Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 98 / Friday, May 22, 2009 / Notices 24007 

(LNG) Project, Construction and 

Operation, Proposed Liquefied 

Natural Gas (LNG) Terminal, Natural 

Gas Pipeline and Associated 

Facilities, Washington County, ME, 

Comment Period Ends: 07/06/2009, 

Contact: Patricia Schaub 1–866–208– 

3372. 

EIS No. 20090165, Final EIS, AFS, UT, 

Dixie National Forest Motorized 

Travel Plan, Implementation, Dixie 

National and the Teasdale portion of 

the Fremont River Ranger District on 

the Fishlake National Forest, Garfield, 

Iron, Kane, Piute, Washington and 

Wayne Counties, UT, Wait Period 

Ends: 06/22/2009, Contact: Andi 

Falsetto 435–896–9233. 

EIS No. 20090166, Draft Supplement, 

COE, LA, Calcasieu River and Pass, 

Louisiana Dredged Material 

Management Plan, Implementation, 

Calcasieu Ship Channel, Port of Lake 

Charles, Calcasieu and Cameron 

Parishes, LA, Wait Period Ends: 07/ 

06/2009, Contact: Sandra Stiles 504– 

862–1583. 

EIS No. 20090167, Final EIS, FAA, AK, 

Sitka Rocky Gutierrez Airport Master 

Plan, Improvements to the Runway 

Safety Area, Taxiway, Seaplane 

Pullout, Approach Lighting System, 

and the Seawall, U.S. Army COE 

Section 10 and 404 Permits, NPDES 

Permit, AK, Wait Period Ends: 06/22/ 

2009, Contact: Patricia Sullivan 907– 

271–5454. 

Amended Notices 

EIS No. 20090048, Draft EIS, AFS, MT, 

Montanore Project, Proposes to 

Construct a Copper and Silver 

Underground Mine and Associated 

Facilities, Including a New 

Transmission Line, Plan-of-Operation 

Permit, Kootenai National Forest, 

Sanders County, MT, Wait Period 

Ends: 07/27/2009, Contact: Bobbie 

Lacklen 406–283–7681. Revision to 

FR Notice Published 02/27/2009: 

Extending Comment Period from 

05/28/2009 to 07/27/2009. 

EIS No. 20090123, Draft EIS, FHW, MS, 

Greenville Connector Project, from 

Relocated U.S. 82 to Proposed I–69 

Corridor south of Benoit, City of 

Greenville, Washington and Bolivar 

Counties, MS, Wait Period Ends: 

07/06/2009, Contact: Andrew Hughes, 

P.E. 601–965–4217. Revision of FR 

Notice Published 04/24/2009: 

Extending Comment Period from 

06/08/2009 to 07/06/2009. 

Dated: May 19, 2009. 

Ken Mittelholtz, 

Environmental Protection Specialist, Office 

of Federal Activities. 

[FR Doc. E9–12012 Filed 5–21–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[ER–FRL–8593–7] 

Environmental Impact Statements and 

Regulations; Availability of EPA 

Comments 

Availability of EPA comments 

prepared pursuant to the Environmental 

Review Process (ERP), under section 

309 of the Clean Air Act and Section 

102(2)(c) of the National Environmental 

Policy Act as amended. Requests for 

copies of EPA comments can be directed 

to the Office of Federal Activities at 

202–564–7146. 

An explanation of the ratings assigned 

to draft environmental impact 

statements (EISs) was published in FR 

dated April 17, 2009 (74 FR 17860). 

Draft EISs 

EIS No. 20090054, ERP No. D–AFS– 

K65358–CA, Stanislaus National 

Forest Motorized Travel Management 

(17305) Plan, Implementation, 

Stanislaus National Forest, CA. 

Summary: EPA expressed 

environmental concerns about adverse 

impacts on water quality, sensitive 

species and habitat. Additional 

information is needed on seasonal 

closures, monitoring, and enforcement 

commitments. Rating EC2. 

EIS No. 20090062, ERP No. D–FRC– 

E05104–00, Catawba-Wateree 

Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 

2232), Application for Hydroelectric 

License, Catawba and Wateree Rivers 

in Burke, McDowell, Caldwell, 

Catawba, Alexander, Iredell, 

Mecklenburg, Lincoln and Gaston 

Counties, NC and York, Lancaster, 

Chester, Fairfield and Kershaw 

Counties, SC. 

Summary: EPA expressed 

environmental concerns impacts to 

aquatic species. Rating EC1. 

Final EISs 

EIS No. 20090110, ERP No. F–USN– 

C11023–NJ, Laurelwood Housing 

Area, Access at Naval Weapons 

Station Earle, Lease Agreement, 

Monmouth County, NJ. 

Summary: No formal comment letter 

was sent to the preparing agency. 

Dated: May 19, 2009. 

Ken Mittelholtz, 

Environmental Protection Specialist, Office 

of Federal Activities. 

[FR Doc. E9–12011 Filed 5–21–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

[FRL–8909–3] 

RIN 2060–ZA15 

Notice of Upcoming Joint Rulemaking 

To Establish Vehicle GHG Emissions 

and CAFE Standards 

AGENCIES: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) and Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of Intent to conduct a 

joint rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: There is a critically important 

need for our country to address global 

climate change and to reduce oil 

consumption. In this context, EPA and 

DOT currently intend to work in 

coordination to propose standards for 

control of emissions of greenhouse gases 

and for fuel economy, respectively. If 

proposed and finalized, these standards 

would apply to passenger cars, lightduty trucks, and medium-duty 

passenger vehicles (light-duty vehicles) 

built in model years 2012 through 2016. 

Together, these vehicle categories, 

which include passenger cars, sport 

utility vehicles, minivans, and pickup 

trucks, are responsible for almost 60 

percent of all U.S. transportation-related 

greenhouse gas emissions. If ultimately 

adopted, these standards would 

represent a harmonized and consistent 

national policy pursuant to the separate 

statutory frameworks under which EPA 

and DOT operate. The approach 

addressed in this Notice, if ultimately 

adopted, is intended to allow 

manufacturers to build a single lightduty national fleet that would satisfy all 

requirements under both programs and 

would provide significant reductions in 

both greenhouse gas emissions and oil 

consumption. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

EPA: Christopher Lieske, Office of 

Transportation and Air Quality, 

Assessment and Standards Division, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 

Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 

48105; telephone number: 734–214– 

4584; fax number: 734–214–4816; e-mail 

address: lieske.christopher@epa.gov, or 

Assessment and Standards Division 

Hotline; telephone number (734) 214– 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
24008 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 98 / Friday, May 22, 2009 / Notices 

1NHTSA is delegated responsibility for 

implementing the Energy Policy and Conservation 

Act (EPCA) fuel economy requirements assigned to 

the Secretary of Transportation. 49 CFR 1.50, 

501.2(a)(8). 

2 74 FR 14196; March 30, 2009. 

3 549 U.S. 497 (2007). 

4 74 FR 18886; April 24, 2009. 

5 74 FR 7040; February 12, 2009. 

6The CAA requires EPA to establish ‘‘standards 

applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from 

new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines 

which, in the Administrator’s judgment, cause or 

contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be 

anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.’’ 

As noted above, EPA has proposed to find that 

GHGs emitted by new motor vehicles and new 

motor vehicle engines contribute to air pollution 

that endangers public health and welfare. Section 

202(a) of the CAA further provides that standards 

set pursuant to it ‘‘shall take effect after such period 

as the Administrator finds necessary to permit the 

development and application of the requisite 

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

DOT/NHTSA: Julie Abraham, Office of 

Rulemaking, National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. 

Telephone: (202) 366–1455. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Introduction 

This joint Notice announces plans by 

the Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) and the National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), on 

behalf of the Department of 

Transportation, to propose a strong and 

coordinated Federal greenhouse gas and 

fuel economy program for passenger 

cars, light-duty trucks, and mediumduty passenger vehicles (hereafter lightduty vehicles), referred to as the 

National Program.1 Both agencies seek 

to propose a coordinated program that 

can achieve important 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 will be commercially 

available and that can be incorporated at 

a reasonable cost. The agencies intend 

to propose a program that will also 

provide regulatory certainty for the 

automobile industry, while recognizing 

the serious current economic situation 

faced by this industry and many 

members of the public. 

In the near future, EPA and NHTSA 

intend to initiate a joint rulemaking, 

with EPA proposing GHG emissions 

standards under the Clean Air Act 

(CAA), and NHTSA proposing 

Corporate Average Fuel Economy 

(CAFE) standards under EPCA, as 

amended by the Energy Independence 

and Security Act of 2007 (EISA). It is 

intended that this joint rulemaking 

proposal will reflect a carefully 

coordinated and harmonized approach 

to implementing these two statutes and 

will be in accordance with all 

substantive and procedural 

requirements imposed by law. 

Since the 1970s, NHTSA has 

promulgated CAFE standards for lightduty vehicles to address our country’s 

need to reduce oil consumption. In 2008 

NHTSA proposed CAFE standards for 

model years (MY) 2011 through 2015. 

However, responding to a Presidential 

Memorandum of January 26, 2009, 

NHTSA issued CAFE standards limited 

to MY 2011,2 and has been 

comprehensively reviewing how it sets 

CAFE standards in the context of 

preparing to propose CAFE standards 

for MY 2012 and later model years. At 

the same time, EPA has been working 

on appropriate responses that are 

consistent with the decision of the 

Supreme Court in Massachusetts v. 

EPA 3 and EPA’s recent proposal 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.4 In 

addition, in 2005 California adopted 

GHG emissions standards for new lightduty vehicles. Thirteen States and the 

District of Columbia to date, comprising 

approximately 40 percent of the lightduty vehicle market, have adopted 

California’s GHG emissions standards. 

In 2008, EPA denied a request by 

California for a waiver of preemption 

under the CAA for its GHG emissions 

standards. However, consistent with 

another Presidential Memorandum of 

January 26, 2009, EPA is currently 

reconsidering the prior denial of 

California’s request.5 California and the 

States that have adopted California’s 

standards are planning to enforce these 

standards if EPA grants California’s 

request for a waiver of preemption. 

In sum, one agency is responsible for 

a standard that focuses on emissions of 

GHG and the other for a standard that 

focuses on improving fuel economy, and 

there are both Federal and State 

administrative agencies working on 

standards to address similar issues. 

Consistent, harmonized, and 

streamlined requirements hold out the 

promise of delivering environmental 

and energy benefits, cost savings, and 

administrative efficiencies that might 

not be available under a less 

coordinated approach. The National 

Program the agencies intend to propose 

would seek to deliver on that promise. 

Key elements of a harmonized and 

coordinated National Program the 

agencies intend to propose are the level 

and form of the standard, the available 

compliance mechanisms, and general 

implementation elements. These 

elements are outlined in the following 

sections. The agencies will continue to 

evaluate all of the issues relevant to 

developing a proposal, and will provide 

their evaluations for review and public 

comment with the upcoming NPRM. 

This will include analyses on a variety 

of relevant issues, such as the costs and 

benefits of the proposal (both quantified 

and unquantified), as well as the effects 

the proposal would have on the 

economy, manufacturers, and 

consumers. The notice of proposed 

rulemaking the agencies intend to issue 

will discuss both the analyses that will 

have been done for the proposal as well 

as any plans for conducting additional 

analyses. 

It is also important to note that GHG 

standards expected to be issued under 

section 202(a) of the CAA would 

become final only if EPA makes a final 

finding consistent with its recent 

proposal to find that emissions of 

greenhouse gases 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. 

The agencies also anticipate that the 

kind of harmonized and consistent 

national policy described in this Notice 

should be considered in developing 

standards for model years after 2016, in 

a future rulemaking. 

II. Key Elements of the National 

Program 

A. Level of the Standards 

EPA and NHTSA intend to propose 

two separate sets of standards, each 

under their respective statutory 

authorities. EPA expects to propose a 

national CO2 vehicle emissions standard 

under section 202(a) of the Clean Air 

Act. EPA currently is considering 

proposing standards that would, if made 

final, achieve on average 250 grams/ 

mile of CO2 in model year 2016. The 

standards for earlier years would begin 

with the 2012 model year, with a 

generally linear phase-in from MY 2012 

through to model year 2016. NHTSA 

expects to propose appropriate related 

CAFE standards. 

In developing the proposals under 

consideration, EPA and NHTSA have 

preliminarily evaluated the kinds of 

technologies that could be utilized by 

the automobile industry, as well as the 

associated costs for the industry and 

fuel savings for the consumer, the 

magnitude of the GHG and energy 

consumption reductions that may be 

achieved, and other factors relevant 

under their respective statutory 

authorities.6 With respect to 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 98 / Friday, May 22, 2009 / Notices 24009 

technology, giving appropriate consideration to the 

cost of compliance within such period.’’ 

The EPCA requires that the CAFE standards for 

each model year be set at the maximum feasible 

level. In determining that level, NHTSA must 

consider technological feasibility, economic 

practicability, the effect of other motor vehicle 

standards of the Government on fuel economy, and 

the need of the United States to conserve energy. 

NHTSA is prohibited from considering the 

availability of compliance flexibilities such as the 

ability to earn credits for exceeding CAFE standards 

in setting CAFE standards. Further, NHTSA must 

set the MY 2011–2020 CAFE standards sufficiently 

high to ensure that the industry-wide average of all 

new passenger cars and light trucks, combined, is 

not less than 35 miles per gallon by MY 2020. 

7The close relationship between emissions of 

CO2—the most prevalent greenhouse gas emitted by 

motor vehicles—and fuel consumption, means that 

the technologies to control CO2 emissions and to 

improve fuel economy overlap to a great degree. 

8As discussed in this section, these mile per 

gallon equivalents should not be considered levels 

of potential CAFE standards. 

9 71 FR 17566; April 6, 2006. 

10 74 FR 14196; March 30, 2009. 

technological feasibility, during MYs 

2012–2016 manufacturers are expected 

to go through the normal automotive 

business cycle of redesigning and 

upgrading their light-duty vehicle 

products (and in some cases introducing 

entirely new vehicles not on the market 

today). The proposal under 

consideration is expected to 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 under consideration, as it 

would avoid the much higher costs that 

would occur if manufacturers needed to 

add or change technology at times other 

than these scheduled redesigns. This 

time period would also provide 

manufacturers the opportunity to plan 

for compliance using a multi-year time 

frame, again in accord with normal 

business 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. 

Technical work conducted by each 

agency over the last several years 

indicates that there is a wide range of 

technologies available for manufacturers 

to consider in upgrading vehicles to 

reduce GHG emissions and improve fuel 

economy.7 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 advanced 

transmissions, 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. Although 

many of these technologies are available 

today, the emissions reductions and fuel 

economy improvements under 

consideration for the proposal would be 

expected to involve more widespread 

use of these technologies across the 

fleet. 

Initial evaluations by EPA and 

NHTSA indicate that utilization of this 

suite of technologies provides a strong 

technical basis to proceed with 

consideration of a proposal containing 

MY 2016 GHG standards that would on 

average achieve 250 gram/mile CO2. If 

the automotive industry were to achieve 

this CO2 level all through fuel economy 

improvements, this would equate to 

achieving a fleet average level of 35.5 

mpg. However, it is expected that most 

companies would also apply some air 

conditioning improvements to reduce 

GHG emissions. This would not 

translate into fuel economy 

improvements, so on average we expect 

the fuel economy improvements to be 

somewhat below the 35.5 mpg value.8

The proposal under consideration 

would also include a harmonized CAFE 

standard for MY 2016. Compatible GHG 

and CAFE standards for earlier model 

years would increase from the MY 2011 

CAFE standard to the MY 2016 level of 

the National Program. 

In developing their respective 

proposals, EPA and NHTSA will 

consider many of the same issues. Given 

differences in their respective statutory 

authorities, however, the agencies 

anticipate there will be some important 

differences in the development of their 

proposals. For example, under a GHG 

standard proposed under CAA section 

202(a) EPA would expect manufacturers 

to take advantage of the option to 

generate credits by reducing emissions 

of HFCs and CO2 through upgrades to 

their air conditioner systems. EPA plans 

to take these reductions into account in 

developing a proposed GHG standard. 

However, EPCA does not permit 

NHTSA to consider air conditioning 

credits in developing a proposed CAFE 

standard for passenger cars. CO2

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. 

In addition, in developing a proposal 

EPA would take into consideration all of 

the compliance flexibilities discussed 

below, such as averaging, banking, and 

trading of credits, while NHTSA is 

prohibited by statute from taking such 

flexibilities into account in developing 

proposed CAFE standards. 

Manufacturer utilization of these 

flexibilities, however, would be 

anticipated to provide important savings 

in cost, promote more cost-effective 

GHG emissions control and justify 

proposing more stringent GHG 

standards. As a result, the agencies do 

not anticipate a one-to-one 

correspondence between the level of 

EPA’s proposed GHG standards and 

NHTSA’s proposed CAFE standards. 

Instead the CAFE standards under 

consideration for proposal would be 

somewhat lower than the mile per 

gallon equivalent of the corresponding 

GHG standard. This reflects both the 

specific differences in standard setting 

criteria, as well as the general attempt 

by each agency to harmonize its 

proposed standards in a way that allows 

them to achieve their respective 

statutory and regulatory goals. The goal 

of the proposal under consideration is 

providing 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. 

Preliminary analysis indicates that the 

proposal under consideration would 

result in GHG reductions and oil 

consumption reductions that are very 

significant. Preliminary analysis 

indicates cumulative greenhouse gas 

reductions of approximately 890 million 

metric tons (CO2 equivalent) and fuel 

savings of approximately 1.8 billion 

barrels of oil, over the lifetime of the 

model years covered. Consumers would 

be expected to see cost savings due to 

the significant fuel savings. As 

discussed below, the agencies will 

conduct additional analyses of these 

matters. 

B. Form of the Standards 

Both EPA and NHTSA currently 

intend to propose attribute-based 

standards for passenger cars and lighttrucks. NHTSA adopted an attribute 

standard based on vehicle footprint in 

its Reformed CAFE program for lighttrucks for model years 2008–2011,9 and 

recently extended this approach to 

passenger cars in the CAFE rule for MY 

2011.10 The agencies currently intend to 

propose vehicle footprint as the 

attribute for the GHG and CAFE 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
24010 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 98 / Friday, May 22, 2009 / Notices 

11 74 FR 14196; March 30, 2009. 

12 74 FR 14407–14409; March 30, 2009. 

standards, with footprint 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. EPA and 

NHTSA believe initially that the 

footprint attribute is the most 

appropriate attribute on which to base 

the standards under consideration, as 

vehicle footprint correlates reasonably 

well with CO2 emissions, fuel economy, 

and consumer choice. In addition, the 

final rule issued by NHTSA for MY 

2011 also discusses in some detail the 

relationship between mass, weight, 

vehicle attributes like footprint, and 

safety.11

Under a footprint-based standard, 

each manufacturer would have a GHG 

and CAFE standard unique to its fleet, 

with a separate standard for passenger 

cars and light-trucks, depending on the 

footprints of the vehicle models 

produced by that manufacturer. 

Generally, manufacturers of larger 

vehicles (i.e., vehicles with larger 

footprints) would face less stringent 

standards (i.e., higher CO2 grams/mile 

standards and lower CAFE standards) 

than manufacturers of smaller vehicles. 

While a manufacturer’s fleet average 

standard could be estimated throughout 

the model year based on projected sales 

volume of its vehicle fleet, the standard 

of compliance would be based on the 

final model year sales figures. A 

manufacturer’s calculation of fleet 

average emissions at the end of the 

model year would be based on the salesweighted average emissions of each 

model in its fleet. 

EPA and NHTSA currently intend to 

propose separate footprint-based 

standards, or curves, for passenger cars 

and light-trucks. In designing the 

footprint-based standards, EPA and 

NHTSA intend to work together to build 

upon the footprint standard curves used 

in the CAFE rule for MY 2011,12 and to 

consider proposing changes to the shape 

of the curve based on, among other 

things, concerns about the steepness of 

the slope. EPA and NHTSA intend to 

consider, among other things, an 

approach that would generally flatten 

the passenger car curve, more in line 

with the shape of the truck curve for the 

MY 2011 CAFE standard. 

C. Program Flexibilities for Achieving 

Compliance 

As noted above, EPA and NHTSA 

expect to propose standards that are 

intended to provide compliance 

flexibility to manufacturers, especially 

in the early years of the program. This 

flexibility would be expected to provide 

sufficient lead time to make necessary 

technological improvements and 

additions, and reduce the overall cost of 

the program without compromising 

overall environmental and fuel economy 

objectives. The broad goal of 

harmonizing the two agencies’ 

standards would include preserving 

manufacturer flexibilities in meeting the 

standards. The following section 

provides an overview of flexibility 

provisions the agencies are 

contemplating in developing the 

program. 

1. CO2/CAFE Credits Earned Based on 

Fleet Average Performance 

EPA and NHTSA currently intend to 

propose that the fleet average standards 

that would apply to a manufacturer’s car 

and truck fleets would be based on the 

applicable attribute-based curves. At the 

end of each model year, when sales of 

the model year are complete, a salesweighted 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 CO2/CAFE 

level better than the standard would 

earn credits. Conversely, if the fleet 

average CO2/CAFE level does not meet 

the standard the fleet would generate 

debits (also referred to as a deficit or 

negative credits). 

Under the program being considered 

for proposal, a manufacturer whose fleet 

generates credits in a given model year 

would have several options for using 

those credits, including credit carryback, credit carry-forward, credit 

transfers, and credit trading. These 

provisions exist in the MY 2011 CAFE 

program per EPCA, and similar 

provisions are part of EPA’s Tier 2 

program for light duty vehicles’ 

emissions of criteria pollutants (as well 

as numerous other standards issued by 

EPA under section 202 of the CAA). It 

is expected that, under the proposal 

being considered, 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 restricts the carry-back of CAFE 

credits to three years and EPA is 

currently contemplating proposing the 

same limitation, in keeping with the 

goal of harmonizing both sets of 

proposed standards. 

After satisfying any needs to offset 

pre-existing deficits within a vehicle 

category, remaining credits could be 

saved (banked) for use in future years. 

EPA is contemplating allowing 

manufacturers to use these banked 

credits in at least the five years after the 

year in which they were generated (i.e., 

five or more years carry-forward). 

Another credit flexibility under 

consideration would be a 

manufacturer’s ability to transfer credits 

among its vehicle fleet to achieve 

compliance with the standards. For 

example, credits earned by overcompliance 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. 

EPCA provides for this type of credit 

transfer with CAFE as does EPA within 

its Tier 2 program. EPA currently 

intends to propose unlimited credit 

transfers across a manufacturer’s cartruck fleet to meet the GHG standard. 

EPCA, however, limits the amount of 

credits that may be transferred, and also 

prohibits the use of transferred credits 

to meet the statutory minimum for the 

domestic car fleet standard. These and 

other limits in EPCA would continue to 

apply to the determination of 

compliance with the CAFE standard. 

Finally, proposals under 

consideration would allow accumulated 

credits to be traded (sold) to other 

vehicle manufacturers. These sorts of 

exchanges are typically allowed under 

EPA’s current emission credit programs, 

although manufacturers have seldom 

made such exchanges. EPCA also allows 

these types of credit trades, although, as 

with transferred credits, traded credits 

may not be used to meet the minimum 

domestic standards. 

2. Air Conditioning Credits 

Air conditioning systems contribute 

to GHG emissions through the leakage of 

hydrofluorocarbon refrigerants which 

are powerful GHG pollutants, and also 

by placing an additional load on the 

engine, which causes the engine to 

produce additional CO2 emissions. EPA 

is considering an approach that would 

enable manufacturers to earn credits by 

reducing GHG emissions related to air 

conditioning systems. Under this 

approach, EPA would propose a test 

procedure and method to calculate CO2

equivalent reductions on a gram/mile 

basis that could be used as credits in 

meeting the fleet average CO2 standards. 

The approach under consideration 

could provide manufacturers with a 

highly cost-effective way to achieve a 

portion of GHG emissions reductions 

under the EPA program. EPA is also 

considering the possibility of allowing 

early air conditioning credits that could 

be earned through air conditioning 

system improvements in the years 

leading up to the start of the program. 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 98 / Friday, May 22, 2009 / Notices 24011 

13EPCA 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. 

14EPCA does not permit such an allowance. 

Consequently, manufacturers who may be able to 

take advantage of a lead-time allowance under the 

CAA would be required to comply with the 

applicable CAFE standard or be subject to penalties 

for non-compliance. 

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 

vehicles, which can run on a mixture of 

up to 85 percent ethanol and gasoline. 

Dedicated alternative fuel vehicles are 

vehicles that run exclusively on an 

alternative fuel. EPCA’s provisions were 

amended by the EISA to extend the 

period of availability of the FFV credits, 

but to begin phasing them out by 

annually reducing the amount of FFV 

credits that can be used to help achieve 

compliance with the CAFE standards.13

EPCA does not premise the availability 

of the FFV credits on actual use of 

alternative fuel. Under current law, after 

MY 2019, no FFV credits will be 

available for CAFE compliance. For 

dedicated alternative fuel vehicles, there 

are no limits or phase-out. 

For the GHG program, EPA 

contemplates proposing to allow FFV 

credits in line with EISA limits only 

during the period from MYs 2012 to 

2015. EPA will also consider allowing 

FFV credits beyond MY 2015 if 

manufacturers are able to demonstrate 

that the alternative fuel is actually being 

used in the vehicles. EPA is also 

considering how that demonstration 

could be made. 

4. Temporary Lead-Time Allowance 

Alternative Standards 

EPA is considering a temporary leadtime allowance for manufacturers whose 

sale of vehicles in the U.S. in a specified 

time period is below a specified cut-off, 

such as sales of 400,000 vehicles or less 

during a specified year, such as MY 

2009 or 2010. This would limit the 

number of vehicles to which the 

flexibility could apply. The 

manufacturers that satisfy 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.14 EPA 

is considering a less stringent GHG 

standard that would be 125 percent of 

the vehicle’s otherwise applicable footprint target level. EPA envisions that 

this allowance would be available only 

during the MY 2012–2015 phase-in 

years of the program. Appropriate 

restrictions on credit use would be 

expected to apply in the proposal under 

consideration. These allowance vehicles 

would be expected to be averaged into 

the manufacturer’s fleet starting no later 

than MY 2016. 

5. Additional Potential Credit 

Opportunities 

EPA is considering opportunities for 

early credits in MYs 2009–2011 through 

over-compliance with a baseline 

standard that EPA is considering. The 

baseline standard would be set to be 

equivalent, on a national level, to the 

California standards. Potentially, credits 

could be generated by over-compliance 

with this baseline in one of two ways— 

over-compliance by the fleet of vehicles 

sold in California and the CAA section 

177 States, or over-compliance with the 

fleet of vehicles sold in the 50 States. 

EPA is also considering allowing early 

credits based on over-compliance with 

CAFE, but under the contemplated 

proposal only for vehicles sold in States 

outside of California and the CAA 

section 177 States, and without use of 

FFV credits. Were this approach 

adopted, the program would need to be 

designed to avoid double counting 

credits between the two approaches. 

EPA is currently considering 

proposing additional credit 

opportunities to encourage the 

commercialization of advanced GHG/ 

fuel economy control technology such 

as electric vehicles and plug-in hybrid 

electric vehicles. These ‘‘super credits’’ 

could take the form of a multiplier that 

would be applied to the number of 

vehicles sold such that they would 

count as more than one vehicle in the 

manufacturer’s fleet average. EPA is also 

considering allowing such credits to be 

generated for years prior to MY 2012. 

EPA is also considering an option for 

generation of credits for employing 

technologies that achieve GHG 

reductions that are not reflected on 

current test procedures. Examples of 

technologies that EPA could consider 

include technologies such as solar 

panels on hybrids, adaptive cruise 

control, and active aerodynamics, 

among other things. 

D. Compliance 

There are ample precedents 

established in previous EPA and 

NHTSA regulations on which to 

develop an effective compliance 

program which would achieve the 

energy and environmental benefits from 

CAFE and motor vehicle GHG 

standards. EPA and NHTSA currently 

intend to propose 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 could closely 

track current practice and thus be 

familiar to manufacturers. EPA already 

oversees testing, collects and processes 

test data, and performs calculations to 

determine compliance with both CAFE 

and CAA standards. In a coordinated 

approach, compliance mechanisms for 

both programs could be consistent and 

non-duplicative. 

The general approach under 

consideration would allow 

manufacturers to satisfy the new 

program requirements in the same way 

they comply with existing CAA and 

CAFE requirements. Manufacturers 

would demonstrate compliance on a 

fleet-average 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. Although statutory 

authorities and flexibilities available to 

EPA and NHTSA differ, such a 

compliance program design could 

establish a single set of manufacturer 

reporting requirements and rely on a 

single set of underlying data, yet allow 

each agency to assess compliance with 

its respective program. 

Using currently available analyses, 

EPA and NHTSA do not anticipate any 

significant noncompliance under the 

program being considered. However, 

failure to meet the standards after credit 

opportunities are exhausted would 

ultimately result in the potential for 

penalties under EPCA, and under the 

CAA as well. The CAA allows 

considerable discretion in assessment of 

penalties. Penalties under the CAA are 

typically 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 LEV and Tier 2 corporate 

average standards, and to date there 

have been no instances of 

noncompliance. EPCA penalties are 

specified by statute 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. In the 

event of a compliance action arising out 

of the same facts and circumstances, 

EPA could consider CAFE penalties 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
24012 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 98 / Friday, May 22, 2009 / Notices 

when determining appropriate remedies 

for the EPA case. 

III. Conclusion 

There is a critically important need 

for our country to address global climate 

change and to reduce oil consumption. 

In this context, EPA and NHTSA 

currently intend to work in coordination 

to propose standards for control of 

emissions of greenhouse gases and for 

fuel economy, respectively. The EPA 

and the NHTSA plan to propose a strong 

and coordinated Federal greenhouse gas 

and fuel economy program for MY 2012 

through 2016 passenger cars, light-duty 

trucks, and medium-duty passenger 

vehicles, as described above. Both 

agencies seek to propose a coordinated 

program that can achieve important 

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 will be commercially 

available and that can be incorporated at 

a reasonable cost. 

The agencies anticipate issuing a joint 

proposal in the near future, and 

welcome robust public participation in 

the rulemaking process. 

Dated: May 18, 2009. 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator, Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

Dated: May 18, 2009. 

Ray LaHood, 

Secretary, Department of Transportation. 

[FR Doc. E9–12009 Filed 5–21–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

[Document Identifier: OS–0990–New; 30- 

Day Notice] 

Agency Information Collection 

Request; 30-Day Public Comment 

Request 

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, HHS. 

In compliance with the requirement 

of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the 

Office of the Secretary (OS), Department 

of Health and Human Services, is 

publishing the following summary of a 

proposed collection for public 

comment. Interested persons are invited 

to send comments regarding this burden 

estimate or any other aspect of this 

collection of information, including any 

of the following subjects: (1) The 

necessity and utility of the proposed 

information collection for the proper 

performance of the agency’s functions; 

(2) the accuracy of the estimated 

burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, 

utility, and clarity of the information to 

be collected; and (4) the use of 

automated collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology to 

minimize the information collection 

burden. 

To obtain copies of the supporting 

statement and any related forms for the 

proposed paperwork collections 

referenced above, e-mail your request, 

including your address, phone number, 

OMB number, and OS document 

identifier, to 

Sherette.funncoleman@hhs.gov, or call 

the Reports Clearance Office on (202) 

690–5683. Send written comments and 

recommendations for the proposed 

information collections within 30 days 

of this notice directly to the OS OMB 

Desk Officer; faxed to OMB at 202–395– 

6974. 

Proposed Project: Facts for Consumers 

about Health IT Service Providers— 

OMB No. 0990–NEW—OS/Office of the 

National Coordinator for Health 

Information Technology (ONC). 

Abstract: A new health information 

technology, the personal health record 

(PHR), seeks to provide consumers with 

the capability to directly manage their 

own health information. Although PHRs 

can exist in different formats or media 

(i.e., paper or electronic), the term 

usually refers to an online record 

containing an individual’s personal 

health information. PHRs typically 

include information such as health 

history, vaccinations, allergies, test 

results, and prescription information. 

Given the newness of the electronic 

PHR concept, the different ways to 

establish PHRs, and the sensitivity of 

personal health information, ONC is 

taking steps to establish that useful facts 

about PHRs and PHR privacy policy 

information be made available to 

consumers so they can make informed 

decisions about selecting and using 

PHRs. Toward this end, ONC has a 

project to develop an online model for 

PHR providers. The model will be 

developed to: 

› Allow presentation of important 

PHR facts and policies to consumers, 

› Allow consumers to understand 

and consistently compare PHR service 

provider policies with others, and 

› Focus on the key information that 

may influence decisions and choices of 

PHR service provider. 

The project includes iterative rounds 

of in-depth consumer testing during 

April–October 2009 to assess and 

analyze consumer understanding and 

input about the model. The model will 

be iteratively revised to design a final 

template that will allow PHR vendors to 

convey useful and understandable facts 

to consumers about their privacy, 

security, and information management 

policies. Testing will be conducted in 

six locations that cover the four 

geographic census regions and will 

include 90-minute, one-on-one, 

cognitive usability interviews with six 

to seven participants at each of six sites, 

for a total not to exceed 42 interviews. 

In addition, each participant will have 

been recruited through a 15-minute 

screening interview. The participants 

will be recruited according to U.S. 

census statistics for race/ethnicity, age, 

marital status, gender, and income. 

Also, the sample will include 

participants both familiar and 

unfamiliar with PHRs and participants 

who manage chronic health issues or a 

disease for themselves or others. 

ESTIMATED ANNUALIZED BURDEN TABLE

Type of respondent Number of 

respondents 

Number of 

responses 

per 

respondent 

Average 

burden hours 

per response 

Total burden 

hours 

Individuals screened ........................................................................................ 84 1 15/60 21 

Participants selected ........................................................................................ 42 1 90/60 63 

Total .......................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ 84 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES