Tailpipe Rule - GlobalWarming.org

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 88 / Friday, May 7, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
25355
goal of coordinating and harmonizing
CO 2 standards promulgated under the
CAA and CAFE standards promulgated
under EPCA, EPA also proposed to issue
standards that are attribute-based and
defined by mathematical functions.
There was consensus in the public
comments that EPA should develop
attribute-based CO 2 standards.
Comments received in response to the
agencies’ decision to base standards on
vehicle footprint were largely
supportive. Several commenters (BMW,
NADA, NESCAUM) expressed support
for attribute-based (as opposed to flat or
universal) standards generally, and
agreed with EPA’s decision to
harmonize with NHTSA in this respect.
Many commenters (Aluminum
Association, BMW, ICCT, NESCAUM,
NY DEC, Schade, Toyota) also
supported the agencies’ decision to
continue setting CAFE standards, and
begin setting GHG standards, on the
basis of vehicle footprint, although one
commenter (NJ DEP) opposed the use of
footprint due to concern that it
encourages manufacturers to upsize
vehicles and undercut the gains of the
standard. Of the commenters supporting
the use of footprint, several focused on
the benefits of harmonization—both
between EPA and NHTSA, and between
the U.S. and the rest of the world. BMW
commented, for example, that many
other countries use weight-based
standards rather than footprint-based.
While BMW did not object to NHTSA’s
and EPA’s use of footprint-based
standards, it emphasized the impact of
this non-harmonization on
manufacturers who sell vehicles
globally, and asked the agencies to
consider these effects. NADA supported
the use of footprint, but cautioned that
the agencies must be careful in setting
the footprint curve for light trucks to
ensure that manufacturers can continue
to provide functionality like 4WD and
towing/hauling capacity.
Some commenters requested that the
agencies consider other or more
attributes in addition to footprint,
largely reiterating comments submitted
to the MYs 2011–2015 CAFE NPRM.
Cummins supported the agencies using
a secondary attribute to account for
towing and hauling capacity in large
trucks, for example, while Ferrari asked
the agencies to consider a multiattribute
approach incorporating curb
weight, maximum engine power or
torque, and/or engine displacement, as
it had requested in the previous round
of CAFE rulemaking. An individual, Mr.
Kenneth Johnson, commented that
weight-based standards would be
preferable to footprint-based ones,
because weight correlates better with
fuel economy than footprint, because
the use of footprint does not necessarily
guarantee safety the way the agencies
say it does, and because weight-based
standards would be fairer to
manufacturers.
In response, EPA and NHTSA
continue to believe that the benefits of
footprint-attribute-based standards
outweigh any potential drawbacks
raised by commenters, and that
harmonization between the two
agencies should be the overriding goal
on this issue. As discussed by NHTSA
in the MY 2011 CAFE final rule, 58 the
agencies believe that the possibility of
gaming is lowest with footprint-based
standards, as opposed to weight-based
or multi-attribute-based standards.
Specifically, standards that incorporate
weight, torque, power, towing
capability, and/or off-road capability in
addition to footprint would not only be
significantly more complex, but by
providing degrees of freedom with
respect to more easily-adjusted
attributes, they would make it less
certain that the future fleet would
actually achieve the average fuel
economy and CO 2 levels projected by
the agencies. The agencies recognize
that based on economic and consumer
demand factors that are external to this
rule, the distribution of footprints in the
future may be different (either smaller
or larger) than what is projected in this
rule. However, the agencies continue to
believe that there will not be significant
shifts in this distribution as a direct
consequence of this rule. The agencies
are therefore finalizing MYs 2012–2016
CAFE and GHG standards based on
footprint.
The agencies also recognize that there
could be benefits for a number of
manufacturers if there was greater
international harmonization of fuel
economy and GHG standards, but this is
largely a question of how stringent
standards are and how they are
enforced. It is entirely possible that
footprint-based and weight-based
systems can coexist internationally and
not present an undue burden for
manufacturers if they are carefully
crafted. Different countries or regions
may find different attributes appropriate
for basing standards, depending on the
particular challenges they face—from
fuel prices, to family size and land use,
to safety concerns, to fleet composition
and consumer preference, to other
environmental challenges besides
climate change. The agencies anticipate
working more closely with other
countries and regions in the future to
consider how to mitigate these issues in
a way that least burdens manufacturers
while respecting each country’s need to
meet its own particular challenges.
Under an attribute-based standard,
every vehicle model has a performance
target (fuel economy and CO 2 emissions
for CAFE and CO 2 emissions standards,
respectively), the level of which
depends on the vehicle’s attribute (for
the proposal, footprint). The
manufacturers’ fleet average
performance is determined by the
production-weighted 59 average (for
CAFE, harmonic average) of those
targets. NHTSA and EPA are
promulgating CAFE and CO 2 emissions
standards defined by constrained linear
functions and, equivalently, piecewise
linear functions. 60 As a possible option
for future rulemakings, the constrained
linear form was introduced by NHTSA
in the 2007 NPRM proposing CAFE
standards for MY 2011–2015. Described
mathematically, the proposed
constrained linear function was defined
according to the following formula: 61
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Where
58 See 74 FR 14359 (Mar. 30, 2009).
59 Production for sale in the United States.
1
TARGET =
⎡ ⎛
1⎞
1⎤
MIN ⎢MAX ⎜ c× FOOTPRINT + d, ⎟ ⎥
⎣ ⎝
a⎠
, b⎦
TARGET = the fuel economy target (in mpg)
applicable to vehicles of a given
footprint (FOOTPRINT, in square feet),
60 The equations are equivalent but are specified
differently due to differences in the agencies’
respective models.
VerDate Mar2010 20:30 May 06, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\07MYR2.SGM 07MYR2
a = the function’s upper limit (in mpg),
b = the function’s lower limit (in mpg),
61 This function is linear in fuel consumption but
not in fuel economy.
ER07MY10.004