the proposal) and solar panels (proposed as ``solar roof panels'' but
also revised based on comments) be scalable (variable based on system
capability) rather than an ``all-or-

nothing'' single value approach proposed.\288\ The agencies agree with
the commenters and are allowing scaling of these credits. In some
cases, this created issues with the simplified methodology for
determining the default values used for the proposal. Therefore, the
proposed methodology required revision in order to calculate the
default values for the technologies with scalable credits. The revised
calculation methodology for each scalable technology is discussed in
detail in Chapter 5 of the TSD. Notably, the calculation method for the
solar panel credit has been changed, to provide scalability of the
credit and a better estimate the benefits of solar panels for HEVs,
PHEVs, and EVs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \287\ In the Proposal (76 FR 74943/1), we described the engine
heat recovery and solar roof panel credits as `scalable', however
this was an error. The engine heat recovery did allow 0.7g/mi credit
per 100W generated step-function, however the solar panels were not
scalable. In actuality, glazing was the only continuously scalable
credit on the proposed off-cycle menu.
    \288\ For example, in the proposal, a manufacturer had to
install high efficiency lighting on all systems in order to get the
1.1 g/mi credit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although we are allowing scaling of the credits, we are not
accepting a request or granting credit for any level of credit less
than 0.05 g/mi CO2. We are requiring reporting
CO2 values to the nearest tenth and, therefore, anything
below 0.05 g/mi of CO2 would be rounded down to zero.
Therefore, for any credit requested as part of the off-cycle credit
program (e.g., scalable or fixed; via the pre-defined technology list
or alternate method approval process), only credit values equal to 0.05
g/mi or greater will be accepted and approved.
    In addition to supporting the off-cycle credit program in the MYs
2017-2025 program, comments received from the National Resources
Defense Council (NRDC) and ICCT urged the agencies to ensure that off-
cycle credits are verifiable via actual testing or reflect real-world
in-use data from a statistically representative fleet. These comments
also expressed concern that some of the proposed menu technologies
would not achieve appreciably greater reductions than measured over the
2-cycle tests, that the off-cycle credit process had not fully assured
that there would be component and/or system durability and had not
accounted for in-use degradation. These commenters' ultimate concern is
that the off-cycle credit flexibility could create windfall credits or
avoid cost-effective 2-cycle improvements.
    The agencies believe that the off-cycle credit program, as proposed
and finalized, legitimately accounts for real-world emission reductions
and fuel consumption improvements not measured, or not fully measured,
under the two-cycle test methodologies. The off-cycle technologies on
the defined list have been assessed by the agencies using the best
available data and information at the time of this action to
appropriately assign default credit values. The agencies conducted
extensive reviews of the proposed credit values and technologies and,
based on comments (such as those from ICCT) and analysis, did adjust
some credit values and technology descriptions. In addition, the
comments from the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers provided data
that aligned with and supported some of the estimated credit default
values (discussed in greater detail in Chapter 5 of the joint TSD). As
with the proposal and further refinement in these final rules, the
agencies have structured the off-cycle credit program extension for MYs
2017-2025 to employ conservative calculation methodologies and
estimates for the credit values on the defined technology list. In
addition, the agencies will continue, as proposed, to apply a 10 g/mi
cap to the total amount of available off-cycle credits to help address
issues of uncertainty and potential windfalls. Based on review of the
technologies and credits provided for those technologies, the cap
balances the goal of providing a streamlined pathway for the
introduction of off-cycle technologies while controlling potential
environmental risk from the uncertainty inherent with the estimated
level of credits being provided. Manufacturers would need to use
several listed technologies across a very large portion of their fleet
before they would reach the cap. Based on manufacturer comments
regarding the proposed sales thresholds, discussed below, the agencies
are not anticipating widespread adoption of these technologies, at
least not in the early years of the program. Also, the cap is not an
absolute limitation because manufacturers have the option of submitting
data and applying for credits which would not be subject to the 10 g/
mile credit limit as discussed in III.C.5. Therefore, we are confident
in the underlying analysis and default values for the identified off-
cycle credit technologies, and are finalizing the defined list of off-
cycle credit technologies, and associated default values, with minimal
changes in this final rule as discussed below.
    For off-cycle technologies not on the pre-defined technology list,
or to obtain a credit greater than the default value for a menu pre-
defined technology, a manufacturer would be required to demonstrate the
benefits of the technology via 5-cycle testing or via an alternate
methodology that would be subject to a public review and comment
process. Further, a manufacturer must certify the in-use durability of
the technology for the full useful life of the vehicle for any
technologies submitted for off-cycle credit application to ensure
enforceability of the credits granted.
    The agencies proposed an additive approach where manufacturers
could add the credit values for all of the listed technologies employed
on a vehicle model (up to the 10 g/mile cap, as discussed in III.C.5).
The agencies received comments from ICCT recommending a multiplicative
approach where the credit values for each technology on the list is
determined by taking the total amount of available credits for off-
cycle technologies and distributing it based on each technology's
percent contribution to the overall off-cycle benefit (e.g., percent
benefit of technology A, B, * * * n x total available credit equals the
off-cycle credit for technology A, B, * * * n).
    EPA understands ICCT's recommendation, as this is similar how to
the calculation methods employed in the EPA Lumped Parameter Model
combine the effectiveness of some technologies when the interaction of
differing technologies does not yield the combined absolute fuel
consumption improvement for each technology, but rather the actual
effectiveness is a fractional value of each technology's effectiveness
(often described as ``synergies''). The agencies carefully evaluated
these comments and, as stated previously, held a meeting with ICCT at
their request to discuss the comments fully.\289\ Overall, the agencies
believe the recommended multiplicative approach is inherently difficult
since the fractional contribution of each technology to the overall
off-cycle benefit must be determined, and then the combined synergistic
effectiveness would also require accurate and robust determination.
This would require extensive iterative testing to determine the
synergistic affects for every possible combination of off-cycle
technology included on each vehicle. In addition, this would be highly
dependent on the base design of the vehicle and, therefore, would need
to be determined for each unique vehicle content combination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \289\ The ICCT also submitted a number of additional detailed
comments on the credit magnitude of certain off-cycle technologies
which are discussed in Chapter 5 of the Joint TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agencies agree there may be synergistic (or non-synergistic)
affects, but believe the combination of employing conservative credit
value estimates and a 10 g/mi cap to the total amount of available off-
cycle credits

will achieve nearly the same overall effect of limiting the additive
effect of multiple off-cycle technologies to a vehicle. Therefore, we
are finalizing the calculation approach as defined in this final rule.
    As discussed above, the agencies are allowing scaling of the credit
values in lieu of fixed values based on the comments received for the
following technologies on the menu: high efficiency exterior lighting,
waste heat recovery, solar panels and active aerodynamics. In the case
of waste heat recovery and active aerodynamics, this did not change the
numerical credit values we proposed. For waste heat recovery, 0.7 g/mi
CO2 per 100 watts serves as the basis for scaling the
credit. For active aerodynamics, we used the value of 0.6 g/mi for cars
and 1.0 g/mi for trucks based on a 3% aerodynamic drag improvement from
the table of values in the NPRM TSD. The comments simply asked to use
this entire range of values rather than just using the credit values
corresponding to 3% aerodynamic drag improvement. These scaling factors
were calculated using both the Ricardo simulation results (described in
Chapter 3 of the TSD) and the EPA full vehicle simulation tool
(described in Chapter 2 of the EPA's RIA).
    In contrast, for high efficiency exterior lighting and solar
panels, this required a revision in the methodology to allow for proper
scaling. For high efficiency exterior lighting, the comments also
requested credit allowance for high efficiency lighting on individual
lighting elements rather than on all lighting elements. In the NPRM,
our methodology assumed a package approach where each lighting element
was weighted based on contribution to the overall electrical load
savings, and then this was scaled by our base load reduction estimate
for 5-cycle testing (e.g., 3.2 g/mile per 100 watts saved; see TSD
5.2.2). Using this package approach, it is difficult to de-couple the
grams per mile CO2 contribution of individual lighting
elements. Therefore, we revised our approach by accounting for the gram
per mile CO2 credit for each individual high efficiency
lighting element separately.
    The agencies are finalizing the pre-defined technology list for
off-cycle credits fundamentally as proposed with the exception of six
technologies, primarily in response to the comments received: engine
idle start-stop, electric heater circulation pump, high efficiency
exterior lighting, solar panels, and active transmission and active
engine warm-up.
    First, the pre-defined credit values for engine idle start-stop are
revised in response to comments questioning some vehicle operation and
VMT assumptions and some methods for calculating the pre-defined credit
values. More details on these changes can be found in Chapter 5 of the
Joint TSD.
    Second, the proposed stand-alone credit for an electric heater
circulation pump is incorporated into the pre-defined credit for engine
stop-start, thus aligning with the integrated nature of these two
technologies. As the agencies re-evaluated the pre-defined credit
values for engine idle start-stop, we recognized that a substantive
amount of the off-cycle benefit attributed to engine stop-start would
not be achievable in cold temperature conditions (e.g., temperatures
below 40 deg F) without a technology that performs a similar function
to the electric heater circulation pump as defined in the NPRM. The
agencies believe that a mechanism allowing heat transfer to continue,
even after the engine has shut-off, is necessary in order to maintain
basic comfort in the cabin especially in colder ambient temperatures.
This could occur, for example, when a vehicle is stopped at a multiple
lane intersection controlling high traffic volumes. This technology can
be an electric heater circulation pump, or some other cabin heat
exchanger. Without this technology, the engine would need to continue
operating and, therefore, circulating warm engine coolant through the
HVAC system to continue providing heat to the cabin. Therefore, two
credit values are being finalized for stop-start systems: a higher
value (similar to the credits proposed) for systems with an electric
heater circulation pump and a lesser value for stop-start systems
without a pump or heat transfer mechanism.
    Third, the agencies have revised the proposed pre-defined credit
values for high-efficiency exterior lighting after evaluation of the
numerous industry data provided via comments. The fundamental impetus
for the revisions resulted from the research study cited as a basis for
many pre-defined values as described in Chapter 5 of the TSD. When
reviewing the additional data, the agencies concluded the initially
referenced research study (Schoettle, et al.\290\) provided current
draw values for high-efficiency low beam lighting that were too high
when compared to traditional incandescent lighting, resulting in a
reduced projected benefit. Data from the automakers showed a much lower
power demand for high-efficiency low beam lighting and, consequently, a
much larger benefit than projected in the draft TSD.\291\ Therefore,
the agencies increased the overall amount of credit for high-efficiency
exterior lighting on the menu to reflect the additional analysis based
on the data received via comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \290\ Schoettle, B., et al., ``LEDS and Power Consumption of
Exterior Automotive Lighting: Implications for Gasoline and Electric
Vehicles,'' University of Michigan Transportation Research
Institute, October, 2008.
    \291\ Alliance, Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0131-0262, page 27 of 93;
Appendix 2, page 2 of 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Fourth, as discussed above, the need for scaling the credit value
resulted in a new methodology for solar panels, and, consequently,
adjusted credit values. For the NPRM, we assumed a fixed solar panel
power output and scaled this according to our base load estimate (e.g.,
3.2 g/mile per 100 watts saved; see TSD 5.2.2). However, the rated
solar panel power output depends on several factors including the size
and efficiency of the panel, and the energy that the panel is able to
capture and convert to useful power. Therefore, these factors need to
be considered when scaling, and our new methodology takes these factors
into account. The agencies also accounted for the possibility of
combining solar panels for both energy storage and active ventilation
in the scaling algorithm.
    Finally, we discuss active transmission and active engine warm-up
together (although they are listed separately) since the methodology
for them is the same. Chrysler commented that there should be separate
car and truck credits for active transmission and active engine warm-
up, as formulated for other advanced load reduction technologies (e.g.,
engine idle start-stop, electric heater circulation pump). In the NPRM,
we used the credit value corresponding to a mid-size car to arrive at
1.8 g/mi. After considering these comments, we re-analyzed (using the
Ricardo data) the credit values for active transmission and active
engine warm-up using expanded vehicle classes on a sales-weighted
basis. As a result, there was a clear disparity between the credit
values for active transmission and active engine warm-up on cars and
trucks. Accordingly, we now have separate car (1.5 g/mi) and truck (3.2
g/mi) active transmission and active engine warm-up credits.
    There were no other changes to the off-cycle credit defined
technology list other than the expansion or clarification of
definitions for certain technologies as discussed in Chapter 5 of the
TSD. Many commenters advocated for the inclusion of additional
technologies on the off-cycle credit defined technology

list. Some commenters suggested that technologies should be added such
as high efficiency alternators (Alliance, Denso, VW, Porsche, Ford),
electric cooling fans (Bosch), HVAC eco-modes, transmission cooler
bypass valves (Ford), navigation systems (Garmin), separate credits for
congestion mitigation/crash avoidance systems (Daimler), engine block
heaters (Honda), and an ``integral'' approach utilizing a combination
of technologies (Global Automakers).
    Some commenters were opposed to adding any technologies to the menu
(CBD) and others suggested some of the proposed values should be re-
evaluated (ICCT) or that the values should be based on real test data,
not simulation modeling (NRDC).
    After reviewing and considering the comments, in general, we did
not see evidence at this time to add any of these technologies to the
pre-defined technology list. In many cases, there are no consistent,
established methods or supporting data to determine the appropriate
level of credit. Consequently, there is no reasonable basis or
verifiable method for the agencies to substantiate or refute the
performance claims used to support a request for pre-assigned, default
credit values for such technologies, particularly for systems requiring
driver intervention or action.
    Therefore, we are not adding any of these technologies we were
asked to consider to the pre-defined technology list. In the case of
crash avoidance technologies, we are prohibiting off-cycle credits for
these technologies under any circumstances. In the case of the other
technologies for consideration, we are allowing manufacturers to use
the alternate demonstration methods for technologies not on the pre-
defined technology list menu as discussed in Section III.C. (see
``Demonstration not based on 5-cycle testing'') to request credit. We
respond below to the comments urging the agencies to add further
technologies to the pre-defined list. Additional responses are found in
TSD Chapter 5 and Section 7 of EPA's Response to Comment Document.
    In addition, there were substantial comments regarding allowing
credits for glazing. Specifically, the comments expressed concerns
about incentivizing the use of metallic glazing which may impact
signals emanating from within the passenger compartment and the desire
for a separate credit for polycarbonate (PC) glazing. This is discussed
below as well.
a. High Efficiency Alternators
    Several commenters from the automobile industry associations,
individual manufacturers, and suppliers urged the agencies to include
high efficiency alternators on the off-cycle defined technology list.
    The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers stated that the test
cycles are performed with the accessories off but that ``actual real
world driving has average higher loads due to accessory use.'' They
cited GM testing comparing three different alternators on four vehicles
with efficiencies ranging from 61% to 70% using the Verband der
Automobilindustrie (VDA; the trade association representing German
automobile manufacturers) test procedure that demonstrated a savings of
1.0 grams per mile CO2 on average for an alternator with an
efficiency of 68% VDA. Volkswagen and Porsche supported the comments
from the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, however Porsche felt
that a default credit of 1.6 grams per mile CO2 was possible
based on their independent analysis. The Global Automakers echoed the
comments above regarding real-world versus test cycle accessory usage
but did not supply supporting data.
    Two suppliers, Bosch and Denso, also supported adding high
efficiency alternators to the defined technology list. Bosch cited
testing on a General Motors 2.4 liter 4 cylinder gasoline engine with
an increased alternator efficiency from 65%, the level of efficiency
assumed in the NPRM, to 75% showed the potential for an increase of
0.7% in fuel economy by increasing alternator efficiency by 10%. Bosch
also stated that increases in efficiency up to 82% are possible using
existing and new technologies. Denso used performed a similar analysis
by simulating an increase in alternator efficiency of 10% (65% to 75%).
Using our NPRM values for CO2 emissions reductions of 3.0
grams per mile CO2 on the 2-cycle and 3.7 grams per mile
CO2 on the 5-cycle tests, they calculated a potential credit
of 2.8 grams per mile CO2.
    In response, we agree that high efficiency alternators have the
potential to reduce electrical load, resulting in lower fuel
consumption and CO2 emissions. However, the problem with
including this technology on the defined technology list is assigning
an appropriate default credit value due to the lack of supporting data
across a range of vehicle categories and range of implementation
strategies.
    First, we appreciate commenters submitting data but we would need
to have similar data from the range of available vehicle categories.
With the exception of the data from the Alliance of Automobile
Manufacturers that included a Cadillac SRX with, most recently, a 3.6
liter V6 engine, most of the data is from smaller displacement
vehicles. Therefore, the range of data would need to be expanded to the
mid-size and large car, and large truck to even begin to develop a
default credit value.
    Second, similar to high efficiency exterior lighting, the type of
and number of electrical accessories on the vehicle may cause
significant variability in the base electrical load and, consequently,
the level of reduction and associated benefit of high efficiency
alternator technology. However, unlike high efficiency exterior
lighting with a limited amount of components, the vehicle components
and accessories that affect high efficiency alternator load are
seemingly unlimited. As the information from Denso suggests, there are
some typical standard components but the list of standard versus
optional components changes depending on manufacturer, nameplate and
trim level (e.g., optional accessories on a lower trim level vehicle
may be standard on a upper/luxury trim level vehicle). This makes it
difficult to develop a default value given this level of variability.
    Third, high efficiency alternators present the opportunity for
manufacturers to add vehicle content that does not contribute to
reducing fuel consumption or CO2 emissions. Due to the extra
electrical capacity resulting from using the high efficiency
alternator, other content (e.g., seat heaters/coolers, cup holder
cooler/warmers, higher amplification sound system) can be added that
may increase consumer value, however, that consumer value is unrelated
to reducing fuel consumption or CO2 emissions. This
potential for electrical load ``backsliding'' can counteract the
benefits of a high efficiency alternator, and can also potentially
affect mass reduction depending on the mass of the added content.
    A good example of a beneficial use of additional electrical load is
the synergy between solar panels and active cabin ventilation. The
solar panel can be used to power active cabin ventilation system motors
but the amount of power produced by the panel may exceed the motor
power requirements. Moreover, the active cabin ventilation system is
only effective for the hot/sunny summer portion of the year. Rather
than directing this excess power to other

non-fuel consumption related content (or wasting it), we are
incentivizing manufacturers to use this excess power for battery
charging to drive the wheels, and thus displace fuel and CO2
emissions.
    However, unlike a solar panel, the high efficiency alternator
supplies power to many vehicle features, and the EPA does not wish to
directly regulate the electrical usage on vehicles in order to prevent
``load backsliding''. This load backsliding could convert a fuel
efficient technology into one that is detrimental to CO2
emissions reductions and fuel economy improvements. Because of this
uncertainty the agencies are not adding high efficiency alternators to
the defined technology list. However, manufacturers may request credits
for high-efficiency alternators using the case-by-case procedures for
technologies not on the defined technology list. There are two general
issues, at a minimum, which a manufacturer would need to consider and
address in such a request. First, the manufacturer would need to
consider the level of alternator efficiency improvement. As stated by
the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, current alternator
efficiencies are in the range of ``60% to 64%, with high efficiency
models having ratings above 68% VDA.'' Therefore, any request for high
efficiency alternator credit should significantly exceed current
alternator technology efficiency. The 68% VDA number stated by the
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers seems to be an appropriate
starting point given current technology although EPA would make a
specific determination as to the amount of needed improvement when
evaluating a specific off-cycle credit application, and so is not
making any final determination here. Second, manufacturers should
ensure proper accounting of vehicle components and accessories and
associated loads. A good example of this is Table 1 in the comments
from Denso that identifies the content loads and their occurrence on
the 2-cycle test versus real world. The manufacturer may need to
perform this type of comparison on an annual basis so that there is a
clear assessment of load content adjustments over time to minimize
electrical load ``backsliding'' (i.e., adding more content due to the
availability of additional load capacity) as discussed above.
b. Transmission Oil Cooler Bypass Valve
    The transmission oil cooler is used on vehicles to cool the
transmission fluid under heavy loads, especially by large trucks during
towing or large payload operations. As stated by the Alliance, one of
the drawbacks is that this system operates continuously even under
conditions where faster warm-up, such as cold conditions, would be
beneficial. Therefore, the Alliance comments suggested that we add
bypass valves for transmission oil coolers to the pre-defined
technology list since ``a bypass valve for the transmission oil cooler
allows the oil flow to be controlled to provide maximum fuel economy
under a wide variety of operating conditions.'' They suggested a credit
of 0.3 g/mi CO2 based on General Motors (GM) engineering
development and that this credit could be additive with active
transmission warm up strategy.
    The reason we are not including this technology on the pre-defined
technology list is lack of available data and multiple methodologies
for implementation that make determining an appropriate credit value
difficult. As stated by the Alliance, ``bypass valves are not currently
commonly used with transmission oil coolers.'' As a result, there is
very limited data on the performance of such systems other than the
engineering data cited by the Alliance. Also, the bypass valve could be
implemented passively (e.g., viscosity based), actively (e.g., valve
controllers based on temperature or viscosity), or by some other smart
design. Consequently, depending on the implementation method, the
credit value may not correspond effectively to the level of
performance.
    However, this technology can be demonstrated using 5-cycle or
alternate demonstration methods. Therefore, we recommend that
manufacturers seeking credit for this technology separately or in
conjunction with active transmission warm-up credits explore this
approach.
c. Electronic Thermostat
    Porsche stated in their comments that there is ``potential GHG
benefit for electronic thermostat * * * in configurations which do not
include an electric water pump.'' In lieu of a traditional mechanical
water pump, an electric water pump facilitates engine coolant flow
without the penalty of using an energy-sapping belt driven system.
However, for systems that use a mechanical water pump, an electronic
thermostat could be used in lieu of an electric water pump to optimally
control the flow of coolant (e.g., close off coolant flow to the
radiator when the engine is cold). Porsche requested that the agencies
allow credit for this technology irrespective of the other cooling
system specifics (e.g., mechanical or electric water pump).
    This technology is not on the pre-defined technology list, nor does
this appear to be the intent of Porsche's comments. As such, the
electronic thermostat can be demonstrated using 5-cycle or alternate
demonstration methods. Therefore, we agree with Porsche and, if a
benefit for the electronic thermostat regardless of the type of water
pump used can be demonstrated, the electronic thermostat would be
eligible under the procedures for evaluating technologies not on the
pre-defined technology list.
d. Other Vehicle Relays
    Honda requested that we consider allowing credit for other
electrical relays on the vehicle such as those used for power windows,
wiper motors, power tailgate, defroster, and seat heaters. However,
Honda states that they are unsure of how to measure the impact
suggesting that lifetime usage data might be a basis to support the
credit granted.
    In response, we feel that granting credits for other vehicle relays
is best considered using the demonstration methods for evaluating
technologies not on the predefined technology list.
    The confounding issue, as Honda points out in their comments, is
how to quantify the benefit and, further, how to directly relate this
benefit to fuel consumption savings. The complexity of identifying
single and multiple relay impact is a daunting task and must be
considered when pursuing this path. Further, the use of lifetime usage
data only captures activity but does not couple this activity with a
gram-per-mile CO2 benefit, thus falling short of
demonstrating direct savings. Therefore, although the granting of
credit is possible, these issues, and any others, would need to be
addressed before credit is granted for other vehicle relays.
e. Brushless Motor Technology for Engine Cooling Fans
    The comments from Bosch advocated for adding brushless motor
technology for engine cooling fans to the pre-defined technology list.
In their comments, Bosch stated that the current baseline technology is
series-parallel brushed motors requiring 149 watts to operate. By
switching to a brushless engine cooling fan motor, the wattage
requirement is reduced to 68 watts for a savings of 87 watts, according
to Bosch. Bosch reduced this number further to 81.2 watts since they
considered a range of series-parallel brushed motors with varying
wattage values. Based on this savings and Bosch's assumption that
reducing electrical load by 30 watts saves 0.1 mile per gallon, Bosch
projected a fuel

savings of 0.27 miles per gallon. Using our load reduction assumption
of reducing 100 watts saves 0.7 gram per mile of CO2, this
equates to a credit of 0.56 gram per mile of CO2.
    After consideration of Bosch's comments and the data provided
showing potential benefits, it is not clear from the data provided if
this would be the actual benefit once this technology is implemented.
Absent real-world vehicle data, it is difficult to determine what the
baseline and, consequently, the resulting benefit would be. In
addition, it is likely that some or all of the benefit of brushless
motor technology for engine cooling fans is captured on the 2-cycle
test procedures.
    Consequently, we are not adding brushless motor technology for
engine cooling fans to the pre-defined technology list due to
insufficient data on real-world, power requirements, activity profiles,
and test data demonstrating the 2-cycle versus 5-cycle benefits. These
factors prevent us from determining a default credit value necessary
for addition to the off-cycle technology menu. A manufacturer that
believes its engine cooling fan brushless motor merits credit can
request it using the demonstration methods for technologies not on the
predefined technology list.
f. Integral Fuel Saving Technologies and Advanced Combustion Concepts
    The Global Automakers and Ford Motor Company encouraged the
agencies to consider granting credit for integral fuel saving
technologies and advanced combustion concepts (e.g., camless engines,
variable compression ratio engines, micro air/hydraulic launch assist
devices, advanced transmissions) using demonstration methods for
technologies that are not on the predefined technology list. Both
parties took issue with our statements in the NPRM Preamble (see 76 FR
75024):

``EPA proposes that technologies integral or inherent to the basic
vehicle design including engine, transmission, mass reduction, passive
aerodynamic design, and base tires would not be eligible for credits.
EPA believes that it would be difficult to clearly establish an
appropriate A/B test (with and without technologies) for technologies
so integral to the basic vehicle design. EPA proposes to limit the off-
cycle program to technologies that can be clearly identified as add-on
technologies conducive to A/B testing.''

    These commenters urged EPA to allow demonstration of benefits using
some alternative testing or analytical method, or to provide an
opportunity to perform some type of demonstration, for integral fuel
saving technologies and advance combustion concepts.
    In response, since these methods are integral to basic vehicle
design, there are fundamental issues as to whether they would ever
warrant off-cycle credits. Being integral, there is no need to provide
an incentive for their use, and (more important), these technologies
would be incorporated regardless. Granting credits would be a windfall.
As we stated in the NPRM Preamble (see 76 FR 75024), these technologies
are included in the base vehicle design to meet the standard and it is
consequently inappropriate for these types of technologies to receive
off-cycle credits. EPA (in coordination with NHTSA) will continue to
track the progress of these technologies and attempt to collect data on
their effectiveness and use.
g. Congestion Avoidance Devices, Other Interactive, Driver-Based
Technologies and Driver-Selectable Features
    As mentioned above, many commenters advocated for the inclusion of
additional technologies on the off-cycle credit defined technology list
such as congestion avoidance, interactive/driver-based technologies,
which provide information to the driver that the driver may use to
alter his/her driving route or technique, and driver-selectable
technologies, which cause the vehicle to operate in a different manner.
    Daimler commented that the agencies should provide ``congestion
mitigation credits based on crash avoidance technologies,'' because
crash avoidance technologies can potentially reduce traffic congestion
associated with motor vehicle collisions and thus, ``similar to off-
cycle technologies,'' provide ``significant CO2 and fuel
consumption benefits.'' \292\ Daimler argued that doing so was within
both agencies' authority, referring to the authority under which the
agencies had proposed off-cycle credits.\293\ Daimler provided a menu
of suggested congestion reduction credit values of 1.0 g/CO2
per mile for its ``Primary Longitudinal Assistance Package'' (comprised
of forward collision warning plus adaptive brake assist) and an
additional 0.5 g/CO2 per mile for its ``Advanced
Longitudinal Assistance Package'' (the primary package plus autonomous
emergency braking and adaptive cruise control), based on calculations
using figures from its own analysis of the effectiveness of these
technologies and from a German insurance institute,\294\ along with
values for other congestion mitigation technologies such as driver
attention monitoring and adaptive forward lighting.\295\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \292\ Daimler, EPA Docket  EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0799-9483,
at 10.
    \293\ Id. at 11, 17.
    \294\ Id. at 13-14.
    \295\ Id. at 14-16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to requesting that the agencies create a new category
of credits, the comment further addressed means of evaluating and
approving applications for such credits. Daimler suggested that NHTSA
require manufacturers to submit data ``specific to [their] product
offerings showing that [their] technology is effective in reducing
vehicle collisions,'' and that ``NHTSA may approve the application and
determine the amount of the credit'' and determine whether the
technology is ``robust and effective in terms of crash avoidance and
the consequent fuel savings.'' \296\ Daimler suggested that NHTSA's
review process for such information could be considerably less
stringent than that for ``regulation to mandate new technology and/or
to link technology directly to fatalities or injuries,'' because
fatalities and injuries would not be at issue for congestion mitigation
credits.\297\ Instead, Daimler stated that ``technologies [should be]
appropriate if they can reasonably be shown to avoid accidents, and
thereby reduce congestion and its associated fuel consumption and
CO2 emissions.'' \298\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \296\ Id. at 15.
    \297\ Id.
    \298\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agencies agree that there is a clear nexus between congestion
mitigation and fuel/CO2 savings for the entire on-road
fleet. It is less clear, however, whether there is a calculable
relationship between congestion mitigation and fuel/CO2
savings directly attributable to individual vehicles produced by a
manufacturer, or even to a manufacturer's fleet of vehicles. Daimler
argued that emissions of 6.0 gCO2/mi could be averted if all
accidents were avoided. However, even assuming such a result were
achievable, Daimler agreed that attributing those fuel consumption/
CO2 benefits from reduced traffic congestion to specific
individual technologies on specific vehicles would be difficult.
    NHTSA has extensive familiarity with the safety technologies
usually associated with crash avoidance, having required some (most
notably, electronic stability control) as standard equipment on all
newly manufactured light vehicles, and being deeply engaged in research
on others, including the

braking technologies mentioned in Daimler's comment. When NHTSA's
research indicates sufficient maturity of a crash avoidance technology,
the agency may either promote its use through its New Car Assessment
Program (NCAP) or mandate its use by issuing a Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard (FMVSS) requiring the technology on all or some
categories of new vehicles.
    Under the NCAP program, NHTSA tests new vehicles to determine how
well they protect drivers and passengers during a crash, and how well
they resist rollovers. These vehicles are then rated using a 5-star
safety rating system. Five stars indicate the highest safety rating;
one star, the lowest. In addition, NHTSA began in model year 2011
identifying on its Web site, www.SaferCar.gov, new vehicles equipped
with any of three recommended advanced crash avoidance technologies
that meet the agency's established requirements. These technologies,
Electronic Stability Control, Forward Collision Warning, and Lane
Departure Warning, can help drivers avoid crashes.
    Additional technologies may be added to the NCAP list of crash
avoidance technologies when there is sufficient information and
analysis to confirm their safety value. NHTSA, for example, is
carefully analyzing advanced braking systems of the type discussed in
Daimler's comments and could decide in the near future that they are
ripe for inclusion in NCAP. Alternatively, NHTSA may conclude that such
technologies are sufficiently developed, their safety benefits
sufficiently clear, and relevant test procedures sufficiently defined
that they should be the subject of a mandatory safety standard. NHTSA
could not render a determination on such a request without thoroughly
testing the technology as applied in that specific model and developing
a specialized benefits analysis. The agency's higher priority would
clearly have to be analyzing the technologies it found to offer great
safety promise on a broader basis and developing standardized tests for
those technologies. Therefore the agencies believe that evaluation of
crash avoidance technologies is better addressed under NHTSA's vehicle
safety authority than under a case-by-case off-cycle credit process.
    Furthermore, the A/C efficiency, off-cycle, and pickup truck credit
provisions being finalized by the agencies are premised on the
installation of specific technologies that directly reduce the fuel
consumption and CO2 emissions of the specific vehicles in
which they are installed. For all of these credits, the amount of GHG
emission reduction and fuel economy improvement attributable to the
technology being credited can be reliably determined, and those
improvements can be directly attributed to the improved fuel economy
performance of the vehicle on which the technology is installed. Thus,
for a technology to be ``counted'' under the credit provisions, it must
make direct improvements to the performance of the specific vehicle to
which it is applied. The agencies have never considered indirect
improvements \299\ for the fleet as a whole, and did not discuss that
possibility in the proposal. The agencies believe that there is a very
significant distinction between technologies providing direct and
reliably quantifiable improvements to fuel economy and GHG emission
reductions, and technologies which provide those improvements by
indirect means, where the improvement is not reliably quantifiable, and
may be speculative (or in many instances, non-existent), or may provide
benefit to other vehicles on the road more than for themselves. As the
agencies have reiterated, and many commenters have likewise maintained,
credits should be available only for technologies providing real-world
improvements, the improvements must be verifiable, and the process by
which credits are granted and implemented must be transparent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \299\ i.e. improvements that improve the fuel economy or GHG
emissions of other vehicles on the road.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    None of these factors would be satisfied for credits for these
types of indirect technologies used for crash avoidance systems,
safety-critical systems, or other technologies that may reduce the
frequency of vehicle crashes. The agencies are consequently not
providing off-cycle credits potentially attributable to crash avoidance
systems, safety-critical systems, or technologies that may reduce the
frequency of vehicle crashes. . Therefore, the agencies are not
providing off-cycle credits for technologies and systems including, but
not limited to, Electronic Stability Control, Tire Pressure Monitoring
System, Forward Collision Warning, Lane Departure Warning and/or
Intervention, Collision Imminent Braking, Dynamic Brake Support,
Adaptive Lighting, Blind Spot Detection, Adaptive Cruise Control, Curve
Speed Warning, Fatigue Warning, systems that reduce driver distraction,
and any other technologies that may reduce the likelihood of crashes.
    Thus, manufacturers will not receive credits or fuel economy
improvement adjustments for installing these technologies. If a
manufacturer has an off-cycle technology that is not included on this
list and brings it to the agencies for assessment, NHTSA will determine
whether it is ineligible for a credit or adjustment by reason of the
agency's judgment that it is related to crash avoidance systems, is
related to motor vehicle safety within the meaning of the National
Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety act, as amended, or may otherwise
reduce the possibility and or frequency of vehicle crashes.
    The agencies believe that the advancement of crash avoidance
systems specifically is best left to NHTSA's exercise of its vehicle
safety authority. NHTSA looks forward to working with manufacturers and
other interested parties on creating opportunities to encourage the
general introduction of these technologies in the context of the NCAP
program and possible safety standards. To that end, the agency would
welcome relevant data and analysis from interested parties.
    The agencies also received comments related to other technologies
that may reduce CO2 emissions and fuel consumption by
reducing traffic congestion or that provide information to the driver
with which the driver may change his or her driving technique or the
route driven (more direct route or traffic avoidance \300\). All
commenters addressing these issues acknowledged the difficulty of
quantifying benefits associated with congestion mitigation and driver-
selectable technologies.\301\ Commenters generally noted that the off-
cycle credit provisions in the MYs 2012-2016 GHG rule, and the off-
cycle credit provisions proposed in this rulemaking did not appear to
cover technologies such as in-dash GPS navigation systems, driver
coaching and feedback systems (such as ``eco modes''), vehicle
maintenance alerts and reminders, and ``other automatic and driver-
initiated location content-

based technologies that have been shown to reduce fuel consumption.''
\302\ These commenters requested the opportunity to work with the
agencies at developing such procedures.\303\ With regard to EPA's
request for comment on whether the regulatory text should clarify how
EPA treats driver-selectable modes,\304\ the Alliance stated that it
believed there was no need to clarify regulatory text, but that EPA
should simply update or refine informal guidance as necessary to
address issues as they develop.\305\ MEMA stated that there was
``precedent for providing CAFE credits based on a projected usage
factor of a fuel saving device,'' citing EPA letters regarding the
impact of a shift indicator light on fuel economy.\306\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \300\ Agencies distinguish between congestion mitigation and
congestion avoidance. Congestion mitigation affects the fuel economy
and GHG emissions mainly of other vehicles on the road, whereas
congestion avoidance affects the fuel economy mainly of the single
vehicle with the technology.
    \301\ Alliance, Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0131-0262, at 11 (stating
that it did not seem like there is sufficient information at this
time to define specific credit opportunities); Ford, Docket No.
NHTSA-2010-0131-0235, at 16 (stating that ``quantifying the benefit
is an acknowledged challenge''); MEMA, Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0131-
[fill in], at 9 (stating that the benefits from these technologies
``cannot be quantified literally* * *'').
    \302\ See, e.g., MEMA at 9; Ford at 16; Garmin, Docket No.
NHTSA-2010-0131-0245, at 2-3 (requesting an alternate way for
manufacturers to prove the real-world fuel economy and
CO2 benefits of in-dash GPS navigation systems (with or
without traffic avoidance) to the agencies besides the ways laid out
in the off-cycle credit approval provisions at 40 CFR 86.1866-
12(d)(2) and (d)(3)).
    \303\ Alliance at 11, Ford at 16, MEMA at 9.
    \304\ See 76 FR 75025.
    \305\ Id. at 90.
    \306\ MEMA at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At proposal, EPA addressed the possibility of evaluating
applications for off-cycle credits for technologies involving driver
interaction, indicating that ``driver interactive technologies face the
highest demonstration hurdle because manufacturers would need to
provide actual real-world usage data on driver response rates.'' 76 FR
75025. The agencies still believe it to be highly unlikely that off-
cycle credits could be justified for these non-safety technologies.
This issue is addressed in detail in section III.C.5.ii below. These
technologies do not improve the fuel efficiency of the vehicle under
any given operating condition, but rather provide information the
driver may use to change the driving cycle over which the vehicle
overrates which, in turn, may improve the real-world fuel economy
(miles driven per gallon consumed)/CO2 emissions (per mile
driven) compared to what the fuel economy and CO2 emissions
per mile would have been had the driver not used the information or if
the technology was not on the vehicle. The agencies believe, for
example, there would be a number of specific challenges to quantifying
the effect on fuel economy and CO2 emissions per mile driven
of GPS/real time traffic navigation systems. First, given that the
systems available today are available through subscription services,
the manufacturer would need to prove that the vehicle operators will
pay for such a service for the useful life of the vehicle or the
manufacturer would have to provide the service at no cost to vehicle
operators over the useful life of the vehicle. Second, there would need
to be an extensive data collection program to show that drivers were
using the system and that they were taking alternate routes that
actually improved fuel economy. It would be necessary to determine the
level of fuel economy improvement as well as to show evidence that this
level of improvement would be expected to be achieved by vehicle
operators over the useful life of the vehicle. In addition, it would be
necessary to show the sampling is representative, the effects are
statistically significant, and the results are reproducible. Third, the
real time traffic information must be proven to be accurate and
assurances provided that the level of accuracy would be maintained over
the useful life of the vehicle. Inaccurate information might lead to
poorer fuel economy. Fourth, anecdotal information indicates that
navigations systems are most often used to direct the driver using the
shortest temporal path. The agencies believe that only rarely would a
driver choose the route that achieves the highest fuel economy over one
that takes the least time--especially if the time savings would be
significant. In addition, other factors may need to be demonstrated,
such as the effect of these technologies in differing geographical
regions with various road and traffic patterns and the effect of these
technologies during different parts of the day (e.g., rush hour vs.
mid-day). It is for these reasons that the agencies believe that
meeting the burden of proof for these class of technologies will be
extremely difficult. Other ``driver interactive'' off-cycle
technologies will present similar challenges. These may include, but
are not limited to, in-dash GPS navigation systems, driver coaching and
feedback systems such as ``eco modes,'' fuel economy performance
displays and indicators, or haptic devices such as, for example,
throttle pedal feedback systems, vehicle maintenance alerts and
reminders, and other automatic or driver-initiated location content-
based technologies that may improve fuel economy.
    Finally, the agencies requested comments on the treatment of driver
selectable technologies as stated in 76 FR 75089: ``EPA is requesting
comments on whether there is a need to clarify in the regulations how
EPA treats driver selectable modes (such as multi-mode transmissions
and other user-selectable buttons or switches) that may impact fuel
economy and GHG emissions.'' If we did not receive comments to the
contrary, we also stated that ``EPA would apply the same approach to
testing for compliance with the in-use CO2 standard, so
testing for the CO2 fleet average and testing for compliance
with the in-use CO2 standard would be consistent.''
    The current EPA policy on select-shift transmissions (SSTs) and
multimode transmissions (MMT), and shift indicator lights (SILs) is
under Manufacturer Guidance Letter CISD-09-19 (December 3, 2009) and
supersedes several previous letters on both of these topics. For, SSTs
and MMTs, the manufacturer must determine the predominant mode (e.g.,
75% of the drivers will have at least 90% of vehicle shift operation
performed in one mode, and, on average, 75% of vehicle shift operation
is performed in that mode), using default criteria in the guidance
letter or a driver survey. If the worst-case mode is determined to be
the predominant mode, the manufacturer must test in this mode and use
the results with no benefit from the driver-selectable technology
reflected in the fuel economy values. If the best-case mode is
determined to be the predominant mode, the manufacturer may test in
this mode and use the results with the full benefit of the driver-
selectable technology reflected in the fuel economy values. If the
predominant mode is not discernible, the manufacturer must test in all
modes and harmonically average the results (Note: in most cases, there
are only two modes so this becomes a 50/50 average between best- and
worst-case modes). Based on the EPA decision process under CISD-09-19,
both the label and CAFE/GHG could reflect 0, 50, or 100% of the benefit
of a driver-selectable device. However, when calculating CAFE, only the
2-cycle test results (e.g., Federal Test Procedure (FTP) and Highway
Fuel Economy test (HWFET)) are used. Thus, the higher fuel economy
results would only affect the 2-cycle testing values for CAFE purposes.
For SILs, the manufacturer must perform an instrumented vehicle survey
on a prototype vehicle to determine the appropriate shift schedule to
optimize fuel economy. Previous guidance for SILs contained the option
for A-B testing with and without the SIL. This has been eliminated in
the latest guidance, allowing only an instrumented vehicle survey as
the basis for determining SIL related fuel economy improvements.
However, for purposes of determining CAFE compliance reporting values,
the 2-cycle test results (e.g., Federal Test Procedure

(FTP) and Highway Fuel Economy test (HWFET)) are used to align
statutory provisions allowing for these two test cycles when
determining program compliance. Therefore, only fuel economy
improvement values identified on during the FTP and HWFET test cycles
would be applicable to the CAFE program.
    In response to EPA's request for comment on whether the regulatory
text should clarify how EPA treats driver-selectable modes, the
Alliance stated that it believed there was no need to clarify
regulatory text, but that EPA should simply update or refine informal
guidance as necessary to address issues as they develop.\307\ MEMA
stated that there was ``precedent for providing CAFE credits based on a
projected usage factor of a fuel saving device,'' citing EPA letters
regarding the impact of a shift indicator light on fuel economy.\308\
Finally, the Alliance provided data from General Motors on their HVAC
Eco-Mode button based on On-Star data from in-use vehicles (n=3,500;
50.3% of the drivers use the system 90% of the time or greater, 57.4%
use it 50% of the time or greater, and 34% never use it). Based on the
data supplied, they anticipate a benefit of 1.8 g/mi and, with 50% of
the people using the HVAC Eco-Mode, a credit of 0.9 g/mi is warranted
(i.e., 1.8 x 0.5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \307\ Id. at 90.
    \308\ MEMA at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On the comments from the Alliance that there is no need to clarify
regulatory text and the informal guidance should be updated or refined
as necessary, we agree that the current regulations and the latest
guidance letter, CISD-09-19, appropriately supersedes previous guidance
letters and addresses select-shift transmissions (SSTs) and multimode
transmissions, and shift indicator lights (SILs). Therefore, we will
not attempt to clarify the regulatory text and we will continue to
update our guidance as necessary.
    Regarding the comment from MEMA that there is ``precedent for
providing CAFE credits based on a projected usage factor of a fuel
saving device,'' citing EPA letters regarding the impact of a shift
indicator light on fuel economy, the manufacturer guidance letters
referenced by MEMA (CD-82-10 (LD) and CD-83-10(LD)) have been
superseded by CISD-09-19. Thus, the procedures in CISD-09-19 would be
the applicable guidance for comparison. As previously mentioned, CISD-
09-19 requires the manufacturer to 1) determine the potential benefit
of a driver selectable feature and 2) discern the predominant mode in-
use. This process is very similar and consistent with the process we
proposed for demonstrating technologies not on the defined technology
list. Therefore, we agree with MEMA that there is a precedent within
our current policy to consider the influence of driver-selectable
features on test cycle results.
    For the comments from the Alliance on the HVAC Eco-Mode \309\, as
discussed above, the existing policy in CISD-09-19 requires using
instrumented vehicle survey data to determine the predominant mode and
test the vehicle in this mode to determine the fuel economy benefits.
This is very similar to the process we are using for alternate method
demonstrations under the off-cycle credit program. Therefore, this
further supports our previous assertion for addressing driver-
selectable technologies under our alternate method demonstration
process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \309\ Alliance, Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0131-0262, page 38 of 93;
Appendix 2, page 13 of 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, we want to emphasize that although we acknowledge the
similarities between the procedures under the existing policy in CISD-
09-19 and the procedures used in the off-cycle program, our discussion
of driver-selectable devices is completely limited to their potential
impact on off-cycle credits. The procedures used to conduct FTP and
HFET testing for the purpose of determining CAFE and GHG values for a
model type are not at issue here. Following our request for comments on
how we handle these devices when testing on the FTP and HFET, comments
suggested no changes to existing guidance are needed. We agree and will
continue to handle these devices on a case-by-case basis consistent
with the existing policy in CISD-09-19. In addition, the existing
guidance and FTP/HFET testing policy in CISD-09-19 is not applicable in
the context of the off-cycle program since driver-selectable
technologies will always require the need for estimates of real-world
customer usage to receive off-cycle credit. Therefore, in summary we
believe that there is a precedent set by the existing policy in CISD-
09-19 to determine a usage in-use but that the existing policy in CISD-
09-19 has no bearing on the credit determinations in the off-cycle
program, and the converse (i.e., the off-cycle credit program affecting
existing policy in CISD-09-19). Specifically, the section entitled
``Alternative Methods for Determination of Usage Rates'' in CISD-09-19
that allows an instrumented vehicle survey or on-board data collection
are most consistent with the procedures for the off-cycle program as
discussed in III.C.5.iii. and 40 CFR Sec.  86.1869-12(c).
    In the context of the off-cycle program, the test values applicable
to a vehicle's fuel economy label value are mostly independent from
those generated for the CAFE compliance; where the 2-cycle results for
compliance and the combination of all 5-cycle test results are used for
the fuel economy label. However, as indicated with other technologies
included in the finalized pre-defined technology menu, fuel economy
improvements are reflected in the 2-cycle test result values used for
CAFE compliance revealing the need to account for the improved 2-cycle
test results when considering off-cycle credits for driver-selectable
technologies. Therefore, if a manufacturer is requesting off-cycle
credit but has previously used the improved fuel economy test results
under the existing policy in CISD-09-19 for a driver-selectable
technology, the manufacturer must use the 2-cycle results determined
under CISD-09-19 for both the A and B values of the FTP and HWFET A-B
tests to determine the potential benefit of the driver selectable
technology when requesting off-cycle credit. This approach effectively
negates the 2-cycle results and benefits, and which is consistent with
the treatment for the other off-cycle technologies where credit is not
granted for improvements reflected on current 2-cycle test procedures.
    Accordingly, we are allowing driver-selectable technologies to be
eligible for credit in the off-cycle credit program using procedures
and processes demonstrating technologies not on the defined technology
list using alternative methods and the public process. Under these
provisions, the manufacturer must determine the benefit of the driver-
selectable technology using approved methodologies and a usage factor
for the technology using an instrumented vehicle survey, and applying
this factor to the measured benefit to estimate and request credit. As
discussed above, if a manufacturer has previously received some fuel
economy improvement as a result of the decision process under CISD-09-
19, the manufacturer must use the 2-cycle results from that decision
process as the A and B values for the 2-cycle A-B tests to estimate the
off-cycle credit. Consequently, if a manufacturer uses 5-cycle testing
to demonstrate the benefit of a driver selectable technology, the
manufacturer must use the previously determined 2-cycle test values for
the FTP and HWFET A-B tests, which effectively only captures the
benefit from the remaining three cycles of 5-cycle testing (i.e., US06,

SC03, Cold FTP). The usage factor would then be applied to these 5-
cycle results (or any other approved methodology for non-5-cycle test
methodologies). For driver-selectable technologies, the manufacturers
must adhere to all criteria and requirements as discussed below in
III.C.5.iii. and 40 CFR Sec.  86.1869-12(b) and (c).
    While we are allowing credit for driver-selectable and driver
interactive technologies (including congestion avoidance), the agencies
believe that applicants would face formidable burdens of showing that
improvements over baseline are legitimate, reliably quantifiable,
certain, and transparently demonstrable as described above. As
identified in CISD-09-19, there will need to be an extensive data
collection program to show that drivers are using the technology and to
generate a reliable usage factor, if this has not previously been
established. In addition, the usage factor applied to the benefit from
the driver-selectable technology will tend to lower the amount of
credit unless a manufacturer can demonstrate 100% usage of a driver-
selectable technology. Therefore, depending on the level of benefit,
the amount of resulting credit could be minimal compared the effort to
generate the necessary, supporting data, and manufacturers should
consider this before undertaking this process.
    In summary, the agencies are not adding driver-selectable or
driver-interactive features to the defined technology list. However,
driver-selectable and driver-interactive features are eligible for off-
cycle credits using procedures and processes for demonstrating
technologies not on the defined technology list under the off-cycle
program as discussed above.
h. Credit for Glass and Glazing Technologies: Concerns With Metallic
Glazing and Request for Separate Polycarbonate Glazing Credit
    Multiple comments were received with concerns regarding the use of
metallic glazing from the Crime Victims Unit of California (CVUC),
California State Sheriffs, Garmin, Honda and TechAmerica. Many
commenters raised concerns the credit for glazing may unintentionally
create incentives to use metallic films or small metallic particles to
achieve reduced vehicle solar heat loading and access the off-cycle
credit. The commenters indicated this type of metallic glazing can
potentially interfere with signals for global positioning systems
(GPS), cell phones, cellular signal based prisoner tracking systems,
emergency and/or electronic 911 (E911) calls or other signals emanating
from within or being transmitted to a vehicle's passenger compartment/
cabin. In addition, some commenters cited this concern as the reason
that the California Air Resources Board (CARB) removed their mandate
for metallic glazing from the ``Cool Cars'' Regulation in California.
    To address these concerns, the agencies met with the Enhanced
Protective Glass Automotive Association (EPGAA), which represents
automotive glass manufacturers and suppliers. The meeting included
representatives from the automotive glass suppliers Pittsburgh Glass
Works LLC (PGW), Guardian Industries, and Asahi Glass Company (AGC) to
discuss the potential concerns with metallic glazing, signal
interference and/or radio frequency (RF) attenuation (details of this
meeting are available in EPA docket  EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0799-
41752 and docket NHTSA-2010-0131). At this meeting, EPGAA provided data
to the agencies that showed: In general, any glazing material can
create signal interference and RF attenuation, and depending on the
situation, RF attenuation and signal interference can occur without the
presence of metallic glazing material; there was no statistically-
significant increase in signal interference and RF attenuation when
metallic glazing was used. Furthermore, many vehicles in production
today are designed with metallic solar control deletion areas or zones
around the window edges and/or defined areas in either the front
windshield of rear backlight to minimize signal interference and RF
attenuation. Following the meeting, EPGAA representatives provided a
list of vehicles currently utilizing metallic glazing demonstrating to
the agencies that this technology is currently in-use without
significant signal interference/RF attenuation issues being raised.
EPGAA representatives indicated the technology is especially prevalent
in Europe and with no significant consumer complaints.
    In addition, the agencies received comments from the California Air
Resources Board (CARB) in response to the specific comments submitted
to the proposal regarding the California Cool Cars Regulation
indicating the program was withdrawn as a result of the metallic solar
glazing concerns (see EPA docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0799). CARB
stated the mandate for metallic glazing in the Cool Cars Regulation was
withdrawn was primarily related to the timing of when the concerns
regarding metallic glazing were raised in relation to the proposed
mandate's targeted finalization than to substantive concerns. CARB also
clarified that they were not requiring a specific type of glazing and
that a performance-based approach ultimately adopted in the Advanced
Clean Cars Regulation accomplished the same objectives as proposed
under the Cool Cars Regulation without the need for a mandate. In
addition, CARB performed testing of signal interference and RF
attenuation by CARB (see test results in EPA docket  EPA-HQ-
OAR-2010-0799-41752) echoing the findings of the automotive glass
industry that there is ``[n]o effect of reflective glazing observed on
monitoring ankle bracelets or cell phones'' and that any ``[e]ffects on
GPS navigation devices [are] completely mitigated by use of [the]
deletion window'' placing either the device or the external antennae in
this area''. CARB urged EPA to finalize the proposed credit values for
glass and glazing as proposed. Finally, CARB issued a formal memorandum
\310\ confirming the timing related reasons for withdrawing the Cool
Cars mandate and its test results regarding signal interference and RF
attenuation, and urging the agencies to finalize the proposed credit
values for glass and glazing as proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \310\ CARB memorandum available at EPA docket EPA-HQ-
OAR-2010-0799 and NHTSA docket NHTSA-2010-0131.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on this information, the agencies are finalizing the proposed
credit values and calculation procedures for solar control glazing. EPA
and NHTSA note further the off-cycle credit is performance-based and
not a mandate for vehicle manufacturers. Manufacturers have options to
choose from a variety of glazing technologies that meet their desired
performance for rejecting vehicle cabin solar loading. We reiterate
that the rule is technology neutral and that none of these potential
glazing technologies are foreclosed. Second, we did not see evidence
contravening the information that the automotive glass industry and
CARB presented showing that there would not be significant adverse
effects on signal interference and RF attenuation by any of the
recognized glazing technologies. However, to address the concerns of
other commenters, we will emphasize to manufacturers that they should
evaluate the potential for signal interference and RF attenuation when
requesting the solar control glazing credit to ensure that their
designs do not cause any interference.
i. Summary of Off-Cycle Credit Values
    As proposed, EPA is finalizing that a CAFE improvement value for
off-cycle improvements be determined at the fleet

level by converting the CO2 credits determined under the EPA
program (in metric tons of CO2) for each fleet (car and
truck) to a fleet fuel consumption improvement value. This improvement
value would then be used to adjust the fleet's CAFE level upward. See
the regulations at 40 CFR 600.510-12. Note that although the table
below presents fuel consumption values equivalent to a given
CO2 credit value, these consumption values are presented for
informational purposes and are not meant to imply that these values
will be used to determine the fuel economy for individual vehicles.
    Finally, the agencies proposed that the pre-approved menu list of
off-cycle technologies and default credit values would be predicated on
a certain minimum percentage of technology penetration in a
manufacturer's domestic fleet. 76 FR 75381. Commenters persuasively
argued that such a requirement would discourage introduction and
utilization of beneficial off-cycle technologies. They pointed out that
new technologies are often introduced on limited model lines or
platforms both to gauge consumer acceptance and to gain additional
experience with the technology before more widespread introduction.
Requiring levels of technology penetration such as the 10 percent
proposed for many of the menu technologies could thus create a negative
rather than positive incentive to deploy off-cycle technologies. The
agencies agree, and note further that having an aggressive penetration
rate requirement also raises issues of sufficiency of lead time in the
early years of the program. The agencies are therefore not adopting
minimum penetration requirements as a prerequisite to claim default
credits from the preapproved technology menu.
    Table II-22 shows the list of off-cycle technologies and credits
and equivalent fuel consumption improvement values for cars and trucks
that the agencies are finalizing in today's action. The credits and
fuel consumption improvement values for active aerodynamics, high-
efficiency exterior lighting, waste heat recovery and solar roof panels
are scalable, depending on the amount of respective improvement these
systems can generate for the vehicle. The Solar/Thermal control
technologies are varied and are limited to a total of 3.0 and 4.3 g/mi
(car and truck respectively) The various pre-defined solar/thermal
control technologies eligible for off-cycle credit are shown in Table
II-22 below.

 Table II-22--Off-Cycle Technologies and Credits and Equivalent Fuel Consumption Improvement Values for Cars and
                                                  Light Trucks
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Adjustments for cars           Adjustments for trucks
                   Technology                    ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       g/mi         gallons/mi         g/mi          gallons/mi
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ High Efficiency Exterior Lights* (at 100 watt              1.0        0.000113             1.0        0.000113
 savings).......................................
+ Waste Heat Recovery (at 100W).................             0.7        0.000079             0.7        0.000079
+ Solar Panels (based on a 75 watt solar
 panel)**;
    Battery Charging Only.......................             3.3        0.000372             3.3        0.000372
    Active Cabin Ventilation and Battery                     2.5        0.000282             2.5        0.000282
     Charging...................................
+ Active Aerodynamic Improvements (for a 3%                  0.6        0.000068             1.0        0.000113
 aerodynamic drag or Cd reduction)..............
Engine Idle Start-Stop;
    w/ heater circulation system #..............             2.5        0.000282             4.4        0.000496
    w/o heater circulation system...............             1.5        0.000169             2.9        0.000327
Active Transmission Warm-Up.....................             1.5        0.000169             3.2        0.000361
Active Engine Warm-up...........................             1.5        0.000169             3.2        0.000361
Solar/Thermal Control...........................       Up to 3.0        0.000338       Up to 4.3       0.000484
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* High efficiency exterior lighting credit is scalable based on lighting components selected from high
  efficiency exterior lighting list (see Joint TSD Section 5.2.3, Table 5-21).
** Solar Panel credit is scalable based on solar panel rated power, (see Joint TSD Section 5.2.4). This credit
  can be combined with active cabin ventilation credits.
# In order to receive the maximum engine idle start stop, the heater circulation system must be calibrated to
  keep the engine off for 1 minute or more when the external ambient temperature is 30 deg F and when cabin heat
  is demanded (see Joint TSD Section <IP_ADDRESS>).
+ This credit is scalable; however, only a minimum credit of 0.05 g/mi CO[ihel2] can be granted.

    Table II-23--Off-Cycle Technologies and Credits for Solar/Thermal
             Control Technologies for Cars and Light Trucks
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Credit (g CO2/mi)
  Thermal control technology   -----------------------------------------
                                        Car                 Truck
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Glass or Glazing..............  Up to 2.9..........  Up to 3.9
Active Seat Ventilation.......  1.0................  1.3
Solar Reflective Paint........  0.4................  0.5
Passive Cabin Ventilation.....  1.7................  2.3
Active Cabin Ventilation*.....  2.1................  2.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Active cabin ventilation has potential synergies with solar panels as
  described in Chapter 5.2 of the joint TSD.

j. Vehicle Simulation Tool
    Chapter 2 of EPA's RIA provides a detailed description of the
vehicle simulation tool that EPA had developed and has used for the
final rule. This tool is capable of simulating a wide range of
conventional and advanced engine, transmission, and vehicle
technologies over various driving cycles. It evaluates technology
package effectiveness while taking into account synergy (and dis-
synergy) effects among vehicle components and estimates GHG emissions
for various combinations of

technologies. For the MYs 2017 to 2025 GHG rule, this simulation tool
was used to assist estimating the amount of GHG credits for improved A/
C systems and off-cycle technologies. EPA sought public comment on this
approach of using the tool for generating some of the credits. The
agency received no specific comment on the model itself or on the
documentation of the model. However, based on the comments described in
the previous section (particularly on allowing scalable credits on off-
cycle technologies), EPA modified and fine-tuned the vehicle simulation
tool in order to properly capture the amount of scalable GHG reductions
provided by off-cycle technologies. More specifically, based on the
comments from the Auto Alliance, EPA used the simulation tool to
generate scalable credits for the active aerodynamic technology. For
this final rule, EPA utilized the simulation tool in order to quantify
the (scalable) credits for Active Aerodynamics, High Efficiency
Exterior Lights, Solar Panel, and Waste Heat Recovery \311\ more
accurately. The details of this analysis are presented in Chapter 5.2
of the Joint TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \311\ This technology was termed `engine heat recovery' at
proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are other technologies that would result in additional GHG
reduction benefits that cannot be fully captured on the combined FTP/
Highway cycle test. These technologies typically reduce engine loads by
utilizing advanced engine controls, and they range from enabling the
vehicle to turn off the engine at idle, to reducing cabin temperature
and thus A/C compressor loading when the vehicle is restarted. Examples
include Engine Start-Stop, Electric Heater Circulation Pump, Active
Engine/Transmission Warm-Up, and Solar Control. For these types of
technologies, the overall GHG reduction largely depends on the control
and calibration strategies of individual manufacturers and vehicle
types. EPA utilized the simulation tool to estimate the default credit
values for the engine start-stop technology. Details of the analysis
are provided in the chapter <IP_ADDRESS> of Joint TSD. However, the current
vehicle simulation tool does not have the capability to properly
simulate the vehicle behaviors that depend on thermal conditions of the
vehicle and its surroundings, such as Active Engine/Transmission Warm-
Up and Solar Control. Therefore, the vehicle simulation cannot provide
full benefits of these technologies on the GHG reductions. For this
reason, the agency did not use the simulation tool to generate the
default GHG credits for these technologies, though future versions of
the model may be more capable of quantifying the efficacy of these off-
cycle technologies as well. As described in Chapter 5 of the Joint TSD,
the Active Engine/Transmission Warm-up credits were estimated using the
results from the Ricardo vehicle simulation results.
    In summary, for the MYs 2017 to 2025 GHG final rule, EPA used the
simulation tool to quantify the amount of GHG emissions reduced by
improvements in A/C systems and to determine the default credit values
for some of the off-cycle technologies such as active aerodynamics,
electrical load reduction, and engine start-stop. Details of the
analysis and values of these scalable credits are described in Chapter
5 of Joint TSD. This simulation tool will not be officially used for
credit compliance purposes (as proposed) because EPA has already made
several of the credits scalable for the purposes of this final rule.
However, EPA may use the tool as part of the case-by-case of off-cycle
credit determination process. EPA encourages manufacturers to use this
simulation tool in order to estimate the credits values of their off-
cycle technologies.
3. Advanced Technology Incentives for Full-Size Pickup Trucks
    The agencies recognize that the standards for MYs 2017-2025 will be
challenging for large vehicles, including full-size pickup trucks that
are often used for commercial purposes and have generally higher
payload and towing capabilities than other light-duty vehicles. Section
II.C and Chapter 2 of the joint TSD describe the adjustments made to
the slope of the truck curve compared to the MYs 2012-2016 rule,
reflecting these considerations. Sections III.B and IV.E describe the
progression of the stringency of the truck standards. Large pick-up
trucks represent are a significant portion of the overall light-duty
vehicle fleet and generally have higher levels of fuel consumption and
GHG emissions than most other light-duty vehicles. Improvements in the
fuel economy and GHG emissions of these vehicles can have significant
impact on overall light-duty fleet fuel use and GHG emissions. The
agencies believe that offering incentives in the earlier years of this
program that encourage the deployment of technologies that can
significantly improve the efficiency of these vehicles and that also
will foster production of those technologies at levels that will help
achieve economies of scale, will promote greater fuel savings overall
and make these technologies more cost effective and available in the
later model years of this rulemaking to assist in compliance with the
standards.
    The agencies are therefore finalizing the proposed approach to
encourage penetration of these technologies both through the standards
themselves, but also through various provisions providing regulatory
incentives for advanced technology use in full-size pick-up trucks. The
agencies' goal is to incentivize the penetration into the marketplace
of ``game changing'' technologies for these pickups, including the
marketing of hybrids. For that reason, EPA, in coordination with NHTSA,
proposed and is adopting provisions for credits and corresponding
equivalent fuel consumption improvement values for manufacturers that
hybridize a significant number of their full-size pickup trucks, or use
other technologies that significantly reduce CO2 emissions
and fuel consumption.\312\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \312\ Note that EPA's calculation methodology in 40 CFR 600.510-
12 does not use vehicle-specific fuel consumption adjustments to
determine the CAFE increase due to the various incentives allowed
under the program. Instead, EPA will convert the total
CO2 credits due to each incentive program from metric
tons of CO2 to a fleetwide CAFE improvement value. The
fuel consumption values are presented here to show the relationship
between CO2 and fuel consumption improvements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Most of the commenters on this issue supported the large truck
credit concept. Some OEM commenters argued that it should be extended
to other vehicles such as SUVs and minivans. ICCT, Volkswagen, and CBD
opposed adopting the proposed incentive, arguing that this vehicle
segment is not especially challenged by the proposed standards, that
hybrid systems would readily transfer to it from other vehicle classes,
and that the credit essentially amounts to an economic advantage for
manufacturers of large trucks. CBD also commented that this credit
should be eliminated, since they believe hybrid technology should be
forced by aggressive standards rather than encouraged through
regulatory incentives. Other environmental group commenters also
expressed concern about the real-world impacts of offering this credit,
and suggested various ways to tailor it to ensure that fuel savings and
emissions reductions associated with it are genuine.
    We believe that extending the large truck credit to other light-
duty trucks such as SUVs and minivans would greatly expand, and
therefore dilute, the intended credit focus. The agencies do not
believe that providing such incentives for hybridization in these
additional categories is necessary, or that the performance levels
required of

non-hybrid technologies eligible for credits are of such stringency
that extending credits to all or most light-duty trucks would amount to
anything more than a de facto lowering of overall program stringency.
Although commenters rightly pointed out that some of these non-truck
vehicles do have substantial towing capacity, most are not used as
towing vehicles, in contrast to full-size pickup trucks that often
serve as work vehicles. Moreover, the smaller footprint trucks fall on
the lower part of the truck curve, which have a higher rate of
improvement (in stringency) than the larger trucks, thus making them
more comparable to cars in terms of technology access and effectiveness
(as well as not having access to these credits).
    Arguments made by commenters for not adopting the large truck
technology credit are not convincing. Although there may not be
inherent reasons for a lack of hybrid technology migration to large
trucks, it is clear that this migration has nevertheless been slow to
materialize for practical/economic reasons, including in-use duty
cycles and customer expectations. These issues still need to be
addressed by the designers of large pickups to successfully introduce
these technologies in these trucks, and we believe that assistance in
the form of a focused, well-defined incentive program is warranted. See
section III.D.6 and 7 for further discussion of EPA's justification for
this credit program in the context of the stringency of the truck
standards.
    Volkswagen commented that any HEV or performance-based credits
generated by large trucks should not be transferable to other vehicle
segments, arguing that if compliance for the large truck segment is
really as challenging as predicted, there should be no excess of
credits to transfer anyway. This may be the case, but we do not agree
that it argues for restricting the use of large pickup truck credits.
We think the sizeable technology hurdle involved and the limited model
years in which credits are available preclude the potential for credit
windfalls. Furthermore, neither the size of the large truck market nor
the size of the per-vehicle credit are so substantial that they could
lead to a large pool of credits capable of skewing the competition in
the lighter vehicle market. As described in Section III.D of this
preamble, EPA will continue to monitor the net level of credit
transfers from cars to trucks and vice versa in the MYs 2017-2025
timeframe.
    As proposed, the agencies are defining a full-size pickup truck
based on minimum bed size and hauling capability, as detailed in
86.1866-12(e) of the regulations being adopted. This definition is
meant to ensure that the larger pickup trucks, which provide
significant utility with respect to bed access and payload and towing
capacities, are captured by the definition, while smaller pickup trucks
with more limited capacities are not covered. A full-size pickup truck
is defined as meeting requirements (1) and (2) below, as well as either
requirement (3) or (4) below. A more detailed discussion can be found
in section III.C.3.
    (1) Bed Width--The vehicle must have an open cargo box with a
minimum width between the wheelhouses of 48 inches. And--
    (2) Bed Length--The length of the open cargo box must be at least
60 inches. And--
    (3) Towing Capability--the gross combined weight rating (GCWR)
minus the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) must be at least 5,000
pounds. Or--
    (4) Payload Capability--the GVWR minus the curb weight (as defined
in 40 CFR 86.1803) must be at least 1,700 pounds.
    EPA sought comment on extending these credits to smaller pickup
trucks, specifically to those with narrower beds, down to 42 inches,
but still with towing capability comparable to large trucks. This
request for comment produced mixed reactions among truck manufacturers,
and some argued that EPA should go further and drop the bed size limit
entirely. ICCT and CBD strongly opposed any extension of credits,
arguing that adopting the 42'' bed width criterion would allow
virtually all pickup trucks to qualify, thereby distorting technology
requirements and reducing the benefits of the rule. None of the
commenters argued convincingly in favor of the extension and so we are
adopting the 48'' minimum requirement as proposed. Chrysler commented
that the proposed payload and towing capability minimums are too
restrictive, making a sizeable number of Ram 1500 configurations
ineligible to earn credits. However, the company provided no sales
information to enable the agencies to reassess this issue. Moreover,
the agencies did not premise the proposed incentive on every full-size
truck configuration being eligible. Manufacturers typically offer a
variety of truck options to suit varied customer needs in the work and
recreational truck markets, and the fact that one manufacturer (or
more) markets to applications lacking the towing and payload demands of
the core group of vehicles in this segment does not, in the agencies'
view, justify a revision of the hauling requirements that were a
fundamental consideration in establishing the credit.
    The agencies also sought comment on the definitions of mild and
strong hybrids based on energy capture on braking (brake regeneration).
Minor modifications to these definitions were made based on these
comments as well as new testing performed by the EPA. Due to the
detailed nature of these comments, these responses and the description
of the testing are included in section 5.3.3 of the Joint TSD.
    The program requirements and incentive amounts differ somewhat for
mild and strong HEV pickup trucks. As proposed, mild HEVs will be
eligible for a per-vehicle credit of 10 g/mi (equivalent to 0.0011
gallon/mile for a gasoline-fueled truck) during MYs 2017-2021.
Eligibility also requires that the technology be used on a minimum
percentage of a company's full size pickups, beginning with at least
20% of a company's full-size pickup production in 2017 and ramping up
to at least 80% in MY 2021. These minimum percentages are lower in MYs
2017 and 2018 than proposed (20% and 30%, respectively, compared to the
proposed 30% and 40%), based on our assessment of the comments arguing
reasonably that the proposed percentages were too demanding, especially
in the initial model years when there is the least lead time. Strong
HEV pickup trucks will be eligible for a 20 g/mi CO2 credit
(0.0023 gallon/mile) during MYs 2017-2025 if the technology is used on
at least 10% of the company's full-size pickups. The technology
penetration thresholds and their basis, as well as comments received on
our proposal for them, are discussed in more detail in section III.C
below. Because of their importance in assigning credit amounts, EPA is
adopting explicit regulatory definitions for mild and strong HEVs.
These definitions and the relevant comments we received are discussed
in section III.C.3 and in section 5.3.3 of the Joint TSD.
    Because there are other, non-HEV, advanced technologies that can
provide significant reductions in pickup truck GHG emissions and fuel
consumption (e.g., hydraulic hybrid), EPA is also adopting the
proposed, more generalized, credit provisions for full-size pickup
trucks that achieve emissions levels significantly below their
applicable CO2 targets. This performance-based credit will
be 10 g/mi CO2 (equivalent to 0.0011 gal/mi for the CAFE
program) or 20 g/mi CO2 (0.0023 gal/mi) for full-size
pickups achieving 15 or 20%, respectively,

better CO2 than their footprint-based targets in a given
model year. The basis for our choice of the 15 and 20% over-compliance
targets is explained in Section 5.3.4 of the Joint TSD.
    These performance-based credits have no specific technology or
design requirements; automakers can use any technology or set of
technologies as long as the vehicle's CO2 performance is at
least 15 or 20% below its footprint-based target. However, a vehicle
cannot receive both HEV and performance-based credits. Because the
footprint target curve has been adjusted to account for A/C-related
credits, the CO2 level to be compared with the target will
also include any A/C-related credits generated by the vehicles.
    The 10 g/mi performance-based credit will be available for MYs 2017
to 2021. In recognition of the nature of automotive redesign sequence,
a vehicle model meeting the requirements in a model year will receive
the credit in subsequent model years through MY 2021, unless its
CO2 level increases or its production drops below the
penetration threshold described below, even if the year-by-year
reduction in standards levels causes the vehicle to fall short of the
15% over-compliance threshold. The 10 g/mi credit is not available
after MY 2021 because the post-2021 standards quickly overtake designs
that were originally 15% over-compliant, making the awarding of credits
to them inappropriate. The 20 g/mi CO2 performance-based
credit will be available for a maximum of five consecutive model years
within the 2017 to 2025 model year period, provided the vehicle model's
CO2 level does not increase from the level determined in its
first qualifying model year, and subject to the penetration requirement
described below. A qualifying vehicle model that subsequently undergoes
a major redesign can requalify for the credit for an additional period
starting in the redesign model year, not to exceed five model years and
not to extend beyond MY 2025.
    As with the HEV incentives, eligibility for the performance-based
credit and fuel consumption improvement value requires that the
technology be used on a minimum percentage of a manufacturer's full-
size pickup trucks. That minimum percentage for the 10 g/mi
CO2 credit (0.0011 gal/mi) is 15% in MY 2017, with a ramp up
to 40% in MY 2021. The minimum percentage for the 20 g/mi credit
(0.0023 gal/mi) is 10% in each year over the model years 2017-2025. The
technology penetration thresholds and their basis, as well as comments
received on our proposal for them, are discussed in more detail in
section III.C.
    ICCT opposed allowing vehicle models that earn performance-based
credits in one year to continue receiving them in subsequent years as
the increasingly more stringent standards progressively diminish the
vehicle's performance margin compared to the standard. We view the
incentive over the longer term, as a multi-year package, intending it
to encourage investment in lasting technology shifts. The fact that it
is somewhat easier to exceed performance by 15 or 20% in the earlier
years, when the bar is set lower, and, once earned, to retain that
benefit for a fixed number of years (provided sales remain strong),
works to focus the credit as intended--on incentivizing the
introduction of new technology as early in the program as possible.

G. Safety Considerations in Establishing CAFE/GHG Standards

1. Why do the Agencies consider safety?
    The primary goals of CAFE and GHG standards are to reduce fuel
consumption and GHG emissions from the on-road light-duty vehicle
fleet, but in addition to these intended effects, the agencies also
consider the potential of the standards to affect vehicle safety.\313\
As a safety agency, NHTSA has long considered the potential for adverse
safety consequences when establishing CAFE standards,\314\ and under
the CAA, EPA considers factors related to public health and human
welfare, including safety, in regulating emissions of air pollutants
from mobile sources.\315\ Safety trade-offs associated with fuel
economy increases have occurred in the past, particularly before NHTSA
CAFE standards were attribute-based,\316\ and the agencies must be
mindful of the possibility of future ones. These past safety trade-offs
may have occurred because manufacturers chose at the time, partly in
response to CAFE standards, to build smaller and lighter vehicles,
rather than adding more expensive fuel-saving technologies while
maintaining vehicle size and safety, and the smaller and lighter
vehicles did not fare as well in crashes as larger and heavier
vehicles. Historically, as shown in FARS data analyzed by NHTSA, the
safest cars generally have been heavy and large, while the cars with
the highest fatal-crash rates have been light and small. The question,
then, is whether past is necessarily prologue when it comes to
potential changes in vehicle size (both footprint and ``overhang'') and
mass in response to the more stringent future CAFE and GHG standards.
Manufacturers have stated that they will reduce vehicle mass as one of
the cost-effective means of increasing fuel economy and reducing
CO2 emissions in order to meet the standards, and the
agencies have incorporated this expectation into our modeling analysis
supporting the standards. Because the agencies discern a historical
relationship between vehicle mass, size, and safety, it is reasonable
to assume that these relationships will continue in the future. The
agencies are encouraged by comments to the NPRM from the Alliance of
Automotive Manufacturers reflecting a commitment to safety stating
that, while improving the fuel efficiency of the vehicles, the vehicle
manufacturers are ``mindful that such improvements must be implemented
in a manner that does not compromise the rate of safety improvement
that has been achieved to date.'' The question of whether vehicle
design can mitigate the adverse effects of mass reduction is discussed
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \313\ In this rulemaking document, ``vehicle safety'' is defined
as societal fatality rates per vehicle miles traveled (VMT), which
include fatalities to occupants of all the vehicles involved in the
collisions, plus any pedestrians.
    \314\ This practice is recognized approvingly in case law. As
the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit stated in
upholding NHTSA's exercise of judgment in setting the 1987-1989
passenger car standards, ``NHTSA has always examined the safety
consequences of the CAFE standards in its overall consideration of
relevant factors since its earliest rulemaking under the CAFE
program.'' Competitive Enterprise Institute v. NHTSA (``CEI I''),
901 F.2d 107, 120 at n. 11 (D.C. Cir. 1990).
    \315\ As noted in Section I.D above, EPA has considered the
safety of vehicular pollution control technologies from the
inception of its Title II regulatory programs. See also NRDC v. EPA,
655 F. 2d 318, 332 n. 31 (D.C. Cir. 1981). (EPA may consider safety
in developing standards under section 202(a) and did so
appropriately in the given instance).
    \316\ National Research Council, ``Effectiveness and Impact of
Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards,'' National Academy
Press, Washington, DC (2002), Finding 2, p. 3, Available at http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309076013 (last accessed Aug. 2,
2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Manufacturers are less likely than they were in the past to reduce
vehicle footprint in order to reduce mass for increased fuel economy.
The primary mechanism in this rulemaking for mitigating the potential
negative effects on safety is the application of footprint-based
standards, which create a disincentive for manufacturers to produce
smaller-footprint vehicles (see Section II.C.1 above). This is because,
as footprint decreases, the corresponding fuel economy/GHG emission
target becomes more stringent. We also believe that the shape of the
footprint curves themselves is approximately ``footprint-

neutral,'' that is, that it should neither encourage manufacturers to
increase the footprint of their fleets, nor to decrease it. Upsizing
footprint is also discouraged through the curve ``cut-off'' at larger
footprints.\317\ However, the footprint-based standards do not
discourage downsizing the portions of a vehicle in front of the front
axle and to the rear of the rear axle, or of other areas of the vehicle
outside the wheels. The crush space provided by those portions of a
vehicle can make important contributions to managing crash energy.
Additionally, simply because footprint-based standards minimize
incentive to downsize vehicles does not mean that some manufacturers
will not downsize if doing so makes it easier for them to meet the
overall CAFE/GHG standard in a cost-efficient manner, as for example if
the smaller vehicles are so much lighter (or de-contented) that they
exceed their targets by much greater amounts. On balance, however, we
believe the target curves and the incentives they provide generally
will not encourage down-sizing (or up-sizing) in terms of footprint
reductions (or increases).\318\ Consequently, all of our analyses are
based on the assumption that this rulemaking, in and of itself, will
not result in any differences in the sales weighted distribution of
vehicle sizes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \317\ The agencies recognize that at the other end of the curve,
manufacturers who make small cars and trucks below 41 square feet
(the small footprint cut-off point) have some incentive to downsize
their vehicles to make it easier to meet the constant target. That
cut-off may also create some incentive for manufacturers who do not
currently offer models that size to do so in the future. However, at
the same time, the agencies believe that there is a limit to the
market for cars and trucks smaller than 41 square feet: most
consumers likely have some minimum expectation about interior
volume, for example, among other things. Additionally, vehicles in
this segment are the lowest price point for the light-duty
automotive market, with several models in the $10,000-$15,000 range.
Manufacturers who find themselves incentivized by the cut-off will
also find themselves adding technology to the lowest price segment
vehicles, which could make it challenging to retain the price
advantage. Because of these two reasons, the agencies believe that
the incentive to increase the sales of vehicles smaller than 41
square feet due to this rulemaking, if any, is small. See Section
II.C.1 above and Chapter 1 of the Joint TSD for more information on
the agencies' choice of ``cut-off'' points for the footprint-based
target curves.
    \318\ This statement makes no prediction of how consumer choices
of vehicle size will change in the future, independent of this
proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given that we expect manufacturers to reduce vehicle mass in
response to the final rule, and do not expect manufacturers to reduce
vehicle footprint in response to the final rule, the agencies must
attempt to predict the safety effects, if any, of the final rule based
on the best information currently available. This section explained why
the agencies consider safety; the following section discusses how the
agencies consider safety.
2. How do the Agencies consider safety?
    Assessing the effects of vehicle mass reduction and size on
societal safety is a complex issue. One part of estimating potential
safety effects involves trying to understand better the relationship
between mass and vehicle design. The extent of mass reduction that
manufacturers may be considering to meet more stringent fuel economy
and GHG standards may raise different safety concerns from what the
industry has previously faced. The principal difference between the
heavier vehicles, especially truck-based LTVs, and the lighter
vehicles, especially passenger cars, is that mass reduction has a
different effect in collisions with another car or LTV. When two
vehicles of unequal mass collide, the change in velocity (delta V) is
higher in the lighter vehicle, similar to the mass ratio proportion. As
a result of the higher change in velocity, the fatality risk may also
increase. Removing more mass from the heavier vehicle than in the
lighter vehicle by amounts that bring the mass ratio closer to 1.0
reduces the delta V in the lighter vehicle, possibly resulting in a net
societal benefit. This was reinforced by comments to the proposal from
Volvo which stated ``Everything else being equal, several of the
studies presented indicate a significant increase, up to a factor ten,
in the fatality risk for the occupants in the lighter vehicle for a
two-to-one weight ratio between the colliding vehicles in a head-on
crash.''\319\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \319\ Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0131-0243; Section: Safety
Consideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another complexity is that if a vehicle is made lighter,
adjustments must be made to the vehicle's structure such that it will
be able to manage the energy in a crash while limiting intrusion into
the occupant compartment. To maintain an acceptable occupant
compartment deceleration, the effective front-end stiffness has to be
managed such that the crash pulse does not increase as lighter yet
stiffer materials are utilized. If the energy is not well managed, the
occupants may have to ``ride down'' a more severe crash pulse, putting
more burdens on the restraint systems to protect the occupants. There
may be technological and physical limitations to how much the restraint
system may mitigate these effects.
    The agencies must attempt to estimate now, based on the best
information currently available to us for analyzing these CAFE and GHG
standards, how the assumed levels of mass reduction without additional
changes (i.e. footprint, performance, functionality) might affect the
safety of vehicles, and how lighter vehicles might affect the safety of
drivers and passengers in the entire on-road fleet. The agencies seek
to ensure that the standards are designed to encourage manufacturers to
pursue a path toward compliance that is both cost-effective and safe.
    To estimate the possible safety effects of the MY 2017-2025
standards, then, the agencies have undertaken research that approaches
this question from several angles. First, we are using a statistical
approach to study the effect of vehicle mass reduction on safety
historically, as discussed in greater detail in section C below.
Statistical analysis is performed using the most recent historical
crash data available, and is considered as the agencies' best estimate
of potential mass-safety effects. The agencies recognize that negative
safety effects estimated based on the historical relationships could
potentially be tempered with safety technology advances in the future,
and may not represent the current or future fleet. Second, we are using
an engineering approach to investigate what amount of mass reduction is
affordable and feasible while maintaining vehicle safety and
functionality such as durability, drivability, NVH, and acceleration
performance. Third, we are also studying the new challenges these
lighter vehicles might bring to vehicle safety and potential
countermeasures available to manage those challenges effectively.
Comments to the proposal from the Alliance of Automakers supported
NHTSA's approach of using both engineering and statistical analyses to
assess the effects of the standards on safety, stating ``The Alliance
supports NHTSA's intention to examine safety from the perspective of
both the historical field crash data and the engineering analysis of
potential future Advanced Materials Concept vehicles. NHTSA's planned
analysis rightly looks backward and forward.'' \320\ DRI furnished
alternative statistical analyses in which the significant fatality
increase seen for mass reduction in cars weighing less than 3,106
pounds in Kahane's analysis tapers off to a non-significant or near-
zero level. Other commenters (including ICCT, Center for Biological
Diversity (CBD), Consumers Union, NRDC, and the Aluminum Association),
in contrast, stated that

mass reduction can be implemented safely and there should be no safety
impacts associated with the CAFE/GHG standards. Some commenters argued
that safety of future vehicles will be solely a function of vehicle
design and not of weight or size, while others argued that better
material usage, better design, and stronger materials will improve
vehicle safety if vehicle size is maintained. More specifically,
comments from ICCT stated that reducing vehicle weight through the use
of strong lightweight materials, while maintaining size can reduce
intrusion, as the redesigned vehicle can reduce crash forces with
equivalent crush space. ICCT further stated that ``this also supports
that size-based standards that encourage the use of lightweight
materials should reduce intrusion and, hence, fatalities.'' \321\ The
American Iron and Steel Institute indicated that steel structures are
particularly effective in absorbing energy during a collision over the
engineered crush space (or crumple zone), and further indicated that
new advanced high-strength steel technology has already demonstrated
its ability to reduce mass and maintain or improve test crashworthiness
performance all within the same vehicle footprint, although
acknowledging that these comments did not necessarily reflect crash
performance with vehicles of different sizes and masses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \320\ Alliance comments, Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0131, at pg 5.
    \321\ ICCT comments, Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0799, Document
ID: 9512, at pg 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agencies have looked closely at these issues, and we believe
that our approach of using both statistical analyses of historical data
to assess societal safety effects, and design studies to assess the
ability of individual designs to comply with the FMVSS and perform well
on NCAP and IIHS tests responds to these concerns.
    The sections below discuss more specifically the state of the
research on the mass-safety relationship, and how the agencies have
integrated that research into our assessment of the safety effects of
the MY 2017-2025 CAFE and GHG standards.
3. What is the current state of the research on statistical analysis of
historical crash data?
a. Background
    Researchers have been using statistical analysis to examine the
relationship of vehicle mass and safety in historical crash data for
many years, and continue to refine their techniques over time. In the
MY 2012-2016 final rule, the agencies stated that we would conduct
further study and research into the interaction of mass, size and
safety to assist future rulemakings, and start to work collaboratively
by developing an interagency working group between NHTSA, EPA, DOE, and
CARB to evaluate all aspects of mass, size and safety. The team would
seek to coordinate government supported studies and independent
research, to the greatest extent possible, to help ensure the work is
complementary to previous and ongoing research and to guide further
research in this area.
    The agencies also identified three specific areas to direct
research in preparation for future CAFE/GHG rulemaking in regards to
statistical analysis of historical data.
    First, NHTSA would contract with an independent institution to
review the statistical methods that NHTSA and DRI have used to analyze
historical data related to mass, size and safety, and to provide
recommendations on whether the existing methods or other methods should
be used for future statistical analysis of historical data. This study
would include a consideration of potential near multicollinearity in
the historical data and how best to address it in a regression
analysis. The 2010 NHTSA report was also peer reviewed by two other
experts in the safety field--Charles Farmer (Insurance Institute for
Highway Safety) and Anders Lie (Swedish Transport Administration).\322\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \322\ All three of the peer reviews are available in Docket No.
NHTSA-2010-0152. You can access the docket at http://www.regulations.gov/#!home by typing `NHTSA-2010-0152' where it says
``enter keyword or ID'' and then clicking on ``Search.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, NHTSA and EPA, in consultation with DOE, would update the
MY 1991-1999 database on which the safety analyses in the NPRM and
final rule are based with newer vehicle data, and create a common
database that could be made publicly available to help address concerns
that differences in data were leading to different results in
statistical analyses by different researchers.
    And third, in order to assess if the design of recent model year
vehicles that incorporate various mass reduction methods affect the
relationships among vehicle mass, size and safety, the agencies sought
to identify vehicles that are using material substitution and smart
design, and to try to assess if there is sufficient crash data
involving those vehicles for statistical analysis. If sufficient data
exists, statistical analysis would be conducted to compare the
relationship among mass, size and safety of these smart design vehicles
to vehicles of similar size and mass with more traditional designs.
    Significant progress has been made on these tasks since the MY
2012-2016 final rule: The independent review of recent and updated
statistical analyses of the relationship between vehicle mass, size,
and crash fatality rates has been completed. NHTSA contracted with the
University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI) to
conduct this review, and the UMTRI team led by Paul Green evaluated
over 20 papers, including studies done by NHTSA's Charles Kahane, Tom
Wenzel of the U.S. Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory, Dynamic Research, Inc., and others. UMTRI's basic findings
will be discussed below. Some commenters in recent CAFE rulemakings,
including some vehicle manufacturers, suggested that the designs and
materials of more recent model year vehicles may have weakened the
historical statistical relationships between mass, size, and safety.
The agencies agree that the statistical analysis would be improved by
using an updated database that reflects more recent safety
technologies, vehicle designs and materials, and reflects changes in
the overall vehicle fleet, and an updated database was created and
employed for assessing safety effects in this final rule. The agencies
also believe, as UMTRI also found, that different statistical analyses
may have produced different results because they each used slightly
different datasets for their analyses. In order to try to mitigate this
issue and to support the current rulemaking, NHTSA has created a
common, updated database for statistical analysis that consists of
crash data of model years 2000-2007 vehicles in calendar years 2002-
2008, as compared to the database used in prior NHTSA analyses which
was based on model years 1991-1999 vehicles in calendar years 1995-
2000. The new database is the most up-to-date possible, given the
processing lead time for crash data and the need for enough crash cases
to permit statistically meaningful analyses. NHTSA made the preliminary
version of the new database, which was the basis for NHTSA's 2011
report, available to the public in May 2011, and an updated version in
April 2012,\323\ enabling other researchers to analyze the same data
and hopefully minimizing discrepancies in the results that would have
been due to inconsistencies across databases.\324\ The agencies
recognize, however, that the updated database may not represent the
future fleet, because vehicles have continued and will

continue to change. NHTSA published a preliminary report with the NPRM
in November 2011, which has subsequently been revised based on peer
review comments. The final report is being published concurrently with
this rulemaking.\325\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \323\ The new databases are available at ftp://ftp.nhtsa.dot.gov/CAFE/.
    \324\ 75 FR 25324 (May 7, 2010); the discussion of planned
statistical analyses is on pp. 25395-25396.
    \325\ The final report can be found in Docket No. NHTSA-2010-
0131.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agencies are aware that several studies have been initiated
using the 2011 version or the 2012 version of NHTSA's newly established
safety database. In addition to new Kahane studies, which are discussed
in section II.G.3.d, other on-going studies include two by Wenzel at
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) under contract with the
U.S. DOE, and one by Dynamic Research, Inc. (DRI) contracted by the
International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT). These studies
take somewhat different approaches to examine the statistical
relationship between fatality risk, vehicle mass and size. In addition
to a detailed assessment of the NHTSA 2011 report, Wenzel considers the
effect of mass and footprint reduction on casualty risk per crash,
using data from thirteen states. Casualty risk includes both fatalities
and serious or incapacitating injuries. Both LBNL studies were peer
reviewed and subsequently revised and updated. DRI used models that
separate the effect of mass reduction on two components of fatality
risk, crash avoidance and crashworthiness. The LBNL and DRI studies are
available in the docket for this final rule.\326\ The database is
available for download to the public from NHTSA's Web site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \326\ Wenzel, T. (2011a). Assessment of NHTSA's Report
``Relationships Between Fatality Risk, Mass, and Footprint in Model
Year 2000-2007 Passenger Cars and LTVs--Draft Final Report.''
(Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0152-0026). Berkeley, CA: Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory; Wenzel, T. (2011b). An Analysis of the
Relationship between Casualty Risk Per Crash and Vehicle Mass and
Footprint for Model Year 2000-2007 Light-Duty Vehicles--Draft Final
Report.'' (Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0152-0028). Berkeley, CA: Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory; Wenzel, T. (2012a). Assessment of
NHTSA's Report ``Relationships Between Fatality Risk, Mass, and
Footprint in Model Year 2000-2007 Passenger Cars and LTVs--Final
Report.'' (To appear in Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0152). Berkeley, CA:
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory; Wenzel, T. (2012b). An
Analysis of the Relationship between Casualty Risk Per Crash and
Vehicle Mass and Footprint for Model Year 2000-2007 Light-Duty
Vehicles--Final Report.'' (To appear in Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0152).
Berkeley, CA: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory; Van Auken,
R.M., and Zellner, J. W. (2012a). Updated Analysis of the Effects of
Passenger Vehicle Size and Weight on Safety, Phase I. Report No.
DRI-TR-11-01. (Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0152-0030). Torrance, CA:
Dynamic Research, Inc.; Van Auken, R.M., and Zellner, J. W. (2012b).
Updated Analysis of the Effects of Passenger Vehicle Size and Weight
on Safety, Phase II; Preliminary Analysis Based on 2002 to 2008
Calendar Year Data for 2000 to 2007 Model Year Light Passenger
Vehicles to Induced-Exposure and Vehicle Size Variables. Report No.
DRI-TR-12-01, Vols. 1-3. (Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0152-0032).
Torrance, CA: Dynamic Research, Inc.; Van Auken, R.M., and Zellner,
J. W. (2012c). Updated Analysis of the Effects of Passenger Vehicle
Size and Weight on Safety, Phase II; Preliminary Analysis Based on
2002 to 2008 Calendar Year Data for 2000 to 2007 Model Year Light
Passenger Vehicles to Induced-Exposure and Vehicle Size Variables.
Report No. DRI-TR-12-01, Vols. 4-5. (Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0152-
0033). Torrance, CA: Dynamic Research, Inc.; Van Auken, R.M., and
Zellner, J. W. (2012d). Updated Analysis of the Effects of Passenger
Vehicle Size and Weight on Safety; Sensitivity of the Estimates for
2002 to 2008 Calendar Year Data for 2000 to 2007 Model Year Light
Passenger Vehicles to Induced-Exposure and Vehicle Size Variables.
Report No. DRI-TR-12-03. (Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0152-0034).
Torrance, CA: Dynamic Research, Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, EPA and NHTSA with DOT's Volpe Center, part of DOT's
Research and Innovative Technology Administration, attempted to
investigate the implications of ``Smart Design,'' by identifying and
describing the types of ``Smart Design'' and methods for using ``Smart
Design'' to result in vehicle mass reduction, selecting analytical
pairs of vehicles, and using the appropriate crash database to analyze
vehicle crash data. The analysis identified several one-vehicle and
two-vehicle crash datasets with the potential to shed light on the
issue, but the available data for specific crash scenarios was
insufficient to produce consistent results that could be used to
support conclusions regarding historical performance of ``smart
designs.'' This study is also available in the docket for this final
rule.\327\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \327\ Brewer, John. An Assessment of the Implications of ``Smart
Design'' on Motor Vehicle Safety. 2011. Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0131.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Undertaking these tasks has helped the agencies come closer to
resolving some of the ongoing debates in statistical analysis research
of historical crash data. We intend to apply these conclusions going
forward in the midterm review and future rulemakings, and we believe
that the public discussion of the issues will be facilitated by the
research conducted. The following sections discuss the findings from
these studies and others in greater detail, to present a more nuanced
picture of the current state of the statistical research.
b. NHTSA Workshop on Vehicle Mass, Size and Safety
    On February 25, 2011, NHTSA hosted a workshop on mass reduction,
vehicle size, and fleet safety at the Headquarters of the U.S.
Department of Transportation in Washington, DC.\328\ The purpose of the
workshop was to provide the agencies with a broad understanding of
current research in the field and provide stakeholders and the public
with an opportunity to weigh in on this issue. NHTSA also created a
public docket to receive comments from interested parties that were
unable to attend.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \328\ A video recording, transcript, and the presentations from
the NHTSA workshop on mass reduction, vehicle size and fleet safety
is available at http://www.nhtsa.gov/fuel-economy (look for ``NHTSA
Workshop on Vehicle Mass-Size-Safety on Feb. 25.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The speakers included Charles Kahane of NHTSA, Tom Wenzel of
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, R. Michael Van Auken of Dynamic
Research Inc. (DRI), Jeya Padmanaban of JP Research, Inc., Adrian Lund
of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Paul Green of the
University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI),
Stephen Summers of NHTSA, Gregg Peterson of Lotus Engineering, Koichi
Kamiji of Honda, John German of the International Council on Clean
Transportation (ICCT), Scott Schmidt of the Alliance of Automobile
Manufacturers, Guy Nusholtz of Chrysler, and Frank Field of the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
    The wide participation in the workshop allowed the agencies to hear
from a broad range of experts and stakeholders. The contributions were
particularly relevant to the agencies' analysis of the effects of mass
reduction for this final rule. The presentations were divided into two
sessions that addressed the two expansive sets of issues: statistical
evidence of the roles of mass and size on safety, and engineering
realities regarding structural crashworthiness, occupant injury and
advanced vehicle design.
    The first session focused on previous and ongoing statistical
studies of crash data that attempt to identify the relative recent
historical effects of vehicle mass and size on fleet safety. There was
consensus that there is a complicated relationship with many
confounding influences in the data. Wenzel summarized a recent study he
conducted comparing four types of risk (fatality or casualty risk, per
vehicle registration-years or per crash) using police-reported crash
data from five states. This study was updated and finalized in March of
2012.\329\ He showed that the trends in risk for various classes of
vehicles--e.g., non-sports car passenger cars, vans, SUVs,

crossover utility vehicles (CUV), pickups--were similar regardless of
what risk was being measured (fatality or casualty) or what exposure
metric was used (e.g., registration years, police-reported crashes,
etc.). In general, most trends showed that societal risk tends to
decrease as car or CUV size increases, while societal risk tends to
increase as pickup or SUV size increases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \329\ Wenzel, T.P. (2012). Analysis of Casualty Risk per Police-
Reported Crash for Model Year 2000 to 2004 Vehicles, Using Crash
Data from Five States, March 2012, LBNL-4897E, available at: http://energy.lbl.gov/ea/teepa/pdf/lbnl-4897e.pdf (last accessed Jun. 18,
2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although Wenzel's analysis was focused on differences in the four