fuel economy from the light-duty vehicle part of the transportation sector, based on technology that is already being commercially applied in most cases and that can be incorporated at a reasonable
cost.

This joint notice is consistent with the President’s announcement on May 19, 2009 of a National Fuel Efficiency Policy of establishing consistent, harmonized, and streamlined requirements that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improvefuel economy for all new cars and lightduty trucks sold in the United States. 6 The National Program holds out the promise of delivering additional environmental and energy benefits, cost savings, and administrative efficiencies on a nationwide basis that might not be available under a less coordinated approach. The proposed National Program also offers the prospect of regulatory convergence by making it possible for the standards of two different Federal agencies and the standards of California and other States to act in a unified fashion in providing these benefits. This would allow automakers to produce and sell a single fleet nationally. Thus, it may also help to mitigate the additional costs that manufacturers would otherwise face in having to comply with multiple sets of Federal and State standards. This joint notice is also consistent with the Notice of Upcoming Joint Rulemaking issued by DOT and EPA on May 19 7 and responds to the President’s January 26, 2009 memorandum on CAFE standards for model years 2011 and beyond, 8 the details of which can be found in Section IV of this joint notice.

1. Building Blocks of the National Program

The National Program is both needed and possible because the relationship between improving fuel economy and reducing CO 2 tailpipe emissions is a very direct and close one. The amount of those CO 2 emissions is essentially

6 President Obama Announces National Fuel Efficiency Policy, The White House, May 19, 2009. Available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/ the

_ press

_ office/President-Obama-AnnouncesNational-Fuel-Efficiency-Policy/ (last accessed August 18, 2009). Remarks by the President on National Fuel Efficiency Standards, The White House, May 19, 2009. Available at: http://www. whitehouse.gov/the

_ press

_ office/Remarks-by-thePresident-on-national-fuel-efficiency-standards/ (Last accessed August 18, 2009).

7 74 FR 24007 (May 22, 2009).

8 Available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/ the

_ press

_ office/Presidential

_Memorandum

_ Fuel

_Economy/ (last accessed on August 18, 2009). constant per gallon combusted of a given type of fuel. Thus, the more fuel efficient a vehicle is, the less fuel it burns to travel a given distance. The less fuel it burns, the less CO 2 it emits in traveling that distance. 9 While there are emission control technologies that reduce the pollutants ( e.g., carbon monoxide) produced by imperfect combustion of fuel by capturing or destroying them, there is no such technology for CO 2 . Further, while some of those pollutants can also be reduced by achieving a more complete combustion of fuel, doing so only increases the tailpipe emissions of CO 2 . Thus, there is a single pool of technologies for addressing these twin problems, i.e., those that reduce fuel consumption and thereby reduce CO 2 emissions as well.

a. DOT’s CAFE Program

In 1975, Congress enacted the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), mandating that NHTSA establish and implement a regulatory program for motor vehicle fuel economy to meet the various facets of the need to conserve energy, including ones having energy independence and security, environmental and foreign policy implications. Fuel economy gains since 1975, due both to the standards and market factors, have resulted in saving billions of barrels of oil and avoiding billions of metric tons of CO 2 emissions. In December 2007, Congress enacted the Energy Independence and Securities Act (EISA), amending EPCA to require substantial, continuing increases in fuel economy standards.

The CAFE standards address most, but not all, of the real world CO 2 emissions because EPCA requires the use of 1975 passenger car test procedures under which vehicle air conditioners are not turned on during fuel economy testing. 10 Fuel economy is determined by measuring the amount of CO 2 and other carbon compounds emitted from the tailpipe, not by attempting to measure directly the amount of fuel consumed during a vehicle test, a difficult task to accomplish with precision. The carbon content of the test fuel 11 is then used to calculate the amount of fuel that had to be consumed per mile in order to

9 Panel on Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming, National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine, ‘‘Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming: Mitigation, Adaptation, and the Science Base,’’ National Academies Press, 1992. p. 287.

10 EPCA does not require the use of 1975 test procedures for light trucks.

11 This is the method that EPA uses to determine compliance with NHTSA’s CAFE standards.VerDate Nov<24>2008 23:31 Sep 25, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS 

### Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 186 / Monday, September 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

### 49459

produce that amount of CO 2. Finally, that fuel consumption figure is converted into a miles-per-gallon figure. CAFE standards also do not address the 5–8 percent of GHG emissions that are not CO 2 , i.e., nitrous oxide (N 2 O), and methane (CH4 ) as well as emissions of CO 2 and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) related to operation of the air conditioning system.

b. EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Standards for Light-Duty Vehicles

Under the Clean Air Act EPA is responsible for addressing air pollutants from motor vehicles. On April 2, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Massachusetts v. EPA, 12 a case involving a 2003 order of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) denying a petition for rulemaking to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). 13 The Court held that greenhouse gases were air pollutants for purposes of the Clean Air Act and further held that the Administrator must determine whether or not emissions from new motor vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare, or whether the science is too uncertain to make a reasoned decision. The Court further ruled that, in making these decisions, the EPA Administrator is required to follow the language of section 202(a) of the CAA. The Court rejected the argument that EPA cannot regulate CO 2 from motor vehicles because to do so would de facto tighten fuel economy standards, authority over which has been assigned by Congress to DOT. The Court stated that ‘‘[b]ut that DOT sets mileage standards in no way licenses EPA to shirk its environmental responsibilities. EPA has been charged with protecting the public‘s ‘health’ and ‘welfare’, a statutory obligation wholly independent of DOT’s mandate to promote energy efficiency.’’ The Court concluded that ‘‘[t]he two obligations may overlap, but there is no reason to think the two agencies cannot both administer their obligations and yet avoid inconsistency.’’ 14 The Court remanded the case back to the Agency for reconsideration in light of its findings. 15

12 549 U.S. 497 (2007).

13 68 FR 52922 (Sept. 8, 2003).

14 549 U.S. at 531–32.

15 For further information on Massachusetts v. EPA see the July 30, 2008 Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, ‘‘Regulating Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Clean Air Act’’, 73 FR 44354 at 44397. There is a comprehensive discussion of the litigation’s history, the Supreme Court’s findings, and subsequent actions undertaken by the EPA has since proposed to find that emissions of GHGs from new motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health and welfare. 16 This proposal represents the second phase of EPA’s response to the Supreme Court’s decision.

c. California Air Resources Board Greenhouse Gas Program

In 2004, the California Air ResourcesBoard approved standards for new lightduty vehicles, which regulate the emission of not only CO 2 , but also other GHGs. Since then, thirteen States and the District of Columbia, comprisingapproximately 40 percent of the lightduty vehicle market, have adopted California’s standards. These standards apply to model years 2009 through 2016 and require CO 2 emissions for passenger cars and the smallest light trucks of 323 g/mi in 2009 and 205 g/mi in 2016, and for the remaining light trucks of 439 g/ mi in 2009 and 332 g/mi in 2016. On June 30, 2009, EPA granted California’s request for a waiver of preemption under the CAA. 17 The granting of the waiver permits California and the other States to proceed with implementing the California emission standards.

2. Joint Proposal for a National Program

On May 19, 2009, the Department of Transportation and the Environmental Protection Agency issued a Notice of Upcoming Joint Rulemaking to propose a strong and coordinated fuel economy and greenhouse gas National Program for Model Year (MY) 2012–2016 light duty vehicles.

B. Summary of the Joint Proposal

In this joint rulemaking, EPA is proposing GHG emissions standards under the Clean Air Act (CAA), and NHTSA is proposing Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards under the Energy Policy and Conservation Action of 1975 (EPCA), as amended by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA). The intention of this joint rulemaking proposal is to set forth a carefully coordinated and harmonized approach to implementing these two statutes, in accordance with all substantive and procedural requirements imposed by law.

Climate change is widely viewed as the most significant long-term threat to the global environment. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Bush Administration and the EPA from 2007–2008 in response to the Supreme Court remand.

16 74 FR 18886 (Apr. 24, 2009).

17 74 FR 32744 (July 8, 2009). Change, anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are very likely (90 to 99 percent probability) the cause of most of the observed global warming over the last 50 years. The primary GHGs of concern are carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. Mobile sources emitted 31.5 percent of all U.S. GHG in 2006, and have been the fastest-growingsource of U.S. GHG since 1990. Lightduty vehicles emit four GHGs—CO 2 , methane, nitrous oxide, and hydrofluorocarbons—and are responsible for nearly 60 percent of all mobile source GHGs. For Light-duty vehicles, CO 2 emissions represent about 95 percent of all greenhouse emissions, and the CO 2 emissions measured over the EPA tests used for fuel economy compliance represent over 90 percent of total light-duty vehicle greenhouse gas emissions.

Improving energy security by reducing our dependence on foreign oil has been a national objective since the first oil price shocks in the 1970s. Net petroleum imports now account for approximately 60 percent of U.S. petroleum consumption. World crude oil production is highly concentrated, exacerbating the risks of supply disruptions and price shocks. Tight global oil markets led to prices over $100 per barrel in 2008, with gasoline reaching as high as $4 per gallon in many parts of the U.S., causing financial hardship for many families. The export of U.S. assets for oil imports continues to be an important component of the U.S.’ historically unprecedented trade deficits. Transportation accounts for about two-thirds of U.S. petroleum consumption. Light-duty vehicles account for about 60 percent of transportation oil use, which means that they alone account for about 40 percent of all U.S. oil consumption.

NHTSA and EPA have coordinated closely and worked jointly in developing their respective proposals. This is reflected in many aspects of this joint proposal. For example, the agencies have developed a comprehensive joint Technical Support Document (TSD) that provides a solid technical underpinning for each agency’s modeling and analysis used to support their proposed standards. Also, to the extent allowed by law, the agencies have harmonized many elements of program design, such as the form of the standard (the footprint-based attribute curves), and the definitions used for cars and trucks. They have developed the same or similar compliance flexibilities, to the extent allowed and appropriate under theirVerDate Nov<24>2008 23:31 Sep 25, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS 

### 49460 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 186 / Monday, September 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules

respective statutes, such as averaging, banking, and trading of credits, and have harmonized the compliance testing and test protocols used for purposes of the fleet average standards each agency is proposing. Finally, as discussed in Section I.C., under their respective statutes each agency is called upon to exercise its judgment and determine standards that are an appropriate balance of various relevant statutory factors. Given the common technical issues before each agency, the similarity of the factors each agency is to consider and balance, and the authority of each agency to take into consideration the standards of the other agency, both EPA and NHTSA are proposing standards that result in a harmonized National Program.

This joint proposal covers passengercars, light-duty-trucks, and mediumduty passenger vehicles built in model years 2012 through 2016. These vehicle categories are responsible for almost 60 percent of all U.S. transportation-related GHG emissions. EPA and NHTSA expect that automobile manufacturers will meet these proposed standards by utilizing technologies that will reduce vehicle GHG emissions and improve fuel economy. Although many of these technologies are available today, the emissions reductions and fuel economy improvements proposed would involve more widespread use of these technologies across the light-duty vehicle fleet. These include improvements to engines, transmissions, and tires, increased use of start-stop technology, improvements in air conditioning systems (to the extent currently allowed by law), increased use of hybrid and other advanced technologies, and the initial commercialization of electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids.

The proposed National Program would result in approximately 950 million metric tons of total carbon dioxide equivalent emissions reductions and approximately 1.8 billion barrels of oil savings over the lifetime of vehicles sold in model years 2012 through 2016. In total, the combined EPA and NHTSA 2012–2016 standards would reduce GHG emissions from the U.S. light-duty fleet by approximately 21 percent by 2030 over the level that would occur in the absence of the National Program. These proposals also provide important energy security benefits, as light-duty vehicles are about 95 percent dependent on oil-based fuels. The benefits of the proposed National Program would total about $250 billion at a 3% discount rate, or $195 billion at a 7% discount rate. In the discussion that follows in Sections III and IV, each agency explains the related benefits for their individual standards.

Together, EPA and NHTSA estimate that the average cost increase for a model year 2016 vehicle due to the proposed National Program is less than $1,100. U.S. consumers who purchase their vehicle outright would save enough in lower fuel costs over the first three years to offset these higher vehicle costs. However, most U.S. consumers purchase a new vehicle using credit rather than paying cash and the typical car loan today is a five year, 60 month loan. These consumers would see immediate savings due to their vehicle’s lower fuel consumption in the form of reduced monthly costs of $12–$14 per month throughout the duration of the loan (that is, the fuel savings outweigh the increase in loan payments by $12– $14 per month). Whether a consumer takes out a loan or purchases a new vehicle outright, over the lifetime of a model year 2016 vehicle, consumers would save more than $3,000 due to fuel savings. The average 2016 MY vehicle will emit 16 fewer metric tons of CO 2 emissions during its lifetime.

This joint proposal also offers the prospect of important regulatory convergence and certainty to automobile companies. Absent this proposal, there would be three separate Federal and State regimes independently regulating light-duty vehicles to reduce fuel consumption and GHG emissions: NHTSA’s CAFE standards, EPA’s GHG standards, and the GHG standards applicable in California and other States adopting the California standards. This joint proposal would allow automakers to meet both the NHTSA and EPA requirements with a single national fleet, greatly simplifying the industry’s technology, investment and compliance strategies. In addition, in a letter dated May 18, 2009, California stated that it ‘‘recognizes the benefit for the country and California of a National Program to address greenhouse gases and fuel economy and the historic announcement of United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and National Highway Transportation Safety Administration’s (NHTSA) intent to jointly propose a rule to set standards for both. California fully supports proposal and adoption of such a National Program.’’ To promote the National Program, California announced its commitment to take several actions, including revising its program for MYs 2012–2016 such that compliance with the Federal GHG standards would be deemed to be compliance with California’s GHG standards. This would allow the single national fleet used by automakers to meet the two Federal requirements and to meet California requirements as well. This commitment was conditioned on several points, including EPA GHG standards that are substantially similar to those described in the May 19, 2009 Notice of Upcoming Joint Rulemaking. Many automakers and trade associations also announced their support for the National Program announced that day. 18 The manufacturers conditioned their support on EPA and NHTSA standards substantially similar to those described in that Notice. NHTSA and EPA met with many vehicle manufacturers to discuss the feasibility of the National Program. EPA and NHTSA are confident that these proposed GHG and CAFE standards, if finalized, would successfully harmonize both the Federal and State programs for MYs 2012–2016 and would allow our country to achieve the increased benefits of a single,nationwide program to reduce lightduty vehicle GHG emissions and reduce the country’s dependence on fossil fuels by improving these vehicles’ fuel
economy.

A successful and sustainable automotive industry depends upon, among other things, continuous technology innovation in general, and low greenhouse gas emissions and high fuel economy vehicles in particular. In this respect, this proposal would help spark the investment in technology innovation necessary for automakers to successfully compete in both domestic and export markets, and thereby continue to support a strong economy.

While this proposal covers MYs 2012–2016, EPA and NHTSA anticipate the importance of seeking a strong,coordinated national program for lightduty vehicles in model years beyond 2016 in a future rulemaking.

Key elements of the proposal for a harmonized and coordinated program are the level and form of the GHG and CAFE standards, the available compliance mechanisms, and general implementation elements. These elements are outlined in the following sections.

C. Background and Comparison of NHTSA and EPA Statutory Authority

This section provides the agencies’ respective statutory authorities under which CAFE and GHG standards are established.

1. NHTSA Statutory Authority

NHTSA establishes CAFE standards for passenger cars and light trucks for each model year under EPCA, as

18 These letters are available at http:// www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/regulations.htm

.VerDate Nov<24>2008 23:31 Sep 25, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS 

### Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 186 / Monday, September 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

### 49461

amended by EISA. EPCA mandates a motor vehicle fuel economy regulatory program to meet the various facets of the need to conserve energy, including ones having environmental and foreign policy implications. EPCA allocates the responsibility for implementing the program between NHTSA and EPA as follows: NHTSA sets CAFE standards for passenger cars and light trucks; EPA establishes the procedures for testing, tests vehicles, collects and analyzes manufacturers’ data, and calculates the average fuel economy of each manufacturer’s passenger cars and light trucks; and NHTSA enforces the standards based on EPA’s calculations.

a. Standard Setting

We have summarized below the most important aspects of standard setting under EPCA, as amended by EISA.

For each future model year, EPCA requires that NHTSA establish standards at ‘‘the maximum feasible average fuel economy level that it decides the manufacturers can achieve in that model year,’’ based on the agency’s consideration of four statutory factors: technological feasibility, economic practicability, the effect of other standards of the Government on fuel economy, and the need of the nation to conserve energy. EPCA does not define these terms or specify what weight to give each concern in balancing them; thus, NHTSA defines them and determines the appropriate weighting based on the circumstances in each CAFE standard rulemaking. 19

For MYs 2011–2020, EPCA further requires that separate standards for passenger cars and for light trucks be set at levels high enough to ensure that the CAFE of the industry-wide combined fleet of new passenger cars and light trucks reaches at least 35 mpg not later than MY 2020.

i. Factors That Must Be Considered in Deciding the Appropriate Stringency of CAFE Standards
(1) Technological Feasibility

‘‘Technological feasibility’’ refers to whether a particular method of improving fuel economy can be available for commercial application in the model year for which a standard is being established. Thus, the agency is not limited in determining the level of new standards to technology that is

19 See Center for Biological Diversity v. NHTSA

, 538 F.3d. 1172, 1195 (9th Cir. 2008) (‘‘The EPCA clearly requires the agency to consider these four factors, but it gives NHTSA discretion to decide how to balance the statutory factors—as long as NHTSA’s balancing does not undermine the fundamental purpose of the EPCA: Energy conservation.’’) already being commercially applied at the time of the rulemaking. NHTSA has historically considered all types of technologies that improve real-world fuel economy, except those whose effects are not reflected in fuel economy testing. Principal among them are technologies that improve air conditioner efficiency because the air conditioners are not turned on during testing under existing test procedures.
(2)Economic Practicability

‘‘Economic practicability’’ refers to whether a standard is one ‘‘within the financial capability of the industry, but not so stringent as to’’ lead to ‘‘adverse economic consequences, such as a significant loss of jobs or the unreasonable elimination of consumer choice.’’ 20 This factor is especially important in the context of current events, where the automobile industry is facing significantly adverse economic conditions, as well as significant loss of jobs. In an attempt to ensure theeconomic practicability of attributebased standards, NHTSA considers a variety of factors, including the annual rate at which manufacturers can increase the percentage of its fleet that employs a particular type of fuel-saving technology, and cost to consumers. Consumer acceptability is also an element of economic practicability, one which is particularly difficult to gauge during times of frequently-changing fuel prices. NHTSA believes this approach is reasonable for the MY 2012–2016 standards in view of the facts before it at this time. NHTSA is aware, however, that facts relating to a variety of key issues in CAFE rulemaking are steadily evolving and seeks comments on the balancing of these factors in light of the facts available during the comment period.

At the same time, the law does not preclude a CAFE standard that poses considerable challenges to any individual manufacturer. The Conference Report for EPCA, as enacted in 1975, makes clear, and the case law affirms, ‘‘a determination of maximum feasible average fuel economy should not be keyed to the single manufacturer which might have the most difficulty achieving a given level of average fuel economy.’’ 21 Instead, NHTSA is compelled ‘‘to weigh the benefits to the nation of a higher fuel economy standard against the difficulties of individual automobile manufacturers.’’ Id. The law permits CAFE standards exceeding the projected capability of any particular manufacturer as long as

20 67 FR 77015, 77021 (Dec. 16, 2002).

21 CEI–I , 793 F.2d 1322, 1352 (D.C. Cir. 1986). the standard is economically practicable for the industry as a whole. Thus, while a particular CAFE standard may pose difficulties for one manufacturer, it may also present opportunities for another. The CAFE program is not necessarily intended to maintain the competitive positioning of each particular company. Rather, it is intended to enhance fuel economy of the vehicle fleet on American roads, while protecting motor vehicle safety and being mindful of the risk of harm to the overall United States
economy. (3)The Effect of Other Motor Vehicle Standards of the Government on Fuel Economy

‘‘The effect of other motor vehicle standards of the Government on fuel economy,’’ involves an analysis of the effects of compliance with emission, 22 safety, noise, or damageability standards on fuel economy capability and thus on average fuel economy. In previous CAFE rulemakings, the agency has said that pursuant to this provision, it considers the adverse effects of other motor vehicle standards on fuel economy. It said so because, from the CAFE program’s earliest years 23 until present, the effects of such compliance on fuel economy capability over the history of the CAFE program have been negative ones. For example, safety standards that have the effect of increasing vehicle weight lower vehicle fuel economy capability and thus decrease the level of average fuel economy that the agency can determine to be feasible.

In the wake of Massachusetts v. EPA and of EPA’s proposed endangerment finding, granting of a waiver to California for its motor vehicle GHG standards, and its own proposal of GHG standards, NHTSA is confronted with the issue of how to treat those standards under the ‘‘other motor vehicle standards’’ provision. To the extent the GHG standards result in increases in fuel economy, they would do so almost exclusively as a result of inducing manufacturers to install the same types of technologies used by manufacturers in complying with the CAFE standards. The primary exception would involve increases in the efficiency of air conditioners.

Comment is requested on whether and in what way the effects of the California and EPA standards should be

22 In the case of emission standards, this includes standards adopted by the Federal government and can include standards adopted by the States as well, since in certain circumstances the Clean Air Act allows States to adopt and enforce State standards different from the Federal ones.

23 42 FR 63184, 63188 (Dec. 15, 1977). See also 42 FR 33534, 33537 (Jun. 30, 1977).VerDate Nov<24>2008 23:31 Sep 25, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS 

### 49462 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 186 / Monday, September 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules

considered under the ‘‘other motor vehicle standards’’ provision or other provisions of EPCA in 49 U.S.C. 32902, consistent with NHTSA’s independent obligation under EPCA/EISA to issue CAFE standards. The agency has already considered EPA’s proposal and the harmonization benefits of the National Program in developing its own proposal.
(4) The Need of the United States To Conserve Energy

‘‘The need of the United States to conserve energy’’ means ‘‘the consumer cost, national balance of payments, environmental, and foreign policy implications of our need for large quantities of petroleum, especially imported petroleum.’’ 24 Environmental implications principally include reductions in emissions of criteria pollutants and carbon dioxide. Prime examples of foreign policy implications are energy independence and security

concerns. (a) Fuel Prices and the Value of Saving Fuel

Projected future fuel prices are a critical input into the preliminary economic analysis of alternative CAFE standards, because they determine the value of fuel savings both to new vehicle buyers and to society. In this rule, NHTSA relies on fuel price projections from the U.S. Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) for this analysis. Federal government agencies generally use EIA’s projections in their assessments of future energy-related policies.
(b) Petroleum Consumption and Import Externalities

U.S. consumption and imports of petroleum products impose costs on the domestic economy that are not reflected in the market price for crude petroleum, or in the prices paid by consumers of petroleum products such as gasoline. These costs include (1) higher prices for petroleum products resulting from the effect of U.S. oil import demand on the world oil price; (2) the risk of disruptions to the U.S. economy caused by sudden reductions in the supply of imported oil to the U.S.; and (3) expenses for maintaining a U.S. military presence to secure imported oil supplies from unstable regions, and for maintaining the strategic petroleum reserve (SPR) to provide a response option should a disruption in commercial oil supplies threaten the U.S. economy, to allow the United States to meet part of its International

24 42 FR 63184, 63188 (1977). Energy Agency obligation to maintain emergency oil stocks, and to provide a national defense fuel reserve. Higher U.S. imports of crude oil or refined petroleum products increase the magnitude of these external economic costs, thus increasing the true economic cost of supplying transportation fuels above the resource costs of producing them. Conversely, reducing U.S. imports of crude petroleum or refined fuels or reducing fuel consumption can reduce these external costs.
(c) Air Pollutant Emissions

While reductions in domestic fuel refining and distribution that result from lower fuel consumption will reduce U.S. emissions of various pollutants, additional vehicle use associated with the rebound effect 25 from higher fuel economy will increase emissions of these pollutants. Thus, the net effect of stricter CAFE standards on emissions of each pollutant depends on the relative magnitudes of its reduced emissions in fuel refining and distribution, and increases in its emissions from vehicle use.

Fuel savings from stricter CAFE standards also result in lower emissions of CO 2 , the main greenhouse gas emitted as a result of refining, distribution, and use of transportation fuels. Lower fuel consumption reduces carbon dioxide emissions directly, because the primary source of transportation-related CO 2 emissions is fuel combustion in internal combustion engines.

NHTSA has considered environmental issues, both within the context of EPCA and the National Environmental Policy Act, in making decisions about the setting of standards from the earliest days of the CAFE program. As courts of appeal have noted in three decisions stretching over the last 20 years, 26 NHTSA defined the ‘‘need of the Nation to conserve energy’’ in the late 1970s as including ‘‘the consumer cost, national balance of payments, environmental, and foreign policy implications of our need for large quantities of petroleum, especially imported petroleum.’’ 27 Pursuant to that view, NHTSA declined in the past

25 The ‘‘rebound effect’’ refers to the tendency of drivers to drive their vehicles more as the cost of doing so goes down, as when fuel economy improves.

26 Center for Auto Safety v. NHTSA , 793 F.2d 1322, 1325 n. 12 (D.C. Cir. 1986); Public Citizen v. NHTSA , 848 F.2d 256, 262–3 n. 27 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (noting that ‘‘NHTSA itself has interpreted the factors it must consider in setting CAFE standards as including environmental effects’’); and Center for Biological Diversity v. NHTSA , 538 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2007).

27 42 FR 63184, 63188 (Dec. 15, 1977) (emphasis added). to include diesel engines in determining the appropriate level of standards for passenger cars and for light trucks because particulate emissions from diesels were then both a source of concern and unregulated. 28 In 1988, NHTSA included climate change concepts in its CAFE notices and prepared its first environmental assessment addressing that subject. 29 It cited concerns about climate change as one of its reasons for limiting the extent of its reduction of the CAFE standard for MY 1989 passenger cars. 30 Since then, NHTSA has considered the benefits of reducing tailpipe carbon dioxide emissions in its fuel economy rulemakings pursuant to the statutory requirement to consider the nation’s need to conserve energy by reducing fuel consumption.

ii. Other Factors Considered by NHTSA

NHTSA considers the potential for adverse safety consequences when in establishing CAFE standards. This practice is recognized approvingly in case law. 31 Under the universal or ‘‘flat’’ CAFE standards that NHTSA was previously authorized to establish, the primary risk to safety came from the possibility that manufacturers would respond to higher standards by building smaller, less safe vehicles in order to ‘‘balance out’’ the larger, safer vehicles that the public generally preferred to buy. Under the attribute-based standards being proposed in this action, that risk is reduced because building smaller vehicles tends to raise a manufacturer’s overall CAFE obligation, rather than only raising its fleet averageCAFE. However, even under attributebased standards, there is still risk that manufacturers will rely on downweighting to improve their fuel economy (for a given vehicle at a given

28 For example, the final rules establishing CAFE standards for MY 1981–84 passenger cars, 42 FR 33533, 33540–1 and 33551 (Jun. 30, 1977), and for MY 1983–85 light trucks, 45 FR 81593, 81597 (Dec. 11, 1980).

29 53 FR 33080, 33096 (Aug. 29, 1988).

30 53 FR 39275, 39302 (Oct. 6, 1988).

31 See, e.g., Center for Auto Safety v. NHTSA (CAS) , 793 F.2d 1322 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (Administrator’s consideration of market demand as component of economic practicability found to be reasonable); Public Citizen 848 F.2d 256 (Congress established broad guidelines in the fuel economy statute; agency’s decision to set lower standard was a reasonable accommodation of conflicting policies). As the United States Court of Appeals pointed out in upholding NHTSA’s exercise of judgment in setting the 1987–1989 passenger car standards, ‘‘NHTSA has always examined the safety consequences of the CAFE standards in its overall consideration of relevant factors since its earliest rulemaking under the CAFE program.’’ Competitive Enterprise Institute v. NHTSA (CEI I) , 901 F.2d 107, 120 at n.11 (D.C. Cir. 1990).VerDate Nov<24>2008 23:31 Sep 25, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS 

### Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 186 / Monday, September 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

### 49463

footprint target) in ways that may reduce safety.

In addition, the agency considers consumer demand in establishing new standards and in assessing whether already established standards remained feasible. In the 1980’s, the agency relied in part on the unexpected drop in fuel prices and the resulting unexpected failure of consumer demand for small cars to develop in explaining the need to reduce CAFE standards for a several year period in order to give manufacturers time to develop alternative technology-based strategies for improving fuel economy.

iii. Factors That NHTSA Is Statutorily Prohibited From Considering in Setting Standards

EPCA provides that in determining the level at which it should set CAFE standards for a particular model year, NHTSA may not consider the ability of manufacturers to take advantage of several EPCA provisions that facilitate compliance with the CAFE standards and thereby reduce the costs of compliance. 32 As noted below in Section IV, manufacturers can earn compliance credits by exceeding the CAFE standards and then use those credits to achieve compliance in years in which their measured average fuel economy falls below the standards. Manufacturers can also increase their CAFE levels through MY 2019 by producing alternative fuel vehicles. EPCA provides an incentive for producing these vehicles by specifying that their fuel economy is to be determined using a special calculation procedure that results in those vehicles being assigned a high fuel economy level.

iv. Weighing and Balancing of Factors

NHTSA has broad discretion in balancing the above factors in determining the average fuel economy level that the manufacturers can achieve. Congress ‘‘specifically delegated the process of setting * * * fuel economy standards with broad guidelines concerning the factors that the agency must consider.’’ The breadth of those guidelines, the absence of any statutorily prescribed formula for balancing the factors, the fact that the relative weight to be given to the various factors may change from rulemaking to rulemaking as the underlying facts change, and the fact that the factors may often be conflicting with respect to whether they militate toward higher or lower standards give NHTSA discretion to decide what weight to give each of

32 49 U.S.C. 32902(h). the competing policies and concerns and then determine how to balance them—as long as NHTSA’s balancing does not undermine the fundamental purpose of the EPCA: Energy conservation, and as long as that balancing reasonably accommodates ‘‘conflicting policies that were committed to the agency’s care by the statute.’’

Thus, EPCA does not mandate that any particular number be adopted when NHTSA determines the level of CAFE standards. Rather, any number within a zone of reasonableness may be, in NHTSA’s assessment, the level of stringency that manufacturers can achieve. See, e.g., Hercules Inc. v. EPA, 598 F.2d 91, 106 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (‘‘In reviewing a numerical standard we must ask whether the agency’s numbers are within a zone of reasonableness, not whether its numbers are precisely right’’).

v. Other Requirements Related to Standard Setting

The standards for passenger cars and those for light trucks must increase ratably each year. This statutory requirement is interpreted, in combination with the requirement to set the standards for each model year at the level determined to be the maximum feasible level that manufacturers can achieve for that model year, to mean that the annual increases should not be disproportionately large or small in relation to each other.

The standards for passenger cars and light trucks must be based on one or more vehicle attributes, like size or weight, that correlate with fuel economy and must be expressed in terms of a mathematical function. Fuel economy targets are set for individual vehicles and increase as the attribute decreases and vice versa. For example, size-based (i.e., size-indexed) standards assign higher fuel economy targets to smaller (and generally, but not necessarily, lighter) vehicles and lower ones to larger (and generally, but notnecessarily, heavier) vehicles. The fleetwide average fuel economy that a particular manufacturer is required to achieve depends on the size mix of its fleet, i.e., the proportion of the fleet that is small-, medium- or large-sized.

This approach can be used to require virtually all manufacturers to increase significantly the fuel economy of a broad range of both passenger cars and light trucks, i.e., the manufacturer must improve the fuel economy of all the vehicles in its fleet. Further, this approach can do so without creating an incentive for manufacturers to make small vehicles smaller or large vehicles larger, with attendant implications for safety.

b. Test Procedures for Measuring Fuel Economy

EPCA provides EPA with the responsibility for establishing CAFE test procedures. Current test procedures measure the effects of nearly all fuel saving technologies. The principal exception is improvements in air conditioning efficiency. By statutory law in the case of passenger cars and by administrative regulation in the case of light trucks, air conditioners are not turned on during fuel economy testing. See Section I.C.2 for details.

The fuel economy test procedures for light trucks could be amended through rulemaking to provide for air conditioner operation during testing and to take other steps for improving the accuracy and representativeness of fuel economy measurements. Comment is sought by the agencies regarding implementing such amendments beginning in MY 2017 and also on the more immediate interim alternative step of providing CAFE program credits under the authority of 49 U.S.C. 32904(c) for light trucks equipped with relatively efficient air conditioners for MYs 2012–2016. These CAFE credits would be earned by manufacturers on the same terms and under the same conditions as EPA is proposing to provide them under the CAA, and additional detail is on this request for comment for early CAFE credits is contained in Section IV of this preamble. Modernizing the passenger car test procedures, or even providing similar credits, would not be possible under EPCA as currently written.

c. Enforcement and Compliance Flexibility

EPA is responsible for measuring automobile manufacturers’ CAFE so that NHTSA can determine compliance with the CAFE standards. When NHTSA finds that a manufacturer is not in compliance, it notifies the manufacturer. Surplus credits generated from the five previous years can be used to make up the deficit. The amount of credit earned is determined by multiplying the number of tenths of a mpg by which a manufacturer exceeds a standard for a particular category of automobiles by the total volume of automobiles of that category manufactured by the manufacturer for a given model year. If there are no (or not enough) credits available, then the manufacturer can either pay the fine, or submit a carry back plan to NHTSA. A carry back plan describes what the manufacturer plans to do in theVerDate Nov<24>2008 23:31 Sep 25, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS 

### 49464 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 186 / Monday, September 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules

following three model years to earn enough credits to make up for the deficit. NHTSA must examine and determine whether to approve the plan.

In the event that a manufacturer does not comply with a CAFE standard, even after the consideration of credits, EPCA provides for the assessing of civil penalties, unless, as provided below, the manufacturer has earned credits for exceeding a standard in an earlier year or expects to earn credits in a later
year. 33 The Act specifies a precise formula for determining the amount of civil penalties for such a noncompliance. The penalty, as adjusted for inflation by law, is $5.50 for each tenth of a mpg that a manufacturer’s average fuel economy falls short of the standard for a given model year multiplied by the total volume of those vehicles in the affected fleet (i.e., import or domestic passenger car, or light truck), manufactured for that model year. The amount of the penalty may not be reduced except under the unusual or extreme circumstances specified in the statute.

Unlike the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, EPCA does not provide for recall and remedy in the event of a noncompliance. The presence of recall and remedy provisions 34 in the Safety Act and their absence in EPCA is believed to arise from the difference in the application of the safety standards and CAFE standards. A safety standard applies to individual vehicles; that is, each vehicle must possess the requisite equipment or feature that must provide the requisite type and level of performance. If a vehicle does not, it is noncompliant. Typically, a vehicle does not entirely lack an item or equipment or feature. Instead, the equipment or features fails to perform adequately. Recalling the vehicle to repair or replace the noncompliant equipment or feature can usually be readily accomplished.

In contrast, a CAFE standard applies to a manufacturer’s entire fleet for a model year. It does not require that a particular individual vehicle be equipped with any particular equipment or feature or meet a particular level of fuel economy. It does require that the manufacturer’s fleet, as a whole, comply. Further, although under the attribute-based approach to setting CAFE standards fuel economy targets are established for individual vehicles based on their footprints, the vehicles are not required to comply with those targets. However, as a practical matter,

33 EPCA does not provide authority for seeking to enjoin violations of the CAFE standards.

34 49 U.S.C. 30120, Remedies for defects and noncompliance. if a manufacturer chooses to design some vehicles that fall below their target levels of fuel economy, it will need to design other vehicles that exceed their targets if the manufacturer’s overall fleet average is to meet the applicable standard.

Thus, under EPCA, there is no such thing as a noncompliant vehicle, only a noncompliant fleet. No particular vehicle in a noncompliant fleet is any more, or less, noncompliant than any other vehicle in the fleet.

2. EPA Statutory Authority

Title II of the Clean Air Act (CAA) provides for comprehensive regulation of mobile sources, authorizing EPA to regulate emissions of air pollutants from all mobile source categories. Pursuant to these sweeping grants of authority, EPA considers such issues as technology effectiveness, its cost (both per vehicle, per manufacturer, and per consumer), the lead time necessary to implement the technology, and based on this the feasibility and practicability of potential standards; the impacts of potential standards on emissions reductions of both GHGs and non-GHGs; the impacts of standards on oil conservation and energy security; the impacts of standards on fuel savings by consumers; the impacts of standards on the auto industry; other energy impacts; as well as other relevant factors such as impacts on safety.

This proposal implements a specific provision from Title II, section 202(a). 35 Section 202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) states that ‘‘the Administrator shall by regulation prescribe (and from time to time revise) * * * standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any class or classes of new motor vehicles * * *, which in his judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.’’ If EPA makes the appropriate endangerment and cause or contribute findings, then section 202(a) authorizes EPA to issue standards applicable to emissions of those pollutants.

Any standards under CAA section 202(a)(1) ‘‘shall be applicable to such vehicles * * * for their useful life.’’ Emission standards set by the EPA under CAA section 202(a)(1) are technology-based, as the levels chosen must be premised on a finding of technological feasibility. Thus, standards promulgated under CAA section 202(a) are to take effect only ‘‘after providing such period as the Administrator finds necessary to permit the development and application of the

35 42 U.S.C. 7521(a). requisite technology, giving appropriate consideration to the cost of compliance within such period’’ (section 202(a)(2); see also NRDC v. EPA, 655 F.2d 318, 322 (D.C. Cir. 1981)). EPA is afforded considerable discretion under section 202(a) when assessing issues of technical feasibility and availability of lead time to implement new technology. Such determinations are ‘‘subject to the restraints of reasonableness’’, which ‘‘does not open the door to ‘crystal ball’ inquiry.’’ NRDC, 655 F.2d at 328, quoting International Harvester Co. v. Ruckelshaus, 478 F.2d 615, 629 (D.C. Cir. 1973). However, ‘‘EPA is not obliged to provide detailed solutions to every engineering problem posed in the perfection of the trap-oxidizer. In the absence of theoretical objections to the technology, the agency need only identify the major steps necessary for development of the device, and give plausible reasons for its belief that the industry will be able to solve those problems in the time remaining. The EPA is not required to rebut all speculation that unspecified factors may hinder ‘real world’ emission control.’’ NRDC, 655 F.2d at 333–34. In developing such technology-based standards, EPA has the discretion to consider different standards for appropriate groupings of vehicles (‘‘class or classes of new motor vehicles’’), or a single standard for a larger grouping of motor vehicles (NRDC, 655 F.2d at 338).

Although standards under CAA section 202(a)(1) are technology-based, they are not based exclusively on technological capability. EPA has the discretion to consider and weigh various factors along with technological feasibility, such as the cost of compliance (see section 202(a)(2)), lead time necessary for compliance (section 202(a)(2)), safety (see NRDC, 655 F.2d at 336 n. 31) and other impacts on consumers, and energy impacts associated with use of the technology. See George E. Warren Corp. v. EPA, 159 F.3d 616, 623–624 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (ordinarily permissible for EPA to consider factors not specifically enumerated in the Act). See also Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper, Inc., 129 S.Ct. 1498, 1508–09 (2009) (congressional silence did not bar EPA from employing cost-benefit analysis under Clean Water Act absent some other clear indication that such analysis was prohibited; rather, silence indicated discretion to use or not use such an approach as the agency deems appropriate).

In addition, EPA has clear authority to set standards under CAA section 202(a) that are technology forcing when EPA considers that to be appropriate, but isVerDate Nov<24>2008 23:31 Sep 25, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS 

### Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 186 / Monday, September 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

### 49465

not required to do so (as compared to standards set under provisions such as section 202(a)(3) and section 213(a)(3)). EPA has interpreted a similar statutory provision, CAA section 231, as follows:

While the statutory language of section 231 is not identical to other provisions in title II of the CAA that direct EPA to establish technology-based standards for various types of engines, EPA interprets its authority under section 231 to be somewhat similar to those provisions that require us to identify a reasonable balance of specified emissions reduction, cost, safety, noise, and other factors. See, e.g., Husqvarna AB v. EPA, 254 F.3d 195 (DC Cir. 2001) (upholding EPA’s promulgation of technology-based standards for small non-road engines under section 213(a)(3) of the CAA). However, EPA is not compelled under section 231 to obtain the ‘‘greatest degree of emission reduction achievable’’ as per sections 213 and 202 of the CAA, and so EPA does not interpret the Act as requiring the agency to give subordinate status to factors such as cost, safety, and noise in determining what standards are reasonable for aircraft engines. Rather, EPA has greater flexibility under section 231 in determining what standard is most reasonable for aircraft engines, and is not required to achieve a ‘‘technology forcing’’ result. 36

This interpretation was upheld as reasonable in NACAA v. EPA, (489 F.3d 1221, 1230 (D.C. Cir. 2007)). CAA section 202(a) does not specify the degree of weight to apply to each factor, and EPA accordingly has discretion in choosing an appropriate balance among factors. See Sierra Club v. EPA, 325 F.3d 374, 378 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (even where a provision is technology-forcing, the provision ‘‘does not resolve how the Administrator should weigh all [the statutory] factors in the process of finding the ’greatest emission reduction achievable’ ’’). Also see Husqvarna AB

v. EPA, 254 F. 3d 195, 200 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (great discretion to balance statutory factors in considering level of technology-based standard, and statutory requirement ‘‘to [give appropriate] consideration to the cost of applying * * * technology’’ does not mandate a specific method of cost analysis); see also Hercules Inc. v. EPA, 598 F. 2d 91, 106 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (‘‘In reviewing a numerical standard we must ask whether the agency’s numbers are within a zone of reasonableness, not whether its numbers are precisely right’’); Permian Basin Area Rate Cases, 390 U.S. 747, 797 (1968) (same); Federal Power Commission v. Conway Corp., 426 U.S. 271, 278 (1976) (same); Exxon Mobil Gas Marketing Co. v. FERC, 297 F. 3d 1071, 1084 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (same).

36 70 FR 69664, 69676, November 17, 2005. a. EPA’s Testing Authority Under section 203 of the CAA, sales of vehicles are prohibited unless the vehicle is covered by a certificate of conformity. EPA issues certificates of conformity pursuant to section 206 of the Act, based on (necessarily) pre-sale testing conducted either by EPA or by the manufacturer. The Federal Test Procedure (FTP or ‘‘city’’ test) and the Highway Fuel Economy Test (HFET or ‘‘highway’’ test) are used for this purpose. Compliance with standards is required not only at certification but throughout a vehicle’s useful life, so that testing requirements may continue post-certification. Useful life standards may apply an adjustment factor to account for vehicle emission control deterioration or variability in use (section 206(a)).

Pursuant to EPCA, EPA is required to measure fuel economy for each model and to calculate each manufacturer’s average fuel economy. 37 EPA uses the same tests—the FTP and HFET—for fuel economy testing. EPA established the FTP for emissions measurement in the early 1970s. In 1976, in response to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) statute, EPA extended the use of the FTP to fuel economy measurement and added the HFET. 38 The provisions in the 1976 regulation, effective with the 1977 model year, established procedures to calculate fuel economy values both for labeling and for CAFE purposes. Under EPCA, EPA is required to use these procedures (or procedures which yield comparable results) for measuring fuel economy for cars for CAFE purposes, but not for labeling
purposes. 39 EPCA does not pose this restriction on CAFE test procedures for light trucks, but EPA does use the FTP and HFET for this purpose. EPA determines fuel economy by measuring the amount of CO 2 and all other carbon compounds ( e.g. total hydrocarbons (THC) and carbon monoxide (CO)), and then, by mass balance, calculating the amount of fuel consumed.

b. EPA Enforcement Authority

Section 207 of the CAA grants EPA broad authority to require manufacturers to remedy vehicles if EPA determines there are a substantial number of noncomplying vehicles. In addition, section 205 of the CAA authorizes EPA to assess penalties of up to $37,500 per vehicle for violations of various prohibited acts specified in the CAA. In determining the appropriate

37 See 49 U.S.C. 32904(c).

38 See 41 FR 38674 (Sept. 10, 1976), which is codified at 40 CFR part 600.

39 See 49 U.S.C. 32904(c). penalty, EPA must consider a variety of factors such as the gravity of the violation, the economic impact of the violation, the violator’s history of compliance, and ‘‘such other matters as justice may require.’’ Unlike EPCA, the CAA does not authorize vehicle manufacturers to pay fines in lieu of meeting emission standards.

3. Comparing the Agencies’ Authority

As the above discussion makes clear, there are both important differences between the statutes under which each agency is acting as well as several important areas of similarity. One important difference is that EPA’s authority addresses various GHGs, while NHTSA’s authority addresses fuel economy as measured under specified test procedures. This difference is reflected in this rulemaking in the scope of the two standards: EPA’s proposal takes into account air conditioning related reductions, as well as proposed standards for methane and N 2 O, but NHTSA’s does not. A second important difference is that EPA is proposing certain compliance flexibilities, and takes those flexibilities into account in its technical analysis and modeling supporting its proposal. EPCA places certain limits on compliance flexibilities for CAFE, and expressly prohibits NHTSA from considering the impacts of the compliance flexibilities in setting the CAFE standard so that the manufacturers’ election to avail themselves of the permitted flexibilities remains strictly voluntary. 40 The Clean Air Act, on the other hand, contains no such prohibition. These considerations result in some differences in the technical analysis and modeling used to support EPA’s and NHTSA’s proposed standards.

These differences, however, do not change the fact that in many critical ways the two agencies are charged with addressing the same basic issue of reducing GHG emissions and improving fuel economy. Given the direct relationship between emissions of CO 2 and fuel economy levels, both agencies are looking at the same set of control technologies (with the exception of the air conditioning related technologies). The standards set by each agency will drive the kind and degree of penetration of this set of technologies across the vehicle fleet. As a result, each agency is trying to answer the same basic question—what kind and degree of technology penetration is necessary to achieve the agencies’ objectives in the rulemaking time frame, given the

40 74 FR 24009 (May 22, 2009).VerDate Nov<24>2008 23:31 Sep 25, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS 

### 49466 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 186 / Monday, September 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules

agencies’ respective statutory authorities?

In making the determination of what standards are appropriate under the CAA and EPCA, each agency is to exercise its judgment and balance many similar factors, such as the availability of technologies, the appropriate lead time for introduction of technology, and based on this the feasibility and practicability of their standards; the impacts of their standards on emissionsreductions (of both GHGs and nonGHGs); the impacts of their standards on oil conservation; the impacts of their standards on fuel savings by consumers; the impacts of their standards on the auto industry; as well as other relevant factors such as impacts on safety. Conceptually, therefore, each agency is considering and balancing many of the same factors, and each agency is making a decision that at its core is answering the same basic question of what kind and degree of technology penetration is it appropriate to call for in light of all of the relevant factors. Finally, each agency has the authority to take into consideration impacts of the standards of the other agency. EPCA calls for NHTSA to take into consideration the effects of EPA’s emissions standards on fuel economy capability ( see 49 U.S.C. 32902 (f)), and EPA has the discretion to take into consideration NHTSA’s CAFE standards in determining appropriate action under section 202(a). This is consistent with the Supreme Court’s statement that EPA’s mandate to protect public health and welfare is wholly independent from NHTSA’s mandate to promote energy efficiency, but there is no reason to think the two agencies cannot both administer their obligations and yet avoid inconsistency. Massachusetts v. EPA , 549 U.S. 497, 532 (2007).

In this context, it is in the Nation’s interest for the two agencies to work together in developing their respective proposed standards, and they have done so. For example, the agencies have committed considerable effort to develop a joint Technical Support Document that provides a technical basis underlying each agency’s analyses. The agencies also have worked closely together in developing and reviewing their respective modeling, to develop the best analysis and to promote technical consistency. The agencies have developed a common set of attribute-based curves that each agency supports as appropriate both technically and from a policy perspective. The agencies have also worked closely to ensure that their respective programs will work in a coordinated fashion, and will provide regulatory compatibility that allows auto manufacturers to build a single national light-duty fleet that would comply with both the GHG and the CAFE standards. The resulting overall close coordination of the proposed GHG and CAFE standards should not be surprising, however, as each agency is using a jointly developed technical basis to address the closely intertwined challenges of energy security and climate change. As discussed above, in determining the standards to propose the agencies are called upon to weigh and balance various factors that are relevant under their respective statutory provisions. Each agency is to exercise its judgment and balance many similar factors, such as the availability of technologies, the appropriate lead time for introduction of technology, and based on this, the feasibility and practicability of their standards; and the impacts of their standards on the following: Emissionsreductions (of both GHGs and nonGHGs); oil conservation; fuel savings by consumers; the auto industry; as well as other relevant factors such as safety. Conceptually, each agency is considering and balancing many of the same factors, and each agency is making a decision that at its core is answering the same basic question of what kind and degree of technology penetration is appropriate and required in light of all of the relevant factors. Each Administrator is called upon to exercise judgment and propose standards that the Administrator determines are a reasonable balance of these relevant factors.

As set out in detail in Sections III and IV of this notice, both EPA and NHTSA believe the agencies’ proposals are fully justified under their respective statutory criteria. The proposed standards can be achieved within the lead time provided, based on a projected increased use of various technologies which in most cases are already in commercial application in the fleet to varying degrees. Detailed modeling of the technologies that could be employed by each manufacturer supports this initial conclusion. The agencies also carefully assessed the costs of the proposed rules, both for the industry as a whole and per manufacturer, as well as the costs per vehicle, and consider these costs to be reasonable and recoverable (from fuel savings). The agencies recognize the significant increase in the application of technology that the proposed standards would require across a high percentage of vehicles, which will require the manufacturers to devote considerable engineering and development resources before 2012 laying the critical foundation for the widespread deployment of upgraded technology across a high percentage of the 2012– 2016 fleet. This clearly will be challenging for automotive manufacturers and their suppliers, especially in the current economic climate. However, based on all of the analyses performed by the agencies, our judgment is that it is a challenge that can reasonably be met.

The agencies also evaluated the impacts of these standards with respect to the expected reductions in GHGs and oil consumption and, found them to be very significant in magnitude. The agencies considered other factors such as the impacts on noise, energy, and vehicular congestion. The impact on safety was also given careful consideration. Moreover, the agencies quantified the various costs and benefits of the proposed standards, to the extent practicable. The agencies’ analyses to date indicate that the overall quantified benefits of the proposed standards far outweigh the projected costs. All of these factors support the reasonableness of the proposed standards.

The agencies also evaluated alternatives which were less and more stringent than those proposed. Less stringent standards, however, would forego important GHG emission reductions and fuel savings that are technically achievable at reasonable cost in the lead time provided. In addition, less stringent GHG standards would not result in a harmonized National Program for the country. Based on California’s letter of May 18, 2009, the GHG emission standards would not result in the State of California revising its regulations such that compliance with EPA’s GHG standards would be deemed to be compliance with California’s GHG standards for these model years. The substantial cost advantages associated with a single national program discussed at the outset of this section would then be foregone.

The agencies are not proposing any of the more stringent alternatives analyzed largely due to concerns over lead time and economic practicability. The proposed standards already require aggressive application of technologies, and more stringent standards which would require more widespread use (including more substantial implementation of advanced technologies such as strong hybrids) raise serious issues of adequacy of lead time, not only to meet the standards but to coordinate such significant changes with manufacturers’ redesign cycles. At a time when the entire industry remains in an economically critical state, the agencies believe that it would beVerDate Nov<24>2008 23:31 Sep 25, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS 

### Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 186 / Monday, September 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

### 49467

unreasonable to propose more stringent standards. Even in a case where economic factors were not a consideration, there are real-world time constraints which must be considered due to the short lead time available for the early years of this program, in particular for model years 2012 and 2013. The physical processes which the automotive industry must follow in order to introduce reliable, high quality products require certain minimums of time during the product development process. These include time needed for durability testing which requires significant mileage accumulation under a range of conditions ( e.g. , high and low temperatures, high altitude, etc. ) in both real-world and laboratory conditions. In addition, the product developmentcycle includes a number of preproduction gateways on the manufacturing side at both the supplier level and at the automotive manufacturer level that are constrained by time. Thus adequate lead-time is an important factor that the agencies have taken into consideration in evaluating the proposed standards as well as the alternative standards.

As noted, both agencies also considered the overall costs of their respective proposed standards in relation to the projected benefits. The fact that the benefits are estimated to considerably exceed their costs supports the view that the proposed standards represent a reasonable balance of the relevant statutory factors. In drawing this conclusion, the agencies acknowledge the uncertainties and limitations of the analyses. For example, the analysis of the benefits is highly dependent on the estimated price of fuel projected out many years into the future. There is also significant uncertainty in the potential range of values that could be assigned to the social cost of carbon. There are a variety of impacts that the agencies are unable to quantify, such as non-market damages, extreme weather, socially contingent effects, or the potential for longer-term catastrophic events, or the impact on consumer choice. The agencies also note the need to consider factors such as the availability of technology within the lead time provided and many of the other factors discussed above. The cost-benefit analyses are one of the important things the agencies consider in making a judgment as to the appropriate standards to propose under their respective statutes. Consideration of the results of the cost-benefit analyses by the agencies, however, includes careful consideration of the limitations discussed above.

One important area where the two agencies’ authorities are similar but not identical involves the transfer of credits between a single firm’s car and truck fleets. EISA revised EPCA to allow for such credit transfers, but with a cap on the amount of CAFE credits which can be transferred between the car and truck fleets. 49 U.S.C. 32903(g)(3). Under CAA section 202(a), EPA is proposing to allow CO 2 credit transfers between a single manufacturer’s car and truck fleets, with no corresponding limits on such transfers. In general, the EPCA limit on CAFE credit transfers is not expected to have the practical effect of limiting the amount of CO 2 emission credits manufacturers may be able to transfer under the CAA program, recognizing that manufacturers must comply with both the proposed CAFE standards and the proposed EPA standards. However, it is possible that in some specific circumstances the EPCA limit on CAFE credit transfers could constrain the ability of a manufacturer to achieve cost savings through unlimited use of GHG emissions credit transfers under the CAA program.

The agencies request comment on the impact of the EISA credit transfer caps on the implementation of the proposed CAFE and GHG standards, including whether it would impose such a constraint and the impacts of a constraint on costs, emissions, and fuel economy. In addition, the agencies invite comment on approaches that could assist in addressing this issue, recognizing the importance the agencies place on harmonization, and that would be consistent with their respective statutes. For example, any approach must be consistent with both the EISA transfer caps and the EPCA requirement to set annual CAFE standards at the maximum feasible average fuel economy level that NHTSA decides the manufacturers can achieve in that model year, based on the agency’s consideration of the four statutory factors. Manufacturers should submit publicly available evidence supporting their position on this issue so that a well informed decision can be made and explained to the public.

D. Summary of the Proposed Standards for the National Program

1. Joint Analytical Approach

NHTSA and EPA have worked closely together on nearly every aspect of this joint proposal. The extent and results of this collaboration is reflected in the elements of the respective NHTSA and EPA proposals, as well as the analytical work contained in the Joint Technical Support Document (Joint TSD). The Joint TSD, in particular, describes important details of the analytical work that are shared, as well as any differences in approach. These includes the build up of the baseline and reference fleets, the derivation of the shape of the curve that defines the standards, a detailed description of the costs and effectiveness of the technology choices that are available to vehicle manufacturers, a summary of the computer models used to estimate how technologies might be added to vehicles, and finally the economic inputs used to calculate the impacts and benefits of the rules, where practicable. Some of these are highlighted below.

EPA and NHTSA have jointly developed attribute curve shapes that each agency is using for its proposed standards. Both agencies reviewed the shape of the attribute-based curve used for the model year 2011 CAFE standards. After a new and thorough analysis of current vehicle data and the comments received from previous two CAFE rules, the two agencies improved upon the constrained logistic curve and developed a similarly shaped piece-wise linear function. Further details of these functions can be found in Sections III and IV of this preamble as well as Chapter 2 of the Joint TSD.

A critical technical underpinning of each agency’s proposal is the cost and effectiveness of the various control technologies. These are used to analyze the feasibility and cost of potential GHG and CAFE standards. The technical work reflected in the joint TSD is the culmination of over 3 years of literature research, consultation with experts, detailed computer simulations, vehicle tear-downs and engineering review, all of which will continue into the future as more data becomes available. To promote transparency, the vast majority of this information is collected from publically available sources, and can befound in the docket of this rule. Nonpublic (i.e., confidential manufacturer) information was used only to the limited extent it was needed to fill a data void. A detailed description of all of the technology information considered can be found in Chapter 3 of the Joint TSD (and for A/C, Chapter 2 of the EPA RIA).

This detailed technology data forms the inputs to computer models that each agency uses to project how vehicle manufacturers may add those technologies in order to comply with new standards. These are the OMEGA and Volpe models for EPA and NHTSA respectively. The Volpe model isVerDate Nov<24>2008 23:31 Sep 25, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS 

### 49468 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 186 / Monday, September 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules

tailored for NHTSA’s EPCA and EISA needs, while the OMEGA model is tailored for EPA’s CAA needs. In developing the National Program, EPA and NHTSA have worked closely to ensure that consistent and reasonable results are achieved from both models. This fruitful collaboration has resulted in the improvement of both approaches and now, far from being redundant, these models serve the purposes of the respective agencies while also maintaining an important validating role. The models and their inputs can also be found in the docket. Further description of the model and outputs can be found in Sections II and IV of this preamble, and Chapter 3 of the Joint TSD.

This comprehensive joint analytical approach has provided a sound and consistent technical basis for each agency in developing its proposed standards, which are summarized in the sections below.

2. Level of the Standards

In this notice, EPA and NHTSA are proposing two separate sets of standards, each under its respective statutory authorities. EPA is proposing national CO 2 emissions standards for light-duty vehicles under section 202 (a) of the Clean Air Act. These standards would require these vehicles to meet an estimated combined average emissions level of 250 grams/mile of CO 2 in model year 2016. NHTSA is proposing CAFE standards for passenger cars and light trucks under 49 U.S.C. 32902. These standards would require them to meet an estimated combined average fuel economy level of 34.1 mpg in model year 2016. The proposed standards for both agencies begin with the 2012 model year, with standards increasing in stringency through model year 2016. They represent a harmonized approach that will allow industry to build a single national fleet that will satisfy both the GHG requirements under the CAA and CAFE requirements under EPCA/EISA.

Given differences in their respective statutory authorities, however, the agencies’ proposed standards include some important differences. Under the CO 2 fleet average standard proposed under CAA section 202(a), EPA expects manufacturers to take advantage of the option to generate CO 2 -equivalent credits by reducing emissions of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and CO 2 through improvements in their air conditioner systems. EPA accounted for these reductions in developing its proposed CO 2 standard. EPCA does not allow vehicle manufacturers to use air conditioning credits in complying with CAFE standards for passenger cars. 41 CO 2 emissions due to air conditioning operation are not measured by the test procedure mandated by statute for use in establishing and enforcing CAFE standards for passenger cars. As a result, improvements in the efficiency of passenger car air conditioners would not be considered as a possible control technology for purposes of CAFE.

These differences regarding the treatment of air conditioning improvements (related to CO 2 and HFC reductions) affect the relative stringency of the EPA standard and NHTSA standard. The 250 grams per mile of CO 2 equivalent emissions limit is equivalent to 35.5 mpg 42 if the automotive industry were to meet this CO 2 level all through fuel economy improvements. As a consequence of the prohibition against NHTSA’s allowing credits for air conditioning improvements for purposes of passenger car CAFE compliance, NHTSA is proposing fuel economy standards that are estimated to require a combined (passenger car and light truck) average fuel economy level of 34.1 mpg by MY 2016. NHTSA and EPA’s proposed standards, like the standards NHTSA promulgated in March 2009 for model year 2011 (MY 2011), are expressed as mathematical functions depending on vehicle footprint. Footprint is one measure of vehicle size, and is determined by multiplying the vehicle’s wheelbase by the vehicle’s average track width. 43 The standards that must be met by the fleet of each manufacturer wouldbe determined by computing the salesweighted harmonic average of the targets applicable to each of the manufacturer’s passenger cars and lighttrucks. Under these proposed footprintbased standards, the levels required of individual manufacturers depend, as noted above, on the mix of vehicles sold. NHTSA and EPA’s respective proposed standards are shown in the tables below. It is important to note that the standards are the attribute-based curves proposed by each agency. The values in the tables below reflect the agencies’ projection of the corresponding fleet levels that would result from these attribute-based curves.

As shown in Table I.D.2–1, NHTSA’s proposed fleet-wide CAFE-required levels for passenger cars under the proposed standards are projected to increase from 33.6 to 38.0 mpg betweenMY 2012 and MY 2016. Similarly, fleetwide CAFE levels for light trucks are projected to increase from 25.0 to 28.3 mpg. These numbers do not include the effects of other flexibilities and credits in the program. NHTSA has also estimated the average fleet-wide required levels for the combined car and truck fleets. As shown, the overall fleet average CAFE level is expected to be

34.1 mpg in MY 2016. These standards represent a 4.3 percent average annual rate of increase relative to the MY 2011 standards. 44



### TABLE 

### I.D.2–1—AVERAGE 

### R EQUIRED 

### F UEL 

### E CONOMY 

### ( MPG 

### ) U NDER 

### P ROPOSED 

### CAFE S TANDARDS

2011- base 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Passenger Cars ....................................................................................... 30.2 33.6 34.4 35.2 36.4 3 8.0 Light Trucks ............................................................................................. 24.1 25.0 25.6 26.2 27.1 28.3 Combined Cars & Trucks ........................................................................ 27.3 29.8 30.6 31.4 32.6 34.1

41 There is no such statutory limitation with respect to light trucks.

42 The agencies are using a common conversion factor between fuel economy in units of miles per gallon and CO 2 emissions in units of grams per mile. This conversion factor is 8,887 grams CO 2 per gallon gasoline fuel. Diesel fuel has a conversion factor of 10,180 grams CO 2 per gallon diesel fuel though for the purposes of this calculation, we are assuming 100% gasoline fuel. 43 See 49 CFR 523.2 for the exact definition of ‘‘footprint.’’

44 Because required CAFE levels depend on the mix of vehicles sold by manufacturers in a model year, NHTSA’s estimate of future required CAFE levels depends on its estimate of the mix of vehicles that will be sold in that model year. NHTSA currently estimates that the MY 2011 standards will require average fuel economy levels of 30.5 mpg for passenger cars, 24.2 mpg for light trucks, and 27.6 mpg for the combined fleet.VerDate Nov<24>2008 23:31 Sep 25, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS 

### Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 186 / Monday, September 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

### 49469

Accounting for the expectation that use FFV credits, NHTSA estimates that projections of what each manufacturer’s some manufacturers would continue to the proposed CAFE standards would fleet will comprise in each year of the pay civil penalties rather than achieving lead to the following average achieved program: 45 required CAFE levels, and the ability to fuel economy levels, based on the



### TABLE 

### I.D.2–2—P ROJECTED 

### F LEET

### -W IDE 

### ACHIEVED 

### CAFE L EVELS 

### U NDER THE 

### P ROPOSED 

### F OOTPRINT

### -B ASED 

### CAFE S TANDARDS 

### ( MPG 

### )

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Passenger Cars .................................................................................................................

.............. Light Trucks ...................................................................................................................

.................. Combined Cars & Trucks .........................................................................................................

....... 32.5 24.1 28.7 33.4 24.6 29.6 34.3 25.3 30.4 35.3 26.3 31.6 36.5 27.0 32.7

NHTSA is also required by EISA to set Secretary for the combined domestic for comparison, the final MY 2011 a minimum fuel economy standard for and non-domestic passenger automobile standard) are summarized below in domestically manufactured passenger fleets manufactured for sale in the Table I.D.2–3. 47 For eventual cars in addition to the attribute-based United States by all manufacturers in compliance calculations, the final passenger car standard. The minimum the model year * * *.’’ 46 calculated minimum standards will be Based on NHTSA’s current market standard ‘‘shall be the greater of (A) 27.5 updated to reflect any changes in the forecast, the agency’s estimates of these miles per gallon; or (B) 92 percent of the average fuel economy level required minimum standards under the proposed average fuel economy projected by the under the final standards. MY 2012–2016 CAFE standards (and,



### TABLE 

### I.D.2–3—E STIMATED 

### M INIMUM 

### S TANDARD FOR 

### D OMESTICALLY 

### M ANUFACTURED 

### P ASSENGER 

### C ARS 

### U NDER 

### F INAL 

### MY 2011 AND 

### P ROPOSED 

### MY 2012–2016 CAFE S TANDARDS FOR 

### P ASSENGER 

### C ARS 

### ( MPG 

### )

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

28.0 ...............................

............................................................................................ ....................... 30.9 31.6 32.4 33.5 34.9

EPA is proposing GHG emissions overall fleet-wide CO 2 equivalent include the projected use of A/C credits standards, and Table I.D.2–4 provides emission levels. 48 The g/mi values are by manufacturers. EPA’s estimates of their projected CO 2 equivalent values because they



### TABLE 

### I.D.2–4—P ROJECTED 

### F LEET

### -W IDE 

### E MISSIONS 

### C OMPLIANCE 

### L EVELS 

### U NDER THE 

### P ROPOSED 

### F OOTPRINT

### -B ASED 

### CO 2 

### S TANDARDS 

### ( G

### /MI 

### )

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Passenger Cars .................................................................................................................

.............. Light Trucks ...................................................................................................................

.................. Combined Cars & Trucks .........................................................................................................

....... 261 352 295 253 341 286 246 332 276 235 317 263 224 302 250

As shown in Table I.D.2–4, projected fleet-wide CO 2 emission level requirements for cars under the proposed approach are projected to increase in stringency from 261 to 224 grams per mile between MY 2012 and MY 2016. Similarly, fleet-wide CO 2 equivalent emission level requirements for trucks are projected to increase in stringency from 352 to 302 grams per mile. As shown, the overall fleet average CO 2 level requirements are projected to be 250 g/mile in 2016.

45 NHTSA’s estimates account for availability of CAFE credits for the sale of flexibly-fuel vehicles (FFVs), and for the potential that some manufacturers would pay civil penalties rather than complying with the proposed CAFE standards. This yields NHTSA’s estimates of the real-world fuel economy that could be achieved under the proposed CAFE standards. NHTSA has not EPA anticipates that manufacturers will take advantage of program flexibilities such as flex fueled vehicle credits, and car/truck credit trading. Due to the credit trading between cars and trucks, the estimated improvements in CO 2 emissions are distributed differently than shown in Table I.D 2– 4, where full manufacturer compliance is assumed. Table I.D.2–5 shows EPA projection of the achieved emission levels of the fleet for MY 2012 through 2016, which does consider the impact of

included any potential impact of car-truck credit transfer in its estimate of the achieved CAFE levels.

46 49 U.S.C. 32902(b)(4).

47 In the March 2009 final rule establishing MY 2011 standards for passenger cars and light trucks, NHTSA estimated that the minimum required CAFE standard for domestically manufactured passenger cars would be 27.8 mpg under the MY 2011 passenger car standard. Based on the agency’s car/truck credit transfer and the increase in emissions due to program flexibilities including flex fueled vehicle credits and the temporary leadtime allowance alternative standards. The use of optional air conditioning credits is considered both in this analysis of achieved levels and of the projected levels described above.. As can be seen in Table I.D.2–5, the projected achieved levels are slightly higher for model years 2012–2015 due to the projected use of the proposed flexibilities, but in model

current forecast of the MY 2011 passenger car market, NHTSA now estimates that the minimum required CAFE standard will be 28.0 mpg in MY

2011.

48 These levels do not include the effect of flexible fuel credits, transfer of credits between cars and trucks, temporary lead time allowance, or any other credits with the exception of air conditioning.VerDate Nov<24>2008 23:31 Sep 25, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS 

### 49470 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 186 / Monday, September 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules

year 2016 the achieved value is projected to be 250 g/mi for the fleet.



### TABLE 

### I.D.2–5—P ROJECTED 

### F LEET

### -W IDE 

### ACHIEVED 

### E MISSION 

### L EVELS 

### U NDER THE 

### P ROPOSED 

### F OOTPRINT

### -B ASED 

### CO 2 

### S TANDARDS 

### ( G

### /MI 

### )

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Passenger Cars .................................................................................................................

.............. Light Trucks ...................................................................................................................

.................. Combined Cars & Trucks .........................................................................................................

....... 264 365 302 254 355 291 245 346 281 232 332 267 220 311 250

NHTSA’s and EPA’s technology assessment indicates there is a wide range of technologies available for manufacturers to consider in upgrading vehicles to reduce GHG emissions and improve fuel economy. 49 As noted, these include improvements to the engines such as use of gasoline direct injection and downsized engines that use turbochargers to provide performance similar to that of larger engines, the use of advancedtransmissions, increased use of startstop technology, improvements in tire performance, reductions in vehicle weight, increased use of hybrid and other advanced technologies, and the initial commercialization of electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids. EPA is also projecting improvements in vehicle air conditioners including more efficient as well as low leak systems. All of these technologies are already available today, and EPA’s and NHTSA’s assessment is that manufacturers would be able to meet the proposed standards through more widespread use of these technologies across the fleet.

With respect to the practicability of the standards in terms of lead time, during MYs 2012–2016 manufacturers are expected to go through the normal automotive business cycle ofredesigning and upgrading their lightduty vehicle products, and in some cases introducing entirely new vehicles not on the market today. This proposal would allow manufacturers the time needed to incorporate technology to achieve GHG reductions and improve fuel economy during the vehicle redesign process. This is an important aspect of the proposal, as it avoids the much higher costs that would occur if manufacturers needed to add or change technology at times other than their scheduled redesigns. This time period would also provide manufacturers the opportunity to plan for compliance using a multi-year time frame, again consistent with normal business

49 The close relationship between emissions of CO 2—the most prevalent greenhouse gas emitted by motor vehicles—and fuel consumption, means that the technologies to control CO 2 emissions and to improve fuel economy overlap to a great degree practice. Over these five model years, there would be an opportunity for manufacturers to evaluate almost every one of their vehicle model platforms and add technology in a cost effective way to control GHG emissions and improve fuel economy. This includes redesign of the air conditioner systems in ways that will further reduce GHG emissions.

Both agencies considered other standards as part of the rulemaking analyses, both more and less stringent than those proposed. EPA’s and NHTSA’s analysis of alternative standards are contained in Sections III and IV of this notice, respectively.

The CAFE and GHG standards described above are based on determining emissions and fuel economy using the city and highway test procedures that are currently used in the CAFE program. Both agencies recognize that these test procedures are not fully representative of real world driving conditions. For example EPA has adopted more representative test procedures that are used in determining compliance with emissions standards for pollutants other than GHGs. These test procedures are also used in EPA’s fuel economy labeling program. However, as discussed in Section III, the current information on effectiveness of the individual emissions control technologies is based on performance over the two CAFE test procedures. For that reason EPA is proposing to use the current CAFE test procedures for the proposed CO 2 standards and is not proposing to change those test procedures in this rulemaking. NHTSA, as discussed above, is limited by statute in what test procedures can be used for purposes of passenger car testing; however there is no such statutory limitation with respect to test procedures for trucks. However, the same reasons for not changing the truck test procedures apply for CAFE as well.

Both EPA and NHTSA are interested in developing programs that employ test procedures that are more representative of real world driving conditions, to the extent authorized under their respective statutes. This is an important issue, and the agencies intend to address it in the context of a future rulemaking to address standards for model year 2017 and thereafter. This could include a range of test procedure changes to better represent real-world driving conditions in terms of speed, acceleration, deceleration, ambient temperatures, use of air conditioners, and the like. With respect to air conditioner operation, EPA discusses the procedures it intends to use for determining emissions credits for controls on air conditioners in Section III. Comment is also invited in Section IV on the issue of providing air conditioner credits under 49 U.S.C. 32902 and/or 32904 for light-trucks in the model years covered by this proposal.

Finally, based on the information EPA developed in its recent rulemaking that updated its fuel economy labelingprogram to better reflect average realworld fuel economy, the calculation of fuel savings and CO 2 emissions reductions obtained by the proposed CAFE and GHG standards includes adjustments to account for the difference between the fuel economy level measured in the CAFE test procedure and the fuel economy actually achieved on average under real world driving conditions. These adjustments are industry averages for the vehicles’ performance as a whole, however, and are not a substitute for the information on effectiveness of individual control technologies that will be explored for purposes of a future GHG and CAFE rulemaking.

3. Form of the Standards

In this rule, NHTSA and EPA are proposing attribute-based standards for passenger cars and light trucks. NHTSA adopted an attribute standard based on vehicle footprint in its Reformed CAFE program for light trucks for model years 2008–2011, 50 and recently extended this approach to passenger cars in the CAFE rule for MY 2011 as required by EISA. 51 EPA and NHTSA are proposing vehicle footprint as the attribute for the GHG

50 71 FR 17566 (Apr. 6, 2006).

51 74 FR 14196 (Mar. 30, 2009).VerDate Nov<24>2008 23:31 Sep 25, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS 

### Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 186 / Monday, September 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

### 49471

and CAFE standards. Footprint is defined as a vehicle’s wheelbase multiplied by its track width—in other words, the area enclosed by the points at which the wheels meet the ground. The agencies believe that the footprint attribute is the most appropriate attribute on which to base the standards under consideration, as further discussed later in this notice and in Chapter 2 of the joint TSD.

Under the proposed footprint-based standards, each manufacturer would have a GHG and CAFE target unique to its fleet, depending on the footprints of the vehicle models produced by that manufacturer. A manufacturer would have separate footprint-based standards for cars and for trucks. Generally, larger vehicles (i.e. , vehicles with larger footprints) would be subject to less stringent standards (i.e. , higher CO 2 grams/mile standards and lower CAFE standards) than smaller vehicles. This is because, generally speaking, smaller vehicles are more capable of achieving higher standards than larger vehicles. While a manufacturer’s fleet average standard could be estimated throughout the model year based on projected production volume of its vehicle fleet, the standard to which the manufacturer must comply would be based on its final model year production figures. A manufacturer’s calculation of fleet average emissions at the end of the model year would thus be based on the production-weighted average emissions of each model in its fleet.

In designing the footprint-based standards, the agencies built upon the footprint standard curves for passenger cars and light trucks used in the CAFE rule for MY 2011. 52 EPA and NHTSA

52 74 FR 14407–14409 (Mar. 30, 2009). worked together to design car and truck footprint curves that followed from logistic curves used in that rule. The agencies started by addressing two main concerns regarding the car curve. The first concern was that the 2011 car curve was relatively steep near the inflection point thus causing concern that small variations in footprint could produce relatively large changes in fuel economy targets. A curve that was directionally less steep would reduce the potential for gaming. The second issue was that the inflection point of the logistic curve was not centered on the distribution of vehicle footprints across the industries’ fleet, thus resulting in a flat (universal or unreformed) standard for over half the fleet. The proposed car curve has been shifted and made less steep compared to the car curve adopted by NHTSA for 2011, such that it better aligns the sloped region with higher production volume vehicle models. Finally, both the car and truck curves are defined in terms of a constrained linear function for fuel consumption and, equivalently, a piece-wise linear function for CO 2 . NHTSA and EPA include a full discussion of the development of these curves in the joint TSD and a summary is found in Section II below. In addition, a full discussion of the equations and coefficients that define the curves is included in Section III for the CO 2 curves and Section IV for the mpg curves. The following figures illustrate the standards. First Figure I.D.3–1 shows the fuel economy (mpg) car standard curve.

Under an attribute-based standard, every vehicle model has a performance target (fuel economy for the CAFE standards, and CO 2 g/mile for the GHG emissions standards), the level of which depends on the vehicle’s attribute (for this proposal, footprint). The manufacturers’ fleet average performance is determined by the production-weighed 53 average (for CAFE, harmonic average) of those targets. NHTSA and EPA are proposing CAFE and CO 2 emissions standards defined by constrained linear functions and, equivalently, piecewise linear functions. 54 As a possible option for future rulemakings, the constrained linear form was introduced by NHTSA in the 2007 NPRM proposing CAFE standards for MY 2011–2015.

NHTSA is proposing the attribute curves below for assigning a fuel economy level to an individual vehicle’s footprint value, for model years 2012 through 2016. These mpg values would be production weighted to determine each manufacturer’s fleet average standard for cars and trucks. Although the general model of the equation is the same for each vehicle category and each year, the parameters of the equation differ for cars and trucks. Each parameter also changes on an annual basis, resulting in the yearly increases in stringency. Figure I.D.3–1 below illustrates the passenger car CAFE standard curves for model years 2012 through 2016 while Figure I.D.3–2 below illustrates the light truck standard curves for model years 2012–2016. The MY 2011 final standards for cars and trucks, which are specified by a constrained logistic function rather than a constrained linear function, are shown for comparison.

**BILLING CODE 4910–59–P**

53 Production for sale in the United States.

54 The equations are equivalent but are specified differently due to differences in the agencies’ respective models.VerDate Nov<24>2008 23:31 Sep 25, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2EP28SE09.000</GPH>mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS 

### 49472 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 186 / Monday, September 28, 2009 / Proposed RulesVerDate Nov<24>2008 23:31 Sep 25, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2EP28SE09.001</GPH>mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS 

### Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 186 / Monday, September 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

### 49473

EPA is proposing the attribute curves below for assigning a CO 2 level to an individual vehicle’s footprint value, for model years 2012 through 2016. These CO 2 values would be production weighted to determine each manufacturer’s fleet average standard for cars and trucks. Although the general model of the equation is the same for each vehicle category and each year, the parameters of the equation differ for cars and trucks. Each parameter also changes on an annual basis, resulting in the yearly increases in stringency. Figure I.D.3–3 below illustrates the CO 2 car standard curves for model years 2012 through 2016 while Figure I.D.3–4 shows the CO 2 truck standard curves for Model Years

2012–2016.VerDate Nov<24>2008 23:31 Sep 25, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2EP28SE09.002</GPH>mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS 

### 49474 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 186 / Monday, September 28, 2009 / Proposed RulesVerDate Nov<24>2008 23:31 Sep 25, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2EP28SE09.003</GPH>mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS 

### Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 186 / Monday, September 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

### 49475

**BILLING CODE 4910–59–C** NHTSA CAFE program would also be standards as those used in the CAFE

NHTSA and EPA propose to use the classified as a car under the EPA GHG program for the 2011 model year same vehicle category definitions for program, and likewise for trucks. EPA standards. 55 This proposed approach of determining which vehicles are subject and NHTSA are proposing to employ using CAFE definitions allows EPA’s to the car footprint curves versus the the same car and truck definitions for truck curve standards. In other words, a the MY 2012–2016 CAFE and GHG vehicle classified as a car under the 55 49 CFR part 523.VerDate Nov<24>2008 23:31 Sep 25, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS 

### 49476 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 186 / Monday, September 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules

proposed CO 2 standards and the can be relatively neutral with respect to distribution of different vehicle sizes in proposed CAFE standards to be vehicle size and consumer choice. All the fleet, which means that consumers harmonized across all vehicles. EPA is vehicles, whether smaller or larger, will still be able to purchase the size of not changing the car/truck definition for must make improvements to reduce CO 2 vehicle that meets their needs. Table the purposes of any other previous rule. emissions, and therefore all vehicles I.D.3–1 illustrates the fact that different

Generally speaking, a smaller will be relatively more expensive. With vehicle sizes will have varying CO 2 footprint vehicle will have lower CO 2 the footprint-based standard approach, emissions and fuel economy targets emissions relative to a larger footprint EPA and NHTSA believe there should under the proposed standards. vehicle. A footprint-based CO 2 standard be no significant effect on the relative



### TABLE 

### I.D.3–1—M ODEL 

### Y EAR 

### 2016 CO 2 AND 

### F UEL 

### E CONOMY 

### TARGETS FOR 

### VARIOUS 

### MY 2008 V EHICLE 

### TYPES

Vehicle type Example models Example model footprint (sq. ft.) CO 2 emissions target (g/mi) Fuel economy target (mpg)

Compact car .................................................... Midsize car ...................................................... Fullsize car ...................................................... Honda Fit .......................................................

. Ford Fusion ...................................................

. Chrysler 300 .................................................

.. 40 46 53 214 237 270 41.4 37.3 32.8 **Example Passenger Cars**

**Example Light-Duty Trucks**

Small SUV ....................................................... Midsize crossover ........................................... Minivan ............................................................ Large pickup truck .......................................... 4WD Ford Escape .......................................... Nissan Murano ............................................... Toyota Sienna ...............................................

. Chevy Silverado ............................................. 44 49 55 67 269 289 313 358 32.8 30.6 28.2 24.7

E. Summary of Costs and Benefits for the Joint Proposal

This section summarizes the projected costs and benefits of the proposed CAFE and GHG emissions standards. These projections helped inform the agencies’ choices among the alternatives considered and provide further confirmation that proposed standards fall within the spectrum of choices allowable under their respective statutory criteria. The costs and benefits projected by NHTSA to result from NHTSA’s proposed CAFE standards are presented first, followed by those from EPA’s analysis of the proposed GHG emissions standards.

The agencies recognize that there are uncertainties regarding the benefit and cost values presented in this proposal. Some benefits and costs are not quantified. The values of other benefits and costs could be too low or too high.

For several reasons, the estimates for costs and benefits presented by NHTSA and EPA, while consistent, are not directly comparable, and thus should not be expected to be identical. Most important, NHTSA and EPA’s proposed standards would require slightly different fuel efficiency improvements. EPA’s proposed GHG standard is more stringent in part due to its assumptions about manufacturers’ use of air conditioning credits, which result from reductions in air conditioning-related emissions of HFCs and CO 2 . In addition, the proposed CAFE and GHG standards offer different program flexibilities, and the agencies’ analyses differ in their accounting for these flexibilities (for example, FFVs etc .), primarily because NHTSA is statutorily prohibited from considering some flexibilities when establishing CAFE standards, while EPA is not. These differences contribute to differences in the agencies’ respective estimates of costs and benefits resulting from the new standards.

Because EPCA prohibits NHTSA from considering the use of FFV credits when establishing CAFE standards, the agency’s primary analysis of costs, fuel savings, and related benefits from imposing higher CAFE standards does not include them. However, EPCA does not prohibit NHTSA from considering the fact that manufacturers may pay civil penalties rather than complying with CAFE standards, and NHTSA’s primary analysis accounts for some manufacturers’ tendency to do so. In addition, NHTSA performed a supplemental analysis of the effect of FFV credits on benefits and costs from its proposed CAFE standards, to demonstrate the real-world impacts of FFVs, and the summary estimates presented in Section IV include these effects. Including the use of FFV credits reduces estimated per-vehicle compliance costs of the program. However, as shown below, including FFV credits does not significantly change the projected fuel savings and CO 2 reductions, because FFV credits reduce the fuel economy levels that manufacturers achieve not only under the proposed standards, but also under the baseline MY 2011 CAFE standards. Also, EPCA, as amended by EISA, allows manufacturers to transfer credits between their passenger car and light truck fleets. However, EPCA also prohibits NHTSA from considering manufacturers’ ability to use CAFE credits when determining the stringency of the CAFE standards. Because of this prohibition, NHTSA’s primary analysis does not account for the extent to which credit transfers might actually occur. For purposes of its supplemental analysis, NHTSA considered accounting for the fact that EPCA allows some transfer of CAFE credits between the passenger car and light truck fleets, butdetermined that in NHTSA’s year-byyear analysis, manufacturers’ likely credit transfers cannot be reasonably estimated at this time. 56

Therefore, NHTSA’s primary analysis shows the estimates the agency considered for purposes of establishing new CAFE standards, and its supplemental analysis including manufacturers’ potential use of FFV credits currently reflects the agency’s best estimate of the potential real-world effects of the proposed CAFE standards.

56 NHTSA’s analysis estimates multi-year planning effects within a context in which each model year is represented explicitly, and technologies applied in one model year carry forward to future model years. NHTSA does not currently have a basis to estimate how a manufacturer might, for example, weigh the transfer of credits from the passenger car to the light truck fleet in MY 2013 against the potential to carry light truck technologies forward from MY 2013 through MY 2016. The agency is considering the possibility of implementing such analysis for purposes of the final rule.VerDate Nov<24>2008 23:31 Sep 25, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS 

### Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 186 / Monday, September 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

### 49477

EPA made explicit assumptions about manufacturers’ use of FFV credits under both the baseline and control alternatives, and its estimates of costs and benefits from the proposed GHG standards reflect these assumptions. However, under the proposed GHG standards, FFV credits would be available through MY 2015; starting in MY 2016, EPA proposes to allow FFV credits only based on a manfucturers’s demonstration that the alternative fuel is actually being used in the vehicles and the actual GHG performance for the vehicle run on that alternative fuel.

EPA’s analysis also assumes that manufacturers would transfer credits between their car and truck fleets in the MY 2011 baseline subject to the maximum value allowed by EPCA, and that unlimited car-truck credit transfers would occur under the proposed GHG standards. Including these assumptions in EPA’s analysis increases the resulting estimates of fuel savings and reductions in GHG emissions, while reducing EPA’s estimates of program compliance
costs.

Finally, under the proposed EPA GHG program, there is no ability for a manufacturer to intentionally pay fines in lieu of meeting the standard. Under EPCA, however, vehicle manufacturers are allowed to pay fines as an alternative to compliance with applicable CAFE standards. NHTSA’s analysis explicitly estimates the level of voluntary fine payment by individual manufacturers, which reduces NHTSA’s estimates of both the costs and benefits of its proposed CAFE standards. In contrast, the CAA does not allow for fine payment in lieu of compliance with emission standards, and EPA’s analysis of costs and benefits from its proposed standard thus assumes full compliance. This assumption results in higher estimates of fuel savings, reductions in GHG emissions, and manufacturers’ compliance costs to sell fleets that comply with both NHTSA’s proposed CAFE program and EPA’s proposed GHG program.

In summary, the projected costs and benefits presented by NHTSA and EPA are not directly comparable, because the levels being proposed by EPA include air conditioning-related improvements in equivalent fuel efficiency and HFC reductions, because the assumptions incorporated in EPA’s analysis regarding car-truck credit transfers, and because of the projection by EPA of complete compliance with the proposed GHG standards. It should also be expected that overall EPA’s estimates of GHG reductions and fuel savings achieved by the proposed GHG standards will be slightly higher than those projected by NHTSA only for the CAFE standards because of the reasons described above. For the same reasons, EPA’s estimates of manufacturers’ costs for complying with the proposed passenger car and light trucks GHG standards are slightly higher than NHTSA’s estimates for complying with the proposed CAFE standards.

1. Summary of Costs and Benefits of Proposed NHTSA CAFE Standards

Without accounting for the compliance flexibilities that NHTSA is prohibited from considering when determining the level of new CAFE standards, since manufacturers’ decisions to use those flexibilities are voluntary, NHTSA estimates that these fuel economy increases would lead to fuel savings totaling 62 billion gallons throughout the useful lives of vehicles sold in MYs 2012–2016. At a 3% discount rate, the present value of the economic benefits resulting from those fuel savings is $158 billion.

The agency further estimates that these new CAFE standards would lead to corresponding reductions in CO 2 emissions totaling 656 million metric tons (mmt) during the useful lives of vehicles sold in MYs 2012–2016. The present value of the economic benefits from avoiding those emissions is $16.4 billion, based on a global social cost of carbon value of $20 per metric ton, 57 although NHTSA estimated the benefits associated with five different values of a one ton GHG reduction ($5, $10, $20, $34, $56). 58 See Section II for a more detailed discussion of the social cost of carbon. It is important to note that NHTSA’s CAFE standards and EPA’s GHG standards will both be in effect, and each will lead to increases in average fuel economy and CO 2 emissions reductions. The two agencies’ standards together comprise the National Program, and this discussion of costs and benefits of NHTSA’s CAFE standards does not change the fact that both the CAFE and GHG standards, jointly, are the source of the benefits and costs of the National Program.



### TABLE 

### I.E.1–1—NHTSA F UEL 

### S AVED 

### (B ILLION 

### G ALLONS 

### ) AND 

### CO 2 

### E MISSIONS 

### AVOIDED 

### ( MMT

### ) U NDER 

### P ROPOSED 

### CAFE S TANDARDS 

### (W ITHOUT 

### FFV C REDITS 

### )

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total

Fuel (b. gal.) .................................................................................................................

.... 4 9 13 16 19 62 CO 2 (mmt) ........................................................................................................................ 4496 137 173 206 656

Considering manufacturers’ ability to earn credit toward compliance by selling FFVs, NHTSA estimates very

57 We have developed two interim estimates of the global social cost of carbon (SCC) ($/tCO 2 in 2007 (2006$)): $33 per tCO 2 at a 3% discount rate, and $5 per tCO 2 with a 5% discount rate. The 3% and 5% estimates have independent appeal and at this time a clear preference for one over the other is not warranted. Thus, we have also included—and centered our current attention on—the average of little change in incremental fuel savings and avoided CO 2 emissions, assuming

the estimates associated with these discount rates, which is $19 (in 2006$) per ton of CO 2 emissions. When converted to 2007$ for consistency with other economic values used in the agency’s analysis, this figure corresponds to $20 per metric ton of CO 2 emissions occurring in 2007. This value is assumed to increase at 3% annually for emissions occurring after 2007. FFV credits would be used toward both the baseline and proposed standards:

58 The $10 and $56 figures are alternative interim estimates based on uncertainty about interest rates of long periods of time. They are based on an approach that models discount rate uncertainty as something that evolves over time; in contrast, the preferred approach mentioned in the immediately preceding paragraph assumes that there is a single discount rate with equal probability of 3% and 5%.VerDate Nov<24>2008 23:31 Sep 25, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS 

### 49478 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 186 / Monday, September 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 

### I.E.1–2—NHTSA F UEL 

### S AVED 

### (B ILLION 

### G ALLONS 

### ) AND 

### CO 2 

### E MISSIONS 

### AVOIDED 

### ( MMT

### ) U NDER 

### P ROPOSED 

### CAFE S TANDARDS 

### (W ITH 

### FFV C REDITS 

### )

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total

Fuel (b. gal.) .................................................................................................................

.... 5 8 12 15 19 59 CO 2 (mmt) ........................................................................................................................ 4990 129 167 204 639

NHTSA estimates that these fuel tendency to travel more when the cost value of these benefits would total more economy increases would produce other of driving declines (as it does when fuel than $200 billion over the useful lives benefits both to drivers ( e.g., reduced economy increases). NHTSA has of vehicles sold during MYs 2012–2016. time spent refueling) and to the U.S. estimated the total monetary value to More discussion regarding monetized ( e.g., reductions in the costs of society of these benefits and disbenefits, benefits can be found in Section IV of petroleum imports beyond the direct and estimates that the proposed this notice and in NHTSA’s Regulatory savings from reduced oil purchases, as standards will produce significant net Impact Analysis. well as some disbenefits ( e.g., increase benefits to society. Using a 3% discount traffic congestion) caused by drivers’ rate, NHTSA estimates that the present



### TABLE 

### I.E.1–3—NHTSA D ISCOUNTED 

### B ENEFITS 

### ($B ILLION 

### ) U NDER 

### P ROPOSED 

### CAFE S TANDARDS 

### (B EFORE 

### FFV C REDITS 

### , U SING 

### 3 P ERCENT 

### D ISCOUNT 

### RATE 

### )

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total

Passenger Cars ............................................................................................................... 7. 6 17.0 24.4 31.2 38.7 119.1 Light Trucks ...................................................................................................................

.. 5.5 11.6 17.3 22.2 26.0 82.6 Combined .......................................................................................................................

.. 13.1 28.7 41.8 53.4 64.7 201.7

Using a 7% discount rate, NHTSA benefits would total more than $159 estimates that the present value of these billion over the same time period.



### TABLE 

### I.E.1–4—NHTSA D ISCOUNTED 

### B ENEFITS 

### ($B ILLION 

### ) U NDER 

### P ROPOSED 

### S TANDARDS 

### (B EFORE 

### FFV C REDITS



### , U SING 

### 7 P ERCENT 

### D ISCOUNT 

### RATE 

### )

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total

Passenger Cars ............................................................................................................... 6. 0 13.6 19.5 25.0 31.1 95.3 Light Trucks ...................................................................................................................

.. 4.3 9.1 13.5 17.4 20.4 64.6 Combined .......................................................................................................................

.. 10.3 22.6 33.1 42.4 51.5 159.8

NHTSA estimates that FFV credits could reduce achieved benefits by about 4.5%:



### TABLE 

### I.E.1–5a—NHTSA D ISCOUNTED 

### B ENEFITS 

### ($B ILLION 

### ) U NDER 

### P ROPOSED 

### CAFE S TANDARDS 

### (W ITH 

### FFV C REDITS



### , U SING A 

### 3 P ERCENT 

### D ISCOUNT 

### RATE 

### )

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total

Passenger Cars ............................................................................................................... 7. 8 15.9 22.5 28.6 37.1 111.9 Light Trucks ...................................................................................................................

.. 6.1 10.2 15.9 22.1 26.3 80.5 Combined .......................................................................................................................

.. 13.9 26.1 38.4 50.7 63.3 192.5



### TABLE 

### I.E.1–5b—NHTSA D ISCOUNTED 

### B ENEFITS 

### ($B ILLION 

### ) U NDER 

### P ROPOSED 

### CAFE S TANDARDS 

### (W ITH 

### FFV C REDITS



### , U SING A 

### 7 P ERCENT 

### D ISCOUNT 

### RATE 

### )

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total

Passenger Cars ............................................................................................................... 6. 2 12.7 18.0 23.0 29.8 89.6 Light Trucks ...................................................................................................................

.. 4.7 7.9 12.4 17.3 20.6 63.0 Combined .......................................................................................................................

.. 10.9 20.6 20.4 40.3 50.4 152.5

NHTSA attributes most of these above—to reductions in fuel Administration’s (EIA’s) reference case benefits—about $158 billion (at a 3% consumption, valuing fuel (for societal forecast from Annual Energy Outlook discount rate and excluding purposes) at the future pre-tax prices (AEO) 2009. The Preliminary Regulatory consideration of FFV credits), as noted projected in the Energy Information Impact Analysis (PRIA) accompanyingVerDate Nov<24>2008 23:31 Sep 25, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS 

### Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 186 / Monday, September 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

### 49479

this proposed rule presents a detailed 	 analysis of specific benefits of the proposed rule.



### TABLE 

### I.E.1–6—S UMMARY OF 

### B ENEFITS 

### F UEL 

### S AVINGS AND 

### CO 2 

### E MISSIONS 

### R EDUCTION 

### D UE TO THE 

### P ROPOSED 

### R ULE 

### (B EFORE 

### FFV C REDITS 

### )

Amount Monetized value (discounted)

3% Discount rate 7% Discount rate

Fuel savings ................................... CO 2 emissions reductions ............. 61.6 billion gallons ........................ 656 million metric tons (mmt) ....... $158.0 billion ................................ $16.4 billion .................................. $125.3 billion. $12.8 billi on.

NHTSA estimates that the increases in monetary outlays. The agency estimates those required to comply with the MY technology application necessary to that incremental costs for achieving its 2011 CAFE standards—will total about achieve the projected improvements in proposed standards—that is, outlays by $60 billion (i.e., during MYs 2012– fuel economy will entail considerable vehicle manufacturers over and above 2016).



### TABLE 

### I.E.1–7—NHTSA I NCREMENTAL 

### T ECHNOLOGY 

### O UTLAYS 

### ($B ILLION 

### ) U NDER 

### P ROPOSED 

### CAFE S TANDARDS 

### (B EFORE 

### FFV C REDITS 

### )

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total

Passenger Cars ............................................................................................................... 4. 1 6.5 8.4 9.9 11.8 40.8 Light Trucks ...................................................................................................................

.. 1.5 2.8 4.0 5.2 5.9 19.4 Combined .......................................................................................................................

.. 5.7 9.3 12.5 15.1 17.6 60.2

NHTSA estimates that use of FFV credits could significantly reduce these outlays:



### TABLE 

### I.E.1–8—NHTSA I NCREMENTAL 

### T ECHNOLOGY 

### O UTLAYS 

### ($B ILLION 

### ) U NDER 

### P ROPOSED 

### CAFE S TANDARDS 

### (W ITH 

### FFV C REDITS 

### )

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total

Passenger Cars ............................................................................................................... 2. 5 4.4 6.1 7.4 9.3 29.6 Light Trucks ...................................................................................................................

.. 1.3 2.0 3.1 4.3 5.0 15.6 Combined .......................................................................................................................

.. 3.7 6.3 9.2 11.7 14.2 45.2

The agency projects that recover these increased outlays (and, to would lead to increases in average new manufacturers will recover most or all a much lesser extent, the civil penalties vehicle prices ranging from $476 per of these additional costs through higher that some companies are expected to vehicle in MY 2012 to $1,091 per selling prices for new cars and light pay for noncompliance), the agency vehicle in MY 2016: trucks. To allow manufacturers to estimates that the proposed standards



### TABLE 

### I.E.1–9—NHTSA I NCREMENTAL 

### I NCREASES IN 

### AVERAGE 

### N EW 

### V EHICLE 

### C OSTS 

### ($) U NDER 

### P ROPOSED 

### CAFE S TANDARDS 

### (B EFORE 

### FFV C REDITS 

### )

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Passenger Cars .................................................................................................................

.............. Light Trucks ...................................................................................................................

.................. Combined .......................................................................................................................

.................. 591 283 476 735 460 635 877 678 806 979 882 945 1,127 1,020 1,091

NHTSA estimates that use of FFV credits could significantly reduce these costs, especially in earlier model years:



### TABLE 

### I.E.1–10—NHTSA I NCREMENTAL 

### I NCREASES IN 

### AVERAGE 

### N EW 

### V EHICLE 

### C OSTS 

### ($) U NDER 

### P ROPOSED 

### CAFE S TANDARDS 

### (W ITH 

### FFV C REDITS 

### )

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Passenger Cars .................................................................................................................

.............. Light Trucks ...................................................................................................................

.................. 295
231 448
347 591
533 695
758 851
895VerDate Nov<24>2008 23:31 Sep 25, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS 

### 49480 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 186 / Monday, September 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 

### I.E.1–10—NHTSA I NCREMENTAL 

### I NCREASES IN 

### AVERAGE 

### N EW 

### V EHICLE 

### C OSTS 

### ($) U NDER 

### P ROPOSED 

### CAFE S TANDARDS 

### (W ITH 

### FFV C REDITS 

### )—Continued

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Combined .......................................................................................................................

.................. 271 411 571 716 866

NHTSA estimates, therefore, that the total benefits of these proposed standards would be more than three times the magnitude of the corresponding costs. As a consequence, its proposed standards would produce net benefits of $142 billion at a 3 percent discount rate (with FFV credits, $147 billion) or $100 billion at a 7 percent discount rate over the useful lives of vehicles sold during MYs 2012–

2016. 2. Summary of Costs and Benefits of Proposed EPA GHG Standards

EPA has conducted a preliminary assessment of the costs and benefits of the proposed GHG standards. Table I.E.2–1 shows EPA’s estimated lifetime fuel savings and CO 2 equivalent emission reductions for all vehicles sold in the model years 2012–2016. The values in Table I.E.2–1 are projected lifetime totals for each model year and are not discounted. As documented in DRIA Chapter 5, the potential credit transfer between cars and trucks may change the distribution of the fuel savings and GHG emission impacts between cars and trucks. As discussed above with respect to NHTSA’s CAFE standards, it is important to note that NHTSA’s CAFE standards and EPA’s GHG standards will both be in effect, and each will lead to increases in average fuel economy and CO 2 emissions reductions. The two agency’s standards together comprise the National Program, and this discussion of costs and benefits of EPA’s GHG standards does not change the fact that both the CAFE and GHG standards, jointly, are the source of the benefits and costs of the National Program.



### TABLE 

### I.E.2–1—EPA’ S 

### E STIMATED 

### 2012–2016 M ODEL 

### Y EAR 

### L IFETIME 

### F UEL 

### S AVED AND 

### GHG E MISSIONS 

### AVOIDED

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total

Cars ....................................................

Light Trucks ........................................

Combined ............................................ Fuel (billion gallons) ........................... Fuel (billion barrels) ............................ CO 2 EQ (mmt) .................................... Fuel (billion gallons) ........................... Fuel (billion barrels) ............................ CO 2 EQ (mmt) .................................... Fuel (billion gallons) ........................... Fuel (billion barrels) ............................ CO 2 EQ (mmt) .................................... 4 0 .1 51

2 0 .1 30

7 0 .2 81 6 0 .1 74

4 0 .1 51 10 0 .2 125 8 0 .2 98

6 0 .1 77 14 0 .3 174 11 0 .3 137

9 0 .2 107

19 0 .5 244 14 0 .3 179

12 0 .3 143 26

0 .6 323 43 1 .0 539

33

0 .8 408

76

1 .8 947

Table I.E.2–2 shows EPA’s estimated lifetime discounted benefits for all vehicles sold in model years 2012–2016. Although EPA estimated the benefits associated with five different values of a one ton GHG reduction ($5, $10, $20, $34, $56), for the purposes of this overview presentation of estimated benefits EPA is showing the benefits associated with one of these marginal values, $20 per ton of CO 2 , in 2007 dollars and 2007 emissions, in this joint proposal. Table I.E.2–2 presents benefits based on the $20 value. Section III.H presents the five marginal values used to estimate monetized benefits of GHG reductions and Section III.H presents the program benefits using each of the five marginal values, which represent only a partial accounting of total benefits due to omitted climate change impacts and other factors that are not readily monetized. These factors are being used on an interim basis while analysis is conducted to generate new estimates. The values in the table are discounted values for each model year throughout their projected lifetimes. The benefits include all benefits considered by EPA such as fuel savings, GHG reductions, PM benefits, energy security and other externalities such as reduced refueling and accidents, congestion and noise. The lifetime discounted benefits are shown for one of five different social cost of carbon (SCC) values considered by EPA. The values in Table I.E.2–2 do not include costs associated with new technology required to meet the proposal.



### TABLE 

### I.E.2–2—EPA’ S 

### E STIMATED 

### 2012–2016 M ODEL 

### Y EAR 

### L IFETIME 

### D ISCOUNTED 

### B ENEFITS 

### A SSUMING THE 

### $20/TON 

### SCC VALUE a [$Billions of 2007 dollars]

Discount rate Model year

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total

3% .............................................................................................................................

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

......... $20.4 15.8 $31.7
24.7 $44.9 34.9 $63.7 49.3 $87.2 67.7 $248 193

a The benefits include all benefits considered by EPA such as fuel savings, GHG reductions, PM benefits, energy security and othe r externalities such as reduced refueling and accidents, congestion and noise.VerDate Nov<24>2008 23:31 Sep 25, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS 

### Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 186 / Monday, September 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

### 49481

Table I.E.2–3 shows EPA’s estimated 2012–2016. The estimated fuel savings values of the discounted monetized-fuel lifetime fuel savings, lifetime CO 2 in billions of barrels and the GHG savings and monetized-CO 2 reductions emission reductions, and the monetized reductions in million metric tons of CO 2 for the five model years 2012–2016 net present values of those fuel savings shown in Table I.E.2–3 are totals for the throughout their lifetimes. The and CO 2 emission reductions. The five model years throughout their monetized values in Table I.E.2–3 gallons of fuel and CO 2 emission projected lifetime and are not reflect both a 3 percent and a 7 percent reductions are projected lifetime values discounted. The monetized values discount rate as noted. for all vehicles sold in the model years shown in Table I.E.2–3 are the summed



### TABLE 

### I.E.2–3—EPA’ S 

### E STIMATED 

### 2012–2016 M ODEL 

### Y EAR 

### L IFETIME 

### F UEL 

### S AVINGS 

### , CO 2 

### E MISSION 

### R EDUCTIONS



### , AND 

### D ISCOUNTED 

### M ONETIZED 

### B ENEFITS AT A 

### 3% D ISCOUNT 

### RATE [Monetized values in 2007 dollars]

Amount $ value (billions)

Fuel savings .......................................................

CO 2 emission reductions (valued assuming

$20/ton CO 2 in 2007). 1.8 billion barrels ..............................................

947 MMT CO 2e ................................................ $193, 3% discount rate. $151, 7% discount rate. $21.0, 3% discount rate.

$15.0, 7% discount rate.

Table I.E.2–4 shows EPA’s estimated 2012–2016. The total outlays are also a whole and do not account for fuel incremental technology outlays for cars shown. The technology outlays shown savings associated with the proposal. and trucks for each of the model years in Table I.E.2–4 are for the industry as



### TABLE 

### I.E.2–4—EPA’ S 

### E STIMATED 

### I NCREMENTAL 

### T ECHNOLOGY 

### O UTLAYS 

### [$B ILLIONS OF 

### 2007 DOLLARS 

### ]

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total

Cars ...........................................................................................................................

....... $3.5 $5.3 $7.0 $8.9 $10.7 $35.3 Trucks .........................................................................................................................

..... 2.0 3.1 4.0 5.1 6.8 20.9 Combined .......................................................................................................................

.. 5.4 8.4 10.9 13.9 17.5 56.1

Table I.E.2–5 shows EPA’s estimated cumulative. In other words, the year car is $531 relative to a 2013 model incremental cost increase of the average estimated increase for 2012 model year year car absent the proposal (not $374 new vehicle for each model year 2012– cars is $374 relative to a 2012 model plus $531). 2016. The values shown are incremental year car absent the proposal. The to a baseline vehicle and are not estimated increase for a 2013 model



### TABLE 

### I.E.2–5—EPA’ S 

### E STIMATED 

### I NCREMENTAL 

### I NCREASE IN 

### AVERAGE 

### N EW 

### V EHICLE 

### C OST [2007 Dollars per unit]

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Cars ...........................................................................................................................

....................... Trucks .........................................................................................................................

..................... Combined .......................................................................................................................

.................. $374 358 368 $531 539 534 $663 682 670 $813 886 838 $968 1,213 1,050

F. Program Flexibilities for Achieving Compliance

EPA’s and NHTSA’s proposed programs provide compliance flexibility to manufacturers, especially in the early years of the National Program. This flexibility is expected to provide sufficient lead time for manufacturers to make necessary technological improvements and reduce the overall cost of the program, without compromising overall environmental and fuel economy objectives. The broad goal of harmonizing the two agencies’ proposed standards includes preserving manufacturers’ flexibilities in meeting the standards, to the extent appropriate and required by law. The following section provides an overview of the flexibility provisions the agencies are proposing.

1. CO 2/CAFE Credits Generated Based on Fleet Average Performance

Under the NHTSA and EPA proposal the fleet average standards that apply to a manufacturer’s car and truck fleets would be based on the applicable footprint-based curves. At the end of each model year, when production of the model year is complete, a production-weighted fleet average would be calculated for each averaging set (cars and trucks). Under this approach, a manufacturer’s car and/or truck fleet that achieves a fleet average CO 2/CAFE level better than the standard would generate credits. Conversely, if the fleet average CO 2/CAFE level does not meet the standard the fleet would generate debits (also referred to as a shortfall).

Under the proposed program, a manufacturer whose fleet generates credits in a given model year would have several options for using those credits, including credit carry-back, credit carry-forward, credit transfers,VerDate Nov<24>2008 23:31 Sep 25, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS 

### 49482 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 186 / Monday, September 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules

and credit trading. These provisions exist in the MY 2011 CAFE program under EPCA and EISA, and similar provisions are part of EPA’s Tier 2 program for light duty vehicle criteria pollutant emissions, as well as many other mobile source standards issued by EPA under the CAA. EPA is proposing that the manufacturer would be able to carry-back credits to offset any deficit that had accrued in a prior model year and was subsequently carried over to the current model year. EPCA already provides for this. EPCA restricts the carry-back of CAFE credits to three years and EPA is proposing the same limitation, in keeping with the goal of harmonizing both sets of proposed standards.

After satisfying any need to offset preexisting deficits, remaining credits could be saved (banked) for use in future years. Under the CAFE program, EISA allows manufacturers to apply credits earned in a model year to compliance in any of the five subsequent model years. 59 EPA is also proposing, under the GHG program, to allow manufacturers to use these banked credits in the five years after the year in which they were generated (i.e., five years carry-forward).

EISA required NHTSA to establish by regulation a CAFE credits transferring program, which NHTSA established in a March 2009 final rule codified at 49 CFR part 536, to allow a manufacturer to transfer credits between its vehicle fleets to achieve compliance with the standards. For example, credits earned by over-compliance with a manufacturer’s car fleet average standard could be used to offset debits incurred due to that manufacturer’s not meeting the truck fleet average standard in a given year. EPA’s Tier 2 program also provides for this type of credit transfer. For purposes of this NPRM, EPA proposes unlimited credit transfers across a manufacturer’s car-truck fleet to meet the GHG standard. This is based on the expectation that this kind of credit transfer provision will allow the required GHG emissions reductions to be achieved in the most cost effective way, and this flexibility will facilitate the ability of the manufacturers to comply with the GHG standards in the lead time provided. Under the CAA, unlike under EISA, there is no statutory limitation on car-truck credit transfers. Therefore EPA is not proposing to constrain car-truck credit transfers as doing so would increase costs with no corresponding environmental benefit. For the CAFE program, however, EISA limits the amount of credits that may be

59 49 U.S.C. 32903(a)(2). transferred, and also prohibits the use of transferred credits to meet the statutory minimum level for the domestic car fleet standard. 60 These and other statutory limits would continue to apply to the determination of compliance with the CAFE standard.

Finally, EISA also allowed NHTSA to establish by regulation a CAFE credit trading program, which NHTSA established in the March 2009 final rule at 40 CFR Part 536, to allow credits to be traded (sold) to other vehicle manufacturers. EPA is also proposing to allow credit trading in the GHG program. These sorts of exchanges are typically allowed under EPA’s current mobile source emission credit programs, although manufacturers have seldom made such exchanges. Under the NHTSA CAFE program, EPCA also allows these types of credit trades, although, as with transferred credits, traded credits may not be used to meet the minimum domestic car standards specified by statute. 61

2. Air Conditioning Credits

Air conditioning (A/C) systems contribute to GHG emissions in two ways. Hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) refrigerants, which are powerful GHG pollutants, can leak from the A/C system. Operation of the A/C system also places an additional load on the engine, which results in additional CO 2 tailpipe emissions. EPA is proposing an approach that allows manufacturers to generate credits by reducing GHG emissions related to A/C systems. Specifically, EPA is proposing a test procedure and method to calculate CO 2 equivalent reductions for the full useful life on a grams/mile basis that can be used as credits in meeting the fleet average CO 2 standards. EPA’s analysis indicates this approach providesmanufacturers with a highly costeffective way to achieve a portion of GHG emissions reductions under the EPA program. EPA is estimating that manufacturers will on average take advantage of 11 g/mi GHG credit toward meeting the 250 g/mi by 2016 (though some companies may have more). EPA is also proposing to allow manufacturers to earn early A/C credits starting in MY 2009 through 2011, as discussed further in a later section.

Comment is also sought on the approach of providing CAFE credits under 49 U.S.C. 32904(c) for light trucks equipped with relatively efficient air conditioners for MYs 2012–2016. The agencies invite comment on allowing a manufacturer to generate additional

60 49 U.S.C. 32903(g)(4).

61 49 U.S.C. 32903(f)(2). CAFE credits from the reduction of fuel consumption through the application of air conditioning efficiency improvement technologies to trucks. Currently, the CAFE program does not induce manufacturers to install more efficient air conditioners because the air conditioners are not turned on during fuel economy testing. The agencies note that if such credits were adopted, it may be necessary to reflect them in the setting of the CAFE standards for light trucks for the same model years and invite comment on that issue.

3. Flex-Fuel and Alternative Fuel Vehicle Credits

EPCA authorizes an incentive under the CAFE program for production of dual-fueled or flexible-fuel vehicles (FFV) and dedicated alternative fuel vehicles. FFVs are vehicles that can run both on an alternative fuel and conventional fuel. Most FFVs are E–85 capable vehicles, which can run on either gasoline or a mixture of up to 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline. Dedicated alternative fuel vehicles are vehicles that run exclusively on an alternative fuel. EPCA was amended by EISA to extend the period of availability of the FFV incentive, but to begin phasing it out by annually reducing the amount of FFV incentive that can be used toward compliance with the CAFE standards. 62 EPCA does not premise the availability of the FFV credits on actual use of alternative fuel by an FFV vehicle. Under NHTSA’s CAFE program, pursuant to EISA, after MY 2019, no FFV credits will be available for CAFE compliance. 63 For dedicated alternative fuel vehicles, there are no limits or phase-out of the credits. Consistent with the statute, NHTSA will continue to allow the use of FFV credits for purposes of compliance with the proposed standards until the end of the phase-out period.

For the GHG program, EPA is proposing to allow FFV credits in line with EISA limits only during the period from MYs 2012 to 2015. After MY 2015, EPA proposes to allow FFV credits only based on a manufacturer’s demonstration that the alternative fuel is actually being used in the vehicles. EPA is seeking comments on how that demonstration could be made. EPA discusses this in more detail in Section III.Cof the preamble.

62 EPCA provides a statutory incentive for production of FFVs by specifying that their fuel economy is determined using a special calculation procedure that results in those vehicles being assigned a higher fuel economy level than would otherwise occur. This is typically referred to as an FFV credit.

63 Id.VerDate Nov<24>2008 23:31 Sep 25, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS 

### Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 186 / Monday, September 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

### 49483

4. Temporary Lead-Time Allowance Alternative Standards

Manufacturers with limited product lines may be especially challenged in the early years of the proposed program. Manufacturers with narrow product offerings may not be able to take full advantage of averaging or other program flexibilities due to the limited scope of the types of vehicles they sell. For example, some smaller volume manufacturers focus on high performance vehicles with higher CO 2 emissions, above the CO 2 emissions target for that vehicle footprint, but do not have other types of vehicles in their production mix with which to average. Often, these manufacturers pay fines under the CAFE program rather than meeting the applicable CAFE standard. EPA believes that these technological circumstances may call for a more gradual phase-in of standards so that manufacturer resources can be focused on meeting the 2016 levels.

EPA is proposing a temporary leadtime allowance for manufacturers who sell vehicles in the U.S. in MY 2009 whose vehicle sales in that model year are below 400,000 vehicles. EPA proposes that this allowance would be available only during the MY 2012– 2015 phase-in years of the program. A manufacturer that satisfies the threshold criteria would be able to treat a limited number of vehicles as a separate averaging fleet, which would be subject to a less stringent GHG standard. 64 Specifically, a standard of 125 percent of the vehicle’s otherwise applicable foot-print target level would apply to up to 100,000 vehicles total, spread over the four year period of MY 2012 through 2015. Thus, the number of vehicles to which the flexibility could apply is limited. EPA also is proposing appropriate restrictions on credit use for these vehicles, as discussed further in Section III. By MY 2016, these allowance vehicles must be averaged into the manufacturer’s full fleet (i.e., they are no longer eligible for a different standard). EPA discusses this in more detail in Section III.B of the preamble.

5. Additional Credit Opportunities Under the CAA

EPA is proposing additional opportunities for early credits in MYs 2009–2011 through over-compliance with a baseline standard. The baseline standard would be set to be equivalent,

64 EPCA does not permit such an allowance. Consequently, manufacturers who may be able to take advantage of a lead-time allowance under the proposed GHG standards would be required to comply with the applicable CAFE standard or be subject to penalties for non-compliance. on a national level, to the California standards. Potentially, credits could be generated by over-compliance with thisbaseline in one of two ways—overcompliance by the fleet of vehicles sold in California and the CAA section 177 States (i.e., those States adopting the California program), or over-compliance with the fleet of vehicles sold in the 50 States. EPA is also proposing early credits based on over-compliance with CAFE, but only for vehicles sold in States outside of California and the CAA section 177 States. Under the proposed early credit provisions, no early FFV credits would be allowed, except those achieved by over-compliance with the California program based on California’s provisions that manufacturers demonstrate actual use of the alternative fuel. EPA’s proposed early credits options are designed to ensure that there would be no double counting of early credits. Consistent with this paragraph, NHTSA notes, however, that credits for overcompliance with CAFE standards during MYs 2009–2011 will still be available for manufacturers to use toward compliance in future model years, just as before.

EPA is proposing additional credit opportunities to encourage the commercialization of advanced GHG/ fuel economy control technologies, such as electric vehicles, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, and fuel cell vehicles. These proposed advanced technology credits are in the form of a multiplier that would be applied to the number of vehicles sold, such that each eligible vehicle counts as more than one vehicle in the manufacturer’s fleet average. EPA is also proposing to allow early advanced technology credits to be generated beginning in MYs 2009 through 2011.

EPA is also proposing an Option for manufacturers to generate credits for employing technologies that achieve GHG reductions that are not reflected on current test procedures. Examples of such ‘‘off-cycle’’ technologies might include solar panels on hybrids, adaptive cruise control, and active aerodynamics, among other technologies. EPA is seeking comments on the best ways to quantify such credits to ensure any off-cycle credits applied for by a manufacturer are verifiable, reflect real-world reductions, based on repeatable test procedures, and are developed through a transparent process allowing appropriate opportunities for public comment.

G. Coordinated Compliance

Previous NHTSA and EPA regulations and statutory provisions establish ample examples on which to develop an effective compliance program that achieves the energy and environmental benefits from CAFE and motor vehicle GHG standards. NHTSA and EPA are proposing a program that recognizes, and replicates as closely as possible, the compliance protocols associated with the existing CAA Tier 2 vehicle emission standards, and with CAFE standards. The certification, testing, reporting, and associated compliance activities closely track current practices and are thus familiar to manufacturers. EPA already oversees testing, collects and processes test data, and performs calculations to determine compliance with both CAFE and CAA standards. Under this proposed coordinated approach, the compliance mechanisms for both programs are consistent and non-duplicative. EPA will also apply the CAA authorities applicable to its separate in-use requirements in this
program.

The proposed approach allows manufacturers to satisfy the new program requirements in the same general way they comply with existing applicable CAA and CAFE requirements. Manufacturers woulddemonstrate compliance on a fleetaverage basis at the end of each model year, allowing model-level testing to continue throughout the year as is the current practice for CAFE determinations. The proposed compliance program design establishes a single set of manufacturer reporting requirements and relies on a single set of underlying data. This approach still allows each agency to assess compliance with its respective program under its respective statutory authority.

NHTSA and EPA do not anticipate any significant noncompliance under the proposed program. However, failure to meet the fleet average standards (after credit opportunities are exhausted) would ultimately result in the potential for penalties under both EPCA and the CAA. The CAA allows EPA considerable discretion in assessment of penalties. Penalties under the CAA aretypically determined on a vehiclespecific basis by determining the number of a manufacturer’s highest emitting vehicles that caused the fleet average standard violation. This is the same mechanism used for EPA’s National Low Emission Vehicle and Tier 2 corporate average standards, and to date there have been no instances of noncompliance. CAFE penalties are specified by EPCA and would be assessed for the entire noncomplying fleet at a rate of $5.50 times the number of vehicles in the fleet, times the number of tenths of mpg by which the fleet average falls below the standard. InVerDate Nov<24>2008 23:31 Sep 25, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS 

### 49484 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 186 / Monday, September 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules

the event of a compliance action arising out of the same facts and circumstances, EPA could consider CAFE penalties when determining appropriate remedies for the EPA case.

H. Conclusion

This joint proposal by NHTSA and EPA represents a strong and coordinated National Program to achieve greenhouse gas emission reductions and fueleconomy improvements from the lightduty vehicle part of the transportation sector. EPA’s proposal for GHG standards under the Clean Air Act is discussed in Section III of this notice; NHTSA’s proposal for CAFE standards under EPCA is discussed in Section IV. Each agency includes analyses on a variety of relevant issues under its respective statute, such as feasibility of the proposed standards, costs and benefits of the proposal, and effects on the economy, auto manufacturers, and consumers. This joint rulemaking proposal reflects a carefully coordinated and harmonized approach to developing and implementing standards under the two agencies’ statutes and is in accordance with all substantive and procedural requirements required by law.

NHTSA and EPA believe that the MY 2012 through 2016 standards proposed would provide substantial reductions in emissions of GHGs and oil consumption, with significant fuel savings for consumers. The proposed program is technologically feasible at a reasonable cost, based on deployment of available and effective control technology across the fleet, and industry would have the opportunity to plan over several model years and incorporate the vehicle upgrades into the normal redesign cycles. The proposed program would result in enormous societal net benefits, including greenhouse gas emission reductions, fuel economy savings, improved energy security, and cost savings to consumers from reduced fuel utilization.

II. Joint Technical Work Completed for This Proposal

A. Introduction

In this section NHTSA and EPA discuss several aspects of the joint technical analyses the two agencies collaborated on which are common to the development of each agency’s proposed standards. Specifically we discuss: The development of the baseline vehicle market forecast used by each agency, the development of the proposed attribute-based standard curve shapes, how the relative stringency between the car and truck fleet standards for this proposal was determined, which technologies the agencies evaluated and their costs and effectiveness, and which economic assumptions the agencies included in their analyses. The joint Technical Support Document (TSD) discusses the agencies’ joint technical work in more detail.

B. How Did NHTSA and EPA Develop the Baseline Market Forecast?

1. Why Do the Agencies Establish a Baseline Vehicle Fleet?

In order to calculate the impacts of the EPA and NHTSA proposed regulations, it is necessary to estimate the composition of the future vehicle fleet absent these proposed regulations in order to conduct comparisons. EPA and NHTSA have developed a comparison fleet in two parts. The first step was to develop a baseline fleet based on model year 2008 data. The second step was to project that fleet into 2011–2016. This is called the reference fleet. The third step was to modify that 2011–2016 reference fleet such that it had sufficient technologies to meet the 2011 CAFE standards. This final ‘‘reference fleet’’ is the light duty fleet estimated to exist in 2012–2016 if these proposed rules are not adopted. Each agency developed a final reference fleet to use in its modeling. All of the agencies’ estimates of emission reductions, fuel economy improvements, costs, and societal impacts are developed in relation to the respective reference fleets.

2. How Do the Agencies Develop the Baseline Vehicle Fleet?

EPA and NHTSA have based the projection of total car and total light truck sales on recent projections made by the Energy Information Administration (EIA). EIA publishes a long-term projection of national energy use annually called the Annual Energy Outlook. This projection utilizes a number of technical and econometric models which are designed to reflect both economic and regulatory conditions expected to exist in the future. In support of its projection of fuel use by light-duty vehicles, EIA projects sales of new cars and light trucks. Due to the state of flux of both energy prices and the economy, EIA published three versions of its 2009 Annual Energy Outlook. The Preliminary 2009 report was published early (in November 2008) in order to reflect the dramatic increase in fuel prices which occurred during 2008 and which occurred after the development of the 2008 Annual Energy Outlook. The official 2009 report was published in March of 2009. A third 2009 report was published a month later which reflected the economic stimulus package passed by Congress earlier this year. We use the sales projections of this latest report, referred to as the updated 2009 Annual Energy Outlook, here.

In their updated 2009 report, EIA projects that total light-duty vehicle sales will gradually recover from their currently depressed levels by roughly 2013. In 2016, car and light truck sales are projected to be 9.5 and 7.1 million units, respectively. While the total level of sales of 16.6 million units is similar to pre-2008 levels, the fraction of car sales is higher than that existing in the 2000–2007 timeframe. This presumably reflects the impact of higher fuel prices and that fact that cars tend to have higher levels of fuel economy than trucks. We note that EIA’s definition of cars and trucks follows that used by NHTSA prior to the MY 2011 CAFE final rule published earlier this year. That recent CAFE rule, which established the MY 2011 standards, reclassified a number of 2-wheel drive sport utility vehicles from the truck fleet to the car fleet. This has the impact of shifting a considerable number of previously defined trucks into the car category. Sales projections of cars and trucks for all future model years can be found in the draft Joint TSD for this proposal.

In addition to a shift towards more car sales, sales of segments within both the car and truck markets have also been changing and are expected to continue to change in the future. Manufacturers are introducing more crossover models which offer much of the utility of SUVs but using more car-like designs. In order to reflect these changes in fleet makeup, EPA and NHTSA considered several available forecasts. After review EPA purchased and shared with NHTSA forecasts from two well-known industry analysts, CSM–Worldwide (CSM), and J.D. Powers. NHTSA and EPA decided to use the forecast from CSM, for several reasons. One, CSM agreed to allow us to publish the data, on which our forecast is based, in the public domain. 65 Two, it covered nearly all the timeframe of greatest relevance to this proposed rule (2012–2015 model years). Three, it provided projections of vehicle sales both by manufacturer and by market segment. Four, it utilized market segments similar to those used in the

65 The CSM data made public includes only the higher level volume projections by market segment and manufacturer. The projections by nameplate and model are strictly the agencies’ estimates based on these higher level CSM segment and manufacturer distribution.VerDate Nov<24>2008 23:31 Sep 25, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS 

### Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 186 / Monday, September 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

### 49485

EPA emission certification program and 2014–2015 the changes were relatively resulting projections for the 2016 model fuel economy guide. As discussed small. Therefore, we assumed 2016 year and compare these to actual sales further below, this allowed the CSM market share and market segments to be which occurred in 2008 model year. forecast to be combined with other data the same as for 2015. To the extent that Both tables show sales using the obtained by NHTSA and EPA. We also the agencies have received CSM traditional or classic definition of cars assumed that the breakdowns of car and forecasts for 2016, we will consider and light trucks. Determining which truck sales by manufacturer and by using them for the final rule. classic trucks will be defined as cars market segment for 2016 model year and We then projected the CSM forecasts using the revised definition established beyond were the same as CSM’s forecast for relative sales of cars and trucks by by NHTSA earlier this year and for 2015 calendar year. The changes manufacturer and by market segment on included in this proposed rule requires between company market share and to the total sales estimates of the more detailed information about each industry market segments were most updated 2009 Annual Energy Outlook. vehicle model which is developed next. significant from 2011–2014, while for Tables II.B.1–1 and II.B.1–2 show the



### TABLE 

### II.B.2–1—A NNUAL 

### S ALES OF 

### L IGHT

### -D UTY 

### V EHICLES BY 

### M ANUFACTURER IN 

### 2008 AND 

### E STIMATED FOR 

### 2016

Cars Light trucks Total

2008 MY 2016 MY 2008 MY 2016 MY 2008 MY 2016 MY

BMW .................................................................... Chrysler ................................................................ Daimler ................................................................. Ford ...................................................................... General Motors .................................................... Honda ................................................................... Hyundai ................................................................ Kia ........................................................................ Mazda .................................................................. Mitsubishi ............................................................. Porsche ................................................................ Nissan .................................................................. Subaru .................................................................. Suzuki .................................................................. Tata ...................................................................... Toyota .................................................................. Volkswagen .......................................................... 291,796 537,808 208,052 641,281 1,370,280

899,498 270,293 145,863 191,326 76,701 18,909 653,121 149,370 68,720

9,596 1,143,696

290,385 380,804 110,438 235,205 990,700 1,562,791 1,429,262

437,329 255,954 290,010

49,697 37,064 985,668 128,885 69,452 41,584 1,986,824

476,699 61,324 1,119,397 79,135 1,227,107 1,749,227

612,281 120,734 135,589 111,220 24,028 18,797 370,294

49,211 45,938 55,584 1,067,804 26,999 134,805 133,454 109,917 1,713,376 1,571,037

812,325 287,694 162,515 112,837

10,872 17,175 571,748

75,841 34,307 47,105 1,218,223 99,459 353,120 1,657,205

287,187 1,868,388 3,119,507 1,511,779

391,027 281,452 302,546 100,729 37,706 1,023,415

198,581 114,658 65,180 2,211,500

317,384 515,609 243,891 345,122 2,704,0 75 3,133,827 2,241,586

725,024 418,469 402,847

60,569 54,240 1,557,416

204,726 103,759 88,689 3,205 ,048

576,158

Total .............................................................. 6,966,695 9,468,365 6,874,669 7,112,689 13,841,364 16,581,05 5



### TABLE 

### II.B.2–2—A NNUAL 

### S ALES OF 

### L IGHT

### -D UTY 

### V EHICLES BY 

### M ARKET 

### S EGMENT IN 

### 2008 AND 

### E STIMATED FOR 

### 2016

Cars Light trucks

2008 MY 2016 MY 2008 MY 2016 MY

Full-Size Car ......................................... 730,355 466,616 Full-Size Pickup ................................... 1,195, 073 1,475,881 Mid-Size Car ......................................... 1,970,494 2,641,739 Mid-Size Pickup ................................... 598, 197 510,580 Small/Compact Car ............................... 1,850,522 2,444,479 Full-Size Van ........................................ 33,384284,110 Mid-Size Van ........................................ 719,529 615,349 Subcompact/Mini Car ............................ 599,643 1,459,138 Mid-Size MAV * .................................... 191,448 158,9 30 Small MAV ........................................... 235,524 289,880 Luxury Car ............................................ 1,057,875 1,432,162 Full-Size SUV* ..................................... 53 0,748 90,636 Specialty Car ......................................... 754,547 1,003,078 Mid-Size SUV ....................................... 347, 026 110,155 Others ................................................... 3,259 21,153 Small SUV ............................................ 377, 262 124,397 Full-Size CUV * ..................................... 406,554 319,201 Mid-Size CUV ....................................... 798,335 1,306,770 Small CUV ............................................ 1,441,589 1,866,580

Total Sales ..................................... 6,966,695 9,468,365

........................................................... .... 6,874,669 7,152,470

* MAV—Multi-Activity Vehicle, SUV—Sport Utility Vehicle, CUV—Crossover Utility Vehicle.

The agencies recognize that CSM quarter of 2009, which we were unable final rule. 66 CSM’s forecast for Chrysler forecasts a very significant reduction in to use for this proposal due to time for the 3rd quarter of 2009 was market share for Chrysler. This may be constraints. However, we have placed a significantly increased compared to the a result of the extreme uncertainty copy of the 3rd Quarter CSM forecast in 2nd quarter, by nearly a factor of two surrounding Chrysler in early 2009. The the public docket for this rulemaking, forecast from CSM used in this proposal and we will consider its use, and any

66 ‘‘CSM North America Sales Forecast is CSM’s forecast from the 2nd quarter further updates from CSM or other data Comparison 2Q09 3Q09 For Docket.’’ 2nd and 3rd of 2009. CSM also provided to the received during the comment period quarter forecasting results from CSM World Wide agencies an updated forecast in the 3rd when developing the analysis for the (Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0472).VerDate Nov<24>2008 23:31 Sep 25, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS 

### 49486 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 186 / Monday, September 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules

increase in projected sales over the 2012–2015 time frame.

The forecasts obtained from CSM provided estimates of car and trucks sales by segment and by manufacturer, but not by manufacturer for each market segment. Therefore, we needed other information on which to base these more detailed market splits. For this task, we used as a starting point each manufacturer’s sales by market segment from model year 2008. Because of the larger number of segments in the truck market, we used slightly different methodologies for cars and trucks.

The first step for both cars and trucks was to break down each manufacturer’s 2008 sales according to the market segment definitions used by CSM. For example, we found that Ford’s car sales in 2008 were broken down as shown in Table II.B.2–3:



### TABLE 

### II.B.2–3—B REAKDOWN OF 

### F ORD 

### ’ S 

### 2008 C AR 

### S ALES

Full-size cars ................. 76,762 units. Mid-size cars ................. 170,399 units. Small/Compact cars ...... 180,249 units. Subcompact/Mini cars ... None. Luxury cars ................... 100,065 units. Specialty cars ................ 110,805 units.

We then adjusted each manufacturer’s sales of each of its car segments (and truck segments, separately) so that the manufacturer’s total sales of cars (and trucks) matched the total estimated for each future model year based on EIA and CSM forecasts. For example, as indicated in Table II.B.2–1, Ford’s total car sales in 2008 were 641,281 units, while we project that they will increase to 990,700 units by 2016. This represents an increase of 54.5 percent. Thus, we increased the 2008 sales of each Ford car segment by 54.5 percent. This produced estimates of future sales which matched total car and truck sales per EIA and the manufacturer breakdowns per CSM (and exemplified for 2016 in Table II.B.1–1). However, the sales splits by market segment would not necessarily match those of CSM (and exemplified for 2016 in Table II.B.2–2).

In order to adjust the market segment mix for cars, we first adjusted sales of luxury, specialty and other cars. Since the total sales of cars for each manufacturer were already set, any changes in the sales of one car segment had to be compensated by the opposite change in another segment. For the luxury, specialty and other car segments, it is not clear how changes in sales would be compensated. For example, if luxury car sales decreased, would sales of full-size cars increase, mid-size cars, etc. ? Thus, any changes in the sales of cars within these three segments were assumed to be compensated for by proportional changes in the sales of the other four car segments. For example, for 2016, the figures in Table II.B.2–2 indicate that luxury car sales in 2016 are 1,432,162 units. Luxury car sales are 1,057,875 units in 2008. However, after adjusting 2008 car sales by the change in total car sales for 2016 projected by EIA and a change in manufacturer market share per CSM, luxury car sales increased to 1,521,892 units. Thus, overall for 2016, luxury car sales had to decrease by 89,730 units or 6 percent. We decreased the luxury car sales by each manufacturer by this percentage. The absolute decrease in luxury car saleswas spread across sales of full-size, midsize, compact and subcompact cars in proportion to each manufacturer’s sales in these segments in 2008. The same adjustment process was used for specialty cars and the ‘‘other cars’’ segment defined by CSM.

A slightly different approach was used to adjust for changing sales of the remaining four car segments. Starting with full-size cars, we again determined the overall percentage change that needed to occur in future year full-size cars sales after (1) adjusting for total sales per EIA, (2) manufacturer sales mix per CSM and (3) adjustments in the luxury, specialty and other car segments, in order to meet the segment sales mix per CSM. Sales of each manufacturer’s large cars were adjusted by this percentage. However, instead of spreading this change over the remaining three segments, we assigned the entire change to mid-size vehicles. We did so because, as shown in 2008, higher fuel prices tend to cause car purchasers to purchase smaller vehicles. We are using AEO 2009 for this analysis, which assumes fuel prices similar in magnitude to actual high fuel prices seen in the summer of 2008. 67 However, if a consumer had previously purchased a full-size car, we thought it unlikely that they would jump all the way to a subcompact. It seemed more reasonable to project that they would drop one vehicle size category smaller. Thus, the change in each manufacturer’s sales of full-size cars was matched by an opposite change (in absolute units sold) in mid-size cars.

The same process was then applied tomid-size cars, with the change in midsize car sales being matched by an

67 J.D. Power and Associates, Press Release, May16, 2007. ‘‘Rising Gas Prices Begin to Sway NewVehicle Owners Toward Smaller Versions of Trucks and Utility Vehicles.’’ opposite change in compact car sales. This process was repeated one more time for compact car sales, with changes in sales in this segment being matched by the opposite change in the sales of subcompacts. The overall result was a projection of car sales for 2012–2016 which matched the total sales projections of EIA and the manufacturer and segment splits of CSM. These sales splits can be found in Chapter 1 of the draft Joint Technical Support Document for this proposal.

As mentioned above, a slightly different process was applied to truck sales. The reason for this was we could not confidently project how the change in sales from one segment preferentially went to or came from another particular segment. Some trend from larger vehicles to smaller vehicles would have been possible. However, the CSM forecasts indicated large changes in total sport utility vehicle, multi-activity vehicle and cross-over sales which could not be connected. Thus, we applied an iterative, but straightforward process for adjusting 2008 truck sales to match the EIA and CSM forecasts.

The first three steps were exactly the same as for cars. We broke down each manufacturer’s truck sales into the truck segments as defined by CSM. We then adjusted all manufacturers’ truck segment sales by the same factor so that total truck sales in each model year matched EIA projections for truck sales by model year. We then adjusted each manufacturer’s truck sales by segment proportionally so that each manufacturer’s percentage of total truck sales matched that forecast by CSM. This again left the need to adjust truck sales by segment to match the CSM forecast for each model year.

In the fourth step, we adjusted the sales of each truck segment by a common factor so that total sales for that segment matched the combination of the EIA and CSM forecasts. For example, sales of large pickups across all manufacturers were 1,144,166 units in 2016 after adjusting total sales to match EIA’s forecast and adjusting each manufacturer’s truck sales to match CSM’s forecast for the breakdown of sales by manufacturer. Applying CSM’s forecast of the large pickup segment of truck sales to EIA’s total sales forecast indicated total large pickup sales of 1,475,881 units. Thus, we increased each manufacturer’s sales of large pickups by 29 percent. The same type of adjustment was applied to all the other truck segments at the same time. The result was a set of sales projections which matched EIA’s total truck sales projection and CSM’s market segment forecast. However, after this step, salesVerDate Nov<24>2008 23:31 Sep 25, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS 

### Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 186 / Monday, September 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

### 49487

by manufacturer no longer met CSM’s forecast. Thus, we repeated step three and adjusted each manufacturer’s truck sales so that they met CSM’s forecast. The sales of each truck segment (by manufacturer) were adjusted by the same factor. The resulting sales projection matched EIA’s total truck sales projection and CSM’s manufacturer forecast, but sales by market segment no longer met CSM’s forecast. However, the difference between the sales projections after this fifth step was closer to CSM’s market segment forecast than it was after step three. In other words, the sales projection was converging. We repeated these adjustments, matching manufacturer sales mix in one step and then market segment in the next for a total of 19 times. At this point, we were able to match the market segment splits exactly and the manufacturer splits were within 0.1% of our goal, which is well within the needs of this analysis.

The next step in developing the baseline fleet was to characterize thevehicles within each manufacturersegment combination. In large part, this was based on the characterization of the specific vehicle models sold in 2008. EPA and NHTSA chose to base our estimates of detailed vehicle characteristics on 2008 sales for several reasons. One, these vehicle characteristics are not confidential and can thus be published here for careful review and comment by interested parties. Two, being actual sales data, this vehicle fleet represents the distribution of consumer demand for utility, performance, safety, etc

.

We gathered most of the information about the 2008 vehicle fleet from EPA’s emission certification and fuel economy database. The data obtained from this source included vehicle production volume, fuel economy, engine size, number of engine cylinders, transmission type, fuel type, etc . EPA’s certification database does not include a detailed description of the types of fuel economy-improving/CO 2 -reducing technologies considered in this proposal. Thus, we augmented this description with publicly available data which includes more complete technology descriptions from Ward’s Automotive Group. 68 In a few instances when required vehicle information was not available from these two sources (such as vehicle footprint), we obtained this information from publicly

68 Note that WardsAuto.com is a fee-based service, but all information is public to subscribers. accessible Internet sites such as Motortrend.com and Edmunds.com. 69

The projections of future car and truck sales described above apply to each manufacturer’s sales by market segment. The EPA emissions certification sales data are available at a much finer level of detail, essentially vehicle configuration. As mentioned above, we placed each vehicle in the EPA certification database into one of the CSM market segments. We then totaled the sales by each manufacturer for each market segment. If the combination of EIA and CSM forecasts indicated an increase in a given manufacturer’s sales of a particular market segment, then the sales of all the individual vehicle configurations were adjusted by the same factor. For example, if the Prius represented 30% of Toyota’s sales of compact cars in 2008 and Toyota’s sales of compact cars in 2016 was projected to double by 2016, then the sales of the Prius were doubled, and the Prius sales in 2016 remained 30% of Toyota’s compact car sales.

NHTSA and EPA request comment on the methodology and data sources used for developing the baseline vehicle fleet for this proposal and the reasonableness of the results.

3. How Is the Development of the Baseline Fleet for This Proposal Different From NHTSA’s Historical Approach, and Why Is This Approach Preferable?

NHTSA has historically based its analysis of potential new CAFE standards on detailed product plans the agency has requested from manufacturers planning to produce light vehicles for sale in the United States. Although the agency has not attempted to compel manufacturers to submit such information, most major manufacturers and some smaller manufacturers have voluntarily provided it when requested.

As in this and other prior rulemakings, NHTSA has requested extensive and detailed information regarding the models that manufacturers plan to offer, as well as manufacturers’ estimates of the volume of each model they expect to produce for sale in the U.S. NHTSA’s recent requests have sought information regarding a range of engineering and planning characteristics for each vehicle model ( e.g. , fuel economy, engine, transmission, physical dimensions, weights and capacities, redesign schedules), each engine ( e.g. , fuel type, fuel delivery, aspiration, valvetrain configuration, valve timing,

69 Motortrend.com and Edmunds.com are free, no-fee Internet sites. valve lift, power and torque ratings), and each transmission ( e.g. , type, number of gears, logic).

The information that manufacturers have provided in response to these requests has varied in completeness and detail. Some manufacturers have submitted nearly all of the information NHTSA has requested, have done so for most or all of the model years covered by NHTSA’s requests, and have closely followed NHTSA’s guidance regarding the structure of the information. Other manufacturers have submitted partial information, information for only a few model years, and/or information in a structure less amenable to analysis. Still other manufacturers have not responded to NHTSA’s requests or have responded on occasion, usually with partial information.

In recent rulemakings, NHTSA has integrated this information and estimated missing information based on a range of public and commercial sources (such as those used to develop today’s market forecast). For unresponsive manufacturers, NHTSA has estimated fleet composition based on the latest-available CAFE compliance data (the same data used as part of the foundation for today’s market forecast). NHTSA has then adjusted the size of the fleet based on AEO’s forecast of the light vehicle market and normalized manufacturers’ market shares based on the latest-available CAFE compliance data.

Compared to this approach, the market forecast the agencies have developed for this analysis has both advantages and disadvantages.

Most importantly, today’s market forecast is much more transparent. The information sources used to develop today’s market forecast are all either in the public domain or available commercially. Therefore, NHTSA and EPA are able to make public the market inputs actually used in the agencies’ respective modeling systems, such that any reviewer may independently repeat and review the agencies’ analyses. Previously, although NHTSA provided this type of information to manufacturers upon request ( e.g. , GM requested and received outputs specific to GM), NHTSA was otherwise unable to release market inputs and the most detailed model outputs (i.e. , the outputs containing information regarding specific vehicle models) because doing so would violate requirements protecting manufacturers’ confidential business information from disclosure. 70 Therefore, this approach provides much greater opportunity for the public to

70 See 49 CFR part 512.VerDate Nov<24>2008 23:31 Sep 25, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS 

### 49488 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 186 / Monday, September 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules

review every aspect of the agencies’ analyses and comment accordingly.

Another significant advantage of today’s market forecast is the agencies’ ability to assess more fully the incremental costs and benefits of the proposed standards. In the past two years, NHTSA has requested and received three sets of future product plan submissions from the automotive companies, most recently this past spring. These submissions are intended to be the actual future product plans for the companies. In the most recent submission it is clear that many of the firms have been and are clearly planning for future CAFE standard increases for model years 2012 and later. The results for the product plans for many firms are a significant increase in their projected future application of fuel economy improvement technology. However, for the purposes of assessing the costs of the model year 2012–2016 standards the use of the product plans presents a difficulty, namely, how to assess the increased costs of the proposed future standards if the companies have already anticipated the future standards and the costs are therefore now part of the agencies’ baseline. This is a real concern with the most recent product plans received from the companies, and is one of the reasons the agencies have decided not to use the recent product plans to define the baseline market data for assessing our proposed standards. The approach used for this proposal does not raise this concern, as the underlying data comes from model year 2008 production. 71

In addition, by developing a baseline fleet from common sources, the agencies have been able to avoid some errors— perhaps related to interpretation of requests—that have been observed in past responses to NHTSA’s requests. For example, while reviewing information submitted to support the most recent CAFE rulemaking, NHTSA staff discovered that one manufacturer had misinterpreted instructions regarding the specification of vehicle track width, leading to important errors in estimates of vehicle footprints. Although the manufacturer resubmitted the information with corrections, with this approach, the agencies are able to reduce the potential for such errors and

71 However, as discussed below, an alternative approach that NHTSA is exploring would be to use only manufacturers’ near-term product plans, e.g. , from MY 2010 or MY 2011. NHTSA believes manufacturers’ near-term plans should be less subject to this concern about missing costs and benefits already included in the baseline. NHTSA is also hopeful that in connection with the agencies’ rulemaking efforts, manufacturers will be willing to make their near-term plans available to the public. inconsistencies by utilizing common data sources and procedures.

An additional advantage of the approach used for this proposal is a consistent projection of the change in fuel economy and CO 2 emissions across the various vehicles from the application of new technology. In the past, company product plans would include the application of new fuel economy improvement technology for a new or improved vehicle model with the resultant estimate from the company of the fuel economy levels for the vehicle. However, companies did not always provide to NHTSA the detailed analysis which showed how they forecasted what the fuel economy performance of the new vehicle was— that is, whether it came from actual test data, from vehicle simulation modeling, from best engineering judgment or some other methodology. Thus, it was not possible for NHTSA to review the methodology used by the manufacturer, nor was it possible to review what approach the different manufacturers utilized from a consistency perspective. With the approach used for this proposal, the baseline market data comes from actual vehicles which have actual fuel economy test data—so there is no question what is the basis for the fuel economy or CO 2 performance of the baseline market data as it is actual measured data.

Another advantage of today’s approach is that future market shares are based on a forecast of what will occur in the future, rather than a static value. In the past, NHTSA has utilized a constant market share for each model year, based on the most recent year available, for example from the CAFE compliance data, that is, a forecast of the 2011–2015 time frame where company market shares do not change. In the approach used today, we have utilized the forecasts from CSM of how future market shares among the companies may change over time. 72

The approach the agencies have taken in developing today’s market forecast does, however, have some disadvantages. Most importantly, it produces a market forecast that does not represent some important changes likely to occur in the future.

Some of the changes not captured by today’s approach are specific. For example, the agencies’ current market forecast includes some vehicles for

72 We note that market share forecasts like CSM’s could, of course, be applied to any data used to create the baseline market forecast. If, as mentioned above, manufacturers do consent to make public MY 2010 or 2011 product plan data for the final rule, the agencies could consider applying market share forecast to that data as well. which manufacturers have announced plans for elimination or drastic production cuts such as the Chevrolet Trailblazer, the Chrysler PT Cruiser, the Chrysler Pacifica, the Dodge Magnum, the Ford Crown Victoria, the Hummer H2, the Mercury Sable, the Pontiac Grand Prix, and the Pontiac G5. These vehicle models appear explicitly in market inputs to NHTSA’s analysis, and are among those vehicle models included in the aggregated vehicle types appearing in market inputs to EPA’s analysis.

Conversely, the agencies’ market forecast does not include some forthcoming vehicle models, such as the Chevrolet Volt, the Chevrolet Camaro, the Ford Fiesta and several publicly announced electric vehicles, including the announcements from Nissan. Nor does it include several MY 2009 or 2010 vehicles, such as the Honda Insight, the Hyundai Genesis and the Toyota Venza, as our starting point for vehicle definitions was Model Year 2008. Additionally, the market forecast does not account for publicly announced technology introductions, such as Ford’s EcoBoost system, whose product plans specify which vehicles and how many are planned to have this technology. Were the agencies to rely on manufacturers’ product plans (that were submitted), the market forecast would account for not only these specific examples, but also for similar examples that have not yet been announced publicly.

The agencies anticipate that including vehicles after MY 2008 would not significantly impact our estimates of the technology required to comply with the proposed standards. If they were included, these vehicles could make the standards appear to cost less relative to the reference case. First, the projections of sales by vehicle segment and manufacturer include these expected new vehicle models. Thus, to the extent that these new vehicles are expected to change consumer demand, they should be reflected in our reference case. While we are projecting the characteristics of the new vehicles with MY 2008 vehicles, the primary difference between the new vehicles and 2008 vehicles in the same vehicle segment is the use of additional CO 2 -reducing and fuel-saving technology. Both the NHTSA and EPA models add such technology to facilitate compliance with the proposed standards. Thus, our future projections of the vehicle fleet generally shift vehicle designs towards those of these newer vehicles. The advantage of our approach is that it helps clarify the costs of this proposal, as the cost of all fuel economyVerDate Nov<24>2008 23:31 Sep 25, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS 

### Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 186 / Monday, September 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

### 49489

improvements beyond those required by the MY 2011 CAFE standards are being assigned to the proposal. In some cases, the new vehicles being introduced by manufacturers are actually in response to their anticipation of this rulemaking. Our approach prevents some of these technological improvements and their associated cost from being assumed in the baseline. Thus, the added technology will not be considered to be free for the purposes of this rule.

We note that, as a result of these issues, the market file may show sales volumes for certain vehicles during MYs 2012–2016 even though they will be discontinued before that time frame. Although the agencies recognize that these specific vehicles will be discontinued, we continue to include them in the market forecast because they are useful for representing successor vehicles that may appear in the rulemaking time frame to replace the discontinued vehicles in that market segment.

Other market changes not captured by today’s approach are broader. For example, Chrysler Group LLC has announced plans to offer small- and medium-sized cars using Fiat powertrains. The product plan submitted by Chrysler includes vehicles that appear to reflect these plans. However, none of these specific vehicle models are included in the market forecast the agencies have developed starting with MY 2008 CAFE compliance data. The product plan submitted by Chrysler is also more optimistic with regard to Chrysler’s market share during MYs 2012–2016 than the market forecast projected by CSM and used by the agencies for this proposal. Similarly, the agencies’ market forecast does not reflect Nissan’s plans regarding electric vehicles.

Additionally, some technical information that manufacturers have provided in product plans regarding specific vehicle models is, at least insofar as NHTSA and EPA have been able to determine, not available from public or commercial sources. While such gaps do not bear significantly on the agencies’ analysis, the diversity of pickup configurations necessitated utilizing a sales-weighted average footprint value 73 for many

73 A full-size pickup might be offered with various combinations of cab style ( e.g., regular, extended, crew) and box length ( e.g., 5 1 ⁄ 2 ′ , 6 1 ⁄ 2 ′ , 8 ′) and, therefore, multiple footprint sizes. CAFE compliance data for MY 2008 data does not contain footprint information, and does not contain information that can be used to reliably identify which pickup entries correspond to footprint values estimable from public or commercial sources. Therefore, the agencies have used the known production levels of average values to represent all manufacturers’ pickups. Since our modeling only utilizes footprint in order to estimate each manufacturer’s CO 2 or fuel economy standard and all the other vehicle characteristics are available for each pickup configuration, this approximation has no practical impact on the projected technology or cost associated with compliance with the various standards evaluated. The only impact which could arise would be if the relative sales of the various pickup configurations changed, or if the agencies were to explore standards with a different shape. This would necessitate recalculating the average footprint value in order to maintain
accuracy.

The agencies have carefully considered these advantages and disadvantages of using a market forecast derived from public and commercial sources rather than from manufacturers’ product plans, and we believe that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages for the purpose of proposing standards for model years 2012–2016. NHTSA’s inability to release confidential market inputs and corresponding detailed outputs from the CAFE model has raised serious concerns among many observers regarding the transparency of NHTSA’s analysis, as well as related concerns that the lack of transparency might enable manufacturers to provide unrealistic information to try to influence NHTSA’s determination of the maximum feasible standards. Although NHTSA does not agree with some observers’ assertions that some manufacturers have deliberately provided inaccurate or otherwise misleading information, today’s market forecast is fully open and transparent, and is therefore not subject to such concerns.

With respect to the disadvantages, the agencies are hopeful that manufacturers will, in the future, agree to make public their plans regarding model years that are very near, such as MY 2010 or perhaps MY 2011, so that this information can be considered for purposes of the final rule analysis and be available for the public. In any event, because NHTSA and EPA are releasing market inputs used in the agencies’ respective analyses, manufacturers,

variants of a given pickup line ( e.g., all variants of the F–150 and the Sierra/Silverado) in order to calculate the sales-weighted average footprint value for each pickup family. Again, this has no impact on the results of our modeling effort, although it would require re-estimation if we were to examine light truck standards of a different shape. In the extreme, one single footprint value could be used for every vehicle sold by a single manufacturer as long as the fuel economy standard associated with this footprint value represented the sales-weighted, harmonic average of the fuel economy standards associated with each vehicle’s footprint values. suppliers, and other automobile industry observers and participant can submit comments on how these inputs should be improved, as can all other reviewers.

4. How Does Manufacturer Product Plan Data Factor into the Baseline Used in This Proposal?

In the Spring of 2009, many manufacturers submitted product plans in response to NHTSA’s request that they do so. 74 NHTSA and EPA both have access to these plans, and both agencies have reviewed them in detail. A small amount of product plan data was used in the development of the baseline. The specific pieces of data are:

• Wheelbase;

• Track Width Front;

• Track Width Rear;

• EPS (Electric Power Steering);

• ROLL (Reduced Rolling Resistance);

• LUB (Advance Lubrication i.e. , low weight oil);

• IACC (Improved Electrical Accessories);

• Curb Weight;

• GVWR (Gross Vehicle Weight Rating)

The track widths, wheelbase, curb weight, and GVWR could have been looked up on the Internet (159 were), but were taken from the product plans when available for convenience. To ensure accuracy, a sample from each product plan was used as a check against the numbers available from Motortrend.com. These numbers will be published in the baseline file since they can be easily looked up on the Internet. On the other hand, EPS, ROLL, LUB, and IACC are difficult to determine without using manufacturer’s product plans. These items will not be published in the baseline file, but the data has been aggregated into the EPA baseline in the technology effectiveness and cost effectiveness for each vehicle in a way that allows the baseline for the model to be published without revealing the manufacturers’ data.

Considering both the publiclyavailable baseline used in this proposal and the product plans provided recently by manufacturers, however, it is possible that the latter could potentially be used to develop a more realistic forecast of product mix and vehiclecharacteristics of the near-future lightduty fleet. At the core of concerns about using company product plans are two concerns about doing so: (a) Uncertainty and possible inaccuracy in manufacturers’ forecasts and (b) the transparency of using product plan data. With respect to the first concern, the

74 74 FR 9185 (Mar. 3, 2009)VerDate Nov<24>2008 23:31 Sep 25, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2EP28SE09.004</MATH>mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS 

### 49490 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 186 / Monday, September 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules

agencies note that manufacturers’ nearterm forecasts (i.e., for model years two or three years into the future) should be less uncertain and more amenable to eventual retrospective analysis (i.e., comparison to actual sales) than manufacturers’ longer-term forecasts (i.e., for model years more than five years into the future). With respect to the second concern, NHTSA has consulted with most manufacturers and believes that although few, if any, manufacturers would be willing to make public their longer-term plans, many responding manufacturers may be willing to make public their short-term plans. In a companion notice, NHTSA is seeking product plan information from manufacturers for MYs 2008 to 2020, and the agencies will also continue to consult with manufacturers regarding the possibility of releasing plans for MY 2010 and/or MY 2011 for purposes of developing and analyzing the final GHG and CAFE standards for MYs 2012– 2016. The agencies are hopeful that manufacturers will agree to do so, and that NHTSA and EPA would therefore be able to use product plans in ways that might aid in increasing the accuracy of the baseline market forecast.



### TARGET = C. Development of Attribute-Based Curve Shapes

NHTSA and EPA are setting attributebased CAFE and CO 2 standards that are defined by a mathematical function for MYs 2012–2016 passenger cars and light trucks. EPCA, as amended by EISA, expressly requires that CAFE standards for passenger cars and light trucks be based on one or more vehicle attributes related to fuel economy, and be expressed in the form of a mathematical function. 75 The CAA has no such requirement, though in past rules, EPA has relied on both universal and attribute-based standards ( e.g., for nonroad engines, EPA uses the attribute of horsepower). However, given the advantages of using attribute-based standards and given the goal of coordinating and harmonizing CO 2 standards promulgated under the CAA and CAFE standards promulgated under EPCA, as expressed in the joint NOI, EPA is also proposing to issue standards that are attribute-based and defined by mathematical functions.

Under an attribute-based standard, every vehicle model has a performance target (fuel economy and GHG emissions for CAFE and GHG emissions standards, respectively), the level of which depends on the vehicle’s



### 1 attribute (for this proposal, footprint). The manufacturers’ fleet average performance is determined by the production-weighed 76 average (for CAFE, harmonic average) of those targets. NHTSA and EPA are proposing CAFE and CO 2 emissions standards defined by constrained linear functions and, equivalently, piecewise linear functions. 77 As a possible option for future rulemakings, the constrained linear form was introduced by NHTSA in the 2007 NPRM proposing CAFE standards for MY 2011–2015. Described mathematically, the proposed constrained linear function is defined according to the following formula: 78

Where:

TARGET = the fuel economy target (in mpg) applicable to vehicles of a given footprint (FOOTPRINT, in square feet),

a = the function’s upper limit (in mpg), b = the function’s lower limit (in mpg),

c = the slope (in gpm per square foot) of the sloped portion of the function, d = the intercept (in gpm) of the sloped portion of the function (that is, the value the sloped portion would take if extended to a footprint of 0 square feet, and the MIN and MAX functions take the minimum and maximum, respectively, of the included values; for example, MIN (1,2) = 1, MAX (1,2) = 2, and MIN[MAX (1,2),3)] = 2.



### ⎞ ⎟ ⎠ 11

,,

a b

Because the format is linear on a consumption below. Graphically, the constrained linear form appears as gallons-per-mile basis, not on a miles- shown in Figure II.C.1–1. per-gallon basis, it is plotted as fuel **BILLING CODE 4910–59–P** 

### ⎡ ⎤ ⎛ MIN MAX FOOTPRINT d × + ⎜ ⎝

c ⎢ ⎣ ⎥ ⎦

75 49 U.S.C. 32902(a)(3)(A). 77 The equations are equivalent but are specified 78 This function is linear in fuel consumption but

76 Production for sale in the United States. differently due to differences in the agencies’ not in fuel economy. respective models.VerDate Nov<24>2008 23:31 Sep 25, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2EP28SE09.005</GPH>mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS 

### Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 186 / Monday, September 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

### 49491

The specific form and stringency for each fleet (passenger cars and light trucks) and model year are defined through specific values for the four coefficients shown above.

EPA is proposing the equivalent equation below for assigning CO 2 targets to an individual vehicle’s footprint value. Although the general model of the equation is the same for each vehicle category and each year, the parameters of the equation differ for cars and trucks. Each parameter also changes on an annual basis, resulting in the yearly increases in stringency seen in the tables above. Described mathematically, EPA’s proposed piecewise linear function is as follows: Target = a, if x ≤ l Target = cx + d, if l < x ≤ h Target = b, if x > hVerDate Nov<24>2008 23:31 Sep 25, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2EP28SE09.006</GPH>mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS 

### 49492 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 186 / Monday, September 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules

In the constrained linear form applied by NHTSA, this equation takes the simplified form: Target = MIN [MAX (c * x + d, a), b]

Where: Target = the CO 2 target value for a given footprint (in g/mi) a = the minimum target value (in g/mi CO 2 ) b = the maximum target value (in g/mi CO 2 ) c = the slope of the linear function (in g/mi per sq ft CO 2 ) d = is the intercept or zero-offset for the line (in g/mi CO 2 ) x = footprint of the vehicle model (in square feet, rounded to the nearest tenth) l & h are the lower and higher footprint limits or constraints or (‘‘kinks’’) or the boundary between the flat regions and the intermediate sloped line (in sq ft)
Graphically, piecewise linear form, like the constrained linear form, appears as shown in Figure II.C.1–2.VerDate Nov<24>2008 23:31 Sep 25, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS 

### Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 186 / Monday, September 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

### 49493

**BILLING CODE 4910–59–C**

As for the constrained linear form, the specific form and stringency for each fleet (passenger car and light trucks) and model year are defined through specific values for the four coefficients shown above.

For purposes of this rule, NHTSA and EPA developed the basic curve shapes using methods similar to those applied by NHTSA in fitting the curves defining the MY 2011 standards. The first step is defining the reference market inputs (in the form used by NHTSA’s CAFE model) described in Section II.B of this preamble and in Chapter 1 of the joint TSD. However, because the baseline fleet is technologically heterogeneous, NHTSA used the CAFE model to develop a fleet to which nearly all the technologies discussed in Chapter 3 of the joint TSD 79 were applied, by taking the following steps: (1) Treating all manufacturers as unwilling to pay civil penalties rather than applying technology, (2) applying any technology at any time, irrespective of scheduled vehicle redesigns or freshening, and (3) ignoring ‘‘phase-in caps’’ that constrain the overall amount of technology that can be applied by the model to a given manufacturer’s fleet. These steps helped to increase technological parity among vehicle models, thereby providing a better basis (than the baseline or reference fleets) for estimating the statistical relationship between vehicle size and fuel economy.

In fitting the curves, NHTSA also continued to apply constraints to limit the function’s value for both the smallest and largest vehicles. Without a limit at the smallest footprints, the function—whether logistic or linear— can reach values that would be unfairly burdensome for a manufacturer that elects to focus on the market for small vehicles; depending on the underlying data, an unconstrained form could apply to the smallest vehicles targets that are simply unachievable. Limiting the function’s value for the smallest vehicles ensures that the function remains technologically achievable at small footprints, and that it does not unduly burden manufacturers focusing on small vehicles. On the other side of the function, without a limit at the largest footprints, the function may provide no floor on required fuel economy. Also, the safety

79 The agencies excluded diesel engines and strong hybrid vehicle technologies from this exercise (and only this exercise) because the agencies expect that manufacturers would not need to rely heavily on these technologies in order to comply with the proposed standards. NHTSA and EPA did include diesel engines and strong hybrid vehicle technologies in all other portions of their analyses. considerations that support the provision of a disincentive for downsizing as a compliance strategy apply weakly—if at all—to the very largest vehicles. Limiting the function’s value for the largest vehicles leads to a function with an inherent absolute minimum level of performance, while remaining consistent with safety considerations.

Before fitting the sloped portion of the constrained linear form, NHTSA selected footprints above and below which to apply constraints (i.e., minimum and maximum values) on the function. For passenger cars, the agency noted that several manufacturers offer small and, in some cases, sporty coupes below 41 square feet, examples including the BMW Z4 and Mini, Saturn Sky, Honda Fit and S2000, Hyundai Tiburon, Mazda MX–5 Miata, Suzuki SX4, Toyota Yaris, and Volkswagen New Beetle. Because such vehicles represent a small portion (less than 10 percent) of the passenger car market, yet often have characteristics that could make it infeasible to achieve the very challenging targets that could apply in the absence of a constraint, NHTSA is proposing to ‘‘cut off’’ the linear portion of the passenger car function at 41 square feet. For consistency, the agency is proposing to do the same for the light truck function, although no light trucks are currently offered below 41 square feet. The agency further noted that above 56 square feet, the only passenger car model present in the MY 2008 fleet were four luxury vehicles with extremely low sales volumes—the Bentley Arnage and three versions of the Rolls Royce Phantom. NHTSA is therefore proposing to ‘‘cut off’’ the linear portion of the passenger car function at 56 square feet. Finally, the agency noted that although public information is limited regarding the sales volumes of the many different configurations (cab designs and bed sizes) of pickup trucks, most of the largest pickups ( e.g., the Ford F–150, GM Sierra/Silverado, Nissan Titan, and Toyota Tundra) appear to fall just above 66 square feet in footprint. NHTSA is therefore proposing to ‘‘cut off’’ the linear portion of the light truck function at 66 square feet.

NHTSA and EPA seek comment on this approach to fitting the curves. We note that final decisions on this issue will play an important role in determining the form and stringency of the final CAFE and CO 2 standards, the incentives those standards will provide ( e.g., with respect to downsizing small vehicles), and the relative compliance burden faced by each manufacturer. For purposes of the CAFE and CO 2 standards proposed in this NPRM, NHTSA and EPA recognize that there is some possibility that low fuel prices during the years in which MY 2012– 2016 vehicles are in service might lead to less than currently anticipated fuel savings and emissions reductions. One way to assure that emission reductions are achieved in fact is through the use of explicit backstops, fleet average standards established at an absolute level. For purposes of the CAFE program, EISA requires a backstop for domestically-manufactured passengercars—a universal minimum, nonattribute-based standard of either ‘‘27.5 mpg or 92 percent of the average fuel economy projected by the Secretary of Transportation for the combined domestic and non-domestic passenger automobile fleets manufactured for sale in the United States by all manufacturers in the model year * * *,’’ whichever is greater. 80 In the MY 2011 final rule, the first rule setting standards since EISA added the backstop provision to EPCA, NHTSA considered whether the statute permitted the agency to set backstop standards for the other regulated fleets of imported passenger cars and light trucks. Although commenters expressed support both for and against a more permissive reading of EISA, NHTSA concluded in that rulemaking that its authority was likely limited to setting only the backstop standard that Congress expressly provided, i.e., the one for domestic passenger cars. A backstop, however, could be adopted under section 202(a) of the CAA assuming it could be justified under the relevant statutory criteria. EPA and NHTSA also note that the flattened portion of the car curve directionally addresses the issue of a backstop (i.e. , a flat curve is itself a backstop). The agencies seek comment on whether backstop standards, or any other method within the agencies’ statutory authority, should and can be implemented in order to guarantee a level of CO 2 emissions reductions and fuel savings under the attribute-based standards.

Having developed a set of baseline data to which to fit the mathematical fuel consumption function, the initial values for parameters c and d were determined for cars and trucks separately. c and d were initially set at the values for which the average (equivalently, sum) of the absolute values of the differences was minimized between the ‘‘maximum technology’’ fleet fuel consumption (within the footprints between the upper and lower

80 49 U.S.C. 32902(b)(4).VerDate Nov<24>2008 23:31 Sep 25, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS 

### 49494 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 186 / Monday, September 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules

limits) and the straight line the function defined above at the same corresponding vehicle footprints. That is, c and d were determined by minimizing the average absolute residual, commonly known as the MAD (Mean Absolute Deviation) approach, of the corresponding straight line. Finally, NHTSA calculated the values of the upper and lower values ( a and b) based on the corresponding footprints discussed above (41 and 56 square feet for passenger cars, and 41 and 66 square feet for light trucks).

The result of this methodology is shown below in Figures II.A.2–2 and II.A.2–3 for passenger cars and light trucks, respectively. The fitted curves are shown with the underlying ‘‘maximum technology’’ passenger car and light truck fleets. For passenger cars, the mean absolute deviation of the sloped portion of the function was 14 percent. For trucks, the corresponding MAD was 10 percent.

**BILLING CODE 4910–59–P**VerDate Nov<24>2008 23:31 Sep 25, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2EP28SE09.007</GPH>mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS 

### Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 186 / Monday, September 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

### 49495VerDate Nov<24>2008 23:31 Sep 25, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2EP28SE09.008</GPH>mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS 

### 49496 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 186 / Monday, September 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules

The agencies used these functional forms as a starting point to develop mathematical functions defining the actual proposed standards as discussed above. The agencies then transposed these functions vertically (i.e., on a gpm or CO 2 basis, uniformly downward) to produce the relative car and light truck standards described in the next section.

D. Relative Car-Truck Stringency

The agencies have determined, under their respective statutory authorities, that it is appropriate to propose fleetwide standards with the projected levels of stringency of 34.1 mpg or 250 g/mi (as well as the corresponding intermediate year fleetwide standards) for NHTSA and EPA respectively. To determine the relative stringency of passenger car and light truck standards, the agencies are concerned that increasing the difference between the car and truck standards (either byVerDate Nov<24>2008 23:31 Sep 25, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS 

### Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 186 / Monday, September 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

### 49497

raising the car standards or lowering the truck standards) could encourage manufacturers to build fewer cars and more trucks, likely to the detriment of fuel economy and CO 2 reductions. 81 In order to maintain consistent car/truck standards, the agencies applied a constant ratio between the estimated average required performance under the passenger car and light truck standards, in order to maintain a stable set of

81 For example, since many 2WD SUVs are classified as passenger cars, manufacturers have already warned that high car standards relative to truck standards could create an incentive for them to drop the 2WD version and sell only the 4WD
version. incentives regarding vehicle classification.

To calculate relative car-truck stringency in this proposal, the agencies explored a number of possible alternatives. In the interest of harmonization, the agencies agree to use the Volpe model in order to estimate stringencies at which net benefits would be maximized. Further details of the development of this scenario approach can be found in Section IV of this preamble as well as in NHTSA’s PRIA and DEIS. NHTSA examined passenger car and light truck standards that would produce the proposed combined average fuel economy levels from Table I.B.2–2 above. NHTSA did so by shifting downward the curves that maximize net benefits, holding the relative stringency of passenger car and light truck standards constant at the level determined by maximizing net benefits, such that the average fuel economy required of passenger cars remains 34 percent higher than the average fuel economy required of light trucks. This methodology resulted in the average fuel economy levels for passenger cars and light trucks during MYs 2012–2016 as shown in Table I.D.2–1. The following chart illustrates this methodology of shifting the standards from the levels maximizing net benefits to the levels consistent with the combined fuel economy standards in this rule.VerDate Nov<24>2008 23:31 Sep 25, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2EP28SE09.009</GPH>mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS 

### 49498 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 186 / Monday, September 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules

After this analysis was completed, EPA examined two alternative approaches to determine whether they would lead to significantly different outcomes. First, EPA analyzed the relative stringencies using a 10-year payback analysis (with the OMEGA model). This analysis sets the relative stringencies if increased technology cost is to be paid back out of fuel savings over a 10-year period (assuming a 3% discount rate). Second, EPA also conducted a technology maximized analysis, which sets the relative stringencies if all technologies (with the exception of strong hybrids and diesels) are assumed to be utilized in the fleet. (This is the same methodology that was used to determine the curve shape as explained in the section above and in Chapter 2 of the joint TSD section).VerDate Nov<24>2008 23:31 Sep 25, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS 

### Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 186 / Monday, September 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

### 49499

Compared to NHTSA’s approach based the truck fuel economy standard). EPA economy levels to average required CO 2 on stringencies estimated to maximize believes that this similarity supports the emission rates, and then applying the net benefits, EPA staff found that these proposed relative stringency of the two expected air conditioning credits for two other approaches produced very standards. 2012–2016. These A/C credits are similar results to NHTSA’s, i.e., similar The car and truck standards for EPA shown in the following table. Further ratios of car-truck relative stringency (Table I.D. 2–4 above) were details of the derivation of these factors (the ratio being within a range of 1.34 subsequently determined by first can be found in Section III of this to 1.37 relative stringency of the car to converting the average required fuel preamble or in the EPA RIA.



### TABLE 

### II.D.1–1 E XPECTED 

### F LEET 

### A/C C REDITS 

### ( IN 

### CO 2 

### E QUIVALENT G

### /MI 

### ) F ROM 

### 2012–2016

Average technology penetration

(percent) Average credit for cars Average credit for

trucks Average credit for combined

fleet

2012 ............................................................................................................. 2013 ............................................................................................................. 2014 ............................................................................................................. 2015 ............................................................................................................. 2016 ............................................................................................................. 25 40 55 75 85 3.0 4.8 7.2 9.6 10.2 3.4 5.4 8.1 10.8 11.5 3.1 5.0 7.5 10 .0 1 0.6

The agencies seek comment on the use of this methodology for apportioning the fleet stringencies to relative car and truck standards for
2012–2016.

E. Joint Vehicle Technology Assumptions

Vehicle technology assumptions, i.e., assumptions about their cost, effectiveness, and the rate at which they can be incorporated into new vehicles, are often very controversial as they have a significant impact on the levels of the standards. Agencies must, therefore, take great care in developing and justifying these assumptions. In developing technology inputs for MY 2012–2016 standards, the agencies reviewed the technology assumptions that NHTSA used in setting the MY 2011 standards and the comments that NHTSA received in response to its May 2008 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. This review is consistent with the request by President Obama in his January 26 memorandum to DOT. In addition, the agencies reviewed the technology input estimates identified in EPA’s July 2008 Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The review of these documents was supplemented with updated information from more current literature, new product plans and from EPA certification testing.

As a general matter, the best way to derive technology cost estimates is to conduct real-world tear down studies. These studies break down each technology into its respective components, evaluate the costs of each component, and build up the costs of the entire technology based on the contribution of each component. As such, tear down studies require a significant amount of time and are very costly. EPA has begun conducting tear down studies to assess the costs of 4– 5 technologies under a contract with FEV. To date, only two technologies (stoichiometeric gasoline direct injection and turbo charging with engine downsizing for a 4 cylinder engine to a 4 cylinder engine) have been evaluated. The agencies relied on the findings of FEV for estimating the cost of these technologies in this rulemaking—directly for the 4 cylinder engines, and extrapolated for the 6 and 8 cylinder engines. The agencies request comment on the use of these estimated costs from the FEV study. For the other technologies, because tear down studies were not yet available, the agencies decided to pursue, to the extent possible, the Bill of Materials (BOM) approach as outlined in NHTSA’s MY 2011 final rule. A similar approach was used by EPA in the EPA 2008 Staff Technical Report. This approach was recommended to NHTSA by Ricardo, an international engineering consulting firm retained by NHTSA to aid in the analysis of public comments on its proposed standards for MYs 2011–2015 because of its expertise in the area of fuel economy technologies. A BOM approach is one element of the process used in tear down studies. The difference is that under a BOM approach, the build up of cost estimates is conducted based on a review of cost and effectiveness estimates for each component from available literature, while under a tear down study, the cost estimates which go into the BOM come from the tear down study itself. To the extent that the agencies departed from the MY 2011 CAFE final rule estimates, the agencies explained the reasons and provided supporting analyses. As tear down studies are concluded by FEV during the rulemaking process, the agencies will make them available in the joint rulemaking docket of this rulemaking. The agencies will consider these studies and any comments received on them, as practicable and appropriate, as well as any other new information pertinent to the rulemaking of which the agencies become aware, in developing technology cost assumptions for the final rule.

Similarly, the agencies followed a BOM approach for developing its effectiveness estimates, insofar as the BOM developed for the cost estimates helped to inform the appropriate effectiveness values derived from the literature review. The agencies supplemented the information with results from available simulation work and real world EPA certification testing.

The agencies would also like to note that per the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA), the National Academies of Sciences is conducting an updated study to update Chapter 3 of the 2002 NAS Report, which outlines technology estimates. The update will take a fresh look at that list of technologies and their associated cost and effectiveness values.

The report is expected to be available on September 30, 2009. As soon as the update to the NAS Report is received, it will be placed in the joint rulemaking docket for the public’s review and comment. Because this will occur during the comment period, the public is encouraged to check the docket regularly and provide comments on the updated NAS Report by the closing of the comment period of this notice. NHTSA and EPA will consider the updated NAS Report and any comments received, as practicable and appropriate, on it when considering revisions to the technology cost and effectiveness estimates for the final rule.VerDate Nov<24>2008 23:31 Sep 25, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS 

### 49500 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 186 / Monday, September 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules

Consideration of this report is consistent with the request by President Obama in his January 26 memorandum to DOT.

1. What Technologies Do the Agencies Consider?

The agencies considered over 35 vehicle technologies that manufacturers could use to improve the fuel economy and reduce CO 2 emissions of their vehicles during MYs 2012–2016. The majority of the technologies described in this section are readily available, well known, and could be incorporated into vehicles once production decisions are made. Other technologies considered may not currently be in production, but are beyond the research phase and under development, and are expected to be in production in the next few years. These are technologies which can, for the most part, be applied both to cars and trucks, and which are capable of achieving significant improvements in fuel economy and reductions in CO 2 emissions, at reasonable costs. The agencies did not consider technologies in the research stage because the leadtime available for this rule is not sufficient to move such technologies from research to production.

The technologies considered in the agencies’ analysis are briefly described below. They fall into five broad categories: engine technologies, transmission technologies, vehicle technologies, electrification/accessory technologies, and hybrid technologies. For a more detailed description of each technology and their costs and effectiveness, we refer the reader to Chapter 3 of the joint TSD, Chapter III of NHTSA’s PRIA, and Chapter 1 of EPA’s DRIA. Technologies to reduce CO 2 and HFC emissions from air conditioning systems are discussed in Section III of this preamble and in EPA’s DRIA.

Types of engine technologies that improve fuel economy and reduce CO 2 emissions include the following:

• Low-friction lubricants—low viscosity and advanced low friction lubricants oils are now available with improved performance and better lubrication. If manufacturers choose to make use of these lubricants, they would need to make engine changes and possibly conduct durability testing to accommodate the low-friction lubricants.

• Reduction of engine friction losses—can be achieved through lowtension piston rings, roller cam followers, improved material coatings, more optimal thermal management, piston surface treatments, and other improvements in the design of engine components and subsystems that improve engine operation.

• Conversion to dual overhead cam with dual cam phasing —as applied to overhead valves designed to increase the air flow with more than two valves per cylinder and reduce pumping losses.

• Cylinder deactivation—deactivates the intake and exhaust valves and prevents fuel injection into some cylinders during light-load operation. The engine runs temporarily as though it were a smaller engine which substantially reduces pumping losses.

• Variable valve timing —alters the timing of the intake valve, exhaust valve, or both, primarily to reduce pumping losses, increase specific power, and control residual gases.

• Discrete variable valve lift — increases efficiency by optimizing air flow over a broader range of engine operation which reduces pumping losses. Accomplished by controlled switching between two or more cam profile lobe heights.

• Continuous variable valve lift —is an electromechanically controlled system in which valve timing is changed as lift height is controlled. This yields a wide range of performance optimization and volumetric efficiency, including enabling the engine to be valve throttled.

• Stoichiometric gasoline directinjection technology —injects fuel at high pressure directly into the combustion chamber to improve cooling of the air/fuel charge within the cylinder, which allows for higher compression ratios and increased thermodynamic efficiency.

• Combustion restart —can be used inconjunction with gasoline directinjection systems to enable idle-off or start-stop functionality. Similar to other start-stop technologies, additional enablers, such as electric power steering, accessory drive components, and auxiliary oil pump, might be required.

• Turbocharging and downsizing — increases the available airflow and specific power level, allowing a reduced engine size while maintaining performance. This reduces pumping losses at lighter loads in comparison to a larger engine.

• Exhaust-gas recirculation boost — increases the exhaust-gas recirculation used in the combustion process to increase thermal efficiency and reduce pumping losses.

• Diesel engines—have several characteristics that give superior fuel efficiency, including reduced pumping losses due to lack of (or greatly reduced) throttling, and a combustion cycle that operates at a higher compression ratio, with a very lean air/fuel mixture, relative to an equivalent-performance gasoline engine. This technology requires additional enablers, such as NO
x trap catalyst after-treatment or selective catalytic reduction NO

x aftertreatment. The cost and effectiveness estimates for the diesel engine and aftertreatment system utilized in this proposal have been revised from the NHTSA MY 2011 CAFE final rule, and the agencies request comment on these diesel cost estimates.

Types of transmission technologies considered include:

• Improved automatic transmission controls—optimizes shift schedule to maximize fuel efficiency under wide ranging conditions, and minimizes losses associated with torque converter slip through lock-up or modulation.

• Six-, seven-, and eight-speed automatic transmissions—the gear ratio spacing and transmission ratio are optimized for a broader range of engine operating conditions.

• Dual clutch or automated shift manual transmissions—are similar to manual transmissions, but the vehicle controls shifting and launch functions. A dual-clutch automated shift manual transmission uses separate clutches for even-numbered and odd-numberedgears, so the next expected gear is preselected, which allows for faster and smoother shifting.

• Continuously variable transmission—commonly uses Vshaped pulleys connected by a metal belt rather than gears to provide ratios for operation. Unlike manual and automatic transmissions with fixed transmission ratios, continuously variable transmissions can provide fully variable transmission ratios with an infinite number of gears, enabling finer optimization of transmission torque multiplication under different operating conditions so that the engine can operate at higher efficiency.

• Manual 6-speed transmission— offers an additional gear ratio, often with a higher overdrive gear ratio, than a 5-speed manual transmission.

Types of vehicle technologies considered include:

• Low-rolling-resistance tires—have characteristics that reduce frictional losses associated with the energy dissipated in the deformation of the tires under load, therefore improving fuel economy and reducing CO 2 emissions.

• Low-drag brakes—reduce the sliding friction of disc brake pads on rotors when the brakes are not engaged because the brake pads are pulled away from the rotors.VerDate Nov<24>2008 23:31 Sep 25, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS 

### Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 186 / Monday, September 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

### 49501

• Front or secondary axle disconnect for four-wheel drive systems—provides a torque distribution disconnect between front and rear axles whentorque is not required for the nondriving axle. This results in the reduction of associated parasitic energy losses.

• Aerodynamic drag reduction—is achieved by changing vehicle shape or reducing frontal area, including skirts, air dams, underbody covers, and more aerodynamic side view mirrors.

• Mass reduction and material substitution—Mass reduction encompasses a variety of techniques ranging from improved design and better component integration toapplication of lighter and higherstrength materials. Mass reduction is further compounded by reductions in engine power and ancillary systems (transmission, steering, brakes, suspension, etc. ). The agencies recognize there is a range of diversity and complexity for mass reduction and material substitution technologies and there are many techniques that automotive suppliers and manufacturers are using to achieve the levels of this technology that the agencies have modeled in our analysis for this proposal. The agencies seek comments on the methods, costs, and effectiveness estimates associated with mass reduction and material substitution techniques that manufacturers intend to employ for reducing fuel consumption and CO 2 emissions during the rulemaking time frame.

Types of electrification/accessory and hybrid technologies considered include:

• Electric power steering (EPS) —is an electrically-assisted steering system that has advantages over traditional hydraulic power steering because it replaces a continuously operated hydraulic pump, thereby reducing parasitic losses from the accessory drive.

• Improved accessories (IACC) —may include high efficiency alternators, electrically driven (i.e., on-demand) water pumps and cooling fans. This excludes other electrical accessories such as electric oil pumps and electrically driven air conditioner
compressors.

• Air Conditioner Systems—These technologies include improved hoses, connectors and seals for leakage control. They also include improved compressors, expansion valves, heat exchangers and the control of these components for the purposes of improving tailpipe CO 2 emissions as a result of A/C use. These technologies are covered separately in the EPA RIA. • 12-volt micro-hybrid (MHEV) —also known as idle-stop or start stop and commonly implemented as a 12-volt belt-driven integrated starter-generator, this is the most basic hybrid system that facilitates idle-stop capability. Along with other enablers, this system replaces a common alternator with a belt-driven enhanced power starter-alternator, and a revised accessory drive system.

• Higher Voltage Stop-Start/Belt Integrated Starter Generator (BISG) — provides idle-stop capability and uses a high voltage battery with increased energy capacity over typical automotive batteries. The higher system voltage allows the use of a smaller, more powerful electric motor. This system replaces a standard alternator with an enhanced power, higher voltage, higher efficiency starter-alternator, that is belt driven and that can recover braking energy while the vehicle slows down (regenerative braking).

• Integrated Motor Assist (IMA)/ Crank integrated starter generator (CISG) —provides idle-stop capability and uses a high voltage battery with increased energy capacity over typical automotive batteries. The higher system voltage allows the use of a smaller, more powerful electric motor and reduces the weight of the wiring harness. This system replaces a standard alternator with an enhanced power, highervoltage, higher efficiency starteralternator that is crankshaft mounted and can recover braking energy while the vehicle slows down (regenerative braking).

• 2-mode hybrid (2MHEV) —is a hybrid electric drive system that uses anadaptation of a conventional steppedratio automatic transmission by replacing some of the transmission clutches with two electric motors that control the ratio of engine speed to vehicle speed, while clutches allow the motors to be bypassed. This improves both the transmission torque capacity for heavy-duty applications and reduces fuel consumption and CO 2 emissions at highway speeds relative to other types of hybrid electric drive systems.

• Power-split hybrid (PSHEV)—a hybrid electric drive system that replaces the traditional transmission with a single planetary gearset and a motor/generator. This motor/generator uses the engine to either charge the battery or supply additional power to the drive motor. A second, more powerful motor/generator is permanently connected to the vehicle’s final drive and always turns with the wheels. The planetary gear splits engine power between the first motor/generator and the drive motor to either charge the battery or supply power to the wheels. • Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV) —are hybrid electric vehicles with the means to charge their battery packs from an outside source of electricity (usually the electric grid). These vehicles have larger battery packs with more energy storage and a greater capability to be discharged. They also use a control system that allows the battery pack to be substantially depleted under electric-only or blended mechanical/electric operation.

• Electric vehicles (EV) —are vehicles with all-electric drive and with vehicle systems powered by energy-optimized batteries charged primarily from grid electricity.

The cost estimates for the various hybrid systems have been revised from the estimates used in the MY 2011 CAFE final rule, in particular with respect to estimated battery costs. The agencies request comment on the hybrid cost estimates detailed in the draft Joint Technical Support Document.

2. How Did the Agencies Determine the Costs and Effectiveness of Each of These Technologies?

Building on NHTSA’s estimates developed for the MY 2011 CAFE final rule and EPA’s Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, which relied on the 2008 Staff Technical Report, 82 the agencies took a fresh look at technology cost and effectiveness values for purposes of the joint proposal under the National Program. For costs, the agencies reconsidered both the direct or ‘‘piece’’ costs and indirect costs of individual components of technologies. For the direct costs, the agencies followed a bill of materials (BOM) approach employed by NHTSA in NHTSA’s MY 2011 final rule based on recommendation from Ricardo, Inc. EPA used a similar approach in the 2008 EPA Staff Technical Report. A bill of materials, in a general sense, is a list of components or sub-systems that make up a system—in this case, an item of fuel economy-improving technology. In order to determine what a system costs, one of the first steps is to determine its components and what they cost.

NHTSA and EPA estimated these components and their costs based on a number of sources for cost-related information. The objective was to use those sources of information considered to be most credible for projecting the costs of individual vehicle technologies. For example, while NHTSA and Ricardo engineers had relied considerably in the

82 EPA Staff Technical Report: Cost and Effectiveness Estimates of Technologies Used to Reduce Light-Duty Vehicle Carbon Dioxide Emissions. EPA420–R–08–008, March 2008.VerDate Nov<24>2008 23:31 Sep 25, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS 

### 49502 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 186 / Monday, September 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules

MY 2011 final rule on the 2008 Martec Report for costing contents of some technologies, upon further joint review and for purposes of the MY 2012–2016 standards, the agencies decided that some of the costing information in that report was no longer accurate due to downward trends in commodity prices since the publication of that report. The agencies reviewed, then revalidated or updated cost estimates for individual components based on new information. Thus, while NHTSA and EPA found that much of the cost information used in NHTSA’s MY 2011 final rule and EPA’s staff report was consistent to a great extent, the agencies, in reconsidering information from many

sources, 83,84,85,86,87,88,89 revised several component costs of several major technologies: turbocharging with engine downsizing, mild and strong hybrids, diesels, stoichiometric gasoline direct injection fuel systems, and valve train lift technologies. These are discussed at length in the joint TSD and in NHTSA’s PRIA.

For two technologies (stoichiometric gasoline direct injection and turbocharging with engine downsizing), the agencies relied, to the extent possible, on the tear down data available and scaling methodologies used in EPA’s ongoing study with FEV. This study consists of complete system tear-down to evaluate technologies down to the nuts and bolts to arrive at very detailed estimates of the costs associated with manufacturing them. 90

83 National Research Council, ‘‘Effectiveness and Impact of Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards,’’ National Academy Press, Washington, DC (2002) (the ‘‘2002 NAS Report’’), available at http://www.nap.edu/ openbook.php?isbn=0309076013 (last accessed August 7, 2009).

84 Northeast States Center for a Clean Air Future (NESCCAF), ‘‘Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Light-Duty Motor Vehicles,’’ 2004 (the ‘‘2004 NESCCAF Report’’), available at http://www. nesccaf.org/documents/rpt040923ghglightduty.pdf (last accessed August 7, 2009).

85 ‘‘Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Rulemaking, Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of Regulations to Control Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Motor Vehicles,’’ California Environmental Protection Agency, Air Resources Board, August 6, 2004.

86 Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc., ‘‘Technology to Improve the Fuel Economy of Light Duty Trucks to 2015,’’ 2006 (the ‘‘2006 EEA Report’’), Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0472.

87 Martec, ‘‘Variable Costs of Fuel Economy Technologies,’’ June 1, 2008, (the ‘‘2008 Martec Report’’) available at Docket No. NHTSA–2008–

0089–0169.1

88 Vehicle fuel economy certification data.

89 Confidential data submitted by manufacturers in response to the March 2009 and other requests for product plans.

90 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ‘‘Draft Report—Light-Duty Technology Cost Analysis Pilot Study,’’ Contract No. EP–C–07–069, Work Assignment 1–3, September 3, 2009. The confidential information provided by manufacturers as part of their product plan submissions to the agencies or discussed in meetings between the agencies and the manufacturers and suppliers served largely as a check on publicly-available data.

For the other technologies, considering all sources of information and using the BOM approach, the agencies worked together intensively during the summer of 2009 to determine component costs for each of the technologies and build up the costs accordingly. Where estimates differ between sources, we have used engineering judgment to arrive at what we believe to be the best cost estimate available today, and explained the basis for that exercise of judgment.

Once costs were determined, they were adjusted to ensure that they were all expressed in 2007 dollars using a ratio of GDP values for the associated calendar years, 91 and indirect costs were accounted for using the new approach developed by EPA and explained in Chapter 3 of the draft joint TSD, rather than using the traditional Retail Price Equivalent (RPE) multiplier approach. A report explaining how EPA developed this approach can be found in the docket for this notice. NHTSA and EPA also reconsidered how costs should be adjusted by modifying or scaling content assumptions to account for differences across the range of vehicle sizes and functional requirements, and adjusted the associated material cost impacts to account for the revised content, although some of these adjustments may be different for each agency due to the different vehicle subclasses used in their respective models. In previous rulemakings, NHTSA has used the Producer Price Index (PPI) to adjust vehicle technology costs to consistent price levels, since the PPI measures the effects of cost changes that are specific to the vehicle manufacturing industry. For purposes of this NPRM, NHTSA and EPA chose to use the GDP deflator, which accounts for the effect of economy-wide price inflation on technology cost estimates, in order to express those estimates in comparable terms with forecasts of fuel prices and other economic values used in the analysis of costs and benefits from the proposed standards. Because it is specific to the automotive sector, the PPI tends to be highly volatile from year to year, reflecting rapidly changing

91 NHTSA examined the use of the CPI multiplier instead of GDP for adjusting these dollar values, but found the difference to be exceedingly small—only $0.14 over $100. balances between supply and demand for specific components, rather than longer-term trends in the real cost of producing a broad range of powertrain components. NHTSA and EPA seek comment on whether the agencies should use a GDP deflator or a PPI inflator for purposes of developing technology cost estimates for the final rule.

Regarding estimates for technology effectiveness, NHTSA and EPA also reexamined the estimates from NHTSA’s MY 2011 final rule and EPA’s ANPRM and 2008 Staff Technical Report, which were largely consistent with NHTSA’s 2008 NPRM estimates. The agencies also reconsidered other sources such as the 2002 NAS Report, the 2004 NESCCAF report, recent CAFE compliance data (by comparing similar vehicles with different technologies against each other in fuel economy testing, such as a Honda Civic Hybrid versus a directly comparable Honda Civic conventional drive), and confidential manufacturer estimates of technology effectiveness. NHTSA and EPA engineers reviewed effectiveness information from the multiple sources for each technology and ensured that such effectiveness estimates were based on technology hardware consistent with the BOM components used to estimate costs. Together, they compared the multiple estimates and assessed their validity, taking care to ensure that common BOM definitions and other vehicle attributes such as performance, refinement, and drivability were taken into account. However, because the agencies’ respective models employ different numbers of vehicle subclasses and use different modeling techniques to arrive at the standards, direct comparison of BOMs was somewhat more complicated. To address this and to confirm that the outputs from the different modeling techniques produced the same result, NHTSA and EPA developed mapping techniques, devising technology packages and mapping them to corresponding incremental technology estimates. This approach helped compare the outputs from the incremental modeling technique to those produced by the technology packaging approach to ensure results that are consistent and could be translated into the respective models of the agencies.

In general, most effectiveness estimates used in both the MY 2011 final rule and the 2008 EPA staff report were determined to be accurate and were carried forward without significant change into this proposal. When NHTSA and EPA’s estimates for effectiveness diverged slightly due to