Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles, 51499-51503 [2012-20838]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 165 / Friday, August 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules
52.204–XX Basic Safeguarding of
Contractor Information Systems.
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with
As prescribed in 4.1703, use the
following clause:
Basic Safeguarding of Contractor
Information Systems (Date)
(a) Definitions. As used in this clause—
Clearing means removal of data from an
information system, its storage devices, and
other peripheral devices with storage
capacity, in such a way that the data may not
be reconstructed using common system
capabilities (i.e., through the keyboard);
however, the data may be reconstructed
using laboratory methods.
Compromise means disclosure of
information to unauthorized persons, or a
violation of the security policy of a system
in which unauthorized intentional or
unintentional disclosure, modification,
destruction, or loss of an object may have
occurred. This includes copying the data
through covert network channels or the
copying of data to unauthorized media.
Data means a subset of information in an
electronic format that allows it to be retrieved
or transmitted.
Information means any communication or
representation of knowledge such as facts,
data, or opinions, in any medium or form,
including textual, numerical, graphic,
cartographic, narrative, or audiovisual.
Information system means a discrete set of
information resources organized for the
collection, processing, maintenance, use,
sharing, dissemination, or disposition of
information (44 U.S.C. 3502).
Intrusion means an unauthorized act of
bypassing the security mechanisms of a
system.
Media means physical devices or writing
surfaces including but not limited to
magnetic tapes, optical disks, magnetic disks,
large scale integration memory chips, and
printouts (but not including display media,
e.g., a computer monitor, cathode ray tube
(CRT) or other (transient) visual output) onto
which information is recorded, stored, or
printed within an information system.
Public information means any information,
regardless of form or format, that an agency
discloses, disseminates, or makes available to
the public (44 U.S.C. 3502).
Safeguarding means measures or controls
that are prescribed to protect information.
Voice means all oral information regardless
of transmission protocol.
(b) Safeguarding requirements and
procedures. The Contractor shall apply the
following basic safeguarding requirements to
protect information provided by or generated
for the Government (other than public
information) which resides on or transits
through its information systems from
unauthorized access and disclosure:
(1) Protecting information on public
computers or Web sites: Do not process
information provided by or generated for the
Government (other than public information)
on public computers (e.g., those available for
use by the general public in kiosks, hotel
business centers) or computers that do not
have access control. Information provided by
or generated for the Government (other than
public information) shall not be posted on
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:10 Aug 23, 2012
Jkt 226001
Web sites that are publicly available or have
access limited only by domain/Internet
Protocol restriction. Such information may be
posted to web pages that control access by
user ID/password, user certificates, or other
technical means, and that provide protection
via use of security technologies. Access
control may be provided by the intranet
(versus the Web site itself or the application
it hosts).
(2) Transmitting electronic information.
Transmit email, text messages, blogs, and
similar communications that contain
information provided by or generated for the
Government (other than public information),
using technology and processes that provide
the best level of security and privacy
available, given facilities, conditions, and
environment.
(3) Transmitting voice and fax information.
Transmit information provided by or
generated for the Government (other than
public information), via voice and fax only
when the sender has a reasonable assurance
that access is limited to authorized
recipients.
(4) Physical and electronic barriers. Protect
information provided by or generated for the
Government (other than public information),
by at least one physical and one electronic
barrier (e.g., locked container or room, login
and password) when not under direct
individual control.
(5) Sanitization. At a minimum, clear
information on media that have been used to
process information provided by or generated
for the Government (other than public
information), before external release or
disposal. Overwriting is an acceptable means
of clearing media in accordance with
National Institute of Standards and
Technology 800–88, Guidelines for Media
Sanitization, at https://csrc.nist.gov/
publications/nistpubs/800-88/NISTSP80088_rev1.pdf.
(6) Intrusion protection. Provide at a
minimum the following protections against
computer intrusions and data compromise:
(i) Current and regularly updated malware
protection services, e.g., anti-virus, antispyware.
(ii) Prompt application of security-relevant
software upgrades, e.g., patches, servicepacks, and hot fixes.
(7) Transfer limitations. Transfer
information provided by or generated for the
Government (other than public information),
only to those subcontractors that both require
the information for purposes of contract
performance and provide at least the same
level of security as specified in this clause.
(c) Subcontracts. The Contractor shall
include the substance of this clause,
including this paragraph (c), in all
subcontracts under this contract that may
have information residing in or transiting
through its information system, where such
is provided by or generated for the
Government (other than public information).
(d) Other contractual requirements
regarding the safeguarding of information.
This clause addresses basic requirements,
and is subordinate to any other contract
clauses or requirements that specifically
address the safeguarding of information or
information systems. If any restrictions or
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
51499
authorizations in this clause are inconsistent
with a requirement of any other such clause
in this contract, the requirement of the other
clause shall take precedence over the
requirement of this clause.
[FR Doc. 2012–20881 Filed 8–23–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820–EP–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
49 CFR Part 535
[NHTSA 2012–0126]
RIN 2127–AK74
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards
and Fuel Efficiency Standards for
Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and
Vehicles
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Denial of petition for
rulemaking.
AGENCY:
The National Highway Traffic
Administration (NHTSA) is denying the
petition of Plant Oil Powered Diesel
Fuel Systems, Inc. (‘‘POP Diesel’’) to
amend the final rules establishing fuel
efficiency standards for medium- and
heavy-duty vehicles. NHTSA does not
believe that POP Diesel has set forth a
basis for rulemaking. The agency
disagrees with the petitioner’s assertion
that a failure to specifically consider
pure vegetable oil, and technology to
enable its usage, as a feasible technology
in heavy-duty vehicles, led to the
adoption of less stringent standards.
NHTSA also disagrees with POP’s
assertion that the agency failed to
adequately consider the rebound effect
in setting the standards.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For Non-Legal Issues: James Tamm,
Office of Rulemaking, National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590,
Telephone (202) 493–0515.
For Legal Issues: Lily Smith, Office of
Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey
Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590,
Telephone: (202) 366–2992.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
I. Background
On September 15, 2011, NHTSA
issued a final rule creating fuel
efficiency standards for medium- and
heavy-duty vehicles (‘‘heavy-duty rule’’)
(76 FR 57106).
E:\FR\FM\24AUP1.SGM
24AUP1
51500
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 165 / Friday, August 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules
II. The Petition
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with
NHTSA received two petitions from
POP Diesel. The first petition was dated
November 15, 2011, and was received
by the agency shortly thereafter. The
second petition was dated February 12,
2012, and was received by the agency
on February 27, 2012. Both petitions
from POP Diesel were styled as petitions
for reconsideration of the heavy-duty
rule. Under 49 CFR part 553, a petition
for reconsideration must be received
within 45 days of the publication of a
final rule; a petition received after that
date is considered to be a petition for
issuance, amendment or revocation of a
rule under 49 CFR part 552, i.e., as a
petition for rulemaking. As both
petitions were received more than 45
days after the final rule was published,
they were considered by the agency as
petitions for rulemaking under part 552.
Based on the agency’s review of the
February 27 petition, the agency
concluded that it contained sufficient
original material to fully supplant (as
opposed to simply amend) the
November 15 petition. Therefore, this
document responds to the February 27
petition (‘‘POP Diesel Petition’’)
according to the process prescribed in
49 CFR part 552.
In its petition, POP Diesel argued that
NHTSA did not specifically consider
pure vegetable oil, and POP Diesel’s
proprietary technology to enable its
usage, as a feasible technology in
medium- and heavy-duty vehicles. POP
Diesel claimed that this, as well as a
failure to consider the rebound effect,1
led to the adoption of significantly less
stringent standards and could encourage
more fossil fuel consumption.
POP Diesel made the following
specific arguments in support of its
request for amending the standards:
1. The standards should have
considered GHG emissions on a lifecycle basis, rather than focusing on
tailpipe GHG emissions only. If the
agencies had considered life-cycle GHG
emissions, they would have apportioned
credits to certain technologies and fuels
differently.
2. The standards did not take into
account technology which POP Diesel
designs, engineers, manufacturers, and
sells, which would enable a diesel
engine to operate on pure vegetable oil
fuel, and if they had, the agencies could
have considered an alternative
regulatory approach of imposing a
1 The ‘‘rebound effect’’ refers to the fraction of
fuel savings expected to result from an increase in
fuel efficiency that is offset by additional vehicle
use. If truck shipping costs decrease as a result of
lower fuel costs, an increase in truck miles traveled
may occur. See 76 FR 57326 (Sept. 15, 2011).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:10 Aug 23, 2012
Jkt 226001
‘‘manufacturer GHG emissions average,
like the corporate average fuel economy
standards in place for light duty
vehicles.’’ 2
3. The standards do not accomplish
their purpose of reducing greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions because the GHG
standards fundamentally regulate fuel
efficiency, and increasing fuel efficiency
creates a ‘‘rebound effect,’’ which the
agencies did not adequately consider as
part of their final rule analysis.
To address these concerns, POP
Diesel specifically requested that the
agency revise the final standards by
doing the following:
A. ‘‘De-couple fuel efficiency policy
from GHG emissions policy;’’
B. ‘‘Impose a corporate fleet average
for GHG emissions on all classes of
manufacturers of engines and vehicles
as the most effective way to ramp down
such emissions across the medium- and
heavy-duty market.’’ 3
C. Re-evaluate ‘‘the weight the
Agencies give to various alternative
technologies and fuels according to a
[life-cycle] approach;’’
D. Revise its analysis of the impact of
the standards, in terms of GHG
emissions, due to the ‘‘rebound effect,’’
given information presented by POP
Diesel;
E. ‘‘Recognize 100 percent plant oil as
a viable renewable diesel engine fuel
eligible to receive Renewable
Identification Number (‘RIN’) credits
under the Renewable Fuels 2 standard;’’
F. ‘‘Grant POP Diesel’s application for
a RIN pathway for 100 percent plant oil
derived from jatropha oil feedstock;’’
The remainder of POP Diesel’s
petition contained background
information on challenges that POP
Diesel says pure vegetable oil has faced
in the marketplace, regarding which the
petitioner is involved in litigation.
NHTSA does not believe that these
portions of the petition necessitate a
response, as they do not directly relate
to or support POP Diesel’s petition for
rulemaking.
Additionally, POP Diesel’s requests
regarding obtaining a Renewable
Identification Number for plant oil
(Requests E and F above) cannot be
directed at NHTSA, given that they
pertain to EPA’s regulations
implementing the Renewable Fuel
Standard.
NHTSA notes that POP Diesel has
requested the agency to revise the ‘‘GHG
standards’’ throughout its petition.4
NHTSA has no authority to, and did
not, set GHG standards. Accordingly,
POP Diesel’s petition is denied. In the
alternative, assuming that POP Diesel
intended to petition NHTSA for a
revision of the agency’s fuel
consumption standards, POP Diesel’s
petition is denied for the reasons
discussed below.
III. Discussion and Analysis
The following section will consider
POP Diesel’s requests, to the extent that
they appeared to be directed at NHTSA,
in turn.
A. Decouple Fuel Efficiency Policy From
GHG Emissions Policy
If POP Diesel meant to argue that the
agencies should have chosen to regulate
GHG emissions from a life-cycle
perspective, or one that included
consideration of plant-based fuels like
the one utilized by POP Diesel’s
technology, rather than setting
harmonized, performance-based fuel
efficiency standards (NHTSA) and
tailpipe GHG emissions standards
(EPA), then the request is primarily
directed at EPA, but NHTSA notes the
following in response.
As discussed throughout the final
rule, close coordination in this first
heavy-duty rule enabled EPA and
NHTSA to promulgate complementary
standards that allow manufacturers to
build one set of vehicles to comply with
both agencies’ regulations, as
envisioned by the President. This
coordination was widely supported by
stakeholders and provided benefits for
industry, government, and taxpayers by
increasing regulatory efficiency and
reducing compliance burdens. The
harmonized structure of the final rule is
also consistent with Executive Order
13563.5
Second, as stated above, NHTSA’s
statutory obligation is to create and
administer a fuel efficiency
improvement program—the agency does
not have the option of not regulating
fuel efficiency. See 49 U.S.C.
32902(k)(2). Insofar as NHTSA regulates
fuel efficiency and EPA regulates GHG
emissions, it makes sense for the
agencies to harmonize their standards to
the greatest extent possible—CO2
represents the majority of GHG
4 See
POP Diesel Petition, passim.
13563 states that an agency shall ‘‘tailor its
regulations to impose the least burden on society,
consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives,
taking into account, among other things, and to the
extent practicable, the costs of cumulative
regulations,’’ and ‘‘promote such coordination,
simplification, and harmonization’’ as will reduce
redundancy, inconsistency, and costs of multiple
regulatory requirements.
5 EO
2 NHTSA notes that the engine and vehicle
standards are entirely separate in the heavy-duty
rule. Aside from the class 2b–3 pickups and van
standards, which are based on a full vehicle test,
no vehicle standard would take into account the
performance measurement of the fuel that the
vehicle would ultimately operate on.
3 See POP Diesel Petition at 2–3.
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\24AUP1.SGM
24AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 165 / Friday, August 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules
emissions from motor vehicles, and is
the natural by-product of carbon-based
fuel consumption, so the same
technologies that increase fuel
efficiency (by reducing fuel
consumption for a unit of work
performed) reduce CO2 emissions at the
same time. Moreover, NHTSA has long
maintained that a fundamental aspect of
the country’s need to conserve energy,
which prompted the fuel efficiency
standards, is to reduce GHG emissions
associated with climate change in
addition to securing energy
independence through reduction of oil
imports. Thus, NHTSA believes it is
neither feasible nor desirable to
‘‘decouple’’ fuel efficiency policy from
GHG emissions policy, given the extent
to which the two are related.
And finally, to the extent that POP
Diesel argued that fuel efficiency and
GHG emissions are not related because
of the rebound effect, NHTSA disagrees.
Even if it somewhat decreases the
degree of the connection, the rebound
effect does not make the connection
between improved fuel efficiency and
reduced GHG emissions any less real.
POP Diesel has not demonstrated
otherwise.
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with
B. ‘‘Impose a Corporate Fleet Average
for GHG Emissions on All Classes of
Manufacturers of Engines and Vehicles
as the Most Effective Way To Ramp
Down Such Emissions Across the
Medium- and Heavy-Duty Market’’
POP Diesel argued that the agency
should have accounted for the
‘‘feasibility of equipping engines to
operate on 100 percent untransesterified
plant oil,’’ and that if it had, it would
have concluded that it should ‘‘regulate
GHG emissions [by imposing] a
manufacturer GHG emissions average,
like the corporate average fuel economy
standards in place for light duty
vehicles * * *.’’ 6 Assuming that POP
Diesel meant to say that NHTSA should
have imposed average manufacturer fuel
efficiency standards, the agency notes
that no particular engine or vehicle
model is subject to its own standard;
rather each manufacturer of vehicles or
engines must comply with standards for
each regulatory category.7 NHTSA also
notes, although it appears that POP
Diesel referred to the corporate average
fuel economy standards for light-duty
vehicles more for the ‘‘corporate
average’’ element than for the metric,
that the medium- and heavy-duty
standards are based on the ability of
6 POP
Diesel Petition at 2.
along with the rule’s allowance for
averaging, banking, and trading of credits across
‘‘averaging sets,’’ makes the standards effectively
corporate averages.
7 This,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:10 Aug 23, 2012
Jkt 226001
engines or vehicles to perform a certain
amount of work (carry or haul weight)
over a particular distance. This is a very
different measurement than fuel
economy, which is simply based on the
amount of fuel consumed over a certain
distance.
As discussed above, for this first
regulatory phase of the medium- and
heavy-duty vehicle fuel efficiency
improvement program, NHTSA has
adopted a fuel-neutral approach based
on measurement of fuel consumption
through measurement of tailpipe CO2
emissions. NHTSA does not agree that
expressly including POP Diesel’s
proprietary technology in its rulemaking
analysis would change the agency’s
analysis in any substantive way that
would support an amendment to the
rulemaking either in terms of the
agency’s decision regarding levels of
standard stringency, or in terms of the
structure of the standards. 49 U.S.C.
32902(k)(2), the statutory provision
granting NHTSA authority for the
medium- and heavy-duty fuel efficiency
improvement program, requires the
agency to set maximum feasible
standards that are ‘‘appropriate, costeffective, and technologically feasible.’’
The agency has neither the obligation to
set standards under 49 U.S.C.
32902(k)(2) based on all potentially
feasible motor vehicle technologies, nor
the capacity to do so. The existing
standards are performance-based, and
not expressly predicated on the use of
any specific technology. Manufacturers
are free to use whatever technologies
they choose to meet the standards,
including POP Diesel’s technology. This
allows for innovation.
POP Diesel also mentioned EPA’s
Renewable Fuel Standards, and stated
that because ‘‘pure plant oil is not
eligible for the RFS,’’ therefore the final
rule does ‘‘not provide any incentive for
the use of 100 percent plant oil or an
engine specially equipped to run on this
fuel.’’ 8 NHTSA presumes that POP
Diesel’s argument was that if NHTSA
had considered that the RFS does not
include specific incentives for pure
vegetable oil, the agency would have
compensated for this by creating
incentives within the heavy-duty rule.
As explained above, the final rule was
designed to be fuel-neutral. If POP
Diesel’s technology helps manufacturers
reduce fuel consumption, then it will
have the same opportunities as any
other technology that manufacturers
will use to meet NHTSA’s standards.
Moreover, NHTSA notes that POP
Diesel has not correctly characterized
NHTSA’s consideration of the
8 POP
PO 00000
Diesel Petition at 7.
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
51501
interaction between the RFS program
and the heavy-duty fuel efficiency
standards. As explained in the final
rule, NHTSA determined that the
performance measurement of alternative
fuels provides sufficient incentives for
their use. While the agencies noted that
incentives in the RFS pointed to a lack
of a need for further incentives, the
rule’s treatment of alternative fuels was
not premised on each alternative fuel
being covered by the RFS Standard.9
Indeed, other alternative fuels are
similarly not covered by the RFS
standard, such as liquefied natural gas,
compressed natural gas, propane,
hydrogen and electricity.
C. Re-Evaluate ‘‘the Weight the Agencies
Give to Various Alternative
Technologies and Fuels According to a
[Life-Cycle] Approach’’
NHTSA recognizes the potential
benefits of increasing the use of any fuel
type that reduces the nation’s
dependence on petroleum. As the
President noted in his March 30, 2011
‘‘Blueprint for a Secure Energy
Future,’’ 10 biofuels are one such fuel
type with the potential to reduce the
nation’s demand for oil. NHTSA
commends efforts to develop alternative
fuels for light-, medium- and heavy-duty
vehicles, and POP Diesel’s work to make
pure vegetable oil a more viable
alternative fuel is in line with this goal.
POP Diesel’s technology allows the
use of fuels that it states are less carbonintensive than other fuels, and POP
Diesel argued in its petition that by
considering only tailpipe rather than
life-cycle GHG emissions of
technologies and fuels, the agencies
arbitrarily favor certain technologies
and fuels and disfavor others. While
reducing GHG emissions is a direct
outcome of improving the fuel
efficiency of the medium- and heavyduty on-road fleet, the task that
Congress gave to NHTSA was
specifically to improve fuel efficiency.
Therefore, any consideration that
NHTSA may give to GHG emissions in
general, and life-cycle GHG emissions in
particular, is in the context of that
directive. The final rule is performancebased and does not dictate particular
technology. As the agency noted in the
final rule,11 alternative fueled vehicles
provide fuel consumption benefits that
should be, and are, accounted for in the
standard. However, the agencies’
approach to fuels does not provide
9 See
76 FR 57124.
10 https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/
blueprint_secure_energy_future.pdf.
11 See 76 FR 57124.
E:\FR\FM\24AUP1.SGM
24AUP1
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with
51502
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 165 / Friday, August 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules
additional incentives for fuels based on
their petroleum content.
As POP Diesel noted, the agency
calculates the fuel consumption
performance of engines and heavy-duty
pickup trucks and vans by measuring
tailpipe CO2 emissions and converting
the measured value to an equivalent fuel
consumption value. This method aligns
with the EPA measurement method that
is used to determine CO2 emissions
performance, and by aligning, promotes
consistency in the national program.
NHTSA recognized that it could have
selected other methods of measuring
fuel consumption, such as deriving fuel
consumption performance based on
gasoline or diesel energy equivalency.12
However, the agency decided that
maintaining consistency with the EPA
measurement of CO2 emissions to
establish an aligned national program
was the most appropriate approach for
this first regulatory action.
This approach makes it unnecessary
to distinguish among alternative fuel
types in setting the standards, and this
first phase of NHTSA’s medium- and
heavy-duty regulation does not include
reductions in GHG emissions that do
not translate directly to fuel
consumption. Even if this were not the
case, NHTSA believes that POP Diesel’s
claims regarding the commercial
viability of pure vegetable oil and POP
Diesel’s proprietary technology to
enable its usage in medium- and heavyduty vehicles are speculative.
NHTSA recognized in the rule that
this uniform approach to fuels may not
take advantage of potential additional
energy and national security benefits of
increasing fleet percentages of
alternative-fueled vehicles. More
alternative-fueled vehicles on the road
would arguably displace petroleumfueled vehicles, and thereby increase
both U.S. energy and national security
by reducing the nation’s dependence on
foreign oil. However, for the reasons
discussed above, the agency determined
that the benefits of a harmonized initial
program outweighed those potential
benefits for this first phase of heavyduty vehicle and engine standards.13
NHTSA continues to believe that the
current fuel-neutral performance
measurement is the most appropriate
treatment of alternative fuels for this
first phase of the heavy-duty fuel
efficiency standards. As stated in the
final rule, the agency intends to revisit
this issue in the future to evaluate
whether the fuel-neutral approach
continues to provide greater benefits
than alternative approaches.
12 Id.
at 57124–25.
13 Id.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:10 Aug 23, 2012
Jkt 226001
D. Revise the Final Rule Analysis of the
Rebound Effect
POP Diesel argued that due to the
rebound effect, the final standards will
in fact increase total GHG emissions
beyond what would have occurred in
the absence of the standards, rather than
achieving the agencies’ stated
reductions in CO2 emissions and fuel
consumption.14 POP Diesel stated that
the agencies only considered the
rebound effect in terms of
improvements in ‘‘fuel economy’’
leading to increases in vehicle miles
traveled (VMT), but should also have
considered other direct effects,15
‘‘indirect’’ rebound effects,16 and the
‘‘frontier’’ rebound effect, whereby
improvements in energy efficiency
promote the development or spread of
new products that increase energy
consumption and GHG emissions, such
as when the availability of lower-cost
trucking services leads to substitution of
Internet shopping and home delivery
via truck for conventional retailing.17
POP Diesel may have meant to suggest
that an analysis of the rebound effect
that incorporates these aspects would
have led the agencies to promulgate
different standards, specifically, GHG
standards based on fuel CO2 content
rather than fuel efficiency standards.
NHTSA notes that its statutory
obligation is to create and administer a
fuel efficiency improvement program—
the agency does not have the option of
not regulating fuel efficiency.18 As for
the question of whether the agency’s
analysis of the rebound effect in the
final rule should have incorporated the
aspects discussed in the POP Diesel
petition, the agency believes that the
agency’s analysis of the rebound effect
14 See
POP Diesel Petition, at 3–4.
POP Diesel Petition, at 4; ‘‘Exhibit 1’’ to
POP Diesel Petition. Examples of direct rebound
effects include shifts of some freight shipments
from rail, barge, or other transportation modes to
trucking, reorganization of freight shippers’ logistics
operations in ways that substitute increased use of
trucking services for warehousing and inventory
holding, shifts to more distant sources of supply for
raw materials and expansion of market areas for
finished goods, which entail longer trucking
distances, reorganization of trucking firms’
operations to emphasize objectives other than
minimizing fuel consumption, such as use of lowercost but less fuel-efficient vehicles for some
shipments, less intensive truck maintenance, and
less careful optimization of vehicle load factors,
routing, and scheduling.
16 Id. Examples of indirect rebound effects
include increases in consumption of energyintensive products as consumers reallocate savings
from lower prices for goods shipped by truck to
purchase other products, and ‘‘multi-factor
productivity’’ rebound effects, where firms increase
output levels and substitute increased use of
trucking services for other production inputs.
17 Id.
18 See 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(2).
15 See
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
represents the most reliable basis on
which to project the increases in
commercial truck use that will occur in
response to improvements in their fuel
efficiency.
NHTSA believes that its estimates of
the increased use of different classes of
trucks that are likely to result from the
improvements in their fuel efficiency
required by the rule are based on sound
data and reliable econometric methods.
Moreover, the agency is confident that
these estimates reflect the various
components of the direct rebound effect
that POP Diesel alleges they ignore,
because the measures of aggregate
nationwide truck use from which they
are derived fully incorporate historical
shifts of freight shipments from other
transportation modes to trucking,
continuing reorganization of freight
logistics toward increased reliance on
trucking services, and shifts to more
distant sources of supply for raw
materials and longer deliveries of
finished goods to final markets. The
agency’s estimates also incorporate the
historical response of the use of trucking
services to measures of economic
activity that generate demands for
shipping of raw materials and finished
products, including aggregate economic
output, foreign trade, and retailing. As
the agencies acknowledged in their
analysis, however, research on the
magnitude of the rebound effect for
heavy-duty vehicles has been limited; 19
for this reason, the agencies will
monitor and conduct research on the
subject in an ongoing effort to improve
their estimates.
NHTSA also notes that any increases
in economy-wide energy consumption
and GHG emissions resulting from
indirect rebound effects cannot
reasonably be ascribed to the
requirement that vehicle manufacturers
achieve higher fuel efficiency levels. If
the indirect effects that cause those
increases were included in the
rulemaking analysis, however, they
would undoubtedly add significantly to
the economic benefits from the rule.
Responses to lower-cost trucking
services, such as consumers’ use of
savings from lower prices of goods that
utilize trucking services for their
production and distribution to purchase
other products that embody energy, as
well as any increases in multi-factor
productivity or frontier rebound impacts
stemming from reduced truck energy
consumption and lower shipping costs,
represent important sources of
additional economic benefits from
requiring trucks to achieve higher fuel
efficiency. Therefore, NHTSA does not
19 See
E:\FR\FM\24AUP1.SGM
76 FR 57327–9.
24AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 165 / Friday, August 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules
believe that consideration of POP
Diesel’s claims regarding indirect
rebound effects would have led the
agency to promulgate different
standards.
For purposes of the final standards,
we believe that the agency’s analysis of
the rebound effect represents the best
available estimate of the increases in
commercial truck use that may result
from increases in their fuel efficiency,
and the extent to which these increases
in use will offset the fuel savings (and
thus, CO2 emissions) projected to result
from the recently-adopted rules. Thus,
while NHTSA agrees that the rebound
effect is present, we believe that it is
adequately accounted for in the final
rule. We do not believe that we would
have promulgated different standards if
our analysis of the rebound effect had
been done differently, as POP Diesel
recommended.
IV. Conclusion
In consideration of the foregoing,
NHTSA is denying the POP Diesel
Petition. In accordance with 49 CFR part
552, this completes the agency’s review
of the petition for rulemaking.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 32902; delegation of
authority at 49 CFR 1.95.
Issued: August 13, 2012.
Christopher J. Bonanti,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking,
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, Department of
Transportation.
[FR Doc. 2012–20838 Filed 8–23–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 424
[Docket No. FWS–R9–ES–2011–0073;
Docket No. NOAA–120606146–2146–01;
4500030114]
RIN 1018–AY62; 0648–BC24
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Revisions to the
Regulations for Impact Analyses of
Critical Habitat
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior; National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with
AGENCIES:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:10 Aug 23, 2012
Jkt 226001
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
(collectively referred to as the
‘‘Services’’ or ‘‘we’’), propose to revise
our regulations pertaining to impact
analyses conducted for designations of
critical habitat under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (the
Act). These changes are being proposed
as directed by the President’s February
28, 2012, memorandum, which directed
us to take prompt steps to revise our
regulations to provide that the economic
analysis be completed and made
available for public comment at the time
of publication of a proposed rule to
designate critical habitat.
DATES: We will accept comments from
all interested parties until October 23,
2012. Please note that if you are using
the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see
ADDRESSES below), the deadline for
submitting an electronic comment is
11:59 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on
this date.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
by one of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Search for FWS–
R9–ES–2011–0073, which is the docket
number for this rulemaking.
• U.S. mail or hand delivery: Public
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS–R9–
ES–2011–0073; Division of Policy and
Directives Management; U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive,
PDM–2042; Arlington, VA 22203.
We will post all comments on
https://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that we will post any
personal information you provide us
(see the Request for Information section
below for more information).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Nicole Alt, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Division of Conservation and
Classification, 4401 N Fairfax Drive,
Suite 420, Arlington, VA 22203,
telephone 703/358–2171; facsimile 703/
358–1735; or Marta Nammack, National
Marine Fisheries Service, Office of
Protected Resources, 1315 East-West
Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910,
telephone 301/713–1401; facsimile 301/
713–0376. If you use a
telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD), call the Federal Information
Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. The
Services have decided to revise our
regulations to provide the public earlier
access to the draft economic analysis
supporting critical habitat designations,
consistent with the President’s
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
51503
memorandum (Memorandum for the
Secretary of the Interior, Proposed
Revised Habitat for the Spotted Owl:
Minimizing Regulatory Burdens, 77 FR
12985 (March 5, 2012)). The President’s
February 28, 2012, memorandum
directed the Secretary of the Interior to
revise the regulations implementing the
Endangered Species Act to provide that
a draft economic analysis be completed
and made available for public comment
at the time of publication of a proposed
rule to designate critical habitat. Both
transparency and public comment will
be improved if the public has access to
both the scientific analysis and the draft
economic analysis at the same time. We
are therefore publishing a proposed rule
to achieve that goal and seeking public
comments. Because the Act and its
implementing regulations are jointly
administered by the Departments of the
Interior and Commerce, the Secretary of
the Interior consulted with the Secretary
of Commerce on the revision of this
regulation. The proposed revisions
would also address several court
decisions and are informed by
conclusions from a 2008 legal opinion
by the Solicitor of the Department of the
Interior. Specifically, we propose to
revise 50 CFR 424.19 to clarify the
instructions for making information
available to the public, considering the
impacts of critical habitat designations,
and considering exclusions from critical
habitat. The proposed rule is consistent
with Executive Order 13563, and in
particular with the requirement of
retrospective analysis of existing rules,
designed ‘‘to make the agency’s
regulatory program more effective or
less burdensome in achieving the
regulatory objectives.
This rule proposes the following
changes:
(1) We propose to change the title of
§ 424.19 from ‘‘Final Rules—impact
analysis of critical habitat’’ to ‘‘Impact
analysis and exclusions from critical
habitat.’’ We propose to remove the
current reference to ‘‘[f]inal rules’’ to
allow this section to apply to both
proposed and final critical habitat rules.
We propose to add the term
‘‘exclusions’’ in the title to more fully
describe that this section addresses both
impact analyses and how they inform
the exclusion process under section
4(b)(2) of the Act for critical habitat.
(2) We propose to divide current
§ 424.19 into three paragraphs. The
division into three paragraphs closely
tracks the requirements of the Act under
section 4(b)(2) and provides for a clearly
defined process for considerations of
exclusions as required under the Act.
(3) Proposed paragraph (a) would
implement the direction of the
E:\FR\FM\24AUP1.SGM
24AUP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 165 (Friday, August 24, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 51499-51503]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-20838]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 535
[NHTSA 2012-0126]
RIN 2127-AK74
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards
for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Denial of petition for rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The National Highway Traffic Administration (NHTSA) is denying
the petition of Plant Oil Powered Diesel Fuel Systems, Inc. (``POP
Diesel'') to amend the final rules establishing fuel efficiency
standards for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles. NHTSA does not believe
that POP Diesel has set forth a basis for rulemaking. The agency
disagrees with the petitioner's assertion that a failure to
specifically consider pure vegetable oil, and technology to enable its
usage, as a feasible technology in heavy-duty vehicles, led to the
adoption of less stringent standards. NHTSA also disagrees with POP's
assertion that the agency failed to adequately consider the rebound
effect in setting the standards.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For Non-Legal Issues: James Tamm, Office of Rulemaking, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, Telephone (202) 493-0515.
For Legal Issues: Lily Smith, Office of Chief Counsel, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, Telephone: (202) 366-2992.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On September 15, 2011, NHTSA issued a final rule creating fuel
efficiency standards for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles (``heavy-duty
rule'') (76 FR 57106).
[[Page 51500]]
II. The Petition
NHTSA received two petitions from POP Diesel. The first petition
was dated November 15, 2011, and was received by the agency shortly
thereafter. The second petition was dated February 12, 2012, and was
received by the agency on February 27, 2012. Both petitions from POP
Diesel were styled as petitions for reconsideration of the heavy-duty
rule. Under 49 CFR part 553, a petition for reconsideration must be
received within 45 days of the publication of a final rule; a petition
received after that date is considered to be a petition for issuance,
amendment or revocation of a rule under 49 CFR part 552, i.e., as a
petition for rulemaking. As both petitions were received more than 45
days after the final rule was published, they were considered by the
agency as petitions for rulemaking under part 552. Based on the
agency's review of the February 27 petition, the agency concluded that
it contained sufficient original material to fully supplant (as opposed
to simply amend) the November 15 petition. Therefore, this document
responds to the February 27 petition (``POP Diesel Petition'')
according to the process prescribed in 49 CFR part 552.
In its petition, POP Diesel argued that NHTSA did not specifically
consider pure vegetable oil, and POP Diesel's proprietary technology to
enable its usage, as a feasible technology in medium- and heavy-duty
vehicles. POP Diesel claimed that this, as well as a failure to
consider the rebound effect,\1\ led to the adoption of significantly
less stringent standards and could encourage more fossil fuel
consumption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The ``rebound effect'' refers to the fraction of fuel
savings expected to result from an increase in fuel efficiency that
is offset by additional vehicle use. If truck shipping costs
decrease as a result of lower fuel costs, an increase in truck miles
traveled may occur. See 76 FR 57326 (Sept. 15, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
POP Diesel made the following specific arguments in support of its
request for amending the standards:
1. The standards should have considered GHG emissions on a life-
cycle basis, rather than focusing on tailpipe GHG emissions only. If
the agencies had considered life-cycle GHG emissions, they would have
apportioned credits to certain technologies and fuels differently.
2. The standards did not take into account technology which POP
Diesel designs, engineers, manufacturers, and sells, which would enable
a diesel engine to operate on pure vegetable oil fuel, and if they had,
the agencies could have considered an alternative regulatory approach
of imposing a ``manufacturer GHG emissions average, like the corporate
average fuel economy standards in place for light duty vehicles.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ NHTSA notes that the engine and vehicle standards are
entirely separate in the heavy-duty rule. Aside from the class 2b-3
pickups and van standards, which are based on a full vehicle test,
no vehicle standard would take into account the performance
measurement of the fuel that the vehicle would ultimately operate
on.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. The standards do not accomplish their purpose of reducing
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions because the GHG standards fundamentally
regulate fuel efficiency, and increasing fuel efficiency creates a
``rebound effect,'' which the agencies did not adequately consider as
part of their final rule analysis.
To address these concerns, POP Diesel specifically requested that
the agency revise the final standards by doing the following:
A. ``De-couple fuel efficiency policy from GHG emissions policy;''
B. ``Impose a corporate fleet average for GHG emissions on all
classes of manufacturers of engines and vehicles as the most effective
way to ramp down such emissions across the medium- and heavy-duty
market.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See POP Diesel Petition at 2-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Re-evaluate ``the weight the Agencies give to various
alternative technologies and fuels according to a [life-cycle]
approach;''
D. Revise its analysis of the impact of the standards, in terms of
GHG emissions, due to the ``rebound effect,'' given information
presented by POP Diesel;
E. ``Recognize 100 percent plant oil as a viable renewable diesel
engine fuel eligible to receive Renewable Identification Number (`RIN')
credits under the Renewable Fuels 2 standard;''
F. ``Grant POP Diesel's application for a RIN pathway for 100
percent plant oil derived from jatropha oil feedstock;''
The remainder of POP Diesel's petition contained background
information on challenges that POP Diesel says pure vegetable oil has
faced in the marketplace, regarding which the petitioner is involved in
litigation. NHTSA does not believe that these portions of the petition
necessitate a response, as they do not directly relate to or support
POP Diesel's petition for rulemaking.
Additionally, POP Diesel's requests regarding obtaining a Renewable
Identification Number for plant oil (Requests E and F above) cannot be
directed at NHTSA, given that they pertain to EPA's regulations
implementing the Renewable Fuel Standard.
NHTSA notes that POP Diesel has requested the agency to revise the
``GHG standards'' throughout its petition.\4\ NHTSA has no authority
to, and did not, set GHG standards. Accordingly, POP Diesel's petition
is denied. In the alternative, assuming that POP Diesel intended to
petition NHTSA for a revision of the agency's fuel consumption
standards, POP Diesel's petition is denied for the reasons discussed
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See POP Diesel Petition, passim.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Discussion and Analysis
The following section will consider POP Diesel's requests, to the
extent that they appeared to be directed at NHTSA, in turn.
A. Decouple Fuel Efficiency Policy From GHG Emissions Policy
If POP Diesel meant to argue that the agencies should have chosen
to regulate GHG emissions from a life-cycle perspective, or one that
included consideration of plant-based fuels like the one utilized by
POP Diesel's technology, rather than setting harmonized, performance-
based fuel efficiency standards (NHTSA) and tailpipe GHG emissions
standards (EPA), then the request is primarily directed at EPA, but
NHTSA notes the following in response.
As discussed throughout the final rule, close coordination in this
first heavy-duty rule enabled EPA and NHTSA to promulgate complementary
standards that allow manufacturers to build one set of vehicles to
comply with both agencies' regulations, as envisioned by the President.
This coordination was widely supported by stakeholders and provided
benefits for industry, government, and taxpayers by increasing
regulatory efficiency and reducing compliance burdens. The harmonized
structure of the final rule is also consistent with Executive Order
13563.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ EO 13563 states that an agency shall ``tailor its
regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with
obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into account, among other
things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of cumulative
regulations,'' and ``promote such coordination, simplification, and
harmonization'' as will reduce redundancy, inconsistency, and costs
of multiple regulatory requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, as stated above, NHTSA's statutory obligation is to create
and administer a fuel efficiency improvement program--the agency does
not have the option of not regulating fuel efficiency. See 49 U.S.C.
32902(k)(2). Insofar as NHTSA regulates fuel efficiency and EPA
regulates GHG emissions, it makes sense for the agencies to harmonize
their standards to the greatest extent possible--CO2
represents the majority of GHG
[[Page 51501]]
emissions from motor vehicles, and is the natural by-product of carbon-
based fuel consumption, so the same technologies that increase fuel
efficiency (by reducing fuel consumption for a unit of work performed)
reduce CO2 emissions at the same time. Moreover, NHTSA has
long maintained that a fundamental aspect of the country's need to
conserve energy, which prompted the fuel efficiency standards, is to
reduce GHG emissions associated with climate change in addition to
securing energy independence through reduction of oil imports. Thus,
NHTSA believes it is neither feasible nor desirable to ``decouple''
fuel efficiency policy from GHG emissions policy, given the extent to
which the two are related.
And finally, to the extent that POP Diesel argued that fuel
efficiency and GHG emissions are not related because of the rebound
effect, NHTSA disagrees. Even if it somewhat decreases the degree of
the connection, the rebound effect does not make the connection between
improved fuel efficiency and reduced GHG emissions any less real. POP
Diesel has not demonstrated otherwise.
B. ``Impose a Corporate Fleet Average for GHG Emissions on All Classes
of Manufacturers of Engines and Vehicles as the Most Effective Way To
Ramp Down Such Emissions Across the Medium- and Heavy-Duty Market''
POP Diesel argued that the agency should have accounted for the
``feasibility of equipping engines to operate on 100 percent
untransesterified plant oil,'' and that if it had, it would have
concluded that it should ``regulate GHG emissions [by imposing] a
manufacturer GHG emissions average, like the corporate average fuel
economy standards in place for light duty vehicles * * *.'' \6\
Assuming that POP Diesel meant to say that NHTSA should have imposed
average manufacturer fuel efficiency standards, the agency notes that
no particular engine or vehicle model is subject to its own standard;
rather each manufacturer of vehicles or engines must comply with
standards for each regulatory category.\7\ NHTSA also notes, although
it appears that POP Diesel referred to the corporate average fuel
economy standards for light-duty vehicles more for the ``corporate
average'' element than for the metric, that the medium- and heavy-duty
standards are based on the ability of engines or vehicles to perform a
certain amount of work (carry or haul weight) over a particular
distance. This is a very different measurement than fuel economy, which
is simply based on the amount of fuel consumed over a certain distance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ POP Diesel Petition at 2.
\7\ This, along with the rule's allowance for averaging,
banking, and trading of credits across ``averaging sets,'' makes the
standards effectively corporate averages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed above, for this first regulatory phase of the medium-
and heavy-duty vehicle fuel efficiency improvement program, NHTSA has
adopted a fuel-neutral approach based on measurement of fuel
consumption through measurement of tailpipe CO2 emissions.
NHTSA does not agree that expressly including POP Diesel's proprietary
technology in its rulemaking analysis would change the agency's
analysis in any substantive way that would support an amendment to the
rulemaking either in terms of the agency's decision regarding levels of
standard stringency, or in terms of the structure of the standards. 49
U.S.C. 32902(k)(2), the statutory provision granting NHTSA authority
for the medium- and heavy-duty fuel efficiency improvement program,
requires the agency to set maximum feasible standards that are
``appropriate, cost-effective, and technologically feasible.'' The
agency has neither the obligation to set standards under 49 U.S.C.
32902(k)(2) based on all potentially feasible motor vehicle
technologies, nor the capacity to do so. The existing standards are
performance-based, and not expressly predicated on the use of any
specific technology. Manufacturers are free to use whatever
technologies they choose to meet the standards, including POP Diesel's
technology. This allows for innovation.
POP Diesel also mentioned EPA's Renewable Fuel Standards, and
stated that because ``pure plant oil is not eligible for the RFS,''
therefore the final rule does ``not provide any incentive for the use
of 100 percent plant oil or an engine specially equipped to run on this
fuel.'' \8\ NHTSA presumes that POP Diesel's argument was that if NHTSA
had considered that the RFS does not include specific incentives for
pure vegetable oil, the agency would have compensated for this by
creating incentives within the heavy-duty rule. As explained above, the
final rule was designed to be fuel-neutral. If POP Diesel's technology
helps manufacturers reduce fuel consumption, then it will have the same
opportunities as any other technology that manufacturers will use to
meet NHTSA's standards. Moreover, NHTSA notes that POP Diesel has not
correctly characterized NHTSA's consideration of the interaction
between the RFS program and the heavy-duty fuel efficiency standards.
As explained in the final rule, NHTSA determined that the performance
measurement of alternative fuels provides sufficient incentives for
their use. While the agencies noted that incentives in the RFS pointed
to a lack of a need for further incentives, the rule's treatment of
alternative fuels was not premised on each alternative fuel being
covered by the RFS Standard.\9\ Indeed, other alternative fuels are
similarly not covered by the RFS standard, such as liquefied natural
gas, compressed natural gas, propane, hydrogen and electricity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ POP Diesel Petition at 7.
\9\ See 76 FR 57124.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Re-Evaluate ``the Weight the Agencies Give to Various Alternative
Technologies and Fuels According to a [Life-Cycle] Approach''
NHTSA recognizes the potential benefits of increasing the use of
any fuel type that reduces the nation's dependence on petroleum. As the
President noted in his March 30, 2011 ``Blueprint for a Secure Energy
Future,'' \10\ biofuels are one such fuel type with the potential to
reduce the nation's demand for oil. NHTSA commends efforts to develop
alternative fuels for light-, medium- and heavy-duty vehicles, and POP
Diesel's work to make pure vegetable oil a more viable alternative fuel
is in line with this goal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/blueprint_secure_energy_future.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
POP Diesel's technology allows the use of fuels that it states are
less carbon-intensive than other fuels, and POP Diesel argued in its
petition that by considering only tailpipe rather than life-cycle GHG
emissions of technologies and fuels, the agencies arbitrarily favor
certain technologies and fuels and disfavor others. While reducing GHG
emissions is a direct outcome of improving the fuel efficiency of the
medium- and heavy-duty on-road fleet, the task that Congress gave to
NHTSA was specifically to improve fuel efficiency. Therefore, any
consideration that NHTSA may give to GHG emissions in general, and
life-cycle GHG emissions in particular, is in the context of that
directive. The final rule is performance-based and does not dictate
particular technology. As the agency noted in the final rule,\11\
alternative fueled vehicles provide fuel consumption benefits that
should be, and are, accounted for in the standard. However, the
agencies' approach to fuels does not provide
[[Page 51502]]
additional incentives for fuels based on their petroleum content.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See 76 FR 57124.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As POP Diesel noted, the agency calculates the fuel consumption
performance of engines and heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans by
measuring tailpipe CO2 emissions and converting the measured
value to an equivalent fuel consumption value. This method aligns with
the EPA measurement method that is used to determine CO2
emissions performance, and by aligning, promotes consistency in the
national program. NHTSA recognized that it could have selected other
methods of measuring fuel consumption, such as deriving fuel
consumption performance based on gasoline or diesel energy
equivalency.\12\ However, the agency decided that maintaining
consistency with the EPA measurement of CO2 emissions to
establish an aligned national program was the most appropriate approach
for this first regulatory action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Id. at 57124-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This approach makes it unnecessary to distinguish among alternative
fuel types in setting the standards, and this first phase of NHTSA's
medium- and heavy-duty regulation does not include reductions in GHG
emissions that do not translate directly to fuel consumption. Even if
this were not the case, NHTSA believes that POP Diesel's claims
regarding the commercial viability of pure vegetable oil and POP
Diesel's proprietary technology to enable its usage in medium- and
heavy-duty vehicles are speculative.
NHTSA recognized in the rule that this uniform approach to fuels
may not take advantage of potential additional energy and national
security benefits of increasing fleet percentages of alternative-fueled
vehicles. More alternative-fueled vehicles on the road would arguably
displace petroleum-fueled vehicles, and thereby increase both U.S.
energy and national security by reducing the nation's dependence on
foreign oil. However, for the reasons discussed above, the agency
determined that the benefits of a harmonized initial program outweighed
those potential benefits for this first phase of heavy-duty vehicle and
engine standards.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA continues to believe that the current fuel-neutral
performance measurement is the most appropriate treatment of
alternative fuels for this first phase of the heavy-duty fuel
efficiency standards. As stated in the final rule, the agency intends
to revisit this issue in the future to evaluate whether the fuel-
neutral approach continues to provide greater benefits than alternative
approaches.
D. Revise the Final Rule Analysis of the Rebound Effect
POP Diesel argued that due to the rebound effect, the final
standards will in fact increase total GHG emissions beyond what would
have occurred in the absence of the standards, rather than achieving
the agencies' stated reductions in CO2 emissions and fuel
consumption.\14\ POP Diesel stated that the agencies only considered
the rebound effect in terms of improvements in ``fuel economy'' leading
to increases in vehicle miles traveled (VMT), but should also have
considered other direct effects,\15\ ``indirect'' rebound effects,\16\
and the ``frontier'' rebound effect, whereby improvements in energy
efficiency promote the development or spread of new products that
increase energy consumption and GHG emissions, such as when the
availability of lower-cost trucking services leads to substitution of
Internet shopping and home delivery via truck for conventional
retailing.\17\ POP Diesel may have meant to suggest that an analysis of
the rebound effect that incorporates these aspects would have led the
agencies to promulgate different standards, specifically, GHG standards
based on fuel CO2 content rather than fuel efficiency
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See POP Diesel Petition, at 3-4.
\15\ See POP Diesel Petition, at 4; ``Exhibit 1'' to POP Diesel
Petition. Examples of direct rebound effects include shifts of some
freight shipments from rail, barge, or other transportation modes to
trucking, reorganization of freight shippers' logistics operations
in ways that substitute increased use of trucking services for
warehousing and inventory holding, shifts to more distant sources of
supply for raw materials and expansion of market areas for finished
goods, which entail longer trucking distances, reorganization of
trucking firms' operations to emphasize objectives other than
minimizing fuel consumption, such as use of lower-cost but less
fuel-efficient vehicles for some shipments, less intensive truck
maintenance, and less careful optimization of vehicle load factors,
routing, and scheduling.
\16\ Id. Examples of indirect rebound effects include increases
in consumption of energy-intensive products as consumers reallocate
savings from lower prices for goods shipped by truck to purchase
other products, and ``multi-factor productivity'' rebound effects,
where firms increase output levels and substitute increased use of
trucking services for other production inputs.
\17\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA notes that its statutory obligation is to create and
administer a fuel efficiency improvement program--the agency does not
have the option of not regulating fuel efficiency.\18\ As for the
question of whether the agency's analysis of the rebound effect in the
final rule should have incorporated the aspects discussed in the POP
Diesel petition, the agency believes that the agency's analysis of the
rebound effect represents the most reliable basis on which to project
the increases in commercial truck use that will occur in response to
improvements in their fuel efficiency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA believes that its estimates of the increased use of different
classes of trucks that are likely to result from the improvements in
their fuel efficiency required by the rule are based on sound data and
reliable econometric methods. Moreover, the agency is confident that
these estimates reflect the various components of the direct rebound
effect that POP Diesel alleges they ignore, because the measures of
aggregate nationwide truck use from which they are derived fully
incorporate historical shifts of freight shipments from other
transportation modes to trucking, continuing reorganization of freight
logistics toward increased reliance on trucking services, and shifts to
more distant sources of supply for raw materials and longer deliveries
of finished goods to final markets. The agency's estimates also
incorporate the historical response of the use of trucking services to
measures of economic activity that generate demands for shipping of raw
materials and finished products, including aggregate economic output,
foreign trade, and retailing. As the agencies acknowledged in their
analysis, however, research on the magnitude of the rebound effect for
heavy-duty vehicles has been limited; \19\ for this reason, the
agencies will monitor and conduct research on the subject in an ongoing
effort to improve their estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See 76 FR 57327-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA also notes that any increases in economy-wide energy
consumption and GHG emissions resulting from indirect rebound effects
cannot reasonably be ascribed to the requirement that vehicle
manufacturers achieve higher fuel efficiency levels. If the indirect
effects that cause those increases were included in the rulemaking
analysis, however, they would undoubtedly add significantly to the
economic benefits from the rule. Responses to lower-cost trucking
services, such as consumers' use of savings from lower prices of goods
that utilize trucking services for their production and distribution to
purchase other products that embody energy, as well as any increases in
multi-factor productivity or frontier rebound impacts stemming from
reduced truck energy consumption and lower shipping costs, represent
important sources of additional economic benefits from requiring trucks
to achieve higher fuel efficiency. Therefore, NHTSA does not
[[Page 51503]]
believe that consideration of POP Diesel's claims regarding indirect
rebound effects would have led the agency to promulgate different
standards.
For purposes of the final standards, we believe that the agency's
analysis of the rebound effect represents the best available estimate
of the increases in commercial truck use that may result from increases
in their fuel efficiency, and the extent to which these increases in
use will offset the fuel savings (and thus, CO2 emissions)
projected to result from the recently-adopted rules. Thus, while NHTSA
agrees that the rebound effect is present, we believe that it is
adequately accounted for in the final rule. We do not believe that we
would have promulgated different standards if our analysis of the
rebound effect had been done differently, as POP Diesel recommended.
IV. Conclusion
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA is denying the POP Diesel
Petition. In accordance with 49 CFR part 552, this completes the
agency's review of the petition for rulemaking.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 32902; delegation of authority at 49 CFR
1.95.
Issued: August 13, 2012.
Christopher J. Bonanti,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, Department of Transportation.
[FR Doc. 2012-20838 Filed 8-23-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
