2010.................  961..................  1,027................  1,102................  1,125................  41..................  70
Final Standards..................  2008.................  951-.................  997-.................  1,081-...............  1,183-...............  46-.................  71-
                                   2010.................  948..................  1,056................  1,148................  1,226................  42..................  63
4%...............................  2008.................  1,300-...............  1,370-...............  1,530-...............  1,654-...............  54-.................  101-
                                   2010.................  1,375................  1,500................  1,620................  1,746................  52..................  88
MNB..............................  2008.................  2,149-...............  2,226-...............  2,383-...............  2,525-...............  62-.................  133-
                                   2010.................  2,000................  2,120................  2,212................  2,247................  57..................  101
TC=TB............................  2008.................  2,137-...............  2,258-...............  2,430-...............  2,532-...............  62-.................  133-
                                   2010.................  1,979................  2,097................  2,182................  2,272................  57..................  102
5%...............................  2008.................  1,991-...............  2,151-...............  2,462-...............  2,619-...............  63-.................  118-
                                   2010.................  1,882................  2,070................  2,313................  2,498................  57..................  98
6%...............................  2008.................  2,493-...............  2,741-...............  3,104-...............  3,250-...............  67-.................  131-
                                   2010.................  2,302................  2,585................  2,889................  3,168................  60..................  104
7%...............................  2008.................  2,831-...............  3,127-...............  3,504-...............  3,632-...............  68-.................  136-
                                   2010.................  2,510................  2,817................  3,267................  3,538................  62..................  109
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               Table IV-48--NHTSA Estimated Passenger Car Cumulative Lifetime Fuel Savings and Average Vehicle Cost Increases During MYs 2022-2025
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Ave. MSRP increase relative to no-action alternative
           Alternative                 Fleet MY basis    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------   Fuel savings (b.      Fuel savings (b.
                                                                   2022                   2023                   2024                   2025            gal.) MY2022-2025   gal.) through MY2025
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2%...............................  2008.................  638-.................  677-.................  730-.................  758-.................  40-.................  65-
                                   2010.................  575..................  629..................  675..................  683..................  39..................  66
3%...............................  2008.................  897-.................  949-.................  1,110-...............  1,174-...............  56-.................  93-
                                   2010.................  868..................  939..................  1,009................  1,037................  57..................  99
Final Standards..................  2008.................  1,272-...............  1,394-...............  1,751-...............  1,827-...............  68-.................  113-
                                   2010.................  1,091................  1,221................  1,482................  1,578................  69..................  118
4%...............................  2008.................  1,341-...............  1,469-...............  1,779-...............  1,865-...............  69-.................  121-
                                   2010.................  1,153................  1,292................  1,487................  1,577................  70..................  124
MNB..............................  2008.................  1,739-...............  1,810-...............  1,964-...............  1,943-...............  73-.................  148-

                                   2010.................  1,593................  1,772................  2,096................  2,104................  78..................  154
TC=TB............................  2008.................  2,041-...............  2,189-...............  2,568-...............  2,475-...............  80-.................  158-
                                   2010.................  1,755................  2,086................  2,524................  2,488................  82..................  159
5%...............................  2008.................  1,797-...............  2,152-...............  2,730-...............  2,719-...............  81-.................  141-
                                   2010.................  1,599................  1,970................  2,624................  2,648................  82..................  146
6%...............................  2008.................  2,245-...............  2,677-...............  3,391-...............  3,513-...............  86-.................  152-
                                   2010.................  2,183................  2,408................  3,315................  3,461................  88..................  159
7%...............................  2008.................  2,938-...............  3,579-...............  4,223-...............  4,121-...............  92-.................  164-
                                   2010.................  3,091................  3,514................  3,977................  3,970................  95..................  172
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        Table IV-49--NHTSA Estimated Light Truck Cumulative Lifetime Fuel Savings Through MY 2021 and Average Vehicle Cost Increases During MYs 2014-2021
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Ave. MSRP increase relative to no-action alternative                                        Fuel savings
          Alternative             Fleet MY basis --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------    (b. gal.)
                                                       2014            2015            2016            2017            2018            2019            2020            2021       through MY2021
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2%.............................  2008...........  62-...........  85-...........  101-..........  177-..........  244-..........  335-..........  429-..........  522-..........  24-
                                 2010...........  113...........  231...........  266...........  327...........  378...........  452...........  533...........  607...........  22
3%.............................  2008...........  88-...........  168-..........  197-..........  270-..........  371-..........  506-..........  633-..........  767-..........  35-
                                 2010...........  129...........  242...........  280...........  357...........  458...........  598...........  750...........  916...........  29
Final Standards................  2008...........  04-...........  07-...........  14-...........  78-...........  192-..........  423-..........  622-..........  854-..........  25-
                                 2010...........  13............  69............  106...........  147...........  196...........  397...........  629...........  908...........  21
4%.............................  2008...........  134-..........  248-..........  300-..........  393-..........  546-..........  788-..........  998-..........  1,201-........  46-
                                 2010...........  161...........  294...........  353...........  435...........  571...........  845...........  1,085.........  1,295.........  36
MNB............................  2008...........  595-..........  823-..........  973-..........  1,296-........  1,535-........  1,684-........  1,915-........  2,025-........  71-
                                 2010...........  260...........  473...........  535...........  705...........  854...........  1,222.........  1,593.........  1,957.........  44
TC=TB..........................  2008...........  618-..........  845-..........  999-..........  1,354-........  1,572-........  1,708-........  1,938-........  2,062-........  71-
                                 2010...........  273...........  482...........  558...........  742...........  903...........  1,260.........  1,610.........  1,943.........  45
5%.............................  2008...........  223-..........  348-..........  413-..........  550-..........  770-..........  1,125-........  1,556-........  1,845-........  56-
                                 2010...........  249...........  459...........  504...........  607...........  806...........  1,100.........  1,434.........  1,737.........  41
6%.............................  2008...........  379-..........  538-..........  654-..........  774-..........  1,042-........  1,344-........  1,907-........  2,313-........  64-
                                 2010...........  283...........  477...........  539...........  664...........  906...........  1,262.........  1,630.........  2,005.........  44
7%.............................  2008...........  438-..........  626-..........  739-..........  878-..........  1,190-........  1,565-........  2,263-........  2,622-........  68-
                                 2010...........  296...........  486...........  566...........  719...........  1,018.........  1,528.........  1,906.........  2,316.........  47
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                 Table IV-50--NHTSA Estimated Light Truck Cumulative Lifetime Fuel Savings and Average Vehicle Cost Increases During MY2022-2025
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Ave. MSRP increase relative to no-action alternative
           Alternative                 Fleet MY basis    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------   Fuel savings (b.      Fuel savings (b.
                                                                   2022                   2023                   2024                   2025            gal.) MY2022-2025   gal.) through MY2025
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2%...............................  2008.................  566-.................  611-.................  628-.................  644-.................  30-.................  53-
                                   2010.................  650..................  705..................  728..................  730..................  28..................  50
3%...............................  2008.................  840-.................  883-.................  958-.................  1,059-...............  43-.................  78-
                                   2010.................  961..................  1,027................  1,102................  1,125................  41..................  70
Final Standards..................  2008.................  951-.................  997-.................  1,081-...............  1,183-...............  46-.................  71-
                                   2010.................  948..................  1,056................  1,148................  1,226................  42..................  63
4%...............................  2008.................  1,300-...............  1,370-...............  1,530-...............  1,654-...............  54-.................  101-
                                   2010.................  1,375................  1,500................  1,620................  1,746................  52..................  88
MNB..............................  2008.................  2,149-...............  2,226-...............  2,383-...............  2,525-...............  62-.................  133-
                                   2010.................  2,000................  2,120................  2,212................  2,247................  57..................  101
TC=TB............................  2008.................  2,137-...............  2,258-...............  2,430-...............  2,532-...............  62-.................  133-
                                   2010.................  1,979................  2,097................  2,182................  2,272................  57..................  102
5%...............................  2008.................  1,991-...............  2,151-...............  2,462-...............  2,619-...............  63-.................  118-
                                   2010.................  1,882................  2,070................  2,313................  2,498................  57..................  98
6%...............................  2008.................  2,493-...............  2,741-...............  3,104-...............  3,250-...............  67-.................  131-
                                   2010.................  2,302................  2,585................  2,889................  3,168................  60..................  104
7%...............................  2008.................  2,831-...............  3,127-...............  3,504-...............  3,632-...............  68-.................  136-
                                   2010.................  2,510................  2,817................  3,267................  3,538................  62..................  109
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Through MY 2021, the Preferred Alternative for passenger cars is
more stringent than the 2%/Year and 3%/Year alternatives. In MY 2021,
the Preferred Alternative for light trucks is more stringent than the
2%/Year alternative, but it is less stringent than the 2%/Year
alternative in earlier model years. During MYs 2022-2025, the preferred
alternatives for passenger cars and light trucks are both more than the
corresponding 2%/Year and 3%/Year alternatives.The tables above show
that, according to our analysis, the Preferred Alternative for
passenger cars achieves considerably more in fuel savings through MY
2021 and during MYs 2022-2025 than the less stringent alternatives,
still at a cost that the agency deems to be economically practicable if
it was passed directly on to consumers in the form of MSRP increases.
For light trucks, the agency's analysis indicates that, through MY
2012, the Preferred Alternative achieves fuel savings very similar to
the 2%/Year alternative, while incurring early-MY costs the agency
considers economically practicable. During MYs 2022-2025, our analysis
indicates the Preferred Alternative for light trucks achieves greater
fuel savings than the 3%/Year alternative, while still incurring costs
the agency considers economically practicable.
    Based on recent EIA estimates of future fuel prices, the fuel
savings presented above will significantly reduce future outlays for
fuel purchases, and will significiantly reduce future CO2
emissions. Setting aside outlays for fuel taxes (which, as explained
below, are economic transfers), accounting for estimated economic
externalities associated with petroleum use and CO2
emissions, and accounting for other impacts (e.g., increased
congestion, reduced VOC emissions) with estimable economic value, we
have also estimated the total social costs and benefits relative to the
baseline standards. Chapter X of the FRIA accompanying today's notice
documents these estimates for each regulatory alternative. While the
FRIA presents year-by-year results, Tables IV-51 and IV-52, below,
summarize cumulative results for model years covered by today's final
(i.e., through MY 2021) and augural (i.e., during MYs 2022-2025)
standards.

                         Table IV-51--NHTSA Estimated Benefits and Costs ($b) Relative to Preferred Alternative--Passenger Cars
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Through MY2021                         MY2022-2025                       Through MY2025
                                           -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Regulatory alternative       MY Basis                                 Net                                 Net                                 Net
                                              Benefits      Costs      benefits    Benefits      Costs     benefits    Benefits      Costs     benefits
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2%/Year......................  2008.......  90-........  23-........  67-.......  145-......  35-.......  111-......  235-......  57-.......  178-
                               2010.......  97.........  24.........  73........  142.......  31........  111.......  239.......  56........  184
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3%/Year......................  2008.......  131-.......  32-........  100-......  203-......  48-.......  155-......  334-......  80-.......  255-
                               2010.......  148........  34.........  114.......  208.......  44........  163.......  356.......  79........  277
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Preferred....................  2008.......  158-.......  40-........  118-......  246-......  71-.......  175-......  404-......  111-......  293-
                               2010.......  170........  42.........  128.......  250.......  60........  190.......  420.......  102.......  317
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4%/Year......................  2008.......  180-.......  47-........  133-......  249-......  73-.......  176-......  429-......  120-......  309-
                               2010.......  188........  46.........  142.......  255.......  61........  193.......  443.......  107.......  336
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5%/Year......................  2008.......  208-.......  60-........  148-......  281-......  104-......  177-......  489-......  164-......  326-
                               2010.......  222........  61.........  162.......  288.......  96........  192.......  510.......  156.......  354
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          Table IV-52--NHTSA Estimated Benefits and Costs ($b) Relative to Preferred Alternative--Light Trucks
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Through MY2021                         MY2022-2025                       Through MY2025
                                           -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Regulatory alternative       MY basis                                 Net                                   Net                                Net
                                              Benefits      Costs       benefits     Benefits      Costs     benefits    Benefits      Costs    benefits
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2%/Year......................  2008.......  82-........  12-........  70-........  109-.......  16-.......  92-.......  191-......  29-.......  162-
                               2010.......  75.........  17.........  59.........  101........  17........  84........  177.......  34........   143
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3%/Year......................  2008.......  122-.......  18-........  104-.......  155-.......  24-.......  131-......  277-......  42-.......  235-
                               2010.......  101........  21.........  79.........  145........  25........  120.......  246.......  46........   200
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Preferred....................  2008.......  88-........  13-........  74-........  165-.......  26-.......  139-......  253-......  40-.......  213-
                               2010.......  71.........  14.........  57.........  150........  26........  124.......  221.......  40........   181
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4%/Year......................  2008.......  160-.......  28-........  133-.......  197-.......  35-.......  161-......  357-......  63-.......  294-
                               2010.......  124........  28.........  95.........  183........  36........  147.......  307.......  64........   243
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5%/Year......................  2008.......  192-.......  41-........  151-.......  222-.......  54-.......  168-......  414-......  95-.......  319-
                               2010.......  139........  39.........  100........  202........  49........  153.......  340.......  88........   253
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our analysis indicates that both through MY 2021 and during MYs
2022-2025, the Preferred Alternative for passenger cars yields
significantly greater net benefits than the 3%/Year alternative, and
yields almost as much net benefit as the 4%/Year alternative. Through
MY 2021, our analysis indicates that the Preferred Alternative for
light trucks yields greater net benefits that the 2%/Year alternative,
at similar social cost. Our analysis also indicates net benefits
through MY 2021 would be higher under the 3%/Year alternative for light
trucks, but the social

costs would potentially be 50% higher than under the Preferred
Alternative. During MYs 2022-2025, our analysis indicates that the
Preferred Alternative would produce greater net benefits than the 3%/
Year alternative, and would do so at very similar cost. Our analysis
also that net benefits during MYs 2022-2025 would be higher under the
4%/Year alternative for light trucks, but that social costs would be
more than 30% higher than under the Preferred Alternative.
    Alternatives less stringent than the Preferred Alternatives would
still be economically practicable, but in terms of the technology that
they might leave on the table, the agency concludes that they would not
meet the need of the nation to conserve energy, and would thus be below
maximum feasible.
k. Uncertainty and Consumer Acceptance of Technologies
    In evaluating economic practicability, while NHTSA considered
individual manufacturers' redesign cycles and, where available, the
level of technologies planned for their future products that improve
fuel economy, as well as some estimation of the resources that would
likely be needed to support those plans and the potential future
standards, the agency also considered whether we agreed with
manufacturers that there could conceivably be compromises to vehicle
utility depending on the technologies chosen to meet the potential new
standards. NHTSA considered feedback on consumer acceptance of some
advanced technologies and consumers' willingness to pay for improved
fuel economy. In addition, the agency carefully considered whether
manufacturer assertions about potential uncertainties in the agency's
technical, economic, and consumer acceptance assumptions and estimates
were potentially valid, and if so, what the potential effects of these
uncertainties might be on economic practicability.
    Regarding passenger cars, after considering the feedback from
stakeholders received prior to and in response to the NPRM, the agency
considered further how it thought the factors should be balanced to
determine the maximum feasible passenger car standards for MYs 2017-
2025. Based on that consideration of the information before the agency
and how it informs our balancing of the factors, NHTSA concludes that
the points raised by stakeholders support NHTSA's careful consideration
of the factors described above, which take into account a level of
uncertainty that surrounds economic practicability in these future
model years. We believe the level of uncertainty that we have factored
into the analysis is reasonable and do not agree that uncertainty
levels are nearly as significant as a number of manufacturers
maintained, especially for passenger cars that would suggest that the
preferred alternative is not economically practicable. The most
persuasive information received from stakeholders for passenger cars
concerned practicability issues in MYs 2017-2021, which the agency's
analysis generally supports. We are concerned that requiring
manufacturers to invest that capital to meet higher standards in MYs
2017-2021, rather than allowing them to increase fuel economy in those
years slightly more slowly, would impact their ability to also support
the development and implementation of technologies across their light
truck fleet, and well as to conduct the engineering development and
future investment necessary comply with the preferred alternative's
more stringent standards in the later years. Thus, after considerable
deliberation, we conclude that the stringency levels required by the
Preferred Alternative for passenger cars, which increase on average
3.6%/y in MYs 2017-2021 (only slightly different from the 4%/y levels)
are economically practicable, but that the 4%/y alternative and higher
alternatives are likely not economically practicable.
    Regarding light trucks, while NHTSA does not agree with the
manufacturers' overall cost assessments expressed to us last summer
prior to issuance of the NPRM, and believes, based on our analysis
using our technology cost and effectiveness assumptions, that
manufacturers should be able to preserve all necessary vehicle utility.
NHTSA does believe there is merit to some of the concerns raised in
stakeholder feedback. Specifically, concerns about longer redesign
schedules for trucks, compounded by the need to invest simultaneously
in raising passenger car fuel economy, and we have incorporated those
considerations into our assessment for this final rule. Based on our
assessment, we believe that alternatives more stringent than the
preferred alternative could lead manufacturers to implement
technologies that do not maintain vehicle utility, based on the cadence
of the standards under the more stringent alternatives. As discussed
above, a number of manufacturers repeatedly stated, in providing
feedback, that the MYs 2012-2016 standards for trucks, while feasible,
required significant investment to reach the required levels, and that
given the redesign schedule for trucks, that level of investment
throughout the entire MYs 2012-2025 time period was not sustainable.
Based on the confidential business information that manufacturers
provided to us, we believe that this point is valid. If the agency
pushes CAFE increases that require considerable sustained investment at
a faster rate than industry redesign cycles, adverse economic
consequences could ensue. Especially for light trucks, these risks
appear most pronounced during MYs 2017-2021, as evidenced by the
agency's analysis indicating that, given our expectations regarding
manufacturers' product cadence (i.e., redesign schedules) increasing
stringency beyond baseline standards during the few model years
following MY 2016 could necessitate considerable additional technology
and cost even prior to MY 2016. The best information that the agency
has at this time, therefore, indicates that requiring light truck fuel
economy improvements at rates more stringent than the preferred
alternative could create potentially severe economic consequences, and
likely would not be economically practicable.
    Thus, evaluating the inputs from stakeholders and the agency's
independent analysis, the agency also considered further how it thought
the factors should be balanced to determine the maximum feasible light
truck standards for MYs 2017-2021. Based on that consideration of the
information before the agency and how it informs our balancing of the
factors, NHTSA has concluded for the final standards for MYs 2017-2021
that 4%/y CAFE stringency increases for passenger cars and 3%/y
stringency increases for light trucks are economically impracticable.
NHTSA therefore concludes that the preferred alternative, which would
in MYs 2017-2021 increase on average 3.8%/y for passenger cars and
2.5%/y for light trucks, is the most stringent alternative that is
still economically practicable in those model years.
    As discussed above, the question of the tipping point is slightly
different in the context of the final standards and augural standards.
The augural standards for MYs 2022-2025 are distant, and while
manufacturers benefit from regulatory certainty, no manufacturer has
begun to plan in earnest for vehicles that they expect to produce in
that time frame. Moreover, the inputs that inform our balancing are
less certain. We reiterate that the agency's assessment of what augural
standards would be maximum feasible is based on the best, most
transparent information available to the agency today, and that the
final standards for

MYs 2022-2025 will be determined in a future rulemaking, at which time
the agency expects to have much new information that may affect how it
chooses to balance the relevant factors at that time.
    Recognizing that the augural standards are distant, and that
manufacturers do not yet have fixed plans for those model years, the
agency believes that despite considerable uncertainty, economic
practicability may not necessarily be as limiting for MYs 2022-2025 as
we conclude it is for MYs 2017-2021. Our analysis showed that
shortfalls did not begin to accrue for the passenger car standards
until the 5%/y alternative, for example, as the table below
demonstrates. For light trucks, the analysis showed increasing
shortfall risk for more manufacturers in MYs 2022-2025 under the 5%/y
alternative. Other indicators of economic practicability confirmed that
the 5%/y alternative was likely not economically practicable in MYs
2022-2025, but that the 4%/y and slower alternatives would likely leave
technology on the table unnecessarily. NHTSA therefore concludes that
the preferred alternative, which would in MYs 2022-2025 increase on
average 4.7%/y for passenger cars and 4.8%/y for light trucks, is the
most stringent alternative that would still be economically practicable
in those model years.
    The reader will likely note that in most model years, the
difference between the final/augural standards and the next most
stringent alternative is minor. The agency grappled with whether the
4%/y alternative for the final passenger car standards, the 3%/y
alternative for the final light truck standards, and the 5%/y
alternative for the augural standards might be maximum feasible, given
that they would save 5-7% and 8-11% more fuel, respectively, for
passenger cars and light trucks, respectively, for 5-8% and 5-15% more
cost, respectively, as compared to the final and augural standards
presented here.
    As discussed above, while consideration of future model years in
isolation might suggest manufacturers have ample lead time to make
further improvements, that is not how industry responds to standards,
and NHTSA thus tries to account for manufacturers' product cadence and
use of multiyear planning in its analysis in order to improve how
accurately we reflect practicability. NHTSA now has standards in place
for MY 2012, the current model year, through MY 2016, is finalizing
standards for MYs 2017-2021, and is presenting a potential road map of
standards for MYs 2022-2025. Manufacturers will be making concurrent
and continual fuel economy improvements to both their car and truck
fleets in response to these standards for well beyond their current
product plans. The agency's analysis includes an assumption of market-
driven improvements to fuel economy across a manufacturer's fleet
(i.e., improvements beyond those required by the standards); if this is
the case, then all of these improvements will be made along with, or at
the expense of, improvements to every other facet of vehicle
performance during the 2012-2025 time frame. We expect that the
standards will therefore cause manufacturers to be more resource-
constrained in the future than they may have been in the past, given
that improvements will be required in every year for over ten years,
and given uncertainty with regard to future fuel prices and consumer
demand for fuel economy, and thus manufacturers' ability to sell the
vehicles that they make in response to the standards. This uncertainty
is inherent in the agency's analysis of alternative standards: We model
only one path to compliance, and we cannot possibly have perfect
information about every input to that analysis, even if the information
is the best and most transparent available. NHTSA believes that
standards set at the finalized levels for MYs 2017-2021 will help
address concerns raised by manufacturer stakeholders and reduce the
risk for adverse economic consequences during that time frame. Given
the year-over-year challenge of the standards and the ``lift'' required
to meet the final standards for MYs 2017-2021, NHTSA believes that the
final standards, as proposed, are maximum feasible for those model
years.
    With regard to the augural standards for MYs 2022-2025, the time
frame and the uncertainty makes evaluation of maximum feasible levels
more challenging, but NHTSA believes that the provisions for incentives
for advanced technologies to encourage their development and
implementation, and the agencies' expectation that some of the
uncertainties surrounding consumer acceptance of new technologies in
light trucks should have resolved themselves by that time frame based
on consumers' experience with the advanced technologies, will enable
considerable increases in stringency by then, and help to ensure most
of the substantial improvements in fuel efficiency initially envisioned
over the entire period and supported by other stakeholders. This helps
give NHTSA more confidence that a balancing that weights the need of
the nation to conserve energy slightly more heavily and economic
practicability slightly less heavily in MYs 2022-2025 is maximum
feasible for the augural standards.
    The final and augural standards also account for the effect of
EPA's standards, in light of the agencies' close coordination and the
fact that both sets of standards were developed together to harmonize
as part of the National Program. Given the close relationship between
fuel economy and CO2 emissions, and the efforts NHTSA and
EPA have made to conduct joint analysis and jointly deliberate on
information and tentative conclusions,\1272\ the agencies have sought
to harmonize and align their proposed standards to the greatest extent
possible, consistent with their respective statutory authorities. In
comparing the final standards, the agencies' stringency curves are
equivalent, except for the fact that the stringency of EPA's passenger
car standards reflect the ability to improve GHG emissions through
reductions in A/C system refrigerant leakage and the use of lower GWP
refrigerants (direct A/C improvements),\1273\ and that EPA provides
incentives for PHEV, EV and FCV vehicles, which NHTSA does not provide
because statutory incentives have already been defined for these
technologies. The stringency of NHTSA's final standards for passenger
cars for MYs 2017-2025 align with the stringency of EPA's equivalent
standards when these differences are considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1272\ NHTSA and EPA conducted joint analysis and jointly
deliberated on information and tentative conclusions related to
technology cost, effectiveness, manufacturers' capability to
implement technologies, the cadence at which manufacturers might
support the implementation of technologies, economic factors, and
the assessment of comments from manufacturers.
    \1273\ As these A/C system improvements do not influence fuel
economy, the stringency of NHTSA's preferred alternatives do not
reflect the availability of these technologies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We note, however, that the alignment is based on the assumption
that manufacturers implement the same level of direct A/C system
improvements as EPA currently forecasts for those model years, and on
the assumption of PHEV, EV, and FCV penetration at specific levels. If
a manufacturer implements a higher level of direct A/C improvement
technology (although EPA predicts 100% of manufacturers will use
substitute refrigerants by MY 2021, and the GHG standards assume this
rate of substitution) and/or a higher penetration of PHEVs, EVs and
FCVs,

then NHTSA's standards would effectively be more stringent than EPA's.
Conversely, if a manufacturer implements a lower level of direct A/C
improvement technology and/or a lower penetration of PHEVs, EVs and
FCVs, then EPA's proposed standards would effectively be more stringent
than NHTSA's. Several manufacturers commented on this point and
suggested that this meant that the standards were not aligned, because
NHTSA's standards might be more stringent in some years than EPA's.
This reflects a misunderstanding of the agencies' purpose. The agencies
have sought to craft harmonized standards such that manufacturers may
build a single fleet of vehicles to meet both agencies' requirements.
That is the case for these final standards. Manufacturers will have to
plan their compliance strategies considering both the NHTSA standards
and the EPA standards and assure that they are in compliance with both,
but they can still build a single fleet of vehicles to accomplish that
goal. NHTSA is thus finalizing the preferred alternative based on the
tentative determination of maximum feasibility as described earlier in
the section, but, based on efforts NHTSA and EPA have made to conduct
joint analysis and jointly deliberate on information and tentative
conclusions, NHTSA has also aligned the final and augural CAFE
standards with EPA's final standards.
    Thus, NHTSA has concluded that the standards represented by the
preferred alternative are the maximum feasible standards for passenger
cars and light trucks in MYs 2017-2021, and that the augural standards
presented for MYs 2022-2025 would be maximum feasible in those model
years, based on the information currently before the agency, had we the
authority to finalize them at this time. We recognize that higher
standards would help the need of the nation to conserve more energy and
might potentially be technologically feasible (in the narrowest sense)
during those model years, but based on our analysis and the evidence
presented by the industry, we conclude that higher standards would not
represent the proper balancing for MYs 2017-2025 cars and trucks.\1274\
We conclude that the correct balancing recognizes economic
practicability concerns as discussed above, and sets standards at the
levels that the agency is promulgating in this final rule for MYs 2017-
2021 and presenting for MYs 2022-2025.\1275\ In the same vein, lower
standards might be less burdensome on the industry, but considering the
environmental impacts of the different regulatory alternatives as
required under NEPA and the need of the nation to conserve energy, we
do not believe they would represent the appropriate balancing of the
relevant factors, because they would have left technology, fuel
savings, and emissions reductions on the table unnecessarily, and not
contributed as much as possible to reducing our nation's energy
security and climate change concerns. Additionally, consistent with
Executive Order 13563, the agency believes that the benefits of the
preferred alternative amply justify the costs; indeed, the monetized
benefits exceed the monetized costs by $185-192 billion over the
lifetime of the vehicles covered by the final standards for MYs 2017-
2021, and by $314 billion over the lifetime of the vehicles covered by
the final standards for MYs 2022-2025. In full consideration of all of
the information currently before the agency, we have weighed the
statutory factors carefully and selected final passenger car and light
truck standards for MYs 2017-2021 and presented augural passenger car
and light truck standards for MYs 2022-2025 that we believe are the
maximum feasible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1274\ We note, for example, that while Executive Orders 12866
and 13563 focus attention on an approach that maximizes net
benefits, both Executive Orders recognize that this focus is subject
to the requirements of the governing statute. In this rulemaking,
the standards represented by the ``MNB'' alternative are more
stringent than what NHTSA has concluded would be maximum feasible
for MYs 2017-2025, and thus setting standards at that level would be
inconsistent with the requirements of EPCA/EISA to set maximum
feasible standards.
    \1275\ We underscore that the agency's decision regarding what
standards would be maximum feasible for MYs 2017-2025 is made with
reference to the rulemaking time frame and circumstances of this
final rule. Each CAFE rulemaking (indeed, each stage of any given
CAFE rulemaking) presents the agency with new information that may
affect how we balance the relevant factors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. Impacts of the Final CAFE standards

1. How will these standards improve fuel economy and reduce GHG
emissions for MY 2017-2025 vehicles?
    As discussed above, the CAFE level required under an attribute-
based standard depends on the mix of vehicles produced for sale in the
U.S. Based on the market forecast that NHTSA and EPA have used to
develop and analyze the final and augural CAFE and CO2
emissions standards, NHTSA estimates that the final and augural CAFE
standards would lead average required fuel consumption (fuel
consumption is the inverse of fuel economy) levels to increase by an
average of 4.0 percent annually through MY 2025, reaching a combined
average fuel economy requirement of between 48.7 and 49.7 mpg in that
model year:

                        Table IV-53--NHTSA Estimated Required Average Fuel Economy (mpg) under the Final Standards--MYs 2017-2021
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     MY Baseline             2017                2018                2019                2020                2021
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Passenger cars.................  2008-..............  40.1-.............  41.6-.............  43.1-.............  44.8-.............  46.8-
                                 2010...............  39.6..............  41.1..............  42.5..............  44.2..............  46.1
Light trucks...................  2008-..............  29.4-.............  30.0-.............  30.6-.............  31.2-.............  33.3-
                                 2010...............  29.1..............  29.6..............  30.0..............  30.6..............  32.6
Combined.......................  2008-..............  35.4-.............  36.5-.............  37.7-.............  38.9-.............  41.0-
                                 2010...............  35.1..............  36.1..............  37.1..............  38.3..............  40.3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       Table IV-54--NHTSA Estimated Required Average Fuel Economy (mpg) Under the Augural Standards--MYs 2022-2025
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          MY Baseline                2022                    2023                    2024                   2025
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Passenger cars....................  2008-2010.............  49.0-48.2.............  51.2-50.5.............  53.6-52.9............  56.2-55.3
Light trucks......................  2008-2010.............  34.9-34.2.............  36.6-35.8.............  38.5-37.5............  40.3-39.3
Combined..........................  2008-2010.............  43.0-42.3.............  45.1-44.3.............  47.4-46.5............  49.7-48.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accounting for differences between fuel economy levels under
laboratory conditions and operating conditions in the real world, NHTSA
estimates that these requirements would translate into the following
required average on-road fuel economy levels using on-road fuel
economy:

                    Table IV-55--NHTSA Estimated Required Average Fuel Economy (On-Road mpg) Under the Final Standards--MYs 2017-2021
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     MY Baseline             2017                2018                2019                2020                2021
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Passenger cars.................  2008-2010..........  32.1-31.7.........  33.3-32.8.........  34.5-34.0.........  35.9-35.3.........  37.4-36.8
Light trucks...................  2008-2010..........  23.6-23.3.........  24.0-23.7.........  24.5-24.0.........  24.9-24.5.........  26.6-26.1
Combined.......................  2008-2010..........  28.3-28.1.........  29.2-28.9.........  30.1-29.7.........  31.1-30.6.........  32.8-32.3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   Table IV-56--NHTSA Estimated Required Average Fuel Economy (On-Road mpg) Under the Augural Standards--MYs 2022-2025
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          MY Baseline                2022                    2023                    2024                   2025
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Passenger cars....................  2008-2010.............  39.2-38.6.............  41.0-40.4.............  42.9-42.3............  44.9-44.3
Light trucks......................  2008-2010.............  27.9-27.4.............  29.3-28.7.............  30.8-30.0............  32.2-31.5
Combined..........................  2008-2010.............  34.4-33.9.............  36.1-35.5.............  37.9-37.2............  39.8-39.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reader's reference, these mpg levels would translate to the
following in gallons per mile:

                        Table IV-57--NHTSA Estimated Required Average Fuel Economy (gpm) Under the Final Standards--MYs 2017-2021
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     MY Baseline             2017                2018                2019                2020                2021
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Passenger cars.................  2008-2010..........  0.0249-0.0252.....  0.0240-0.0244.....  0.0232-0.0235.....  0.0223-0.0226.....  0.0214-0.0217
Light trucks...................  2008-2010..........  0.0340-0.0344.....  0.0333-0.0338.....  0.0327-0.0333.....  0.0321-0.0326.....  0.0300-0.0306
Combined.......................  2008-2010..........  0.0282-0.0285.....  0.0274-0.0277.....  0.0265-0.0270.....  0.0257-0.0261.....  0.0244-0.0248
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       Table IV-58--NHTSA Estimated Required Average Fuel Economy (gpm) Under the Augural Standards--MYs 2022-2025
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          MY Baseline                2022                    2023                    2024                   2025
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Passenger cars....................  2008..................  0.0204 -..............  0.0195 -..............  0.0187 -.............  0.0178 -
                                    2010..................  0.0207................  0.0198................  0.0189...............  0.0181
Light trucks......................  2008..................  0.0287-...............  0.0273-...............  0.0260-..............  0.0248-
                                    2010..................  0.0292................  0.0279................  0.0266...............  0.0254
Combined..........................  2008..................  0.0233-...............  0.0222-...............  0.0211-..............  0.0201-
                                    2010..................  0.0236................  0.0226................  0.0215...............  0.0205
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If manufacturers apply technology only as far as necessary to
comply with CAFE standards, NHTSA estimates that, setting aside factors
the agency cannot consider for purposes of determining maximum feasible
CAFE standards,\1276\ average achieved fuel economy levels would
correspondingly increase through MY 2025, but that manufacturers would,
on average, under-comply \1277\ in some model years and over-comply
\1278\ in others, reaching a combined average fuel economy in a range
from 48.1 mpg to 48.8 mpg (taking into account estimated adjustments
reflecting improved air conditioner efficiency) in MY 2025:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1276\ 49 U.S.C. 32902(h) states that NHTSA may not consider the
fuel economy of dedicated alternative fuel vehicles, the
alternative-fuel portion of dual-fueled automobile fuel economy, or
the ability of manufacturers to earn and use credits for over-
compliance, in determining the maximum feasible stringency of CAFE
standards.
    \1277\ ``Under-compliance'' with CAFE standards can be mitigated
either through use of FFV credits, use of existing or ``banked''
credits, or through fine payment. Although, as mentioned above,
NHTSA cannot consider availability of statutorily-provided credits
in setting standards, NHTSA is not prohibited from considering fine
payment. Therefore, the estimated achieved CAFE levels presented
here include the assumption that Aston Martin, BMW, Daimler (i.e.,
Mercedes), Geely (i.e., Volvo), Lotus, Porsche, Spyker (i.e., Saab),
and, Tata (i.e., Jaguar and Rover), and Volkswagen will only apply
technology up to the point that it would be less expensive to pay
civil penalties.
    \1278\ In NHTSA's analysis, ``over-compliance'' occurs through
multi-year planning: manufacturers apply some ``extra'' technology
in early model years (e.g., MY 2014) in order to carry that
technology forward and thereby facilitate compliance in later model
years (e.g., MY 2016).

                        Table IV-59--NHTSA Estimated Achieved Average Fuel Economy (mpg) Under the Final Standards--MYs 2017-2021
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     MY Baseline             2017                2018                2019                2020                2021
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Passenger cars.................  2008...............  40.4-.............  42.6-.............  44.7-.............  47.2-.............  49.0-
                                 2010...............  40.3..............  41.8..............  44.1..............  46.3..............  48.1
Light trucks...................  2008...............  30.0-.............  31.1-.............  33.0-.............  34.5-.............  36.8-
                                 2010...............  29.8..............  30.2..............  31.8..............  33.3..............  35.5
Combined.......................  2008...............  35.9-.............  37.6-.............  39.7-.............  41.9-.............  43.9-
                                 2010...............  35.8..............  36.8..............  38.8..............  40.8..............  42.9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       Table IV-60--NHTSA Estimated Achieved Average Fuel Economy (mpg) Under the Augural Standards--MYs 2022-2025
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          MY Baseline                2022                    2023                    2024                   2025
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Passenger cars....................  2008..................  50.2-.................  51.2-.................  53.0-................  54.4-
                                    2010..................  49.2..................  50.9..................  52.7.................  54.1
Light trucks......................  2008..................  37.7-.................  38.4-.................  39.4-................  40.3-
                                    2010..................  36.2..................  37.3..................  38.4.................  39.3
Combined..........................  2008..................  45.0-.................  46.0-.................  47.6-................  48.8-
                                    2010..................  43.8..................  45.3..................  46.8.................  48.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reader's reference, these mpg levels would translate to the
following in gallons per mile:

                        Table IV-61--NHTSA Estimated Achieved Average Fuel Economy (gpm) Under the Final Standards--MYs 2017-2021
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     MY Baseline             2017                2018                2019                2020                2021
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Passenger cars.................  2008...............  0.0245-...........  0.0233-...........  0.0222-...........  0.0212-...........  0.0204-
                                 2010...............  0.0248............  0.0239............  0.0227............  0.0216............  0.0208
Light trucks...................  2008...............  0.0324-...........  0.0312-...........  0.0295-...........  0.0284-...........  0.0273-
                                 2010...............  0.0336............  0.0331............  0.0315............  0.0300............  0.0281
Combined.......................  2008...............  0.0274-...........  0.0261-...........  0.0248-...........  0.0237-...........  0.0228-
                                 2010...............  0.0279............  0.0272............  0.0258............  0.0245............  0.0233
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       Table IV-62--NHTSA Estimated Achieved Average Fuel Economy (gpm) Under the Augural Standards--MYs 2022-2025
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          MY Baseline                2022                    2023                    2024                   2025
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Passenger cars....................  2008..................  0.0199-...............  0.0195-...............  0.0188-..............  0.0184-
                                    2010..................  0.0203................  0.0197................  0.0190...............  0.0185
Light trucks......................  2008..................  0.0266-...............  0.0261-...............  0.0254-..............  0.0249-
                                    2010..................  0.0276................  0.0268................  0.0261...............  0.0255
Combined..........................  2008..................  0.0222-...............  0.0218-...............  0.0210-..............  0.0205-
                                    2010..................  0.0228................  0.0221................  0.0214...............  0.0208
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The estimated achieved average fuel economy levels presented above
all derive from analysis that does not attempt to estimate the
potential that today's attribute-based standards might induce shifts in
vehicle footprint--shifts that would change manufacturers' average
required and achieved fuel economy levels. As discussed above in
Sections II.C and IV.D, the agency judges today's standards unlikely to
induce significant shifts in vehicle footprint. We note, however, that
comments by CBD, ACEEE, NACAA, and an individual, Yegor Tarazevich,
referenced a 2011 study by Whitefoot and Skerlos, ``Design incentives
to increase vehicle size created from the U.S. footprint-based fuel
economy standards.'' \1279\ This study concluded that MY 2014
standards, as proposed, ``create an incentive to increase vehicle size
except when consumer preference for vehicle size is near its lower
bound and preference for acceleration is near its upper bound.'' \1280\
The commenters who cited this study generally did so as part of
arguments in favor of flatter standards (i.e., curves that are flatter
across the range of footprints) for MYs 2017-2025. While NHTSA
considers the concept of the Whitefoot and Skerlos analysis to have
some potential merits, it is also important to note that, among other
things, the authors assumed different inputs than NHTSA actually used
in the MYs 2012-2016 rule regarding the baseline fleet, the cost and
efficacy of potential future technologies, and the relationship between
vehicle footprint and fuel economy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1279\ Available at http://energy.umich.edu/wp-content/uploads/Whitefoot_Skerlos_CAFE-SIZE.pdf, last accessed August 3, 2012.
    \1280\ Ibid, pg 9.

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

    Were NHTSA to use the Whitefoot and Skerlos methodology (e.g.,
methods to simulate manufacturers' potential decisions to increase
vehicle footprint) with the actual inputs to the MYs 2012-2016 rules,
the agencies would likely obtain different findings. Underlining the
potential uncertainty, the authors obtained a wide range of results in
their analyses. Insofar as Whitefoot and Skerlos found, for some
scenarios, that manufacturers might respond to footprint-based
standards by deliberately increasing vehicle footprint, these findings
are attributable to a combination of (a) the assumed baseline market
characteristics, (b) the assumed cost and fuel economy impacts involved
in increasing vehicle footprint, (c) the footprint-based fuel economy
targets, and (d) the assumed consumer preference for vehicle size.
Changes in any of these assumptions could yield different analytic
results, and potentially result in different technical implications for
NHTSA action. As the authors note when interpreting their results:
``designing footprint-based fuel-economy standards in practice such
that manufacturers have no incentive to adjust the size of their
vehicles appears elusive at best and impossible at worst.''
    Regarding the cost impacts of footprint increases, that authors
make an ad hoc assumption that footprint changes would incur costs
linearly, such that a 1% change in footprint would entail a 1% increase
in production costs. The authors refer to this as a conservative
assumption, but present no supporting evidence. NHTSA has not attempted
to estimate the engineering cost to increase vehicle footprint, but we
expect that it would be considerably nonlinear, with costs increasing
rapidly once increases available through small incremental changes--
most likely in track width--have been exhausted.\1281\ Moreover, we
expect that were a manufacturer to deliberately increase footprint in
order to ease compliance burdens, it would confine any significant
changes to coincide with vehicle redesigns, and engaging in multiyear
planning, would consider how the shifts would impact compliance burdens
and consumer desirability in ensuing model years. With respect to the
standards promulgated today, the standards become flatter over time,
thereby diminishing any ``reward'' for deliberately increasing
footprint beyond normal market expectations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1281\ See, e.g., 71 FR 17595 (Apr. 6, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding the fuel economy impacts of footprint increases, the
authors present a regression analysis based on which increases in
footprint are estimated to entail increases in weight which are, in
turn, estimated to entail increases in fuel consumption. However, this
relationship was not the relationship the agencies used to develop the
MY 2014 standards the authors examine in that study. Where the target
function's slope is similar to that of the tendency for fuel
consumption to increase with footprint, fuel economy should tend to
decrease approximately in parallel with the fuel economy target,
thereby obviating the ``benefit'' of deliberate increases in vehicle
footprint. NHTSA's analysis supporting today's final rule indicates
relatively wide ranges wherein the relationship between fuel
consumption and footprint may reasonably be specified. The underlying
slopes selected for purposes of defining MY 2017 and beyond standards
fall toward the flatter end of those reasonable ranges. Therefore,
while the agencies expect the standards to have little tendency to
induce deliberate changes in vehicle size, the agencies would have more
reason to expect that such changes would be slightly in the direction
of reducing vehicle footprint in order to increase achieved fuel
economy levels by more than the increase in the corresponding fuel
economy targets.
    Nonetheless, NHTSA considers the concept of the authors'
investigation to have merits. In support of today's rulemaking, NHTSA
considered including footprint increases as a ``technology'' available
in its analysis, such that its CAFE model would increase footprint in
cases where the cost to do so would be attractive considering both the
accompanying decrease in the fuel economy target (if the vehicle is not
on the flat portion of the target function) and the accompanying
decrease in vehicle fuel economy. However, NHTSA was unable to estimate
the underlying cost function and complete and test this approach in
time to support today's final rule. In support of future NHTSA
rulemakings, NHTSA plans to further investigate methods to estimate the
potential that standards might tend to induce changes in the footprint.
    Accounting for differences between fuel economy levels under
laboratory conditions and real-world driving behavior, NHTSA estimates
that these requirements would translate into the following achieved
average on-road fuel economy levels:

                    Table IV-63--NHTSA Estimated Achieved Average Fuel Economy (On-Road mpg) Under the Final Standards--MYs 2017-2021
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     MY Baseline             2017                2018                2019                2020                2021
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Passenger cars.................  2008...............  32.3-.............  34.1-.............  35.7-.............  37.8-.............  39.2-
                                 2010...............  32.2..............  33.4..............  35.3..............  37.0..............  38.5
Light trucks...................  2008...............  24-...............  24.9-.............  26.4-.............  27.6-.............  29.4-
                                 2010...............  23.8..............  24.2..............  25.4..............  26.6..............  28.4
Combined.......................  2008...............  28.7-.............  30.1-.............  31.7-.............  33.5-.............  35.1-
                                 2010...............  28.6..............  29.4..............  31.0..............  32.6..............  34.3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   Table IV-64--NHTSA Estimated Achieved Average Fuel Economy (On-Road mpg) Under the Augural Standards--MYs 2022-2025
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          MY Baseline                2022                    2023                    2024                   2025
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Passenger cars....................  2008..................  40.1-.................  41-...................  42.4-................  43.5-
                                    2010..................  39.4..................  40.7..................  42.2.................  43.3
Light trucks......................  2008..................  30.1-.................  30.7-.................  31.5-................  32.2-
                                    2010..................  29....................  29.8..................  30.7.................  31.4
Combined..........................  2008..................  36.0-.................  36.8-.................  38.1-................  39.0-

                                    2010..................  35.0..................  36.2..................  37.4.................  38.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Setting aside the potential to produce additional EVs (or, prior to
MY 2020, PHEVs) or take advantage of EPCA's provisions regarding CAFE
credits, NHTSA estimates that today's final standards could increase
achieved fuel economy levels by average amounts of up to 0.7 mpg during
the few model years leading into MY 2017, as manufacturers apply
technology during redesigns leading into model years covered by today's
new standards.\1282\ As shown below, these ``early'' fuel economy
increases yield corresponding reductions in fuel consumption and
greenhouse gas emissions, and incur corresponding increases in
technology outlays.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1282\ This outcome is a direct result of revisions, made to
DOT's CAFE model in preparation for the MY 2012-2016 rule, to
simulate ``multiyear planning'' effects--that is, the potential that
manufacturers will apply ``extra'' technology in one model year if
doing so will be sufficiently advantageous with respect to the
ability to comply with CAFE standards in later model years. For
example, for today's rulemaking analysis, NHTSA has estimated that
Ford will redesign the F-150 pickup truck in MY 2015, and again in
MY 2021. As explained in Chapter V of the RIA, NHTSA's expects that
many technologies would be applied as part of a vehicle redesign.
Therefore, in NHTSA's analysis, if Ford does not anticipate ensuing
standards when redesigning the MY 2015 F-150, Ford may find it more
difficult to comply with light truck standard during MY 2016-2020.
Through simulation of multiyear planning effects, NHTSA's analysis
indicates that Ford could apply more technology to the MY 2015 F-150
if standards continue to increase after MY 2016 than Ford need apply
if standards remain unchanged after MY 2016, and that this
additional technology would yield further fuel economy improvements
of up to 1.3 mpg, depending on pickup configuration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Within the context EPCA requires NHTSA to apply for purposes of
determining maximum feasible stringency of CAFE standards (i.e.,
setting aside EVs, pre-MY 2020 PHEVs, and all statutory CAFE credit
provisions), NHTSA estimates that these fuel economy increases would
lead to fuel savings totaling a range from 180 billion to 184 billion
gallons during the useful lives of vehicles manufactured in MYs 2017-
2025 and the few MYs preceding MY 2017:

                             Table IV-65--NHTSA Estimated Fuel Saved (Billion Gallons) Under the Final and Augural Standards
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Model year           MY Baseline   Earlier    2017      2018      2019      2020      2021      2022      2023      2024      2025      Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PC...........................  2008.......  5.3-....  2.8-....  5.3-....  7.7-....  10.9-...  13.0-...  14.4-...  15.8-...  18.0-...  19.7-...  112.9-
                               2010.......  7.7.....  3.6.....  5.3.....  8.3.....  10.8....  13.0....  14.3....  16.2....  18.3....  20.0....  117.4
LT...........................  2008.......  0.5-....  1.0-....  2.5-....  4.8-....  6.8-....  9.4-....  10.3-...  10.9-...  11.8-...  12.7-...  70.7-
                               2010.......  0.9.....  0.8.....  1.5.....  3.7.....  5.6.....  8.2.....  8.9.....  10.0....  11.1....  12.1....  62.9
Combined.....................  2008.......  5.9-....  3.9-....  7.8-....  12.5-...  17.7-...  22.3-...  24.7-...  26.7-...  29.8-...  32.4-...  183.5-
                               2010.......  8.6.....  4.4.....  6.7.....  12.0....  16.4....  21.1....  2.32....  26.2....  29.5....  32.1....  180.3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency also estimates that these new CAFE standards would lead
to corresponding reductions of CO2 emissions totaling a
range from 1,950 million metric tons (mmt) to 1,990 mmt during the
useful lives of vehicles sold in MYs 2017-2025 and the few MYs
preceding MY 2017:

                        Table IV-66--NHTSA Estimated Carbon Dioxide Emissions Avoided (mmt) Under the Final and Augural Standards
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Model year           MY Baseline   Earlier    2017      2018      2019      2020      2021      2022      2023      2024      2025      Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PC...........................  2008.......  58-.....  31-.....  58-.....  84-.....  117-....  140-....  156-....  171-....  193-....  211-....  1,218-
                               2010.......  84......  40......  57......  90......  117.....  141.....  156.....  176.....  199.....  216.....  1,276
LT...........................  2008.......  6-......  11-.....  27-.....  52-.....  74-.....  102-....  112-....  119-....  129-....  138-....  769-
                                2010......  10......  9.......  16......  40......  60......  88......  96......  108.....  120.....  131.....  677
Combined.....................  2008.......  64-.....  42-.....  85-.....  136-....  191-....  242-....  268-....  290-....  321-....  349-....  1,987-
                               2010.......  94......  48......  73......  130.....  178.....  229.....  252.....  284.....  318.....  347.....  1,953
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. How will these standards improve fleet-wide fuel economy and reduce
GHG emissions beyond MY 2025?
    Under the assumption that CAFE standards at least as stringent as
those being presented today for MY 2025 would be established for
subsequent model years, the effects of the standards on fuel
consumption and GHG emissions will continue to increase for many years.
This will occur because over time, a growing fraction of the U.S.
light-duty vehicle fleet will be comprised of cars and light trucks
that meet at least the MY 2025 standard. The impact of the new
standards on fuel use and GHG emissions would therefore continue to
grow through approximately 2060, when virtually all cars and light
trucks in service will have met standards as stringent as those
established for MY 2025.
    As Table IV-67 shows, NHTSA estimates that the fuel economy
increases resulting from the final standards will lead to reductions in
total fuel consumption by cars and light trucks of 3 billion gallons
during 2020, increasing to a range from 38 billion to 44 billion
gallons by 2060. Over the period from 2017, when the final standards
would begin to take effect, through 2060, cumulative fuel savings would
total between 1,080 billion and 1,190 billion gallons, as Table IV-67
also indicates.

                            Table IV-67--NHTSA Estimated Reduction in Fleet-Wide Fuel Use (Billion Gasoline Gallon Equivalents) Under the Final and Augural Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        MY Baseline                2020                   2030                   2040                   2050                  2060            Total  2017-2060
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Passenger cars...................  2008.................  2-...................  11-..................  17-..................  20-..................  23-.................  620-
                                   2010.................  2....................  11...................  16...................  18...................  20..................  572
Light trucks.....................  2008.................  1-...................  10-..................  16-..................  19-..................  22-.................  574-
                                   2010.................  1....................  9....................  14...................  16...................  18..................  506
Combined.........................  2008.................  3-...................  21-..................  32-..................  39-..................  44-.................  1,194-
                                   2010.................  3....................  20...................  30...................  34...................  38..................  1,078
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The energy security analysis conducted for this rule estimates that
the world price of oil will fall modestly in response to lower U.S.
demand for refined fuel. One potential result of this decline in the
world price of oil would be an increase in the consumption of petroleum
products outside the U.S., which would in turn lead to a modest
increase in emissions of greenhouse gases, criteria air pollutants, and
airborne toxics from their refining and use. While additional
information would be needed to analyze this ``leakage effect'' in
detail, NHTSA provides a sample estimate of its potential magnitude in
its Final EIS. This analysis indicates that the leakage effect is
likely to offset only a very small fraction of the reductions in fuel
use and emissions projected to result from the rule.
    As a consequence of these reductions in fleet-wide fuel
consumption, the agency also estimates that the new CAFE standards for
MYs 2017-2025 would lead to corresponding reductions in CO2
emissions from the U.S. light-duty vehicle fleet. Specifically, NHTSA
estimates that total annual CO2 emissions associated with
passenger car and light truck use in the U.S. would decline by between
36 million metric tons (mmt) and 38 mmt in 2020 as a consequence of the
new CAFE standards, as Table IV-68 reports. The table also shows that
this annual reduction is estimated to grow to a range from 409 mmt to
475 mmt by the year 2060, and will total between 11.6 billion and 12.8
billion metric tons over the period from 2017, when the final and
augural standards would take effect, through 2060.

                Table IV-68--NHTSA Estimated Reduction in Fleet-Wide Carbon Dioxide Emissions (mmt) From Passenger Car and Light Truck Use Under the Final and Augural Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        MY Baseline                2020                   2030                   2040                   2050                  2060            Total  2017-2060
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Passenger cars...................  2008.................  21-..................  117-.................  180-.................  212-.................  240-................  6,593-
                                   2010.................  21...................  115..................  172..................  195..................  215.................  6,195
Light trucks.....................  2008.................  15-..................  107-.................  169-.................  204-.................  235-................  6,239-
                                   2010.................  16...................  100..................  148..................  174..................  194.................  5,446
Combined.........................  2008.................  36-..................  224-.................  349-.................  416-.................  475-................  12,832-
                                   2010.................  38...................  215..................  320..................  369..................  409.................  11,641
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These reductions in fleet-wide CO2 emissions, together
with corresponding reductions in other GHG emissions from fuel
production and use, would lead to small but significant reductions in
projected changes in the future global climate. These changes, based on
analysis documented in the Final EIS that informed the agency's
decisions regarding this final rule, are summarized in Table IV-69
below.

          Table IV-69--NHTSA Estimated Effects of Reduction in Fleet-Wide Carbon Dioxide Emissions (mmt) on Projected Changes in Global Climate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Projected change in measure
                                                                                -----------------------------------------------
                  Measure                               Units                  Date         MY Baseline                     With final
                                                                                No action       standards      Difference
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atmospheric CO2 concentration.............  Ppm.........................            2100            2008           677.8           673.8             4.0
                                                                                2010           677.8           674.3             3.5
Increase in global mean surface             [deg]C......................            2100            2008           2.564           2.548           0.016
 temperature.
                                            ............................  ..............            2010           2.564           2.550           0.014
Sea level rise............................  Cm..........................            2100            2008           33.42           33.29            0.13
                                            ............................  ..............            2010           33.42           33.30            0.12
Global mean precipitation.................  % change from 1980-1999 avg.            2090            2008           3.89%           3.87%           0.02%
                                                                                2010           3.89%           3.87%           0.02%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. How will these standards impact non-GHG emissions and their
associated effects?
    Under the assumption that CAFE standards at least as stringent as
those presented for MY 2025 would be established for subsequent model
years, the effects of the new standards on air quality and its
associated health effects will continue to be felt over the foreseeable
future. This will occur because over time a growing fraction of the
U.S. light-duty vehicle fleet will be comprised of cars and light
trucks that meet the MY 2025 standard, and this growth will continue
until approximately 2060.
    Increases in the fuel economy of light-duty vehicles required by
the new CAFE standards will cause a slight increase in the number of
miles they are driven, through the fuel economy ``rebound effect.'' In
turn, this increase in vehicle use will lead to increases in emissions
of criteria air pollutants and some airborne toxics, since these are
products of the number of miles vehicles are driven.
    At the same time, however, the projected reductions in fuel
production and use reported in Tables IV-65 and IV-67 above will lead
to corresponding reductions in emissions of these pollutants that occur
during fuel production and distribution (``upstream'' emissions). For
most of these pollutants, the reduction in upstream emissions resulting
from lower fuel production and distribution will outweigh the increase
in emissions from vehicle use, resulting in a net decline in their
total emissions.\1283\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1283\ As stated elsewhere, while the agency's analysis assumes
that all changes in upstream emissions result from a decrease in
petroleum production and transport, the analysis of non-GHG
emissions in future calendar years also assumes that retail gasoline
composition is unaffected by this rule; as a result, the impacts of
this rule on downstream non-GHG emissions (more specifically, on air
toxics) may be underestimated. See also Section III.G above for more
information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table IV-70 and Table IV-71 report estimated reductions in
emissions of selected criteria air pollutants (or their chemical
precursors) and airborne toxics expected to result from the final and
augural standards during calendar year 2040. By that date, cars and
light trucks meeting the MY 2025 CAFE standards will account for the
majority of light-duty vehicle use, so these reductions provide a
useful index of the long-term impact of the final standards on air
pollution and its consequences for human health. In the tables below,
positive values indicate increases in emissions, while negative values
indicate reductions.

                   Table IV-70--NHTSA Projected Changes in Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants From Passenger Car and Light Truck Use
                                                               [calendar year 2040; tons]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Criteria air pollutant
                                                                                ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Volatile
               Vehicle class                     Source of emissions        MY Baseline      Nitrogen       Particulate    Sulfur oxides      organic
                                                                                oxides (NOX)   matter (PM2.5)       (SOX)         compounds
                                                                                (VOC)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Passenger cars............................  Vehicle use.................            2008        3,433.80          140.75       -2,775.59        1,615.82
                                                                                2010        7,108.88          360.68       -2,519.62        4,148.13
                                            Fuel production and                     2008      -20,396.77       -3,040.73         -117.30      -48,321.79
                                             distribution                           2010      -26,394.68       -3,083.65      -12,990.78      -44,119.22
                                            All sources.................            2008      -16,962.97       -2,899.98       -2,892.89      -46,705.98
                                                                                2010      -19,285.80       -2,722.97      -15,510.40      -39,971.09
Light trucks..............................  Vehicle use.................            2008        5,988.04          432.25       -2,445.61        3,607.27
                                                                                2010        8,643.21          316.07       -2,134.45        2,920.02
                                            Fuel production and                     2008      -26,580.28       -3,042.32      -14,005.44      -42,674.17
                                             distribution.
                                                                                2010      -24,256.73       -2,682.23      -13,277.14      -38,331.48
                                            All sources.................            2008      -20,592.23       -2,610.07      -16,451.05      -39,066.90
                                                                                2010      -15,613.51       -2,366.16      -15,411.59      -35,411.46
Total.....................................  Vehicle use.................            2008        9,421.85          573.00       -5,221.20        5,223.09
                                                                                2010       15,752.09          676.75       -4,654.06        7,068.15
                                            Fuel production and                     2008      -46,977.04       -6,083.05      -14,122.74      -90,995.96
                                             distribution.                          2010      -50,651.41       -5,765.88      -26,267.93      -82,450.70
                                            All sources.................            2008      -37,555.20       -5,510.05      -19,343.94      -85,772.87
                                                                                2010      -34,899.31       -5,089.13      -30,921.99      -75,382.56
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Table IV-71--NHTSA Projected Changes in Emissions of Airborne Toxics From Passenger Car and Light Truck Use
                                           [calendar year 2040; tons]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Toxic air pollutant
         Vehicle class              Source of       MY Baseline  -----------------------------------------------
                                    emissions                         Benzene      1,3-Butadiene   Formaldehyde
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Passenger cars................  Vehicle use.....            2008           40.38            9.33           58.94
                                                            2010          121.78           23.50           97.25
                                Fuel production             2008         -215.10           -2.30          -78.85
                                 and                        2010         -195.05           -2.09          -71.49
                                 distribution.
                                All sources.....            2008         -174.72            7.03          -19.91
                                                            2010          -73.27           21.41           25.77
Light trucks..................  Vehicle use.....            2008          117.46           20.06           49.05
                                                            2010           60.36           17.42          147.09

                                Fuel production             2008         -188.73           -2.04          -69.87
                                 and                        2010         -164.99           -1.73          -59.28
                                 distribution.
                                All sources.....            2008          -71.26           18.02          -20.81
                                                            2010         -104.64           15.69           87.82
Total.........................  Vehicle use.....            2008          157.85           29.39          108.00
                                                            2010          182.13           40.91          244.35
                                Fuel production             2008         -403.83           -4.34         -148.71
                                 and                        2010         -360.04           -3.82         -130.76
                                 distribution.
                                All sources.....            2008         -245.98           25.05          -40.72
                                                            2010         -177.90           37.10          113.58
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In turn, the reductions in emissions reported in the tables above
are projected to result in significant declines in the adverse health
effects that result from population exposure to these pollutants. Table
IV-72 reports the estimated reductions in selected PM2.5-
related human health impacts that are expected to result from reduced
population exposure to unhealthful atmospheric concentrations of
PM2.5. The estimates reported in Table IV-72 based on
analysis documented in the Final EIS that informed the agency's
decisions regarding this final rule, are derived from PM2.5-
related dollar-per-ton estimates that reflect the quantifiable
reductions in health impacts likely to result from reduced population
exposure to particular matter (PM2.5). They do not include
all health impacts related to reduced exposure to PM, nor do they
include any reductions in health impacts resulting from lower
population exposure to other criteria air pollutants (particularly
ozone) and air toxics. The table displays results using both baseline
fleets as well as both a reference electricity emissions case and a
cleaner alternative side-case. The table also illustrates mortality
impacts from the rule using two different source values for marginal
mortality rates.
    There may be localized air quality and health impacts associated
with this rulemaking that are not reflected in the estimates of
aggregate air quality changes and health impacts reported in this
analysis. Emissions changes and dollar-per-ton estimates alone are not
necessarily a good indication of local or regional air quality and
health impacts, because the atmospheric chemistry governing formation
and accumulation of ambient concentrations of PM2.5, ozone,
and air toxics is very complex. Full-scale photochemical modeling would
provide the necessary spatial and temporal detail to more completely
and accurately estimate the changes in ambient levels of these
pollutants and their associated health and welfare impacts. Due to
timing issues with the analysis, NHTSA conducted such modeling for
purposes of the FEIS using data from the NPRM, and we refer the readers
to the FEIS for more information.

 Table IV-72--NHTSA Projected Reductions in Health Impacts From Exposure to Criteria Air Pollutants Due to Final
                                              and Augural Standards
                                              [Calendar year 2040]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Projected
                Health impact                             Measure                MY Baseline        reduction
                                                                                (2040)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mortality (ages 30 and older), Pope et al.    premature deaths per year.....              2008           360/420
 (2002).                                                                                2010           390/420
Mortality (ages 30 and older), Laden et al.   premature deaths per year.....              2008         920/1,100
 (2006).                                                                                2010       1,000/1,100
Chronic bronchitis..........................  cases per year................              2008           230/270
                                                                                2010           250/260
Emergency room visits for asthma............  number per year...............              2008           320/370
                                                                                2010           350/370
Work loss...................................  workdays per year.............              2008     40,000/46,000
                                                                                2010     43,000/46,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. What are the estimated costs and benefits of these standards?
    NHTSA estimates that the final and augural standards could entail
significant additional technology beyond the levels that could be
applied under baseline CAFE standards (i.e., the application of MY 2016
CAFE standards to MYs 2017-2025). This additional technology will lead
to increases in costs to manufacturers and vehicle buyers, as well as
fuel savings to vehicle buyers. Also, as discussed above, NHTSA
estimates that today's standards could induce manufacturers to apply
technology during redesigns leading into model years covered by today's
new standards, and to incur corresponding increases in technology
outlays.
    Technology costs are assumed to change over time due to the
influence of cost learning and the conversion from short- to long-term
ICMs. Table IV-73 represents the CAFE model inputs for MY 2012, MY
2017, MY 2021 and MY 2025 approximate net (accumulated)

technology costs for some of the key enabling technologies as applied
to Midsize passenger cars.\1284\ Additional details on technology cost
estimates can be found in Chapter V of NHTSA's FRIA and Chapter 3 of
the Joint TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1284\ The net (accumulated) technology costs represent the
costs from a baseline vehicle (i.e. the top of the decision tree) to
each of the technologies listed in the table. The baseline vehicle
is assumed to utilize a fixed-valve naturally aspirated inline 4
cylinder engine, 5-speed transmission and no electrification/
hybridization improvements.

                                       Table IV-73--NHTSA Estimated Net (Accumulated) Technology Costs, Midsize PC
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Final technology (as compared to baseline vehicle    MY Baseline.......         2012                2017                2021               2025
           prior to technology application)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stoichiometric Gasoline Direct  SGDIc.................  2008..............  $75-..............  $67-..............  $58-.............  $55-
 Injection (GDI).                                       2010..............  $75...............  $67...............  $58..............  $55
Turbocharging and Downsizing--  TRBDS1................  2008..............  $542-.............  $494-.............  $420-............  $398-
 Level 1 (18 bar BMEP).                                 2010..............  $542..............  $494..............  $420.............  $398
Turbocharging and Downsizing--  TRBDS2................  2008..............  $18-..............  $26-..............  $20-.............  $5-
 Level 2 (24 bar BMEP).                                 2010..............  $18...............  $26...............  $20..............  $5
Cooled Exhaust Gas              CEGR1.................  2008..............  $336-.............  $302-.............  $285-............  $247-
 Recirculation (EGR)--Level 1                           2010..............  $336..............  $302..............  $285.............  $247
 (24 bar BMEP).
Cooled Exhaust Gas              CEGR2.................  2008..............  $583-.............  $525-.............  $495-............  $428-
 Recirculation (EGR)--Level 2                           2010..............  $583..............  $525..............  $495.............  $428
 (27 bar BMEP).
Advanced Diesel...............  ADSL..................  2008..............  $1,031-...........  $889-.............  $911-............  $702-
                                                        2010..............  $1,031............  $889..............  $911.............  $702
6-speed DCT...................  DCT...................  2008..............  ($94)-............  ($75)-............  ($79)-...........  ($70)-
                                                        2010..............  ($94).............  ($75).............  ($79)............  ($70)
8-Speed Trans (Auto or DCT)...  8SPD..................  2008..............  $286-.............  $257-.............  $223-............  $210-
                                                        2010..............  $286..............  $257..............  $223.............  $210
Shift Optimizer...............  SHFTOPT...............  2008..............  $2-...............  $2-...............  $2-..............  $1-
                                                        2010..............  $2................  $2................  $2...............  $1
12V Micro-Hybrid (Stop-Start).  MHEV..................  2008..............  $561-.............  $385-.............  $325-............  $296-
                                                        2010..............  $561..............  $385..............  $325.............  $296
Strong Hybrid--Level 2........  SHEV2.................  2008..............  $2,619-...........  $2,290-...........  $1,830-..........  $1,669-
                                                        2010..............  $2,671............  $2,334............  $1,867...........  $1,702
Plug-in Hybrid--30 mi range...  PHEV1.................  2008..............  $17,415-..........  $13,060-..........  $9,727-..........  $7,772-
                                                        2010..............  $17,915...........  $13,449...........  $10,019..........  $8,015
Electric Vehicle (Early         EV1...................  2008..............  $6,089-...........  $3,577-...........  $2,655-..........  $1,188-
 Adopter)--75 mile range.
                                                        2010..............  $6,280............  $3,711............  $2,779...........  $1,254
Electric Vehicle (Broad         EV4...................  2008..............  $14,970-..........  $10,526-..........  $7,682-..........  $5,640-
 Market)--150 mile range.
                                                        2010..............  $15,145...........  $10,648...........  $7,771...........  $5,705
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to pay for this additional technology (and, for some
manufacturers, civil penalties), NHTSA estimates that the cost of an
average passenger car will increase relative to levels resulting from
compliance with baseline (MY 2016) standards by between $244 and $364
in MY to between $1,577 and $1,826 in MY 2025. Similarly, light truck
prices are estimated to rise from between $77 and $147 in MY 2017 to
between $1,185 and $1,228 in MY 2025. The following tables summarize
the agency's estimates of average cost increases for each
manufacturer's passenger car, light truck, and overall fleets (with
corresponding averages for the industry):

                 Table IV-74--NHTSA Estimated Average Passenger Car Incremental Cost Increases ($) Under Final Standards--MYs 2017-2021
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Manufacturer                 MY baseline              2017                2018                2019                2020               2021
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry Average..............  2008..................  244-..............  454-..............  630-..............  929-.............  1,141-
                                2010..................  364...............  483...............  659...............  857..............  991
Aston Martin..................  2008..................  79-...............  156-..............  244-..............  337-.............  447-
                                2010..................  73................  150...............  227...............  321..............  420
BMW...........................  2008..................  96-...............  149-..............  209-..............  297-.............  492-
                                2010..................  88................  255...............  325...............  407..............  501
Daimler.......................  2008..................  97-...............  175-..............  244-..............  585-.............  687-
                                2010..................  79................  158...............  225...............  308..............  387
Fiat..........................  2008..................  278-..............  644-..............  628-..............  1,088-...........  1,114-
                                2010..................  338...............  372...............  579...............  811..............  1,077
Ford..........................  2008..................  390-..............  443-..............  755-..............  1,515-...........  1,854-
                                2010..................  309...............  326...............  438...............  945..............  993
Geely.........................  2008..................  69-...............  361-..............  700-..............  727-.............  848-
                                2010..................  66................  146...............  504...............  555..............  640
General Motors................  2008..................  144-..............  526-..............  630-..............  1,015-...........  1,185-
                                2010..................  225...............  462...............  486...............  758..............  868
Honda.........................  2008..................  228-..............  484-..............  510-..............  513-.............  1,100-
                                2010..................  632...............  805...............  825...............  816..............  1,009
Hyundai.......................  2008..................  510-..............  549-..............  844-..............  920-.............  969-

                                2010..................  605...............  591...............  898...............  913..............  1,060
KIA...........................  2008..................  13-...............  94-...............  339-..............  780-.............  915-
                                2010..................  353...............  414...............  759...............  988..............  1,081
Lotus.........................  2008..................  90-...............  178-..............  255-..............  354-.............  469-
                                2010..................  242...............  322...............  1,228.............  1,306............  1,396
Mazda.........................  2008..................  337-..............  447-..............  423-..............  767-.............  758-
                                2010..................  737...............  845...............  773...............  1,086............  1,073
Mitsubishi....................  2008..................  500-..............  1,015-............  988-..............  1,299-...........  1,737-
                                2010..................  575...............  634...............  603...............  1,722............  2,022
Nissan........................  2008..................  409-..............  645-..............  1,054-............  1,100-...........  1,125-
                                2010..................  565...............  653...............  864...............  926..............  953
Porsche.......................  2008..................  86-...............  286-..............  382-..............  474-.............  572-
                                2010..................  64................  95................  190...............  286..............  397
Spyker........................  2008..................  79-...............  222-..............  325-..............  408-.............  529-
                                2010..................  0.................  0.................  0.................  0................  0
Subaru........................  2008..................  173-..............  257-..............  542-..............  1,191-...........  1,161-
                                2010..................  50................  126...............  895...............  1,407............  1,367
Suzuki........................  2008..................  13-...............  20-...............  1,420-............  1,555-...........  1,666-
                                2010..................  84................  109...............  825...............  1,080............  1,426
Tata..........................  2008..................  95-...............  434-..............  431-..............  527-.............  582-
                                2010..................  66................  133...............  217...............  261..............  378
Tesla.........................  2008..................  2-................  2-................  2-................  2-...............  2-
                                2010..................  0.................  0.................  0.................  0................  0
Toyota........................  2008..................  220-..............  507-..............  657-..............  852-.............  1,082-
                                2010..................  322...............  460...............  840...............  957..............  1,189
Volkswagen....................  2008..................  78-...............  162-..............  248-..............  639-.............  789-
                                2010..................  84................  397...............  484...............  686..............  851
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                Table IV-75--NHTSA Estimated Average Passenger Car Incremental Cost Increases ($) Under Augural Standards--MYs 2022-2025
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Manufacturer                   MY Baseline                2022                    2023                    2024                   2025
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry Average..................  2008..................  1,271-................  1,391-................  1,748-...............  1,826-
                                    2010..................  1,090.................  1,219.................  1,480................  1,577
Aston Martin......................  2008..................  568-..................  695-..................  827-.................  964-
                                    2010..................  541...................  662...................  783..................  915
BMW...............................  2008..................  651-..................  789-..................  1,293-...............  1,367-
                                    2010..................  750...................  882...................  1,357................  1,427
Daimler...........................  2008..................  951-..................  1,177-................  1,288-...............  1,608-
                                    2010..................  627...................  957...................  1,088................  1,499
Fiat..............................  2008..................  1,349-................  1,692-................  1,770-...............  2,045-
                                    2010..................  1,103.................  1,530.................  1,692................  1,910
Ford..............................  2008..................  2,075-................  2,076-................  3,345-...............  2,961-
                                    2010..................  1,172.................  1,184.................  1,651................  1,780
Geely.............................  2008..................  944-..................  1,203-................  1,365-...............  1,446-
                                    2010..................  757...................  945...................  1,164................  1,360
General Motors....................  2008..................  1,189-................  1,475-................  1,739-...............  2,010-
                                    2010..................  879...................  1,062.................  1,220................  1,531
Honda.............................  2008..................  1,132-................  1,309-................  1,310-...............  1,284-
                                    2010..................  1,009.................  1,249.................  1,254................  1,229
Hyundai...........................  2008..................  1,126-................  1,133-................  1,585-...............  1,501-
                                    2010..................  1,226.................  1,259.................  1,408................  1,419
KIA...............................  2008..................  999-..................  1,154-................  1,163-...............  1,447-
                                    2010..................  1,330.................  1,316.................  1,302................  1,497
Lotus.............................  2008..................  601-..................  739-..................  882-.................  1,036-
                                    2010..................  1,503.................  758...................  894..................  1,025
Mazda.............................  2008..................  1,676-................  1,784-................  1,875-...............  2,070-
                                    2010..................  1,481.................  1,589.................  1,589................  1,782
Mitsubishi........................  2008..................  1,686-................  1,734-................  2,080-...............  3,757-
                                    2010..................  2,001.................  1,982.................  1,962................  2,051
Nissan............................  2008..................  1,368-................  1,440-................  1,851-...............  1,805-
                                    2010..................  1,080.................  1,191.................  1,555................  1,531
Porsche...........................  2008..................  609-..................  748-..................  867-.................  1,031-
                                    2010..................  649...................  839...................  991..................  1,094
Spyker............................  2008..................  700-..................  983-..................  1,274-...............  1,355-
                                    2010..................  0.....................  0.....................  0....................  0
Subaru............................  2008..................  1,235-................  1,331-................  2,144-...............  3,356-
                                    2010..................  1,337.................  1,389.................  3,963................  3,231
Suzuki............................  2008..................  1,687-................  1,689-................  1,820-...............  2,283-
                                    2010..................  1,435.................  1,426.................  1,462................  1,630
Tata..............................  2008..................  833-..................  1,090-................  1,199-...............  1,323-

                                    2010..................  483...................  848...................  961..................  1,192
Tesla.............................  2008..................  2-....................  2-....................  2-...................  2-
                                    2010..................  0.....................  0.....................  0....................  0
Toyota............................  2008..................  1,125-................  1,115-................  1,276-...............  1,265-
                                    2010..................  1,247.................  1,248.................  1,493................  1,433
Volkswagen........................  2008..................  932-..................  1,110-................  1,267-...............  1,639-
                                    2010..................  960...................  1,099.................  1,337................  1,670
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  Table IV-76--NHTSA Estimated Average Light Truck Incremental Cost Increases ($) Under Final Standards--MYs 2017-2021
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Manufacturer               MY Baseline             2017                2018                2019                2020                2021
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry Average...............  2008...............  77-...............  193-..............  424-..............  623-..............  858-
                                 2010...............  147...............  197...............  398...............  631...............  912
Aston Martin...................  2008...............  0-................  0-................  0-................  0-................  0-
                                 2010...............  0.................  0.................  0.................  0.................  0
BMW............................  2008...............  416-..............  489-..............  495-..............  513-..............  654-
                                 2010...............  321...............  378...............  394...............  428...............  661
Daimler........................  2008...............  438-..............  453-..............  446-..............  491-..............  510-
                                 2010...............  187...............  335...............  338...............  361...............  406
Fiat...........................  2008...............  100-..............  108-..............  173-..............  939-..............  1,013-
                                 2010...............  469...............  468...............  538...............  1,199.............  1,316
Ford...........................  2008...............  7-................  85-...............  97-...............  297-..............  1,089-
                                 2010...............  87................  116...............  195...............  303...............  1,150
Geely..........................  2008...............  128-..............  404-..............  502-..............  494-..............  496-
                                 2010...............  34................  499...............  474...............  470...............  524
General Motors.................  2008...............  1-................  162-..............  656-..............  993-..............  957-
                                 2010...............  1.................  40................  471...............  921...............  905