SAFETEA-LU High Occupancy Vehicle Facilities Exemption Rule, 29102-29119 [E7-9821]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
29102
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 100 / Thursday, May 24, 2007 / Proposed Rules
deliveries are only accepted during the
Regional Office’s normal hours of
operation. The Regional Office’s official
hours of business are Monday through
Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal
holidays.
Please see the direct final rule which
is located in the Rules section of this
Federal Register for detailed
instructions on how to submit
comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Stacy Harder, Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street,
SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. The
telephone number is (404) 562–8965.
Ms. Harder can also be reached via
electronic mail at harder.stacy@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For
additional information see the direct
final rule which is published in the
Rules section of this Federal Register.
Dated: May 14, 2007.
Russell L. Wright, Jr.,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. E7–10059 Filed 5–23–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 601
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0173; FRL–8317–2]
RIN 2060–AN68
SAFETEA–LU High Occupancy Vehicle
Facilities Exemption Rule
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Safe, Accountable,
Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity
Act: A Legacy for Users Act, which was
signed into law on August 10, 2005,
contains provisions which apply to state
High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV)
facilities. Among other exceptions,
SAFETEA–LU Section 1121, which is
codified at 23 United States Code
(U.S.C.) 166 now allows an exemption
from the HOV facility occupancy
requirement for vehicles certified as
‘‘low emission and energy-efficient.’’ As
directed by the 2005 Transportation Act,
EPA must issue regulations for
certifying vehicles as ‘‘low emission and
energy-efficient.’’ Specifically, this
action proposes the requirements for
‘‘low emission and energy-efficient’’,
including procedures for making fuel
economy comparisons and the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:42 May 23, 2007
Jkt 211001
requirements for labeling these vehicles.
As the Department of Transportation
(DOT) is responsible for the planning
and implementation of HOV programs,
any changes to HOV programs as a
result of this action would also be
implemented by DOT and enforced by
the individual states that choose to
adopt these requirements. As directed
by the 2005 Transportation Act, the
HOV multiple-occupancy exemption for
low emission and energy-efficient
vehicle expires September 30, 2009.
DATES: Comments on this Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking must be
submitted on or before July 9, 2007. A
public hearing will be held on June 8,
2007. Requests to present oral testimony
must be received on or before June 1,
2007. If EPA receives no requests to
present oral testimony by this date, the
hearing will be canceled.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
OAR–2005–0173, by one of the
following methods:
• www.regulations.gov: Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
• E-mail: pugliese.holly@epa.gov.
• Fax: 734–214–4053.
• Mail: EPA–OAR–2005–0173,
Environmental Protection Agency, 2000
Traverwood, Ann Arbor, MI 48105
• Hand Delivery: Docket, EPA/DC,
EPA West, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington,
DC. Such deliveries are only accepted
during the Docket’s normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements
should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–
0173. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
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 email address will be automatically
captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
docket and made available on the
Internet. EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact
information in the body of your
comment if you submit an electronic
comment or 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.
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the www.regulations.gov
index. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly
available, e.g., 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 Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room
3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC. The Public Reading
Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. The telephone number
for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566–1744.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Holly Pugliese, Compliance and
Innovative Strategies Division, Office of
Transportation and Air Quality,
Environmental Protection Agency, 2000
Traverwood, Ann Arbor, MI 48105;
telephone number: 734–214–4288; fax
number: 734–214–4053; e-mail address:
pugliese.holly@epa.gov.
Access to Rulemaking Documents
Through the Internet: This action is
available electronically on the date of
publication from EPA’s Federal Register
Web site listed below. Electronic
versions of this preamble, regulatory
language, and other documents
associated with this proposal rule are
available from the EPA Office of
Transportation and Air Quality Web
site, listed below, shortly after the rule
is signed by the Administrator. These
services are free of charge, except any
cost that you already incur for
connecting to the Internet. EPA Federal
Register Web site: https://www.epa.gov/
docs/fedrgstr/epa-air/ (either select a
desired date or use the Search feature).
EPA Office of Transportation and Air
Quality Web site: https://www.epa.gov/
otaq/ (look in What’s New or under
specific rulemaking topic).
Please note that due to differences
between the software used to develop
the documents and the software into
E:\FR\FM\24MYP1.SGM
24MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 100 / Thursday, May 24, 2007 / Proposed Rules
which the documents may be
downloaded, changes in format, page
length, etc., may occur.
29103
I. General Information
A. Does This Action Apply to Me?
Regulated categories and entities
covered by this proposal are described
in the following table:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Category
NAICS codes a
SIC codes b
Examples of potentially regulated parties
State governments ..............
92 (Public Admin) ..............
9131 (Exec and Legislative
Offices Cmb).
State governments involved with transportation and/or
high occupancy vehicle facilities.
a North
American Industry Classification System (NAICS).
Industrial Classification (SIC) System.
b Standard
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 proposed regulations. You
may direct questions regarding the
applicability of this action to the person
listed in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare
My Comments for EPA?
1. Submitting Comments With
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
Commenters who wish to submit
proprietary information or CBI for
consideration should clearly separate
such information from other comments
by (1) labeling proprietary information
‘‘Confidential Business Information’’
and (2) sending proprietary information
directly to the contact person listed (see
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). Do
not submit CBI to EPA through the
docket, 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 CBI must be
submitted for inclusion in the public
docket.
Information covered by a claim of
confidentiality will be disclosed by EPA
only to the extent allowed and by the
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
If no claim of confidentiality
accompanies the submission when it is
received by EPA, the submission may be
made available to the public without
notifying the commenters.
2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments
When submitting comments,
remember to:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:42 May 23, 2007
Jkt 211001
• 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.
• 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.
Table of Contents
I. Why Is This Action Being Taken?
II. What Are EPA’s Proposed Requirements
for the Certification of Low Emission and
Energy-Efficient Vehicles?
A. How Is EPA Proposing To Determine a
Low Emission Vehicle?
B. How Is EPA Proposing To Determine an
Energy-Efficient Vehicle?
1. What Fuel Economy Values Are Being
Used To Determine if a Vehicle Is
Energy-Efficient?
2. How Is EPA Proposing To Determine a
‘‘Comparable Vehicle’’?
3. What Other Methods Did EPA Consider
for Determining a ‘‘Comparable
Vehicle’’?
C. Will All Hybrid Vehicles Qualify for the
HOV Facilities Exemption?
D. What Alternative Fuel Vehicles Could
Qualify for the HOV Facilities
Exemption?
E. How Will EPA Make Available the List
of Eligible Vehicles?
F. What Labeling Requirements Is EPA
Proposing for Low Emission and EnergyEfficient Vehicles?
G. What Impacts Are Associated With This
Rulemaking?
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
III. Request for Comments
IV. What Are the Opportunities for Public
Participation?
A. Copies of This Proposal and Other
Related Information
B. Public Hearing
V. What Are the Administrative
Requirements for This Proposed Rule?
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer
Advancement Act
VI. What Are the Statutory Provisions and
Legal Authority for This Proposed Rule?
I. Why Is This Action Being Taken?
On August 10, 2005, President Bush
signed into law the Safe, Accountable,
Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity
Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–LU)
(Pub. L. 109–59). In general, SAFETEA–
LU builds on the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
(ISTEA) and the Transportation Equity
Act for the 21st Century (TEA–21) to
supply funds and improve the
programmatic framework for
investments needed to maintain and
grow the U.S. transportation
infrastructure. SAFETEA–LU
specifically covers Federal surface
transportation programs for highways,
highway safety, and transit from 2005
until 2009. The HOV facilities
provisions of Section 1121 of
SAFETEA–LU, which are codified at 23
U.S.C. 166, are the subject of this
proposal.
With a number of exceptions
described more fully in Section 1121 of
SAFETEA–LU, vehicles using HOV
facilities must have two or more
occupants. One of those exceptions is
contained in 23 U.S.C. 166 and provides
E:\FR\FM\24MYP1.SGM
24MYP1
29104
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 100 / Thursday, May 24, 2007 / Proposed Rules
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
an exemption to this occupancy
requirement for ‘‘inherently low
emission’’ vehicles and other ‘low
emission and energy-efficient’ vehicles.
Specifically, SAFETEA–LU added
section 166(b)(5)(A) to title 23 of the
U.S.C., which permits states to allow
vehicles certified as ‘‘inherently low
emission’’ vehicles to be exempted from
the HOV facility occupancy
requirements. ‘‘Inherently low emitting’’
vehicles are defined in title 40 section
88.311–93 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR). In addition, 23
U.S.C. 166 allows, but does not require,
states to include a new occupancy
exemption for the use of ‘‘low emission
and energy-efficient’’ vehicles that do
not meet the minimum occupancy
requirement in HOV facilities. Section
166(e) of 23 U.S.C. lays the groundwork
for this proposal. Specifically, it directs
EPA to issue regulations for certifying
‘‘low emission and energy-efficient
vehicles,’’ establishing procedures for
making fuel economy comparisons in
order to determine qualifying vehicles,
and providing requirements for labeling
these vehicles. States with HOV
facilities may optionally adopt this
exemption, which expires September
30, 2009. This expiration date means
that, unless Congress issues a
reauthorization for the provisions in 23
U.S.C. 166, state programs allowing low
emission and energy-efficient vehicles
that do not meet the minimum
occupancy requirement to use HOV
facilities will no longer be federally
permitted and low emission and energyefficient vehicles that do not meet the
established occupancy requirement will
no longer be eligible to use HOV
facilities.
According to section 1121(c) of
SAFETEA–LU, it is the sense of
Congress to provide additional
incentives (including the use of HOV
facilities on State and Interstate
highways) for the purchase and use of
hybrid and other fuel efficient vehicle
technologies, which have been proven
to reduce exhaust emissions and
decrease fossil fuel consumption by the
transportation sector.
EPA believes that this proposed
rulemaking appropriately meets the
requirements of 23 U.S.C. 166 by
providing a useful methodology for
designating vehicles as low emission
and energy-efficient, thereby furthering
the intent of Congress.
II. What Are EPA’s Proposed
Requirements for the Certification of
Low Emission and Energy-Efficient
Vehicles?
To fulfill the requirements of 23
U.S.C. 166, a low emission and energy-
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:42 May 23, 2007
Jkt 211001
efficient vehicle must meet the
definition provided in 23 U.S.C.
166(f)(3). This definition includes
separate components for emissions and
energy efficiency. The sections below
discuss EPA’s proposed criteria for
determining a ‘‘low emission’’ and
‘‘energy-efficient’’ vehicle, based on the
statutory definition.
A. How Is EPA Proposing To Determine
a Low Emission Vehicle?
Section 166(f)(3)(A) defines the ‘‘low
emission’’ component of a ‘‘low
emission and energy-efficient’’ vehicle
to be a vehicle that has been certified by
EPA as meeting ‘‘the Tier II emission
level established in regulations
prescribed by the EPA under section
202(i) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for
that vehicle’s make, model, and model
year’’ (‘‘Tier II’’ will hereafter be
referred to as ‘‘Tier 2’’). The Tier 2
emission certification standards phase
in over time and by vehicle
classification. The standards took effect
beginning in model year 2004 and will
be fully implemented for light-duty
vehicles and light light-duty trucks, up
to 6000 pounds (lbs.) gross vehicle
weight rating (GVWR), in 2007 (40 CFR
86.1811–04(k)). The standards for heavy
light-duty trucks, 6000 to 8500 lbs.
GVWR, will not be fully implemented
until the 2009 model year. The Tier 2
standards also apply to medium-duty
passenger vehicles, 8501 to 10,000 lbs.
GVWR, but these vehicles are not
included in this proposal, as vehicles
weighing over 8500 lbs. GVWR are
statutorily exempted from federal fuel
economy requirements until 2011,1 as
described in 49 U.S.C. 32908(a).
The Tier 2 emission standards are
based on a system of emission bins in
which light-duty vehicles and light-duty
trucks are certified in one of eight bins; 2
Bin 1 represents the cleanest or lowest
emitting vehicles, and Bin 8 represents
the highest emitting vehicles of the Tier
2 bins. Thus, some Tier 2 vehicles will
be more polluting than others. The
emission standards for a manufacturer’s
vehicle fleet must comply on average
with the Tier 2 Bin 5 level. Thus, the
1 The National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration recently finalized a rulemaking,
‘‘Average Fuel Economy Standards for Light Trucks
Model Years 2008–2011’’ (March 29, 2005), that
extends fuel economy provisions for CAFE for
medium-duty passenger vehicles weighing 8501–
10,000 lbs. GVWR. However, these provisions do
not take effect until 2011 and thus will not impact
this notice. https://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/staticfiles/
DOT/NHTSA/Rulemaking/Rules/
Associated%20Files/2006FinalRule.pdf, last viewed
4/5/06.
2 In actuality, there are up to 11 Bins for Tier 2.
However, Bins 9–11 are only interim phase-in bins
that expired at the end of the 2006 model year for
cars and light trucks.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Tier 2 Bin 5 emission certification levels
are the average of the Tier 2 emission
levels with lower bins (i.e. 4, 3, 2, or 1)
representing lower emitting vehicles
and higher bins (i.e. 6, 7, or 8)
representing vehicles that are more
polluting.
In addition, while 23 U.S.C. 166
specifically mentions the Federal
emission certification levels of Tier 2,
not all vehicles are certified to comply
with federal standards. California has
separate emission standards (along with
a number of states that have adopted
California’s emission standards as
permitted under Section 177 of the
Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7507.), which
are generally equivalent to the Tier 2
standards. The current California
emission standards are known as Low
Emission Vehicle–II (LEV–II) standards
(Final Regulation Order as Filed with
the Secretary of State, October 28,
1999).3 California-certified vehicles
were required to begin phasing-in to the
LEV–II standards in 2004.
The LEV–II standards are grouped in
the following categories (listed in order
of least to most stringent): Low emission
vehicle (LEV), ultra low emission
vehicle (ULEV), super low emission
vehicle (SULEV), partial zero emission
vehicle (PZEV), and zero emission
vehicle (ZEV). There are separate
emission standards under each of these
categories for passenger cars,4 up to
8500 lbs. GVWR and medium-duty
vehicles, 8501–14,000 lbs. GVW. As
discussed above, this proposal applies
only to vehicles with vehicle weight at
or below 8500 lbs. GVWR, so the
standards for medium-duty vehicles are
not relevant to the proposal.
Since 23 U.S.C. 166 specifies that
vehicles meet ‘‘the Tier II emission
level’’, and since Tier 2 Bin 5 represents
the required manufacturer fleet average,
this action proposes that in order to be
considered as a ‘‘low emission vehicle,’’
a vehicle must comply with Tier 2 Bin
5 or better (Bins 5, 4, 3, 2 and 1). For
the purpose of this proposal, we are
considering vehicles certified to the
California LEV II standards (13 CCR
1961(a)(1)) for passenger cars and light
trucks (LEV II, ULEV II, SULEV II,
PZEV, and ZEV) as meeting the Tier 2
emission level, because the emission
levels required by those standards are
equivalent to or more stringent than the
Tier 2 Bin 5 level (13 CCR 1961(a)(1)).
There are several reasons why EPA
believes it is appropriate to propose that
3 https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/levprog/levii/
levii.htm, last viewed 4/5/06.
4 California passenger cars include light-duty
vehicles and light-duty trucks, including most sport
utility vehicles and most large pickup trucks.
E:\FR\FM\24MYP1.SGM
24MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 100 / Thursday, May 24, 2007 / Proposed Rules
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
a vehicle must meet EPA Tier 2 Bin 5
or better to be designated as ‘‘low
emission.’’ First, these standards meet
the 23 U.S.C. 166 requirement that
vehicles meet the Tier 2 emission level,
which is best understood to mean the
average level. Second, EPA believes it is
appropriate to limit the bins to Tier 2
Bin 5 or cleaner, because Bin 5
represents the required manufacturer
fleet average emission standard. Any
vehicle certified to comply with a less
stringent bin would have emission
levels higher than the required fleet
average, and thus is not reasonably
considered a ‘‘low emission’’ vehicle.
Third, this proposal is generally
consistent with a separate statutory
requirement in the Energy Policy Act of
2005 (hereafter referred to as ‘‘Energy
Act’’) (Pub. L. 109–58, August 8, 2005)
which requires a vehicle to meet, at a
minimum, the Tier 2 Bin 5 emission
levels, along with a minimum fuel
economy, in order to qualify for a motor
vehicle tax credit.
Therefore, based on the rationale
described above, this action proposes
that a ‘‘low emission’’ vehicle must be
certified to the EPA Tier 2 Bin 5 or
cleaner, or California LEV–II, ULEV–II,
SULEV–II, PZEV, and ZEV emission
levels for light-duty vehicles and lightduty trucks up to 8500 lbs. GVWR.
B. How Is EPA Proposing To Determine
an Energy-Efficient Vehicle?
23 U.S.C. 166 states that a vehicle
must be ‘‘energy-efficient’’ in order to be
eligible for exemption from the HOV
facility occupancy requirements. In
particular, section 166(f)(3)(B) states
that the term ‘‘energy-efficient’’ vehicle
means:
(1) A vehicle that achieves a 50
percent increase in city fuel economy at
a minimum or a 25 percent increase in
combined city-highway fuel economy at
a minimum relative to a comparable
gasoline-fueled vehicle, excluding
gasoline-hybrid technologies; or
(2) An alternative fuel vehicle.
EPA’s proposed methodology for
determining a comparable gasolinefueled vehicle (excluding hybrid
technology), and thus determining
eligibility for an HOV occupancy
exemption based on a fuel economy
comparison, is described below. In
addition, to help ensure HOV facility
performance would not be degraded as
a result of the occupancy exemption, 23
U.S.C. 166 provides states with the
discretion to require more stringent fuel
economy criteria (that is, a greater city
or city-highway fuel economy percent
increase) for their HOV programs.
In addition to defining an energyefficient vehicle based on the fuel
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:42 May 23, 2007
Jkt 211001
economy criteria referenced above, 23
U.S.C. 166 allows specified alternative
fuel vehicles to be considered as energyefficient. The specified alternative fuels
that are covered by 23 U.S.C. 166, and
hence this proposal, are listed in section
D below.
1. What Fuel Economy Values Are Being
Used To Determine if a Vehicle Is
Energy-Efficient?
To ensure that there is no added test
burden imposed on manufacturers, we
are proposing that the fuel economy
values to be used to determine if a
vehicle is energy-efficient are the
unadjusted city, highway and combined
fuel economy values obtained during
the fuel economy testing required under
the Energy Policy and Conservation Act
of 1975 (EPCA). Under EPCA, EPA is
required to determine the test methods
and calculations for two major fuel
economy programs: Corporate Average
Fuel Economy (CAFE) and consumerfriendly fuel economy information (city
and highway estimates posted on new
vehicle labels). The underlying tests
specified by EPA are the same for both
programs; however, the resulting city,
highway, and combined fuel economy
results are different.
The CAFE values are based on two
tests—the city test and the highway test.
The test results are combined by
harmonically averaging them, with city
weighted 55 percent and highway
weighted 45 percent. The combined
city-highway fuel economy value is then
put through a series of complex
calculations to determine the
manufacturers’ average fuel economy
values separately for their entire car and
truck fleets.
The label values for 2007 and earlier
models are likewise based on the same
two city and highway tests. However,
the results are adjusted downward (the
city by 10 percent and the highway by
22 percent), to better match a driver’s
real-world fuel economy experience. For
2008 and later models, EPA recently
finalized new regulations removing
those adjustment factors and instead
requiring data from three additional
tests to be included in the calculations
to bring the estimates even closer to
drivers’ experience. (71 FR 77872,
December 27, 2006). The fuel economy
of 2008 and later models will not be
able to be easily compared to that of
earlier models. Not only would this be
more complex to administer, it would
create the possibility for consumer
confusion in that a 2008 vehicle may
not qualify whereas its identical 2007
counterpart would (or vice versa). For
that reason, it is less desirable to use the
label values as the basis for determining
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
29105
if a vehicle is ‘‘energy efficient’’ under
the meaning of 23 U.S.C. 166.
For these reasons, we are therefore
proposing that the fuel economy values
to be used are the unadjusted city,
highway and combined values used to
determine CAFE (referred to hereafter as
‘‘unadjusted’’ city, highway, and
combined fuel economy). These values
provide a more constant baseline for
comparison.
2. How Is EPA Proposing To Determine
a ‘‘Comparable Vehicle’’?
The Transportation Act did not
specify what criteria EPA should use in
determining what a ‘‘comparable’’
vehicle is. There are considerable
challenges in determining a
‘‘comparable’’ vehicle. There are infinite
parameters against which a comparison
could be made. For instance, should the
comparison parameters consider similar
vehicle weights, similar body designs,
similar power ratings, similar make/
model names, similar transmission
types, similar drive trains, etc.
Moreover, EPA, as well as other
government agencies, has described,
either by regulation or by policy, socalled ‘‘comparable’’ vehicle classes in
which vehicles are lumped together
based on some sorts of similarities. For
the purpose of this proposed rule, we
considered three different methods to
look at ‘‘comparable’’ vehicles. These
are: (1) A hybrid-to-gasoline vehicle
comparison (the method we are
proposing in this action), (2) a grouping
of vehicles into inertia weight classes as
specified in the 2005 Energy Act, and
(3) a comparison to the ‘‘Best in Class’’,
using the comparable classes used by
EPA’s annual Fuel Economy Guide,
which is jointly published by EPA and
DOE. Further detail can be found in the
Draft Technical Support Document,
which has been placed in the docket for
this rulemaking (EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–
0173).
In choosing a comparison strategy for
this proposal, we considered the intent
of Congress which, according to 23
U.S.C. 166, was to ‘‘provide additional
incentives (including the use of HOV
facilities on State and Interstate
highways) for the purchase and use of
hybrid and other fuel efficient vehicles’’
(23 U.S.C. 166(c)). We also considered
the potential for lane degradation
caused by allowing more vehicles in
HOV facilities as determined by the
number of vehicles that would qualify
for the occupancy exemption under the
comparison strategy. A shorter, more
conservative list that highlights truly
energy-efficient vehicles would help to
minimize any additional vehicle volume
added to HOV facilities.
E:\FR\FM\24MYP1.SGM
24MYP1
29106
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 100 / Thursday, May 24, 2007 / Proposed Rules
Based on our evaluation of each
potential ‘‘comparison vehicle’’
methodology, we are proposing to
compare hybrid-electric vehicles to their
gasoline counterparts, that is, those of
the same or similar make and model
type, to see if the fuel economy of the
hybrid had the prescribed percent
increase over the gasoline model. This
method only compares hybrid vehicles
to gasoline vehicles, and does not
compare any gasoline, diesel, or
flexible-fuel vehicles to a gasoline
vehicle.5
This methodology appears to best
reflect the intent of Congress expressed
in 23 U.S.C. 166(c) and in the legislative
history of this provision.6
(1) How does EPA propose to develop
baseline fuel economy values for the
hybrid-to-gasoline vehicle comparison
methodology?
In this method, hybrid vehicles would
be compared to their gasoline namesake
counterparts (e.g. the Ford Escape
Hybrid would be compared to the Ford
Escape gasoline model).
However, there are some hybrids that
do not have similar gasoline
counterparts (e.g. the Honda Insight and
the Toyota Prius). For those vehicles,
EPA is proposing that the comparison
be based on gasoline vehicles within the
same comparable class as used EPA’s
annual Fuel Economy Guide, which is
jointly published by EPA and DOE. The
median unadjusted fuel economy of all
the gasoline vehicles in that class would
be determined, and then compared
against the hybrid’s fuel economy. This
comparison would be done separately
for each model year. For example, the
Honda Insight is classified as a ‘‘twoseater.’’ For each model year, we would
identify all of the ‘‘two-seater’’ gasoline
vehicles and determine the median
unadjusted city and unadjusted
combined city-highway fuel economy
values. These fuel economy values
would form the baseline fuel economy
values to be used for the Honda Insight
comparison.
As fuel economy can vary from year
to year, these comparisons must be
made separately for each model year.
(2) How is the comparison determined,
based on a percent increase in vehicle
fuel economy value?
We are proposing the following
process for making a fuel economy
comparison using the hybrid-to-gasoline
vehicle comparison methodology:
(1) Determine the list of all hybrid
vehicles (separately for each model
year) emission-certified by EPA prior to
September 30, 2009.
(2) For hybrid vehicles with a similar
gasoline counterpart, compare the
unadjusted city and unadjusted
combined city-highway fuel economy
values to the similar gasoline
counterpart.
(3) For hybrid vehicles with no
similar gasoline counterpart, calculate
the median unadjusted city and/or
unadjusted combined city-highway fuel
economy values for all gasoline vehicles
in the same EPA comparable vehicle
class and then compare the hybrid
vehicle fuel economy values to the
median unadjusted city fuel economy
value and the unadjusted city-highway
value for the comparison gasoline
vehicle.
(4) Evaluate the results according to
the following criteria:
Æ If the candidate hybrid vehicle’s
city fuel economy is 50 percent greater
than the city fuel economy value of its
gasoline counterpart then the vehicle
would qualify as energy-efficient;
Æ If the candidate hybrid vehicle’s
combined city-highway fuel economy is
25 percent greater than the combined
city/fuel economy of its gasoline
counter part, then the vehicle would
qualify as energy-efficient; or
Æ Conversely, if the hybrid vehicles
do not meet either of these required fuel
economy thresholds relative to their
gasoline counterparts, then the vehicle
would not qualify as energy-efficient.
Based on the low emission and
energy-efficient vehicle criteria using
the hybrid-to-gasoline vehicle
comparison methodology described
above, the potential lists of vehicles
eligible for an HOV occupancy
exemption are shown in Tables 1 and 2
below. These lists are based on the most
recent certification data available to
EPA through model year 2007. This list
will be expanded as necessary to
include additional 2007–2010 model
year vehicles certified by EPA. It is also
important to note that an individual
state’s list may differ from these lists,
since states have the option to increase
the stringency of the designated fuel
economy percent increase values. States
do not have the option to increase the
emission standard stringency.
TABLE 1.—LIST OF ELIGIBLE LOW EMISSION AND ENERGY-EFFICIENT VEHICLES USING THE HYBRID-TO-GASOLINE VEHICLE
COMPARISON METHODOLOGY
MY
Mfr
Vehicle model
Engine family
Tran
Fuel economy
guide class
Tier
2 std
Unadj city
FE (mpg)
City FE
Inc over
baseline
(%)
Unadj
Cmb FE
(mpg)
Cmb FE
Inc over
baseline
(%)
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
CARS
2003
2003
2003
2004
2004
2004
2004
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
Honda
Honda
Honda
Honda
Honda
Honda
Toyota
Honda
Honda
Honda
Honda
Toyota
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
Civic Hybrid ...
Civic Hybrid ...
Insight ............
Civic Hybrid ...
Civic Hybrid ...
Insight ............
Prius ...............
Civic Hybrid ...
Civic Hybrid ...
Insight ............
Accord Hybrid
Prius ...............
3HNXV01.36CV ..
3HNXV01.36CV ..
3HNXV01.0PCE
4HNXV01.37CP ..
4HNXV01.37CP ..
4HNXV01.0NCE
4TYXV01.5MC1 ..
5HNXV01.3YCV
5HNXV01.3YCV
5HNXV01.0XCE
5HNXV03.01B4 ..
5TYXV01.5MC1 ..
5 Alternate fuel vehicles are considered ‘‘energyefficient,’’ but not subject to this comparison
criterion.
6 See House Report 109–203, pp. 852–53:
With respect to the determination of fuel
economy performance requirements for a low
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:42 May 23, 2007
Jkt 211001
AV ...
M5 ...
AV ...
AV ...
M5 ...
AV ...
AV ...
AV ...
M5 ...
AV ...
L5 ....
AV ...
Compact ........
Compact ........
Two-seater .....
Compact ........
Compact ........
Two-seater .....
Midsize ...........
Compact ........
Compact ........
Two-seater .....
Midsize ...........
Midsize ...........
B5
B5
B5
B5
B5
B5
B3
B2
B2
B5
B5
B3
emission or energy efficient vehicle not meeting
occupancy requirements that is propelled by onboard hybrid technologies, the conferees have
agreed to accept language in the Senate-passed
legislation. Under this subsection, a low emission
or energy efficient vehicle propelled by hybrid
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
52.6
50.0
62.8
52.6
50.0
62.8
66.6
52.6
50.0
62.8
32.2
66.6
52
59
249
50
42
214
200
50
42
224
37
201
56.0
55.7
66.4
56.0
55.7
66.4
65.8
56.0
55.7
66.4
37.48
65.8
75
74
66
75
74
66
106
41
40
185
32
140
technology may access the HOV lane if the EPA
certifies that it has achieved not less than a 50percent increase in city fuel economy or not less
than a 25-percent increase in combined cityhighway fuel economy * * *
E:\FR\FM\24MYP1.SGM
24MYP1
29107
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 100 / Thursday, May 24, 2007 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1.—LIST OF ELIGIBLE LOW EMISSION AND ENERGY-EFFICIENT VEHICLES USING THE HYBRID-TO-GASOLINE VEHICLE
COMPARISON METHODOLOGY—Continued
MY
2006
2006
2006
2007
2007
2007
2007
Mfr
Honda
Honda
Toyota
Honda
Honda
Toyota
Toyota
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
Vehicle model
Engine family
Tran
Fuel economy
guide class
Tier
2 std
Civic Hybrid ...
Insight ............
Prius ...............
Accord Hybrid
Civic Hybrid ...
Camry Hybrid
Prius ...............
6HNXV01.3XCP
6HNXV01.0VK5 ..
6TYXV01.5MC1 ..
7HNXV03.0ZMC
7HNXV01.3JCP ..
7TYXV02.4HC1 ..
7TYXV01.5HC1 ..
AV ...
AV ...
AV ...
L5 ....
AV ...
AV ...
AV ...
Compact ........
Two-seater .....
Midsize ...........
Midsize ...........
Compact ........
Midsize ...........
Midsize ...........
B2
B5
B3
B2
B2
B3
B3
Unadj city
FE (mpg)
City FE
Inc over
baseline
(%)
Unadj
Cmb FE
(mpg)
Cmb FE
Inc over
baseline
(%)
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
54.6
62.8
66.6
31.3
54.6
44.2
66.6
62
211
200
37
67
66
210
58.8
66.4
65.8
36.3
58.8
45.9
65.8
51
173
144
31
51
44
154
TRUCKS
2005
Ford ...............
2005
Ford ...............
2006
Ford ...............
2006
Ford ...............
2006
2006
2006
Lexus .............
Lexus .............
Lexus .............
2006
Mercury ..........
2006
Toyota ............
2006
Toyota ............
2007
Ford ...............
2007
Ford ...............
2007
2007
2007
Lexus .............
Lexus .............
Mercury ..........
2007
Toyota ............
2007
Toyota ............
Escape Hybrid
2WD.
Escape Hybrid
4WD.
Escape Hybrid
4WD.
Escape Hybrid
FWD.
RX 400H 2WD
RX 400H 4WD
Tribute Hybrid
4WD.
Mariner Hybrid
4WD.
Highlander Hybrid 2WD.
Highlander Hybrid 4WD.
Escape Hybrid
2WD.
Escape Hybrid
FWD.
RX 400H 2WD
RX 400H 4WD
Mariner Hybrid
4WD.
Highlander Hybrid 2WD.
Highlander Hybrid 4WD.
5FMXT02.31EE ..
AV ...
SUV ...............
B4 ...
39.6
65
39.5
46
5FMXT02.31EE ..
AV ...
SUV ...............
B4 ...
36.6
78
36.7
57
6FMXT02.32EE ..
AV ...
SUV ...............
B4 ...
36.6
59
36.7
41
6FMXT02.32EE ..
AV ...
SUV ...............
B4 ...
39.6
59
39.5
42
6TYXT03.3CC1 ..
6TYXT03.3CC1 ..
6FMXT02.32EE ..
AV ...
AV ...
AV ...
SUV ...............
SUV ...............
SUV ...............
B3 ...
B3 ...
B4 ...
36.8
34.3
36.6
141
124
59
36.2
34.3
36.7
96
86
41
6FMXT02.32EE ..
AV ...
SUV ...............
B4 ...
36.6
75
36.7
53
6TYXT03.3CC1 ..
AV ...
SUV ...............
B3 ...
36.8
72
36.2
45
6TYXT03.3CC1 ..
AV ...
SUV ...............
B3 ...
34.3
67
34.3
42
7FMXT02.32ZE ..
AV ...
SUV ...............
B3 ...
35.8
55
36.5
39
7FMXT02.32ZE ..
AV ...
SUV ...............
B3 ...
41.1
64
40.6
45
7TYXT03.3CC1 ..
7TYXT03.3CC1 ..
7FMXT02.32ZE ..
AV ...
AV ...
AV ...
SUV ...............
SUV ...............
SUV ...............
B3 ...
B3 ...
B3 ...
35.7
34.3
35.8
135
126
55
35.0
34.3
36.5
95
91
39
7TYXT03.3CC1 ..
AV ...
SUV ...............
B3 ...
35.7
67
35.0
40
7TYXT03.3CC1 ..
AV ...
SUV ...............
B3 ...
34.3
52
34.3
32
DEDICATED ALTERNATIVE FUEL (CNG) VEHICLES
Honda ............
Civic—CNG ...
3HNXV01.73W3
N/A
B2 ...
2004
Honda ............
Civic—CNG ...
4HNXV01.74W0
N/A
B2 ...
2005
Honda ............
Civic—CNG ...
5HNXV01.7BF3 ..
N/A
B2 ...
2003
Ford ...............
N/A
B3 ...
Ford ...............
Crown Victoria—CNG.
Crown Victoria—CNG.
3FMXV04.6VP5 ..
2004
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
2003
4FMXV04.6VP5 ..
N/A
B3 ...
DEDICATED
VEHICLE.
DEDICATED
VEHICLE.
DEDICATED
VEHICLE.
DEDICATED
VEHICLE.
DEDICATED
VEHICLE.
ALTERNATIVE FUEL (CNG)
ALTERNATIVE FUEL (CNG)
ALTERNATIVE FUEL (CNG)
ALTERNATIVE FUEL (CNG)
ALTERNATIVE FUEL (CNG)
Unless noted as a dedicated alternative fuel vehicle, all of the listed vehicles operate on gasoline, and some may also be flexible-fuel vehicles.
MY = Model Year
Mfr = Manufacturer
Tran = Transmission type
Int Wgt = Inertia Weight Class
Std = Standard
Unadj = Unadjusted
FE = Fuel Economy
Inc = Increase
Cmb = Combined city-highway
B = Bin
For states that have adopted the
California emission certification
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:42 May 23, 2007
Jkt 211001
standards, based on the California LEV–
II (LEV–II, ULEV–II, SULEV–II, and
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
ZEV) emission standards for passenger
vehicles and a comparison based on the
E:\FR\FM\24MYP1.SGM
24MYP1
29108
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 100 / Thursday, May 24, 2007 / Proposed Rules
hybrid-to-gasoline vehicle comparison
methodology or a dedicated alternative
fuel vehicle, the proposed list of
vehicles eligible for the HOV occupancy
exemption is as follows:
TABLE 2.—LIST OF CALIFORNIA-CERTIFIED ELIGIBLE LOW EMISSION AND ENERGY-EFFICIENT VEHICLES USING THE
HYBRID-TO-VEHICLE VEHICLE COMPARISON METHODOLOGY
MY
Mfr
Vehicle model
Engine family
Fuel economy
guide class
Tran
LEVII std
Unadj city
FE (mpg)
City FE
Inc over
baseline
(%)
Unadj
Cmb FE
(mpg)
Cmb FE
Inc over
baseline
(%)
CARS
2003
2003
2003
2004
2004
2004
2004
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2006
2006
2006
2007
2007
2007
2007
.....
.....
.....
.....
.....
.....
.....
.....
.....
.....
.....
.....
.....
.....
.....
.....
.....
.....
.....
Honda
Honda
Honda
Honda
Honda
Honda
Toyota
Honda
Honda
Honda
Honda
Toyota
Honda
Honda
Toyota
Honda
Honda
Toyota
Toyota
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
Civic Hybrid ....
Civic Hybrid ....
Insight .............
Civic Hybrid ....
Civic Hybrid ....
Insight .............
Prius ................
Civic Hybrid ....
Civic Hybrid ....
Insight .............
Accord Hybrid
Prius ................
Civic Hybrid ....
Insight .............
Prius ................
Accord Hybrid
Civic Hybrid ....
Camry Hybrid ..
Prius ................
3HNXV01.36CV ...
3HNXV01.36CV ...
3HNXV01.0PCE ..
4HNXV01.37CP ...
4HNXV01.37CP ...
4HNXV01.0NCE ..
4TYXV01.5MC1 ...
5HNXV01.3YCV ..
5HNXV01.3YCV ..
5HNXV01.0XCE ..
5HNXV03.01B4 ...
5TYXV01.5MC1 ...
6HNXV01.3XCP ..
6HNXV01.0VK5 ...
6TYXV01.5MC1 ...
7HNXV03.0ZMC ..
7HNXV01.3JCP ...
7TYXV02.4HC1 ...
7TYXV01.5HC1 ...
AV ...
M5 ...
AV ...
AV ...
M5 ...
AV ...
AV ...
AV ...
M5 ...
AV ...
L5 ....
AV ...
AV ...
AV ...
AV ...
L5 ....
AV ...
AV ...
AV ...
Compact .........
Compact .........
Two-Seater .....
Compact .........
Compact .........
Two-seater ......
Midsize ............
Midsize ............
Compact .........
Compact .........
Midsize ............
Two-seater ......
Midsize ............
Compact .........
Two-seater ......
Midsize ...........
Midsize ...........
Midsize ............
Midsize ...........
S2
S2
S2
S2
S2
S2
S2
S2
S2
S2
S2
S2
S2
S2
S2
S2
S2
S2
S2
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
52.6
50.0
62.8
52.6
50.0
62.8
66.6
52.6
50.0
62.8
32.2
66.6
54.6
62.8
66.6
31.3
54.6
44.2
66.6
52
59
249
50
42
214
200
50
42
224
37
201
62
211
200
37
67
66
210
56.0
55.7
66.4
56.0
55.7
66.4
65.8
56.0
55.7
66.4
37.48
65.8
58.8
66.4
65.8
36.3
58.8
45.9
65.8
45
46
201
41
40
177
139
41
40
185
32
140
51
173
144
31
51
44
154
TRUCKS
2005 .....
Ford .........
2005 .....
Ford .........
2006 .....
Ford .........
2006 .....
Ford .........
2006 .....
2006 .....
2006 .....
Lexus .......
Lexus .......
Mazda ......
2006 .....
Mercury ....
2006 .....
Toyota ......
2006 .....
Toyota ......
2007 .....
Ford .........
2007 .....
Ford .........
2007
2007
2007
2007
.....
.....
.....
.....
Lexus .......
Lexus .......
Mercury ....
Toyota ......
2007 .....
Toyota ......
Escape Hybrid
2WD.
Escape Hybrid
4WD.
Escape Hybrid
4WD.
Escape Hybrid
FWD.
RX 400H 2WD
RX 400H 4WD
Tribute Hybrid
4WD.
Mariner Hybrid
4WD.
Highlander Hybrid 2WD.
Highlander Hybrid 4WD.
Escape Hybrid
4WD.
Escape Hybrid
FWD.
RX 400H 2WD
RX 400H 4WD
Mariner Hybrid
Highlander Hybrid 2WD.
Highlander Hybrid 4WD.
5FMXT02.31EE ...
AV ...
4000 ................
S2 ...
39.6
65
39.5
46
5FMXT02.31EE ...
AV ...
4000 ................
S2 ...
36.6
78
36.7
57
6FMXT02.32EE ...
AV ...
SUV ................
S2 ...
36.6
59
36.7
41
6FMXT02.32EE ...
AV ...
SUV ................
S2 ...
39.6
59
39.5
42
6TYXT03.3CC1 ...
6TYXT03.3CC1 ...
6FMXT02.32EE ...
AV ...
AV ...
AV ...
SUV ................
SUV ................
SUV ................
S2 ...
S2 ...
S2 ...
36.8
34.3
36.6
141
124
59
36.2
34.3
36.7
96
86
41
6FMXT02.32EE ...
AV ...
SUV ................
S2 ...
36.6
75
36.7
53
6TYXT03.3CC1 ...
AV ...
SUV ................
S2 ...
36.8
72
36.2
45
6TYXT03.3CC1 ...
AV ...
SUV ................
S2 ...
34.3
67
34.3
42
7FMXT02.32ZE ...
AV ...
SUV ................
S2 ...
35.8
55
36.5
39
7FMXT02.32ZE ...
AV ...
SUV ................
S2 ...
41.1
64
40.6
45
7TYXT03.3CC1
7TYXT03.3CC1
7FMXT02.32ZE
7TYXT03.3CC1
AV
AV
AV
AV
SUV
SUV
SUV
SUV
S2
S2
S2
S2
...
...
...
...
35.7
34.3
35.8
35.7
135
126
55
103
35
34.3
36.5
35
95
91
39
69
S2 ...
34.3
52
34.3
32
...
...
...
...
7TYXT03.3CC1 ...
...
...
...
...
AV ...
................
................
................
................
SUV ................
DEDICATED ALTERNATIVE FUEL (CNG) VEHICLES
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
2004 .....
Honda ......
Civic—CNG ....
4HNXV01.74W2 ..
N/A
S2 ...
2005 .....
Honda ......
Civic—CNG ....
5HNXV01.7BF4 ...
N/A
S2 ...
DEDICATED ALTERNATIVE FUEL (CNG)
VEHICLE.
DEDICATED ALTERNATIVE FUEL (CNG)
VEHICLE.
Unless noted as a dedicated alternative fuel vehicle, all of the listed vehicles operate on gasoline, and some may also be flexible-fuel vehicles.
MY = Model Year
Mfr = Manufacturer
Tran = Transmission
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:42 May 23, 2007
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\24MYP1.SGM
24MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 100 / Thursday, May 24, 2007 / Proposed Rules
29109
Int Wgt = Inertia Weight Class
Std = Standard
Unadj = Unadjusted
FE = Fuel Economy
Inc = Increase
Cmb = Combined city-highway
S2 = SULEVII
U2 = ULEVII
3. What Other Methods Did EPA
Consider for Determining a
‘‘Comparable Vehicle’’?
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
(a) Inertia Weight Class Methodology
EPA also considered using inertia
weight classes to determine comparable
vehicles. This approach would consider
all vehicles, regardless of fuel type or
technology, as potentially energyefficient, rather than just hybrid
vehicles, as under the hybrid-to-gasoline
vehicle comparison method. Thus, any
gasoline, diesel, flexible-fuel, or hybrid
vehicle could be considered energyefficient, as long as it meets the fuel
economy criteria referenced above.
EPA considered this fuel-neutral
approach because, while the legislative
history of SAFETEA–LU indicates an
intent by Congress to limit this
provision to hybrid and alternative fuel
vehicles, the statutory provisions
enacted by Congress do not explicitly
limit this option to those types of
vehicles. Additionally, a fuel-neutral
approach would encourage fuel
efficiency for all types of vehicles, not
just hybrid vehicles. On the other hand,
this approach would increase the
number of vehicles potentially eligible
to use HOV facilities under this
provision, which could create the
potential for substantial HOV lane
degradation. We are not proposing this
method, but request comment on it.
With the inertia weight class
methodology, a comparable vehicle
would be based on vehicle inertia
weight classes,7 which are consistent
with those prescribed by the 2005
Energy Act. As the inertia weight classes
are already defined in the 2005 Energy
Act,8 with an associated baseline city
fuel economy value, the definition of a
comparable vehicle would be based on
the average fuel economy of all gasoline
vehicles within the same inertia weight
class for a vehicle type (car or truck). A
baseline city fuel economy value and a
7 Inertia weight classes are determined by EPA
regulations at 40 CFR 86.129–94. Inertia weight
class is the class into which a vehicle is grouped
for testing purposes based on its loaded vehicle
weight (nominal empty vehicle weight plus 300 lbs.
used for cars and for light-duty trucks up through
6000 lbs. GVWR) or adjusted loaded vehicle weight
(average of nominal empty weight and gross vehicle
weight rating used for light-duty trucks greater than
6000 lbs. GVWR).
8 § 30B.1(b)(2)(B)(i) of Internal Revenue Code, 26
U.S.C.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:42 May 23, 2007
Jkt 211001
baseline combined city-highway fuel
economy value would then be used as
the basis for the fuel economy
comparison for each inertia weight
class, separately for cars and trucks.
The baseline city fuel economy value
would be the unadjusted CAFE city fuel
economy as described above in section
B.1 for the 2002 model year, as specified
in the 2005 Energy Act. EPA believes
that the baseline city fuel economy in
the 2005 Energy Act was derived from
gasoline vehicles only (excluding any
gasoline-fueled hybrids) based on
reverse-calculations using a salesweighted harmonic average. Further
detail on how these calculations were
performed can be found in the Draft
Technical Support Document, which
has been placed in the docket for this
rulemaking (EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–
0173).
With regard to the baseline model for
comparison using the inertia weight
class method, we considered it most
appropriate to use the model year 2002
data as a baseline for fuel economy
comparisons for two reasons. First, the
model year 2002 data was chosen in the
2005 Energy Act for alternative motor
vehicle tax credit purposes. Second, the
EPA Fuel Economy Trends Report
(EPA420–R–06–011, July 2006) shows
that overall fuel economy has been
relatively constant over the past eight
model years, except for light truck fuel
economy, which has increased for two
years. This increase is likely due, at
least in part, to higher light-truck CAFE
standards. Overall, fuel economy has
been influenced by marginal changes in
gasoline technology prior to the
introduction of hybrid technology.9
Thus, choosing a 2002 baseline can still
be considered an appropriate baseline
value for vehicle fuel economy
comparisons, as it was calculated with
gasoline vehicles whose overall fuel
economy performance has remained
somewhat constant for many years,
except for the increase seen in light
trucks over the last two years.
Furthermore, applying one baseline for
all model year comparisons would
reduce time spent generating annual
baselines and reduces the need to
9 Hellman, Karl, and Robert Heavenrich. ‘‘LightDuty Automotive Technology and Fuel Economy
Trends: 1975 Through 2004’’ (FE Trends). EPA420–
R–04–001, 2004.
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
analyze annual sales data, which is
often provided later in the model year
than the date when a baseline would be
required. Overall, EPA believes this
approach would have a benefit of
streamlining the implementation of the
rule without impacting its effectiveness.
For the inertia weight class
methodology, the following process
would be used for making a fuel
economy comparison:
(1) Sort the list of all potential
vehicles (all model years available for
sale prior to September 30, 2009) into
two categories—car and light-duty
truck.
(2) Sort both the car list and the lightduty truck list by inertia weight classes.
(3) Compare each vehicle’s
unadjusted city and unadjusted
combined city-highway fuel economy
values to the baseline values separately
for cars and trucks.
(4) Calculate the percent increase in
fuel economy for a candidate vehicle
compared to the baseline for its given
inertia weight class.
(5) Evaluate the results according to
the following criteria:
a. If the percent increase for city fuel
economy is greater than 50 percent over
the baseline city fuel economy for the
given inertia weight class, then the
vehicle would qualify as energyefficient;
b. If the percent increase for combined
city-highway fuel economy is greater
than 25 percent over the baseline
combined city-highway fuel economy
for the given inertia weight class, then
the vehicle would qualify as energyefficient; or
c. Conversely, if the candidate
vehicle’s fuel economy does not meet
these required thresholds when
compared to the baseline fuel economy
for that inertia weight class category of
that vehicle, then the vehicle would not
qualify as energy-efficient.
Therefore, to qualify under the inertia
weight class methodology, a candidate
vehicle must achieve 25 percent or
better city fuel economy or 50 percent
or better combined city-highway fuel
economy than the average of all vehicles
in its inertia weight class.
Using this approach, the lists of
potentially qualifying vehicles include a
few models that fail to achieve the level
of the CAFE standard. Therefore, we
E:\FR\FM\24MYP1.SGM
24MYP1
29110
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 100 / Thursday, May 24, 2007 / Proposed Rules
believe that an additional criterion is
necessary to determine if a vehicle is
fuel efficient, not only on a relative
basis, but on an absolute basis as well.
Thus it is appropriate to add an
additional comparison criterion, to be
used as a ‘‘floor’’ to prevent the
inclusion of vehicles which may be fuel
efficient relative to others in the same
inertia weight class, but which fail to
have a combined fuel economy that is
higher than 25 percent above the
applicable CAFE car or truck standard.
For example, the 2007 CAFE standard
for light trucks is 22.2 miles per gallon
(MPG). In order for a light truck to
qualify for use in HOV facilities using
the inertia weight class method, it
would have to meet a minimum fuel
economy of 27.75 MPG in order to
qualify. We believe that this additional
criterion is in keeping with the
Transportation Act requirement that the
combined fuel economy be 25 percent
better than a comparable gasoline
vehicle.
A complete discussion of the inertia
weight class methodology, including the
list of vehicles that would qualify using
this approach, can be found in the Draft
Technical Support Document located in
the docket for this rulemaking.
EPA requests comment on using the
inertia weight class methodology as a
means for defining a comparable
vehicle.
(b) ‘‘Best in Class’’ Methodology
EPA also considered defining a
‘‘comparable vehicle’’ as the vehicle
with the best fuel economy of a
particular class of vehicles as defined by
the annual Fuel Economy Guide, which
is jointly published by EPA and DOE.
This approach is not a fuel and
technology neutral approach, meaning
that it only considers hybrid vehicles.
No gasoline, diesel, or flexible-fuel
would be considered for an HOV
facilities exemption using this
methodology. The primary benefit of
this approach is that it would result in
the smallest list of eligible vehicles and
thus have the least potential impact on
traffic congestion.
For the ‘‘best in class’’ methodology,
the following process would be used for
making a fuel economy comparison:
(1) Sort the list of all hybrid vehicles
(all model years certified for sale prior
to September 30, 2009) by the vehicle
classes defined in the annual Fuel
Economy Guide (https://
www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/feg2000.htm)
for each model year. The vehicle classes
are defined in the Fuel Economy Guide
as follows: Two-seater, Minicompact
Vehicle, Subcompact Vehicle, Compact
Vehicle, Midsize Vehicle, Large Vehicle,
Small Station Wagon, Midsize Station
Wagon, Large Station Wagon, Small
Pickup Truck, Standard Pickup Truck,
Passenger Van, Cargo Van, Minivan,
Sport Utility Vehicle (SUV), and Special
Purpose Vehicle.
(2) For each model year and each
vehicle class, determine which gasoline
vehicle has the highest unadjusted city
and unadjusted city-highway combined
fuel economy values. For example, for
the 2006 model year, the compact
vehicle with the highest unadjusted city
and unadjusted combined city-highway
fuel economy values is the Toyota
Corolla. The Toyota Corolla would be
the comparison vehicle for any 2006
hybrid vehicle that is classified as a
compact car. In this case, the 2006
Honda Civic hybrid is the only hybrid
classified as a compact car.
(3) Compare the hybrid vehicle fuel
unadjusted economy values to the
unadjusted city fuel economy value and
the unadjusted city-highway fuel
economy value for the comparison
gasoline vehicle.
(4) Evaluate the results according to
the following criteria:
Æ If the percent increase for city fuel
economy is greater than 50 percent over
the baseline city fuel economy for the
given specific vehicle, then the vehicle
would qualify as energy-efficient;
Æ If the percent increase for combined
city-highway fuel economy is greater
than 25 percent over the baseline
combined city-highway fuel economy
for the given specific vehicle, then the
vehicle would qualify as energyefficient; or
Æ Conversely, if the candidate
vehicle’s fuel economy does not meet
these required thresholds when
compared to the baseline fuel economy
for that class of vehicle, then the vehicle
would not qualify as energy-efficient.
A complete discussion of the ‘‘best in
class’’ methodology, including the list of
vehicles that would qualify using this
approach, can be found in the technical
support document located in the docket
for this rulemaking.
EPA requests comment on using the
‘‘best in class’’ methodology as a means
for defining a comparable vehicle.
C. Will All Hybrid Vehicles Qualify for
the HOV Facilities Exemption?
(1) Hybrids That Do Not Meet the Low
Emission Criterion
As discussed in this proposal, in
order for a vehicle to qualify for HOV
exemptions, that vehicle must be
considered both low-emission and
energy-efficient. As discussed above,
EPA is proposing that vehicles must be
certified to comply with EPA’s Tier 2
Bin 5 or cleaner emission standards (or
the equivalent CARB emissions
standards) in order to be considered as
‘‘low emission.’’ When we apply this
criterion, there are some hybrid electric
vehicles which do not meet the Tier 2
Bin 5 or better threshold. The 2003
Toyota Prius would not qualify for the
HOV exemption because it does not
meet the Tier 2 Bin 5 or better criterion
for ‘‘low emission’’ as proposed in this
action. In addition, some versions of the
Honda Insight and Honda Civic Hybrid
in specific model years would not
qualify. To distinguish which versions
of the Insight and Civic Hybrid would
qualify from those that would not, it is
necessary to know the EPA engine
family name (also referred to as ‘‘test
group name’’), which is the unique EPA
identifier pointing to the manufacturer’s
emission certification for that vehicle.
This identifier is required to be printed
on the emission information label
located under the hood of every vehicle.
Table 3 below shows the Honda Civic
Hybrid and Insight models which would
not comply with Tier 2 Bin 5 or better
emission standards, along with their
model year counterparts which are Bin
5 or better and would therefore qualify
for an HOV facilities exemption. These
vehicles would not qualify regardless of
which fuel efficiency methodology is
applied.
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
TABLE 3.—COMPARISON OF ENGINE FAMILIES/TEST GROUPS THAT WOULD OR WOULD NOT QUALIFY BASED ON THE TIER
2 BIN 5 OR BETTER CRITERION
Engine family/test groups that
do not qualify
Model year and name
2003
2004
2005
2003
Honda
Honda
Honda
Honda
VerDate Aug<31>2005
Civic Hybrid .....................................................................................
Civic Hybrid .....................................................................................
Civic Hybrid .....................................................................................
Insight .............................................................................................
15:42 May 23, 2007
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
3HNXV01.34A5
4HNXV01.35A6
5HNXV01.33A6
3HNXV01.01A4
E:\FR\FM\24MYP1.SGM
24MYP1
Engine family/test group that
would qualify
3HNXV01.36CV
4HNXV01.37CP
5HNXV01.3YCV
3HNXV01.0PCE
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 100 / Thursday, May 24, 2007 / Proposed Rules
29111
TABLE 3.—COMPARISON OF ENGINE FAMILIES/TEST GROUPS THAT WOULD OR WOULD NOT QUALIFY BASED ON THE TIER
2 BIN 5 OR BETTER CRITERION—Continued
Engine family/test groups that
do not qualify
Model year and name
2004 Honda Insight .............................................................................................
2005 Honda Insight .............................................................................................
2006 Honda Insight .............................................................................................
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
(2) Hybrids That Would Not Meet the
Fuel Efficiency Criteria
With the hybrid-to-gasoline vehicle
comparison methodology, the 2006
Honda Accord Hybrid would not qualify
because its unadjusted city and
unadjusted city-highway fuel economy
values are not above the 25 percent and
50 percent thresholds when compared
to the closest Honda Accord gasoline
counterpart. In addition, the 2007 Lexus
GS450H would not qualify either.
Because the 2007 Lexus GS450H, which
is classified as a compact car, does not
have an identical gasoline counterpart,
EPA compared its unadjusted city and
unadjusted city-highway fuel economy
to the median fuel economy values of all
gasoline-fueled 2007 compact cars.
When making this comparison, the GS
450H unadjusted city and unadjusted
city-highway fuel economy values are
not above the 25 percent and 50 percent
thresholds and therefore would not
qualify for an HOV facilities exemption.
D. What Alternative Fuel Vehicles Could
Qualify for the HOV Facilities
Exemption?
Alternative fuel vehicles would also
qualify as energy-efficient vehicles
under the HOV provisions in 23 U.S.C.
166. Congress specified that an
alternative fuel vehicle must be
operating on the alternative fuel in order
to be eligible for an exemption from the
HOV facility occupancy requirement.
According to Section 166(f)(1) of 23
U.S.C. 166, the term ‘‘alternative fuel
vehicle’’ means a vehicle that is
operating on:
(1) Methanol, denatured ethanol, or
other alcohols;
(2) A mixture containing at least 85
percent of methanol, denatured ethanol,
and other alcohols by volume with
gasoline or other fuels;
(3) Natural gas;
(4) Liquefied petroleum gas;
(5) Hydrogen;
(6) Coal derived liquid fuels;
(7) Fuels (except alcohol) derived
from biological materials;
(8) Electricity (including electricity
from solar energy); or
(9) Any other fuel that the Secretary
prescribes by regulation that is not
substantially petroleum and that would
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:42 May 23, 2007
Jkt 211001
4HNXV01.02A6
5HNXV01.02A6
6HNXV01.0YJV
yield substantial energy security and
environmental benefits, including fuels
regulated under section 490 of title 10,
Code of Federal Regulations (or
successor regulations).
There are, however, typically three
different types of vehicles that might be
considered alternative fuel vehicles—
flexible-fuel vehicles, which can operate
on a designated alternative fuel (such as
85 percent ethanol, 15 percent gasoline,
known as E85), on a conventional fuel
(such as gasoline), or any blend of the
two; dual-fuel vehicles, which have two
separate fuel systems allowing them to
operate on either an alternative fuel
(such as compressed natural gas) or on
a conventional fuel (such as gasoline);
or dedicated alternative fuel vehicles,
which operate solely on a designated
alternative fuel.
Since the statute specifies that the
vehicle must be operating on the
alternative fuel to qualify for the HOV
facilities exemption, and there is no way
to determine that flex-fuel and dual-fuel
vehicles are actually using the
designated alternative fuel while they
are being operated in an HOV facility,
we are proposing to exclude dual-fuel
and flex-fuel vehicles from the HOV
exemption as ‘‘alternative fuel’’
vehicles. While the computer systems
on flex-fuel vehicles are calibrated to
operate in different manners depending
on what type of fuel the vehicle is
operating, a state official trying to
enforce the HOV facility exemptions
would not be able to visually determine
which fuel a flexible-fuel or dual-fuel
vehicle is operating on at any given
time. Since current enforcement of HOV
requirements relies on vehicle labels
that can be easily viewed from a
distance, verifying that a vehicle is
operating on a flexible fuel at any given
time would require a more detailed (and
potentially traffic-disrupting)
interaction between enforcement
officials and the driver, such as
requiring a receipt showing recent proof
of purchase of the alternative fuel. It is
also important to note that the actual
usage rate of an alternative fuel in a
flexible or dual-fuel vehicle is estimated
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Engine family/test group that
would qualify
4HNXV01.0NCE
5HNXV01.0XCE
6HNXV01.0VK5
at somewhat less than one percent.10
Furthermore, while there are around
five million flexible-fuel vehicles on the
road today, the majority of alternative
fuel refueling stations are located in the
midwestern states, while the majority of
HOV facilities reside in urban areas of
Eastern and Western states, making it
even more unlikely that these vehicles
would actually be using the alternative
fuel while in the HOV facilities. There
is a national effort underway to increase
the availability of alternative fueling
stations, especially E85, but it is
unlikely that the numbers will increase
significantly before the expiration of
these HOV exemption provisions.
Therefore, to ensure the enforceability
of the HOV occupancy exemption, this
notice proposes to allow only dedicated
alternative fuel vehicles to be eligible
under the ‘‘energy-efficient’’ provision,
provided that they also meet the
proposed minimum ‘‘low-emission’’
criteria of Tier 2 Bin 5 or cleaner, as
described in section II.A.1 above.
The dedicated alternative fuel
vehicles that qualify are show above in
Tables 1 and 2.
E. How Will EPA Make Available the
List of Eligible Vehicles?
EPA is proposing to annually update
the list of vehicles which it certifies
would be eligible for exemption from
the HOV facility requirement based on
the low emission and energy-efficient
requirements. This list of eligible
vehicles would be provided to the
Department of Transportation, which is
responsible for implementation of HOV
facilities, including these new HOV
exemption provisions. EPA would also
consider the most appropriate way to
make the information available to the
general public including posting the list
on EPA’s and DOT’s web sites and/or
publishing a notice in the Federal
Register. It is important to note that
while states have the flexibility to
incorporate this HOV occupancy
exemption for low emission and energyefficient vehicles into their HOV facility
10 National Highway and Traffic Safety
Administration. ‘‘Analysis of the Effects of on
Energy Conservation and the Environment.’’
https://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/rulings/CAFE/
alternativefuels/analysis.htm.
E:\FR\FM\24MYP1.SGM
24MYP1
29112
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 100 / Thursday, May 24, 2007 / Proposed Rules
hybrid vehicle (yellow). The sticker has
a box where a vehicle identification or
registration number is located
(‘‘XXXXXXXX’’ in Figure 1). This
number links the vehicle to the decal so
that decals cannot be transferred from
vehicle to vehicle. Since a vehicle that
does not meet the minimum occupancy
requirements for use in HOV facilities
must have a special designation, the
decal registration number provides the
state with a method for tracking how
many vehicles have qualified for use in
HOV facilities. In addition, these
existing formats are important for each
state’s ability to enforce the occupancy
exemption allowance of vehicles in its
HOV facilities.
We are proposing that vehicles
allowed in the HOV facilities which do
not meet the minimum occupancy
requirement be labeled to identify this
special occupancy exemption. We are
also proposing to allow states to use
their existing decals or license plates,
provided the format requires the vehicle
to be registered within the state of use.
Other formats may also be deemed
appropriate by the Department of
Transportation if they meet all labeling
requirements.
We are not proposing to require a
single standardized label for a number
of reasons. First, EPA does not believe
that a federally imposed label would be
appropriate, since 23 U.S.C. 166 does
not require states to allow low emission
and energy-efficient vehicles that do not
meet the established occupancy
requirements in their HOV facilities.
Thus, the requirements for labeling
vehicles need to be limited to locales
where they are eligible for use in HOV
facilities. Moreover, since 23 U.S.C. 166
allows states to increase the stringency
of the fuel economy comparison criteria,
thereby decreasing the Federal list of
eligible vehicles to use HOV facilities,
states need flexibility to label only the
eligible vehicles, as opposed to labeling
all federally eligible vehicles.
Second, since certain states already
have labeling methods, they have a
developed knowledge and local
experience enforcing HOV facilities
based on their current labeling method.
As a result, it would be potentially time
consuming and costly to require states
to revise or replace any current labeling
method. It would also place an
unnecessary inconvenience to vehicle
owners to have to change labels.
Third, the most important purpose of
the label is to facilitate a state’s ability
to enforce proper use of its HOV
facilities, as well as monitor any
degraded operational performance, by
ensuring that only eligible low emission
and energy-efficient vehicles are
permitted in that state’s HOV facilities.
Thus, the format for a label must
provide flexibility for each state to
adopt what it believes is most
enforceable.
This notice proposes that states would
be responsible for printing and/or
distributing the labels and, as a result,
states could charge a registration fee for
issuing a label to an owner. In addition,
states would be responsible for tracking
the labels by linking each label to a
specific vehicle, through a registration
number such as that depicted on Figure
1 or by the license plate number on
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:42 May 23, 2007
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\24MYP1.SGM
24MYP1
EP24MY07.000</GPH>
F. What Labeling Requirements Is EPA
Proposing for Low Emission and EnergyEfficient Vehicles?
Under 23 U.S.C. 166(e)(1), EPA must
supply requirements for labeling low
emission and energy-efficient vehicles
that are eligible for the HOV occupancy
exemption. To date, there are 22 states
(AZ, CA, CO, CT, FL, GA, HI, IL, MA,
MD, MN, NC, NJ, NY, NV, OR, PA, TN,
TX, UT, VA, and WA) in addition to
Washington DC with existing HOV
facilities.
Under TEA–21 (Pub. L. 105–178, June
9, 1998), states were authorized to
temporarily allow single-occupant clean
fuel (i.e., alternative fuel) vehicles to use
HOV facilities. As a result, many states
already have labels. Label formats
include decals and license plates, and
these labels are used to identify the
vehicle as eligible for the HOV
occupancy exemption.
An example of California’s 2005 decal
is depicted in Figure 1. This decal is one
of four California decals placed on a
vehicle and is color-coded to represent
either an alternative fuel (white) or
programs, they are not required to offer
it. In addition, because states have the
option to increase the stringency of the
designated fuel economy percent
increase values, an individual state’s list
may differ from the list of eligible
vehicles made available by EPA.
Therefore, a vehicle on EPA’s list may
not qualify in one or more states
depending on how DOT and the states
choose to implement these regulations.
Vehicle owners interested in the HOV
facilities exemption must consult with
their state and local transportation
authorities to ensure that a particular
vehicle qualifies in his or her particular
state.
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 100 / Thursday, May 24, 2007 / Proposed Rules
29113
• States must include an expiration
date on their labels.
We believe it would be most
appropriate for states to develop labels
for purposes of identifying vehicles that
qualify to be used in HOV facilities.
However, we are seeking comment on
the potential use of a federallydeveloped labeling program. By way of
example, EPA has developed a
voluntary ‘‘SmartWay’’ program that
includes a variety of ways to reduce
greenhouse gas and air pollution across
a number of different industry sectors.
While the program success to date has
primarily been in the heavy-duty sector,
SmartWay criteria have been established
to designate light-duty vehicles that are
environmental leaders, in terms of
greenhouse gas and air pollution. There
are two stringency levels for SmartWay
vehicles: SmartWay and SmartWay
Elite. Currently, these designations are
used only on EPA’s Green Vehicle
Guide web site, which is targeted at carbuyers. The SmartWay logo used is
shown in Figure 2 below.
instance, in the State of Virginia, the
HOV allowance for hybrid-electric
vehicles that do not meet the
established occupancy requirement
proved to increase the use of hybrids by
threefold from 2003 to 2004.11 In
Virginia, for 2004, an increase of 4300
hybrid vehicles means a reduction in
carbon dioxide of 430–1720 lbs. per
mile. Even after the occupancy
exemption for low emission and energyefficient vehicles in HOV facilities
expires in September 2009, the benefit
of introducing these vehicles into each
state’s fleet remain due to the improved
fuel efficiency. Thus, 23 U.S.C. 166 has
predetermined that there are benefits to
this allowance. There are no foreseen
adverse economic or air quality impacts
associated with providing a comparison
methodology through this rulemaking,
as described below.
G. What Impacts Are Associated With
This Rulemaking?
The main impact associated with this
rulemaking is the impact consistent
with the Congressional intent to provide
non-financial incentives to increase the
purchase of hybrids and other fuel
efficient vehicles (23 U.S.C. 166(c)) as
an alternative to higher emitting and
less fuel efficient vehicles. There is
some evidence supporting Congress’
intent that this incentive would help
increase interest in purchasing low
emission and fuel efficient vehicles. For
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:42 May 23, 2007
Jkt 211001
11 Second Report of the High Occupancy Vehicle
Enforcement Task Force, January 4, 2005, https://
www.vdot.virginia.gov/infoservice/news/
newsrelease.asp?ID=NOVA–NR05–02.
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
1. What Are the Economic Impacts?
There are no anticipated economic
impacts of this proposal as there are no
associated costs. The HOV exemption
for low emission and energy-efficient
vehicles is an optional exemption. 23
U.S.C. 166 is explicit that states are not
required to implement this exemption,
but may voluntarily choose to
implement this exemption. Thus, there
are no required costs for any state to
implement an HOV exemption. While
states that voluntarily choose to
implement the HOV facility exemption
are responsible for ensuring that HOV
facilities do not become overcrowded;
enforcing the use of HOV facilities by
the exempted vehicles; and issuing
labels for the vehicles, there are
compensation mechanisms in place. For
instance, states could charge for the
label, and enforcement provisions can
result in collected fines. Moreover, as 23
E:\FR\FM\24MYP1.SGM
24MYP1
EP24MY07.001</GPH>
for the use in HOV facilities with easily
visible labels for enforcement purposes;
• Labels already implemented by
States would be acceptable for
continued use. Any state with an HOV
facility that does not have an existing
label would be required to develop one
based on the formats already accepted
or create a new format which includes
all proposed requirements and subject
to approval by the Department of
Transportation;
• Labels have a registration number
that would link the label to the
particular vehicle so that labels could
not be transferred;
• States are responsible for printing
and/or distributing the labels;
• Labels easily identify low emission
and energy-efficient vehicles that are
exempted from the HOV occupancy
requirements and therefore permitted to
use HOV facilities, based on factors
such as, location, color, and wording
that designates the vehicle as low
emission and energy-efficient; and
There are currently no ‘‘decals’’ or
‘‘stickers’’ to place on vehicles, nor has
EPA established guidelines to car
makers to do so. However, if EPA were
to specify a format, the SmartWay logo
could potentially serve this purpose.
EPA seeks comment on the usefulness
and feasibility of a permanent federal
SmartWay label on eligible vehicles as
a potential component of the HOV
labeling requirement.
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
license plate formats. States would have
to include information on the label that
distinguishes a vehicle as low emission
and as energy-efficient; wording such as
that on California’s decal (such as
‘‘Clean Air Vehicle’’) in addition to
color coding to distinguish between
alternative fuel and meeting fuel
economy requirements would be
deemed acceptable. Thus options that
states may want to consider for
designating a vehicle as an eligible low
emission and energy-efficient vehicle
may include, but are not limited to,
wording or color coding.
EPA requests comment on how states
with HOV facilities that border other
states with HOV facilities (e.g. Virginia
and Maryland), would address
implementation and enforcement of the
HOV facilities exemption.
In summary, with respect to vehicle
labeling requirements, this action
proposes that:
• Low emission and energy-efficient
vehicles would be required to be labeled
29114
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 100 / Thursday, May 24, 2007 / Proposed Rules
U.S.C. 166 prescribed, states have
authority to charge a toll for low
emission and energy-efficient vehicles
that do not meet the occupancy
requirement in HOV facilities.
2. What Are the Congestion Impacts on
HOV Facilities?
Since there are relatively few HOV
facilities that currently allow
environmentally-friendly vehicles, data
on the potential impact of hybrid
vehicles on HOV facilities is limited.
The best publicly available
information comes from a report by the
Virginia Department of Transportation’s
High-Occupancy Vehicle Enforcement
Task Force dated January 4, 2005. This
report illustrates that the growth in the
number of clean special fuel license
plates issued in Virginia has increased
significantly since hybrid vehicles
became available. In fall 2003, hybrid
vehicles accounted for between two
percent and 12 percent of the peakperiod volumes in the HOV lanes in
northern Virginia. In the fall of 2004,
hybrid vehicles accounted for between
11 percent and 17 percent of vehicles in
the I–95 HOV lanes during the threehour morning peak-period. The actual
number of hybrids during the morning
peak period ranged from 844 to 1,422
and the corresponding total vehicle
volumes in the HOV lane ranged from
7,994 to 8,450. While we do not have
more current data, we would expect that
these percentages have continued to
grow over the last two years.
The Task Force report concluded that,
‘‘The rapid growth in hybrids has
helped push the I–95 HOV lanes beyond
the recommended HOV operating
capacity, which is 1,500 to 1,800
vehicles per lane, per hour. The Task
Force recommends that only the
cleanest hybrid vehicles be allowed to
use the HOV lanes and that the current
hybrid exemption from HOV restrictions
expire in 2006, as provided in the
current Virginia law.’’ 12 Subsequent to
the report, Virginia did not let the
hybrid exemption expire, but instead
capped the number of hybrid vehicle
plates.
For demonstration purposes, EPA has
also estimated the potential number of
vehicles that are projected to be
available for sale nationwide in the 2007
model year for each of the comparable
vehicle methodologies described above
(see Table 4 below).
TABLE 4.—POTENTIAL NUMBER OF ELIGIBLE VEHICLES BASED ON NATIONWIDE SALES FOR EACH VEHICLE COMPARISON
METHODOLOGY
Hybrid-toGasoline
comparison
Model year
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Inertia weight
comparison
Hybrid-to‘‘Best in
Class’’
comparison
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
33593
71334
105505
213338
326245
33593
71334
238424
328250
665157
1011
48513
79773
124536
147583
Total ......................................................................................................................................
750015
1336758
401416
There are no associated adverse air
quality impacts of this proposal. 23
U.S.C. 166 requires EPA to codify a
procedure for certifying low emission
and energy-efficient vehicles and places
the responsibility on individual states to
determine if an HOV exemption for low
emission and energy-efficient vehicles
benefits or impedes the air quality goals
of that state. As a result, 23 U.S.C. 166
provides mechanisms to ensure that
such an exemption does not adversely
impact air quality.
First, 23 U.S.C. 166 designates the
HOV exemption for low emission and
energy-efficient vehicles as a voluntary
program. Thus, a state chooses whether
this exemption meets its needs or not.
Second, 23 U.S.C. 166 allows states to
increase the fuel economy thresholds
per the energy-efficient designation in
order to further minimize the number of
vehicles which qualify as low emission
and energy-efficient, thereby managing
the number of exempted vehicles using
the limited excess capacity of HOV
facilities. Third, 23 U.S.C. 166 requires
states that choose to implement this
HOV exemption to ensure that the HOV
facilities are not overburdened by the
addition of exempted vehicles and
provides minimum operating speed
guidelines for assessing HOV facility
degradation. Finally, EPA is proposing
regulations to ensure that only the
‘‘cleanest’’ of the Tier 2 fleet qualify as
‘‘low emission’’ and the minimum
number of truly energy-efficient
vehicles qualify as ‘‘energy-efficient.’’
Therefore, these four safeguards form
our belief that there would be no
adverse environmental impacts due to
12 Second Report of the High Occupancy Vehicle
Enforcement Task Force, January 4, 2005, https://
www.vdot.virginia.gov/infoservice/news/
newsrelease.asp?ID=NOVA–NR05–02.
These values include actual sales data
whenever it is available. In cases where
actual sales data is unavailable, we used
projected sales data that are provided to
EPA by each manufacturer. In addition,
these values reflect nationwide sales
data. Without state by state vehicle
registration data, it is not possible to
estimate with any accuracy the actual
vehicles that are used in areas with
HOV occupancy exemptions.
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
3. What Are the Other Impacts?
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:42 May 23, 2007
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
the HOV exemption for low emission
and energy-efficient vehicles.
III. Request for Comments
Although EPA requests comments on
all aspects of this proposal, we are
specifically requesting comment on the
following topics proposed in this action:
• Eligibility for a low emission
vehicle based on Tier 2 Bin 5 or cleaner
for light-duty vehicles, or comparable
California LEV–II or cleaner for
passenger vehicles to comply with the
23 U.S.C. 166 Tier 2 requirements.
• Use of a hybrid-to-gasoline vehicle
comparison methodology to determine
vehicle eligibility.
• Use of a ‘‘best in class’’
methodology to determine vehicle
eligibility.
• Eligibility for an energy-efficient
vehicle based on operating on an
alternative fuel limited to dedicated
alternative fuel vehicles only.
• Necessity of a Federal versus stateby-state labeling system.
• Proposed labeling requirements, as
well as any necessary enforcement
E:\FR\FM\24MYP1.SGM
24MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 100 / Thursday, May 24, 2007 / Proposed Rules
provisions that should be required on a
label.
The following topics were not
proposed in this action, but EPA is
specifically requesting comment on
them:
• Use of an inertia weight class
methodology to determine vehicle
eligibility.
• For the inertia weight class
methodology, the usefulness of
requiring an additional criterion that
any vehicle which meets the low
emissions and criteria must also have an
unadjusted combined fuel economy that
is at least 25 percent higher than the
applicable car or truck CAFE standard.
• The availability of technology or
other methodology that can demonstrate
when a flexible-fuel vehicle is operating
on an alternative fuel versus a
conventional fuel.
• Data indicating the extent to which
flexible-fuel vehicles are operating on
the alternative fuel in an area or region.
The official public docket is the
collection of materials that is available
for public viewing by referencing
Docket No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0173
(see ADDRESSES).
You may submit comments
electronically, by mail, or through hand
delivery/courier as described below. To
ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify
the appropriate docket identification
number in the subject line on the first
page of your comment. Please ensure
that your comments are submitted
within the specified comment period.
Comments received after the close of the
comment period will be marked late.
EPA is not required to consider these
late comments. If you wish to submit
CBI or information that is otherwise
protected by statute, please follow the
instructions in Section IV.C. Do not use
EPA Dockets or e-mail to submit CBI or
information protected by statute.
IV. What Are the Opportunities for
Public Participation?
You may access this Federal Register
document electronically through the
EPA Internet under the Federal Register
listings at https://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.
An electronic version of the public
docket is available through EPA’s
electronic public docket and comment
system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA
Dockets at https://www.epa.gov/edocket/
to submit or view public comments,
access the index listing of the contents
of the official public docket, and to
access those documents in the public
docket that are available electronically.
Once in the system, select search, then
key in the appropriate docket
identification number.
Certain types of information will not
be placed in the EPA Dockets.
Information claimed as CBI and other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute, which is not
included in the official public docket,
will not be available for public viewing
in EPA’s electronic public docket. EPA’s
policy is that copyrighted material will
not be placed in EPA’s electronic public
docket but will be available only in
printed, paper form in the official public
docket. To the extent feasible, publicly
available docket materials will be made
available in EPA’s electronic public
docket. When a document is selected
from the index list in EPA Dockets, the
system will identify whether the
document is available for viewing in
EPA’s electronic public docket.
Although not all docket materials may
be available electronically, you may still
access any of the publicly available
docket materials through the docket
facility. EPA intends to work towards
providing electronic access to all of the
We request comment on all aspects of
this proposal. This section describes
how you can participate in this process.
We are opening a formal comment
period by publishing this document. We
will accept comments for the period
indicated under DATES above. If EPA
receives requests to present oral
testimony, a public hearing will be
scheduled. Information regarding the
timing for requesting a public hearing is
indicated under DATES above.
Your comments will be most useful if
you include appropriate and detailed
supporting rationale, data, and analysis.
If you disagree with parts of the
proposal, we encourage you to suggest
and analyze alternate approaches to
meeting the goals described in this
proposal. You should send all
comments, except those containing
proprietary information, to our Docket
(see ADDRESSES) before the end of the
comment period.
A. Copies of This Proposal and Other
Related Information
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
1. Docket
EPA has established an official public
docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0173. The
official public docket consists of the
documents specifically referenced in
this action, any public comments
received, and other information related
to this action. Although a part of the
official docket, the public docket does
not include confidential business
information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:42 May 23, 2007
Jkt 211001
2. Electronic Access
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
29115
publicly available docket materials
through EPA’s electronic public docket.
For public commenters, it is
important to note that EPA’s policy is
that public comments, whether
submitted electronically or in paper,
will be made available for public
viewing in EPA’s electronic public
docket as EPA receives them and
without change, unless the comment
contains copyrighted material, CBI, or
other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. When EPA
identifies a comment containing
copyrighted material, EPA will provide
a reference to that material in the
version of the comment that is placed in
EPA’s electronic public docket. The
entire printed comment, including the
copyrighted material, will be available
in the public docket.
Public comments submitted on
computer disks that are mailed or
delivered to the docket will be
transferred to EPA’s electronic public
docket. Public comments that are
mailed or delivered to the Docket will
be scanned and placed in EPA’s
electronic public docket. Where
practical, physical objects will be
photographed, and the photograph will
be placed in EPA’s electronic public
docket along with a brief description
written by the docket staff.
B. Public Hearing
Anyone wishing to present testimony
about this proposal at the public hearing
(see DATES) should notify the general
contact person (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT) no later than five
days prior to the day of the hearing. The
contact person should be given an
estimate of the time required for the
presentation of testimony and
notification of any need for audio/visual
equipment. Testimony will be
scheduled on a first come, first served
basis. A sign-up sheet will be available
at the registration table the morning of
the hearing for scheduling those who
have not notified the contact earlier.
This testimony will be scheduled on a
first come, first served basis following
the previously scheduled testimony.
EPA requests that approximately 50
copies of the statement or material to be
presented be brought to the hearing for
distribution to the audience. In
addition, EPA would find it helpful to
receive an advance copy of any
statement or material to be presented at
the hearing at least one week before the
scheduled hearing date. This is to give
EPA staff adequate time to review such
material before the hearing. Such
advance copies should be submitted to
the contact person listed.
E:\FR\FM\24MYP1.SGM
24MYP1
29116
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 100 / Thursday, May 24, 2007 / Proposed Rules
The official records of the hearing will
be kept open for 30 days following the
hearing to allow submission of rebuttal
and supplementary testimony. All such
submissions should be directed to
Docket No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0173
(see ADDRESSES). The hearing will be
conducted informally, and technical
rules of evidence will not apply. A
written transcript of the hearing will be
placed in the above docket for review.
Anyone desiring to purchase a copy of
the transcript should make individual
arrangements with the court reporter
recording the proceedings.
V. What Are the Administrative
Requirements for This Proposed Rule?
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review
Under Executive Order (EO) 12866
(58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is a ‘‘significant regulatory
action.’’ Accordingly, EPA submitted
this action to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review under EO
12866 and any changes made in
response to OMB recommendations
have been documented in the docket for
this action.
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not impose an
information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. This action
does not require any state to implement
the provisions of this action. In
addition, this action does not require
that any information is collected, but
rather supplies guidance and a
comparison methodology for generating
a list of eligible low emission and
energy-efficient vehicles that are
exempted from the HOV occupancy
requirements.
Burden means the total time, effort, or
financial resources expended by persons
to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose
or provide information to or for a
Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop,
acquire, install, and utilize technology
and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying
information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing
and providing information; adjust the
existing ways to comply with any
previously applicable instructions and
requirements; train personnel to be able
to respond to a collection of
information; search data sources;
complete and review the collection of
information; and transmit or otherwise
disclose the information.
An agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:42 May 23, 2007
Jkt 211001
respond to a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. The OMB control
numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40
CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
generally requires an agency to prepare
a regulatory flexibility analysis of any
rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the
Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities
include small businesses, small
organizations, and small governmental
jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts
of this proposal on small entities, small
entity is defined as: (1) A small business
as defined by the Small Business
Administration regulations at 13 CFR
121.201; (2) a small governmental
jurisdiction that is a government of a
city, county, town, school district or
special district with a population of less
than 50,000; and (3) a small
organization that is any not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently
owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
After considering the economic
impacts of this proposed rule on small
entities, EPA certifies that this action
would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This proposed rule would not
impose any requirements on small
entities. This action proposes
regulations for defining low emission
and energy-efficient vehicles and for
labeling these vehicles in HOV facilities,
according to the provisions defined by
Congress in SAFETEA–LU. As also
prescribed by Congress, these
definitions and comparison strategies
are implemented optionally by the
states; there is no requirement that a
state would have to allow low emission
and energy-efficient vehicles to use the
HOV facilities. Furthermore, this action
proposes a flexible format for labeling
vehicles, so as to minimize the burden
on states with existing HOV programs
and labeling strategies. We have
therefore concluded that this proposed
rule would not impact, or would have
a neutral impact on, burden for all small
entities.
We continue to be interested in the
potential impacts of the proposed rule
on small entities and welcome
comments on issues related to such
impacts.
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104–4, establishes requirements for
Federal agencies to assess the effects of
their regulatory actions on state, local,
and tribal governments and the private
sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,
EPA generally must prepare a written
statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules
with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may
result in expenditures to State, local,
and tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or to the private sector, of $100 million
or more in any one year. Before
promulgating an EPA rule for which a
written statement is needed, section 205
of the UMRA generally requires EPA to
identify and consider a reasonable
number of regulatory alternatives and
adopt the least costly, most costeffective or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule.
The provisions of section 205 do not
apply when they are inconsistent with
applicable law. Moreover, section 205
allows EPA to adopt an alternative other
than the least costly, most cost-effective
or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final
rule an explanation why that alternative
was not adopted. Before EPA establishes
any regulatory requirements that may
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal
governments, it must have developed
under section 203 of the UMRA a small
government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially
affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments
to have meaningful and timely input in
the development of EPA regulatory
proposals with significant Federal
intergovernmental mandates, and
informing, educating, and advising
small governments on compliance with
the regulatory requirements.
This proposal contains no Federal
mandates (under the regulatory
provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for
state, local, or tribal governments or the
private sector. This action proposes to
implement mandates specifically and
explicitly set forth by the Congress in
SAFETEA–LU without the exercise of
any policy discretion by EPA, and the
proposal would impose no enforceable
duty on any state, local or tribal
governments or the private sector. This
proposal provides clarification on
determining whether a vehicle is low
emission and energy-efficient and a
comparison strategy for designating a
comparable vehicle for performing fuel
economy percent increase calculations.
This action was prescribed by Congress,
E:\FR\FM\24MYP1.SGM
24MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 100 / Thursday, May 24, 2007 / Proposed Rules
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
and SAFETEA–LU is explicit that states
are not required to adopt these
provisions. Instead, participation in this
program would be voluntary and would
allow voluntary measures to increase
the stringency of the comparison
strategy to meet individual state’s needs.
EPA has determined that this
proposal does not contain a Federal
mandate that may result in expenditures
of $100 million or more for State, local,
and tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or the private sector in any one year.
EPA has determined that this rule
contains no regulatory requirements that
might significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. These provisions
are applicable for states with existing
HOV facilities and do not require any
state to install HOV facilities. In
addition, the labeling requirements have
been proposed as flexible in order to
avoid causing expenditures on a new
method of labeling vehicles in states
where labeling systems already exists.
Thus, this proposal is not subject to the
requirements of sections 202 and 205 of
the UMRA.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled
‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999), requires EPA to develop an
accountable process to ensure
‘‘meaningful and timely input by state
and local officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have federalism
implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have
federalism implications’’ is defined in
the Executive Order to include
regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct
effects on the states, on the relationship
between the national government and
the states, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government.’’
This proposed rule does not have
federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states,
on the relationship between the national
government and the states, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132. The provisions
in this proposed rule do not require that
a state implement them, and the
stringency of the provisions can be
optionally increased. This proposed rule
defines requirements that could be used
to implement HOV occupancy
exemptions for low emission and
energy-efficient vehicles, but provides
ample flexibility for states to decide
whether or not to implement and/or
whether or not to increase stringency.
Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not
apply to this proposal. Although section
6 of Executive Order 13132 does not
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:42 May 23, 2007
Jkt 211001
apply to this proposal, EPA did consult
with representatives of state and local
governments in developing it. The
conversations resulted in requests for
flexibility in labeling and allowing
states to determine any implementation
or enforcement provisions. This action
would allow both.
In the spirit of Executive Order 13132,
and consistent with EPA policy to
promote communications between EPA
and state and local governments, EPA
specifically solicits comment on this
proposed rule from State and local
officials.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled
‘‘Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA
to develop an accountable process to
ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by
tribal officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have tribal
implications.’’ This proposed rule
would not have tribal implications, as
specified in Executive Order 13175.
This proposed rule would apply to state
highways with HOV facilities, and
involves state governments and/or
transportation entities if a state chooses
to implement the rule. Thus, Executive
Order 13175 does not apply to this
proposed rule.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045: ‘‘Protection of
Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that:
(1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically
significant’’ as defined under Executive
Order 12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that
EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If
the regulatory action meets both criteria,
the Agency must evaluate the
environmental health or safety effects of
the planned rule on children, and
explain why the planned regulation is
preferable to other potentially effective
and reasonably feasible alternatives
considered by the Agency. EPA
interprets EO 13045 as applying only to
those regulatory actions that concern
health or safety risks, such that the
analysis required under section 5–501 of
the EO has the potential to influence the
regulation. This proposed rule is not
subject to EO 13045 because it does not
establish an environmental standard
intended to mitigate health or safety
risks.
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
29117
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
This rule is not a ‘‘significant energy
action’’ as defined in Executive Order
13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations
That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355 (May
22, 2001)) because it is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy.
This rule is the result of a directive by
23 U.S.C. 166 to codify the certification
of low emission and energy-efficient
vehicles. The sense of Congress is to
‘‘provide additional incentives
(including the use of high occupancy
vehicle facilities on State and Interstate
highways) for the purchase and use of
hybrid and other fuel efficient vehicles,
which have been proven to minimize air
emissions and decrease consumption of
fossil fuels’’ (Section 1121(c) of 23
U.S.C. 166). This intent demonstrates
Congress’s belief that this rule would
not have adverse effects on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. In fact,
the HOV occupancy exemption
provision for ‘‘low emission and energyefficient’’ vehicles should have a
positive effect, reducing the effect on
the supply, distribution, or use of
energy by encouraging the purchase and
use of fuel efficient vehicles. Thus, we
have concluded that this rule is not
likely to have any adverse energy
effects.
I. National Technology Transfer
Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law No.
104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus
standards in its regulatory activities
unless to do so would be inconsistent
with applicable law or otherwise
impractical. Voluntary consensus
standards are technical standards (e.g.,
materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business
practices) that are developed or adopted
by voluntary consensus standards
bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to
provide Congress, through OMB,
explanations when the Agency decides
not to use available and applicable
voluntary consensus standards. This
proposed rulemaking does not involve
technical standards. Therefore, EPA is
not considering the use of any voluntary
consensus standards.
EPA welcomes comments on this
aspect of the proposed rulemaking and,
specifically, invites the public to
identify potentially-applicable
voluntary consensus standards and to
E:\FR\FM\24MYP1.SGM
24MYP1
29118
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 100 / Thursday, May 24, 2007 / Proposed Rules
explain why such standards should be
used in this regulation.
VI. What Are the Statutory Provisions
and Legal Authority for This Proposed
Rule?
Statutory authority for this action is
found in 23 U.S.C. 166. This action is
being proposed under the
administrative and procedural
provisions of the Administrative
Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. 553.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 601
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Fuel economy, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: May 16, 2007.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, title 40 Chapter I of the Code
of Federal Regulations is proposed to be
amended by adding a new part 601 as
follows:
PART 601—QUALIFICATION CRITERIA
FOR LOW EMISSION AND ENERGYEFFICIENT VEHICLES
Sec.
601.1 General applicability.
601.2 Definitions.
601.3 Abbreviations.
601.4 Criteria for qualifying as a low
emission and energy-efficient vehicle.
601.5 Criteria for qualifying as a low
emission vehicle.
601.6 Criteria for qualifying as an energyefficient vehicle.
601.7 Criteria for determining a comparable
gasoline-fueled vehicle based upon the
unadjusted city fuel economy.
601.8 Criteria for determining a comparable
gasoline-fueled vehicle based upon the
unadjusted combined city-highway fuel
economy.
601.9 How to determine if a candidate
vehicle meets the ‘‘energy-efficient’’
criteria based on fuel economy.
601.10 Certification requirements.
601.11 Labeling requirements for low
emission and energy-efficient vehicles.
Authority: 23 U.S.C. 166.
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
§ 601.1
General applicability.
The provisions of this part are
applicable to 2002 and later model year
vehicles that may qualify for use in high
occupancy vehicle facilities in states
that elect to allow such use. These
provisions expire on September 30,
2009.
§ 601.2
Definitions.
Any terms defined in 40 CFR parts 86
and 600 and not defined in this part
shall have the meaning given them in
§§ 86.1803 and 600.002 of this chapter.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:42 May 23, 2007
Jkt 211001
Alternative fuel vehicle means a
vehicle that is operating on—
(1) Methanol, denatured ethanol, or
other alcohols;
(2) A mixture containing at least 85
percent of methanol, denatured ethanol,
and other alcohols by volume with
gasoline or other fuels;
(3) Natural gas;
(4) Liquefied petroleum gas;
(5) Hydrogen;
(6) Coal derived liquid fuels;
(7) Fuels (except alcohol) derived
from biological materials;
(8) Electricity (including electricity
from solar energy); or
(9) Any other fuel that the Secretary
of Transportation prescribes by
regulation that is not substantially
petroleum and that would yield
substantial energy security and
environmental benefits, including fuels
regulated under section 490 of title 10,
Code of Federal Regulations (or
successor regulations).
Unadjusted city fuel economy means
the model type city fuel economy as
calculated in 40 CFR 600.207–93.
Unadjusted combined city-highway
fuel economy means the model type
combined fuel economy as calculated in
40 CFR 600.207–93.
§ 601.3
Abbreviations.
The abbreviations of 40 CFR parts 86
and 600 also apply to this part. The
abbreviations in this section apply to
this part only.
HOV means High Occupancy Vehicle.
§ 601.4 Criteria for qualifying as a low
emission and energy-efficient vehicle.
In order to meet the criteria for being
certified as a low emission and energyefficient vehicle under this part, a
vehicle must meet the criteria for
qualifying as a low emission vehicle
under § 601.5 and must meet the criteria
for qualifying as an energy-efficient
vehicle under § 601.6. A state that elects
to allow low emission and energyefficient vehicles to use HOV facilities
may require that a vehicle meet a level
of comparative percentage increase in
fuel economy that is greater than the
percentages in § 601.6(b) and (c) in
order to qualify as a low emission and
energy-efficient vehicle in that state.
§ 601.5 Criteria for qualifying as a low
emission vehicle.
Light-duty vehicles and light-duty
trucks up to 8500 lbs. GVWR must be
certified by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency as meeting emission
standards that are as or more stringent
than the Tier 2 Bin 5 emission standard
as specified in Table S04–1 of 40 CFR
86.1811–04.
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
§ 601.6 Criteria for qualifying as an
energy-efficient vehicle.
Light-duty vehicles and light-duty
trucks up to 8500 lbs. GVWR must be
certified by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency as meeting the
criteria of either paragraph (a) or (b) of
this section:
(a) It is an alternative fuel vehicle.
This does not include flexible-fuel or
dual-fuel vehicles.
(b) It meets one of the unadjusted fuel
economy criteria in this paragraph:
(1) The unadjusted city fuel economy
of the vehicle must be at least 50
percent higher than the city fuel
economy of a comparable gasolinefueled vehicle, as determined in § 601.7;
or
(2) The unadjusted combined cityhighway fuel economy of the vehicle
must be at least 25 percent higher than
the unadjusted combined city-highway
fuel economy of a comparable gasolinefueled vehicle, as determined in § 601.8.
§ 601.7 Criteria for determining a
comparable gasoline-fueled vehicle based
upon unadjusted city fuel economy.
(a) For hybrid vehicles with a similar
gasoline counterpart (e.g. same make/
model), the Administrator will compare
the unadjusted city fuel economy value
as determined under 40 CFR 600.207–93
of a candidate hybrid vehicle, to the
unadjusted city fuel economy value of
the similar gasoline counterpart.
(b) For hybrid vehicles with no
similar gasoline counterpart, the
Administrator will determine the
candidate vehicle by calculating the
median unadjusted city fuel economy
values for all gasoline vehicles in the
same comparable vehicle class as
defined in EPA’s annual Fuel Economy
Guide, which is jointly published by
EPA and DOE. The Administrator will
then compare the unadjusted city fuel
economy value of the candidate hybrid
vehicle, as determined under 40 CFR
600.207–93, to the median unadjusted
city fuel economy value for the
comparison gasoline vehicle in same
vehicle class.
§ 601.8 Criteria for determining a
comparable gasoline-fueled vehicle based
upon the unadjusted combined cityhighway fuel economy.
(a) For hybrid vehicles with a similar
gasoline counterpart (e.g. same make/
model), the Administrator will compare
the unadjusted combined city-highway
fuel economy value of the candidate
hybrid vehicle, as determined under 40
CFR 600.207–93, to the unadjusted
combined city-highway fuel economy
value of the similar gasoline
counterpart.
E:\FR\FM\24MYP1.SGM
24MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 100 / Thursday, May 24, 2007 / Proposed Rules
(b) For hybrid vehicles with no
similar gasoline counterpart, the
Administrator will determine the
candidate vehicle by calculating the
median unadjusted combined cityhighway fuel economy values for all
gasoline vehicles in the same
comparable vehicle class as used in the
annual Fuel Economy Guide published
jointly by EPA and the Department of
Energy. The Administrator will then
compare the unadjusted combined cityhighway fuel economy value of the
candidate hybrid vehicle, as determined
under 40 CFR 600.207–93, to the
median unadjusted combined cityhighway fuel economy value for the
comparison gasoline vehicle in same
vehicle class.
§ 601.9 How to determine if a candidate
vehicle meets the ‘‘energy-efficient’’ criteria
based on fuel economy.
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
(a) The Administrator will compare
the candidate vehicle’s unadjusted city
fuel economy and unadjusted combined
city-highway fuel economy to the city
fuel economy values and combined-city
highway fuel economy values for the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:42 May 23, 2007
Jkt 211001
applicable gasoline comparable vehicle
as described in §§ 601.7 and 601.8.
(b) A candidate vehicle qualifies as
energy-efficient if it meets either of the
following fuel economy criteria:
(1) The percent increase for the
unadjusted city fuel economy is greater
than 50 percent over the baseline city
fuel economy of the comparable vehicle;
or
(2) The percent increase for the
unadjusted combined city-highway fuel
economy is greater than 25 percent over
the baseline combined city-highway fuel
economy of the comparable vehicle.
§ 601.10
Certification requirements.
The Administrator will annually
certify those vehicles that qualify as low
emission and energy-efficient vehicles,
as determined in § 601.4 and provide a
list of certified vehicles to the
Department of Transportation.
§ 601.11 Labeling requirements for low
emission and energy-efficient vehicles.
(a) States that elect to allow low
emission and energy-efficient vehicles
to use HOV facilities must label low
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
29119
emission and energy-efficient vehicles
for usage in HOV facilities in a manner
that allows state enforcement officials to
easily identify these vehicles.
(b) States with existing programs to
allow the use of low emission and
energy-efficient vehicles in HOV
facilities may continue to use the labels
they have designed for use in such
programs, as long as they meet the other
requirements of this section. States
without labels must develop labels
based on existing formats, i.e., decals or
license plates, and the criteria in
§ 601.11.
(c) States are responsible for printing
and/or distributing the labels and may
charge a registration fee for issuing a
label to an owner.
(d) Labels must identify the vehicle as
low emission and energy-efficient by
such means as specific wording and/or
color coding.
(e) Labels must contain an identifier
that is unique to the specific vehicle
such that they could not be transferred.
[FR Doc. E7–9821 Filed 5–23–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
E:\FR\FM\24MYP1.SGM
24MYP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 100 (Thursday, May 24, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 29102-29119]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-9821]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 601
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0173; FRL-8317-2]
RIN 2060-AN68
SAFETEA-LU High Occupancy Vehicle Facilities Exemption Rule
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users Act, which was signed into law on August
10, 2005, contains provisions which apply to state High Occupancy
Vehicle (HOV) facilities. Among other exceptions, SAFETEA-LU Section
1121, which is codified at 23 United States Code (U.S.C.) 166 now
allows an exemption from the HOV facility occupancy requirement for
vehicles certified as ``low emission and energy-efficient.'' As
directed by the 2005 Transportation Act, EPA must issue regulations for
certifying vehicles as ``low emission and energy-efficient.''
Specifically, this action proposes the requirements for ``low emission
and energy-efficient'', including procedures for making fuel economy
comparisons and the requirements for labeling these vehicles. As the
Department of Transportation (DOT) is responsible for the planning and
implementation of HOV programs, any changes to HOV programs as a result
of this action would also be implemented by DOT and enforced by the
individual states that choose to adopt these requirements. As directed
by the 2005 Transportation Act, the HOV multiple-occupancy exemption
for low emission and energy-efficient vehicle expires September 30,
2009.
DATES: Comments on this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking must be submitted
on or before July 9, 2007. A public hearing will be held on June 8,
2007. Requests to present oral testimony must be received on or before
June 1, 2007. If EPA receives no requests to present oral testimony by
this date, the hearing will be canceled.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2005-0173, by one of the following methods:
www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
E-mail: pugliese.holly@epa.gov.
Fax: 734-214-4053.
Mail: EPA-OAR-2005-0173, Environmental Protection Agency,
2000 Traverwood, Ann Arbor, MI 48105
Hand Delivery: Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2005-0173. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. 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. EPA recommends that you include your name and other
contact information in the body of your comment if you submit an
electronic comment or 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.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., 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 Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is (202) 566-1744.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Holly Pugliese, Compliance and
Innovative Strategies Division, Office of Transportation and Air
Quality, Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood, Ann Arbor,
MI 48105; telephone number: 734-214-4288; fax number: 734-214-4053; e-
mail address: pugliese.holly@epa.gov.
Access to Rulemaking Documents Through the Internet: This action is
available electronically on the date of publication from EPA's Federal
Register Web site listed below. Electronic versions of this preamble,
regulatory language, and other documents associated with this proposal
rule are available from the EPA Office of Transportation and Air
Quality Web site, listed below, shortly after the rule is signed by the
Administrator. These services are free of charge, except any cost that
you already incur for connecting to the Internet. EPA Federal Register
Web site: https://www.epa.gov/docs/fedrgstr/epa-air/ (either select a
desired date or use the Search feature).
EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality Web site: https://
www.epa.gov/otaq/ (look in What's New or under specific rulemaking
topic).
Please note that due to differences between the software used to
develop the documents and the software into
[[Page 29103]]
which the documents may be downloaded, changes in format, page length,
etc., may occur.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. Does This Action Apply to Me?
Regulated categories and entities covered by this proposal are
described in the following table:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of potentially
Category NAICS codes a SIC codes b regulated parties
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State governments.................. 92 (Public Admin)..... 9131 (Exec and State governments involved
Legislative Offices with transportation and/or
Cmb). high occupancy vehicle
facilities.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).
b Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) System.
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 proposed regulations. You may
direct questions regarding the applicability of this action to the
person listed in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
1. Submitting Comments With Confidential Business Information (CBI)
Commenters who wish to submit proprietary information or CBI for
consideration should clearly separate such information from other
comments by (1) labeling proprietary information ``Confidential
Business Information'' and (2) sending proprietary information directly
to the contact person listed (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). Do
not submit CBI to EPA through the docket, 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 CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public
docket.
Information covered by a claim of confidentiality will be disclosed
by EPA only to the extent allowed and by the procedures set forth in 40
CFR part 2. If no claim of confidentiality accompanies the submission
when it is received by EPA, the submission may be made available to the
public without notifying the commenters.
2. 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.
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.
Table of Contents
I. Why Is This Action Being Taken?
II. What Are EPA's Proposed Requirements for the Certification of
Low Emission and Energy-Efficient Vehicles?
A. How Is EPA Proposing To Determine a Low Emission Vehicle?
B. How Is EPA Proposing To Determine an Energy-Efficient
Vehicle?
1. What Fuel Economy Values Are Being Used To Determine if a
Vehicle Is Energy-Efficient?
2. How Is EPA Proposing To Determine a ``Comparable Vehicle''?
3. What Other Methods Did EPA Consider for Determining a
``Comparable Vehicle''?
C. Will All Hybrid Vehicles Qualify for the HOV Facilities
Exemption?
D. What Alternative Fuel Vehicles Could Qualify for the HOV
Facilities Exemption?
E. How Will EPA Make Available the List of Eligible Vehicles?
F. What Labeling Requirements Is EPA Proposing for Low Emission
and Energy-Efficient Vehicles?
G. What Impacts Are Associated With This Rulemaking?
III. Request for Comments
IV. What Are the Opportunities for Public Participation?
A. Copies of This Proposal and Other Related Information
B. Public Hearing
V. What Are the Administrative Requirements for This Proposed Rule?
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
VI. What Are the Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority for This
Proposed Rule?
I. Why Is This Action Being Taken?
On August 10, 2005, President Bush signed into law the Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy
for Users (SAFETEA-LU) (Pub. L. 109-59). In general, SAFETEA-LU builds
on the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA)
and the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) to
supply funds and improve the programmatic framework for investments
needed to maintain and grow the U.S. transportation infrastructure.
SAFETEA-LU specifically covers Federal surface transportation programs
for highways, highway safety, and transit from 2005 until 2009. The HOV
facilities provisions of Section 1121 of SAFETEA-LU, which are codified
at 23 U.S.C. 166, are the subject of this proposal.
With a number of exceptions described more fully in Section 1121 of
SAFETEA-LU, vehicles using HOV facilities must have two or more
occupants. One of those exceptions is contained in 23 U.S.C. 166 and
provides
[[Page 29104]]
an exemption to this occupancy requirement for ``inherently low
emission'' vehicles and other `low emission and energy-efficient'
vehicles. Specifically, SAFETEA-LU added section 166(b)(5)(A) to title
23 of the U.S.C., which permits states to allow vehicles certified as
``inherently low emission'' vehicles to be exempted from the HOV
facility occupancy requirements. ``Inherently low emitting'' vehicles
are defined in title 40 section 88.311-93 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR). In addition, 23 U.S.C. 166 allows, but does not
require, states to include a new occupancy exemption for the use of
``low emission and energy-efficient'' vehicles that do not meet the
minimum occupancy requirement in HOV facilities. Section 166(e) of 23
U.S.C. lays the groundwork for this proposal. Specifically, it directs
EPA to issue regulations for certifying ``low emission and energy-
efficient vehicles,'' establishing procedures for making fuel economy
comparisons in order to determine qualifying vehicles, and providing
requirements for labeling these vehicles. States with HOV facilities
may optionally adopt this exemption, which expires September 30, 2009.
This expiration date means that, unless Congress issues a
reauthorization for the provisions in 23 U.S.C. 166, state programs
allowing low emission and energy-efficient vehicles that do not meet
the minimum occupancy requirement to use HOV facilities will no longer
be federally permitted and low emission and energy-efficient vehicles
that do not meet the established occupancy requirement will no longer
be eligible to use HOV facilities.
According to section 1121(c) of SAFETEA-LU, it is the sense of
Congress to provide additional incentives (including the use of HOV
facilities on State and Interstate highways) for the purchase and use
of hybrid and other fuel efficient vehicle technologies, which have
been proven to reduce exhaust emissions and decrease fossil fuel
consumption by the transportation sector.
EPA believes that this proposed rulemaking appropriately meets the
requirements of 23 U.S.C. 166 by providing a useful methodology for
designating vehicles as low emission and energy-efficient, thereby
furthering the intent of Congress.
II. What Are EPA's Proposed Requirements for the Certification of Low
Emission and Energy-Efficient Vehicles?
To fulfill the requirements of 23 U.S.C. 166, a low emission and
energy-efficient vehicle must meet the definition provided in 23 U.S.C.
166(f)(3). This definition includes separate components for emissions
and energy efficiency. The sections below discuss EPA's proposed
criteria for determining a ``low emission'' and ``energy-efficient''
vehicle, based on the statutory definition.
A. How Is EPA Proposing To Determine a Low Emission Vehicle?
Section 166(f)(3)(A) defines the ``low emission'' component of a
``low emission and energy-efficient'' vehicle to be a vehicle that has
been certified by EPA as meeting ``the Tier II emission level
established in regulations prescribed by the EPA under section 202(i)
of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for that vehicle's make, model, and model
year'' (``Tier II'' will hereafter be referred to as ``Tier 2''). The
Tier 2 emission certification standards phase in over time and by
vehicle classification. The standards took effect beginning in model
year 2004 and will be fully implemented for light-duty vehicles and
light light-duty trucks, up to 6000 pounds (lbs.) gross vehicle weight
rating (GVWR), in 2007 (40 CFR 86.1811-04(k)). The standards for heavy
light-duty trucks, 6000 to 8500 lbs. GVWR, will not be fully
implemented until the 2009 model year. The Tier 2 standards also apply
to medium-duty passenger vehicles, 8501 to 10,000 lbs. GVWR, but these
vehicles are not included in this proposal, as vehicles weighing over
8500 lbs. GVWR are statutorily exempted from federal fuel economy
requirements until 2011,\1\ as described in 49 U.S.C. 32908(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration recently
finalized a rulemaking, ``Average Fuel Economy Standards for Light
Trucks Model Years 2008-2011'' (March 29, 2005), that extends fuel
economy provisions for CAFE for medium-duty passenger vehicles
weighing 8501-10,000 lbs. GVWR. However, these provisions do not
take effect until 2011 and thus will not impact this notice. https://
www.nhtsa.dot.gov/staticfiles/DOT/NHTSA/Rulemaking/Rules/
Associated%20Files/2006FinalRule.pdf, last viewed 4/5/06.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Tier 2 emission standards are based on a system of emission
bins in which light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks are certified
in one of eight bins; \2\ Bin 1 represents the cleanest or lowest
emitting vehicles, and Bin 8 represents the highest emitting vehicles
of the Tier 2 bins. Thus, some Tier 2 vehicles will be more polluting
than others. The emission standards for a manufacturer's vehicle fleet
must comply on average with the Tier 2 Bin 5 level. Thus, the Tier 2
Bin 5 emission certification levels are the average of the Tier 2
emission levels with lower bins (i.e. 4, 3, 2, or 1) representing lower
emitting vehicles and higher bins (i.e. 6, 7, or 8) representing
vehicles that are more polluting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ In actuality, there are up to 11 Bins for Tier 2. However,
Bins 9-11 are only interim phase-in bins that expired at the end of
the 2006 model year for cars and light trucks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, while 23 U.S.C. 166 specifically mentions the Federal
emission certification levels of Tier 2, not all vehicles are certified
to comply with federal standards. California has separate emission
standards (along with a number of states that have adopted California's
emission standards as permitted under Section 177 of the Clean Air Act
(42 U.S.C. 7507.), which are generally equivalent to the Tier 2
standards. The current California emission standards are known as Low
Emission Vehicle-II (LEV-II) standards (Final Regulation Order as Filed
with the Secretary of State, October 28, 1999).\3\ California-certified
vehicles were required to begin phasing-in to the LEV-II standards in
2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/levprog/levii/levii.htm, last
viewed 4/5/06.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The LEV-II standards are grouped in the following categories
(listed in order of least to most stringent): Low emission vehicle
(LEV), ultra low emission vehicle (ULEV), super low emission vehicle
(SULEV), partial zero emission vehicle (PZEV), and zero emission
vehicle (ZEV). There are separate emission standards under each of
these categories for passenger cars,\4\ up to 8500 lbs. GVWR and
medium-duty vehicles, 8501-14,000 lbs. GVW. As discussed above, this
proposal applies only to vehicles with vehicle weight at or below 8500
lbs. GVWR, so the standards for medium-duty vehicles are not relevant
to the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ California passenger cars include light-duty vehicles and
light-duty trucks, including most sport utility vehicles and most
large pickup trucks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since 23 U.S.C. 166 specifies that vehicles meet ``the Tier II
emission level'', and since Tier 2 Bin 5 represents the required
manufacturer fleet average, this action proposes that in order to be
considered as a ``low emission vehicle,'' a vehicle must comply with
Tier 2 Bin 5 or better (Bins 5, 4, 3, 2 and 1). For the purpose of this
proposal, we are considering vehicles certified to the California LEV
II standards (13 CCR 1961(a)(1)) for passenger cars and light trucks
(LEV II, ULEV II, SULEV II, PZEV, and ZEV) as meeting the Tier 2
emission level, because the emission levels required by those standards
are equivalent to or more stringent than the Tier 2 Bin 5 level (13 CCR
1961(a)(1)).
There are several reasons why EPA believes it is appropriate to
propose that
[[Page 29105]]
a vehicle must meet EPA Tier 2 Bin 5 or better to be designated as
``low emission.'' First, these standards meet the 23 U.S.C. 166
requirement that vehicles meet the Tier 2 emission level, which is best
understood to mean the average level. Second, EPA believes it is
appropriate to limit the bins to Tier 2 Bin 5 or cleaner, because Bin 5
represents the required manufacturer fleet average emission standard.
Any vehicle certified to comply with a less stringent bin would have
emission levels higher than the required fleet average, and thus is not
reasonably considered a ``low emission'' vehicle. Third, this proposal
is generally consistent with a separate statutory requirement in the
Energy Policy Act of 2005 (hereafter referred to as ``Energy Act'')
(Pub. L. 109-58, August 8, 2005) which requires a vehicle to meet, at a
minimum, the Tier 2 Bin 5 emission levels, along with a minimum fuel
economy, in order to qualify for a motor vehicle tax credit.
Therefore, based on the rationale described above, this action
proposes that a ``low emission'' vehicle must be certified to the EPA
Tier 2 Bin 5 or cleaner, or California LEV-II, ULEV-II, SULEV-II, PZEV,
and ZEV emission levels for light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks
up to 8500 lbs. GVWR.
B. How Is EPA Proposing To Determine an Energy-Efficient Vehicle?
23 U.S.C. 166 states that a vehicle must be ``energy-efficient'' in
order to be eligible for exemption from the HOV facility occupancy
requirements. In particular, section 166(f)(3)(B) states that the term
``energy-efficient'' vehicle means:
(1) A vehicle that achieves a 50 percent increase in city fuel
economy at a minimum or a 25 percent increase in combined city-highway
fuel economy at a minimum relative to a comparable gasoline-fueled
vehicle, excluding gasoline-hybrid technologies; or
(2) An alternative fuel vehicle.
EPA's proposed methodology for determining a comparable gasoline-
fueled vehicle (excluding hybrid technology), and thus determining
eligibility for an HOV occupancy exemption based on a fuel economy
comparison, is described below. In addition, to help ensure HOV
facility performance would not be degraded as a result of the occupancy
exemption, 23 U.S.C. 166 provides states with the discretion to require
more stringent fuel economy criteria (that is, a greater city or city-
highway fuel economy percent increase) for their HOV programs.
In addition to defining an energy-efficient vehicle based on the
fuel economy criteria referenced above, 23 U.S.C. 166 allows specified
alternative fuel vehicles to be considered as energy-efficient. The
specified alternative fuels that are covered by 23 U.S.C. 166, and
hence this proposal, are listed in section D below.
1. What Fuel Economy Values Are Being Used To Determine if a Vehicle Is
Energy-Efficient?
To ensure that there is no added test burden imposed on
manufacturers, we are proposing that the fuel economy values to be used
to determine if a vehicle is energy-efficient are the unadjusted city,
highway and combined fuel economy values obtained during the fuel
economy testing required under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act
of 1975 (EPCA). Under EPCA, EPA is required to determine the test
methods and calculations for two major fuel economy programs: Corporate
Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) and consumer-friendly fuel economy
information (city and highway estimates posted on new vehicle labels).
The underlying tests specified by EPA are the same for both programs;
however, the resulting city, highway, and combined fuel economy results
are different.
The CAFE values are based on two tests--the city test and the
highway test. The test results are combined by harmonically averaging
them, with city weighted 55 percent and highway weighted 45 percent.
The combined city-highway fuel economy value is then put through a
series of complex calculations to determine the manufacturers' average
fuel economy values separately for their entire car and truck fleets.
The label values for 2007 and earlier models are likewise based on
the same two city and highway tests. However, the results are adjusted
downward (the city by 10 percent and the highway by 22 percent), to
better match a driver's real-world fuel economy experience. For 2008
and later models, EPA recently finalized new regulations removing those
adjustment factors and instead requiring data from three additional
tests to be included in the calculations to bring the estimates even
closer to drivers' experience. (71 FR 77872, December 27, 2006). The
fuel economy of 2008 and later models will not be able to be easily
compared to that of earlier models. Not only would this be more complex
to administer, it would create the possibility for consumer confusion
in that a 2008 vehicle may not qualify whereas its identical 2007
counterpart would (or vice versa). For that reason, it is less
desirable to use the label values as the basis for determining if a
vehicle is ``energy efficient'' under the meaning of 23 U.S.C. 166.
For these reasons, we are therefore proposing that the fuel economy
values to be used are the unadjusted city, highway and combined values
used to determine CAFE (referred to hereafter as ``unadjusted'' city,
highway, and combined fuel economy). These values provide a more
constant baseline for comparison.
2. How Is EPA Proposing To Determine a ``Comparable Vehicle''?
The Transportation Act did not specify what criteria EPA should use
in determining what a ``comparable'' vehicle is. There are considerable
challenges in determining a ``comparable'' vehicle. There are infinite
parameters against which a comparison could be made. For instance,
should the comparison parameters consider similar vehicle weights,
similar body designs, similar power ratings, similar make/model names,
similar transmission types, similar drive trains, etc. Moreover, EPA,
as well as other government agencies, has described, either by
regulation or by policy, so-called ``comparable'' vehicle classes in
which vehicles are lumped together based on some sorts of similarities.
For the purpose of this proposed rule, we considered three different
methods to look at ``comparable'' vehicles. These are: (1) A hybrid-to-
gasoline vehicle comparison (the method we are proposing in this
action), (2) a grouping of vehicles into inertia weight classes as
specified in the 2005 Energy Act, and (3) a comparison to the ``Best in
Class'', using the comparable classes used by EPA's annual Fuel Economy
Guide, which is jointly published by EPA and DOE. Further detail can be
found in the Draft Technical Support Document, which has been placed in
the docket for this rulemaking (EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0173).
In choosing a comparison strategy for this proposal, we considered
the intent of Congress which, according to 23 U.S.C. 166, was to
``provide additional incentives (including the use of HOV facilities on
State and Interstate highways) for the purchase and use of hybrid and
other fuel efficient vehicles'' (23 U.S.C. 166(c)). We also considered
the potential for lane degradation caused by allowing more vehicles in
HOV facilities as determined by the number of vehicles that would
qualify for the occupancy exemption under the comparison strategy. A
shorter, more conservative list that highlights truly energy-efficient
vehicles would help to minimize any additional vehicle volume added to
HOV facilities.
[[Page 29106]]
Based on our evaluation of each potential ``comparison vehicle''
methodology, we are proposing to compare hybrid-electric vehicles to
their gasoline counterparts, that is, those of the same or similar make
and model type, to see if the fuel economy of the hybrid had the
prescribed percent increase over the gasoline model. This method only
compares hybrid vehicles to gasoline vehicles, and does not compare any
gasoline, diesel, or flexible-fuel vehicles to a gasoline vehicle.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Alternate fuel vehicles are considered ``energy-efficient,''
but not subject to this comparison criterion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This methodology appears to best reflect the intent of Congress
expressed in 23 U.S.C. 166(c) and in the legislative history of this
provision.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See House Report 109-203, pp. 852-53:
With respect to the determination of fuel economy performance
requirements for a low emission or energy efficient vehicle not
meeting occupancy requirements that is propelled by on-board hybrid
technologies, the conferees have agreed to accept language in the
Senate-passed legislation. Under this subsection, a low emission or
energy efficient vehicle propelled by hybrid technology may access
the HOV lane if the EPA certifies that it has achieved not less than
a 50-percent increase in city fuel economy or not less than a 25-
percent increase in combined city-highway fuel economy * * *
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) How does EPA propose to develop baseline fuel economy values for
the hybrid-to-gasoline vehicle comparison methodology?
In this method, hybrid vehicles would be compared to their gasoline
namesake counterparts (e.g. the Ford Escape Hybrid would be compared to
the Ford Escape gasoline model).
However, there are some hybrids that do not have similar gasoline
counterparts (e.g. the Honda Insight and the Toyota Prius). For those
vehicles, EPA is proposing that the comparison be based on gasoline
vehicles within the same comparable class as used EPA's annual Fuel
Economy Guide, which is jointly published by EPA and DOE. The median
unadjusted fuel economy of all the gasoline vehicles in that class
would be determined, and then compared against the hybrid's fuel
economy. This comparison would be done separately for each model year.
For example, the Honda Insight is classified as a ``two-seater.'' For
each model year, we would identify all of the ``two-seater'' gasoline
vehicles and determine the median unadjusted city and unadjusted
combined city-highway fuel economy values. These fuel economy values
would form the baseline fuel economy values to be used for the Honda
Insight comparison.
As fuel economy can vary from year to year, these comparisons must
be made separately for each model year.
(2) How is the comparison determined, based on a percent increase in
vehicle fuel economy value?
We are proposing the following process for making a fuel economy
comparison using the hybrid-to-gasoline vehicle comparison methodology:
(1) Determine the list of all hybrid vehicles (separately for each
model year) emission-certified by EPA prior to September 30, 2009.
(2) For hybrid vehicles with a similar gasoline counterpart,
compare the unadjusted city and unadjusted combined city-highway fuel
economy values to the similar gasoline counterpart.
(3) For hybrid vehicles with no similar gasoline counterpart,
calculate the median unadjusted city and/or unadjusted combined city-
highway fuel economy values for all gasoline vehicles in the same EPA
comparable vehicle class and then compare the hybrid vehicle fuel
economy values to the median unadjusted city fuel economy value and the
unadjusted city-highway value for the comparison gasoline vehicle.
(4) Evaluate the results according to the following criteria:
[cir] If the candidate hybrid vehicle's city fuel economy is 50
percent greater than the city fuel economy value of its gasoline
counterpart then the vehicle would qualify as energy-efficient;
[cir] If the candidate hybrid vehicle's combined city-highway fuel
economy is 25 percent greater than the combined city/fuel economy of
its gasoline counter part, then the vehicle would qualify as energy-
efficient; or
[cir] Conversely, if the hybrid vehicles do not meet either of
these required fuel economy thresholds relative to their gasoline
counterparts, then the vehicle would not qualify as energy-efficient.
Based on the low emission and energy-efficient vehicle criteria
using the hybrid-to-gasoline vehicle comparison methodology described
above, the potential lists of vehicles eligible for an HOV occupancy
exemption are shown in Tables 1 and 2 below. These lists are based on
the most recent certification data available to EPA through model year
2007. This list will be expanded as necessary to include additional
2007-2010 model year vehicles certified by EPA. It is also important to
note that an individual state's list may differ from these lists, since
states have the option to increase the stringency of the designated
fuel economy percent increase values. States do not have the option to
increase the emission standard stringency.
Table 1.--List of Eligible Low Emission and Energy-Efficient Vehicles Using the Hybrid-to-Gasoline Vehicle Comparison Methodology
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
City FE Cmb FE
Fuel economy Tier 2 Unadj Inc over Unadj Cmb Inc over
MY Mfr Vehicle model Engine family Tran guide class std city FE baseline FE (mpg) baseline
(mpg) (%) (%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CARS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2003..... Honda............. Civic Hybrid...... 3HNXV01.36CV...... AV...... Compact.......... B5...... 52.6 52 56.0 75
2003..... Honda............. Civic Hybrid...... 3HNXV01.36CV...... M5...... Compact.......... B5...... 50.0 59 55.7 74
2003..... Honda............. Insight........... 3HNXV01.0PCE...... AV...... Two-seater....... B5...... 62.8 249 66.4 66
2004..... Honda............. Civic Hybrid...... 4HNXV01.37CP...... AV...... Compact.......... B5...... 52.6 50 56.0 75
2004..... Honda............. Civic Hybrid...... 4HNXV01.37CP...... M5...... Compact.......... B5...... 50.0 42 55.7 74
2004..... Honda............. Insight........... 4HNXV01.0NCE...... AV...... Two-seater....... B5...... 62.8 214 66.4 66
2004..... Toyota............ Prius............. 4TYXV01.5MC1...... AV...... Midsize.......... B3...... 66.6 200 65.8 106
2005..... Honda............. Civic Hybrid...... 5HNXV01.3YCV...... AV...... Compact.......... B2...... 52.6 50 56.0 41
2005..... Honda............. Civic Hybrid...... 5HNXV01.3YCV...... M5...... Compact.......... B2...... 50.0 42 55.7 40
2005..... Honda............. Insight........... 5HNXV01.0XCE...... AV...... Two-seater....... B5...... 62.8 224 66.4 185
2005..... Honda............. Accord Hybrid..... 5HNXV03.01B4...... L5...... Midsize.......... B5...... 32.2 37 37.48 32
2005..... Toyota............ Prius............. 5TYXV01.5MC1...... AV...... Midsize.......... B3...... 66.6 201 65.8 140
[[Page 29107]]
2006..... Honda............. Civic Hybrid...... 6HNXV01.3XCP...... AV...... Compact.......... B2...... 54.6 62 58.8 51
2006..... Honda............. Insight........... 6HNXV01.0VK5...... AV...... Two-seater....... B5...... 62.8 211 66.4 173
2006..... Toyota............ Prius............. 6TYXV01.5MC1...... AV...... Midsize.......... B3...... 66.6 200 65.8 144
2007..... Honda............. Accord Hybrid..... 7HNXV03.0ZMC...... L5...... Midsize.......... B2...... 31.3 37 36.3 31
2007..... Honda............. Civic Hybrid...... 7HNXV01.3JCP...... AV...... Compact.......... B2...... 54.6 67 58.8 51
2007..... Toyota............ Camry Hybrid...... 7TYXV02.4HC1...... AV...... Midsize.......... B3...... 44.2 66 45.9 44
2007..... Toyota............ Prius............. 7TYXV01.5HC1...... AV...... Midsize.......... B3...... 66.6 210 65.8 154
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRUCKS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2005..... Ford.............. Escape Hybrid 2WD. 5FMXT02.31EE...... AV...... SUV.............. B4...... 39.6 65 39.5 46
2005..... Ford.............. Escape Hybrid 4WD. 5FMXT02.31EE...... AV...... SUV.............. B4...... 36.6 78 36.7 57
2006..... Ford.............. Escape Hybrid 4WD. 6FMXT02.32EE...... AV...... SUV.............. B4...... 36.6 59 36.7 41
2006..... Ford.............. Escape Hybrid FWD. 6FMXT02.32EE...... AV...... SUV.............. B4...... 39.6 59 39.5 42
2006..... Lexus............. RX 400H 2WD....... 6TYXT03.3CC1...... AV...... SUV.............. B3...... 36.8 141 36.2 96
2006..... Lexus............. RX 400H 4WD....... 6TYXT03.3CC1...... AV...... SUV.............. B3...... 34.3 124 34.3 86
2006..... Lexus............. Tribute Hybrid 4WD 6FMXT02.32EE...... AV...... SUV.............. B4...... 36.6 59 36.7 41
2006..... Mercury........... Mariner Hybrid 4WD 6FMXT02.32EE...... AV...... SUV.............. B4...... 36.6 75 36.7 53
2006..... Toyota............ Highlander Hybrid 6TYXT03.3CC1...... AV...... SUV.............. B3...... 36.8 72 36.2 45
2WD.
2006..... Toyota............ Highlander Hybrid 6TYXT03.3CC1...... AV...... SUV.............. B3...... 34.3 67 34.3 42
4WD.
2007..... Ford.............. Escape Hybrid 2WD. 7FMXT02.32ZE...... AV...... SUV.............. B3...... 35.8 55 36.5 39
2007..... Ford.............. Escape Hybrid FWD. 7FMXT02.32ZE...... AV...... SUV.............. B3...... 41.1 64 40.6 45
2007..... Lexus............. RX 400H 2WD....... 7TYXT03.3CC1...... AV...... SUV.............. B3...... 35.7 135 35.0 95
2007..... Lexus............. RX 400H 4WD....... 7TYXT03.3CC1...... AV...... SUV.............. B3...... 34.3 126 34.3 91
2007..... Mercury........... Mariner Hybrid 4WD 7FMXT02.32ZE...... AV...... SUV.............. B3...... 35.8 55 36.5 39
2007..... Toyota............ Highlander Hybrid 7TYXT03.3CC1...... AV...... SUV.............. B3...... 35.7 67 35.0 40
2WD.
2007..... Toyota............ Highlander Hybrid 7TYXT03.3CC1...... AV...... SUV.............. B3...... 34.3 52 34.3 32
4WD.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEDICATED ALTERNATIVE FUEL (CNG) VEHICLES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2003..... Honda............. Civic--CNG........ 3HNXV01.73W3...... N/A B2...... DEDICATED ALTERNATIVE FUEL (CNG) VEHICLE.
2004..... Honda............. Civic--CNG........ 4HNXV01.74W0...... N/A B2...... DEDICATED ALTERNATIVE FUEL (CNG) VEHICLE.
2005..... Honda............. Civic--CNG........ 5HNXV01.7BF3...... N/A B2...... DEDICATED ALTERNATIVE FUEL (CNG) VEHICLE.
2003..... Ford.............. Crown Victoria-- 3FMXV04.6VP5...... N/A B3...... DEDICATED ALTERNATIVE FUEL (CNG) VEHICLE.
CNG.
2004..... Ford.............. Crown Victoria-- 4FMXV04.6VP5...... N/A B3...... DEDICATED ALTERNATIVE FUEL (CNG) VEHICLE.
CNG.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unless noted as a dedicated alternative fuel vehicle, all of the listed vehicles operate on gasoline, and some may also be flexible-fuel vehicles.
MY = Model Year
Mfr = Manufacturer
Tran = Transmission type
Int Wgt = Inertia Weight Class
Std = Standard
Unadj = Unadjusted
FE = Fuel Economy
Inc = Increase
Cmb = Combined city-highway
B = Bin
For states that have adopted the California emission certification
standards, based on the California LEV-II (LEV-II, ULEV-II, SULEV-II,
and ZEV) emission standards for passenger vehicles and a comparison
based on the
[[Page 29108]]
hybrid-to-gasoline vehicle comparison methodology or a dedicated
alternative fuel vehicle, the proposed list of vehicles eligible for
the HOV occupancy exemption is as follows:
Table 2.--List of California-Certified Eligible Low Emission and Energy-Efficient Vehicles Using the Hybrid-to-Vehicle Vehicle Comparison Methodology
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
City FE Cmb FE
Fuel economy guide Unadj Inc over Unadj Cmb Inc over
MY Mfr Vehicle model Engine family Tran class LEV-II std city FE baseline FE (mpg) baseline
(mpg) (%) (%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CARS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2003.............................. Honda.............. Civic Hybrid......... 3HNXV01.36CV........ AV......... Compact............. S2......... 52.6 52 56.0 45
2003.............................. Honda.............. Civic Hybrid......... 3HNXV01.36CV........ M5......... Compact............. S2......... 50.0 59 55.7 46
2003.............................. Honda.............. Insight.............. 3HNXV01.0PCE........ AV......... Two-Seater.......... S2......... 62.8 249 66.4 201
2004.............................. Honda.............. Civic Hybrid......... 4HNXV01.37CP........ AV......... Compact............. S2......... 52.6 50 56.0 41
2004.............................. Honda.............. Civic Hybrid......... 4HNXV01.37CP........ M5......... Compact............. S2......... 50.0 42 55.7 40
2004.............................. Honda.............. Insight.............. 4HNXV01.0NCE........ AV......... Two-seater.......... S2......... 62.8 214 66.4 177
2004.............................. Toyota............. Prius................ 4TYXV01.5MC1........ AV......... Midsize............. S2......... 66.6 200 65.8 139
2005.............................. Honda.............. Civic Hybrid......... 5HNXV01.3YCV........ AV......... Midsize............. S2......... 52.6 50 56.0 41
2005.............................. Honda.............. Civic Hybrid......... 5HNXV01.3YCV........ M5......... Compact............. S2......... 50.0 42 55.7 40
2005.............................. Honda.............. Insight.............. 5HNXV01.0XCE........ AV......... Compact............. S2......... 62.8 224 66.4 185
2005.............................. Honda.............. Accord Hybrid........ 5HNXV03.01B4........ L5......... Midsize............. S2......... 32.2 37 37.48 32
2005.............................. Toyota............. Prius................ 5TYXV01.5MC1........ AV......... Two-seater.......... S2......... 66.6 201 65.8 140
2006.............................. Honda.............. Civic Hybrid......... 6HNXV01.3XCP........ AV......... Midsize............. S2......... 54.6 62 58.8 51
2006.............................. Honda.............. Insight.............. 6HNXV01.0VK5........ AV......... Compact............. S2......... 62.8 211 66.4 173
2006.............................. Toyota............. Prius................ 6TYXV01.5MC1........ AV......... Two-seater.......... S2......... 66.6 200 65.8 144
2007.............................. Honda.............. Accord Hybrid........ 7HNXV03.0ZMC........ L5......... Midsize............. S2......... 31.3 37 36.3 31
2007.............................. Honda.............. Civic Hybrid......... 7HNXV01.3JCP........ AV......... Midsize............. S2......... 54.6 67 58.8 51
2007.............................. Toyota............. Camry Hybrid......... 7TYXV02.4HC1........ AV......... Midsize............. S2......... 44.2 66 45.9 44
2007.............................. Toyota............. Prius................ 7TYXV01.5HC1........ AV......... Midsize............. S2......... 66.6 210 65.8 154
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRUCKS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2005.............................. Ford............... Escape Hybrid 2WD.... 5FMXT02.31EE........ AV......... 4000................ S2......... 39.6 65 39.5 46
2005.............................. Ford............... Escape Hybrid 4WD.... 5FMXT02.31EE........ AV......... 4000................ S2......... 36.6 78 36.7 57
2006.............................. Ford............... Escape Hybrid 4WD.... 6FMXT02.32EE........ AV......... SUV................. S2......... 36.6 59 36.7 41
2006.............................. Ford............... Escape Hybrid FWD.... 6FMXT02.32EE........ AV......... SUV................. S2......... 39.6 59 39.5 42
2006.............................. Lexus.............. RX 400H 2WD.......... 6TYXT03.3CC1........ AV......... SUV................. S2......... 36.8 141 36.2 96
2006.............................. Lexus.............. RX 400H 4WD.......... 6TYXT03.3CC1........ AV......... SUV................. S2......... 34.3 124 34.3 86
2006.............................. Mazda.............. Tribute Hybrid 4WD... 6FMXT02.32EE........ AV......... SUV................. S2......... 36.6 59 36.7 41
2006.............................. Mercury............ Mariner Hybrid 4WD... 6FMXT02.32EE........ AV......... SUV................. S2......... 36.6 75 36.7 53
2006.............................. Toyota............. Highlander Hybrid 2WD 6TYXT03.3CC1........ AV......... SUV................. S2......... 36.8 72 36.2 45
2006.............................. Toyota............. Highlander Hybrid 4WD 6TYXT03.3CC1........ AV......... SUV................. S2......... 34.3 67 34.3 42
2007.............................. Ford............... Escape Hybrid 4WD.... 7FMXT02.32ZE........ AV......... SUV................. S2......... 35.8 55 36.5 39
2007.............................. Ford............... Escape Hybrid FWD.... 7FMXT02.32ZE........ AV......... SUV................. S2......... 41.1 64 40.6 45
2007.............................. Lexus.............. RX 400H 2WD.......... 7TYXT03.3CC1........ AV......... SUV................. S2......... 35.7 135 35 95
2007.............................. Lexus.............. RX 400H 4WD.......... 7TYXT03.3CC1........ AV......... SUV................. S2......... 34.3 126 34.3 91
2007.............................. Mercury............ Mariner Hybrid....... 7FMXT02.32ZE........ AV......... SUV................. S2......... 35.8 55 36.5 39
2007.............................. Toyota............. Highlander Hybrid 2WD 7TYXT03.3CC1........ AV......... SUV................. S2......... 35.7 103 35 69
2007.............................. Toyota............. Highlander Hybrid 4WD 7TYXT03.3CC1........ AV......... SUV................. S2......... 34.3 52 34.3 32
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEDICATED ALTERNATIVE FUEL (CNG) VEHICLES
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004.............................. Honda.............. Civic--CNG........... 4HNXV01.74W2........ N/A S2......... DEDICATED ALTERNATIVE FUEL (CNG) VEHICLE.
2005.............................. Honda.............. Civic--CNG........... 5HNXV01.7BF4........ N/A S2......... DEDICATED ALTERNATIVE FUEL (CNG) VEHICLE.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unless noted as a dedicated alternative fuel vehicle, all of the listed vehicles operate on gasoline, and some may also be flexible-fuel vehicles.
MY = Model Year
Mfr = Manufacturer
Tran = Transmission
[[Page 29109]]
Int Wgt = Inertia Weight Class
Std = Standard
Unadj = Unadjusted
FE = Fuel Economy
Inc = Increase
Cmb = Combined city-highway
S2 = SULEVII
U2 = ULEVII
3. What Other Methods Did EPA Consider for Determining a ``Comparable
Vehicle''?
(a) Inertia Weight Class Methodology
EPA also considered using inertia weight classes to determine
comparable vehicles. This approach would consider all vehicles,
regardless of fuel type or technology, as potentially energy-efficient,
rather than just hybrid vehicles, as under the hybrid-to-gasoline
vehicle comparison method. Thus, any gasoline, diesel, flexible-fuel,
or hybrid vehicle could be considered energy-efficient, as long as it
meets the fuel economy criteria referenced above.
EPA considered this fuel-neutral approach because, while the
legislative history of SAFETEA-LU indicates an intent by Congress to
limit this provision to hybrid and alternative fuel vehicles, the
statutory provisions enacted by Congress do not explicitly limit this
option to those types of vehicles. Additionally, a fuel-neutral
approach would encourage fuel efficiency for all types of vehicles, not
just hybrid vehicles. On the other hand, this approach would increase
the number of vehicles potentially eligible to use HOV facilities under
this provision, which could create the potential for substantial HOV
lane degradation. We are not proposing this method, but request comment
on it.
With the inertia weight class methodology, a comparable vehicle
would be based on vehicle inertia weight classes,\7\ which are
consistent with those prescribed by the 2005 Energy Act. As the inertia
weight classes are already defined in the 2005 Energy Act,\8\ with an
associated baseline city fuel economy value, the definition of a
comparable vehicle would be based on the average fuel economy of all
gasoline vehicles within the same inertia weight class for a vehicle
type (car or truck). A baseline city fuel economy value and a baseline
combined city-highway fuel economy value would then be used as the
basis for the fuel economy comparison for each inertia weight class,
separately for cars and trucks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Inertia weight classes are determined by EPA regulations at
40 CFR 86.129-94. Inertia weight class is the class into which a
vehicle is grouped for testing purposes based on its loaded vehicle
weight (nominal empty vehicle weight plus 300 lbs. used for cars and
for light-duty trucks up through 6000 lbs. GVWR) or adjusted loaded
vehicle weight (average of nominal empty weight and gross vehicle
weight rating used for light-duty trucks greater than 6000 lbs.
GVWR).
\8\ Sec. 30B.1(b)(2)(B)(i) of Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The baseline city fuel economy value would be the unadjusted CAFE
city fuel economy as described above in section B.1 for the 2002 model
year, as specified in the 2005 Energy Act. EPA believes that the
baseline city fuel economy in the 2005 Energy Act was derived from
gasoline vehicles only (excluding any gasoline-fueled hybrids) based on
reverse-calculations using a sales-weighted harmonic average. Further
detail on how these calculations were performed can be found in the
Draft Technical Support Document, which has been placed in the docket
for this rulemaking (EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0173).
With regard to the baseline model for comparison using the inertia
weight class method, we considered it most appropriate to use the model
year 2002 data as a baseline for fuel economy comparisons for two
reasons. First, the model year 2002 data was chosen in the 2005 Energy
Act for alternative motor vehicle tax credit purposes. Second, the EPA
Fuel Economy Trends Report (EPA420-R-06-011, July 2006) shows that
overall fuel economy has been relatively constant over the past eight
model years, except for light truck fuel economy, which has increased
for two years. This increase is likely due, at least in part, to higher
light-truck CAFE standards. Overall, fuel economy has been influenced
by marginal changes in gasoline technology prior to the introduction of
hybrid technology.\9\ Thus, choosing a 2002 baseline can still be
considered an appropriate baseline value for vehicle fuel economy
comparisons, as it was calculated with gasoline vehicles whose overall
fuel economy performance has remained somewhat constant for many years,
except for the increase seen in light trucks over the last two years.
Furthermore, applying one baseline for all model year comparisons would
reduce time spent generating annual baselines and reduces the need to
analyze annual sales data, which is often provided later in the model
year than the date when a baseline would be required. Overall, EPA
believes this approach would have a benefit of streamlining the
implementation of the rule without impacting its effectiveness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Hellman, Karl, and Robert Heavenrich. ``Light-Duty
Automotive Technology and Fuel Economy Trends: 1975 Through 2004''
(FE Trends). EPA420-R-04-001, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the inertia weight class methodology, the following process
would be used for making a fuel economy comparison:
(1) Sort the list of all potential vehicles (all model years
available for sale prior to September 30, 2009) into two categories--
car and light-duty truck.
(2) Sort both the car list and the light-duty truck list by inertia
weight classes.
(3) Compare each vehicle's unadjusted city and unadjusted combined
city-highway fuel economy values to the baseline values separately for
cars and trucks.
(4) Calculate the percent increase in fuel economy for a candidate
vehicle compared to the baseline for its given inertia weight class.
(5) Evaluate the results according to the following criteria:
a. If the percent increase for city fuel economy is greater than 50
percent over the baseline city fuel economy for the given inertia
weight class, then the vehicle would qualify as energy-efficient;
b. If the percent increase for combined city-highway fuel economy
is greater than 25 percent over the baseline combined city-highway fuel
economy for the given inertia weight class, then the vehicle would
qualify as energy-efficient; or
c. Conversely, if the candidate vehicle's fuel economy does not
meet these required thresholds when compared to the baseline fuel
economy for that inertia weight class category of that vehicle, then
the vehicle would not qualify as energy-efficient.
Therefore, to qualify under the inertia weight class methodology, a
candidate vehicle must achieve 25 percent or better city fuel economy
or 50 percent or better combined city-highway fuel economy than the
average of all vehicles in its inertia weight class.
Using this approach, the lists of potentially qualifying vehicles
include a few models that fail to achieve the level of the CAFE
standard. Therefore, we
[[Page 29110]]
believe that an additional criterion is necessary to determine if a
vehicle is fuel efficient, not only on a relative basis, but on an
absolute basis as well. Thus it is appropriate to add an additional
comparison criterion, to be used as a ``floor'' to prevent the
inclusion of vehicles which may be fuel efficient relative to others in
the same inertia weight class, but which fail to have a combined fuel
economy that is higher than 25 percent above the applicable CAFE car or
truck standard. For example, the 2007 CAFE standard for light trucks is
22.2 miles per gallon (MPG). In order for a light truck to qualify for
use in HOV facilities using the inertia weight class method, it would
have to meet a minimum fuel economy of 27.75 MPG in order to qualify.
We believe that this additional criterion is in keeping with the
Transportation Act requirement that the combined fuel economy be 25
percent better than a comparable gasoline vehicle.
A complete discussion of the inertia weight class methodology,
including the list of vehicles that would qualify using this approach,
can be found in the Draft Technical Support Document located in the
docket for this rulemaking.
EPA requests comment on using the inertia weight class methodology
as a means for defining a comparable vehicle.
(b) ``Best in Class'' Methodology
EPA also considered defining a ``comparable vehicle'' as the
vehicle with the best fuel economy of a particular class of vehicles as
defined by the annual Fuel Economy Guide, which is jointly published by
EPA and DOE. This approach is not a fuel and technology neutral
approach, meaning that it only considers hybrid vehicles. No gasoline,
diesel, or flexible-fuel would be considered for an HOV facilities
exemption using this methodology. The primary benefit of this approach
is that it would result in the smallest list of eligible vehicles and
thus have the least potential impact on traffic congestion.
For the ``best in class'' methodology, the following process would
be used for making a fuel economy comparison:
(1) Sort the list of all hybrid vehicles (all model years certified
for sale prior to September 30, 2009) by the vehicle classes defined in
the annual Fuel Economy Guide (https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/
feg2000.htm) for each model year. The vehicle classes are defined in
the Fuel Economy Guide as follows: Two-seater, Minicompact Vehicle,
Subcompact Vehicle, Compact Vehicle, Midsize Vehicle, Large Vehicle,
Small Station Wagon, Midsize Station Wagon, Large Station Wagon, Small
Pickup Truck, Standard Pickup Truck, Passenger Van, Cargo Van, Minivan,
Sport Utility Vehicle (SUV), and Special Purpose Vehicle.
(2) For each model year a
