[Federal Register: May 7, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 88)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 25323-25728]
[DOCID:fr07my10-8]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part II

Environmental Protection Agency

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Department of Transportation

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

40 CFR Parts 85, 86, and 600; 49 CFR Parts 531, 533, 536, et al.

Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate
Average Fuel Economy Standards; Final Rule

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 85, 86, and 600

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Parts 531, 533, 536, 537 and 538

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0472; FRL-9134-6; NHTSA-2009-0059]
RIN 2060-AP58; RIN 2127-AK50

Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and
Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards; Final Rule

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

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

DATES: This final rule is effective on July 6, 2010, sixty days after
date of publication in the Federal Register. The incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this regulation is approved
by the Director of the Federal Register as of July 6, 2010.

ADDRESSES: EPA and NHTSA have established dockets for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0472 and NHTSA-2009-0059, respectively.
All documents in the docket are listed on the http://
www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically through http://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the following locations: EPA:
EPA Docket Center, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave.,
NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>. NHTSA:
Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of Transportation,
West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Management Facility is open between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    EPA: Tad Wysor, Office of Transportation and Air Quality,
Assessment and Standards Division, Environmental Protection Agency,
2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor MI 48105; telephone number: 734-214-
4332; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
Assessment and Standards Division Hotline; telephone number (734) 214-
4636; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>NHTSA: Rebecca Yoon, Office of
Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Does this action apply to me?

    This action affects companies that manufacture or sell new light-
duty vehicles, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles,
as defined under EPA's CAA regulations,\1\ and passenger automobiles
(passenger cars) and non-passenger automobiles (light trucks) as
defined under NHTSA's CAFE regulations.\2\ Regulated categories and
entities include:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``Light-duty vehicle,'' ``light-duty truck,'' and ``medium-
duty passenger vehicle'' are defined in 40 CFR 86.1803-01.
Generally, the term ``light-duty vehicle'' means a passenger car,
the term ``light-duty truck'' means a pick-up truck, sport-utility
vehicle, or minivan of up to 8,500 lbs gross vehicle weight rating,
and ``medium-duty passenger vehicle'' means a sport-utility vehicle
or passenger van from 8,500 to 10,000 lbs gross vehicle weight
rating. Medium-duty passenger vehicles do not include pick-up
trucks.
    \2\ ``Passenger car'' and ``light truck'' are defined in 49 CFR
part 523.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Examples of potentially
         Category            NAICS codes \A\       regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.................  336111, 336112.....  Motor vehicle
                                                 manufacturers.
Industry.................  811112, 811198,      Commercial Importers of
                            541514.              Vehicles and Vehicle
                                                 Components.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\A\North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).

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

Table of Contents

I. Overview of Joint EPA/NHTSA National Program
    A. Introduction
    1. Building Blocks of the National Program
    2. Public Participation
    B. Summary of the Joint Final Rule and Differences From the
Proposal
    1. Joint Analytical Approach
    2. Level of the Standards
    3. Form of the Standards
    4. Program Flexibilities
    5. Coordinated Compliance
    C. Summary of Costs and Benefits of the National Program
    1. Summary of Costs and Benefits of NHTSA's CAFE Standards
    2. Summary of Costs and Benefits of EPA's GHG Standards
    D. Background and Comparison of NHTSA and EPA Statutory
Authority
II. Joint Technical Work Completed for This Final Rule

    A. Introduction
    B. Developing the Future Fleet for Assessing Costs, Benefits,
and Effects
    1. Why did the agencies establish a baseline and reference
vehicle fleet?
    2. How did the agencies develop the baseline vehicle fleet?
    3. How did the agencies develop the projected MY 2011-2016
vehicle fleet?
    4. How was the development of the baseline and reference fleets
for this Final Rule different from NHTSA's historical approach?
    5. How does manufacturer product plan data factor into the
baseline used in this Final Rule?
    C. Development of Attribute-Based Curve Shapes
    D. Relative Car-Truck Stringency
    E. Joint Vehicle Technology Assumptions
    1. What technologies did the agencies consider?
    2. How did the agencies determine the costs and effectiveness of
each of these technologies?
    F. Joint Economic Assumptions
    G. What are the estimated safety effects of the final MYs 2012-
2016 CAFE and GHG standards?
    1. What did the agencies say in the NPRM with regard to
potential safety effects?
    2. What public comments did the agencies receive on the safety
analysis and discussions in the NPRM?
    3. How has NHTSA refined its analysis for purposes of estimating
the potential safety effects of this Final Rule?
    4. What are the estimated safety effects of this Final Rule?
    5. How do the agencies plan to address this issue going forward?
III. EPA Greenhouse Gas Vehicle Standards
    A. Executive Overview of EPA Rule
    1. Introduction
    2. Why is EPA establishing this Rule?
    3. What is EPA adopting?
    4. Basis for the GHG Standards Under Section 202(a)
    B. GHG Standards for Light-Duty Vehicles, Light-Duty Trucks, and
Medium-Duty Passenger Vehicles
    1. What fleet-wide emissions levels correspond to the
CO2 standards?
    2. What are the CO2 attribute-based standards?
    3. Overview of How EPA's CO2 Standards Will Be
Implemented for Individual Manufacturers
    4. Averaging, Banking, and Trading Provisions for CO2
Standards
    5. CO2 Temporary Lead-Time Allowance Alternative
Standards
    6. Deferment of CO2 Standards for Small Volume
Manufacturers With Annual Sales Less Than 5,000 Vehicles
    7. Nitrous Oxide and Methane Standards
    8. Small Entity Exemption
    C. Additional Credit Opportunities for CO2 Fleet
Average Program
    1. Air Conditioning Related Credits
    2. Flexible Fuel and Alternative Fuel Vehicle Credits
    3. Advanced Technology Vehicle Incentives for Electric Vehicles,
Plug-in Hybrids, and Fuel Cell Vehicles
    4. Off-Cycle Technology Credits
    5. Early Credit Options
    D. Feasibility of the Final CO2 Standards
    1. How did EPA develop a reference vehicle fleet for evaluating
further CO2 reductions?
    2. What are the effectiveness and costs of CO2-
reducing technologies?
    3. How can technologies be combined into ``packages'' and what
is the cost and effectiveness of packages?
    4. Manufacturer's Application of Technology
    5. How is EPA projecting that a manufacturer decides between
options to improve CO2 performance to meet a fleet
average standard?
    6. Why are the final CO2 standards feasible?
    7. What other fleet-wide CO2 levels were considered?
    E. Certification, Compliance, and Enforcement
    1. Compliance Program Overview
    2. Compliance With Fleet-Average CO2 Standards
    3. Vehicle Certification
    4. Useful Life Compliance
    5. Credit Program Implementation
    6. Enforcement
    7. Prohibited Acts in the CAA
    8. Other Certification Issues
    9. Miscellaneous Revisions to Existing Regulations
    10. Warranty, Defect Reporting, and Other Emission-Related
Components Provisions
    11. Light Duty Vehicles and Fuel Economy Labeling
    F. How will this Final Rule reduce GHG emissions and their
associated effects?
    1. Impact on GHG Emissions
    2. Overview of Climate Change Impacts From GHG Emissions
    3. Changes in Global Climate Indicators Associated With the
Rule's GHG Emissions Reductions
    G. How will the standards impact non-GHG emissions and their
associated effects?
    1. Upstream Impacts of Program
    2. Downstream Impacts of Program
    3. Health Effects of Non-GHG Pollutants
    4. Environmental Effects of Non-GHG Pollutants
    5. Air Quality Impacts of Non-GHG Pollutants
    H. What are the estimated cost, economic, and other impacts of
the program?
    1. Conceptual Framework for Evaluating Consumer Impacts
    2. Costs Associated With the Vehicle Program
    3. Cost per Ton of Emissions Reduced
    4. Reduction in Fuel Consumption and Its Impacts
    5. Impacts on U.S. Vehicle Sales and Payback Period
    6. Benefits of Reducing GHG Emissions
    7. Non-Greenhouse Gas Health and Environmental Impacts
    8. Energy Security Impacts
    9. Other Impacts
    10. Summary of Costs and Benefits
    I. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    1. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    2. Paperwork Reduction Act
    3. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    4. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    5. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
    6. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal
    Governments)
    7. Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks''
    8. Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)
    9. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
    10. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
    J. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority
IV. NHTSA Final Rule and Record of Decision for Passenger Car and
Light Truck CAFE Standards for MYs 2012-2016
    A. Executive Overview of NHTSA Final Rule
    1. Introduction
    2. Role of Fuel Economy Improvements in Promoting Energy
Independence, Energy Security, and a Low Carbon Economy
    3. The National Program
    4. Review of CAFE Standard Setting Methodology per the
President's January 26, 2009 Memorandum on CAFE Standards for MYs
2011 and Beyond
    5. Summary of the Final MY 2012-2016 CAFE Standards
    B. Background
    1. Chronology of Events Since the National Academy of Sciences
Called for Reforming and Increasing CAFE Standards
    2. Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as Amended by the Energy
Independence and Security Act
    C. Development and Feasibility of the Final Standards
    1. How was the baseline and reference vehicle fleet developed?
    2. How were the technology inputs developed?
    3. How did NHTSA develop the economic assumptions?
    4. How does NHTSA use the assumptions in its modeling analysis?
    5. How did NHTSA develop the shape of the target curves for the
final standards?
    D. Statutory Requirements
    1. EPCA, as Amended by EISA
    2. Administrative Procedure Act
    3. National Environmental Policy Act
    E. What are the final CAFE standards?
    1. Form of the Standards
    2. Passenger Car Standards for MYs 2012-2016
    3. Minimum Domestic Passenger Car Standards
    4. Light Truck Standards
    F. How do the final standards fulfill NHTSA's statutory
obligations?
    G. Impacts of the Final CAFE Standards
    1. How will these standards improve fuel economy and reduce GHG
emissions for MY 2012-2016 vehicles?
    2. How will these standards improve fleet-wide fuel economy and
reduce GHG emissions beyond MY 2016?

    3. How will these final standards impact non-GHG emissions and
their associated effects?
    4. What are the estimated costs and benefits of these final
standards?
    5. How would these standards impact vehicle sales?
    6. Potential Unquantified Consumer Welfare Impacts of the Final
Standards
    7. What other impacts (quantitative and unquantifiable) will
these final standards have?
    H. Vehicle Classification
    I. Compliance and Enforcement
    1. Overview
    2. How does NHTSA determine compliance?
    3. What compliance flexibilities are available under the CAFE
program and how do manufacturers use them?
    4. Other CAFE Enforcement Issues--Variations in Footprint
    5. Other CAFE Enforcement Issues--Miscellaneous
    J. Other Near-Term Rulemakings Mandated by EISA
    1. Commercial Medium- and Heavy-Duty On-Highway Vehicles and
Work Trucks
    2. Consumer Information on Fuel Efficiency and Emissions
    K. NHTSA's Record of Decision
    L. Regulatory Notices and Analyses
    1. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures
    2. National Environmental Policy Act
    3. Clean Air Act (CAA)
    4. National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)
    5. Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice)
    6. Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act (FWCA)
    7. Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)
    8. Endangered Species Act (ESA)
    9. Floodplain Management (Executive Order 11988 & DOT Order
5650.2)
    10. Preservation of the Nation's Wetlands (Executive Order 11990
& DOT Order 5660.1a)
    11. Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act (BGEPA), Executive Order 13186
    12. Department of Transportation Act (Section 4(f))
    13. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    14. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
    15. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
    16. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    17. Regulation Identifier Number
    18. Executive Order 13045
    19. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    20. Executive Order 13211
    21. Department of Energy Review
    22. Privacy Act

I. Overview of Joint EPA/NHTSA National Program

A. Introduction

    The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are each announcing final rules
whose benefits will address the urgent and closely intertwined
challenges of energy independence and security and global warming.
These rules will implement a strong and coordinated Federal greenhouse
gas (GHG) 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. The rules will achieve
substantial reductions of GHG emissions and improvements in fuel
economy from the light-duty vehicle part of the transportation sector,
based on technology that is already being commercially applied in most
cases and that can be incorporated at a reasonable cost. NHTSA's final
rule also constitutes the agency's Record of Decision for purposes of
its NEPA analysis.
    This joint rulemaking is consistent with the President's
announcement on May 19, 2009 of a National Fuel Efficiency Policy of
establishing consistent, harmonized, and streamlined requirements that
would reduce GHG emissions and improve fuel economy for all new cars
and light-duty trucks sold in the United States.\3\ The National
Program will deliver additional environmental and energy benefits, cost
savings, and administrative efficiencies on a nationwide basis that
would likely not be available under a less coordinated approach. The
National Program also represents regulatory convergence by making it
possible for the standards of two different Federal agencies and the
standards of California and other states to act in a unified fashion in
providing these benefits. The National Program will allow automakers to
produce and sell a single fleet nationally, mitigating the additional
costs that manufacturers would otherwise face in having to comply with
multiple sets of Federal and State standards. This joint notice is also
consistent with the Notice of Upcoming Joint Rulemaking issued by DOT
and EPA on May 19, 2009 \4\ and responds to the President's January 26,
2009 memorandum on CAFE standards for model years 2011 and beyond,\5\
the details of which can be found in Section IV of this joint notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ President Obama Announces National Fuel Efficiency Policy,
The White House, May 19, 2009. Available at: http://
www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/President-Obama-Announces-
National-Fuel-Efficiency-Policy/. Remarks by the President on
National Fuel Efficiency Standards, The White House, May 19, 2009.
Available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-
by-the-President-on-national-fuel-efficiency-standards/.
    \4\ 74 FR 24007 (May 22, 2009).
    \5\ Available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/
Presidential_Memorandum_Fuel_Economy/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Climate change is widely viewed as a significant long-term threat
to the global environment. As summarized in the Technical Support
Document for EPA's Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings under
Section 202(a) of the Clear Air Act, anthropogenic emissions of GHGs
are very likely (90 to 99 percent probability) the cause of most of the
observed global warming over the last 50 years.\6\ The primary GHGs of
concern are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, nitrous oxide,
hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. Mobile
sources emitted 31 percent of all U.S. GHGs in 2007 (transportation
sources, which do not include certain off-highway sources, account for
28 percent) and have been the fastest-growing source of U.S. GHGs since
1990.\7\ Mobile sources addressed in the recent endangerment and
contribution findings under CAA section 202(a)--light-duty vehicles,
heavy-duty trucks, buses, and motorcycles--accounted for 23 percent of
all U.S. GHG in 2007.\8\ Light-duty vehicles emit CO2,
methane, nitrous oxide, and hydrofluorocarbons and are responsible for
nearly 60 percent of all mobile source GHGs and over 70 percent of
Section 202(a) mobile source GHGs. For light-duty vehicles in 2007,
CO2 emissions represent about 94 percent of all greenhouse
emissions (including HFCs), and the CO2 emissions measured
over the EPA tests used for fuel economy compliance represent about 90
percent of total light-duty vehicle GHG emissions.9 10
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ ``Technical Support Document for Endangerment and Cause or
Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the
Clean Air Act'' Docket: EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0472-11292, http://epa.gov/
climatechange/endangerment.html.
    \7\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2009. Inventory of
U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2007. EPA 430-R-09-
004. Available at http://epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/
downloads09/GHG2007entire_report-508.pdf.
    \8\ U.S. EPA. 2009 Technical Support Document for Endangerment
and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section
202(a) of the Clean Air Act. Washington, DC. pp. 180-194. Available
at http://epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/downloads/
Endangerment%20TSD.pdf.
    \9\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2009. Inventory of
U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2007. EPA 430-R-09-
004. Available at http://epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/
downloads09/GHG2007entire_report-508.pdf.
    \10\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. RIA, Chapter 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Improving energy security by reducing our dependence on foreign oil
has been a national objective since the first oil price shocks in the
1970s. Net petroleum imports now account for approximately 60 percent
of U.S.

petroleum consumption. World crude oil production is highly
concentrated, exacerbating the risks of supply disruptions and price
shocks. Tight global oil markets led to prices over $100 per barrel in
2008, with gasoline reaching as high as $4 per gallon in many parts of
the U.S., causing financial hardship for many families. The export of
U.S. assets for oil imports continues to be an important component of
the historically unprecedented U.S. trade deficits. Transportation
accounts for about two-thirds of U.S. petroleum consumption. Light-duty
vehicles account for about 60 percent of transportation oil use, which
means that they alone account for about 40 percent of all U.S. oil
consumption.
1. Building Blocks of the National Program
    The National Program is both needed and possible because the
relationship between improving fuel economy and reducing CO2
tailpipe emissions is a very direct and close one. The amount of those
CO2 emissions is essentially constant per gallon combusted
of a given type of fuel. Thus, the more fuel efficient a vehicle is,
the less fuel it burns to travel a given distance. The less fuel it
burns, the less CO2 it emits in traveling that distance.\11\
While there are emission control technologies that reduce the
pollutants (e.g., carbon monoxide) produced by imperfect combustion of
fuel by capturing or converting them to other compounds, there is no
such technology for CO2. Further, while some of those
pollutants can also be reduced by achieving a more complete combustion
of fuel, doing so only increases the tailpipe emissions of
CO2. Thus, there is a single pool of technologies for
addressing these twin problems, i.e., those that reduce fuel
consumption and thereby reduce CO2 emissions as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Panel on Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming,
National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering,
Institute of Medicine, ``Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming:
Mitigation, Adaptation, and the Science Base,'' National Academies
Press, 1992. p. 287.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. DOT's CAFE Program
    In 1975, Congress enacted the Energy Policy and Conservation Act
(EPCA), mandating that NHTSA establish and implement a regulatory
program for motor vehicle fuel economy to meet the various facets of
the need to conserve energy, including ones having energy independence
and security, environmental and foreign policy implications. Fuel
economy gains since 1975, due both to the standards and market factors,
have resulted in saving billions of barrels of oil and avoiding
billions of metric tons of CO2 emissions. In December 2007,
Congress enacted the Energy Independence and Securities Act (EISA),
amending EPCA to require substantial, continuing increases in fuel
economy standards.
    The CAFE standards address most, but not all, of the real world
CO2 emissions because a provision in EPCA as originally
enacted in 1975 requires the use of the 1975 passenger car test
procedures under which vehicle air conditioners are not turned on
during fuel economy testing.\12\ Fuel economy is determined by
measuring the amount of CO2 and other carbon compounds
emitted from the tailpipe, not by attempting to measure directly the
amount of fuel consumed during a vehicle test, a difficult task to
accomplish with precision. The carbon content of the test fuel \13\ is
then used to calculate the amount of fuel that had to be consumed per
mile in order to produce that amount of CO2. Finally, that
fuel consumption figure is converted into a miles-per-gallon figure.
CAFE standards also do not address the 5-8 percent of GHG emissions
that are not CO2, i.e., nitrous oxide (N2O), and
methane (CH4) as well as emissions of CO2 and
hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) related to operation of the air conditioning
system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Although EPCA does not require the use of 1975 test
procedures for light trucks, those procedures are used for light
truck CAFE standard testing purposes.
    \13\ This is the method that EPA uses to determine compliance
with NHTSA's CAFE standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. EPA's GHG Standards for Light-duty Vehicles
    Under the Clean Air Act EPA is responsible for addressing air
pollutants from motor vehicles. On April 2, 2007, the U.S. Supreme
Court issued its opinion in Massachusetts v. EPA,\14\ a case involving
EPA's a 2003 denial of a petition for rulemaking to regulate GHG
emissions from motor vehicles under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act
(CAA).\15\ The Court held that GHGs fit within the definition of air
pollutant in the Clean Air Act and further held that the Administrator
must determine whether or not emissions from new motor vehicles cause
or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to
endanger public health or welfare, or whether the science is too
uncertain to make a reasoned decision. The Court further ruled that, in
making these decisions, the EPA Administrator is required to follow the
language of section 202(a) of the CAA. The Court rejected the argument
that EPA cannot regulate CO2 from motor vehicles because to
do so would de facto tighten fuel economy standards, authority over
which has been assigned by Congress to DOT. The Court stated that
``[b]ut that DOT sets mileage standards in no way licenses EPA to shirk
its environmental responsibilities. EPA has been charged with
protecting the public's `health' and `welfare', a statutory obligation
wholly independent of DOT's mandate to promote energy efficiency.'' The
Court concluded that ``[t]he two obligations may overlap, but there is
no reason to think the two agencies cannot both administer their
obligations and yet avoid inconsistency.'' \16\ The case was remanded
back to the Agency for reconsideration in light of the Court's
decision.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 549 U.S. 497 (2007).
    \15\ 68 FR 52922 (Sept. 8, 2003).
    \16\ 549 U.S. at 531-32.
    \17\ For further information on Massachusetts v. EPA see the
July 30, 2008 Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, ``Regulating
Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Clean Air Act'', 73 FR 44354 at
44397. There is a comprehensive discussion of the litigation's
history, the Supreme Court's findings, and subsequent actions
undertaken by the Bush Administration and the EPA from 2007-2008 in
response to the Supreme Court remand. Also see 74 FR 18886, at 1888-
90 (April 24, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 15, 2009, EPA published two findings (74 FR 66496):
That emissions of GHGs from new motor vehicles and motor vehicle
engines contribute to air pollution, and that the air pollution may
reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health and welfare.
c. California Air Resources Board Greenhouse Gas Program
    In 2004, the California Air Resources Board approved standards for
new light-duty vehicles, which regulate the emission of not only
CO2, but also other GHGs. Since then, thirteen states and
the District of Columbia, comprising approximately 40 percent of the
light-duty vehicle market, have adopted California's standards. These
standards apply to model years 2009 through 2016 and require
CO2 emissions for passenger cars and the smallest light
trucks of 323 g/mi in 2009 and 205 g/mi in 2016, and for the remaining
light trucks of 439 g/mi in 2009 and 332 g/mi in 2016. On June 30,
2009, EPA granted California's request for a waiver of preemption under
the CAA.\18\ The granting of the waiver permits California and the
other states to proceed with implementing the California emission
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 74 FR 32744 (July 8, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, to promote the National Program, in May 2009,
California announced its commitment to take several actions in support
of the National Program, including revising its

program for MYs 2009-2011 to facilitate compliance by the automakers,
and revising its program for MYs 2012-2016 such that compliance with
the Federal GHG standards will be deemed to be compliance with
California's GHG standards. This will allow the single national fleet
produced by automakers to meet the two Federal requirements and to meet
California requirements as well. California is proceeding with a
rulemaking intended to revise its 2004 regulations to meet its
commitments. Several automakers and their trade associations also
announced their commitment to take several actions in support of the
National Program, including not contesting the final GHG and CAFE
standards for MYs 2012-2016, not contesting any grant of a waiver of
preemption under the CAA for California's GHG standards for certain
model years, and to stay and then dismiss all pending litigation
challenging California's regulation of GHG emissions, including
litigation concerning preemption under EPCA of California's and other
states' GHG standards.
2. Public Participation
    The agencies proposed their respective rules on September 28, 2009
(74 FR 49454), and received a large number of comments representing
many perspectives on the proposed rule. The agencies received oral
testimony at three public hearings in different parts of the country,
and received written comments from more than 130 organizations,
including auto manufacturers and suppliers, States, environmental and
other non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and over 129,000 comments
from private citizens.
    The vast majority of commenters supported the central tenets of the
proposed CAFE and GHG programs. That is, there was broad support from
most organizations for a National Program that achieves a level of 250
gram/mile fleet average CO2, which would be 35.5 miles per
gallon if the automakers were to meet this CO2 level solely
through fuel economy improvements. The standards will be phased in over
model years 2012 through 2016 which will allow manufacturers to build a
common fleet of vehicles for the domestic market. In general,
commenters from the automobile industry supported the proposed
standards as well as the credit opportunities and other compliance
provisions providing flexibility, while also making some
recommendations for changes. Environmental and public interest non-
governmental organizations (NGOs), as well as most States that
commented, were also generally supportive of the National Program
standards. Many of these organizations also expressed concern about the
possible impact on program benefits, depending on how the credit
provisions and flexibilities are designed. The agencies also received
specific comments on many aspects of the proposal.
    Throughout this notice, the agencies discuss many of the key issues
arising from the public comments and the agencies' responses. In
addition, the agencies have addressed all of the public comments in the
Response to Comments document associated with this final rule.

B. Summary of the Joint Final Rule and Differences From the Proposal

    In this joint rulemaking, EPA is establishing GHG emissions
standards under the Clean Air Act (CAA), and NHTSA is establishing
Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards under the Energy Policy
and Conservation Action of 1975 (EPCA), as amended by the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA). The intention of this
joint rulemaking is to set forth a carefully coordinated and harmonized
approach to implementing these two statutes, in accordance with all
substantive and procedural requirements imposed by law.
    NHTSA and EPA have coordinated closely and worked jointly in
developing their respective final rules. This is reflected in many
aspects of this joint rule. For example, the agencies have developed a
comprehensive Joint Technical Support Document (TSD) that provides a
solid technical underpinning for each agency's modeling and analysis
used to support their standards. Also, to the extent allowed by law,
the agencies have harmonized many elements of program design, such as
the form of the standard (the footprint-based attribute curves), and
the definitions used for cars and trucks. They have developed the same
or similar compliance flexibilities, to the extent allowed and
appropriate under their respective statutes, such as averaging,
banking, and trading of credits, and have harmonized the compliance
testing and test protocols used for purposes of the fleet average
standards each agency is finalizing. Finally, under their respective
statutes, each agency is called upon to exercise its judgment and
determine standards that are an appropriate balance of various relevant
statutory factors. Given the common technical issues before each
agency, the similarity of the factors each agency is to consider and
balance, and the authority of each agency to take into consideration
the standards of the other agency, both EPA and NHTSA are establishing
standards that result in a harmonized National Program.
    This joint final rule covers passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and
medium-duty passenger vehicles built in model years 2012 through 2016.
These vehicle categories are responsible for almost 60 percent of all
U.S. transportation-related GHG emissions. EPA and NHTSA expect that
automobile manufacturers will meet these standards by utilizing
technologies that will reduce vehicle GHG emissions and improve fuel
economy. Although many of these technologies are available today, the
emissions reductions and fuel economy improvements finalized in this
notice will involve more widespread use of these technologies across
the light-duty vehicle fleet. These include improvements to engines,
transmissions, and tires, increased use of start-stop technology,
improvements in air conditioning systems, increased use of hybrid and
other advanced technologies, and the initial commercialization of
electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids. NHTSA's and EPA's assessments of
likely vehicle technologies that manufacturers will employ to meet the
standards are discussed in detail below and in the Joint TSD.
    The National Program is estimated to result in approximately 960
million metric tons of total carbon dioxide equivalent emissions
reductions and approximately 1.8 billion barrels of oil savings over
the lifetime of vehicles sold in model years (MYs) 2012 through 2016.
In total, the combined EPA and NHTSA 2012-2016 standards will reduce
GHG emissions from the U.S. light-duty fleet by approximately 21
percent by 2030 over the level that would occur in the absence of the
National Program. These actions also will provide important energy
security benefits, as light-duty vehicles are about 95 percent
dependent on oil-based fuels. The agencies project that the total
benefits of the National Program will be more than $240 billion at a 3%
discount rate, or more than $190 billion at a 7% discount rate. In the
discussion that follows in Sections III and IV, each agency explains
the related benefits for their individual standards.
    Together, EPA and NHTSA estimate that the average cost increase for
a model year 2016 vehicle due to the National Program will be less than
$1,000. The average U.S. consumer who purchases a vehicle outright is
estimated to save enough in lower fuel costs over the first three years
to offset

these higher vehicle costs. However, most U.S. consumers purchase a new
vehicle using credit rather than paying cash and the typical car loan
today is a five year, 60 month loan. These consumers will see immediate
savings due to their vehicle's lower fuel consumption in the form of a
net reduction in annual costs of $130-$180 throughout the duration of
the loan (that is, the fuel savings will outweigh the increase in loan
payments by $130-$180 per year). Whether a consumer takes out a loan or
purchases a new vehicle outright, over the lifetime of a model year
2016 vehicle, the consumer's net savings could be more than $3,000. The
average 2016 MY vehicle will emit 16 fewer metric tons of
CO2-equivalent emissions (that is, CO2 emissions
plus HFC air conditioning leakage emissions) during its lifetime.
Assumptions that underlie these conclusions are discussed in greater
detail in the agencies' respective regulatory impact analyses and in
Section III.H.5 and Section IV.
    This joint rule also results in important regulatory convergence
and certainty to automobile companies. Absent this rule, there would be
three separate Federal and State regimes independently regulating
light-duty vehicles to reduce fuel consumption and GHG emissions:
NHTSA's CAFE standards, EPA's GHG standards, and the GHG standards
applicable in California and other States adopting the California
standards. This joint rule will allow automakers to meet both the NHTSA
and EPA requirements with a single national fleet, greatly simplifying
the industry's technology, investment and compliance strategies. In
addition, to promote the National Program, California announced its
commitment to take several actions, including revising its program for
MYs 2012-2016 such that compliance with the Federal GHG standards will
be deemed to be compliance with California's GHG standards. This will
allow the single national fleet used by automakers to meet the two
Federal requirements and to meet California requirements as well.
California is proceeding with a rulemaking intended to revise its 2004
regulations to meet its commitments. EPA and NHTSA are confident that
these GHG and CAFE standards will successfully harmonize both the
Federal and State programs for MYs 2012-2016 and will allow our country
to achieve the increased benefits of a single, nationwide program to
reduce light-duty vehicle GHG emissions and reduce the country's
dependence on fossil fuels by improving these vehicles' fuel economy.
    A successful and sustainable automotive industry depends upon,
among other things, continuous technology innovation in general, and
low GHG emissions and high fuel economy vehicles in particular. In this
respect, this action will help spark the investment in technology
innovation necessary for automakers to successfully compete in both
domestic and export markets, and thereby continue to support a strong
economy.
    While this action covers MYs 2012-2016, many stakeholders
encouraged EPA and NHTSA to also begin working toward standards for MY
2017 and beyond that would maintain a single nationwide program. The
agencies recognize the importance of and are committed to a strong,
coordinated national program for light-duty vehicles for model years
beyond 2016.
    Key elements of the National Program finalized today are the level
and form of the GHG and CAFE standards, the available compliance
mechanisms, and general implementation elements. These elements are
summarized in the following section, with more detailed discussions
about EPA's GHG program following in Section III, and about NHTSA's
CAFE program in Section IV. This joint final rule responds to the wide
array of comments that the agencies received on the proposed rule. This
section summarizes many of the major comments on the primary elements
of the proposal and describes whether and how the final rule has
changed, based on the comments and additional analyses. Major comments
and the agencies' responses to them are also discussed in more detail
in later sections of this preamble. For a full summary of public
comments and EPA's and NHTSA's responses to them, please see the
Response to Comments document associated with this final rule.
1. Joint Analytical Approach
    NHTSA and EPA have worked closely together on nearly every aspect
of this joint final rule. The extent and results of this collaboration
are reflected in the elements of the respective NHTSA and EPA rules, as
well as the analytical work contained in the Joint Technical Support
Document (Joint TSD). The Joint TSD, in particular, describes important
details of the analytical work that are shared, as well as any
differences in approach. These include the build up of the baseline and
reference fleets, the derivation of the shape of the curves that define
the standards, a detailed description of the costs and effectiveness of
the technology choices that are available to vehicle manufacturers, a
summary of the computer models used to estimate how technologies might
be added to vehicles, and finally the economic inputs used to calculate
the impacts and benefits of the rules, where practicable.
    EPA and NHTSA have jointly developed attribute curve shapes that
each agency is using for its final standards. Further details of these
functions can be found in Sections III and IV of this preamble as well
as Chapter 2 of the Joint TSD. A critical technical underpinning of
each agency's analysis is the cost and effectiveness of the various
control technologies. These are used to analyze the feasibility and
cost of potential GHG and CAFE standards. A detailed description of all
of the technology information considered can be found in Chapter 3 of
the Joint TSD (and for A/C, Chapter 2 of the EPA RIA). This detailed
technology data forms the inputs to computer models that each agency
uses to project how vehicle manufacturers may add those technologies in
order to comply with the new standards. These are the OMEGA and Volpe
models for EPA and NHTSA, respectively. The models and their inputs can
also be found in the docket. Further description of the model and
outputs can be found in Sections III and IV of this preamble, and
Chapter 3 of the Joint TSD. This comprehensive joint analytical
approach has provided a sound and consistent technical basis for each
agency in developing its final standards, which are summarized in the
sections below.
    The vast majority of public comments expressed strong support for
the joint analytical work performed for the proposal. Commenters
generally agreed with the analytical work and its results, and
supported the transparency of the analysis and its underlying data.
Where commenters raised specific points, the agencies have considered
them and made changes where appropriate. The agencies' further
evaluation of various technical issues also led to a limited number of
changes. A detailed discussion of these issues can be found in Section
II of this preamble, and the Joint TSD.
2. Level of the Standards
    In this notice, EPA and NHTSA are establishing two separate sets of
standards, each under its respective statutory authorities. EPA is
setting national CO2 emissions standards for light-duty
vehicles under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. These standards
will require these vehicles to meet an

estimated combined average emissions level of 250 grams/mile of
CO2 in model year 2016. NHTSA is setting CAFE standards for
passenger cars and light trucks under 49 U.S.C. 32902. These standards
will require manufacturers of those vehicles to meet an estimated
combined average fuel economy level of 34.1 mpg in model year 2016. The
standards for both agencies begin with the 2012 model year, with
standards increasing in stringency through model year 2016. They
represent a harmonized approach that will allow industry to build a
single national fleet that will satisfy both the GHG requirements under
the CAA and CAFE requirements under EPCA/EISA.
    Given differences in their respective statutory authorities,
however, the agencies' standards include some important differences.
Under the CO2 fleet average standards adopted under CAA
section 202(a), EPA expects manufacturers to take advantage of the
option to generate CO2-equivalent credits by reducing
emissions of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and CO2 through
improvements in their air conditioner systems. EPA accounted for these
reductions in developing its final CO2 standards. NHTSA did
not do so because EPCA does not allow vehicle manufacturers to use air
conditioning credits in complying with CAFE standards for passenger
cars.\19\ 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, improvement in the efficiency of passenger car air conditioners
is not considered as a possible control technology for purposes of
CAFE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ There is no such statutory limitation with respect to light
trucks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These differences regarding the treatment of air conditioning
improvements (related to CO2 and HFC reductions) affect the
relative stringency of the EPA standard and NHTSA standard for MY 2016.
The 250 grams per mile of CO2 equivalent emissions limit is
equivalent to 35.5 mpg \20\ if the automotive industry were to meet
this CO2 level all through fuel economy improvements. As a
consequence of the prohibition against NHTSA's allowing credits for air
conditioning improvements for purposes of passenger car CAFE
compliance, NHTSA is setting fuel economy standards that are estimated
to require a combined (passenger car and light truck) average fuel
economy level of 34.1 mpg by MY 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ The agencies are using a common conversion factor between
fuel economy in units of miles per gallon and CO2
emissions in units of grams per mile. This conversion factor is
8,887 grams CO2 per gallon gasoline fuel. Diesel fuel has
a conversion factor of 10,180 grams CO2 per gallon diesel
fuel though for the purposes of this calculation, we are assuming
100% gasoline fuel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The vast majority of public comments expressed strong support for
the National Program standards, including the stringency of the
agencies' respective standards and the phase-in from model year 2012
through 2016. There were a number of comments supporting standards more
stringent than proposed, and a few others supporting less stringent
standards, in particular for the 2012-2015 model years. The agencies'
consideration of comments and their updated technical analyses led to
only very limited changes in the footprint curves and did not change
the agencies' projections that the nationwide fleet will achieve a
level of 250 grams/mile by 2016 (equivalent to 35.5 mpg). The responses
to these comments are discussed in more detail in Sections III and IV,
respectively, and in the Response to Comments document.
    As proposed, NHTSA and EPA's final standards, like the standards
NHTSA promulgated in March 2009 for MY 2011, are expressed as
mathematical functions depending on vehicle footprint. Footprint is one
measure of vehicle size, and is determined by multiplying the vehicle's
wheelbase by the vehicle's average track width.\21\ The standards that
must be met by each manufacturer's fleet will be determined by
computing the sales-weighted average (harmonic average for CAFE) of the
targets applicable to each of the manufacturer's passenger cars and
light trucks. Under these footprint-based standards, the levels
required of individual manufacturers will depend, as noted above, on
the mix of vehicles sold. NHTSA's and EPA's respective standards are
shown in the tables below. It is important to note that the standards
are the attribute-based curves established by each agency. The values
in the tables below reflect the agencies' projection of the
corresponding fleet levels that will result from these attribute-based
curves.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See 49 CFR 523.2 for the exact definition of ``footprint.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a result of public comments and updated economic and future
fleet projections, EPA and NHTSA have updated the attribute based
curves for this final rule, as discussed in detail in Section II.B of
this preamble and Chapter 2 of the Joint TSD. This update in turn
affects costs, benefits, and other impacts of the final standards.
Thus, the agencies have updated their overall projections of the
impacts of the final rule standards, and these results are only
slightly different from those presented in the proposed rule.
    As shown in Table I.B.2-1, NHTSA's fleet-wide CAFE-required levels
for passenger cars under the final standards are projected to increase
from 33.3 to 37.8 mpg between MY 2012 and MY 2016. Similarly, fleet-
wide CAFE levels for light trucks are projected to increase from 25.4
to 28.8 mpg. NHTSA has also estimated the average fleet-wide required
levels for the combined car and truck fleets. As shown, the overall
fleet average CAFE level is expected to be 34.1 mpg in MY 2016. These
numbers do not include the effects of other flexibilities and credits
in the program. These standards represent a 4.3 percent average annual
rate of increase relative to the MY 2011 standards.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Because required CAFE levels depend on the mix of vehicles
sold by manufacturers in a model year, NHTSA's estimate of future
required CAFE levels depends on its estimate of the mix of vehicles
that will be sold in that model year. NHTSA currently estimates that
the MY 2011 standards will require average fuel economy levels of
30.4 mpg for passenger cars, 24.4 mpg for light trucks, and 27.6 mpg
for the combined fleet.

                                      Table I.B.2-1--Average Required Fuel Economy (mpg) Under Final CAFE Standards
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             2011-base         2012            2013            2014            2015            2016
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Passenger Cars..........................................            30.4            33.3            34.2            34.9            36.2            37.8
Light Trucks............................................            24.4            25.4            26.0            26.6            27.5            28.8
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Combined Cars & Trucks..............................            27.6            29.7            30.5            31.3            32.6            34.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accounting for the expectation that some manufacturers could
continue to pay civil penalties rather than achieving required CAFE
levels, and the ability to use FFV credits,\23\ NHTSA estimates that
the CAFE standards will lead to the following average achieved fuel
economy levels, based on the projections of what each manufacturer's
fleet will comprise in each year of the program: \24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ The penalties are similar in function to essentially
unlimited, fixed-price allowances.
    \24\ NHTSA's estimates account for availability of CAFE credits
for the sale of flexible-fuel vehicles (FFVs), and for the potential
that some manufacturers will pay civil penalties rather than comply
with the CAFE standards. This yields NHTSA's estimates of the real-
world fuel economy that will likely be achieved under the final CAFE
standards. NHTSA has not included any potential impact of car-truck
credit transfer in its estimate of the achieved CAFE levels.

  Table I.B.2-2--Projected Fleet-Wide Achieved CAFE Levels Under the Final Footprint-Based CAFE Standards (mpg)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       2012            2013            2014            2015            2016
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Passenger Cars..................            32.3            33.5            34.2            35.0            36.2
Light Trucks....................            24.5            25.1            25.9            26.7            27.5
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Combined Cars & Trucks......            28.7            29.7            30.6            31.5            32.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA is also required by EISA to set a minimum fuel economy
standard for domestically manufactured passenger cars in addition to
the attribute-based passenger car standard. The minimum standard
``shall be the greater of (A) 27.5 miles per gallon; or (B) 92 percent
of the average fuel economy projected by the Secretary for the combined
domestic and non-domestic passenger automobile fleets manufactured for
sale in the United States by all manufacturers in the model year.* * *
'' \25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 49 U.S.C. 32902(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on NHTSA's current market forecast, the agency's estimates of
these minimum standards under the MY 2012-2016 CAFE standards (and, for
comparison, the final MY 2011 standard) are summarized below in Table
I.B.2-3.\26\ For eventual compliance calculations, the final calculated
minimum standards will be updated to reflect the average fuel economy
level required under the final standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ In the March 2009 final rule establishing MY 2011 standards
for passenger cars and light trucks, NHTSA estimated that the
minimum required CAFE standard for domestically manufactured
passenger cars would be 27.8 mpg under the MY 2011 passenger car
standard.

Table I.B.2-3--Estimated Minimum Standard for Domestically Manufactured Passenger Cars Under MY 2011 and MY 2012-
                                  2016 CAFE Standards for Passenger Cars (mpg)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       2011               2012               2013               2014               2015               2016
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           27.8               30.7               31.4               32.1               33.3               34.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is establishing GHG emissions standards, and Table I.B.2-4
provides EPA's estimates of their projected overall fleet-wide
CO2 equivalent emission levels.\27\ The g/mi values are
CO2 equivalent values because they include the projected use
of air conditioning (A/C) credits by manufacturers, which include both
HFC and CO2 reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ These levels do not include the effect of flexible fuel
credits, transfer of credits between cars and trucks, temporary lead
time allowance, or any other credits with the exception of air
conditioning.

 Table I.B.2-4--Projected Fleet-Wide Emissions Compliance Levels Under the Footprint-Based CO2 Standards (g/mi)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       2012            2013            2014            2015            2016
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Passenger Cars..................             263             256             247             236             225
Light Trucks....................             346             337             326             312             298
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Combined Cars & Trucks......             295             286             276             263             250
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As shown in Table I.B.2-4, fleet-wide CO2 emission level
requirements for cars are projected to increase in stringency from 263
to 225 g/mi between MY 2012 and MY 2016. Similarly, fleet-wide
CO2 equivalent emission level requirements for trucks are
projected to increase in stringency from 346 to 298 g/mi. As shown, the
overall fleet average CO2 level requirements are projected
to increase in stringency from 295 g/mi in MY 2012 to 250 g/mi in MY
2016.
    EPA anticipates that manufacturers will take advantage of program
flexibilities such as flexible fueled vehicle credits and car/truck
credit trading. Due to the credit trading between cars and trucks, the
estimated improvements in CO2 emissions are distributed
differently than shown in Table I.B.2-4, where full manufacturer
compliance without credit trading is assumed. Table I.B.2-5 shows EPA's
projection of the achieved emission levels of the fleet for MY 2012
through 2016, which does consider the impact of car/truck credit
transfer and the increase in emissions due to certain program
flexibilities including flex fueled vehicle credits and the temporary
lead time allowance alternative standards. The use of optional air
conditioning credits is considered both in this analysis of achieved
levels and of the

compliance levels described above. As can be seen in Table I.B.2-5, the
projected achieved levels are slightly higher for model years 2012-2015
due to EPA's assumptions about manufacturers' use of the regulatory
flexibilities, but by model year 2016 the achieved level is projected
to be 250 g/mi for the fleet.

   Table I.B.2-5--Projected Fleet-Wide Achieved Emission Levels Under the Footprint-Based CO2 Standards (g/mi)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       2012            2013            2014            2015            2016
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Passenger Cars..................             267             256             245             234             223
Light Trucks....................             365             353             340             324             303
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Combined Cars & Trucks......             305             293             280             266             250
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several auto manufacturers stated that the increasingly stringent
requirements for fuel economy and GHG emissions in the early years of
the program should follow a more linear phase-in. The agencies'
consideration of comments and of their updated technical analyses did
not lead to changes to the phase-in of the standards discussed above.
This issue is discussed in more detail in Sections II.D, and in
Sections III and IV.
    NHTSA's and EPA's technology assessment indicates there is a wide
range of technologies available for manufacturers to consider in
upgrading vehicles to reduce GHG emissions and improve fuel economy.
Commenters were in general agreement with this assessment.\28\ As
noted, these include improvements to the engines such as use of
gasoline direct injection and downsized engines that use turbochargers
to provide performance similar to that of larger engines, the use of
advanced transmissions, increased use of start-stop technology,
improvements in tire rolling resistance, reductions in vehicle weight,
increased use of hybrid and other advanced technologies, and the
initial commercialization of electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids. EPA
is also projecting improvements in vehicle air conditioners including
more efficient as well as low leak systems. All of these technologies
are already available today, and EPA's and NHTSA's assessments are that
manufacturers will be able to meet the standards through more
widespread use of these technologies across the fleet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the practicability of the standards in terms of
lead time, during MYs 2012-2016 manufacturers are expected to go
through the normal automotive business cycle of redesigning and
upgrading their light-duty vehicle products, and in some cases
introducing entirely new vehicles not on the market today. This rule
allows 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 rule, as it avoids
the much higher costs that would occur if manufacturers needed to add
or change technology at times other than their scheduled redesigns.
This time period also provides manufacturers the opportunity to plan
for compliance using a multi-year time frame, again consistent with
normal business practice. Over these five model years, there will 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. Various commenters stated that the proposed phase-in of the
standards should be introduced more aggressively, less aggressively, or
in a more linear manner. However, our consideration of these comments
about the phase-in, as well as our revised analyses, leads us to
conclude that the general rate of introduction of the standards as
proposed remains appropriate. This conclusion is also not affected by
the slight difference from the proposal in the final footprint-based
curves. These issues are addressed further in Sections III and IV.
    Both agencies considered other standards as part of the rulemaking
analyses, both more and less stringent than those proposed. EPA's and
NHTSA's analyses of alternative standards are contained in Sections III
and IV of this preamble, respectively, as well as the agencies'
respective RIAs.
    The CAFE and GHG standards described above are based on determining
emissions and fuel economy using the city and highway test procedures
that are currently used in the CAFE program. Some environmental and
other organizations commented that the test procedures should be
improved to reflect more real-world driving conditions; auto
manufacturers in general do not support such changes to the test
procedures at this time. Both agencies recognize that these test
procedures are not fully representative of real-world driving
conditions. For example, EPA has adopted more representative test
procedures that are used in determining compliance with emissions
standards for pollutants other than GHGs. These test procedures are
also used in EPA's fuel economy labeling program. However, as discussed
in Section III, the current information on effectiveness of the
individual emissions control technologies is based on performance over
the CAFE test procedures. For that reason, EPA is using the current
CAFE test procedures for the CO2 standards and is not
changing those test procedures in this rulemaking. NHTSA, as discussed
above, is limited by statute in what test procedures can be used for
purposes of passenger car testing, although there is no such statutory
limitation with respect to test procedures for trucks. However, the
same reasons for not changing the truck test procedures apply for CAFE
as well.
    Both EPA and NHTSA are interested in developing programs that
employ test procedures that are more representative of real-world
driving conditions, to the extent authorized under their respective
statutes. This is an important issue, and the agencies intend to
continue to evaluate it in the context of a future rulemaking to
address standards for model year 2017 and thereafter. This could
include consideration of a range of test procedure changes to better
represent real-world driving conditions in terms of speed,
acceleration, deceleration, ambient temperatures, use of air
conditioners, and the like. With respect to air conditioner operation,
EPA discusses the public comments on these issues and the final
procedures for determining emissions credits for controls on air
conditioners in Section III.

    Finally, based on the information EPA developed in its recent
rulemaking that updated its fuel economy labeling program to better
reflect average real-world fuel economy, the calculation of fuel
savings and CO2 emissions reductions that will be achieved
by the CAFE and GHG standards includes adjustments to account for the
difference between the fuel economy level measured in the CAFE test
procedure and the fuel economy actually achieved on average under real-
world driving conditions. These adjustments are industry averages for
the vehicles' performance as a whole, however, and are not a substitute
for the information on effectiveness of individual control technologies
that will be explored for purposes of a future GHG and CAFE rulemaking.
3. Form of the Standards
    NHTSA and EPA proposed attribute-based standards for passenger cars
and light trucks. NHTSA adopted an attribute approach based on vehicle
footprint in its Reformed CAFE program for light trucks for model years
2008-2011,\29\ and recently extended this approach to passenger cars in
the CAFE rule for MY 2011 as required by EISA.\30\ The agencies also
proposed using vehicle footprint as the attribute for the GHG and CAFE
standards. Footprint is defined as a vehicle's wheelbase multiplied by
its track width--in other words, the area enclosed by the points at
which the wheels meet the ground. Most commenters that expressed a view
on this topic supported basing the standards on an attribute, and
almost all of these supported the proposed choice of vehicle footprint
as an appropriate attribute. The agencies continue to believe that the
standards are best expressed in terms of an attribute, and that the
footprint attribute is the most appropriate attribute on which to base
the standards. These issues are further discussed later in this notice
and in Chapter 2 of the Joint TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 71 FR 17566 (Apr. 6, 2006).
    \30\ 74 FR 14196 (Mar. 30, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the footprint-based standards, each manufacturer will have a
GHG and CAFE target unique to its fleet, depending on the footprints of
the vehicle models produced by that manufacturer. A manufacturer will
have separate footprint-based standards for cars and for trucks.
Generally, larger vehicles (i.e., vehicles with larger footprints) will
be subject to less stringent standards (i.e., higher CO2
grams/mile standards and lower CAFE standards) than smaller vehicles.
This is because, generally speaking, smaller vehicles are more capable
of achieving lower levels of CO2 and higher levels of fuel
economy than larger vehicles. While a manufacturer's fleet average
standard could be estimated throughout the model year based on
projected production volume of its vehicle fleet, the standard to which
the manufacturer must comply will be based on its final model year
production figures. A manufacturer's calculation of fleet average
emissions at the end of the model year will thus be based on the
production-weighted average emissions of each model in its fleet.
    The final footprint-based standards are very similar in shape to
those proposed. NHTSA and EPA include more discussion of the
development of the final curves in Section II below, with a full
discussion in the Joint TSD. In addition, a full discussion of the
equations and coefficients that define the curves is included in
Section III for the CO2 curves and Section IV for the mpg
curves. The following figures illustrate the standards. First, Figure
I.B.3-1 shows the fuel economy (mpg) car standard curve.
    Under an attribute-based standard, every vehicle model has a
performance target (fuel economy for the CAFE standards, and
CO2 g/mile for the GHG emissions standards), the level of
which depends on the vehicle's attribute (for this rule, footprint).
The manufacturers' fleet average performance is determined by the
production-weighted \31\ average (for CAFE, harmonic average) of those
targets. NHTSA and EPA are setting CAFE and CO2 emissions
standards defined by constrained linear functions and, equivalently,
piecewise linear functions.\32\ As a possible option for future
rulemakings, the constrained linear form was introduced by NHTSA in the
2007 NPRM proposing CAFE standards for MY 2011-2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Based on vehicles produced for sale in the United States.
    \32\ The equations are equivalent but are specified differently
due to differences in the agencies' respective models.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA is establishing the attribute curves below for assigning a
fuel economy level to an individual vehicle's footprint value, for
model years 2012 through 2016. These mpg values will be production
weighted to determine each manufacturer's fleet average standard for
cars and trucks. Although the general model of the equation is the same
for each vehicle category and each year, the parameters of the equation
differ for cars and trucks. Each parameter also changes on an annual
basis, resulting in the yearly increases in stringency. Figure I.B.3-1
below illustrates the passenger car CAFE standard curves for model
years 2012 through 2016 while Figure I.B.3-2 below illustrates the
light truck standard curves for model years 2012-2016. The MY 2011
final standards for cars and trucks, which are specified by a
constrained logistic function rather than a constrained linear
function, are shown for comparison.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07MY10.000

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07MY10.001

    EPA is establishing the attribute curves below for assigning a
CO2 level to an individual vehicle's footprint value, for
model years 2012 through 2016. These CO2 values will be
production weighted to determine each manufacturer's fleet average
standard for cars and trucks. As with the CAFE curves above, the
general form of the equation is the same for each vehicle category and
each year, but the parameters of the equation differ for cars and
trucks. Again, each parameter also changes on an annual basis,
resulting in the yearly increases in stringency. Figure I.B.3-3 below
illustrates the CO2 car standard curves for model years 2012
through 2016 while Figure I.B.3-4 shows the CO2 truck
standard curves for model years 2012-2016.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07MY10.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07MY10.003

BILLING CODE 6560-50-C

    NHTSA and EPA received a number of comments about the shape of the
car and truck curves. We address these comments further in Section II.C
below as well as in Sections III and IV.
    As proposed, NHTSA and EPA will use the same vehicle category
definitions for determining which vehicles are subject to the car curve
standards versus the truck curve standards. In other words, a vehicle
classified as a car under the NHTSA CAFE program will also be
classified as a car under the EPA GHG program, and likewise for trucks.
Auto industry commenters generally agreed with this approach and
believe it is an important aspect of harmonization across the two
agencies' programs. Some other commenters expressed concern about
potential consequences, especially in how cars and trucks are
distinguished. However, EPA and NHTSA are employing the same car and
truck definitions for the MY 2012-2016 CAFE and GHG standards as those
used in the CAFE program for the 2011 model year standards.\33\ This
issue is further discussed for the EPA standards in Section III, and
for the NHTSA standards in Section IV. This approach of using CAFE
definitions allows EPA's CO2 standards and the CAFE
standards to be harmonized across all vehicles for this program.
However, EPA is not changing the car/truck definition for the purposes
of any other previous rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 49 CFR 523.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Generally speaking, a smaller footprint vehicle will have higher
fuel economy and lower CO2 emissions relative to a larger
footprint vehicle when both have the same degree of fuel efficiency
improvement technology. In this final rule, the standards apply to a
manufacturers overall fleet, not an individual vehicle, thus a
manufacturers fleet which is dominated by small footprint vehicles will
have a higher fuel economy requirement (lower CO2
requirement) than a manufacturer whose fleet is dominated by large
footprint vehicles. A footprint-based CO2 or CAFE standard
can be relatively neutral with respect to vehicle size and consumer
choice. All vehicles, whether smaller or larger, must make improvements
to reduce CO2 emissions or improve fuel economy, and
therefore all vehicles will be relatively more expensive. With the
footprint-based standard approach, EPA and NHTSA believe there should
be no significant effect on the relative distribution of different
vehicle sizes in the fleet, which means that consumers will still be
able to purchase the size of vehicle that meets their needs. While
targets are manufacturer specific, rather than vehicle specific, Table
I.B.3-1 illustrates the fact that different vehicle sizes will have
varying CO2 emissions and fuel economy targets under the
final standards.

          Table I.B.3--1 Model Year 2016 CO2 and Fuel Economy Targets for Various MY 2008 Vehicle Types
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Example model
            Vehicle type                 Example models      footprint  (sq.    CO2 emissions     Fuel economy
                                                                  ft.)         target  (g/mi)     target  (mpg)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Example Passenger Cars
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compact car........................  Honda Fit............                40               206              41.1
Midsize car........................  Ford Fusion..........                46               230              37.1
Fullsize car.......................  Chrysler 300.........                53               263              32.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Example Light-duty Trucks
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small SUV..........................  4WD Ford Escape......                44               259              32.9
Midsize crossover..................  Nissan Murano........                49               279              30.6
Minivan............................  Toyota Sienna........                55               303              28.2
Large pickup truck.................  Chevy Silverado......                67               348              24.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Program Flexibilities
    EPA's and NHTSA's programs as established in this rule provide
compliance flexibility to manufacturers, especially in the early years
of the National Program. This flexibility is expected to provide
sufficient lead time for manufacturers to make necessary technological
improvements and reduce the overall cost of the program, without
compromising overall environmental and fuel economy objectives. The
broad goal of harmonizing the two agencies' standards includes
preserving manufacturers' flexibilities in meeting the standards, to
the extent appropriate and required by law. The following section
provides an overview of this final rule's flexibility provisions. Many
auto manufacturers commented in support of these provisions as critical
to meeting the standards in the lead time provided. Environmental
groups, some States, and others raised concerns about the possibility
for windfall credits and loss of program benefits. The provisions in
the final rule are in most cases the same as those proposed. However
consideration of the issues raised by commenters has led to
modifications in certain provisions. These comments and the agencies'
response are discussed in Sections III and IV below and in the Response
to Comments document.
a. CO2/CAFE Credits Generated Based on Fleet Average
Performance
    Under this NHTSA and EPA final rule, the fleet average standards
that apply to a manufacturer's car and truck fleets are based on the
applicable footprint-based curves. At the end of each model year, when
production of the model year is complete, a production-weighted fleet
average will 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 can generate credits. Conversely, if the fleet average
CO2/CAFE level does not meet the standard, the fleet would
incur debits (also referred to as a shortfall).
    Under the final program, a manufacturer whose fleet generates
credits in a given model year would have several options for using
those credits, including credit carry-back, credit carry-forward,
credit transfers, and credit trading. These provisions exist in the MY
2011 CAFE program under EPCA and EISA, and similar provisions are part
of EPA's Tier 2 program for light-duty vehicle criteria pollutant
emissions, as well as many

other mobile source standards issued by EPA under the CAA. The
manufacturer will be able to carry back credits to offset a deficit
that had accrued in a prior model year and was subsequently carried
over to the current model year. EPCA also provides for this. EPCA
restricts the carry-back of CAFE credits to three years, and as
proposed EPA is establishing the same limitation, in keeping with the
goal of harmonizing both sets of standards.
    After satisfying any need to offset pre-existing deficits,
remaining credits can be saved (banked) for use in future years. Under
the CAFE program, EISA allows manufacturers to apply credits earned in
a model year to compliance in any of the five subsequent model
years.\34\ As proposed, under the GHG program, EPA is also allowing
manufacturers to use these banked credits in the five years after the
year in which they were generated (i.e., five years carry-forward).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 49 U.S.C. 32903(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EISA required NHTSA to establish by regulation a CAFE credits
transferring program, which NHTSA established in a March 2009 final
rule codified at 49 CFR Part 536, to allow a manufacturer to transfer
credits between its vehicle fleets to achieve compliance with the
standards. For example, credits earned by over-compliance with a
manufacturer's car fleet average standard could be used to offset
debits incurred due to that manufacturer's not meeting the truck fleet
average standard in a given year. EPA's Tier 2 program also provides
for this type of credit transfer. As proposed for purposes of this
rule, EPA allows unlimited credit transfers across a manufacturer's
car-truck fleet to meet the GHG standard. This is based on the
expectation that this flexibility will facilitate manufacturers'
ability to comply with the GHG standards in the lead time provided, and
will allow the required GHG emissions reductions to be achieved in the
most cost effective way. Under the CAA, unlike under EISA, there is no
statutory limitation on car-truck credit transfers. Therefore, EPA is
not constraining car-truck credit transfers, as doing so would reduce
the flexibility for lead time, and would increase costs with no
corresponding environmental benefit. For the CAFE program, however,
EISA limits the amount of credits that may be transferred, which has
the effects of limiting the extent to which a manufacturer can rely
upon credits in lieu of making fuel economy improvements to a
particular portion of its vehicle fleet, but also of potentially
increasing the costs of improving the manufacturer's overall fleet.
EISA also prohibits the use of transferred credits to meet the
statutory minimum level for the domestic car fleet standard.\35\ These
and other statutory limits will continue to apply to the determination
of compliance with the CAFE standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 49 U.S.C. 32903(g)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EISA also allowed NHTSA to establish by regulation a CAFE credit
trading program, which NHTSA established in the March 2009 final rule
at 40 CFR part 536, to allow credits to be traded (sold) to other
vehicle manufacturers. As proposed, EPA allows credit trading in the
GHG program. These sorts of exchanges are typically allowed under EPA's
current mobile source emission credit programs, although manufacturers
have seldom made such exchanges. Under the NHTSA CAFE program, EPCA
also allows these types of credit trades, although, as with transferred
credits, traded credits may not be used to meet the minimum domestic
car standards specified by statute.\36\ Comments discussing these
provisions supported the proposed approach. These final provisions are
the same as proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ 49 U.S.C. 32903(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As further discussed in Section IV of this preamble, NHTSA sought
to find a way to provide credits for improving the efficiency of light
truck air conditioners (A/Cs) and solicited public comments to that
end. The agency did so because the power necessary to operate an A/C
compressor places a significant additional load on the engine, thus
reducing fuel economy and increasing CO2 tailpipe emissions.
See Section III.C.1 below. The agency would have made a similar effort
regarding cars, but a 1975 statutory provision made it unfruitful even
to explore the possibility of administratively proving such credits for
cars. The agency did not identify a workable way of providing such
credits for light trucks in the context of this rulemaking.
b. Air Conditioning Credits Under the EPA Final Rule
    Air conditioning (A/C) systems contribute to GHG emissions in two
ways. Hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) refrigerants, which are powerful GHGs,
can leak from the A/C system (direct A/C emissions). As just noted,
operation of the A/C system also places an additional load on the
engine, which results in additional CO2 tailpipe emissions
(indirect A/C related emissions). EPA is allowing manufacturers to
generate credits by reducing either or both types of GHG emissions
related to A/C systems. Specifically, EPA is establishing a method to
calculate CO2 equivalent reductions for the vehicle's full
useful life on a grams/mile basis that can be used as credits in
meeting the fleet average CO2 standards. EPA's analysis
indicates that this approach provides manufacturers with a highly cost-
effective way to achieve a portion of GHG emissions reductions under
the EPA program. EPA is estimating that manufacturers will on average
generate 11 g/mi GHG credit toward meeting the 250 g/mi by 2016 (though
some companies may generate more). EPA will also allow manufacturers to
earn early A/C credits starting in MY 2009 through 2011, as discussed
further in a later section. There were many comments on the proposed A/
C provisions. Nearly every one of these was supportive of EPA including
A/C control as part of this rule, though there was some disagreement on
some of the details of the program. The HFC crediting scheme was widely
supported. The comments mainly were concentrated on indirect A/C
related credits. The auto manufacturers and suppliers had some
technical comments on A/C technologies, and there were many concerns
with the proposed idle test. EPA has made some minor adjustments in
both of these areas that we believe are responsive to these concerns.
EPA addresses A/C issues in greater detail in Section III of this
preamble and in Chapter 2 of EPA's RIA.
c. Flexible-Fuel and Alternative Fuel Vehicle Credits
    EPCA authorizes a compliance flexibility 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 E85
capable vehicles, which can run on either gasoline or a mixture of up
to 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline (E85). Dedicated
alternative fuel vehicles are vehicles that run exclusively on an
alternative fuel. EPCA was amended by EISA to extend the period of
availability of the FFV incentive, but to begin phasing it out by
annually reducing the amount of FFV incentive that can be used toward
compliance with the CAFE standards.\37\ Although NHTSA

expressed concern about the non-use of alternative fuel by FFVs in a
2002 report to Congress (Effects of the Alternative Motor Fuels Act
CAFE Incentives Policy), EISA does not premise the availability of the
FFV credits on actual use of alternative fuel by an FFV vehicle. Under
NHTSA's CAFE program, pursuant to EISA, no FFV credits will be
available for CAFE compliance after MY 2019.\38\ For dedicated
alternative fuel vehicles, there are no limits or phase-out of the
credits. As required by the statute, NHTSA will continue to allow the
use of FFV credits for purposes of compliance with the CAFE standards
until the end of the EISA phase-out period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ 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.
    \38\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the GHG program, as proposed, EPA will allow FFV credits in
line with EISA limits, but only during the period from MYs 2012 to
2015. After MY 2015, EPA will only allow FFV credits based on a
manufacturer's demonstration that the alternative fuel is actually
being used in the vehicles and based on the vehicle's actual
performance. EPA discusses this in more detail in Section III.C of the
preamble, including a summary of key comments. These provisions are
being finalized as proposed, with further discussion in Section III.C
of how manufacturers can demonstrate that the alternative fuel is being
used.
d. Temporary Lead-Time Allowance Alternative Standards Under the EPA
Final Rule
    Manufacturers with limited product lines may be especially
challenged in the early years of the National Program, and need
additional lead time. Manufacturers with narrow product offerings may
not be able to take full advantage of averaging or other program
flexibilities due to the limited scope of the types of vehicles they
sell. For example, some smaller volume manufacturer fleets consist
entirely of vehicles with very high baseline CO2 emissions.
Their vehicles are above the CO2 emissions target for that
vehicle footprint, but do not have other types of vehicles in their
production mix with which to average. Often, these manufacturers pay
fines under the CAFE program rather than meet the applicable CAFE
standard. EPA believes that these technological circumstances call for
more lead time in the form of a more gradual phase-in of standards.
    EPA is finalizing a temporary lead-time allowance for manufacturers
that sell vehicles in the U.S. in MY 2009 and for which U.S. vehicle
sales in that model year are below 400,000 vehicles. This allowance
will be available only during the MY 2012-2015 phase-in years of the
program. A manufacturer that satisfies the threshold criteria will be
able to treat a limited number of vehicles as a separate averaging
fleet, which will be subject to a less stringent GHG standard.\39\
Specifically, a standard of 25 percent above the vehicle's otherwise
applicable foot-print target level will apply to up to 100,000 vehicles
total, spread over the four year period of MY 2012 through 2015. Thus,
the number of vehicles to which the flexibility could apply is limited.
EPA also is setting appropriate restrictions on credit use for these
vehicles, as discussed further in Section III. By MY 2016, these
allowance vehicles must be averaged into the manufacturer's full fleet
(i.e., they will no longer be eligible for a different standard). EPA
discusses this in more detail in Section III.B of the preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ EPCA does not permit such an allowance. Consequently,
manufacturers who may be able to take advantage of a lead-time
allowance under the GHG standards would be required to comply with
the applicable CAFE standard or be subject to penalties for non-
compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA received comments from several smaller manufacturers that the
TLAAS program was insufficient to allow manufacturers with very limited
product lines to comply. These manufacturers commented that they need
additional lead time to meet the standards, because their
CO2 baselines are significantly higher and their vehicle
product lines are even more limited, reducing their ability to average
across their fleets compared even to other TLAAS manufacturers. EPA
fully summarizes the public comments on the TLAAS program, including
comments not supporting the program, in Section III.B. In summary, in
response to the lead time issues raised by manufacturers, EPA is
modifying the TLAAS program that applies to manufacturers with between
5,000 and 50,000 U.S. vehicle sales in MY 2009. EPA believes these
provisions are necessary given that, compared with other TLAAS
manufacturers, these manufacturers have even more limited product
offerings across which to average and higher baseline CO2
emissions, and thus need additional lead-time to meet the standards.
These manufacturers would have an increased allotment of vehicles, a
total of 250,000, compared to 100,000 vehicles (for other TLAAS-
eligible manufacturers). In addition, the TLAAS program for these
manufacturers would be extended by one year, through MY 2016 for these
vehicles, for a total of five years of eligibility. The other
provisions of the TLAAS program would continue to apply, such as the
restrictions on credit trading and the level of the standard.
Additional restrictions would also apply to these vehicles, as
discussed in Section III. In addition, for the smallest volume
manufacturers, those with below 5,000 U.S. vehicle sales, EPA is not
setting standards at this time but is instead deferring standards until
a future rulemaking. This is essentially the same approach we are using
for small businesses, which are exempted from this rule. The unique
issues involved with these manufacturers will be addressed in that
future rulemaking. Further discussion of the public comment on these
issues and details on these changes from the proposed program are
included in Section III.
e. Additional Credit Opportunities Under the Clean Air Act (CAA)
    EPA is establishing additional opportunities for early credits in
MYs 2009-2011 through over-compliance with a baseline standard. The
baseline standard is set to be equivalent, on a national level, to the
California standards. Credits can 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 (i.e., those
States adopting the California program), or over-compliance with the
fleet of vehicles sold in the 50 States. EPA is also providing for
early credits based on over-compliance with CAFE, but only for vehicles
sold in States outside of California and the CAA section 177 states.
Under the early credit provisions, no early FFV credits would be
allowed, except those achieved by over-compliance with the California
program based on California's provisions that manufacturers demonstrate
actual use of the alternative fuel. EPA's early credits provisions are
designed to ensure that there would be no double counting of early
credits. NHTSA notes, however, that credits for overcompliance with
CAFE standards during MYs 2009-2011 will still be available for
manufacturers to use toward compliance in future model years, just as
before.
    EPA received comments from some environmental organizations and
States expressing concern that these early credits were inappropriate
windfall credits because they provided credits for actions that were
not surplus, that is above what would otherwise be required for
compliance with either State or Federal motor vehicle standards. This
focused on the credits

for over-compliance with the California standards generated during
model years 2009 and perhaps 2010, where according to commenters the
CAFE requirements were in effect more stringent than the California
standards. EPA believes that early credits provide a valuable incentive
for manufacturers that have implemented fuel efficient technologies in
excess of their CAFE compliance obligations prior to MY 2012. With
appropriate restrictions, these credits, reflecting over-compliance
over a three model year time frame (MY 2009-2011) and not just over one
or two model years, will be surplus reductions and not otherwise
required by law. Therefore, EPA is finalizing these provisions largely
as proposed, but in response to comments, with an additional
restriction on the trading of MY 2009 credits. The overall structure of
this early credit program addresses concerns about the potential for
windfall credits in the first one or two model years. This issue is
fully discussed in Section III.C.
    EPA is providing an additional temporary incentive to encourage the
commercialization of advanced GHG/fuel economy control technologies--
including electric vehicles (EVs), plug-in hybrid electric vehicles
(PHEVs), and fuel cell vehicles (FCVs)--for model years 2012-2016.
EPA's proposal included an emissions compliance value of zero grams/
mile for EVs and FCVs, and the electric portion of PHEVs, and a
multiplier in the range of 1.2 to 2.0, so that each advanced technology
vehicle would count as greater than one vehicle in a manufacturer's
fleetwide compliance calculation. EPA received many comments on the
proposed incentives. Many State and environmental organization
commenters believed that the combination of these incentives could
undermine the GHG benefits of the rule, and believed the emissions
compliance values should take into account the net upstream GHG
emissions associated with electrified vehicles compared to vehicles
powered by petroleum based fuel. Auto manufacturers generally supported
the incentives, some believing the incentives to be a critical part of
the National Program. Most auto makers supported both the zero grams/
mile emissions compliance value and the higher multipliers.
    Upon considering the public comments on this issue, EPA is
finalizing an advanced technology vehicle incentive program that
includes a zero gram/mile emissions compliance value for EVs and FCVs,
and the electric portion of PHEVs, for up to the first 200,000 EV/PHEV/
FCV vehicles produced by a given manufacturer during MY 2012-2016 (for
a manufacturer that produces less than 25,000 EVs, PHEVs, and FCVs in
MY 2012), or for up to the first 300,000 EV/PHEV/FCV vehicles produced
during MY 2012-2016 (for a manufacturer that produces 25,000 or more
EVs, PHEVs, and FCVs in MY 2012). For any production greater than this
amount, the compliance value for the vehicle will be greater than zero
gram/mile, set at a level that reflects the vehicle's net increase in
upstream GHG emissions in comparison to the gasoline vehicle it
replaces. In addition, EPA is not finalizing a multiplier. EPA will
also allow this early advanced technology incentive program beginning
in MYs 2009-2011. The purpose of these provisions is to provide a
temporary incentive to promote technologies which have the potential to
produce very large GHG reductions in the future. The tailpipe GHG
emissions from EVs, FCVs, and PHEVs operated on grid electricity are
zero, and traditionally the emissions of the vehicle itself are all
that EPA takes into account for purposes of compliance with standards
set under section 202(a). This has not raised any issues for criteria
pollutants, as upstream emissions associated with production and
distribution of the fuel are addressed by comprehensive regulatory
programs focused on the upstream sources of those emissions. At this
time, however, there is no such comprehensive program addressing
upstream emissions of GHGs, and the upstream GHG emissions associated
with production and distribution of electricity are higher than the
corresponding upstream GHG emissions of gasoline or other petroleum
based fuels. In the future, vehicle fleet electrification combined with
advances in low-carbon technology in the electricity sector have the
potential to transform the transportation sector's contribution to the
country's GHG emissions. EPA will reassess the issue of how to address
EVs, PHEVs, and FCVs in rulemakings for model years 2017 and beyond,
based on the status of advanced vehicle technology commercialization,
the status of upstream GHG control programs, and other relevant
factors. Further discussion of the temporary advanced technology
vehicle incentives, including more detail on the public comments and
EPA's response, is found in Section III.C.
    EPA is also providing an option for manufacturers to generate
credits for employing new and innovative technologies that achieve GHG
reductions that are not reflected on current test procedures, as
proposed. Examples of such ``off-cycle'' technologies might include
solar panels on hybrids, adaptive cruise control, and active
aerodynamics, among other technologies. These three credit provisions
are discussed in more detail in Section III.
5. Coordinated Compliance
    Previous NHTSA and EPA regulations and statutory provisions
establish ample examples on which to develop an effective compliance
program that achieves the energy and environmental benefits from CAFE
and motor vehicle GHG standards. NHTSA and EPA have developed a program
that recognizes, and replicates as closely as possible, the compliance
protocols associated with the existing CAA Tier 2 vehicle emission
standards, and with CAFE standards. The certification, testing,
reporting, and associated compliance activities closely track current
practices and are thus familiar to manufacturers. EPA already oversees
testing, collects and processes test data, and performs calculations to
determine compliance with both CAFE and CAA standards. Under this
coordinated approach, the compliance mechanisms for both programs are
consistent and non-duplicative. EPA will also apply the CAA authorities
applicable to its separate in-use requirements in this program.
    The compliance approach allows manufacturers to satisfy the new
program requirements in the same general way they comply with existing
applicable 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. The compliance program design
establishes a single set of manufacturer reporting requirements and
relies on a single set of underlying data. This approach still allows
each agency to assess compliance with its respective program under its
respective statutory authority.
    NHTSA and EPA do not anticipate any significant noncompliance under
the National Program. However, failure to meet the fleet average
standards (after credit opportunities are exhausted) would ultimately
result in the potential for penalties under both EPCA and the CAA. The
CAA allows EPA considerable discretion in assessment of penalties.
Penalties under the CAA 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 Low Emission Vehicle and Tier 2 corporate average
standards, and to date there have been no instances of noncompliance.
CAFE penalties are specified by EPCA and would be assessed for the
entire noncomplying fleet at a rate of $5.50 times the number of
vehicles in the fleet, times the number of tenths of mpg by which the
fleet average falls below the standard. In the event of a compliance
action arising out of the same facts and circumstances, EPA could
consider CAFE penalties when determining appropriate remedies for the
EPA case.
    Several stakeholders commented on the proposed coordinated
compliance approach. The comments indicated broad support for the
overall approach EPA proposed. In particular, both regulated industry
and the public interest community appreciated the attempt to streamline
compliance by adopting current practice where possible and by
coordinating EPA and NHTSA compliance requirements. Thus the final
compliance program design is largely unchanged from the proposal. Some
commenters requested additional detail or clarification in certain
areas and others suggested some relatively narrow technical changes,
and EPA has responded to these suggestions. EPA and NHTSA summarize
these comments and the agencies' responses in Sections III and IV,
respectively, below. The Response to Comments document associated with
this document includes all of the comments and responses received
during the comment period.

C. Summary of Costs and Benefits of the National Program

    This section summarizes the projected costs and benefits of the
CAFE and GHG emissions standards. These projections helped inform the
agencies' choices among the alternatives considered and provide further
confirmation that the final standards are an appropriate choice within
the spectrum of choices allowable under their respective statutory
criteria. The costs and benefits projected by NHTSA to result from
these CAFE standards are presented first, followed by those from EPA's
analysis of the GHG emissions standards.
    For several reasons, the estimates for costs and benefits presented
by NHTSA and EPA, while consistent, are not directly comparable, and
thus should not be expected to be identical. Most important, NHTSA and
EPA's standards would require slightly different fuel efficiency
improvements. EPA's GHG standard is more stringent in part due to its
assumptions about manufacturers' use of air conditioning credits, which
result from reductions in air conditioning-related emissions of HFCs
and CO2. NHTSA was unable to make assumptions about
manufacturers' improving the efficiency of air conditioners due to
statutory limitations. In addition, the CAFE and GHG standards offer
different program flexibilities, and the agencies' analyses differ in
their accounting for these flexibilities (for example, FFVs), primarily
because NHTSA is statutorily prohibited from considering some
flexibilities when establishing CAFE standards, while EPA is not. These
differences contribute to differences in the agencies' respective
estimates of costs and benefits resulting from the new standards.
    NHTSA performed two analyses: a primary analysis that shows the
estimates of costs, fuel savings, and related benefits that the agency
considered for purposes of establishing new CAFE standards, and a
supplemental analysis that reflects the agency's best estimate of the
potential real-world effects of the CAFE standards, including
manufacturers' potential use of FFV credits in accordance with the
provisions of EISA concerning their availability. Because EPCA
prohibits NHTSA from considering the ability of manufacturers to use of
FFV credits to increase their fleet average fuel economy when
establishing CAFE standards, the agency's primary analysis does not
include them. However, EPCA does not prohibit NHTSA from considering
the fact that manufacturers may pay civil penalties rather than
complying with CAFE standards, and NHTSA's primary analysis accounts
for some manufacturers' tendency to do so. In addition, NHTSA's
supplemental analysis of the effect of FFV credits on benefits and
costs from its CAFE standards, demonstrates the real-world impacts of
FFVs, and the summary estimates presented in Section IV include these
effects. Including the use of FFV credits reduces estimated per-vehicle
compliance costs of the program. However, as shown below, including FFV
credits does not significantly change the projected fuel savings and
CO2 reductions, because FFV credits reduce the fuel economy
levels that manufacturers achieve not only under the standards, but
also under the baseline MY 2011 CAFE standards.
    Also, EPCA, as amended by EISA, allows manufacturers to transfer
credits between their passenger car and light truck fleets. However,
EPCA also prohibits NHTSA from considering manufacturers' ability to
increase their average fuel economy through the use of CAFE credits
when determining the stringency of the CAFE standards. Because of this
prohibition, NHTSA's primary analysis does not account for the extent
to which credit transfers might actually occur. For purposes of its
supplemental analysis, NHTSA considered accounting for the possibility
that some manufacturers might utilize the opportunity under EPCA to
transfer some CAFE credits between the passenger car and light truck
fleets, but determined that in NHTSA's year-by-year analysis,
manufacturers' credit transfers cannot be reasonably estimated at this
time.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ NHTSA's analysis estimates multi-year planning effects
within a context in which each model year is represented explicitly,
and technologies applied in one model year carry forward to future
model years. NHTSA does not currently have a reasonable basis to
estimate how a manufacturer might, for example, weigh the transfer
of credits from the passenger car to the light truck fleet in MY
2013 against the potential to carry light truck technologies forward
from MY 2013 through MY 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA made explicit assumptions about manufacturers' use of FFV
credits under both the baseline and control alternatives, and its
estimates of costs and benefits from the GHG standards reflect these
assumptions. However, under the GHG standards, FFV credits would be
available through MY 2015; starting in MY 2016, EPA will only allow FFV
credits based on a manufacturer's demonstration that the alternative
fuel is actually being used in the vehicles and the actual GHG
performance for the vehicle run on that alternative fuel.
    EPA's analysis also assumes that manufacturers would transfer
credits between their car and truck fleets in the MY 2011 baseline
subject to the maximum value allowed by EPCA, and that unlimited car-
truck credit transfers would occur under the GHG standards. Including
these assumptions in EPA's analysis increases the resulting estimates
of fuel savings and reductions in GHG emissions, while reducing EPA's
estimates of program compliance costs.
    Finally, under the EPA GHG program, there is no ability for a
manufacturer to intentionally pay fines in lieu of meeting the
standard. Under EPCA, however, vehicle manufacturers are allowed to pay
fines as an alternative to compliance with applicable CAFE standards.
NHTSA's analysis explicitly estimates the level of voluntary fine
payment by individual manufacturers, which reduces NHTSA's estimates of

both the costs and benefits of its CAFE standards. In contrast, the CAA
does not allow for fine payment (civil penalties) in lieu of compliance
with emission standards, and EPA's analysis of benefits from its
standard thus assumes full compliance. This assumption results in
higher estimates of fuel savings, of reductions in GHG emissions, and
of manufacturers' compliance costs to sell fleets that comply with both
NHTSA's CAFE program and EPA's GHG program.
    In summary, the projected costs and benefits presented by NHTSA and
EPA are not directly comparable, because the GHG emission levels
established by EPA include air conditioning-related improvements in
equivalent fuel efficiency and HFC reductions, because of the
assumptions incorporated in EPA's analysis regarding car-truck credit
transfers, and because of EPA's projection of complete compliance with
the GHG standards. It should also be expected that overall, EPA's
estimates of GHG reductions and fuel savings achieved by the GHG
standards will be slightly higher than those projected by NHTSA only
for the CAFE standards because of the reasons described above. For the
same reasons, EPA's estimates of manufacturers' costs for complying
with the passenger car and light trucks GHG standards are slightly
higher than NHTSA's estimates for complying with the CAFE standards.
    A number of stakeholders commented on NHTSA's and EPA's analytical
assumptions in estimating costs and benefits of the program. These
comments and any changes from the proposed values are summarized in
Section II.F, and further in Sections III (for EPA) and IV (for NHTSA);
the Response to Comments document presents the detailed responses to
each of the comments.
1. Summary of Costs and Benefits of NHTSA's CAFE Standards
    NHTSA has analyzed in detail the costs and benefits of the final
CAFE standards. Table I.C.1-1 presents the total costs, benefits, and
net benefits for NHTSA's final CAFE standards. The values in Table
I.C.1-1 display the total costs for all MY 2012-2016 vehicles and the
benefits and net benefits represent the impacts of the standards over
the full lifetime of the vehicles projected to be sold during model
years 2012-2016. It is important to note that there is significant
overlap in costs and benefits for NHTSA's CAFE program and EPA's GHG
program and therefore combined program costs and benefits, which
together comprise the National Program, are not a sum of the two
individual programs.

 Table I.C.1-1--NHTSA's Estimated 2012-2016 Model Year Costs, Benefits,
      and Net Benefits Under the CAFE Standards Before FFV Credits
                             [2007 dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      3% Discount Rate:                        $billions
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Costs.....................................................        51.8
  Benefits..................................................       182.5
  Net Benefits..............................................       130.7
7% Discount Rate:
  Costs.....................................................        51.8
  Benefits..................................................       146.3
  Net Benefits..............................................        94.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA estimates that these new CAFE standards will lead to fuel
savings totaling 61 billion gallons throughout the useful lives of
vehicles sold in MYs 2012-2016. At a 3% discount rate, the present
value of the economic benefits resulting from those fuel savings is
$143 billion. At a 7% discount rate, the present value of the economic
benefits resulting from those fuel savings is $112 billion.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ These figures do not account for the compliance
flexibilities that NHTSA is prohibited from considering when
determining the level of new CAFE standards, because manufacturers'
decisions to use those flexibilities are voluntary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency further estimates that these new CAFE standards will
lead to corresponding reductions in CO2 emissions totaling
655 million metric tons (mmt) during the useful lives of vehicles sold
in MYs 2012-2016. The present value of the economic benefits from
avoiding those emissions is $14.5 billion, based on a global social
cost of carbon value of approximately $21 per metric ton (in 2010, and
growing thereafter).\42\ It is important to note that NHTSA's CAFE
standards and EPA's GHG standards will both be in effect, and each will
lead to increases in average fuel economy and CO2 emissions
reductions. The two agencies' standards together comprise the National
Program, and this discussion of costs and benefits of NHTSA's CAFE
standards does not change the fact that both the CAFE and GHG
standards, jointly, are the source of the benefits and costs of the
National Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ NHTSA also estimated the benefits associated with three
more estimates of a one ton GHG reduction in 2010 ($5, $35, and
$65), which will likewise grow thereafter. See Section II for a more
detailed discussion of the social cost of carbon.

              Table I.C.1-2--NHTSA Fuel Saved (Billion Gallons) and CO2 Emissions Avoided (mmt) Under CAFE Standards (Without FFV Credits)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          2012             2013             2014             2015             2016            Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuel (b. gal.)....................................              4.2              8.9             12.5             16.0             19.5             61.0
CO2 (mmt).........................................             44               94              134              172              210              655
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Considering manufacturers' ability to earn credit toward compliance
by selling FFVs, NHTSA estimates very little change in incremental fuel
savings and avoided CO2 emissions, assuming FFV credits
would be used toward both the baseline and final standards:

     Table I.C.1-3--NHTSA Fuel Saved (Billion gallons) and CO2 Emissions Avoided (Million Metric Tons, mmt) Under CAFE Standards (With FFV Credits)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               2012            2013            2014            2015            2016            Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuel (b. gal.)..........................................             4.9             8.2            11.3            15.0            19.1            58.6

CO2 (mmt)...............................................              53              89             123             163             208             636
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA estimates that these fuel economy increases would produce
other benefits both to drivers (e.g., reduced time spent refueling) and
to the U.S. (e.g., reductions in the costs of petroleum imports beyond
the direct savings from reduced oil purchases, as well as some
disbenefits (e.g., increase traffic congestion) caused by drivers'
tendency to travel more when the cost of driving declines (as it does
when fuel economy increases). NHTSA has estimated the total monetary
value to society of these benefits and disbenefits, and estimates that
the standards will produce significant net benefits to society. Using a
3% discount rate, NHTSA estimates that the present value of these
benefits would total more than $180 billion over the useful lives of
vehicles sold during MYs 2012-2016. More discussion regarding monetized
benefits can be found in Section IV of this notice and in NHTSA's
Regulatory Impact Analysis. Note that the benefit calculation in Tables
I.C.1-4 through 1-7 includes the benefits of reducing CO2
emissions,\43\ but not the benefits of reducing other GHG emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ CO2 benefits for purposes of these tables are
calculated using the $21/ton SCC values. Note that net present value
of reduced GHG emissions is calculated differently than other
benefits. The same discount rate used to discount the value of
damages from future emissions (SCC at 5, 3, and 2.5 percent) is used
to calculate net present value of SCC for internal consistency.

            Table I.C.1-4--NHTSA Discounted Benefits ($billion) Under the CAFE Standards (Before FFV Credits, Using 3 Percent Discount Rate)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               2012            2013            2014            2015            2016            Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Passenger Cars..........................................             6.8            15.2            21.6            28.7            35.2           107.5
Light Trucks............................................             5.1            10.7            15.5            19.4            24.3            75.0
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Combined............................................            11.9            25.8            37.1            48.0            59.5           182.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Using a 7% discount rate, NHTSA estimates that the present value of
these benefits would total more than $145 billion over the same time
period.

            Table I.C.1-5--NHTSA Discounted Benefits ($billion) Under the CAFE Standards (Before FFV Credits, Using 7 Percent Discount Rate)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               2012            2013            2014            2015            2016            Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Passenger Cars..........................................             5.5            12.3            17.5            23.2            28.6            87.0
Light Trucks............................................             4.0             8.4            12.2            15.3            19.2            59.2
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Combined............................................             9.5            20.7            29.7            38.5            47.8           146.2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA estimates that FFV credits could reduce achieved benefits by
about 3.8%:

            Table I.C.1-6a--NHTSA Discounted Benefits ($billion) Under the CAFE Standards (With FFV Credits, Using a 3 Percent Discount Rate)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               2012            2013            2014            2015            2016            Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Passenger Cars..........................................             7.6            13.7            19.1            25.6            34.0           100.0
Light Trucks............................................             6.4            10.4            14.6            19.8            24.4            75.6
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------