Notice of Upcoming Joint Rulemaking To Establish Vehicle GHG Emissions and CAFE Standards, 24007-24012 [E9-12009]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 98 / Friday, May 22, 2009 / Notices
(LNG) Project, Construction and
Operation, Proposed Liquefied
Natural Gas (LNG) Terminal, Natural
Gas Pipeline and Associated
Facilities, Washington County, ME,
Comment Period Ends: 07/06/2009,
Contact: Patricia Schaub 1–866–208–
3372.
EIS No. 20090165, Final EIS, AFS, UT,
Dixie National Forest Motorized
Travel Plan, Implementation, Dixie
National and the Teasdale portion of
the Fremont River Ranger District on
the Fishlake National Forest, Garfield,
Iron, Kane, Piute, Washington and
Wayne Counties, UT, Wait Period
Ends: 06/22/2009, Contact: Andi
Falsetto 435–896–9233.
EIS No. 20090166, Draft Supplement,
COE, LA, Calcasieu River and Pass,
Louisiana Dredged Material
Management Plan, Implementation,
Calcasieu Ship Channel, Port of Lake
Charles, Calcasieu and Cameron
Parishes, LA, Wait Period Ends: 07/
06/2009, Contact: Sandra Stiles 504–
862–1583.
EIS No. 20090167, Final EIS, FAA, AK,
Sitka Rocky Gutierrez Airport Master
Plan, Improvements to the Runway
Safety Area, Taxiway, Seaplane
Pullout, Approach Lighting System,
and the Seawall, U.S. Army COE
Section 10 and 404 Permits, NPDES
Permit, AK, Wait Period Ends: 06/22/
2009, Contact: Patricia Sullivan 907–
271–5454.
erowe on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Amended Notices
EIS No. 20090048, Draft EIS, AFS, MT,
Montanore Project, Proposes to
Construct a Copper and Silver
Underground Mine and Associated
Facilities, Including a New
Transmission Line, Plan-of-Operation
Permit, Kootenai National Forest,
Sanders County, MT, Wait Period
Ends: 07/27/2009, Contact: Bobbie
Lacklen 406–283–7681. Revision to
FR Notice Published 02/27/2009:
Extending Comment Period from
05/28/2009 to 07/27/2009.
EIS No. 20090123, Draft EIS, FHW, MS,
Greenville Connector Project, from
Relocated U.S. 82 to Proposed I–69
Corridor south of Benoit, City of
Greenville, Washington and Bolivar
Counties, MS, Wait Period Ends:
07/06/2009, Contact: Andrew Hughes,
P.E. 601–965–4217. Revision of FR
Notice Published 04/24/2009:
Extending Comment Period from
06/08/2009 to 07/06/2009.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:18 May 21, 2009
Jkt 217001
24007
Dated: May 19, 2009.
Ken Mittelholtz,
Environmental Protection Specialist, Office
of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. E9–12012 Filed 5–21–09; 8:45 am]
Dated: May 19, 2009.
Ken Mittelholtz,
Environmental Protection Specialist, Office
of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. E9–12011 Filed 5–21–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[ER–FRL–8593–7]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Environmental Impact Statements and
Regulations; Availability of EPA
Comments
Availability of EPA comments
prepared pursuant to the Environmental
Review Process (ERP), under section
309 of the Clean Air Act and Section
102(2)(c) of the National Environmental
Policy Act as amended. Requests for
copies of EPA comments can be directed
to the Office of Federal Activities at
202–564–7146.
An explanation of the ratings assigned
to draft environmental impact
statements (EISs) was published in FR
dated April 17, 2009 (74 FR 17860).
Draft EISs
EIS No. 20090054, ERP No. D–AFS–
K65358–CA, Stanislaus National
Forest Motorized Travel Management
(17305) Plan, Implementation,
Stanislaus National Forest, CA.
Summary: EPA expressed
environmental concerns about adverse
impacts on water quality, sensitive
species and habitat. Additional
information is needed on seasonal
closures, monitoring, and enforcement
commitments. Rating EC2.
EIS No. 20090062, ERP No. D–FRC–
E05104–00, Catawba-Wateree
Hydroelectric Project (FERC No.
2232), Application for Hydroelectric
License, Catawba and Wateree Rivers
in Burke, McDowell, Caldwell,
Catawba, Alexander, Iredell,
Mecklenburg, Lincoln and Gaston
Counties, NC and York, Lancaster,
Chester, Fairfield and Kershaw
Counties, SC.
Summary: EPA expressed
environmental concerns impacts to
aquatic species. Rating EC1.
Final EISs
EIS No. 20090110, ERP No. F–USN–
C11023–NJ, Laurelwood Housing
Area, Access at Naval Weapons
Station Earle, Lease Agreement,
Monmouth County, NJ.
Summary: No formal comment letter
was sent to the preparing agency.
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
[FRL–8909–3]
RIN 2060–ZA15
Notice of Upcoming Joint Rulemaking
To Establish Vehicle GHG Emissions
and CAFE Standards
AGENCIES: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of Intent to conduct a
joint rulemaking.
SUMMARY: There is a critically important
need for our country to address global
climate change and to reduce oil
consumption. In this context, EPA and
DOT currently intend to work in
coordination to propose standards for
control of emissions of greenhouse gases
and for fuel economy, respectively. If
proposed and finalized, these standards
would apply to passenger cars, lightduty trucks, and medium-duty
passenger vehicles (light-duty vehicles)
built in model years 2012 through 2016.
Together, these vehicle categories,
which include passenger cars, sport
utility vehicles, minivans, and pickup
trucks, are responsible for almost 60
percent of all U.S. transportation-related
greenhouse gas emissions. If ultimately
adopted, these standards would
represent a harmonized and consistent
national policy pursuant to the separate
statutory frameworks under which EPA
and DOT operate. The approach
addressed in this Notice, if ultimately
adopted, is intended to allow
manufacturers to build a single lightduty national fleet that would satisfy all
requirements under both programs and
would provide significant reductions in
both greenhouse gas emissions and oil
consumption.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
EPA: Christopher Lieske, Office of
Transportation and Air Quality,
Assessment and Standards Division,
Environmental Protection Agency, 2000
Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI
48105; telephone number: 734–214–
4584; fax number: 734–214–4816; e-mail
address: lieske.christopher@epa.gov, or
Assessment and Standards Division
Hotline; telephone number (734) 214–
E:\FR\FM\22MYN1.SGM
22MYN1
24008
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 98 / Friday, May 22, 2009 / Notices
4636; e-mail address: asdinfo@epa.gov.
DOT/NHTSA: Julie Abraham, Office of
Rulemaking, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
Telephone: (202) 366–1455.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
erowe on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
I. Introduction
This joint Notice announces plans by
the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA), on
behalf of the Department of
Transportation, to propose a strong and
coordinated Federal greenhouse gas and
fuel economy program for passenger
cars, light-duty trucks, and mediumduty passenger vehicles (hereafter lightduty vehicles), referred to as the
National Program.1 Both agencies seek
to propose a coordinated program that
can achieve important reductions of
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and
improvements in fuel economy from the
light-duty vehicle part of the
transportation sector, based on
technology that will be commercially
available and that can be incorporated at
a reasonable cost. The agencies intend
to propose a program that will also
provide regulatory certainty for the
automobile industry, while recognizing
the serious current economic situation
faced by this industry and many
members of the public.
In the near future, EPA and NHTSA
intend to initiate a joint rulemaking,
with EPA proposing GHG emissions
standards under the Clean Air Act
(CAA), and NHTSA proposing
Corporate Average Fuel Economy
(CAFE) standards under EPCA, as
amended by the Energy Independence
and Security Act of 2007 (EISA). It is
intended that this joint rulemaking
proposal will reflect a carefully
coordinated and harmonized approach
to implementing these two statutes and
will be in accordance with all
substantive and procedural
requirements imposed by law.
Since the 1970s, NHTSA has
promulgated CAFE standards for lightduty vehicles to address our country’s
need to reduce oil consumption. In 2008
NHTSA proposed CAFE standards for
model years (MY) 2011 through 2015.
However, responding to a Presidential
Memorandum of January 26, 2009,
NHTSA issued CAFE standards limited
to MY 2011,2 and has been
comprehensively reviewing how it sets
1 NHTSA is delegated responsibility for
implementing the Energy Policy and Conservation
Act (EPCA) fuel economy requirements assigned to
the Secretary of Transportation. 49 CFR 1.50,
501.2(a)(8).
2 74 FR 14196; March 30, 2009.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:18 May 21, 2009
Jkt 217001
CAFE standards in the context of
preparing to propose CAFE standards
for MY 2012 and later model years. At
the same time, EPA has been working
on appropriate responses that are
consistent with the decision of the
Supreme Court in Massachusetts v.
EPA 3 and EPA’s recent proposal to find
that emissions of GHGs from new motor
vehicles and motor vehicle engines
cause or contribute to air pollution that
may reasonably be anticipated to
endanger public health and welfare.4 In
addition, in 2005 California adopted
GHG emissions standards for new lightduty vehicles. Thirteen States and the
District of Columbia to date, comprising
approximately 40 percent of the lightduty vehicle market, have adopted
California’s GHG emissions standards.
In 2008, EPA denied a request by
California for a waiver of preemption
under the CAA for its GHG emissions
standards. However, consistent with
another Presidential Memorandum of
January 26, 2009, EPA is currently
reconsidering the prior denial of
California’s request.5 California and the
States that have adopted California’s
standards are planning to enforce these
standards if EPA grants California’s
request for a waiver of preemption.
In sum, one agency is responsible for
a standard that focuses on emissions of
GHG and the other for a standard that
focuses on improving fuel economy, and
there are both Federal and State
administrative agencies working on
standards to address similar issues.
Consistent, harmonized, and
streamlined requirements hold out the
promise of delivering environmental
and energy benefits, cost savings, and
administrative efficiencies that might
not be available under a less
coordinated approach. The National
Program the agencies intend to propose
would seek to deliver on that promise.
Key elements of a harmonized and
coordinated National Program the
agencies intend to propose are the level
and form of the standard, the available
compliance mechanisms, and general
implementation elements. These
elements are outlined in the following
sections. The agencies will continue to
evaluate all of the issues relevant to
developing a proposal, and will provide
their evaluations for review and public
comment with the upcoming NPRM.
This will include analyses on a variety
of relevant issues, such as the costs and
benefits of the proposal (both quantified
and unquantified), as well as the effects
the proposal would have on the
3 549
U.S. 497 (2007).
FR 18886; April 24, 2009.
5 74 FR 7040; February 12, 2009.
4 74
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
economy, manufacturers, and
consumers. The notice of proposed
rulemaking the agencies intend to issue
will discuss both the analyses that will
have been done for the proposal as well
as any plans for conducting additional
analyses.
It is also important to note that GHG
standards expected to be issued under
section 202(a) of the CAA would
become final only if EPA makes a final
finding consistent with its recent
proposal to find that emissions of
greenhouse gases from new motor
vehicles and motor vehicle engines
cause or contribute to air pollution that
may reasonably be anticipated to
endanger public health and welfare.
The agencies also anticipate that the
kind of harmonized and consistent
national policy described in this Notice
should be considered in developing
standards for model years after 2016, in
a future rulemaking.
II. Key Elements of the National
Program
A. Level of the Standards
EPA and NHTSA intend to propose
two separate sets of standards, each
under their respective statutory
authorities. EPA expects to propose a
national CO2 vehicle emissions standard
under section 202(a) of the Clean Air
Act. EPA currently is considering
proposing standards that would, if made
final, achieve on average 250 grams/
mile of CO2 in model year 2016. The
standards for earlier years would begin
with the 2012 model year, with a
generally linear phase-in from MY 2012
through to model year 2016. NHTSA
expects to propose appropriate related
CAFE standards.
In developing the proposals under
consideration, EPA and NHTSA have
preliminarily evaluated the kinds of
technologies that could be utilized by
the automobile industry, as well as the
associated costs for the industry and
fuel savings for the consumer, the
magnitude of the GHG and energy
consumption reductions that may be
achieved, and other factors relevant
under their respective statutory
authorities.6 With respect to
6 The CAA requires EPA to establish ‘‘standards
applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from
new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines
which, in the Administrator’s judgment, cause or
contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be
anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.’’
As noted above, EPA has proposed to find that
GHGs emitted by new motor vehicles and new
motor vehicle engines contribute to air pollution
that endangers public health and welfare. Section
202(a) of the CAA further provides that standards
set pursuant to it ‘‘shall take effect after such period
as the Administrator finds necessary to permit the
development and application of the requisite
E:\FR\FM\22MYN1.SGM
22MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 98 / Friday, May 22, 2009 / Notices
erowe on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
technological feasibility, during MYs
2012–2016 manufacturers are expected
to go through the normal automotive
business cycle of redesigning and
upgrading their light-duty vehicle
products (and in some cases introducing
entirely new vehicles not on the market
today). The proposal under
consideration is expected to allow
manufacturers the time needed to
incorporate technology to achieve GHG
reductions and improve fuel economy
during the vehicle redesign process.
This is an important aspect of the
proposal under consideration, as it
would avoid the much higher costs that
would occur if manufacturers needed to
add or change technology at times other
than these scheduled redesigns. This
time period would also provide
manufacturers the opportunity to plan
for compliance using a multi-year time
frame, again in accord with normal
business practice. Over these five model
years there would be an opportunity for
manufacturers to evaluate almost every
one of their vehicle model platforms
and add technology in a cost effective
way to control GHG emissions and
improve fuel economy. This includes
redesign of the air conditioner systems
in ways that will further reduce GHG
emissions.
Technical work conducted by each
agency over the last several years
indicates that there is a wide range of
technologies available for manufacturers
to consider in upgrading vehicles to
reduce GHG emissions and improve fuel
economy.7 These include improvements
to the engines such as use of gasoline
direct injection and downsized engines
that use turbochargers to provide
performance similar to that of larger
engines, the use of advanced
transmissions, increased use of startstop technology, improvements in tire
performance, reductions in vehicle
weight, increased use of hybrid and
other advanced technologies, and the
technology, giving appropriate consideration to the
cost of compliance within such period.’’
The EPCA requires that the CAFE standards for
each model year be set at the maximum feasible
level. In determining that level, NHTSA must
consider technological feasibility, economic
practicability, the effect of other motor vehicle
standards of the Government on fuel economy, and
the need of the United States to conserve energy.
NHTSA is prohibited from considering the
availability of compliance flexibilities such as the
ability to earn credits for exceeding CAFE standards
in setting CAFE standards. Further, NHTSA must
set the MY 2011–2020 CAFE standards sufficiently
high to ensure that the industry-wide average of all
new passenger cars and light trucks, combined, is
not less than 35 miles per gallon by MY 2020.
7 The close relationship between emissions of
CO2—the most prevalent greenhouse gas emitted by
motor vehicles—and fuel consumption, means that
the technologies to control CO2 emissions and to
improve fuel economy overlap to a great degree.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:18 May 21, 2009
Jkt 217001
initial commercialization of electric
vehicles and plug-in hybrids. Although
many of these technologies are available
today, the emissions reductions and fuel
economy improvements under
consideration for the proposal would be
expected to involve more widespread
use of these technologies across the
fleet.
Initial evaluations by EPA and
NHTSA indicate that utilization of this
suite of technologies provides a strong
technical basis to proceed with
consideration of a proposal containing
MY 2016 GHG standards that would on
average achieve 250 gram/mile CO2. If
the automotive industry were to achieve
this CO2 level all through fuel economy
improvements, this would equate to
achieving a fleet average level of 35.5
mpg. However, it is expected that most
companies would also apply some air
conditioning improvements to reduce
GHG emissions. This would not
translate into fuel economy
improvements, so on average we expect
the fuel economy improvements to be
somewhat below the 35.5 mpg value.8
The proposal under consideration
would also include a harmonized CAFE
standard for MY 2016. Compatible GHG
and CAFE standards for earlier model
years would increase from the MY 2011
CAFE standard to the MY 2016 level of
the National Program.
In developing their respective
proposals, EPA and NHTSA will
consider many of the same issues. Given
differences in their respective statutory
authorities, however, the agencies
anticipate there will be some important
differences in the development of their
proposals. For example, under a GHG
standard proposed under CAA section
202(a) EPA would expect manufacturers
to take advantage of the option to
generate credits by reducing emissions
of HFCs and CO2 through upgrades to
their air conditioner systems. EPA plans
to take these reductions into account in
developing a proposed GHG standard.
However, EPCA does not permit
NHTSA to consider air conditioning
credits in developing a proposed CAFE
standard for passenger cars. CO2
emissions due to air conditioning
operation are not measured by the test
procedure mandated by statute for use
in establishing and enforcing CAFE
standards for passenger cars. As a result,
improvements in the efficiency of
passenger car air conditioners would
not be considered as a possible control
technology for purposes of CAFE.
8 As discussed in this section, these mile per
gallon equivalents should not be considered levels
of potential CAFE standards.
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
24009
In addition, in developing a proposal
EPA would take into consideration all of
the compliance flexibilities discussed
below, such as averaging, banking, and
trading of credits, while NHTSA is
prohibited by statute from taking such
flexibilities into account in developing
proposed CAFE standards.
Manufacturer utilization of these
flexibilities, however, would be
anticipated to provide important savings
in cost, promote more cost-effective
GHG emissions control and justify
proposing more stringent GHG
standards. As a result, the agencies do
not anticipate a one-to-one
correspondence between the level of
EPA’s proposed GHG standards and
NHTSA’s proposed CAFE standards.
Instead the CAFE standards under
consideration for proposal would be
somewhat lower than the mile per
gallon equivalent of the corresponding
GHG standard. This reflects both the
specific differences in standard setting
criteria, as well as the general attempt
by each agency to harmonize its
proposed standards in a way that allows
them to achieve their respective
statutory and regulatory goals. The goal
of the proposal under consideration is
providing regulatory compatibility that
allows auto manufacturers to build a
single national light-duty fleet that
would comply with both the GHG and
the CAFE standards.
Preliminary analysis indicates that the
proposal under consideration would
result in GHG reductions and oil
consumption reductions that are very
significant. Preliminary analysis
indicates cumulative greenhouse gas
reductions of approximately 890 million
metric tons (CO2 equivalent) and fuel
savings of approximately 1.8 billion
barrels of oil, over the lifetime of the
model years covered. Consumers would
be expected to see cost savings due to
the significant fuel savings. As
discussed below, the agencies will
conduct additional analyses of these
matters.
B. Form of the Standards
Both EPA and NHTSA currently
intend to propose attribute-based
standards for passenger cars and lighttrucks. NHTSA adopted an attribute
standard based on vehicle footprint in
its Reformed CAFE program for lighttrucks for model years 2008–2011,9 and
recently extended this approach to
passenger cars in the CAFE rule for MY
2011.10 The agencies currently intend to
propose vehicle footprint as the
attribute for the GHG and CAFE
9 71
FR 17566; April 6, 2006.
FR 14196; March 30, 2009.
10 74
E:\FR\FM\22MYN1.SGM
22MYN1
24010
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 98 / Friday, May 22, 2009 / Notices
erowe on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
standards, with footprint defined as a
vehicle’s wheelbase multiplied by its
track width—in other words, the area
enclosed by the points at which the
wheels meet the ground. EPA and
NHTSA believe initially that the
footprint attribute is the most
appropriate attribute on which to base
the standards under consideration, as
vehicle footprint correlates reasonably
well with CO2 emissions, fuel economy,
and consumer choice. In addition, the
final rule issued by NHTSA for MY
2011 also discusses in some detail the
relationship between mass, weight,
vehicle attributes like footprint, and
safety.11
Under a footprint-based standard,
each manufacturer would have a GHG
and CAFE standard unique to its fleet,
with a separate standard for passenger
cars and light-trucks, depending on the
footprints of the vehicle models
produced by that manufacturer.
Generally, manufacturers of larger
vehicles (i.e., vehicles with larger
footprints) would face less stringent
standards (i.e., higher CO2 grams/mile
standards and lower CAFE standards)
than manufacturers of smaller vehicles.
While a manufacturer’s fleet average
standard could be estimated throughout
the model year based on projected sales
volume of its vehicle fleet, the standard
of compliance would be based on the
final model year sales figures. A
manufacturer’s calculation of fleet
average emissions at the end of the
model year would be based on the salesweighted average emissions of each
model in its fleet.
EPA and NHTSA currently intend to
propose separate footprint-based
standards, or curves, for passenger cars
and light-trucks. In designing the
footprint-based standards, EPA and
NHTSA intend to work together to build
upon the footprint standard curves used
in the CAFE rule for MY 2011,12 and to
consider proposing changes to the shape
of the curve based on, among other
things, concerns about the steepness of
the slope. EPA and NHTSA intend to
consider, among other things, an
approach that would generally flatten
the passenger car curve, more in line
with the shape of the truck curve for the
MY 2011 CAFE standard.
C. Program Flexibilities for Achieving
Compliance
As noted above, EPA and NHTSA
expect to propose standards that are
intended to provide compliance
flexibility to manufacturers, especially
in the early years of the program. This
11 74
12 74
FR 14196; March 30, 2009.
FR 14407–14409; March 30, 2009.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:18 May 21, 2009
Jkt 217001
flexibility would be expected to provide
sufficient lead time to make necessary
technological improvements and
additions, and reduce the overall cost of
the program without compromising
overall environmental and fuel economy
objectives. The broad goal of
harmonizing the two agencies’
standards would include preserving
manufacturer flexibilities in meeting the
standards. The following section
provides an overview of flexibility
provisions the agencies are
contemplating in developing the
program.
1. CO2/CAFE Credits Earned Based on
Fleet Average Performance
EPA and NHTSA currently intend to
propose that the fleet average standards
that would apply to a manufacturer’s car
and truck fleets would be based on the
applicable attribute-based curves. At the
end of each model year, when sales of
the model year are complete, a salesweighted fleet average would be
calculated for each averaging set (cars
and trucks). Under this approach, a
manufacturer’s car and/or truck fleet
that achieves a fleet average CO2/CAFE
level better than the standard would
earn credits. Conversely, if the fleet
average CO2/CAFE level does not meet
the standard the fleet would generate
debits (also referred to as a deficit or
negative credits).
Under the program being considered
for proposal, a manufacturer whose fleet
generates credits in a given model year
would have several options for using
those credits, including credit carryback, credit carry-forward, credit
transfers, and credit trading. These
provisions exist in the MY 2011 CAFE
program per EPCA, and similar
provisions are part of EPA’s Tier 2
program for light duty vehicles’
emissions of criteria pollutants (as well
as numerous other standards issued by
EPA under section 202 of the CAA). It
is expected that, under the proposal
being considered, that the manufacturer
would be able to carry-back credits to
offset any deficit that had accrued in a
prior model year and was subsequently
carried over to the current model year.
EPCA restricts the carry-back of CAFE
credits to three years and EPA is
currently contemplating proposing the
same limitation, in keeping with the
goal of harmonizing both sets of
proposed standards.
After satisfying any needs to offset
pre-existing deficits within a vehicle
category, remaining credits could be
saved (banked) for use in future years.
EPA is contemplating allowing
manufacturers to use these banked
credits in at least the five years after the
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
year in which they were generated (i.e.,
five or more years carry-forward).
Another credit flexibility under
consideration would be a
manufacturer’s ability to transfer credits
among its vehicle fleet to achieve
compliance with the standards. For
example, credits earned by overcompliance with a manufacturer’s car
fleet average standard could be used to
offset debits incurred due to that
manufacturer’s not meeting the truck
fleet average standard in a given year.
EPCA provides for this type of credit
transfer with CAFE as does EPA within
its Tier 2 program. EPA currently
intends to propose unlimited credit
transfers across a manufacturer’s cartruck fleet to meet the GHG standard.
EPCA, however, limits the amount of
credits that may be transferred, and also
prohibits the use of transferred credits
to meet the statutory minimum for the
domestic car fleet standard. These and
other limits in EPCA would continue to
apply to the determination of
compliance with the CAFE standard.
Finally, proposals under
consideration would allow accumulated
credits to be traded (sold) to other
vehicle manufacturers. These sorts of
exchanges are typically allowed under
EPA’s current emission credit programs,
although manufacturers have seldom
made such exchanges. EPCA also allows
these types of credit trades, although, as
with transferred credits, traded credits
may not be used to meet the minimum
domestic standards.
2. Air Conditioning Credits
Air conditioning systems contribute
to GHG emissions through the leakage of
hydrofluorocarbon refrigerants which
are powerful GHG pollutants, and also
by placing an additional load on the
engine, which causes the engine to
produce additional CO2 emissions. EPA
is considering an approach that would
enable manufacturers to earn credits by
reducing GHG emissions related to air
conditioning systems. Under this
approach, EPA would propose a test
procedure and method to calculate CO2
equivalent reductions on a gram/mile
basis that could be used as credits in
meeting the fleet average CO2 standards.
The approach under consideration
could provide manufacturers with a
highly cost-effective way to achieve a
portion of GHG emissions reductions
under the EPA program. EPA is also
considering the possibility of allowing
early air conditioning credits that could
be earned through air conditioning
system improvements in the years
leading up to the start of the program.
E:\FR\FM\22MYN1.SGM
22MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 98 / Friday, May 22, 2009 / Notices
3. Flex-Fuel and Alternative Fuel
Vehicle Credits
EPCA authorizes an incentive under
the CAFE program for production of
dual-fueled or flexible-fuel vehicles
(FFV) and dedicated alternative fuel
vehicles. FFVs are vehicles that can run
both on an alternative fuel and
conventional fuel. Most FFVs are E–85
vehicles, which can run on a mixture of
up to 85 percent ethanol and gasoline.
Dedicated alternative fuel vehicles are
vehicles that run exclusively on an
alternative fuel. EPCA’s provisions were
amended by the EISA to extend the
period of availability of the FFV credits,
but to begin phasing them out by
annually reducing the amount of FFV
credits that can be used to help achieve
compliance with the CAFE standards.13
EPCA does not premise the availability
of the FFV credits on actual use of
alternative fuel. Under current law, after
MY 2019, no FFV credits will be
available for CAFE compliance. For
dedicated alternative fuel vehicles, there
are no limits or phase-out.
For the GHG program, EPA
contemplates proposing to allow FFV
credits in line with EISA limits only
during the period from MYs 2012 to
2015. EPA will also consider allowing
FFV credits beyond MY 2015 if
manufacturers are able to demonstrate
that the alternative fuel is actually being
used in the vehicles. EPA is also
considering how that demonstration
could be made.
erowe on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
4. Temporary Lead-Time Allowance
Alternative Standards
EPA is considering a temporary leadtime allowance for manufacturers whose
sale of vehicles in the U.S. in a specified
time period is below a specified cut-off,
such as sales of 400,000 vehicles or less
during a specified year, such as MY
2009 or 2010. This would limit the
number of vehicles to which the
flexibility could apply. The
manufacturers that satisfy the threshold
criteria would be able to treat a limited
number of vehicles as a separate
averaging fleet, which would be subject
to a less stringent GHG standard.14 EPA
is considering a less stringent GHG
standard that would be 125 percent of
13 EPCA provides a statutory incentive for
production of FFVs by specifying that their fuel
economy is determined using a special calculation
procedure that results in those vehicles being
assigned a higher fuel economy level than would
otherwise occur. This is typically referred to as an
FFV credit.
14 EPCA does not permit such an allowance.
Consequently, manufacturers who may be able to
take advantage of a lead-time allowance under the
CAA would be required to comply with the
applicable CAFE standard or be subject to penalties
for non-compliance.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:18 May 21, 2009
Jkt 217001
the vehicle’s otherwise applicable footprint target level. EPA envisions that
this allowance would be available only
during the MY 2012–2015 phase-in
years of the program. Appropriate
restrictions on credit use would be
expected to apply in the proposal under
consideration. These allowance vehicles
would be expected to be averaged into
the manufacturer’s fleet starting no later
than MY 2016.
5. Additional Potential Credit
Opportunities
EPA is considering opportunities for
early credits in MYs 2009–2011 through
over-compliance with a baseline
standard that EPA is considering. The
baseline standard would be set to be
equivalent, on a national level, to the
California standards. Potentially, credits
could be generated by over-compliance
with this baseline in one of two ways—
over-compliance by the fleet of vehicles
sold in California and the CAA section
177 States, or over-compliance with the
fleet of vehicles sold in the 50 States.
EPA is also considering allowing early
credits based on over-compliance with
CAFE, but under the contemplated
proposal only for vehicles sold in States
outside of California and the CAA
section 177 States, and without use of
FFV credits. Were this approach
adopted, the program would need to be
designed to avoid double counting
credits between the two approaches.
EPA is currently considering
proposing additional credit
opportunities to encourage the
commercialization of advanced GHG/
fuel economy control technology such
as electric vehicles and plug-in hybrid
electric vehicles. These ‘‘super credits’’
could take the form of a multiplier that
would be applied to the number of
vehicles sold such that they would
count as more than one vehicle in the
manufacturer’s fleet average. EPA is also
considering allowing such credits to be
generated for years prior to MY 2012.
EPA is also considering an option for
generation of credits for employing
technologies that achieve GHG
reductions that are not reflected on
current test procedures. Examples of
technologies that EPA could consider
include technologies such as solar
panels on hybrids, adaptive cruise
control, and active aerodynamics,
among other things.
D. Compliance
There are ample precedents
established in previous EPA and
NHTSA regulations on which to
develop an effective compliance
program which would achieve the
energy and environmental benefits from
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
24011
CAFE and motor vehicle GHG
standards. EPA and NHTSA currently
intend to propose a program that
recognizes and replicates as closely as
possible the compliance protocols
associated with the existing CAA Tier 2
vehicle emission standards, and with
CAFE standards. The certification,
testing, reporting, and associated
compliance activities could closely
track current practice and thus be
familiar to manufacturers. EPA already
oversees testing, collects and processes
test data, and performs calculations to
determine compliance with both CAFE
and CAA standards. In a coordinated
approach, compliance mechanisms for
both programs could be consistent and
non-duplicative.
The general approach under
consideration would allow
manufacturers to satisfy the new
program requirements in the same way
they comply with existing CAA and
CAFE requirements. Manufacturers
would demonstrate compliance on a
fleet-average basis at the end of each
model year, allowing model-level
testing to continue throughout the year
as is the current practice for CAFE
determinations. Although statutory
authorities and flexibilities available to
EPA and NHTSA differ, such a
compliance program design could
establish a single set of manufacturer
reporting requirements and rely on a
single set of underlying data, yet allow
each agency to assess compliance with
its respective program.
Using currently available analyses,
EPA and NHTSA do not anticipate any
significant noncompliance under the
program being considered. However,
failure to meet the standards after credit
opportunities are exhausted would
ultimately result in the potential for
penalties under EPCA, and under the
CAA as well. The CAA allows
considerable discretion in assessment of
penalties. Penalties under the CAA are
typically determined on a vehiclespecific basis by determining the
number of a manufacturer’s highest
emitting vehicles that caused the fleet
average standard violation. This is the
same mechanism used for EPA’s
National LEV and Tier 2 corporate
average standards, and to date there
have been no instances of
noncompliance. EPCA penalties are
specified by statute and would be
assessed for the entire noncomplying
fleet at a rate of $5.50 times the number
of vehicles in the fleet times the number
of tenths of mpg by which the fleet
average falls below the standard. In the
event of a compliance action arising out
of the same facts and circumstances,
EPA could consider CAFE penalties
E:\FR\FM\22MYN1.SGM
22MYN1
24012
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 98 / Friday, May 22, 2009 / Notices
when determining appropriate remedies
for the EPA case.
III. Conclusion
There is a critically important need
for our country to address global climate
change and to reduce oil consumption.
In this context, EPA and NHTSA
currently intend to work in coordination
to propose standards for control of
emissions of greenhouse gases and for
fuel economy, respectively. The EPA
and the NHTSA plan to propose a strong
and coordinated Federal greenhouse gas
and fuel economy program for MY 2012
through 2016 passenger cars, light-duty
trucks, and medium-duty passenger
vehicles, as described above. Both
agencies seek to propose a coordinated
program that can achieve important
reductions of greenhouse gas GHG
emissions and improvements in fuel
economy from the light-duty vehicle
part of the transportation sector, based
on technology that will be commercially
available and that can be incorporated at
a reasonable cost.
The agencies anticipate issuing a joint
proposal in the near future, and
welcome robust public participation in
the rulemaking process.
Dated: May 18, 2009.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator, Environmental Protection
Agency.
Dated: May 18, 2009.
Ray LaHood,
Secretary, Department of Transportation.
[FR Doc. E9–12009 Filed 5–21–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
[Document Identifier: OS–0990–New; 30Day Notice]
Agency Information Collection
Request; 30-Day Public Comment
Request
AGENCY:
Office of the Secretary, HHS.
In compliance with the requirement
of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the
Office of the Secretary (OS), Department
of Health and Human Services, is
publishing the following summary of a
proposed collection for public
comment. Interested persons are invited
to send comments regarding this burden
estimate or any other aspect of this
collection of information, including any
of the following subjects: (1) The
necessity and utility of the proposed
information collection for the proper
performance of the agency’s functions;
(2) the accuracy of the estimated
burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected; and (4) the use of
automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology to
minimize the information collection
burden.
To obtain copies of the supporting
statement and any related forms for the
proposed paperwork collections
referenced above, e-mail your request,
including your address, phone number,
OMB number, and OS document
identifier, to
Sherette.funncoleman@hhs.gov, or call
the Reports Clearance Office on (202)
690–5683. Send written comments and
recommendations for the proposed
information collections within 30 days
of this notice directly to the OS OMB
Desk Officer; faxed to OMB at 202–395–
6974.
Proposed Project: Facts for Consumers
about Health IT Service Providers—
OMB No. 0990–NEW—OS/Office of the
National Coordinator for Health
Information Technology (ONC).
Abstract: A new health information
technology, the personal health record
(PHR), seeks to provide consumers with
the capability to directly manage their
own health information. Although PHRs
can exist in different formats or media
(i.e., paper or electronic), the term
usually refers to an online record
containing an individual’s personal
health information. PHRs typically
include information such as health
history, vaccinations, allergies, test
results, and prescription information.
Given the newness of the electronic
PHR concept, the different ways to
establish PHRs, and the sensitivity of
personal health information, ONC is
taking steps to establish that useful facts
about PHRs and PHR privacy policy
information be made available to
consumers so they can make informed
decisions about selecting and using
PHRs. Toward this end, ONC has a
project to develop an online model for
PHR providers. The model will be
developed to:
› Allow presentation of important
PHR facts and policies to consumers,
› Allow consumers to understand
and consistently compare PHR service
provider policies with others, and
› Focus on the key information that
may influence decisions and choices of
PHR service provider.
The project includes iterative rounds
of in-depth consumer testing during
April–October 2009 to assess and
analyze consumer understanding and
input about the model. The model will
be iteratively revised to design a final
template that will allow PHR vendors to
convey useful and understandable facts
to consumers about their privacy,
security, and information management
policies. Testing will be conducted in
six locations that cover the four
geographic census regions and will
include 90-minute, one-on-one,
cognitive usability interviews with six
to seven participants at each of six sites,
for a total not to exceed 42 interviews.
In addition, each participant will have
been recruited through a 15-minute
screening interview. The participants
will be recruited according to U.S.
census statistics for race/ethnicity, age,
marital status, gender, and income.
Also, the sample will include
participants both familiar and
unfamiliar with PHRs and participants
who manage chronic health issues or a
disease for themselves or others.
ESTIMATED ANNUALIZED BURDEN TABLE
Number of
respondents
Type of respondent
Number of
responses
per
respondent
Average
burden hours
per response
Total burden
hours
erowe on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Individuals screened ........................................................................................
Participants selected ........................................................................................
84
42
1
1
15/60
90/60
21
63
Total ..........................................................................................................
........................
........................
........................
84
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:18 May 21, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\22MYN1.SGM
22MYN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 98 (Friday, May 22, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24007-24012]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-12009]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
[FRL-8909-3]
RIN 2060-ZA15
Notice of Upcoming Joint Rulemaking To Establish Vehicle GHG
Emissions and CAFE Standards
AGENCIES: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of Intent to conduct a joint rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: There is a critically important need for our country to
address global climate change and to reduce oil consumption. In this
context, EPA and DOT currently intend to work in coordination to
propose standards for control of emissions of greenhouse gases and for
fuel economy, respectively. If proposed and finalized, these standards
would apply to passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty
passenger vehicles (light-duty vehicles) built in model years 2012
through 2016. Together, these vehicle categories, which include
passenger cars, sport utility vehicles, minivans, and pickup trucks,
are responsible for almost 60 percent of all U.S. transportation-
related greenhouse gas emissions. If ultimately adopted, these
standards would represent a harmonized and consistent national policy
pursuant to the separate statutory frameworks under which EPA and DOT
operate. The approach addressed in this Notice, if ultimately adopted,
is intended to allow manufacturers to build a single light-duty
national fleet that would satisfy all requirements under both programs
and would provide significant reductions in both greenhouse gas
emissions and oil consumption.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: EPA: Christopher Lieske, Office of
Transportation and Air Quality, Assessment and Standards Division,
Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI
48105; telephone number: 734-214-4584; fax number: 734-214-4816; e-mail
address: lieske.christopher@epa.gov, or Assessment and Standards
Division Hotline; telephone number (734) 214-
[[Page 24008]]
4636; e-mail address: asdinfo@epa.gov. DOT/NHTSA: Julie Abraham, Office
of Rulemaking, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-1455.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
This joint Notice announces plans by the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA), on behalf of the Department of Transportation, to propose a
strong and coordinated Federal greenhouse gas and fuel economy program
for passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger
vehicles (hereafter light-duty vehicles), referred to as the National
Program.\1\ Both agencies seek to propose a coordinated program that
can achieve important reductions of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and
improvements in fuel economy from the light-duty vehicle part of the
transportation sector, based on technology that will be commercially
available and that can be incorporated at a reasonable cost. The
agencies intend to propose a program that will also provide regulatory
certainty for the automobile industry, while recognizing the serious
current economic situation faced by this industry and many members of
the public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ NHTSA is delegated responsibility for implementing the
Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) fuel economy requirements
assigned to the Secretary of Transportation. 49 CFR 1.50,
501.2(a)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the near future, EPA and NHTSA intend to initiate a joint
rulemaking, with EPA proposing GHG emissions standards under the Clean
Air Act (CAA), and NHTSA proposing Corporate Average Fuel Economy
(CAFE) standards under EPCA, as amended by the Energy Independence and
Security Act of 2007 (EISA). It is intended that this joint rulemaking
proposal will reflect a carefully coordinated and harmonized approach
to implementing these two statutes and will be in accordance with all
substantive and procedural requirements imposed by law.
Since the 1970s, NHTSA has promulgated CAFE standards for light-
duty vehicles to address our country's need to reduce oil consumption.
In 2008 NHTSA proposed CAFE standards for model years (MY) 2011 through
2015. However, responding to a Presidential Memorandum of January 26,
2009, NHTSA issued CAFE standards limited to MY 2011,\2\ and has been
comprehensively reviewing how it sets CAFE standards in the context of
preparing to propose CAFE standards for MY 2012 and later model years.
At the same time, EPA has been working on appropriate responses that
are consistent with the decision of the Supreme Court in Massachusetts
v. EPA \3\ and EPA's recent proposal to find that emissions of GHGs
from new motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines cause or contribute
to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public
health and welfare.\4\ In addition, in 2005 California adopted GHG
emissions standards for new light-duty vehicles. Thirteen States and
the District of Columbia to date, comprising approximately 40 percent
of the light-duty vehicle market, have adopted California's GHG
emissions standards. In 2008, EPA denied a request by California for a
waiver of preemption under the CAA for its GHG emissions standards.
However, consistent with another Presidential Memorandum of January 26,
2009, EPA is currently reconsidering the prior denial of California's
request.\5\ California and the States that have adopted California's
standards are planning to enforce these standards if EPA grants
California's request for a waiver of preemption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 74 FR 14196; March 30, 2009.
\3\ 549 U.S. 497 (2007).
\4\ 74 FR 18886; April 24, 2009.
\5\ 74 FR 7040; February 12, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In sum, one agency is responsible for a standard that focuses on
emissions of GHG and the other for a standard that focuses on improving
fuel economy, and there are both Federal and State administrative
agencies working on standards to address similar issues. Consistent,
harmonized, and streamlined requirements hold out the promise of
delivering environmental and energy benefits, cost savings, and
administrative efficiencies that might not be available under a less
coordinated approach. The National Program the agencies intend to
propose would seek to deliver on that promise.
Key elements of a harmonized and coordinated National Program the
agencies intend to propose are the level and form of the standard, the
available compliance mechanisms, and general implementation elements.
These elements are outlined in the following sections. The agencies
will continue to evaluate all of the issues relevant to developing a
proposal, and will provide their evaluations for review and public
comment with the upcoming NPRM. This will include analyses on a variety
of relevant issues, such as the costs and benefits of the proposal
(both quantified and unquantified), as well as the effects the proposal
would have on the economy, manufacturers, and consumers. The notice of
proposed rulemaking the agencies intend to issue will discuss both the
analyses that will have been done for the proposal as well as any plans
for conducting additional analyses.
It is also important to note that GHG standards expected to be
issued under section 202(a) of the CAA would become final only if EPA
makes a final finding consistent with its recent proposal to find that
emissions of greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles and motor vehicle
engines cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be
anticipated to endanger public health and welfare.
The agencies also anticipate that the kind of harmonized and
consistent national policy described in this Notice should be
considered in developing standards for model years after 2016, in a
future rulemaking.
II. Key Elements of the National Program
A. Level of the Standards
EPA and NHTSA intend to propose two separate sets of standards,
each under their respective statutory authorities. EPA expects to
propose a national CO2 vehicle emissions standard under
section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. EPA currently is considering
proposing standards that would, if made final, achieve on average 250
grams/mile of CO2 in model year 2016. The standards for
earlier years would begin with the 2012 model year, with a generally
linear phase-in from MY 2012 through to model year 2016. NHTSA expects
to propose appropriate related CAFE standards.
In developing the proposals under consideration, EPA and NHTSA have
preliminarily evaluated the kinds of technologies that could be
utilized by the automobile industry, as well as the associated costs
for the industry and fuel savings for the consumer, the magnitude of
the GHG and energy consumption reductions that may be achieved, and
other factors relevant under their respective statutory authorities.\6\
With respect to
[[Page 24009]]
technological feasibility, during MYs 2012-2016 manufacturers are
expected to go through the normal automotive business cycle of
redesigning and upgrading their light-duty vehicle products (and in
some cases introducing entirely new vehicles not on the market today).
The proposal under consideration is expected to allow manufacturers the
time needed to incorporate technology to achieve GHG reductions and
improve fuel economy during the vehicle redesign process. This is an
important aspect of the proposal under consideration, as it would avoid
the much higher costs that would occur if manufacturers needed to add
or change technology at times other than these scheduled redesigns.
This time period would also provide manufacturers the opportunity to
plan for compliance using a multi-year time frame, again in accord with
normal business practice. Over these five model years there would be an
opportunity for manufacturers to evaluate almost every one of their
vehicle model platforms and add technology in a cost effective way to
control GHG emissions and improve fuel economy. This includes redesign
of the air conditioner systems in ways that will further reduce GHG
emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The CAA requires EPA to establish ``standards applicable to
the emission of any air pollutant from new motor vehicles or new
motor vehicle engines which, in the Administrator's judgment, cause
or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated
to endanger public health or welfare.'' As noted above, EPA has
proposed to find that GHGs emitted by new motor vehicles and new
motor vehicle engines contribute to air pollution that endangers
public health and welfare. Section 202(a) of the CAA further
provides that standards set pursuant to it ``shall take effect after
such period as the Administrator finds necessary to permit the
development and application of the requisite technology, giving
appropriate consideration to the cost of compliance within such
period.''
The EPCA requires that the CAFE standards for each model year be
set at the maximum feasible level. In determining that level, NHTSA
must consider technological feasibility, economic practicability,
the effect of other motor vehicle standards of the Government on
fuel economy, and the need of the United States to conserve energy.
NHTSA is prohibited from considering the availability of compliance
flexibilities such as the ability to earn credits for exceeding CAFE
standards in setting CAFE standards. Further, NHTSA must set the MY
2011-2020 CAFE standards sufficiently high to ensure that the
industry-wide average of all new passenger cars and light trucks,
combined, is not less than 35 miles per gallon by MY 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technical work conducted by each agency over the last several years
indicates that there is a wide range of technologies available for
manufacturers to consider in upgrading vehicles to reduce GHG emissions
and improve fuel economy.\7\ These include improvements to the engines
such as use of gasoline direct injection and downsized engines that use
turbochargers to provide performance similar to that of larger engines,
the use of advanced transmissions, increased use of start-stop
technology, improvements in tire performance, reductions in vehicle
weight, increased use of hybrid and other advanced technologies, and
the initial commercialization of electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids.
Although many of these technologies are available today, the emissions
reductions and fuel economy improvements under consideration for the
proposal would be expected to involve more widespread use of these
technologies across the fleet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The close relationship between emissions of CO2--
the most prevalent greenhouse gas emitted by motor vehicles--and
fuel consumption, means that the technologies to control
CO2 emissions and to improve fuel economy overlap to a
great degree.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initial evaluations by EPA and NHTSA indicate that utilization of
this suite of technologies provides a strong technical basis to proceed
with consideration of a proposal containing MY 2016 GHG standards that
would on average achieve 250 gram/mile CO2. If the
automotive industry were to achieve this CO2 level all
through fuel economy improvements, this would equate to achieving a
fleet average level of 35.5 mpg. However, it is expected that most
companies would also apply some air conditioning improvements to reduce
GHG emissions. This would not translate into fuel economy improvements,
so on average we expect the fuel economy improvements to be somewhat
below the 35.5 mpg value.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ As discussed in this section, these mile per gallon
equivalents should not be considered levels of potential CAFE
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposal under consideration would also include a harmonized
CAFE standard for MY 2016. Compatible GHG and CAFE standards for
earlier model years would increase from the MY 2011 CAFE standard to
the MY 2016 level of the National Program.
In developing their respective proposals, EPA and NHTSA will
consider many of the same issues. Given differences in their respective
statutory authorities, however, the agencies anticipate there will be
some important differences in the development of their proposals. For
example, under a GHG standard proposed under CAA section 202(a) EPA
would expect manufacturers to take advantage of the option to generate
credits by reducing emissions of HFCs and CO2 through
upgrades to their air conditioner systems. EPA plans to take these
reductions into account in developing a proposed GHG standard. However,
EPCA does not permit NHTSA to consider air conditioning credits in
developing a proposed CAFE standard for passenger cars. CO2
emissions due to air conditioning operation are not measured by the
test procedure mandated by statute for use in establishing and
enforcing CAFE standards for passenger cars. As a result, improvements
in the efficiency of passenger car air conditioners would not be
considered as a possible control technology for purposes of CAFE.
In addition, in developing a proposal EPA would take into
consideration all of the compliance flexibilities discussed below, such
as averaging, banking, and trading of credits, while NHTSA is
prohibited by statute from taking such flexibilities into account in
developing proposed CAFE standards. Manufacturer utilization of these
flexibilities, however, would be anticipated to provide important
savings in cost, promote more cost-effective GHG emissions control and
justify proposing more stringent GHG standards. As a result, the
agencies do not anticipate a one-to-one correspondence between the
level of EPA's proposed GHG standards and NHTSA's proposed CAFE
standards. Instead the CAFE standards under consideration for proposal
would be somewhat lower than the mile per gallon equivalent of the
corresponding GHG standard. This reflects both the specific differences
in standard setting criteria, as well as the general attempt by each
agency to harmonize its proposed standards in a way that allows them to
achieve their respective statutory and regulatory goals. The goal of
the proposal under consideration is providing regulatory compatibility
that allows auto manufacturers to build a single national light-duty
fleet that would comply with both the GHG and the CAFE standards.
Preliminary analysis indicates that the proposal under
consideration would result in GHG reductions and oil consumption
reductions that are very significant. Preliminary analysis indicates
cumulative greenhouse gas reductions of approximately 890 million
metric tons (CO2 equivalent) and fuel savings of
approximately 1.8 billion barrels of oil, over the lifetime of the
model years covered. Consumers would be expected to see cost savings
due to the significant fuel savings. As discussed below, the agencies
will conduct additional analyses of these matters.
B. Form of the Standards
Both EPA and NHTSA currently intend to propose attribute-based
standards for passenger cars and light-trucks. NHTSA adopted an
attribute standard based on vehicle footprint in its Reformed CAFE
program for light-trucks for model years 2008-2011,\9\ and recently
extended this approach to passenger cars in the CAFE rule for MY
2011.\10\ The agencies currently intend to propose vehicle footprint as
the attribute for the GHG and CAFE
[[Page 24010]]
standards, with footprint defined as a vehicle's wheelbase multiplied
by its track width--in other words, the area enclosed by the points at
which the wheels meet the ground. EPA and NHTSA believe initially that
the footprint attribute is the most appropriate attribute on which to
base the standards under consideration, as vehicle footprint correlates
reasonably well with CO2 emissions, fuel economy, and
consumer choice. In addition, the final rule issued by NHTSA for MY
2011 also discusses in some detail the relationship between mass,
weight, vehicle attributes like footprint, and safety.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 71 FR 17566; April 6, 2006.
\10\ 74 FR 14196; March 30, 2009.
\11\ 74 FR 14196; March 30, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under a footprint-based standard, each manufacturer would have a
GHG and CAFE standard unique to its fleet, with a separate standard for
passenger cars and light-trucks, depending on the footprints of the
vehicle models produced by that manufacturer. Generally, manufacturers
of larger vehicles (i.e., vehicles with larger footprints) would face
less stringent standards (i.e., higher CO2 grams/mile
standards and lower CAFE standards) than manufacturers of smaller
vehicles. While a manufacturer's fleet average standard could be
estimated throughout the model year based on projected sales volume of
its vehicle fleet, the standard of compliance would be based on the
final model year sales figures. A manufacturer's calculation of fleet
average emissions at the end of the model year would be based on the
sales-weighted average emissions of each model in its fleet.
EPA and NHTSA currently intend to propose separate footprint-based
standards, or curves, for passenger cars and light-trucks. In designing
the footprint-based standards, EPA and NHTSA intend to work together to
build upon the footprint standard curves used in the CAFE rule for MY
2011,\12\ and to consider proposing changes to the shape of the curve
based on, among other things, concerns about the steepness of the
slope. EPA and NHTSA intend to consider, among other things, an
approach that would generally flatten the passenger car curve, more in
line with the shape of the truck curve for the MY 2011 CAFE standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ 74 FR 14407-14409; March 30, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Program Flexibilities for Achieving Compliance
As noted above, EPA and NHTSA expect to propose standards that are
intended to provide compliance flexibility to manufacturers, especially
in the early years of the program. This flexibility would be expected
to provide sufficient lead time to make necessary technological
improvements and additions, and reduce the overall cost of the program
without compromising overall environmental and fuel economy objectives.
The broad goal of harmonizing the two agencies' standards would include
preserving manufacturer flexibilities in meeting the standards. The
following section provides an overview of flexibility provisions the
agencies are contemplating in developing the program.
1. CO2/CAFE Credits Earned Based on Fleet Average
Performance
EPA and NHTSA currently intend to propose that the fleet average
standards that would apply to a manufacturer's car and truck fleets
would be based on the applicable attribute-based curves. At the end of
each model year, when sales of the model year are complete, a sales-
weighted fleet average would be calculated for each averaging set (cars
and trucks). Under this approach, a manufacturer's car and/or truck
fleet that achieves a fleet average CO2/CAFE level better
than the standard would earn credits. Conversely, if the fleet average
CO2/CAFE level does not meet the standard the fleet would
generate debits (also referred to as a deficit or negative credits).
Under the program being considered for proposal, a manufacturer
whose fleet generates credits in a given model year would have several
options for using those credits, including credit carry-back, credit
carry-forward, credit transfers, and credit trading. These provisions
exist in the MY 2011 CAFE program per EPCA, and similar provisions are
part of EPA's Tier 2 program for light duty vehicles' emissions of
criteria pollutants (as well as numerous other standards issued by EPA
under section 202 of the CAA). It is expected that, under the proposal
being considered, that the manufacturer would be able to carry-back
credits to offset any deficit that had accrued in a prior model year
and was subsequently carried over to the current model year. EPCA
restricts the carry-back of CAFE credits to three years and EPA is
currently contemplating proposing the same limitation, in keeping with
the goal of harmonizing both sets of proposed standards.
After satisfying any needs to offset pre-existing deficits within a
vehicle category, remaining credits could be saved (banked) for use in
future years. EPA is contemplating allowing manufacturers to use these
banked credits in at least the five years after the year in which they
were generated (i.e., five or more years carry-forward).
Another credit flexibility under consideration would be a
manufacturer's ability to transfer credits among its vehicle fleet to
achieve compliance with the standards. For example, credits earned by
over-compliance with a manufacturer's car fleet average standard could
be used to offset debits incurred due to that manufacturer's not
meeting the truck fleet average standard in a given year. EPCA provides
for this type of credit transfer with CAFE as does EPA within its Tier
2 program. EPA currently intends to propose unlimited credit transfers
across a manufacturer's car-truck fleet to meet the GHG standard. EPCA,
however, limits the amount of credits that may be transferred, and also
prohibits the use of transferred credits to meet the statutory minimum
for the domestic car fleet standard. These and other limits in EPCA
would continue to apply to the determination of compliance with the
CAFE standard.
Finally, proposals under consideration would allow accumulated
credits to be traded (sold) to other vehicle manufacturers. These sorts
of exchanges are typically allowed under EPA's current emission credit
programs, although manufacturers have seldom made such exchanges. EPCA
also allows these types of credit trades, although, as with transferred
credits, traded credits may not be used to meet the minimum domestic
standards.
2. Air Conditioning Credits
Air conditioning systems contribute to GHG emissions through the
leakage of hydrofluorocarbon refrigerants which are powerful GHG
pollutants, and also by placing an additional load on the engine, which
causes the engine to produce additional CO2 emissions. EPA
is considering an approach that would enable manufacturers to earn
credits by reducing GHG emissions related to air conditioning systems.
Under this approach, EPA would propose a test procedure and method to
calculate CO2 equivalent reductions on a gram/mile basis
that could be used as credits in meeting the fleet average
CO2 standards. The approach under consideration could
provide manufacturers with a highly cost-effective way to achieve a
portion of GHG emissions reductions under the EPA program. EPA is also
considering the possibility of allowing early air conditioning credits
that could be earned through air conditioning system improvements in
the years leading up to the start of the program.
[[Page 24011]]
3. Flex-Fuel and Alternative Fuel Vehicle Credits
EPCA authorizes an incentive under the CAFE program for production
of dual-fueled or flexible-fuel vehicles (FFV) and dedicated
alternative fuel vehicles. FFVs are vehicles that can run both on an
alternative fuel and conventional fuel. Most FFVs are E-85 vehicles,
which can run on a mixture of up to 85 percent ethanol and gasoline.
Dedicated alternative fuel vehicles are vehicles that run exclusively
on an alternative fuel. EPCA's provisions were amended by the EISA to
extend the period of availability of the FFV credits, but to begin
phasing them out by annually reducing the amount of FFV credits that
can be used to help achieve compliance with the CAFE standards.\13\
EPCA does not premise the availability of the FFV credits on actual use
of alternative fuel. Under current law, after MY 2019, no FFV credits
will be available for CAFE compliance. For dedicated alternative fuel
vehicles, there are no limits or phase-out.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ EPCA provides a statutory incentive for production of FFVs
by specifying that their fuel economy is determined using a special
calculation procedure that results in those vehicles being assigned
a higher fuel economy level than would otherwise occur. This is
typically referred to as an FFV credit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the GHG program, EPA contemplates proposing to allow FFV
credits in line with EISA limits only during the period from MYs 2012
to 2015. EPA will also consider allowing FFV credits beyond MY 2015 if
manufacturers are able to demonstrate that the alternative fuel is
actually being used in the vehicles. EPA is also considering how that
demonstration could be made.
4. Temporary Lead-Time Allowance Alternative Standards
EPA is considering a temporary lead-time allowance for
manufacturers whose sale of vehicles in the U.S. in a specified time
period is below a specified cut-off, such as sales of 400,000 vehicles
or less during a specified year, such as MY 2009 or 2010. This would
limit the number of vehicles to which the flexibility could apply. The
manufacturers that satisfy the threshold criteria would be able to
treat a limited number of vehicles as a separate averaging fleet, which
would be subject to a less stringent GHG standard.\14\ EPA is
considering a less stringent GHG standard that would be 125 percent of
the vehicle's otherwise applicable foot-print target level. EPA
envisions that this allowance would be available only during the MY
2012-2015 phase-in years of the program. Appropriate restrictions on
credit use would be expected to apply in the proposal under
consideration. These allowance vehicles would be expected to be
averaged into the manufacturer's fleet starting no later than MY 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ EPCA does not permit such an allowance. Consequently,
manufacturers who may be able to take advantage of a lead-time
allowance under the CAA would be required to comply with the
applicable CAFE standard or be subject to penalties for non-
compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Additional Potential Credit Opportunities
EPA is considering opportunities for early credits in MYs 2009-2011
through over-compliance with a baseline standard that EPA is
considering. The baseline standard would be set to be equivalent, on a
national level, to the California standards. Potentially, credits could
be generated by over-compliance with this baseline in one of two ways--
over-compliance by the fleet of vehicles sold in California and the CAA
section 177 States, or over-compliance with the fleet of vehicles sold
in the 50 States. EPA is also considering allowing early credits based
on over-compliance with CAFE, but under the contemplated proposal only
for vehicles sold in States outside of California and the CAA section
177 States, and without use of FFV credits. Were this approach adopted,
the program would need to be designed to avoid double counting credits
between the two approaches.
EPA is currently considering proposing additional credit
opportunities to encourage the commercialization of advanced GHG/fuel
economy control technology such as electric vehicles and plug-in hybrid
electric vehicles. These ``super credits'' could take the form of a
multiplier that would be applied to the number of vehicles sold such
that they would count as more than one vehicle in the manufacturer's
fleet average. EPA is also considering allowing such credits to be
generated for years prior to MY 2012.
EPA is also considering an option for generation of credits for
employing technologies that achieve GHG reductions that are not
reflected on current test procedures. Examples of technologies that EPA
could consider include technologies such as solar panels on hybrids,
adaptive cruise control, and active aerodynamics, among other things.
D. Compliance
There are ample precedents established in previous EPA and NHTSA
regulations on which to develop an effective compliance program which
would achieve the energy and environmental benefits from CAFE and motor
vehicle GHG standards. EPA and NHTSA currently intend to propose a
program that recognizes and replicates as closely as possible the
compliance protocols associated with the existing CAA Tier 2 vehicle
emission standards, and with CAFE standards. The certification,
testing, reporting, and associated compliance activities could closely
track current practice and thus be familiar to manufacturers. EPA
already oversees testing, collects and processes test data, and
performs calculations to determine compliance with both CAFE and CAA
standards. In a coordinated approach, compliance mechanisms for both
programs could be consistent and non-duplicative.
The general approach under consideration would allow manufacturers
to satisfy the new program requirements in the same way they comply
with existing CAA and CAFE requirements. Manufacturers would
demonstrate compliance on a fleet-average basis at the end of each
model year, allowing model-level testing to continue throughout the
year as is the current practice for CAFE determinations. Although
statutory authorities and flexibilities available to EPA and NHTSA
differ, such a compliance program design could establish a single set
of manufacturer reporting requirements and rely on a single set of
underlying data, yet allow each agency to assess compliance with its
respective program.
Using currently available analyses, EPA and NHTSA do not anticipate
any significant noncompliance under the program being considered.
However, failure to meet the standards after credit opportunities are
exhausted would ultimately result in the potential for penalties under
EPCA, and under the CAA as well. The CAA allows considerable discretion
in assessment of penalties. Penalties under the CAA are typically
determined on a vehicle-specific basis by determining the number of a
manufacturer's highest emitting vehicles that caused the fleet average
standard violation. This is the same mechanism used for EPA's National
LEV and Tier 2 corporate average standards, and to date there have been
no instances of noncompliance. EPCA penalties are specified by statute
and would be assessed for the entire noncomplying fleet at a rate of
$5.50 times the number of vehicles in the fleet times the number of
tenths of mpg by which the fleet average falls below the standard. In
the event of a compliance action arising out of the same facts and
circumstances, EPA could consider CAFE penalties
[[Page 24012]]
when determining appropriate remedies for the EPA case.
III. Conclusion
There is a critically important need for our country to address
global climate change and to reduce oil consumption. In this context,
EPA and NHTSA currently intend to work in coordination to propose
standards for control of emissions of greenhouse gases and for fuel
economy, respectively. The EPA and the NHTSA plan to propose a strong
and coordinated Federal greenhouse gas and fuel economy program for MY
2012 through 2016 passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty
passenger vehicles, as described above. Both agencies seek to propose a
coordinated program that can achieve important reductions of greenhouse
gas GHG emissions and improvements in fuel economy from the light-duty
vehicle part of the transportation sector, based on technology that
will be commercially available and that can be incorporated at a
reasonable cost.
The agencies anticipate issuing a joint proposal in the near
future, and welcome robust public participation in the rulemaking
process.
Dated: May 18, 2009.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency.
Dated: May 18, 2009.
Ray LaHood,
Secretary, Department of Transportation.
[FR Doc. E9-12009 Filed 5-21-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P