Tailpipe Rule - GlobalWarming.org

Recommendations

Info

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 88 / Friday, May 7, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 25331 Accounting for the expectation that some manufacturers could continue to pay civil penalties rather than achieving required CAFE levels, and the ability to use FFV credits, 23 NHTSA estimates that the CAFE standards will lead to the following average achieved fuel economy levels, based on the projections of what each manufacturer’s fleet will comprise in each year of the program: 24 TABLE I.B.2–2—PROJECTED FLEET-WIDE ACHIEVED CAFE LEVELS UNDER THE FINAL FOOTPRINT-BASED CAFE STANDARDS (mpg) 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Passenger Cars ................................................................... 32.3 33.5 34.2 35.0 36.2 Light Trucks ......................................................................... 24.5 25.1 25.9 26.7 27.5 Combined Cars & Trucks ............................................. 28.7 29.7 30.6 31.5 32.7 NHTSA is also required by EISA to set a minimum fuel economy standard for domestically manufactured passenger cars in addition to the attribute-based passenger car standard. The minimum standard ‘‘shall be the greater of (A) 27.5 miles per gallon; or (B) 92 percent of the average fuel economy projected by the Secretary for the combined domestic and non-domestic passenger automobile fleets manufactured for sale in the United States by all manufacturers in the model year.* * * ’’ 25 Based on NHTSA’s current market forecast, the agency’s estimates of these minimum standards under the MY 2012–2016 CAFE standards (and, for comparison, the final MY 2011 standard) are summarized below in Table I.B.2–3. 26 For eventual compliance calculations, the final calculated minimum standards will be updated to reflect the average fuel economy level required under the final standards. TABLE I.B.2–3—ESTIMATED MINIMUM STANDARD FOR DOMESTICALLY MANUFACTURED PASSENGER CARS UNDER MY 2011 AND MY 2012–2016 CAFE STANDARDS FOR PASSENGER CARS (mpg) 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 27.8 30.7 31.4 32.1 33.3 34.7 EPA is establishing GHG emissions standards, and Table I.B.2–4 provides EPA’s estimates of their projected overall fleet-wide CO 2 equivalent emission levels. 27 The g/mi values are CO 2 equivalent values because they include the projected use of air conditioning (A/C) credits by manufacturers, which include both HFC and CO 2 reductions. TABLE I.B.2–4—PROJECTED FLEET-WIDE EMISSIONS COMPLIANCE LEVELS UNDER THE FOOTPRINT-BASED CO 2 STANDARDS (g/mi) 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Passenger Cars ................................................................... 263 256 247 236 225 Light Trucks ......................................................................... 346 337 326 312 298 Combined Cars & Trucks ............................................. 295 286 276 263 250 mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2 As shown in Table I.B.2–4, fleet-wide CO 2 emission level requirements for cars are projected to increase in stringency from 263 to 225 g/mi between MY 2012 and MY 2016. Similarly, fleet-wide CO 2 equivalent emission level requirements for trucks are projected to increase in stringency from 346 to 298 g/mi. As shown, the overall fleet average CO 2 level requirements are projected to increase 23 The penalties are similar in function to essentially unlimited, fixed-price allowances. 24 NHTSA’s estimates account for availability of CAFE credits for the sale of flexible-fuel vehicles (FFVs), and for the potential that some manufacturers will pay civil penalties rather than comply with the CAFE standards. This yields NHTSA’s estimates of the real-world fuel economy in stringency from 295 g/mi in MY 2012 to 250 g/mi in MY 2016. EPA anticipates that manufacturers will take advantage of program flexibilities such as flexible fueled vehicle credits and car/truck credit trading. Due to the credit trading between cars and trucks, the estimated improvements in CO 2 emissions are distributed differently than shown in Table I.B.2–4, where full manufacturer compliance without credit trading is that will likely be achieved under the final CAFE standards. NHTSA has not included any potential impact of car-truck credit transfer in its estimate of the achieved CAFE levels. 25 49 U.S.C. 32902(b)(4). 26 In the March 2009 final rule establishing MY 2011 standards for passenger cars and light trucks, NHTSA estimated that the minimum required VerDate Mar2010 20:30 May 06, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\07MYR2.SGM 07MYR2 assumed. Table I.B.2–5 shows EPA’s projection of the achieved emission levels of the fleet for MY 2012 through 2016, which does consider the impact of car/truck credit transfer and the increase in emissions due to certain program flexibilities including flex fueled vehicle credits and the temporary lead time allowance alternative standards. The use of optional air conditioning credits is considered both in this analysis of achieved levels and of the CAFE standard for domestically manufactured passenger cars would be 27.8 mpg under the MY 2011 passenger car standard. 27 These levels do not include the effect of flexible fuel credits, transfer of credits between cars and trucks, temporary lead time allowance, or any other credits with the exception of air conditioning.
25332 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 88 / Friday, May 7, 2010 / Rules and Regulations compliance levels described above. As can be seen in Table I.B.2–5, the projected achieved levels are slightly higher for model years 2012–2015 due to EPA’s assumptions about manufacturers’ use of the regulatory flexibilities, but by model year 2016 the achieved level is projected to be 250 g/ mi for the fleet. TABLE I.B.2–5—PROJECTED FLEET-WIDE ACHIEVED EMISSION LEVELS UNDER THE FOOTPRINT-BASED CO 2 STANDARDS (g/mi) 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Passenger Cars ................................................................... 267 256 245 234 223 Light Trucks ......................................................................... 365 353 340 324 303 Combined Cars & Trucks ............................................. 305 293 280 266 250 mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with RULES2 Several auto manufacturers stated that the increasingly stringent requirements for fuel economy and GHG emissions in the early years of the program should follow a more linear phase-in. The agencies’ consideration of comments and of their updated technical analyses did not lead to changes to the phase-in of the standards discussed above. This issue is discussed in more detail in Sections II.D, and in Sections III and IV. NHTSA’s and EPA’s technology assessment indicates there is a wide range of technologies available for manufacturers to consider in upgrading vehicles to reduce GHG emissions and improve fuel economy. Commenters were in general agreement with this assessment. 28 As noted, these include improvements to the engines such as use of gasoline direct injection and downsized engines that use turbochargers to provide performance similar to that of larger engines, the use of advanced transmissions, increased use of start-stop technology, improvements in tire rolling resistance, reductions in vehicle weight, increased use of hybrid and other advanced technologies, and the initial commercialization of electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids. EPA is also projecting improvements in vehicle air conditioners including more efficient as well as low leak systems. All of these technologies are already available today, and EPA’s and NHTSA’s assessments are that manufacturers will be able to meet the standards through more widespread use of these technologies across the fleet. With respect to the practicability of the standards in terms of lead time, during MYs 2012–2016 manufacturers are expected to go through the normal automotive business cycle of redesigning and upgrading their lightduty vehicle products, and in some cases introducing entirely new vehicles 28 The close relationship between emissions of CO 2—the most prevalent greenhouse gas emitted by motor vehicles—and fuel consumption, means that the technologies to control CO 2 emissions and to improve fuel economy overlap to a great degree. not on the market today. This rule allows manufacturers the time needed to incorporate technology to achieve GHG reductions and improve fuel economy during the vehicle redesign process. This is an important aspect of the rule, as it avoids the much higher costs that would occur if manufacturers needed to add or change technology at times other than their scheduled redesigns. This time period also provides manufacturers the opportunity to plan for compliance using a multiyear time frame, again consistent with normal business practice. Over these five model years, there will be an opportunity for manufacturers to evaluate almost every one of their vehicle model platforms and add technology in a cost effective way to control GHG emissions and improve fuel economy. This includes redesign of the air conditioner systems in ways that will further reduce GHG emissions. Various commenters stated that the proposed phase-in of the standards should be introduced more aggressively, less aggressively, or in a more linear manner. However, our consideration of these comments about the phase-in, as well as our revised analyses, leads us to conclude that the general rate of introduction of the standards as proposed remains appropriate. This conclusion is also not affected by the slight difference from the proposal in the final footprint-based curves. These issues are addressed further in Sections III and IV. Both agencies considered other standards as part of the rulemaking analyses, both more and less stringent than those proposed. EPA’s and NHTSA’s analyses of alternative standards are contained in Sections III and IV of this preamble, respectively, as well as the agencies’ respective RIAs. The CAFE and GHG standards described above are based on determining emissions and fuel economy using the city and highway test procedures that are currently used in the CAFE program. Some environmental and other organizations VerDate Mar2010 20:30 May 06, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\07MYR2.SGM 07MYR2 commented that the test procedures should be improved to reflect more realworld driving conditions; auto manufacturers in general do not support such changes to the test procedures at this time. Both agencies recognize that these test procedures are not fully representative of real-world driving conditions. For example, EPA has adopted more representative test procedures that are used in determining compliance with emissions standards for pollutants other than GHGs. These test procedures are also used in EPA’s fuel economy labeling program. However, as discussed in Section III, the current information on effectiveness of the individual emissions control technologies is based on performance over the CAFE test procedures. For that reason, EPA is using the current CAFE test procedures for the CO 2 standards and is not changing those test procedures in this rulemaking. NHTSA, as discussed above, is limited by statute in what test procedures can be used for purposes of passenger car testing, although there is no such statutory limitation with respect to test procedures for trucks. However, the same reasons for not changing the truck test procedures apply for CAFE as well. Both EPA and NHTSA are interested in developing programs that employ test procedures that are more representative of real-world driving conditions, to the extent authorized under their respective statutes. This is an important issue, and the agencies intend to continue to evaluate it in the context of a future rulemaking to address standards for model year 2017 and thereafter. This could include consideration of a range of test procedure changes to better represent real-world driving conditions in terms of speed, acceleration, deceleration, ambient temperatures, use of air conditioners, and the like. With respect to air conditioner operation, EPA discusses the public comments on these issues and the final procedures for determining emissions credits for controls on air conditioners in Section III.
Page 1 and 2: 25324 Federal Register / Vol. 75, N
Page 7: 25330 Federal Register / Vol. 75, N
Page 51 and 52: mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with
Page 59 and 60:
25382 Federal Register / Vol. 75, N
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227 and 228:
Page 229 and 230:
Page 231 and 232:
Page 233 and 234:
Page 235 and 236:
Page 237 and 238:
Page 239 and 240:
Page 241 and 242:
Page 243 and 244:
Page 245 and 246:
Page 247 and 248:
Page 249 and 250:
Page 251 and 252:
Page 253 and 254:
Page 255 and 256:
Page 257 and 258:
Page 259 and 260:
Page 261 and 262:
Page 263 and 264:
Page 265 and 266:
Page 267 and 268:
Page 269 and 270:
Page 271 and 272:
Page 273 and 274:
Page 275 and 276:
Page 277 and 278:
Page 279 and 280:
Page 281 and 282:
Page 283 and 284:
Page 285 and 286:
Page 287 and 288:
Page 289 and 290:
Page 291 and 292:
Page 293 and 294:
Page 295 and 296:
Page 297 and 298:
Page 299 and 300:
Page 301 and 302:
Page 303 and 304:
Page 305 and 306:
Page 307 and 308:
Page 309 and 310:
Page 311 and 312:
Page 313 and 314:
Page 315 and 316:
Page 317 and 318:
Page 319 and 320:
Page 321 and 322:
Page 323 and 324:
Page 325 and 326:
Page 327 and 328:
Page 329 and 330:
Page 331 and 332:
Page 333 and 334:
Page 335 and 336:
Page 337 and 338:
Page 339 and 340:
Page 341 and 342:
Page 343 and 344:
Page 345 and 346:
Page 347 and 348:
Page 349 and 350:
Page 351 and 352:
Page 353 and 354:
Page 355 and 356:
Page 357 and 358:
Page 359 and 360:
Page 361 and 362:
Page 363 and 364:
Page 365 and 366:
Page 367 and 368:
Page 369 and 370:
Page 371 and 372:
Page 373 and 374:
Page 375 and 376:
Page 377 and 378:
Page 379 and 380:
Page 381 and 382:
Page 383 and 384:
Page 385 and 386:
Page 387 and 388:
Page 389 and 390:
Page 391 and 392:
Page 393 and 394:
Page 395 and 396:
Page 397 and 398:
Page 399 and 400:
Page 401 and 402:
Page 403 and 404:
Page 405:
show all

Tailpipe Rule - GlobalWarming.org

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?