seek comment on this assumption.
Effects on Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
    While NHTSA has estimated the impact of the rebound effect on the
use of MY 2017-25 vehicles, we have not estimated how a change in new
vehicle sales would impact aggregate vehicle use. Changes in new
vehicle sales may be accompanied by complex but

difficult-to-quantify effects on overall vehicle use and its
composition by vehicle type and age, because the same factors affecting
sales of new vehicles are also likely to influence their use, as well
as how intensively older vehicles are used and when they are retired
from service. These changes may have important consequences for total
fleet-wide fuel consumption. NHTSA believes that this effect is
difficult to quantify for purposes of this proposed rule, but we seek
comment on how we might attempt to do so for the final rule, if
commenters agree that attempting quantification of this effect could be
informative.
Effect on Composition of Passenger Car and Light Truck Sales
    To the extent that manufacturers pass on costs to buyers by raising
prices for new vehicle models, they may distribute these price
increases across their model lineups in ways that affect the
composition of their total sales. To the extent that changes in the
composition of sales occur, this could affect fuel savings to some
degree. However, NHTSA's view is that the scope for such effects is
relatively small, since most vehicles will to some extent be impacted
by the standards. Compositional effects might be important with respect
to compliance costs for individual manufacturers, but are unlikely to
be material for the rule as a whole.
    NHTSA is continuing to develop methods of estimating the effects of
these proposed standards on the sales of individual vehicle models, and
plans to apply these methods in analyzing the impacts of its final CAFE
standards for MY 2017-25. In the meantime, the agency seeks comment on
the possibility that significant shifts in the composition of new
vehicle sales by type or model could occur, the potential effects of
such shifts on fuel consumption and fuel savings from the proposed
standards, and methods for analyzing the potential extent and patterns
of shifts in sales.
Effects on the Used Vehicle Market
    The effect of this rule on the lifetimes, use, and retirement dates
(``scrappage'') of older vehicles will be related to its effects on new
vehicle prices, the fuel efficiency of new vehicle models, and total
sales of new vehicles. If the value of fuel savings resulting from
improved fuel efficiency to the typical potential buyer of a new
vehicle outweighs the average increase in new models' prices, sales of
new vehicles will rise, while scrappage rates of used vehicles will
increase slightly. This will cause the ``turnover'' of the vehicle
fleet--that is, the retirement of used vehicles and their replacement
by new models--to accelerate slightly, thus accentuating the
anticipated effect of the rule on fleet-wide fuel consumption and
CO2 emissions. However, if potential buyers value future
fuel savings resulting from the increased fuel efficiency of new models
at less than the increase in their average selling price, sales of new
vehicles will decline, as will the rate at which used vehicles are
retired from service. This effect will slow the replacement of used
vehicles by new models, and thus partly offset the anticipated effects
of the final rules on fuel use and emissions.
    Because the agencies are uncertain about how the value of projected
fuel savings from the final rules to potential buyers will compare to
their estimates of increases in new vehicle prices, we have not
attempted to estimate explicitly the effects of the rule on scrappage
of older vehicles and the turnover of the vehicle fleet.
Impacts of Changing Fuel Composition on Costs, Benefits, and Emissions
    EPAct, as amended by EISA, creates a Renewable Fuels Standard that
sets targets for greatly increased usage of renewable fuels over the
next decade. The law requires fixed volumes of renewable fuels to be
used--volumes that are not linked to actual usage of transportation
fuels.
    Ethanol and biodiesel (in the required volumes) may increase or
decrease the cost of blended gasoline and diesel, depending on crude
oil prices and tax subsidies offered for renewable fuels. The potential
extra cost of renewable fuels would be borne through a cross-subsidy:
the price of every gallon of blended gasoline could rise sufficiently
to pay for any extra cost of using renewable fuels in these blends.
However, if the price of gasoline or diesel increases enough, the
consumer could actually realize a savings through the increased usage
of renewable fuels. By reducing total fuel consumption, the CAFE
standards proposed in this rule could tend to increase any necessary
cross-subsidy per gallon of fuel, and hence raise the market price of
transportation fuels, while there would be no change in the volume or
cost of renewable fuels used.
    These effects are indirectly incorporated in NHTSA's analysis of
the proposed CAFE rule because they are reflected in EIA's projections
of future gasoline and diesel prices in the Annual Energy Outlook,
which incorporates in its baseline both a Renewable Fuel Standard and
an CAFE standards.
    The net effect of incorporating an RFS then might be to slightly
reduce the benefits of the rule because affected vehicles might be
driven slightly less if the RFS makes blended gasoline relatively more
expensive, and because fuels blended with more ethanol emit slightly
fewer greenhouse gas emissions per gallon. In addition, there might be
corresponding benefit losses from the induced reduction in VMT. All of
these effects are difficult to estimate, because of uncertainty in
future crude oil prices, uncertainty in future tax policy, and
uncertainty about how petroleum marketers will actually comply with the
RFS, but they are likely to be small, because the cumulative deviation
from baseline fuel consumption induced by the final rule will itself be
small.
Distributional Effects
    The agency's analysis of the proposed rule reports impacts only as
nationwide aggregate or per-vehicle average values. NHTSA also shows
the effects of the EIA high and low fuel price forecasts on the
aggregate benefits in its sensitivity analysis. Generally, this
proposed rule would have its largest effects on individuals who
purchase new vehicles produced during the model years it would affect
(2017-25). New vehicle buyers who drive more than the agency's
estimates of average vehicle use will experience larger fuel savings
and economic benefits than the average values reported in this NPRM,
while those who drive less than our average estimates will experience
smaller fuel savings and benefits. NHTSA believes that this effect is
difficult to quantify for purposes of this proposed rule, but we seek
comment on how we might attempt to do so for the final rule, if
commenters agree that attempting quantification of this effect could be
informative.

H. Vehicle Classification

    Vehicle classification, for purposes of the CAFE program, refers to
whether NHTSA considers a vehicle to be a passenger car or a light
truck, and thus subject to either the passenger car or the light truck
standards.\816\ As NHTSA explained in the MY 2011 rulemaking and in the
MYs 2012-2016 rulemaking, vehicle classification is based in part on
EPCA/EISA, and in part on NHTSA's regulations. EPCA categorizes some
light 4-wheeled vehicles as ``passenger automobiles'' (cars) and the
balance as ``non-passenger automobiles'' (light trucks). EPCA defines
passenger

automobiles as any automobile (other than an automobile capable of off-
highway operation) which NHTSA decides by rule is manufactured
primarily for use in the transportation of not more than 10
individuals.\817\ NHTSA created regulatory definitions for passenger
automobiles and light trucks, found at 49 CFR Part 523, to guide the
agency and manufacturers in classifying vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \816\ For the purpose of the MYs 2012-2016 standards and this
NPRM for the MYs 2017-2025 standards, EPA has agreed to use NHTSA's
regulatory definitions for determining which vehicles would be
subject to which CO2 standards.
    \817\ EPCA 501(2), 89 Stat. 901, codified at 49 U.S.C. 32901(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under EPCA, there are two general groups of automobiles that
qualify as non-passenger automobiles or light trucks: (1) Those defined
by NHTSA in its regulations as other than passenger automobiles due to
their having design features that indicate they were not manufactured
``primarily'' for transporting up to ten individuals; and (2) those
expressly excluded from the passenger category by statute due to their
capability for off-highway operation, regardless of whether they might
have been manufactured primarily for passenger transportation.\818\ 49
CFR 523 directly tracks those two broad groups of non-passenger
automobiles in subsections (a) and (b), respectively. We note that
NHTSA tightened the definition of light truck in the MY 2011 rulemaking
to ensure that only vehicles that actually have 4WD will be classified
as off-highway vehicles by reason of having 4WD (to prevent 2WD SUVs
that also come in a 4WD ``version'' from qualifying automatically as
``off-road capable'' simply by reason of the existence of the 4WD
version), which resulted in the reclassification of over 1 million
vehicles from the truck fleet to the car fleet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \818\ 49 U.S.C. 32901(a)(18). The statute refers both to
vehicles that are 4WD and to vehicles over 6,000 lbs GVWR as
potential candidates for off-road capability, if they also meet the
``significant feature * * * designed for off-highway operation'' as
defined by the Secretary. We note that we consider ``AWD'' vehicles
as 4WD for purposes of this determination--they send power to all
wheels of the vehicle all the time, while 4WD vehicles may only do
so part of the time, which appears to make them equal candidates for
off-road capability given other necessary characteristics. We also
underscore, as we have in the past, that despite comments in prior
rulemakings suggesting that any vehicle that appears to be
manufactured ``primarily'' for transporting passengers must be
classified as a passenger car, the statute as currently written
clearly provides that vehicles that are off-highway capable are not
passenger cars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since the original passage of EPCA, and consistently through the
passage of EISA, Congress has expressed its intent that different
vehicles with different characteristics and capabilities should be
subject to different CAFE standards in two ways: first, through whether
a vehicle is classified as a passenger car or as a light truck, and
second, by requiring NHTSA to set separate standards for passenger cars
and for light trucks.\819\ Creating two categories of vehicles and
requiring separate standards for each, however, can lead to two issues
which may either detract from the fuel savings that the program is able
to achieve, or increase regulatory burden for manufacturers simply
because they are trying to meet market demand. Specifically,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \819\ See, e.g., discussion of legislative history in 42 FR
38362, 38365-66 (Jul. 28, 1977).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) If the stringency of the standards that NHTSA establishes seems
to favor either cars or trucks, manufacturers may have incentive to
change their vehicles' characteristics in order to reclassify them and
average them into the ``easier'' fleet; and
    (2) ``Like'' vehicles, such as the 2WD and 4WD versions of the same
CUV, may have generally similar fuel economy-achieving capabilities,
but different targets due to differences in the car and truck curves.
    NHTSA recognizes that manufacturers may have an incentive to
classify vehicles as light trucks if the fuel economy target for light
trucks with a given footprint is less stringent than the target for
passenger cars with the same footprint. This is often the case given
the current fleet. Because of characteristics like 4WD and towing and
hauling capacity (and correspondingly, although not necessarily,
heavier weight), the vehicles in the current light truck fleet are
generally less capable of achieving higher fuel economy levels as
compared to the vehicles in the passenger car fleet. 2WD SUVs are the
vehicles that could be most readily redesigned so that they can be
``moved'' from the passenger car to the light truck fleet. A
manufacturer could do this by adding a third row of seats, for example,
or boosting GVWR over 6,000 lbs for a 2WD SUV that already meets the
ground clearance requirements for ``off-road capability.'' A change
like this may only be possible during a vehicle redesign, but since
vehicles are redesigned, on average, every 5 years, at least some
manufacturers could possibly choose to make such changes before or
during the model years covered by this rulemaking, either because of
market demands or because of interest in changing the vehicle's
classification.
    NHTSA continues to believe that the definitions as they currently
exist are consistent with the text of EISA and with Congress' original
intent. However, the time frame of this rulemaking is longer than any
CAFE rulemaking that NHTSA has previously undertaken, and no one can
predict with certainty how the market will change between now and 2025.
The agency therefore has less assurance than in prior rulemakings that
manufacturers will not have greater incentives and opportunities during
that time frame to make more deliberate redesign efforts to move
vehicles out of the car fleet and into the truck fleet in order to
obtain the lower target, and potentially reducing overall fuel savings.
Recognizing this possibility, we seek comment on how best to avoid it
while still classifying vehicles appropriately based on their
characteristics and capabilities.
    One of the potential options that we explored in the MYs 2012-2016
rulemaking for MYs 2017 and beyond was changing the definition of light
truck to remove paragraph (5) of 49 CFR 523.5(a), which allows vehicles
to be classified as light trucks if they have three or more rows of
seats that can either be removed or folded flat to allow greater cargo-
carrying capacity. NHTSA has received comments in the past arguing that
vehicles with three or more rows of seats, unless they are capable of
transporting more than 10 individuals, should be classified as
passenger cars rather than as light trucks because they would not need
to have so many seats if they were not intended primarily to carry
passengers.
    NHTSA recognizes that there are arguments both for and against
maintaining the definition as currently written for MYs 2017 and
beyond. The agency continues to believe that three or more rows of
seats that can be removed or folded flat is a reasonable proxy for a
vehicle's ability to provide expanded cargo space, consistent with the
agency's original intent in developing the light truck definitions that
expanded cargo space is a fundamentally ``truck-like'' characteristic.
Much of the public reaction to this definition, which is mixed, tends
to be visceral and anecdotal--for example, for parents with minivans
and multiple children, the ability of seats to fold flat to provide
more room for child-related cargo may have been a paramount
consideration in purchasing the vehicle, while for CUV owners with
cramped and largely unused third rows, those extra seats may seem to
have sprung up entirely in response to the regulation, rather than in
response to the consumer's need for utility. If we believe, for the
sake of argument, that the agency's decision might be reasonable from
both a policy and a legal perspective whether we decided to change the
definition or to leave it alone, the most important questions in making
the decision become (1) whether removing

523.5(a)(5), and thus causing vehicles with three or more rows to be
classified as passenger cars in the future, will save more fuel, and
(2) if more fuel will be saved, at what cost.
    In considering these questions in the MYs 2012-2016 rulemaking,
NHTSA conducted an analysis in the final rule to attempt to consider
the impact of moving these vehicles. We identified all of the 3-row
vehicles in the baseline (MY 2008) fleet,\820\ and then considered
whether any could be properly classified as a light truck under a
different provision of 49 CFR 523.5--about 40 vehicles were
classifiable under Sec.  523.5(b) as off-highway capable. We then
transferred those remaining 3-row vehicles from the light truck to the
passenger car input sheets for the CAFE model, re-estimated the
relative stringency of the passenger car and light truck standards,
shifted the curves to obtain the same overall average required fuel
economy as under the final standards, and ran the model to evaluate
potential impacts (in terms of costs, fuel savings, etc.) of moving
these vehicles. The agency's hypothesis had been that moving 3-row
vehicles from the truck to the car fleet would tend to bring the
achieved fuel economy levels down in both fleets--the car fleet
achieved levels could theoretically fall due to the introduction of
many more vehicles that are relatively heavy for their footprint and
thus comparatively less fuel economy-capable, while the truck fleet
achieved levels could theoretically fall due to the characteristics of
the vehicles remaining in the fleet (4WDs and pickups, mainly) that are
often comparatively less fuel economy-capable than 3-row vehicles,
although more vehicles would be subject to the relatively more
stringent passenger car standards, assuming the curves were not refit
to the data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \820\ Of the 430 light truck models in the fleet, 175 of these
had 3 rows.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the agency found, however, moving the vehicles reduced the
stringency of the passenger car standards by approximately 0.8 mpg on
average for the five years of the rule, and reduced the stringency of
the light truck standards by approximately 0.2 mpg on average for the
five years of the rule, but it also resulted in approximately 676
million fewer gallons of fuel consumed (equivalent to about 1 percent
of the reduction in fuel consumption under the final standards) and 7.1
mmt fewer CO2 emissions (equivalent to about 1 percent of
the reduction in CO2 emissions under the final standards)
over the lifetime of the MYs 2012-2016 vehicles. This result was
attributable to slight differences (due to rounding precision) in the
overall average required fuel economy levels in MYs 2012-2014, and to
the retention of the relatively high lifetime mileage accumulation
(compared to ``traditional'' passenger cars) of the vehicles moved from
the light truck fleet to the passenger car fleet. The net effect on
technology costs was approximately $200 million additional spending on
technology each year (equivalent to about 2 percent of the average
increase in annual technology outlays under the final standards).
Assuming manufacturers would pass that cost forward to consumers by
increasing vehicle costs, NHTSA estimated that vehicle prices would
increase by an average of approximately $13 during MYs 2012-2016. With
less fuel savings and higher costs, and a substantial disruption to the
industry, removing 523.5(a)(5) did not seem advisable in the context of
the MYs 2012-2016 rulemaking.
    Looking forward, however, and given the considerable uncertainty
regarding the incentive to reclassify vehicles in the MYs 2017 and
beyond timeframe, the agency considered whether a fresh attempt at this
analysis would be warranted, but did not believe that it would be
informative given the uncertainty. One important point to note in the
comparative analysis in the MYs 2012-2016 rulemaking is that, due to
time constraints, the agency did not attempt to refit the respective
fleet target curves or to change the intended required stringency in MY
2016 of 34.1 mpg for the combined fleets. If we had refitted curves,
considering the vehicles in question, we might have obtained a somewhat
steeper passenger car curve, and a somewhat flatter light truck curve,
which could have affected the agency's findings. The same is true
today. Without refitting the curves and changing the required levels of
stringency for cars and trucks, simply moving vehicles from one fleet
to another will not inform the agency in any substantive way as to the
impacts of a change in classification. Moreover, even if we did attempt
to make those changes, the results would be somewhat speculative; for
example, the agencies continue to use the same MY 2008 baseline used in
the MYs 2012-2016 rulemaking, which may have limited utility for
predicting relatively small changes (moving only 40 vehicles, as noted
above) in the fleet makeup during the rulemaking timeframe. As a
result, NHTSA did not attempt to quantify the impact of such a
reclassification of 3-row vehicles, but we seek comment on whether and
how we should do so for the final rule. If commenters believe that we
should attempt to quantify the impact, we specifically seek comment on
how to refit the footprint curves and how the agency should consider
stringency levels under such a scenario.
    Another potential option that we explored in the MYs 2012-2016
rulemaking for MYs 2017 and beyond was classifying ``like'' vehicles
together. Many commenters objected in the rulemaking for the MY 2011
standards to NHTSA's regulatory separation of ``like'' vehicles.
Industry commenters argued that it was technologically inappropriate
for NHTSA to place 4WD and 2WD versions of the same SUV in separate
classes. They argued that the vehicles are the same, except for their
drivetrain features, thus giving them similar fuel economy improvement
potential. They further argued that all SUVs should be classified as
light trucks. Environmental and consumer group commenters, on the other
hand, argued that 4WD SUVs and 2WD SUVs that are ``off-highway
capable'' by virtue of a GVWR above 6,000 pounds should be classified
as passenger cars, since they are primarily used to transport
passengers. In the MY 2011 rulemaking, NHTSA rejected both of these
sets of arguments. NHTSA concluded that 2WD SUVs that were neither
``off-highway capable'' nor possessed ``truck-like'' functional
characteristics were appropriately classified as passenger cars. At the
same time, NHTSA also concluded that because Congress explicitly
designated vehicles with GVWRs over 6,000 pounds as ``off-highway
capable'' (if they meet the ground clearance requirements established
by the agency), NHTSA did not have authority to move these vehicles to
the passenger car fleet.
    NHTSA continues to believe that this would not be an appropriate
solution for addressing either the risk of gaming or perceived
regulatory inequity going forward. As explained in the MYs 2012-2016
final rule, with regard to the first argument, that ``like'' vehicles
should be classified similarly (i.e., that 2WD SUVs should be
classified as light trucks because, besides their drivetrain, they are
``like'' the 4WD version that qualifies as a light truck), NHTSA
continues to believe that 2WD SUVs that do not meet any part of the
existing regulatory definition for light trucks should be classified as
passenger cars. However, NHTSA recognizes the additional point raised
by industry commenters in the MY 2011 rulemaking that manufacturers may
respond to this tighter classification by ceasing to build 2WD versions
of SUVs, which could

reduce fuel savings. In response to that point, NHTSA stated in the MY
2011 final rule that it expects that manufacturer decisions about
whether to continue building 2WD SUVs will be driven in much greater
measure by consumer demand than by NHTSA's regulatory definitions. If
it appears, in the course of the next several model years, that
manufacturers are indeed responding to the CAFE regulatory definitions
in a way that reduces overall fuel savings from expected levels, it may
be appropriate for NHTSA to review this question again. At this time,
however, since so little time has passed since our last rulemaking
action, we do not believe that we have enough information about changes
in the fleet to ascertain whether this is yet ripe for consideration.
We seek comment on how the agency might go about reviewing this
question as more information about manufacturer behavior is accumulated
over time.

I. Compliance and Enforcement

1. Overview
    NHTSA's CAFE enforcement program is largely established by
statute--unlike the CAA, EPCA, as amended by EISA, is very prescriptive
with regard to enforcement. EPCA and EISA also clearly specify a number
of flexibilities that are available to manufacturers to help them
comply with the CAFE standards. Some of those flexibilities are
constrained by statute--for example, while Congress required that NHTSA
allow manufacturers to transfer credits earned for over-compliance from
their car fleet to their truck fleet and vice versa, Congress also
limited the amount by which manufacturers could increase their CAFE
levels using those transfers.\821\ NHTSA believes Congress balanced the
energy-saving purposes of the statute against the benefits of certain
flexibilities and incentives and intentionally placed some limits on
certain statutory flexibilities and incentives. With that goal in mind,
of maximizing compliance flexibility while also implementing EPCA/
EISA's overarching purpose of energy conservation as fully as possible,
NHTSA has done its best in crafting the credit transfer and trading
regulations authorized by EISA to ensure that total fuel savings are
preserved when manufacturers exercise their statutorily-provided
compliance flexibilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \821\ See 49 U.S.C. 32903(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, to achieve the level of standards described in this
proposal for the 2017-2025 program, NHTSA expects automakers to
continue increasing the use of innovative and advanced technologies as
they evolve. Additional incentive programs may encourage early adoption
of these innovative and advanced technologies and help to maximize both
compliance flexibility and energy conservation. These incentive
programs for CAFE compliance would not be under NHTSA's EPCA/EISA
authority, but under EPA's EPCA authority--as discussed in more detail
below and in Section III of this preamble, EPA measures and calculates
manufacturer compliance with the CAFE standards, and it would be in the
calculation of fuel economy levels that additional incentives would
most appropriately be applied, as a practical matter. Specifically, to
be included in the CAFE program, EPA is proposing: (1) Fuel economy
performance adjustments due to improvements in air conditioning system
efficiency; (2) utilization of ``game changing'' technologies installed
on full size pick-up trucks including hybridization; and (3)
installation of ``off-cycle'' technologies. In addition, for model
years 2020 and later, EPA is proposing calculation methods for dual-
fueled vehicles, to fill the gap left in EPCA/EISA by the expiration of
the dual-fuel incentive. A more thorough description of the basis for
the new incentive programs can be found in Section III.
    The following sections explain how NHTSA determines whether
manufacturers are in compliance with the CAFE standards for each model
year, and how manufacturers may address potential non-compliance
situations through the use of compliance flexibilities or fine payment.
The following sections also explain, for the reader's reference, the
proposed new incentives and calculations, but we also refer readers to
Section III.C for EPA's explanation of its authority and more specific
detail regarding these proposed changes to the CAFE program.
2. How does NHTSA determine compliance?
a. Manufacturer Submission of Data and CAFE Testing by EPA
    NHTSA begins to determine CAFE compliance by reviewing projected
estimates in pre- and mid-model year reports submitted by manufacturers
pursuant to 49 CFR part 537, Automotive Fuel Economy Reports.\822\
Those reports for each compliance model year are submitted to NHTSA by
December of the calendar year prior to the corresponding subsequent
model year (for the pre-model year report) and in July of the given
model year (for the mid-model year report). NHTSA has already received
pre-and mid-model year reports from manufacturers for MY 2011. NHTSA
uses these reports for reference to help the agency, and the
manufacturers who prepare them, anticipate potential compliance issues
as early as possible, and help manufacturers plan compliance
strategies. NHTSA also uses the reports for auditing and testing
purposes, which helps manufacturers correct errors prior to the end of
the model year and facilitates acceptance of their final CAFE report by
EPA. In addition, NHTSA issues reports to the public twice a year that
provide a summary of manufacturers' fleet fuel economy projected
performances using pre- and mid model year data. Currently, NHTSA
receives manufacturers' CAFE reports in paper form. In order to
facilitate submission by manufacturers, NHTSA amended part 537 to allow
for electronic submission of the pre- and mid-model year CAFE reports
in 2010 (see 75 FR 25324). Electronic reports are optional and must be
submitted in a pdf format. NHTSA proposes to modify these provisions in
this NPRM, as described below, in order to eliminate hardcopy
submissions and help the agency more readily process and utilize the
electronically-submitted data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \822\ 49 CFR part 537 is authorized by 49 U.S.C. 32907.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Throughout the model year, NHTSA audits manufacturers' reports and
conducts vehicle testing to confirm the accuracy of track width and
wheelbase measurements as a part of its footprint validation
program,\823\ which helps the agency understand better how
manufacturers may adjust vehicle characteristics to change a vehicle's
footprint measurement, and thus its fuel economy target. NHTSA resolve
discrepancies with the manufacturer prior to the end of the calendar
year corresponding to the respective model year with the primary goal
of manufacturers submitting accurate final reports to EPA. NHTSA makes
its ultimate determination of a manufacturer's CAFE compliance
obligation based on official reported and verified CAFE data received
from EPA. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 32904(e), EPA is responsible for
calculating manufacturers' CAFE values so that NHTSA can determine
compliance with its CAFE standards. The EPA-verified data is based on
any considerations from NHTSA testing, its own vehicle testing, and
final model year data

submitted by manufacturers to EPA pursuant to 40 CFR 600.512. A
manufacturer's final model year report must be submitted to EPA no
later than 90 days after December 31st of the model year. EPA test
procedures including those used to establish the new incentive fuel
economy performance values for model year 2017 to 2025 vehicles are
contained in sections 40 CFR Part 600 and 40 CFR Part 86.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \823\ See http://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/Vehicle%20Safety/Test%20Procedures/Associated%20Files/TP-537-01.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. NHTSA Then Analyzes EPA-Certified CAFE Values for Compliance
    NHTSA's determination of CAFE compliance is fairly straightforward:
after testing, EPA verifies the data submitted by manufacturers and
issues final CAFE reports sent to manufacturers and to NHTSA in a pdf
format between April and October of each year (for the previous model
year), and NHTSA then identifies the manufacturers' compliance
categories (fleets) that do not meet the applicable CAFE fleet
standards. NHTSA plans to construct a new, more automated database
system in the near future to store manufacturer data and the EPA data.
The new database is expected to simplify data submissions to NHTSA,
improve the quality of the agency's data, expedite public reporting,
improve audit verifications and testing, and enable more efficient
tracking of manufacturers' CAFE credits with greater transparency.
    NHTSA uses the verified data from EPA to compare fleet average
standards with performance. A manufacturer complies with NHTSA's fuel
economy standard if its fleet average performance is greater than or
equal to its required standard, or if it is able to use available
compliance flexibilities to resolve its non-compliance difference.
NHTSA calculates a cumulative credit status for each of a
manufacturer's vehicle compliance categories according to 49 U.S.C.
32903. If a manufacturer's compliance category exceeds the applicable
fuel economy standard, NHTSA adds credits to the account for that
compliance category. The amount of credits earned in a given year are
determined by multiplying the number of tenths of an mpg by which a
manufacturer exceeds a standard for a particular category of
automobiles by the total volume of automobiles of that category
manufactured by the manufacturer for that model year. Credits may be
used to offset shortfalls in other model years, subject to the three
year ``carry-back'' and five-year ``carry-forward'' limitations
specified in 49 U.S.C. 32903(a); NHTSA does not have authority to allow
credits to be carried forward or back for periods longer than that
specified in the statute. A manufacturer may also transfer credits to
another compliance category, subject to the limitations specified in 49
U.S.C. 32903(g)(3), or trade them to another manufacturer. The value of
each credit received via trade or transfer, when used for compliance,
is adjusted using the adjustment factor described in 49 CFR 536.4,
pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 32903(f)(1). As part of this rulemaking, NHTSA is
proposing to set the VMT values that are part of the adjustment factor
for credits earned in MYs 2017-2025 at a single level that does not
change from model year to model year, as discussed further below.
    If a manufacturer's vehicles in a particular compliance category
fall below the standard fuel economy value, NHTSA will provide written
notification to the manufacturer that it has not met a particular fleet
standard. The manufacturer will be required to confirm the shortfall
and must either submit a plan indicating it will allocate existing
credits, or if it does not have sufficient credits available in that
fleet, how it will earn, transfer and/or acquire credits, or pay the
appropriate civil penalty. The manufacturer must submit a plan or
payment within 60 days of receiving agency notification. Credit
allocation plans received from the manufacturer will be reviewed and
approved by NHTSA. NHTSA will approve a credit allocation plan unless
it finds the proposed credits are unavailable or that it is unlikely
that the plan will result in the manufacturer earning sufficient
credits to offset the subject credit shortfall. If a plan is approved,
NHTSA will revise the manufacturer's credit account accordingly. If a
plan is rejected, NHTSA will notify the manufacturer and request a
revised plan or payment of the appropriate fine.
    In the event that a manufacturer does not comply with a CAFE
standard even after the consideration of credits, EPCA provides for the
assessment of civil penalties. The Act specifies a precise formula for
determining the amount of civil penalties for noncompliance.\824\ The
penalty, as adjusted for inflation by law, is $5.50 for each tenth of a
mpg that a manufacturer's average fuel economy falls short of the
standard for a given model year multiplied by the total volume of those
vehicles in the affected fleet (i.e., import or domestic passenger car,
or light truck), manufactured for that model year. The amount of the
penalty may not be reduced except under the unusual or extreme
circumstances specified in the statute. All penalties are paid to the
U.S. Treasury and not to NHTSA itself.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \824\ See 49 U.S.C. 32912.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Unlike the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, EPCA does
not provide for recall and remedy in the event of a noncompliance. The
presence of recall and remedy provisions \825\ in the Safety Act and
their absence in EPCA is believed to arise from the difference in the
application of the safety standards and CAFE standards. A safety
standard applies to individual vehicles; that is, each vehicle must
possess the requisite equipment or feature that must provide the
requisite type and level of performance. If a vehicle does not, it is
noncompliant. Typically, a vehicle does not entirely lack an item or
equipment or feature. Instead, the equipment or features fails to
perform adequately. Recalling the vehicle to repair or replace the
noncompliant equipment or feature can usually be readily accomplished.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \825\ 49 U.S.C. 30120, Remedies for defects and noncompliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In contrast, a CAFE standard applies to a manufacturer's entire
fleet for a model year. It does not require that a particular
individual vehicle be equipped with any particular equipment or feature
or meet a particular level of fuel economy. It does require that the
manufacturer's fleet, as a whole, comply. Further, although under the
attribute-based approach to setting CAFE standards fuel economy targets
are established for individual vehicles based on their footprints, the
vehicles are not required to comply with those targets on a model-by-
model or vehicle-by-vehicle basis. However, as a practical matter, if a
manufacturer chooses to design some vehicles so they fall below their
target levels of fuel economy, it will need to design other vehicles so
they exceed their targets if the manufacturer's overall fleet average
is to meet the applicable standard.
    Thus, under EPCA, there is no such thing as a noncompliant vehicle,
only a noncompliant fleet. No particular vehicle in a noncompliant
fleet is any more, or less, noncompliant than any other vehicle in the
fleet.
    After enforcement letters are sent, NHTSA continues to monitor
receipt of credit allocation plans or civil penalty payments that are
due within 60 days from the date of receipt of the letter by the
vehicle manufacturer, and takes further action if the manufacturer is
delinquent in responding. If NHTSA receives and approves a
manufacturer's carryback plan to earn future credits within the
following three years in order to comply with current regulatory

obligations, NHTSA will defer levying fines for non-compliance until
the date(s) when the manufacturer's approved plan indicates that
credits will be earned or acquired to achieve compliance, and upon
receiving confirmed CAFE data from EPA. If the manufacturer fails to
acquire or earn sufficient credits by the plan dates, NHTSA will
initiate compliance proceedings. 49 CFR part 536 contains the detailed
regulations governing the use and application of CAFE credits
authorized by 49 U.S.C. 32903.
3. What compliance flexibilities are available under the CAFE program
and how do manufacturers use them?
    There are three basic flexibilities outlined by EPCA/EISA that
manufacturers can currently use to achieve compliance with CAFE
standards beyond applying fuel economy-improving technologies: (1)
Building dual- and alternative-fueled vehicles; (2) banking (carry-
forward and carry-back), trading, and transferring credits earned for
exceeding fuel economy standards; and (3) paying civil penalties. We
note that while these flexibility mechanisms will reduce compliance
costs to some degree for most manufacturers, 49 U.S.C. 32902(h)
expressly prohibits NHTSA from considering the availability of
statutorily-established credits (either for building dual- or
alternative-fueled vehicles or from accumulated transfers or trades) in
determining the level of the standards. Thus, NHTSA may not raise CAFE
standards because manufacturers have enough of those credits to meet
higher standards. This is an important difference from EPA's authority
under the CAA, which does not contain such a restriction, and which
allows EPA to set higher standards as a result.
a. Dual- and Alternative-Fueled Vehicles
    As discussed at length in prior rulemakings, EPCA encourages
manufacturers to build alternative-fueled and dual- (or flexible-)
fueled vehicles by providing special fuel economy calculations for
``dedicated'' (that is, 100 percent) alternative fueled vehicles and
``dual-fueled'' (that is, capable of running on either the alternative
fuel or gasoline/diesel) vehicles. Consistent with the overarching
purpose of EPCA/EISA, these statutory incentives help to reduce
petroleum usage and thus improve our nation's energy security. Per
EPCA, the fuel economy of a dedicated alternative fuel vehicle is
determined by dividing its fuel economy in equivalent miles per gallon
of gasoline or diesel fuel by 0.15.\826\ Thus, a 15 mpg dedicated
alternative fuel vehicle would be rated as 100 mpg.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \826\ 49 U.S.C. 32905(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For dual-fueled vehicles, EPA measures the vehicle's fuel economy
rating by determining the average of the fuel economy on gasoline or
diesel and the fuel economy on the alternative fuel vehicle divided by
0.15.\827\ This calculation procedure, provided in EPCA, turns a dual-
fueled vehicle that averages 25 mpg on gasoline or diesel into a 40 mpg
vehicle for CAFE purposes. This assumes that (1) the vehicle operates
on gasoline or diesel 50 percent of the time and on alternative fuel 50
percent of the time; (2) fuel economy while operating on alternative
fuel is 15 mpg (15/.15 = 100 mpg); and (3) fuel economy while operating
on gas or diesel is 25 mpg. Thus:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \827\ 49 U.S.C. 32905(b).

CAFE FE = 1/{0.5/(mpg gas) + 0.5/(mpg alt fuel){time}  = 1/{0.5/25 +
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.5/100{time}  = 40 mpg

    In the case of natural gas, EPA's calculation is performed in a
similar manner. The fuel economy is the weighted average while
operating on natural gas and operating on gas or diesel. The statute
specifies that 100 cubic feet (ft\3\) of natural gas is equivalent to
0.823 gallons of gasoline. The CAFE fuel economy while operating on the
natural gas is determined by dividing its fuel economy in equivalent
miles per gallon of gasoline by 0.15.\828\ Thus, if a vehicle averages
25 miles per 100 ft\3\ of natural gas, then:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \828\ 49 U.S.C. 32905(c).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAFE FE = (25/100) * (100/.823)*(1/0.15) = 203 mpg

    Congress extended the dual-fueled vehicle incentive in EISA for
dual-fueled automobiles through MY 2019, but provided for its phase-out
between MYs 2015 and 2019.\829\ The maximum fleet fuel economy increase
attributable to this statutory incentive is thus as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \829\ 49 U.S.C. 32906(a). NHTSA notes that the incentive for
dedicated alternative-fuel automobiles, automobiles that run
exclusively on an alternative fuel, at 49 U.S.C. 32905(a), was not
phased-out by EISA.
    We note additionally and for the reader's reference that EPA
will be treating dual- and alternative-fueled vehicles under its GHG
program similarly to the way EPCA/EISA provides for CAFE through MY
2015, but for MY 2016, EPA established CO2 emission
levels for alternative fuel vehicles based on measurement of actual
CO2 emissions during testing, plus a manufacturer
demonstration that the vehicles are actually being run on the
alternative fuel. The manufacturer would then be allowed to weight
the gasoline and alternative fuel test results based on the
proportion of actual usage of both fuels. Because EPCA/EISA provides
the explicit CAFE measurement methodology for EPA to use for
dedicated vehicles and dual-fueled vehicles through MY 2019, we
explained in the MYs 2012-2016 final rule that the CAFE program
would not require that vehicles manufactured for the purpose of
obtaining the credit actually be run on the alternative fuel.

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

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01DE11.276

    49 CFR part 538 codifies in regulation the statutory alternative-
fueled and dual-fueled automobile manufacturing incentive.
    Given that the statutory incentive for dual-fueled vehicles in 49
U.S.C. 32906 and the measurement methodology specified in 49 U.S.C.
32905(b) and (d) expire in MY 2019, the question becomes, how should
the fuel economy of dual-fueled vehicles be determined for CAFE
compliance in MYs 2020 and beyond? NHTSA and EPA believe that the
expiration of the dual-fueled vehicle measurement methodology in the
statute leaves a gap to be filled, to avoid the absurd result of dual-
fueled vehicles' fuel economy being measured like that of conventional
gasoline vehicles. If the overarching purpose of the statute is energy
conservation and reducing petroleum usage, the agencies believe that
that goal is best met by continuing to reflect through CAFE
calculations the reduced petroleum usage that dual-fueled vehicles
achieve.
    As discussed in more detail in Section III.B.10, for MYs 2020 and
beyond, to fill the gap left by the expiration of the statutory CAFE
measurement methodology for dual-fueled vehicles, EPA is proposing to
harmonize with the approach it uses under the GHG program to measure
the emissions of dual-fueled vehicles, to reflect the real-world
percentage of usage of alternative fuels by dual-fueled vehicles, but
also to continue to incentivize the use of certain alternative fuels in
dual-fueled vehicles as appropriate under EPCA/EISA to reduce petroleum
usage. Specifically, for MYs 2020 and beyond, EPA will calculate the
fuel economy test values for a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV,
that runs on both gasoline and electricity) and for CNG-gasoline
vehicles on both the alternative fuel and on gasoline, but rather than
assuming that the dual-fueled vehicle runs on the alternative fuel 50
percent of the time as the current statutory measurement methodology
requires, EPA will instead use the Society of Automotive Engineers
(SAE) ``utility factor'' methodology (based on vehicle range on the
alternative fuel and typical daily travel mileage) to determine the
assumed percentage of operation on gasoline/diesel and percentage of
operation on the alternative fuel for those vehicles. Using the utility
factor, rather than making an a priori assumption about the amount of
alternative fuel used by dual-fueled vehicles, recognizes that once a
consumer has paid several thousand dollars to be able to use a fuel
that is considerably cheaper than gasoline or diesel, it is very likely
that the consumer will seek to use the cheaper fuel as much as
possible. Consistent with this approach, however, EPA is not proposing
to extend the utility factor method to flexible fueled vehicles (FFVs)
that use E-85 and gasoline, since there is not a significant cost
differential between an FFV and conventional gasoline vehicle and
historically consumers have only fueled these vehicles with E85 a very
small percentage of the time. Therefore, EPA is proposing for CAFE
compliance in MYs 2020 and beyond to continue treatment of E85 and
other FFVs as finalized in the MY 2016 GHG program, based on actual
usage of the alternative fuel which represents a real-world reduction
attributed to alternative fuels. For clarification in our regulations,
NHTSA is proposing to add Part 536.10(d) which states that for model
years 2020 and beyond a manufacturer must calculate the fuel economy of
dual fueled vehicles in accordance with 40 CFR 600.500-12(c), (2)(v)
and (vii), the sections of EPA's calculation regulations where EPA is
proposing to incorporate these changes.
    Additionally, to avoid manufacturers building only dedicated
alternative fuel vehicles (which may be harder to refuel in some
instances) because of the continued statutory 0.15 CAFE divisor under
49 U.S.C. 32905(a) and the calculation for EV fuel economy under 49
U.S.C. 32904, and declining to build dual-fueled vehicles which might
not get a similar bonus, EPA is proposing to use the Petroleum
Equivalency Factor (PEF) and a 0.15 divisor for calculating the fuel
economy of PHEVs' electrical operation and for natural gas operation of
CNG-gasoline vehicles.\830\ This is consistent with the statutory
approach for dedicated alternative fuel vehicles, and continues to
incentivize the usage of alternative fuels and reduction of petroleum
usage, but when combined with the utility factor approach described
above, does not needlessly over-incentivize their usage--it gives
credit for what is used, and does not give credit for what is not used.
Because it does not give credit for what is not used, EPA would propose
that manufacturers may increase their calculated fleet fuel economy for
dual-

fueled vehicles by an unlimited amount using these flexibilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \830\ EPA is also seeking comment on an approach that would not
use the PEF and 0.15 multiplier, as discussed above in Section III.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As an example, for MYs 2020 and beyond, the calculation procedure
for a dual-fueled vehicle that uses both gasoline and CNG could result
in a combined fuel economy value of 150 mpg for CAFE purposes. This
assumes that (1) the ``utility factor'' for the alternative fuel is
found to be 95 percent, and so the vehicle operates on gasoline for the
remaining 5 percent of the time; (2) fuel economy while operating on
natural gas is 203 mpg [(25/100) * (100/.823) * (1/0.15)] as shown
above utilizing the PEF and the .15 incentive factor; and (3) fuel
economy while operating on gasoline is 25 mpg. Thus:

CAFE FE = 1/{0.05/(mpg gas) + 0.95/(mpg CNG){time}  = 1/{0.05/25 +
0.95/203{time}  = 150 mpg

    The agencies seek comment on this approach.
b. Credit Trading and Transfer
    As part of the MY 2011 final rule, NHTSA created 49 CFR part 536
for credit trading and transfer. Part 536 implements the provisions in
EISA authorizing NHTSA to establish by regulation a credit trading
program and directing it to establish by regulation a credit transfer
program.\831\ Since its enactment, EPCA has permitted manufacturers to
earn credits for exceeding the standards and to carry those credits
backward or forward. EISA extended the ``carry-forward'' period from
three to five model years, and left the ``carry-back'' period at three
model years. Under part 536, credit holders (including, but not limited
to, manufacturers) will have credit accounts with NHTSA, and will be
able to hold credits, use them to achieve compliance with CAFE
standards, transfer them between compliance categories, or trade them.
A credit may also be cancelled before its expiration date, if the
credit holder so chooses. Traded and transferred credits are subject to
an ``adjustment factor'' to ensure total oil savings are preserved, as
required by EISA. EISA also prohibits credits earned before MY 2011
from being transferred, so NHTSA has developed several regulatory
restrictions on trading and transferring to facilitate Congress' intent
in this regard. As discussed above, EISA establishes a ``cap'' for the
maximum increase in any compliance category attributable to transferred
credits: for MYs 2011-2013, transferred credits can only be used to
increase a manufacturer's CAFE level in a given compliance category by
1.0 mpg; for MYs 2014-2017, by 1.5 mpg; and for MYs 2018 and beyond, by
2.0 mpg.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \831\ Congress required that DOT establish a credit
``transferring'' regulation, to allow individual manufacturers to
move credits from one of their fleets to another (e.g., using a
credit earned for exceeding the light truck standard for compliance
with the domestic passenger car standard). Congress allowed DOT to
establish a credit ``trading'' regulation, so that credits may be
bought and sold between manufacturers and other parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of this rulemaking, NHTSA is proposing to set the VMT
estimates used in the credit adjustment factor at 195,264 miles for
passenger car credits and 225,865 miles for light truck credits for
credits earned in MYs 2017-2025. The VMT estimates for MYs 2012-2016
would not change. NHTSA is proposing these values in the interest of
harmonizing with EPA's GHG program, and seeks comment on this approach
as compared to the prior approach of adjustment factors with VMT
estimates that vary by year. Additionally, NHTSA is proposing to
include VMT estimates for MY 2011 which the agency neglected to include
in Part 536 as part of the MYs 2012-2016 rulemaking. The proposed MY
2011 VMT estimate for passenger cars is 152,922 miles, and for light
trucks is 172,552 miles.
c. Payment of Civil Penalties
    If a manufacturer's average miles per gallon for a given compliance
category (domestic passenger car, imported passenger car, light truck)
falls below the applicable standard, and the manufacturer cannot make
up the difference by using credits earned or acquired, the manufacturer
is subject to penalties. The penalty, as mentioned, is $5.50 for each
tenth of a mpg that a manufacturer's average fuel economy falls short
of the standard for a given model year, multiplied by the total volume
of those vehicles in the affected fleet, manufactured for that model
year. NHTSA has collected $794,921,139.50 to date in CAFE penalties,
the largest ever being paid by DaimlerChrysler for its MY 2006 import
passenger car fleet, $30,257,920.00. For their MY 2009 fleets, six
manufacturers paid CAFE fines for not meeting an applicable standard--
Fiat, which included Ferrari, Maserati, and Alfa Romeo; Daimler
(Mercedes-Benz); Porsche; and Tata (Jaguar Land Rover)--for a total of
$9,148,425.00. As mentioned above, civil penalties paid for CAFE non-
compliance go to the U.S. Treasury, and not to DOT or NHTSA.
    NHTSA recognizes that some manufacturers may use the option to pay
civil penalties as a CAFE compliance flexibility--presumably, when
paying civil penalties is deemed more cost-effective than applying
additional fuel economy-improving technology, or when adding fuel
economy-improving technology would fundamentally change the
characteristics of the vehicle in ways that the manufacturer believes
its target consumers would not accept. NHTSA has no authority under
EPCA/EISA to prevent manufacturers from turning to payment of civil
penalties if they choose to do so. This is another important difference
from EPA's authority under the CAA, which allows EPA to revoke a
manufacturer's certificate of conformity that permits it to sell
vehicles if EPA determines that the manufacturer is in non-compliance,
and does not permit manufacturers to pay fines in lieu of compliance
with applicable standards.
    NHTSA has grappled repeatedly with the issue of whether civil
penalties are motivational for manufacturers, and whether raising them
would increase manufacturers' compliance with the standards. EPCA
authorizes increasing the civil penalty very slightly up to $10.00,
exclusive of inflationary adjustments, if NHTSA decides that the
increase in the penalty ``will result in, or substantially further,
substantial energy conservation for automobiles in the model years in
which the increased penalty may be imposed; and will not have a
substantial deleterious impact on the economy of the United States, a
State, or a region of a State.'' 49 U.S.C. 32912(c).
    To support a decision that increasing the penalty would result in
``substantial energy conservation'' without having ``a substantial
deleterious impact on the economy,'' NHTSA would likely need to provide
some reasonably certain quantitative estimates of the fuel that would
be saved, and the impact on the economy, if the penalty were raised.
Comments received on this issue in the past have not explained in clear
quantitative terms what the benefits and drawbacks to raising the
penalty might be. Additionally, it may be that the range of possible
increase that the statute provides, i.e., up to $10 per tenth of a mpg,
is insufficient to result in substantial energy conservation, although
changing this would require an amendment to the statute by Congress.
NHTSA continues to seek to gain information on this issue and requests
that commenters wishing to address this issue please provide, as
specifically as possible, estimates of how raising or not raising the
penalty amount will or will not substantially raise energy conservation
and impact the economy.

4. What new incentives are being added to the CAFE program for MYs
2017-2025?
    All of the CAFE compliance incentives discussed below are being
proposed by EPA under its EPCA authority to calculate fuel economy
levels for individual vehicles and for fleets. Because they are EPA
proposals, we refer the reader to Section III for more details, as well
as Chapter 5 of the draft Joint TSD for more information on the precise
mechanics of the incentives, but we present them here in summary form
so that the reader may understand more comprehensively what compliance
options are proposed to be available for manufacturers for meeting the
MYs 2017-2025 CAFE standards.
    As mentioned above with regard to EPA's proposed changes for the
calculation of dual-fueled automobile fuel economy for MYs 2020 and
beyond, NHTSA is proposing to modify its own regulations to reflect the
fact that these incentives may be used as part of the determination of
a manufacturer's CAFE level. The requirements for determining the
vehicle and fleet average performance for passenger cars and light
trucks inclusive of the proposed incentives are defined in 49 CFR part
531 and 49 CFR part 533, respectively. Part 531.6(a) specifies that the
average fuel economy of all passenger automobiles that are manufactured
by a manufacturer in a model year shall be determined in accordance
with procedures established by the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency under 49 U.S.C. 32904 of the Act and set forth in 40
CFR part 600. Part 533.6 (b) specifies that the average fuel economy of
all non-passenger automobiles is required to be determined in
accordance with the procedures established by the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency under 49 U.S.C. 32904 and set forth in
40 CFR part 600. Proposed changes to these sections would simply
clarify that in model years 2017 to 2025, manufacturers may adjust
their vehicle fuel economy performance values in accordance with 40 CFR
Part 600 for improvements due to the new incentives. We seek comment on
this proposed change.
a. ``Game Changing'' Technologies For Full Size Pick-Up Trucks
    EPA is proposing to adopt two new types of incentives for improving
the fuel economy performance of full size pickup trucks. The first
incentive would provide a credit to manufacturers that employ
significant quantities of hybridization on full size pickup trucks. The
second incentive would provide a performance-based incentive for full
size pickup trucks that achieve a significant reduction in fuel
consumption as compared to the applicable fuel economy target for the
vehicle in question. These incentives are proposed due to the
significant difficulty of large trucks, including full size pickup
trucks, in meeting CAFE standards while still maintaining the levels of
utility to which consumers have become accustomed, which require higher
payload and towing capabilities and greater cargo volumes than other
light-duty vehicles. Technologies that provide substantial fuel economy
benefits are often not attractive to manufacturers of large trucks due
to these tradeoffs in utility purposes, and therefore have not been
taken advantage of to the same extent as they have in other vehicle
classes. The goal of these incentives is to facilitate the application
of these ``game changing'' technologies for large pickups, both to save
more fuel and to help provide a bridge for industry to more stringent
light truck standards in MYs 2022-2025--as manufacturers gain
experience with applying more fuel-saving technology for these vehicles
and consumers become more accustomed to certain advanced technologies
in pickup trucks, the agencies anticipate that higher CAFE levels will
be more feasible for the fleet as a whole.\832\ In the context of the
CAFE program, these incentives would be used as an adjustment to a full
size pickup truck's fuel economy performance. The same vehicle would
not be allowed to receive an adjustment to its calculated fuel economy
for both the hybridization incentive and the performance-based
incentive, to avoid double-counting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \832\ NHTSA is not prohibited from considering this availability
of this incentive in determining the maximum feasible levels of
stringency for the light truck standards, because it is not one of
the statutory flexibilities enumerated in 49 U.S.C. 32902(h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To accommodate the proposed changes to the CAFE program, NHTSA is
proposing to adopt new definitions into regulation, 49 CFR part 523,
``Vehicle Classification.'' Part 523 was established by NHTSA to
include its regulatory definitions for passenger automobiles and trucks
and to guide the agency and manufacturers in classifying vehicles.
NHTSA proposes to add a definition in Part 523.2 defining the
characteristics that identify full size pickup trucks. NHTSA believes
that the definition is needed to help explain to readers which
characteristics of full size pickup truck make them eligible to gain
fuel economy improvement values allowed after a manufacturer meets
either a minimum penetration of hybridized technologies or has other
technologies that significantly reduce fuel consumption. The proposed
improvement would be available on a per-vehicle basis for mild and
strong HEVs, as well as for other technologies that significantly
improve the efficiency of full sized pickup trucks. The proposed
definition would specify that trucks meeting an overall bed width and
length as well as a minimum towing or payload capacity could be
qualified as full size pickup trucks. NHTSA is also proposing to modify
Part 523 to include definitions for mild and strong hybrid electric
full size pickup trucks, and to include the references in Part 533
mentioned above.
i. Pickup Truck Hybridization
    One proposed incentive would provide an adjustment to the fuel
economy of a manufacturer's full size pickup trucks if the manufacturer
employs certain defined hybrid technologies on defined significant
quantities of its full size pickup trucks. After meeting the minimum
production percentages, manufacturers would gain an adjustment to the
fuel economy performance for each ``mild'' or ``strong'' hybrid full
size pickup truck it produces. Manufacturers producing mild hybrid
pickup trucks, as defined in Chapter 5 of the draft Joint TSD, would
gain the incentive by applying mild hybrid technology to at least 30
percent of the company's full sized pickups produced in MY 2017, which
would increase each year up to at least 80 percent of the company's
full size pickups produced in MY 2021, after which point the adjustment
is no longer applicable. For strong hybrids, also defined in Chapter 5
of the draft Joint TSD, the strong hybrid technology must be applied to
at least 10 percent of a company's full sized pickup production in each
year for model years 2017-2025. The fuel economy adjustment for each
mild hybrid full size pickup would be a decrease in measured fuel
consumption of 0.0011gal/mi; for each strong hybrid full size pickup,
the decrease in measured fuel consumption would be 0.0023 gal/mi. These
adjustments are consistent with the GHG credits under EPA's program of
10 g/mi CO2 for mild hybrid pickups and 20 g/mi
CO2 for strong hybrid pickups. A manufacturer would then be
allowed to adjust the fuel economy performance of its light truck fleet
by converting the benefit gained from those improvements in accordance
with the procedures specified in 40 CFR part 600.

ii. Performance-Based Incentive for Full-Size Pickups
    Another proposed incentive for full size pickup trucks would
provide an adjustment to the fuel economy of a manufacturer's full
sized pickup truck if it achieves a fuel economy performance level
significantly above the CAFE target for that footprint. This incentive
recognizes that not all manufacturers may wish to pursue hybridization
for their pickup trucks, but still rewards them for applying fuel-
saving technologies above and beyond what they might otherwise do. The
fuel economy adjustment for each full size pickup that exceeds its
applicable footprint curve target by 15 percent would be a decrease in
measured fuel consumption of 0.0011gal/mi; for each full size pickup
that exceeds its applicable footprint curve target by 20 percent, the
decrease in measured fuel consumption would be 0.0023 gal/mi. These
adjustments are consistent with the GHG credits under EPA's program of
10 g/mi CO2 and 20 g/mi CO2, respectively, for
beating the applicable CO2 targets by 15 and 20 percent,
respectively.
    The 0.0011 gal/mi performance-based adjustment would be available
for MYs 2017 to 2021, and a vehicle meeting the requirement in a given
model year would continue to receive the credit until MY 2021--that is,
the credit remains applicable to that vehicle model if the target is
exceeded in only one model year--unless its fuel consumption increases.
The 0.0023 gal/mi adjustment would be available for a maximum of 5
years within model years 2017-2025, provided the vehicle model's fuel
consumption does not increase. As explained above for the hybrid
incentive, a manufacturer would then be allowed to adjust the fuel
economy performance of its light truck fleet by converting the benefit
gained from those improvements in accordance with the procedures
specified in 40 CFR Part 600.
    We note that in today's analyses, the agencies have projected that
PHEV technology is not available to large pickups. While it is
technically possible to electrify such vehicles, there are tradeoffs in
terms of cost, electric range, and utility that may reduce the appeal
of the vehicle to a narrower market. Due to this consideration, the
agencies have not considered giving credit to PHEVs for large pickup
truck. However, the agencies seek comments on this and will give
further consideration during the final rule. Also, the agencies note
that under today's proposal, a PHEV that captures a sufficient
proportion of braking energy could quality for the HEV adjustment;
alternatively, a PHEV pickup achieving sufficiently high fuel economy
and low CO2 emission could qualify for a performance-based
adjustment.
b. A/C Efficiency-Improving Technologies
    Air conditioning (A/C) use places excess load on an engine, which
results in additional fuel consumption. A number of methods related to
the A/C system components and their controls can be used to improve A/C
system efficiencies. Starting in MY 2017, EPA is proposing to allow
manufacturers to include fuel consumption reductions resulting from the
use of improved A/C systems in their CAFE calculations. This will more
accurately account for achieved real-world fuel economy improvements
due to improved A/C technologies, and better fulfill EPCA's overarching
purpose of energy conservation. Manufacturers would not be allowed to
claim CAFE-related benefits for reducing A/C leakage or switching to an
A/C refrigerant with a lower global warming potential, because while
these improvements reduce GHGs consistent with the purpose of the CAA,
they do not improve fuel economy and thus are not relevant to the CAFE
program.
    The improvements that manufacturers would likely use to increase A/
C efficiency would focus primarily, but not exclusively, on the
compressor, electric motor controls, and system controls which reduce
load on the A/C system (such as reduced ``reheat'' of the cooled air
and increased use of re-circulated cabin air).
    Fuel consumption improvement values for CAFE resulting from A/C
efficiency improvements would be quantified using a two-step process,
the same as for the related CO2 credits for EPA's GHG
program. First, the vehicle with the improved A/C system would be
tested in accordance with EPA testing guidelines, and compared with the
baseline fuel consumption value for that vehicle. Second, the
difference between the baseline fuel consumption value and the value
for the vehicle with improved A/C technologies would be calculated,
which would determine the fuel consumption improvement value.
    In the GHG program for MYs 2012 to 2016, EPA finalized the idle
test method for measuring CO2reductions from improved AC
systems. The idle test method measures CO2 in grams per
minute (g/min) while the vehicle is stationary and idling. For MYs
2017-2025, EPA is proposing that a new test called ``A/C 17'' replace
the idle test to measure A/C related CO2emissions
reductions. Some aspects of the AC17 test are still being developed and
improved, but the basic procedure is sufficiently complete for EPA to
propose it as a reporting option alternative to the Idle Test threshold
in 2014, and a replacement for the Idle Test in 2017, as a prerequisite
for generating Efficiency Credits. Manufacturers will use this test to
measure A/C-related CO2 emissions from vehicles with
improved A/C systems, which would be translated to fuel consumption to
establish the ratio between the baseline vehicle and the improved-A/C
vehicle to determine the value of the fuel consumption improvement. The
A/C 17 test procedure is described briefly below.
i. What is the proposed testing approach?
    The A/C 17 test is a more extensive test than the idle test and has
four elements, including two drive cycles, US03 and the highway fuel
economy cycle, which capture steady state and transient operating
conditions. It also includes a solar soak period to measure the energy
required to cool down a car that has been sitting in the sun, as well
as a pre-conditioning cycle. The A/C 17 test cycle will be able to
capture improvements in all areas related to efficient operation of a
vehicle's A/C system. The A/C 17 test cycle measures CO2
emissions in grams per mile (g/mi), and requires that baseline
emissions be measured in addition to emissions from vehicles with
improved A/C systems. EPA is taking comment on whether the A/C 17 test
is appropriate for estimating the effectiveness of new efficiency-
improving A/C technologies.
ii. How are fuel consumption improvement values then estimated?
    Manufacturers would run the A/C 17 test procedure on each vehicle
platform that incorporates the new technologies, with the A/C system
off and then on, and then report these test results to the EPA. In
addition to reporting the test results, EPA will require that
manufacturers provide detailed vehicle and A/C system information for
each vehicle tested (e.g. vehicle class, model type, curb weight,
engine size, transmission type, interior volume, climate control type,
refrigerant type, compressor type, and evaporator/condenser
characteristics). For vehicle models which manufacturers are seeking to
earn A/C related fuel consumption improvement values, the A/C 17 test
would be run to validate that the performance and efficiency of a
vehicle's A/C technology is commensurate to the level of

improvement value that is being earned. To determine whether the
efficiency improvements of these technologies are being realized, the
results of an A/C 17 test performed on a new vehicle model will be
compared to a ``baseline'' vehicle which does not incorporate the
efficiency-improving technologies. The baseline vehicle is defined as
one with characteristics which are similar to the new vehicle, only it
is not equipped with efficiency-improving technologies (or they are de-
activated).
    Manufacturers then take the results of the A/C 17 test and access a
credit menu (shown in the table below) to determine A/C related fuel
consumption improvement values. The maximum value possible is limited
to 0.000563 gal/mi for cars and 0.000810 gal/mi for trucks. As an
example, a manufacturer uses two technologies listed in the table, for
which the combined improvement value equals 0.000282 gal/mi. If the
results of the A/C 17 tests for the baseline and vehicle with improved
A/C system demonstrates a 0.000282 gal/mi improvement, then the full
fuel consumption improvement value for those two technologies can be
taken. If the A/C 17 test result falls short of the improvement value
for the two technologies, then a fraction of the improvement value may
be counted in CAFE calculations. The improvement value fraction is
calculated in the following way: The A/C 17 test result for both the
baseline vehicle and the vehicle with an improved A/C system are
measured. The difference in the test result of the baseline and the
improved vehicle is divided by the test result of the baseline vehicle.
This fraction is multiplied by the fuel consumption improvement value
for the specific technologies. Thus, if the A/C 17 test yielded an
improvement equal to \2/3\ of the summed values listed in the table,
then \2/3\ of the summed fuel consumption improvement values can be
counted.
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01DE11.277

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01DE11.278

    As stated above, if more than one technology is utilized by a
manufacturer for a given vehicle model, the A/C fuel consumption
improvement values can be added, but the maximum value possible is
limited to 0.000563 gal/mi for cars and 0.000810 gal/mi for trucks.
More A/C related fuel consumption improvement values are discussed in
the off-cycle credits section of this chapter. The approach for
determining the manufacturers' adjusted fleet fuel economy performance
due to improvements in A/C efficiency is described in 40 CFR Part 600.
    The agencies seek comment on the proposal to allow manufacturers to
estimate fuel consumption reductions from the use of A/C efficiency-
improving technologies and to apply these reductions to their CAFE
calculations.
c. Off-Cycle Technologies and Adjustments
    For MYs 2012-2016, EPA provided an optional credit for new and
innovative ``off-cycle'' technologies that reduce vehicle
CO2 emissions, but for which the CO2 reduction
benefits are not recognized under the 2-cycle test procedure used to
determine compliance with the fleet average standards. The off-cycle
credit option was intended to encourage the introduction of off-cycle
technologies that achieve real-world benefits. The off-cycle credits
were to be determined using the 5-cycle methodology currently used to
determine fuel economy label values, which EPA established to better
represent real-world factors impacting fuel economy, including higher
speeds and more aggressive driving, colder temperature operation, and
the use of air conditioning. A manufacturer must determine whether the
benefit of the technology could be captured using the 5-cycle test; if
this determination is affirmative, the manufacture must follow the 5-
cycle procedures to determine the CO2 reductions. If the
manufacturer finds that the technology is such that the benefit is not
adequately captured using the 5-cycle approach, then the manufacturer
would have to develop a robust methodology, subject to EPA approval, to
demonstrate the benefit and determine the appropriate CO2
gram per mile credit. The demonstration program must be robust,
verifiable, and capable of demonstrating the real-world emissions
benefit of the technology with strong statistical significance. The
non-5-cycle approach includes an opportunity for public comment as part
of the approval process.
    EPA has been encouraged by automakers' interest in off-cycle
credits since the program was finalized and believes that extending the
program to MY 2017 and beyond may continue to encourage automakers to
invest in off-cycle technologies that could have the benefit of
realizing additional reductions in the light-duty fleet over the
longer-term. Therefore, EPA is proposing to extend the off-cycle
credits program to 2017 and later model years. EPA is also proposing,
under its EPCA authority, to make available a comparable off-cycle
technology incentive under the CAFE program beginning in MY 2017.
However, instead of manufacturers gaining credits as done under the GHG
program, a direct adjustment would be made to the manufacturer's fuel
economy performance value.
    Starting with MY 2017, manufacturers may generate fuel economy
improvements by applying technologies listed on the pre-defined and
pre-approved technology list provided in Table IV-117. These credits
would be verified and approved as part of certification, with no prior
approval process needed. This new option should

significantly simplify the program for manufacturers and provide
certainty that improvement values may be generated through the use of
pre-approved technologies. For improvements from technologies not on
the pre-defined list, EPA is proposing to clarify the step-by-step
application process for demonstration of fuel consumption reductions
and approval.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01DE11.279

    An example of technologies that could be used to generate off-cycle
improvements are those that reduce electrical load and as a result,
fuel consumption. The 2-cycle test does not require that all electrical
components be turned on during testing. Headlights, for example, are
always turned off during testing. Turning the headlights on during
normal driving will add an additional load on the vehicle's electrical
system and will affect fuel economy. More efficient electrical systems
or technologies that offset electrical loads will have a real-world
impact on fuel economy but are not captured in the 2-cycle test.
Therefore, technologies that reduce or offset

electrical loads related to the operation or safety of the vehicle
should merit consideration for off-cycle improvements. Reducing the
electrical load on a vehicle by 100W will result in an average of
0.000337 gallons/mile reduction in fuel consumption over the course of
a 2-cycle test, or 0.00042 gallons/mile over a 5-cycle test. To
determine the off-cycle benefit of certain 100W electrical load
reduction technologies, the benefit of the technology on the 2-cycle
test is subtracted from the benefit of the technology on the 5-cycle
test. This determines the actual benefit of the technology not realized
in the 2-cycle test methodology, which in this case is 0.000416 gal/mi
minus 0.000337 gal/mi, or 0.000078 gal/mi. This method will avoid
double-counting the benefit of the electrical load reduction, which is
already counted on the 2-cycle test.
    Regardless of whether the off-cycle technology fuel consumption
benefit is obtained from the table (columns 2 or 3) above or is based
on an approved testing protocol as indicated in the preceding example,
under the CAFE program the benefit or credit is treated as an
adjustment and subtracted from the subject vehicle's fuel consumption
performance value determined from the required CAFE program 2-cycle
test results. A manufacturer would then be allowed to adjust the fuel
economy performance of its fleets by converting the benefit gained from
those improvements in accordance with the procedures specified in 40
CFR Part 600.
    Since one purpose of the off-cycle improvement incentive is to
encourage market penetration of the technologies (see 75 FR at 25438),
EPA is proposing to require minimum penetration rates for non-hybrid
based listed technologies as a condition for generating improvements
from the list as a way to further encourage their widespread adoption
by MY 2017 and later. At the end of the model year for which the off-
cycle improvement is claimed, manufacturers would need to demonstrate
that production of vehicles equipped with the technologies for that
model year exceeded the percentage thresholds in order to receive the
listed improvement. EPA proposes to set the threshold at 10 percent of
a manufacturer's overall combined car and light truck production for
all technologies not specific to HEVs. 10 percent would seem to be an
appropriate threshold as it would encourage manufacturers to develop
technologies for use on larger volume models and bring the technologies
into the mainstream. For solar roof panels and electric heat
circulation pumps, which are HEV-specific, EPA is not proposing a
minimum penetration rate threshold for credit generation. Hybrids may
be a small subset of a manufacturer's fleet, less than 10 percent in
some cases, and EPA does not believe that establishing a threshold for
hybrid-based technologies would be useful and could unnecessarily
complicate the introduction of these technologies. The agencies request
comments on applying this type of threshold, the appropriateness of 10
percent as the threshold for listed technologies that are not HEV-
specific, and the proposed treatment of hybrid-based technologies.
    Because the proposed improvements are based on limited data,
however, and because some uncertainty is introduced when credits are
provided based on a general assessment of off-cycle performance as
opposed to testing on the individual vehicle models, as part of the
incentive EPA is proposing to cap the amount of improvement a
manufacturer could generate using the above list to 0.001125 gal/mile
per year on a combined car and truck fleet-wide average basis. The cap
would not apply on a vehicle model basis, allowing manufacturers the
flexibility to focus off-cycle technologies on certain vehicle models
and generate improvements for that vehicle model in excess of 0.001125
gal/mile. If manufacturers wish to generate improvements in excess of
the 0.001125 gal/mile limit using listed technologies, they could do so
by generating necessary data and going through the approval process.
    For more details on the testing protocols used for determining off-
cycle technology benefits and the step-by-step EPA review and approval
process, refer to Section III.C.5.b.iii and v. The approach for
determining a manufacturer's adjusted fuel economy performance for off-
cycle technologies is described in 40 CFR Part 600. NHTSA also proposes
to incorporate references in Part 531.6 and 533.6 to allow
manufacturers to adjust their fleet performance for off-cycle
technologies as described above.
5. Other CAFE Enforcement Issues
a. Electronic Reporting
    Pursuant to 49 CFR part 537, manufacturers submit pre-model year
fuel economy reports to NHTSA by December 31st prior to the model year,
and mid-model year reports by July 31st of the model year.
Manufacturers may also provide supplemental reports whenever changes
are needed to a previously submitted CAFE report. NHTSA receives both
non-confidential and confidential versions of reports, the basic
difference being the inclusion of projected upcoming production sales
volumes in reports seeking confidentiality. Manufacturers must include
a request for confidentiality, in accordance with 49 CFR part 512,
along with the report for which confidential treatment is sought.\833\
Manufacturers may submit reports either in paper form or electronically
to a secure email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>that allows for the safe
handling of confidential materials. All electronic submissions
submitted to the CAFE email must be provided in a pdf format. NHTSA
added electronic reporting to the 2012-2016 CAFE rule as an approach to
simplify reporting for manufacturers and NHTSA alike. Currently, most
manufacturers submit both electronic and paper reports.\834\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \833\ Pursuant to Sec.  537.12, NHTSA's Office of Chief Counsel
normally grants confidentiality to reports with projected production
sales volumes until after the model year ends.
    \834\ For model year 2011, NHTSA received electronic mid-model
year reports from 12 manufacturers. Each of the manufacturers also
provided hardcopy reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA is proposing to modify its reporting requirements to receive
all CAFE reports in electronic format, thereby eliminating the
requirement for paper submissions. In the revised requirements, a
manufacturer could either submit its reports on a CD-ROM or through the
existing email procedures. Under the proposal, the contents of the CD
must include the manufacturer's request for confidentiality, the cover
letter, and any other supporting documents in a pdf format. Any data
included in the report must be provided in a Microsoft Excel
spreadsheet format. The same approach is also proposed for submitting
information by email. NHTSA emphasizes that submitting reports to the
CAFE email address is completely voluntary, but if the option is
selected, the manufacturer must follow the normal deadline dates as
specified in 49 CFR 537.5. NHTSA believes that receiving CAFE data
through electronic reports would be a significant improvement,
improving the quality of its CAFE data, simplifying enforcement
activities (e.g., auditing the data), and helping to expedite the
tracking and reporting of CAFE credits. The agency also plans to
eventually develop an XML schema for submitting CAFE reports
electronically that will available through its Web site. Ultimately,
the XML schema would be used as part of the new database system NHTSA
plans to construct in the future to store its

CAFE data. NHTSA seeks comments on the appropriateness of ending paper
submissions, as well as information on any other electronic formats
that should be considered for submissions.
b. Reporting of How a Vehicle Is Classified as a Light Truck
    As part of the reporting provisions in 49 CFR part 537, NHTSA
requires manufacturers to provide information on some, but not all, of
the functions and features that a manufacturer uses to classify an
automobile as a light truck. The required data is distributed
throughout the report, making it difficult for the agency to clearly
and easily determine exactly what functions or features a manufacturer
is actually using to make this determination. For example, related to
the functions specified in 49 CFR 523.5(a) and discussed in Section
IV.H above, manufacturers must provide the vehicles' passenger and
cargo carrying volumes,\835\ and identify whether their vehicles are
equipped with three rows of seats that can be removed or folded flat
for expanded cargo carrying purposes or if the vehicle includes
temporary living quarters.\836\ Manufacturers are not required to
identify whether the vehicles can transport more than 10 persons or if
the vehicles are equipped with an open cargo bed. Related to the
functions specified in Section 523.5(b), for each model type classified
as an automobile capable of off-highway operation, manufacturers are
required to provide the five suspension parameter measurements and
indicate the existence of 4-wheel drive,\837\ but they are not required
to identify a vehicle's GVWR, which is necessary for off-road
determination when the vehicle is not equipped with 4-wheel drive.
NHTSA proposes to eliminate the language requesting vehicle attribute
information in Sections 537.7(c)(4)(xvi)(A)(3) to (6) and (B)(3) to (6)
and to relocate that language into a revised Section 537.7(c)(5) to
include identification of all the functions and features that can be
used by a manufacturer for making a light truck classification
determination. By incorporating all the requirements into one section,
the agency believes the classification process will become
significantly more accurate and efficient. NHTSA seeks comment on this
proposed change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \835\ 49 CFR 537.7(c)(4)(xvi)(B).
    \836\ 49 CFR 537.7(c)(4)(xvii) and (xviii).
    \837\ 49 CFR 537.7(c)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Base Tire Definition
    Beginning in model year 2011, manufacturers of light trucks and
passenger cars are required to use vehicle footprint to determine the
CAFE standards applicable to each of their vehicle fleets. To determine
the appropriate footprint-based standards, a manufacturer must
calculate each vehicle's footprint value, which is the product of the
vehicle track width and wheelbase dimensions. Vehicle track width
dimensions are determined with a vehicle equipped with ``base tires,''
\838\ which NHTSA defines as the tire specified as standard equipment
by a manufacturer on each vehicle configuration of a model type.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \838\ See 49 CFR 523.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA is concerned that the definition for ``base tire'' is
insufficiently descriptive, and may lead to inconsistencies among
manufacturers' base tire selections. In meetings relating to CAFE
enforcement, manufacturers have stated that various approaches in
selecting base tires exist due to differences in the tires considered
as standard equipment.\839\ Standard equipment is defined by EPA
regulation as those features or equipment which are marketed on a
vehicle over which the purchaser can exercise no choice,\840\ but NHTSA
regulations have no comparable definition. NHTSA considered whether
adding a definition for ``standard equipment'' would clarify and
strengthen the NHTSA regulations, but some manufacturers indicated that
the definition of standard equipment provided by EPA does not
effectively prevent differences in their interpretations. Some
manufacturers, for example, view the base tire as the tire equipped as
standard equipment for each trim level of a model type, as each trim
level has standard equipment over which the purchaser cannot exercise a
choice. This view can allow multiple base tires and footprint values
within each model type: A manufacturer may have two vehicle
configurations for a particular model type, with each configuration
having three trim levels with different standard tires sizes. In that
scenario, the model type could have 6 different trim level vehicle
configurations, each having three or more unique footprint values with
slightly different targets. The additional target fuel economy values
could allow the manufacturer to reduce its required fleet standard
despite a vehicle model type not having any inherent differences in
physical feature between vehicle configurations other than the tire
sizes. Other manufacturers, in contrast, avoid designating multiple
base tires and choose the standard tire equipped on the most basic
vehicle configuration of a model type, even if the most basic vehicle
is rarely actually sold. In this scenario, the tires being used to
derive a manufacturer fleet standard are not the same size tire
equipped on the representative number of vehicles being sold. Yet
others designate the base tire as the tire most commonly installed on a
model type having the highest production volume. This approach most
realistically reflects the manufacturer's sales production fleet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \839\ NHTSA has confirmed these differences in approach for the
designating base tire exist through review of manufacturer-submitted
CAFE reports.
    \840\ In the EPA regulation 40 CFR 600.002-08, standard
equipment means those features or equipment which are marketed on a
vehicle over which the purchaser can exercise no choice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To attempt to reconcile the varied approaches for designating base
tires, NHTSA is proposing to modify its definition for base tire in 49
CFR 523.2. The proposed modification changes the definition of the base
tire by dropping the reference to ``standard equipment'' and adding a
reference to the ``the tire installed by the vehicle manufacturer that
is used on the highest production sales volume of vehicles within the
configuration.'' This modification should ensure that the tires
installed on the vehicle most commonly sold within a vehicle
configuration become the basis for setting a manufacturer's fuel
economy standards. It is NHTSA's goal that a change to the definition
of base tire for purposes of CAFE will help to reduce inconsistencies
and confusion for both the agency and the manufacturers. NHTSA seeks
comments on this approach, as well as other approaches that could be
used for selecting the base tire(s).
d. Confirming Target and Fleet Standards
    NHTSA requires manufacturers to provide reports containing fleet
and model type CAFE standards and projections of expected performance
results for each model year.\841\ The footprint, track width and
wheelbase values are provided for each vehicle configuration within the
model types making up the manufacturer's fleets, along with other model
type-specific information. Because this information is organized by
vehicle configuration, instead of by each vehicle with a unique model
type and footprint combination, it is not in the format needed to
calculate performance standards. EPA, in contrast, requires
manufacturers to provide all of the information necessary

to calculate footprint values and CAFE standards. EPA provides an
additional calculator (in the form of an Excel spreadsheet), which all
manufacturers use and submit as part of their end-of-the-year reports,
which includes the appropriate breakdown of footprint values for
calculating standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \841\ 49 CFR part 537.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since NHTSA only requires a breakdown of footprint values by
vehicle configurations, instead of by each unique model type and
footprint combination, NHTSA is currently unable to verify
manufacturers' reported target standards. By standardizing with EPA's
requirements for reported data, NHTSA would both simplify manufacturer
reporting efforts and gain the necessary information for calculating
attribute-based CAFE standards. Therefore, NHTSA is proposing to
eliminate the language requesting information in Sec.
537.7(c)(4)((xvi)(A)(3) through (6) and (B)(3) through (6), and to
relocate that language into a revised Sec.  537.7(b)(3).
    NHTSA requests comment on this proposed change.

J. Regulatory Notices and Analyses

1. Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and DOT Regulatory
Policies and Procedures
    Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR
51735, Oct. 4, 1993), as amended by Executive Order 13563, ``Improving
Regulation and Regulatory Review'' (76 FR 3821, Jan. 21, 2011),
provides for making determinations whether a regulatory action is
``significant'' and therefore subject to OMB review and to the
requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines a ``significant
regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
    The rulemaking proposed in this NPRM will be economically
significant if adopted. Accordingly, OMB reviewed it under Executive
Order 12866. The rule, if adopted, would also be significant within the
meaning of the Department of Transportation's Regulatory Policies and
Procedures.
    The benefits and costs of this proposal are described above.
Because the proposed rule would, if adopted, be economically
significant under both the Department of Transportation's procedures
and OMB guidelines, the agency has prepared a Preliminary Regulatory
Impact Analysis (PRIA) and placed it in the docket and on the agency's
Web site. Further, pursuant to Circular A-4, we have prepared a formal
probabilistic uncertainty analysis for this proposal. The circular
requires such an analysis for complex rules where there are large,
multiple uncertainties whose analysis raises technical challenges or
where effects cascade and where the impacts of the rule exceed $1
billion. This proposal meets these criteria on all counts.
2. National Environmental Policy Act
    Concurrently with this NPRM, NHTSA is releasing a Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS), pursuant to the National
Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347, and implementing
regulations issued by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), 40
CFR part 1500, and NHTSA, 49 CFR part 520. NHTSA prepared the Draft EIS
to analyze and disclose the potential environmental impacts of the
proposed CAFE standards and a range of alternatives. The Draft EIS
analyzes direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts and analyzes impacts
in proportion to their significance.
    Because of the link between the transportation sector and GHG
emissions, the Draft EIS considers the possible impacts on climate and
global climate change in the analysis of the effects of these proposed
CAFE standards. The Draft EIS also describes potential environmental
impacts to a variety of resources. Resources that may be affected by
the proposed action and alternatives include water resources,
biological resources, land use and development, safety, hazardous
materials and regulated wastes, noise, socioeconomics, fuel and energy
use, air quality, and environmental justice. These resource areas are
assessed qualitatively in the Draft EIS.
    For additional information on NHTSA's NEPA analysis, please see the
Draft EIS.
3. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice
of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions).
The Small Business Administration's regulations at 13 CFR part 121
define a small business, in part, as a business entity ``which operates
primarily within the United States.'' 13 CFR 121.105(a). No regulatory
flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency certifies the
rule will not have a significant economic impact of a substantial
number of small entities.
    I certify that the proposed rule would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The
following is NHTSA's statement providing the factual basis for the
certification (5 U.S.C. 605(b)).
    If adopted, the proposal would directly affect nineteen large
single stage motor vehicle manufacturers.\842\ Based on our preliminary
assessment, the proposal would also affect a total of about 21 entities
that fit the Small Business Administration's criteria for a small
business. According to the Small Business Administration's small
business size standards (see 13 CFR 121.201), a single stage automobile
or light truck manufacturer (NAICS code 336111, Automobile
Manufacturing; 336112, Light Truck and Utility Vehicle Manufacturing)
must have 1,000 or fewer employees to qualify as a small business.
There are about 4 small manufacturers, including 3 electric vehicle
manufacturers, 8 independent commercial importers, and 9 alternative
fuel vehicle converters in the passenger car and light truck market
which are small businesses. We believe that the rulemaking would not
have a significant economic impact on these small vehicle manufacturers
because under 49 CFR part 525, passenger car manufacturers making fewer
than 10,000 vehicles per year can petition NHTSA to have alternative
standards set for those manufacturers. Manufacturers that produce only
electric vehicles, or that modify vehicles to make them electric or
some other kind of dedicated alternative fuel vehicle, will have
average fuel economy values far beyond

those proposed today, so we would not expect them to need a petition
for relief. A number of other small vehicle manufacturers already
petition the agency for relief under Part 525. If the standard is
raised, it has no meaningful impact on those manufacturers, because
they are expected to still go through the same process to petition for
relief. Given that there is already a mechanism for handling small
businesses, which is the purpose of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, a
regulatory flexibility analysis was not prepared, but we welcome
comments on this issue for the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \842\ BMW, Daimler (Mercedes), Fiat/Chrysler (which also
includes Ferrari and Maserati for CAFE compliance purposes), Ford,
Geely (Volvo), General Motors, Honda, Hyundai, Kia, Lotus, Mazda,
Mitsubishi, Nissan, Porsche, Subaru, Suzuki, Tata (Jaguar Land
Rover), Toyota, and Volkswagen/Audi.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
    Executive Order 13132 requires NHTSA to develop an accountable
process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by State and local
officials in the development of regulatory policies that have
federalism implications.'' \843\ The Order defines the term ``Policies
that have federalism implications'' to include regulations that have
``substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' Under
the Order, NHTSA may not issue a regulation that has federalism
implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and
that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides
the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by
State and local governments, or NHTSA consults with State and local
officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \843\ 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA solicits comment on this proposed action from State and local
officials. The agency believes that it is unnecessary to address the
question of preemption further at this time because of the consistent
and coordinated Federal standards that would apply nationally under the
proposed National Program.
5. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
    Pursuant to Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform,'' \844\
NHTSA has considered whether this rulemaking would have any retroactive
effect. This proposed rule does not have any retroactive effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \844\ 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
requires Federal agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs,
benefits, and other effects of a proposed or final rule that includes a
Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more
than $100 million in any one year (adjusted for inflation with base
year of 1995). Adjusting this amount by the implicit gross domestic
product price deflator for 2009 results in $134 million (109.729/81.606
= 1.34). Before promulgating a rule for which a written statement is
needed, section 205 of UMRA generally requires NHTSA to identify and
consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the
least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that
achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do
not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows NHTSA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the
agency publishes with the final rule an explanation of why that
alternative was not adopted.
    This proposed rule will not result in the expenditure by State,
local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, of more than $134
million annually, but it will result in the expenditure of that
magnitude by vehicle manufacturers and/or their suppliers. In
developing this proposal, NHTSA considered a variety of alternative
average fuel economy standards lower and higher than those proposed.
NHTSA is statutorily required to set standards at the maximum feasible
level achievable by manufacturers based on its consideration and
balancing of relevant factors, and has tentatively concluded that the
proposed fuel economy standards are the maximum feasible standards for
the passenger car and light truck fleets for MYs 2017-2025 in light of
the statutory considerations.
7. Regulation Identifier Number
    The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center
publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may
use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document
to find this action in the Unified Agenda.
8. Executive Order 13045
    Executive Order 13045 \845\ applies to any rule that: (1) is
determined to be economically significant as defined under E.O. 12866,
and (2) concerns an environmental, health, or safety risk that NHTSA
has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children.
If the regulatory action meets both criteria, we must evaluate the
environmental, health, or safety effects of the proposed rule on
children, and explain why the proposed regulation is preferable to
other potentially effective and reasonably foreseeable alternatives
considered by us.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \845\ 62 FR 19885 (Apr. 23, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Chapter 5 of NHTSA's DEIS notes that breathing PM can cause
respiratory ailments, heart attack, and arrhythmias (Dockery et al.
1993, Samet et al. 2000, Pope et al. 1995, 2002, 2004, Pope and Dockery
2006, Dominici et al. 2006, Laden et al. 2006, all in Ebi et al. 2008).
Populations at greatest risk could include children, the elderly, and
those with heart and lung disease, diabetes (Ebi et al. 2008), and high
blood pressure (K[uuml]nzli et al. 2005, in Ebi et al. 2008). Chronic
exposure to PM could decrease lifespan by 1 to 3 years (Pope 2000, in
American Lung Association 2008). Increasing PM concentrations are
expected to have a measurable adverse impact on human health
(Confalonieri et al. 2007).
    Additionally, the DEIS notes that substantial morbidity and
childhood mortality has been linked to water- and food-borne diseases.
Climate change is projected to alter temperature and the hydrologic
cycle through changes in precipitation, evaporation, transpiration, and
water storage. These changes, in turn, potentially affect water-borne
and food-borne diseases, such as salmonellosis, campylobacter,
leptospirosis, and pathogenic species of vibrio. They also have a
direct impact on surface water availability and water quality. It has
been estimated that more than 1 billion people in 2002 did not have
access to adequate clean water (McMichael et al. 2003, in Epstein et
al. 2006). Increased temperatures, greater evaporation, and heavy rain
events have been associated with adverse impacts on drinking water
through increased waterborne diseases, algal blooms, and toxins (Chorus
and Bartram 1999, Levin et al. 2002, Johnson and Murphy 2004, all in
Epstein et al. 2006). A seasonal signature has been associated with
water-borne disease outbreaks (EPA 2009b). In the United States, 68
percent of all water-borne diseases between 1948 and 1994 were observed
after

heavy rainfall events (Curriero et al. 2001a, in Epstein et al. 2006).
    Climate change could further impact a pathogen by directly
affecting its lifecycle (Ebi et al. 2008). The global increase in the
frequency, intensity, and duration of red tides could be linked to
local impacts already associated with climate change (Harvell et al.
1999, in Epstein et al. 2006); toxins associated with red tide directly
affect the nervous system (Epstein et al. 2006).
    Many people do not report or seek medical attention for their
ailments of water-borne or food-borne diseases; hence, the number of
actual cases with these diseases is greater than clinical records
demonstrate (Mead et al. 1999, in Ebi et al. 2008). Many of the
gastrointestinal diseases associated with water-borne and food-borne
diseases can be self-limiting; however, vulnerable populations include
young children, those with a compromised immune system, and the
elderly.
    Thus, as detailed in the DEIS, NHTSA has evaluated the
environmental, health, and safety effects of the proposed rule on
children. The DEIS also explains why the proposed regulation is
preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably foreseeable
alternatives considered by the agency.
9. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) requires NHTSA to evaluate and use existing voluntary
consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless doing so would
be inconsistent with applicable law (e.g., the statutory provisions
regarding NHTSA's vehicle safety authority) or otherwise
impractical.\846\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \846\ 15 U.S.C. 272.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. Technical standards
are defined by the NTTAA as ``performance-based or design-specific
technical specification and related management systems practices.''
They pertain to ``products and processes, such as size, strength, or
technical performance of a product, process or material.''
    Examples of organizations generally regarded as voluntary consensus
standards bodies include the American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM), the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), and the American
National Standards Institute (ANSI). If NHTSA does not use available
and potentially applicable voluntary consensus standards, we are
required by the Act to provide Congress, through OMB, an explanation of
the reasons for not using such standards.
    There are currently no voluntary consensus standards relevant to
today's proposed CAFE standards.
10. Executive Order 13211
    Executive Order 13211 \847\ applies to any rule that: (1) is
determined to be economically significant as defined under E.O. 12866,
and is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy; or (2) that is designated by the
Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
(OIRA) as a significant regulatory action. If the regulatory action
meets either criterion, we must evaluate the adverse energy effects of
the proposed rule and explain why the proposed regulation is preferable
to other potentially effective and reasonably foreseeable alternatives
considered by us.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \847\ 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule seeks to establish passenger car and light truck
fuel economy standards that will reduce the consumption of petroleum
and will not have any adverse energy effects. Accordingly, this
proposed rulemaking action is not designated as a significant energy
action.
11. Department of Energy Review
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 32902(j)(1), we submitted this
proposed rule to the Department of Energy for review. That Department
did not make any comments that we have not addressed.
12. Plain Language
    Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write all rules in
plain language. Application of the principles of plain language
includes consideration of the following questions:
     Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
     Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
     Does the rule contain technical jargon that isn't clear?
     Would a different format (grouping and order of sections,
use of headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
     Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
     Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or
diagrams?
     What else could we do to make the rule easier to
understand?
    If you have any responses to these questions, please include them
in your comments on this proposal.
13. Privacy Act
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an organization, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act statement in the Federal Register (65 FR 19477-78,
April 11, 2000) or you may visit http://www.dot.gov/privacy.html.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 85

    Confidential business information, Imports, Labeling, Motor vehicle
pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Research,
Warranties.

40 CFR Part 86

    Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business
information, Incorporation by reference, Labeling, Motor vehicle
pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 600

    Administrative practice and procedure, Electric power, Fuel
economy, Incorporation by reference, Labeling, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

49 CFR Parts 523, 531, and 533

    Fuel Economy.

49 CFR Parts 536 and 537

    Fuel economy, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Environmental Protection Agency

40 CFR Chapter I

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Environmental
Protection Agency proposes to amend parts 85, 86, and 600 of title 40,
Chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 85--CONTROL OF AIR POLLUTION FROM MOBILE SOURCES

    1. The authority citation for part 86 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

Subpart F--[Amended]

    2. Section 85.525 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(2)(i)(D) to
read as follows:

Sec.  85.525  Applicable standards.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *

    (2) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (D) Optionally, compliance with greenhouse gas emission
requirements may be demonstrated by comparing the sum of CH4
plus N2O plus CO2 emissions from the before fuel
conversion FTP results to the after fuel conversion FTP results. This
comparison is based on test results from the emission data vehicle
(EDV) from the conversion test group at issue. The summation of the
post fuel conversion test results must be lower than the summation of
the before conversion greenhouse gas emission results. CO2
emissions are calculated as specified in 40 CFR 600.113-12.
CH4 and N2O emissions, before and after fuel
conversion, are adjusted by applying multiplicative factors of 25 and
298, respectively, to account for their increased global warming
potential. If statements of compliance are applicable and accepted in
lieu of measuring N2O, as permitted by EPA regulation, the
comparison of the greenhouse gas results also need not measure or
include N2O in the before and after emission comparisons.
* * * * *

PART 86--CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM NEW AND IN-USE HIGHWAY VEHICLES
AND ENGINES

    3. The authority citation for part 86 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

    4. Section 86.1 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  86.1  Reference materials.

    (a) Certain material is incorporated by reference into this part
with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce any edition other than that
specified in this section, the Environmental Protection Agency must
publish a notice of the change in the Federal Register and the material
must be available to the public. All approved material is available for
inspection at U.S. EPA, Air and Radiation Docket and Information
Center, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Room B102, EPA West Building,
Washington, DC 20460,<PHONE_NUMBER>, and is available from the sources
listed below. It is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to:
http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html and is available from the sources
listed below:
    (b) American Society for Testing and Materials, 100 Barr Harbor
Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA, 19428-2959, (610) 832-
9585, http://www.astm.org/.
    (1) ASTM D 975-04c, Standard Specification for Diesel Fuel Oils,
IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  86.1910, 86.213-11.
    (2) ASTM D1945-91, Standard Test Method for Analysis of Natural Gas
by Gas Chromatography, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  86.113-94, 86.513-
94, 86.1213-94, 86.1313-94.
    (3) ASTM D2163-91, Standard Test Method for Analysis of Liquefied
Petroleum (LP) Gases and Propane Concentrates by Gas Chromatography,
IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  86.113-94, 86.1213-94, 86.1313-94.
    (4) ASTM D2986-95a, Reapproved 1999, Standard Practice for
Evaluation of Air Assay Media by the Monodisperse DOP (Dioctyl
Phthalate) Smoke Test, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  86.1310-2007.
    (5) ASTM D5186-91, Standard Test Method for Determination of
Aromatic Content of Diesel Fuels by Supercritical Fluid Chromatography,
IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  86.113-07, 86.1313-91, 86.1313-94, 86.1313-
98, 1313-2007.
    (6) ASTM E29-67, Reapproved 1980, Standard Recommended Practice for
Indicating Which Places of Figures Are To Be Considered Significant in
Specified Limiting Values, IBR approved for Sec.  86.1105-87.
    (7) ASTM E29-90, Standard Practice for Using Significant Digits in
Test Data to Determine Conformance with Specifications, IBR approved
for Sec. Sec.  86.609-84, 86.609-96, 86.609-97, 86.609-98, 86.1009-84,
86.1009-96, 86.1442, 86.1708-99, 86.1709-99, 86.1710-99, 86.1728-99.
    (8) ASTM E29-93a, Standard Practice for Using Significant Digits in
Test Data to Determine Conformance with Specifications, IBR approved
for Sec. Sec.  86.098-15, 86.004-15, 86.007-11, 86.007-15, 86.1803-01,
86.1823-01, 86.1824-01, 86.1825-01, 86.1837-01.
    (9) ASTM F1471-93, Standard Test Method for Air Cleaning
Performance of a High-Efficiency Particulate Air-Filter System, IBR
approved Sec.  86.1310-2007.
    (10) ASTM E903-96, Standard Test Method for Solar Absorptance,
Reflectance, and Transmittance of Materials Using Integrating Spheres
(Withdrawn 2005), IBR approved for Sec.  86.1866-12.
    (11) ASTM E1918-06, Standard Test Method for Measuring Solar
Reflectance of Horizontal and Low-Sloped Surfaces in the Field, IBR
approved for Sec.  86.1866-12.
    (12) ASTM C1549-09, Standard Test Method for Determination of Solar
Reflectance Near Ambient Temperature Using a Portable Solar
Reflectometer (2009) IBR approved for Sec.  86.1866-12.
    (c) Society of Automotive Engineers, 400 Commonwealth Dr.,
Warrendale, PA 15096-0001,<PHONE_NUMBER> (U.S. and Canada) or (724)
776-4970 (outside the U.S. and Canada), http://www.sae.org.
    (1) SAE J1151, December 1991, Methane Measurement Using Gas
Chromatography, 1994 SAE Handbook--SAE International Cooperative
Engineering Program, Volume 1: Materials, Fuels, Emissions, and Noise;
Section 13 and page 170 (13.170), IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  86.111-
94; 86.1311-94.
    (2) SAE J1349, June 1990, Engine Power Test Code--Spark Ignition
and Compression Ignition, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  86.094-8, 86.096-
8.
    (3) SAE J1850, July 1995, Class B Data Communication Network
Interface, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  86.099-17, 86.1806-01.
    (4) SAE J1850, Revised May 2001, Class B Data Communication Network
Interface, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  86.005-17, 86.007-17, 86.1806-
04, 86.1806-05.
    (5) SAE J1877, July 1994, Recommended Practice for Bar-Coded
Vehicle Identification Number Label, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.
86.095-35, 86.1806-01.
    (6) SAE J1892, October 1993, Recommended Practice for Bar-Coded
Vehicle Emission Configuration Label, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.
86.095-35, 86.1806-01.
    (7) SAE J1930, Revised May 1998, Electrical/Electronic Systems
Diagnostic Terms, Definitions, Abbreviations, and Acronyms, IBR
approved for Sec. Sec.  86.096-38, 86.004-38, 86.007-38, 86.010-38,
86.1808-01, 86.1808-07.
    (8) SAE J1930, Revised April 2002, Electrical/Electronic Systems
Diagnostic Terms, Definitions, Abbreviations, and Acronyms--Equivalent
to ISO/TR 15031-2: April 30, 2002, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  86.005-
17, 86.007-17, 86.010-18, 86.1806-04, 86.1806-05.
    (9) SAE J1937, November 1989, Engine Testing with Low Temperature
Charge Air Cooler Systems in a Dynamometer Test Cell, IBR approved for
Sec. Sec.  86.1330-84, 86.1330-90.
    (10) SAE J1939, Revised October 2007, Recommended Practice for a
Serial Control and Communications Vehicle Network, IBR approved for
Sec. Sec.  86.010-18.
    (11) SAE J1939-11, December 1994, Physical Layer--250K bits/s,
Shielded Twisted Pair, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  86.005-17, 86.1806-
05.

    (12) SAE J1939-11, Revised October 1999, Physical Layer--250K bits/
s, Shielded Twisted Pair, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  86.005-17,
86.007-17, 86.1806-04, 86.1806-05.
    (13) SAE J1939-13, July 1999, Off-Board Diagnostic Connector, IBR
approved for Sec. Sec.  86.005-17, 86.007-17, 86.1806-04, 86.1806-05.
    (14) SAE J1939-13, Revised March 2004, Off-Board Diagnostic
Connector, IBR approved for Sec.  86.010-18.
    (15) SAE J1939-21, July 1994, Data Link Layer, IBR approved for
Sec. Sec.  86.005-17, 86.1806-05.
    (16) SAE J1939-21, Revised April 2001, Data Link Layer, IBR
approved for Sec. Sec.  86.005-17, 86.007-17, 86.1806-04, 86.1806-05.
    (17) SAE J1939-31, Revised December 1997, Network Layer, IBR
approved for Sec. Sec.  86.005-17, 86.007-17, 86.1806-04, 86.1806-05.
    (18) SAE J1939-71, May 1996, Vehicle Application Layer, IBR
approved for Sec. Sec.  86.005-17, 86.1806-05.
    (19) SAE J1939-71, Revised August 2002, Vehicle Application Layer--
J1939-71 (through 1999), IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  86.005-17, 86.007-
17, 86.1806-04, 86.1806-05.
    (20) SAE J1939-71, Revised January 2008, Vehicle Application Layer
(Through February 2007), IBR approved for Sec.  86.010-38.
    (21) SAE J1939-73, February 1996, Application Layer--Diagnostics,
IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  86.005-17, 86.1806-05.
    (22) SAE J1939-73, Revised June 2001, Application Layer--
Diagnostics, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  86.005-17, 86.007-17, 86.1806-
04, 86.1806-05.
    (23) SAE J1939-73, Revised September 2006, Application Layer--
Diagnostics, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  86.010-18, 86.010-38.
    (24) SAE J1939-81, July 1997, Recommended Practice for Serial
Control and Communications Vehicle Network Part 81--Network Management,
IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  86.005-17, 86.007-17, 86.1806-04, 86.1806-
05.
    (25) SAE J1939-81, Revised May 2003, Network Management, IBR
approved for Sec.  86.010-38.
    (26) SAE J1962, January 1995, Diagnostic Connector, IBR approved
for Sec. Sec.  86.099-17, 86.1806-01.
    (27) SAE J1962, Revised April 2002, Diagnostic Connector Equivalent
to ISO/DIS 15031-3; December 14, 2001, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.