[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 87 (Friday, May 5, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 29184-29446]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-07974]
[[Page 29183]]
Vol. 88
Friday,
No. 87
May 5, 2023
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Parts 85, 86, 600, et al.
Multi-Pollutant Emissions Standards for Model Years 2027 and Later
Light-Duty and Medium-Duty Vehicles; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 87 / Friday, May 5, 2023 / Proposed
Rules
[[Page 29184]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 85, 86, 600, 1036, 1037, and 1066
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0829; FRL 8953-03-OAR]
RIN 2060-AV49
Multi-Pollutant Emissions Standards for Model Years 2027 and
Later Light-Duty and Medium-Duty Vehicles
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Under its Clean Air Act authority, the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing new, more stringent emissions
standards for criteria pollutants and greenhouse gases (GHG) for light-
duty vehicles and Class 2b and 3 (``medium-duty'') vehicles that would
phase-in over model years 2027 through 2032. In addition, EPA is
proposing GHG program revisions in several areas, including off-cycle
and air conditioning credits, the treatment of upstream emissions
associated with zero-emission vehicles and plug-in hybrid electric
vehicles in compliance calculations, medium-duty vehicle incentive
multipliers, and vehicle certification and compliance. EPA is also
proposing new standards to control refueling emissions from incomplete
medium-duty vehicles, and battery durability and warranty requirements
for light-duty and medium-duty plug-in vehicles. EPA is also proposing
minor amendments to update program requirements related to aftermarket
fuel conversions, importing vehicles and engines, evaporative emission
test procedures, and test fuel specifications for measuring fuel
economy.
DATES:
Comments: Written comments must be received on or before July 5,
2023.
Comments on the information collection provisions submitted to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA) are best assured of consideration by OMB if OMB receives a copy
of your comments on or before June 5, 2023.
Public Hearing: EPA will announce information regarding the public
hearing for this proposal in a supplemental Federal Register document.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0829, by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov/
(our preferred method). Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
Email: [email protected]. Include Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0829 in the subject line of the message.
Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket
Center, OAR, Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0829, Mail Code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460.
Hand Delivery or Courier (by scheduled appointment only):
EPA Docket Center, WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004. The Docket Center's hours of
operations are 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m., Monday-Friday (except Federal
Holidays).
Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID
No. for this rulemaking. Comments received may be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information
provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the ``Public Participation''
heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Safoutin, Office of
Transportation and Air Quality, Assessment and Standards Division
(ASD), Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann
Arbor, MI 48105; telephone number: (734) 214-4348; email address:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Public Participation
Written Comments
EPA will keep the comment period open until July 5, 2023. All
information will be available for inspection at the EPA Air Docket No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0829. Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0829, at https://www.regulations.gov (our preferred
method), or the other methods identified in the ADDRESSES section. Once
submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from the docket. EPA
may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit to
EPA's docket at https://www.regulations.gov any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
Public Hearing
Please refer to the separate Federal Register notice issued by EPA
for public hearing details. The hearing notice is available at https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-engines/proposed-rule-multi-pollutant-emissions-standards-model. Please also refer to this
website for any updates regarding the hearings. EPA does not intend to
publish additional documents in the Federal Register announcing
updates.
B. Does this action apply to me?
Entities potentially affected by this proposed rule include light-
duty vehicle manufacturers, independent commercial importers,
alternative fuel converters, and manufacturers and converters of
medium-duty vehicles (i.e., vehicles between 8,501 and 14,000 pounds
gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR)). Potentially affected categories
and entities include:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAICS codes Examples of potentially
Category \A\ affected entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry....................... 336111 Motor Vehicle
336112 Manufacturers.
[[Page 29185]]
Industry....................... 811111 Commercial Importers of
811112 Vehicles and Vehicle
811198 Components.
423110
Industry....................... 335312 Alternative Fuel
811198 Vehicle Converters.
Industry....................... 333618 On-highway medium-duty
336120 engine & vehicle
336211 (8,501-14,000 pounds
336312 GVWR) manufacturers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\A\ North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).
This list is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide regarding entities potentially affected by this action. To
determine whether particular activities may be regulated by this
action, you should carefully examine the regulations. You may direct
questions regarding the applicability of this action to the person
listed in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
C. Did EPA conduct a peer review before issuing this proposed action?
This proposed regulatory action was supported by influential
scientific information. EPA therefore conducted peer review in
accordance with OMB's Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer
Review. Specifically, we conducted peer review on five analyses: (1)
Optimization Model for reducing Emissions of Greenhouse gases from
Automobiles (OMEGA 2.0), (2) Advanced Light-duty Powertrain and Hybrid
Analysis (ALPHA3), (3) Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES), (4)
The Effects of New-Vehicle Price Changes on New- and Used-Vehicle
Markets and Scrappage; (5) Literature Review on U.S. Consumer
Acceptance of New Personally Owned Light-Duty Plug-in Electric
Vehicles. All peer review was in the form of letter reviews conducted
by a contractor. The peer review reports for each analysis are in the
docket for this action and at EPA's Science Inventory (https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/).
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
A. Purpose of This Proposed Rule and Legal Authority
B. Summary of Proposed Light- and Medium-Duty Vehicle Emissions
Programs
C. Summary of Emission Reductions, Costs, and Benefits
D. What are the alternatives that EPA is considering?
II. Public Health and Welfare Need for Emission Reductions
A. Climate Change From GHG Emissions
B. Background on Criteria and Air Toxics Pollutants Impacted by
This Proposal
C. Health Effects Associated With Exposure to Criteria and Air
Toxics Pollutants
D. Welfare Effects Associated With Exposure to Criteria and Air
Toxics Pollutants Impacted by the Proposed Standards
III. EPA Proposal for Light- and Medium-Duty Vehicle Standards for
Model Years 2027 and Later
A. Introduction and Background
B. Proposed GHG Standards for Model Years 2027 and Later
C. Proposed Criteria and Toxic Pollutant Emissions Standards for
Model Years 2027-2032
D. Proposed Modifications to the Medium-Duty Passenger Vehicle
Definition
E. What alternatives did EPA consider?
F. Proposed Certification, Compliance, and Enforcement
Provisions
G. Proposed On-Board Diagnostics Program Updates
H. Coordination With Federal and State Partners
I. Stakeholder Engagement
IV. Technical Assessment of the Proposed Standards
A. What approach did EPA use in analyzing potential standards?
B. EPA's Approach to Considering the No Action Case and
Sensitivities
C. How did EPA consider technology feasibility and related
issues?
D. Projected Compliance Costs and Technology Penetrations
E. Sensitivities--LD GHG Compliance Modeling
F. Sensitivities--MD GHG Compliance Modeling
V. EPA's Basis That the Proposed Standards Are Feasible and
Appropriate Under the Clean Air Act
A. Overview
B. Consideration of Technological Feasibility, Compliance Costs
and Lead Time
C. Consideration of Emissions of GHGs and Criteria Air
Pollutants
D. Consideration of Impacts on Consumers, Energy, Safety and
Other Factors
E. Selection of Proposed Standards Under CAA 202(a)
VI. How would this proposal reduce GHG emissions and their
associated effects?
A. Estimating Emission Inventories in OMEGA
B. Impact on GHG Emissions
C. Global Climate Impacts Associated With the Proposal's GHG
Emissions Reductions
VII. How would the proposal impact criteria and air toxics emissions
and their associated effects?
A. Impact on Emissions of Criteria and Air Toxics Pollutants
B. How would the proposal affect air quality?
VIII. Estimated Costs and Benefits and Associated Considerations
A. Summary of Costs and Benefits
B. Vehicle Cost and Fueling Impacts
C. U.S. Vehicle Sales Impacts
D. Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Benefits
E. Criteria Pollutant Health and Environmental Benefits
F. Other Impacts Including Maintenance and Repair
G. Energy Security Impacts
H. Employment Impacts
I. Environmental Justice
J. Additional Non-Monetized Considerations Associated With
Benefits and Costs: Energy Efficiency Gap
IX. Consideration of Potential Fuels Controls for a Future
Rulemaking
A. Impacts of High-Boiling Components on Emissions
B. Survey of High-Boiling Materials in Market Gasoline
C. Sources of High-Boiling Compounds in Gasoline Production and
How Reductions Might Occur
D. Methods of Compliance Determination
E. Structure and Costs of Standards
F. Estimated Emissions and Air Quality Impacts
X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: ``Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review''
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: ``Federalism''
F. Executive Order 13175: ``Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments''
G. Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks''
H. Executive Order 13211: ``Energy Effects''
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and
1 CFR Part 51
J. Executive Order 12898: ``Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations''
[[Page 29186]]
XI. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority
I. Executive Summary
A. Purpose of This Proposed Rule and Legal Authority
1. Proposal for Light- and Medium-Duty Multipollutant Standards for
Model Years 2027 and Later
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing
multipollutant emissions standards for light-duty passenger cars and
light trucks and Class 2b and 3 vehicles (``medium-duty vehicles'' or
MDVs) under its authority in section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act (CAA),
42 U.S.C. 7521(a). The proposed program would establish new, more
stringent vehicle emissions standards for criteria pollutant and
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from motor vehicles for model years
(MYs) 2027 through 2032.
Section 202(a) requires EPA to establish standards for emissions of
air pollutants from new motor vehicles which, in the Administrator's
judgment, cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be
anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. Standards under
section 202(a) take effect ``after such period as the Administrator
finds necessary to permit the development and application of the
requisite technology, giving appropriate consideration to the cost of
compliance within such period.'' Thus, in establishing or revising
section 202(a) standards designed to reduce air pollution that
endangers public health and welfare, EPA also must consider issues of
technological feasibility, the cost of compliance, and lead time. EPA
also may consider other factors, and in previous vehicle standards
rulemakings, as well as in this proposal, has considered the impacts of
potential standards on emissions of air pollutants and associated
public health and welfare effects, impacts on the automotive industry,
impacts on the vehicle purchasers/consumers, oil conservation, energy
security and other energy impacts, safety, and other relevant
considerations.
EPA has conducted outreach with a wide range of interested
stakeholders to gather input which we have considered in developing
this proposal, and we will continue to engage with the public and all
interested stakeholders as part of our regulatory development process.
2. Why does EPA believe the proposed standards are appropriate under
the CAA?
i. Need for Continued Emissions Reductions Under 202(a) of the Clean
Air Act
In 2014, EPA finalized criteria pollutant standards for light-duty
vehicles (``Tier 3'') that were designed to be implemented alongside
the GHG standards for light-duty vehicles that EPA had adopted in 2012
for model years 2017-2025.\1\ In 2020, EPA revised the GHG standards
that had previously been adopted for model years 2021-2026,\2\ and in
2021, EPA proposed and finalized a rulemaking (the ``2021 rulemaking'')
\3\ that again revised GHG standards for light-duty passenger cars and
light trucks for MYs 2023 through 2026, setting significantly more
stringent standards for those MYs than had been set by the 2020
rulemaking, and somewhat more stringent than the standards adopted in
2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 79 FR 23414, April 28, 2014, ``Control of Air Pollution From
Motor Vehicles: Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Emission and Fuel Standards.
\2\ 85 FR 24174, April 30, 2020, ``The Safer Affordable Fuel-
Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule for Model Years 2021-2026 Passenger
Cars and Light Trucks.''
\3\ 86 FR 74434, December 30, 2021, ``Revised 2023 and Later
Model Year Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite the significant emissions reductions achieved by these and
other rulemakings, air pollution from motor vehicles continues to
impact public health, welfare, and the environment. On August 5, 2021,
Executive Order 14037, ``Strengthening American Leadership in Clean
Cars and Trucks,'' directed the Administrator to consider beginning
work on a rulemaking to establish new multi-pollutant emissions
standards, including both criteria pollutant and GHG emissions, for
light- and medium-duty vehicles beginning with MY 2027 and extending
through and including at least MY 2030. The Administrator determined
that there was a need to begin work on such a rulemaking and
accordingly is issuing this proposal.
Motor vehicle emissions contribute to ozone, particulate matter
(PM), and air toxics, which are linked with premature death and other
serious health impacts, including respiratory illness, cardiovascular
problems, and cancer. This air pollution affects people nationwide, as
well as those who live or work near transportation corridors. In
addition, there is consensus that the effects of climate change
represent a rapidly growing threat to human health and the environment,
and are caused by GHG emissions from human activity, including motor
vehicle transportation. Recent trends and developments in emissions
control technology, including vehicle electrification and other
advanced vehicle technologies, indicate that more stringent emissions
standards are feasible at reasonable cost and would achieve significant
improvements in public health and welfare. Addressing these public
health and welfare needs will require substantial additional reductions
in criteria pollutants and GHG emissions from the transportation
sector.
Addressing the public health impacts of criteria pollutants
(including particulate matter (PM), ozone, nitrogen oxides
(NOX), and carbon monoxide (CO)) will require continued
reductions in these pollutants from the transportation sector. In 2023,
mobile sources will account for approximately 54 percent of
anthropogenic NOX emissions, 5 percent of anthropogenic
direct PM2.5 emissions, and 19 percent of anthropogenic
volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions.4 5 6 Light- and
medium-duty-vehicles will account for approximately 20 percent, 19
percent, and 41 percent of 2023 mobile source NOX,
PM2.5, and VOC emissions, respectively.4 5 6 The
benefits of reductions in criteria pollutant emissions accrue broadly
across many populations and communities. There are currently 15
PM2.5 nonattainment areas with a population of more than 32
million people \7\ and 57 ozone nonattainment areas with a population
of more than 130 million people. The importance of continued reductions
in these emissions is detailed at length in Section II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2021). 2016v1 Platform
(https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-modeling/2016v1-platform).
\5\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2021). 2017 National
Emissions Inventory (NEI) Data. https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/2017-national-emissions-inventory-nei-data.
\6\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2021). MOVES 3.0.1.
https://www.epa.gov/moves.
\7\ The population total is calculated by summing, without
double counting, the 1997, 2006 and 2012 PM2.5
nonattainment populations contained in the Criteria Pollutant
Nonattainment Summary report (https://www.epa.gov/green-book/green-book-data-download).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The transportation sector is the largest U.S. source of GHG
emissions, representing 27.2 percent of total GHG emissions.\8\ Within
the transportation sector, light-duty vehicles are the largest
contributor, at 57.1 percent, and thus comprise 15.5 percent of total
U.S. GHG emissions,\9\ even before considering the contribution of
medium-duty Class 2b
[[Page 29187]]
and 3 vehicles which are also included under this rule. GHG emissions
have significant impacts on public health and welfare as evidenced by
the well-documented scientific record and as set forth in EPA's
Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings under section 202(a) of
the CAA.\10\ Additionally, major scientific assessments continue to be
released that further advance our understanding of the climate system
and the impacts that GHGs have on public health and welfare both for
current and future generations, as discussed in Section II.A, making it
clear that continued GHG emission reductions in the motor vehicle
sector are needed to protect public health and welfare.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-
2020 (EPA-430-R-22-003, published April 2022).
\9\ Ibid.
\10\ 74 FR 66496, December 15, 2009; 81 FR 54422, August 15,
2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to and separate from this proposal, the Administration
has recognized the need for action to address climate change. Executive
Order 14008 (``Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad,''
January 27, 2021) recognizes the need for a government-wide approach to
addressing the climate crisis, directing Federal departments and
agencies to facilitate the organization and deployment of such an
effort. On April 22, 2021, the Administration announced a new target
for the United States to achieve a 50 to 52 percent reduction from 2005
levels in economy-wide net greenhouse gas pollution in 2030, consistent
with the goal of limiting global warming to no more than 1.5 degrees
Celsius by 2050 and representing the U.S. Nationally Determined
Contribution (NDC) under the Paris Agreement. These actions, while they
do not inform the standards proposed here, serve to underscore the
importance of the EPA's Clean Air Act authority to address pollution
from motor vehicles.
Also separately from this proposal, the Administration has
recognized the recent industry advancements in zero-emission vehicle
technologies and their potential to bring about dramatic reductions in
emissions. Executive Order 14037 (``Strengthening American Leadership
in Clean Cars and Trucks,'' August 5, 2021) identified a goal for 50
percent of U.S. new vehicle sales to be zero-emission vehicles by 2030.
Congress passed the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) \11\ in 2021,
and the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) \12\ in 2022, which together
provide further support for a government-wide approach to reducing
emissions by providing significant funding and support for air
pollution and GHG reductions across the economy, including
specifically, for the component technology and infrastructure for the
manufacture, sales, and use of electric vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Public Law 117-58, November 15, 2021.
\12\ Public Law 117-169, August 16, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These industry advancements in the production and sales of zero-
and near-zero emission vehicles are already occurring both domestically
and globally, due to significant investments from automakers, greatly
increased acceptance by consumers, and added support from Congress,
state governments, the European Union and other countries. EPA
recognizes that these industry advancements, along with the additional
support provided by the BIL and the IRA, represent an important
opportunity for achieving the public health goals of the Clean Air Act.
As the term ``zero-emission vehicle'' suggests, these cars and trucks
have zero GHG and criteria pollutant emissions from their tailpipes,
which can represent significant reductions over current emissions
(particularly for GHG). In part because this technology reduces both
GHG and criteria pollutant emissions, EPA finds it appropriate to set
new standards for model years after 2026 for both criteria pollutants
and GHG at this time, rather than continuing its prior approach of
coordinating the standards but setting them in separate regulatory
actions. Although EPA is proposing to set GHG and criteria pollutant
standards in a single rulemaking, these standards are being proposed to
meet distinct needs for control of distinct pollutants based on EPA's
assessment of the available control technologies for those pollutants,
recognizing that some of the available control technologies may
overlap.
Likewise, it is important to recognize that, despite this
anticipated growth in zero-emission vehicles, many internal combustion
engine (ICE) vehicles will continue to be sold during the time frame of
the rule and will remain on the road for many years afterward. In
addition, some vehicle manufacturers have made public statements \13\
that some portion of their light-duty sales will remain ICE-based for
the foreseeable future, predominantly in large SUVs and pickup trucks.
EPA anticipates that a compliant fleet under the proposed standards
will include a diverse range of technologies, including higher
penetrations of advanced gasoline technologies as well as zero-emission
vehicles. It is therefore important to consider the environmental and
other implications of the ICE portion of the fleet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Gastelu, G., ``General Motors President says `the ICE age
is not over' amid shift to EVs,'' Fox Business, November 17, 2022.
Accessed on November 29, 2022 at https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyle/general-motors-president-ice-age-evs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Administrator finds that the standards proposed herein are
consistent with EPA's responsibilities under the CAA and appropriate
under CAA section 202(a). EPA has carefully considered the statutory
factors, including technological feasibility and cost of the proposed
standards and the available lead time for manufacturers to comply with
them. Based on our analysis, it is our assessment that the proposed
standards are appropriate and justified under section 202(a) of the
CAA. Our analysis for this proposal supports the preliminary conclusion
that the proposed standards are technologically feasible and that the
costs of compliance for manufacturers would be reasonable. The proposed
standards would result in significant reductions in emissions of
criteria pollutants, GHGs, and air toxics, resulting in significant
benefits for public health and welfare. We also estimate that the
proposal would result in reduced vehicle operating costs for consumers
and that the benefits of the proposed program would significantly
exceed the costs.
ii. Recent and Ongoing Advancements in Technology Enable Further
Emissions Reductions
In designing the scope, structure, and stringency of the proposed
standards, the Administrator considered previous rulemakings, as well
as the increasing availability of vehicle technologies that can be
utilized by manufacturers to further reduce emissions. This proposal
continues EPA's longstanding approach of establishing an appropriate
and achievable trajectory of emissions reductions by means of
performance-based standards, for both criteria pollutant and GHG
emissions, that can be achieved by employing feasible and available
emissions-reducing vehicle technologies for the model years for which
the standard will apply.
CAA section 202(a) directs EPA to regulate emissions of air
pollutants from new motor vehicles and engines, which in the
Administrator's judgment cause or contribute to air pollution that may
reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. While
standards promulgated pursuant to CAA section 202(a) are based on
application of technology, the statute does not specify a particular
technology or technologies that must be used to set such standards;
rather, Congress has authorized and directed EPA to adapt its standards
to emerging technologies.
[[Page 29188]]
Thus, as with prior rules, EPA is assessing the feasibility of new
standards in light of current and anticipated progress by automakers in
developing and deploying new technologies. The levels of stringency in
this proposal continue the trend of increased emissions reductions
which have been adopted by prior EPA rules. The Tier 3 standards
achieved reductions of up to 80 percent in tailpipe criteria pollutant
emissions by treating the engine and fuel as an integrated system and
requiring cleaner fuel as well as improved catalytic emissions control
systems. Compliance with the EPA GHG standards over the past decade has
been achieved predominantly through the application of advanced
technologies to internal-combustion engine (ICE) vehicles. In that same
time frame, as the EPA GHG standards have increased in stringency,
automakers have relied to a greater degree on a range of
electrification technologies, including hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs)
and, in recent years, plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs) which include
plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) and battery-electric vehicles
(BEVs). As these technologies have been advancing rapidly in just the
past several years, and battery costs have continued to decline,
automakers have begun to include BEVs and PHEVs as an integral and
growing part of their current and future product lines, leading to an
increasing diversity of these clean vehicles planned for high-volume
production. As a result, zero- and near-zero emission technologies are
more feasible and cost-effective now than at the time of prior
rulemakings.
These industry developments in vehicle electrification are driven
by a number of factors, including the need to compete in a diverse
market, as zero-emission transportation policies continue to be
implemented across the world. An increasing number of U.S. states have
taken actions to shift the light-duty fleet toward zero-emissions
technology. In 2022, California finalized the Advanced Clean Cars II
rule \14\ that will require, by 2035, all new light-duty vehicles sold
in the state to be zero-emission vehicles,\15\ with New
York,16 17 Massachusetts,18 19 and Washington
state \20\ following suit, likely to be followed by Oregon and Vermont
as well.\21\ Several other states may adopt similar provisions as
members of the International Zero-Emission Vehicle Alliance.\22\ In
addition to the U.S., auto manufacturers also compete in a global
market that is becoming increasingly electrified. Globally, at least 20
countries, as well as numerous local jurisdictions, have announced
targets for shifting all new passenger car sales to zero-emission
vehicles in the coming years, including Norway (2025); Austria, the
Netherlands, Denmark, Iceland, India, Ireland, Israel, Scotland,
Singapore, Sweden, and Slovenia (2030); Canada, Chile, Germany,
Thailand, and the United Kingdom (2035); and France, Spain, and Sri
Lanka (2040).23 24 25 26 Many of these announcements extend
to light commercial vehicles as well, and several also target a shift
to 100 percent all-electric medium- and heavy-duty vehicle sales
(Norway targeting 2030, Austria 2035, and Canada and the United Kingdom
2040).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ California Air Resources Board, ``California moves to
accelerate to 100% new zero-emission vehicle sales by 2035,'' Press
Release, August 25, 2022. Accessed on Nov. 3, 2022 at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/news/california-moves-accelerate-100-new-zero-emission-vehicle-sales-2035.
\15\ State of California Office of the Governor, ``Governor
Newsom Announces California Will Phase Out Gasoline-Powered Cars &
Drastically Reduce Demand for Fossil Fuel in California's Fight
Against Climate Change,'' Press Release, September 23, 2020.
\16\ New York State Senate, Senate Bill S2758, 2021-2022
Legislative Session. January 25, 2021.
\17\ Governor of New York Press Office, ``In Advance of Climate
Week 2021, Governor Hochul Announces New Actions to Make New York's
Transportation Sector Greener, Reduce Climate-Altering Emissions,''
September 8, 2021. Accessed on September 16, 2021 at https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/advance-climate-week-2021-governor-hochul-announces-new-actions-make-new-yorks-transportation.
\18\ Boston.com, ``Following California's lead, state will
likely ban all sales of new gas-powered cars by 2035,'' August 27,
2022. Accessed November 3, 2022 at https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2022/08/27/following-californias-lead-state-will-likely-ban-all-sales-of-new-gas-powered-cars-by-2035/.
\19\ Commonwealth of Massachusetts, ``Request for Comment on
Clean Energy and Climate Plan for 2030,'' December 30, 2020.
\20\ Washington Department of Ecology, ``Washington sets path to
phase out gas vehicles by 2035,'' Press Release, Sept. 7, 2022.
Accessed on Nov. 3, 2022 at https://ecology.wa.gov/About-us/Who-we-are/News/2022/Sept-7-Clean-Vehicles-Public-Comment.
\21\ Associated Press, ``17 states weigh adopting California's
electric car mandate,'' September 3, 2022. Accessed on November 4,
2022 at https://apnews.com/article/technology-california-clean-air-act-vehicle-emissions-standards-eebb48c13e24835f2c5b9cb56796182a.
\22\ ZEV Alliance, ``International ZEV Alliance Announcement,''
Dec. 3, 2015. Accessed on July 16, 2021 at http://www.zevalliance.org/international-zev-alliance-announcement/.
\23\ Environment and Climate Change Canada, ``Achieving a Zero-
Emission Future for Light-Duty Vehicles: Stakeholder Engagement
Discussion Document December 17,'' EC21255, December 17, 2021.
Accessed on February 13, 2023 at https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/eccc/documents/pdf/cepa/achieving-zero-emission-future-light-duty-vehicles.pdf.
\24\ International Council on Clean Transportation, ``Update on
the global transition to electric vehicles through 2019,'' July
2020.
\25\ International Council on Clean Transportation, ``Growing
momentum: Global overview of government targets for phasing out new
internal combustion engine vehicles,'' posted 11 November 2020,
accessed April 28, 2021 at https://theicct.org/blog/staff/global-ice-phaseout-nov2020.
\26\ Reuters, ``Canada to ban sale of new fuel-powered cars and
light trucks from 2035,'' June 29, 2021. Accessed July 1, 2021 from
https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/canada-ban-sale-new-fuel-powered-cars-light-trucks-2035-2021-06-29/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Together, the countries that through mid-2022 had set a target of
100 percent light-duty zero-emission vehicle sales by 2035 represented
at least 25 percent of today's global light-duty vehicle market.\27\ In
addition, in February 2023 the European Union gave preliminary approval
to a measure to phase out sales of ICE passenger vehicles in its 27
member countries by 2035.28 29 In 2021, BEVs and PHEVs
together already comprised about 18 percent of the new vehicle market
in Western Europe,\30\ led by Norway which reached 64.5 percent BEV and
86.2 percent combined BEV and PHEV sales in 2021, increasing to 79.3
percent BEV and 87.8 percent combined BEV and PHEV sales in
2022.31 32 33
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ International Energy Agency, ``Global EV Outlook 2022,'' p.
57, May 2022. Accessed on November 18, 2022 at https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/e0d2081d-487d-4818-8c59-69b638969f9e/GlobalElectricVehicleOutlook2022.pdf.
\28\ Reuters, ``EU approves effective ban on new fossil fuel
cars from 2035,'' October 28, 2022. Accessed on Nov. 2, 2022 at
https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/eu-approves-effective-ban-new-fossil-fuel-cars-2035-2022-10-27/.
\29\ Reuters, ``EU lawmakers approve effective 2035 ban on new
fossil fuel cars,'' February 14, 2023. Accessed on February 26, 2023
at https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/eu-lawmakers-approve-effective-2035-ban-new-fossil-fuel-cars-2023-02-14/.
\30\ Ewing, J., ``China's Popular Electric Vehicles Have Put
Europe's Automakers on Notice,'' New York Times, accessed on
November 1, 2021 at https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/31/business/electric-cars-china-europe.html.
\31\ Klesty, V., ``With help from Tesla, nearly 80% of Norway's
new car sales are electric,'' Reuters, accessed on November 1, 2021
at https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/tesla-pushes-norways-ev-sales-new-record-2021-10-01/.
\32\ Norwegian Information Council for Road Traffic (OFV), ``New
car boom and electric car record in September,'' October 1, 2021,
accessed on November 1, 2021 at https://ofv.no/aktuelt/2021/nybil-boom-og-elbilrekord-i-september.
\33\ Holland, M., '' Norway's EV Sales Explode Ahead Of Policy
Changes,'' CleanTechnica, January 4, 2023. Accessed on February 22,
2023 at https://cleantechnica.com/2023/01/04/norways-ev-sales-explode-ahead-of-policy-changes/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 29189]]
Recent trends in market penetration of zero and near-zero emission
vehicles suggest that demand for these vehicles in the U.S. is rapidly
increasing. Even under current standards, the production of new PEVs
(including both BEVs and PHEVs) is growing rapidly and roughly doubling
every year, projected to be 8.4 percent of U.S. light-duty vehicle
production in MY 2022, up from 4.4 percent in MY 2021 and 2.2 percent
in MY 2020.\34\ In 2022, BEVs alone accounted for about 807,000 U.S.
new car sales, or about 5.8 percent of the new light-duty passenger
vehicle market, up from 3.2 percent BEVs the year before.\35\ In
California, new light-duty zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) sales in 2022
reached 18.8 percent of all new cars, up from 12.4 percent in 2021 and
more than twice the share from 2020.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Environmental Protection Agency, ``The 2022 EPA Automotive
Trends Report: Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Fuel Economy, and
Technology since 1975,'' EPA-420-R-22-029, December 2022.
\35\ Colias, M., ``U.S. EV Sales Jolted Higher in 2022 as
Newcomers Target Tesla,'' Wall Street Journal, January 6, 2023.
\36\ California Energy Commission, ``New ZEV Sales in
California'' online dashboard, viewed on February 13, 2023 at
https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/zero-emission-vehicle-and-infrastructure-statistics/new-zev-sales.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) became law, analysts were
already projecting that significantly increased penetration of plug-in
electric vehicles would occur in the United States and in global
markets. For example, in 2021, IHS Markit predicted a nearly 40 percent
U.S. PEV share by 2030.\37\ More recent projections by Bloomberg New
Energy Finance suggest that under current policy and market conditions,
and prior to the IRA, the U.S. was on pace to reach 40 to 50 percent
PEVs by 2030.\38\ When adjusted for the effects of the Inflation
Reduction Act, this estimate increases to 52 percent.\39\ Another study
by the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) and Energy
Innovation that includes the effect of the IRA estimates that the share
of BEVs will increase to 56 to 67 percent by 2032.\40\ These
projections typically are based on assessment of a range of existing
and developing factors, including state policies (such as the
California Advanced Clean Cars II program and its adoption by Section
177 states); although the assumptions and other inputs to these
forecasts vary, they point to greatly increased penetration of
electrification across the U.S. light-duty fleet in the coming years,
without specifically considering the effect of increased emission
standards under this proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ IHS Markit, ``US EPA Proposed Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Standards for Model Years 2023-2026; What to Expect,'' August 9,
2021. Accessed on March 9, 2023 at https://www.spglobal.com/mobility/en/research-analysis/us-epa-proposed-greenhouse-gas-emissions-standards-my2023-26.html. The table indicates 32.3% BEVs
and combined 39.7% BEV, PHEV, and range-extended electric vehicle
(REX) in 2030.
\38\ Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF), ``Electric Vehicle
Outlook 2022,'' Long term outlook economic transition scenario.
\39\ Tucker, S., ``Study: More Than Half of Car Sales Could Be
Electric By 2030,'' Kelley Blue Book, October 4, 2022. Accessed on
February 24, 2023 at https://www.kbb.com/car-news/study-more-than-half-of-car-sales-could-be-electric-by-2030/.
\40\ International Council on Clean Transportation, ``Analyzing
the Impact of the Inflation Reduction Act on Electric Vehicle Uptake
in the US,'' ICCT White Paper, January 2023. Available at https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/ira-impact-evs-us-jan23.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These trends echo an ongoing global shift toward electrification.
Global light-duty passenger PEV sales (including BEVs and PHEVs)
reached 6.6 million in 2021, bringing the total number of PEVs on the
road to more than 16.5 million globally.\41\ For fully-electric BEVs,
global sales rose to 7.8 million in 2022, an increase of about 68
percent from the previous year and representing about 10 percent of the
new global light-duty passenger vehicle market.42 43 Leading
sales forecasts predict that BEV sales will continue to accelerate
globally in the years to come. For example, in June 2022, Bloomberg New
Energy Finance predicted that global sales will rise to 21 million in
2025 (implying an annual growth rate of about 39 percent from 2022),
with total global vehicle stock reaching 77 million BEVs by 2025 and
229 million BEVs by 2030.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ International Energy Agency, ``Global EV Outlook 2022,'' p.
107, May 2022. Accessed on November 18, 2022 at https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/e0d2081d-487d-4818-8c59-69b638969f9e/GlobalElectricVehicleOutlook2022.pdf.
\42\ Boston, W., ``EVs Made Up 10% of All New Cars Sold Last
Year,'' Wall Street Journal, January 16, 2023.
\43\ Colias, M., ``U.S. EV Sales Jolted Higher in 2022 as
Newcomers Target Tesla,'' Wall Street Journal, January 6, 2023.
\44\ Bloomberg NEF, ``Net-Zero Road Transport By 2050 Still
Possible, As Electric Vehicles Set To Quintuple By 2025,'' June 1,
2022. Accessed on February 21, 2023 at https://about.bnef.com/blog/net-zero-road-transport-by-2050-still-possible-as-electric-vehicles-set-to-quintuple-by-2025/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The year-over-year growth in U.S. PEV sales suggests that an
increasing share of new vehicle buyers are concluding that a PEV is the
best vehicle to meet their needs. Many of the zero-emission vehicles
already on the market today cost less to operate than ICE vehicles,
offer improved performance and handling, have a driving range similar
to that of ICE vehicles, and can be charged at a growing network of
public chargers as well as at home.45 46 47 48 49 50 PEV
owners often describe these advantages as key factors motivating their
purchase.\51\ A 2022 survey by Consumer Reports shows that more than
one third of Americans would either seriously consider or definitely
buy or lease a BEV today, if they were in the market for a vehicle.\52\
Given that most consumers are currently much less familiar with BEVs
than with ICE vehicles, this share is likely to rapidly grow as
familiarity increases in response to increasing numbers of BEVs on the
road and growing visibility of charging infrastructure. Most PEV owners
who purchase a subsequent vehicle choose another PEV, and often express
resistance to returning to an ICE vehicle after experiencing PEV
ownership.53 54
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ Department of Energy Vehicle Technologies Office,
Transportation Office, Transportation Analysis Fact of the Week
#1186, ``The National Average Cost of Fuel for an Eletric Vehicle is
about 60% Less than for a Gasoline Vehicle,'' May 17, 2021.
\46\ Department of Energy Vehicle Technologies Office,
Transportation Office, Transportation Analysis Fact of the Week
#1190, ``Battery-Electric Vehicles Have Lower Scheduled Maintenance
Costs than Other Light-Duty Vehicles,'' June 14, 2021.
\47\ International Council on Clean Transportation, ``Assessment
of Light-Duty Electric Vehicle Costs and Consumer Benefits in the
United States in the 2022-2035 Time Frame,'' October 2022.
\48\ Consumer Reports, ``Electric Cars 101: The Answers to All
Your EV Questions,'' November 5, 2020. Accessed June 8, 2021 at
https://www.consumerreports.org/hybrids-evs/electric-cars-101-the-answers-to-all-your-ev-questions/.
\49\ Department of Energy Vehicle Technologies Office,
Transportation Analysis Fact of the Week #1253, ``Fourteen Model
Year 2022 Light-Duty Electric Vehicle Models Have a Driving Range of
300 Miles or Greater,'' August 29, 2022.
\50\ Department of Energy Alternative Fuels Data Center,
Electric Vehicle Charging Station Locations. Accessed on May 19,
2021 at https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/electricity_locations.html#/find/nearest?fuel=ELEC.
\51\ Hardman, S., and Tal, G., ``Understanding discontinuance
among California's electric vehicle owners,'' Nature Energy, v.538
n.6, May 2021 (pp. 538-545).
\52\ Consumer Reports, ``More Americans Would Buy an Electric
Vehicle, and Some Consumers Would Use Low-Carbon Fuels, Survey
Shows,'' July 7, 2022. Accessed on March 8, 2023 at https://www.consumerreports.org/hybrids-evs/interest-in-electric-vehicles-and-low-carbon-fuels-survey-a8457332578/.
\53\ Muller, J., ``Most electric car buyers don't switch back to
gas,'' Axios.com. Accessed on February 24, 2023 at https://www.axios.com/2022/10/05/ev-adoption-loyalty-electric-cars.
\54\ Hardman, S., and Tal, G., ``Understanding discontinuance
among California's electric vehicle owners,'' Nature Energy, v.538
n.6, May 2021 (pp. 538-545).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recent literature indicates that consumer affinity for PEVs is
strong. A recent study utilizing data from all new light-duty vehicles
sold in the U.S. between 2014 and 2020, focused on comparisons of BEVs
with their closest ICE counterparts, found that BEVs are
[[Page 29190]]
preferred to the ICE counterpart in some segments.\55\ In addition,
when comparing all BEV sales with sales of the closest ICE
counterparts, BEVs attain a market share of over 30 percent, which is
significantly greater than the BEV market share among all vehicles.\56\
This suggests that the share of PEVs in the marketplace is, at least
partially, constrained due to the lack of offerings needed to convert
existing demand into market share.\56\ However, the number and
diversity of electrified vehicle models is rapidly increasing.\56\ For
example, the number of PEV models available for sale in the U.S. has
more than doubled from about 24 in MY 2015 to about 60 in MY 2021, with
offerings in a growing range of vehicle segments.\57\ Recent
announcements indicate that this number will increase to more than 80
models by MY 2023,\58\ and more than 180 models by 2025.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ Gillingham, K., van Benthem, A., Weber, S., Saafi, D., He,
X. ``Has Consumer Acceptance of Electric Vehicles Been Increasing:
Evidence from Microdata on Every New Vehicle Sale in the United
States.'' American Economic Association: Papers & Proceedings, 2023,
forthcoming. https://resources.environment.yale.edu/gillingham/GBWSH_ConsumerAcceptanceEVs.pdf.
\56\ Muratori et al., ``The rise of electric vehicles--2020
status and future expectations,'' Progress in Energy v3n2 (2021),
March 25, 2021. Accessed July 15, 2021 at https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2516-1083/abe0ad.
\57\ Fueleconomy.gov, 2015 Fuel Economy Guide and 2021 Fuel
Economy Guide.
\58\ Environmental Defense Fund and M.J. Bradley & Associates,
``Electric Vehicle Market Status--Update, Manufacturer Commitments
to Future Electric Mobility in the U.S. and Worldwide,'' April 2021.
\59\ Environmental Defense Fund and ERM, ``Electric Vehicle
Market Update: Manufacturer Commitments and Public Policy
Initiatives Supporting Electric Mobility in the U.S. and
Worldwide,'' September 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, growth in PEV
sales is driven in part by growing consumer demand and growing
automaker commitments to electrification and will be further supported
by policy measures including the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the
Inflation Reduction Act.\60\ As the presence of PEVs in the fleet
increases, consumers are encountering PEVs more often in their daily
experience. Many analysts believe that as PEVs continue to increase
their market share, PEV ownership will continue to broaden its appeal
as consumers gain more exposure and experience with the technology and
with the benefits of PEV ownership,\61\ with some analysts suggesting
that a ``tipping point'' for PEV adoption may then
result.62 63 64
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, ``Charging into the
future: the transition to electric vehicles,'' Beyond the Numbers
v12 n4, February 2023. Available at: https://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-12/charging-into-the-future-the-transition-to-electric-vehicles.htm.
\61\ Jackman, D.K., K.S. Fujita (LBNL), H.C. Yang (LBNL), and M.
Taylor (LBNL). Literature Review of U.S. Consumer Acceptance of New
Personally Owned Light-Duty (LD) Plug-in Electric Vehicles (PEVs).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC Available at:
https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_report.cfm?dirEntryId=353465.
\62\ Car and Driver, ``Electric Cars' Turning Point May Be
Happening as U.S. Sales Numbers Start Climb,'' August 8, 2022.
Accessed on February 24, 2023 at https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a39998609/electric-car-sales-usa/.
\63\ Randall, T., ``US Crosses the Electric-Car Tipping Point
for Mass Adoption,'' Bloomberg.com, July 9, 2022. Accessed on
February 24, 2023 at https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-07-09/us-electric-car-sales-reach-key-milestone.
\64\ Romano, P., ``EV adoption has reached a tipping point.
Here's how today's electric fleets will shape the future of
mobility,'' Fortune, October 11, 2022. Accessed on February 24, 2023
at https://fortune.com/2022/10/11/ev-adoption-tesla-semi-tipping-point-electric-fleets-future-mobility-pasquale-romano/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the retail price of PEVs is typically higher than for
comparable ICE vehicles at this time, the price difference is widely
expected to narrow or disappear, particularly for BEVs, as the cost of
batteries and other components fall in the coming years.\65\ Among the
many studies that address cost parity of BEVs vs. ICE vehicles, an
emerging consensus suggests that purchase price parity is likely to
occur by the mid-2020s for some vehicle segments and models, and for a
broader segment of the market on a total cost of ownership (TCO)
basis.66 67 By some accounts, a compact car with a
relatively small battery (for example, a 40 kWh battery and
approximately 150 miles of range) may already be possible to produce
and sell for the same price as a compact ICE vehicle.\68\ For larger
vehicles and/or those with a longer range (either of which call for a
larger battery), many analysts expect examples of price parity to
increasingly appear over the mid- to late-2020s. Assessments of price
parity often do not include the effect of various state and Federal
purchase incentives. For example, the Clean Vehicle Credit provides up
to $7,500, under the Inflation Reduction Act, effectively making some
BEVs more affordable to buy and operate today than comparable ICE
vehicles. Many expect TCO parity to precede price parity by several
years, as it accounts for the reduced cost of operation and maintenance
for BEVs.69 70 For example, Kelley Blue Book already
estimates that the vehicle with lowest TCO in both the full-size pickup
and luxury car classes of vehicle is a BEV.71 72 TCO parity
is of particular interest to commercial and fleet operators, for whom
lower TCO is a compelling business consideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ International Council on Clean Transportation, ``Assessment
of Light-Duty Electric Vehicle Costs and Consumer Benefits in the
United States in the 2022-2035 Time Frame,'' October 2022.
\66\ International Council on Clean Transportation, ``Assessment
of Light-Duty Electric Vehicle Costs and Consumer Benefits in the
United States in the 2022-2035 Time Frame,'' October 2022.
\67\ Environmental Defense Fund and ERM, ``Electric Vehicle
Market Update: Manufacturer Commitments and Public Policy
Initiatives Supporting Electric Mobility in the U.S. and
Worldwide,'' September 2022.
\68\ Walton, R., ``Electric vehicle models expected to triple in
4 years as declining battery costs boost adoption,''
UtilityDive.com, December 14, 2020.
\69\ International Council on Clean Transportation, ``Assessment
of Light-Duty Electric Vehicle Costs and Consumer Benefits in the
United States in the 2022-2035 Time Frame,'' October 2022.
\70\ Environmental Defense Fund and ERM, ``Electric Vehicle
Market Update: Manufacturer Commitments and Public Policy
Initiatives Supporting Electric Mobility in the U.S. and
Worldwide,'' September 2022.
\71\ Kelley Blue Book, ``What is 5-Year Cost to Own?'', Full-
size Pickup Truck selected (Ford F-150 Lighting is lowest TCO).
Accessed on February 28, 2023 at https://www.kbb.com/new-cars/total-cost-of-ownership/.
\72\ Kelley Blue Book, ``What is 5-Year Cost to Own?'', Luxury
Car selected (Polestar 2 and Tesla Model 3 are lowest TCO). Accessed
on February 28, 2023 at https://www.kbb.com/new-cars/total-cost-of-ownership/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A proliferation of announcements by automakers in the past two
years signals a rapidly growing shift in product development focus
among automakers away from internal-combustion technologies and toward
electrification. For example, in January 2021, General Motors announced
plans to become carbon neutral by 2040, including an effort to shift
its light-duty vehicles entirely to zero-emissions by 2035.\73\ In
March 2021, Volvo announced plans to make only electric cars by
2030,\74\ and Volkswagen announced that it expects half of its U.S.
sales will be all-electric by 2030.\75\ In April 2021, Honda announced
a full electrification plan to take effect by 2040, with 40 percent of
North American sales expected to be fully electric or fuel cell
vehicles by 2030, 80 percent by 2035 and 100 percent by 2040.\76\ In
May 2021, Ford announced that they expect 40 percent of their global
sales will be all-electric by 2030.\77\ In June 2021, Fiat announced
[[Page 29191]]
a move to all electric vehicles by 2030, and in July 2021 its parent
corporation Stellantis announced an intensified focus on
electrification across all of its brands.78 79 Also in July
2021, Mercedes-Benz announced that all of its new architectures would
be electric-only from 2025, with plans to become ready to go all-
electric by 2030 where possible.\80\ In December 2021, Toyota announced
plans to introduce 30 BEV models by 2030.\81\ Figure 1, taken from work
by the Environmental Defense Fund and ERM, illustrates how these and
other announcements mean that virtually every major manufacturer of
light-duty vehicles is already planning to introduce widespread
electrification across their global fleets in the coming years.\82\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\73\ General Motors, ``General Motors, the Largest U.S.
Automaker, Plans to be Carbon Neutral by 2040,'' Press Release,
January 28, 2021.
\74\ Volvo Car Group, ``Volvo Cars to be fully electric by
2030,'' Press Release, March 2, 2021.
\75\ Volkswagen Newsroom, ``Strategy update at Volkswagen: The
transformation to electromobility was only the beginning,'' March 5,
2021. Accessed June 15, 2021 at https://www.volkswagen-newsroom.com/en/stories/strategy-update-at-volkswagen-the-transformation-to-electromobility-was-only-the-beginning-6875.
\76\ Honda News Room, ``Summary of Honda Global CEO Inaugural
Press Conference,'' April 23, 2021. Accessed June 15, 2021 at
https://global.honda/newsroom/news/2021/c210423eng.html.
\77\ Ford Motor Company, ``Superior Value From EVs, Commercial
Business, Connected Services is Strategic Focus of Today's
`Delivering Ford+' Capital Markets Day,'' Press Release, May 26,
2021.
\78\ Stellantis, ``World Environment Day 2021--Comparing
Visions: Olivier Francois and Stefano Boeri, in Conversation to
Rewrite the Future of Cities,'' Press Release, June 4, 2021.
\79\ Stellantis, ``Stellantis Intensifies Electrification While
Targeting Sustainable Double-Digit Adjusted Operating Income Margins
in the Mid-Term,'' Press Release, July 8, 2021.
\80\ Mercedes-Benz, ``Mercedes-Benz prepares to go all-
electric,'' Press Release, July 22, 2021.
\81\ Toyota Motor Corporation, ``Video: Media Briefing on
Battery EV Strategies,'' Press Release, December 14, 2021. Accessed
on December 14, 2021 at https://global.toyota/en/newsroom/corporate/36428993.html.
\82\ Environmental Defense Fund and ERM, ``Electric Vehicle
Market Update: Manufacturer Commitments and Public Policy
Initiatives Supporting Electric Mobility in the U.S. and
Worldwide,'' September 2022.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05MY23.004
Accompanying this global-market focus on electrification, as shown
in Figure 2, the number of PHEV and BEV models available in the U.S.
has steadily grown, and a large number of public model announcements by
manufacturers indicate further steep growth will occur in the years to
come.
[[Page 29192]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05MY23.005
Globally and domestically, these ongoing announcements indicate a
strong industry momentum toward electrification that is common to every
major manufacturer. Given the breadth of these announcements, it is
instructive to consider the penetrations of PEVs that they imply when
taken collectively.
Table 1 compiles public announcements of U.S. and global
electrification targets to date by major manufacturers. Assuming that
the MY 2022 U.S. sales shares for each manufacturer were to persist in
2030, these targets would collectively imply a U.S. PEV sales share
approaching 50 percent in 2030 (48.6 percent), consisting primarily of
BEVs.
Table 1--Example of U.S. Electrified New Sales Percentages Implied by OEM Announcements for 2030 or Before
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Implied OEM
Share of total Stated EV contribution to
2022 U.S. sales rank OEM 2022 U.S. share in 2030 Powertrain \3\ 2030 total PEV
sales \1\ (%) \2\ (%) market share (%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1....................................... General Motors............. 16.4 50 PEV 8.2
2....................................... Toyota..................... 15.4 \4\ 33 BEV 5.1
3....................................... Ford....................... 13.1 50 BEV 6.5
4....................................... Stellantis................. 11.2 50 BEV 5.6
5....................................... Honda...................... 7.2 40 BEV 2.9
6....................................... Hyundai.................... 5.7 50 BEV 2.8
7....................................... Nissan..................... 5.3 40 BEV 2.1
8....................................... Kia........................ 5.0 45 BEV 2.3
9....................................... Subaru..................... 4.1 40 BEV 1.6
10...................................... Volkswagen, Audi........... 3.6 50 BEV 1.8
11...................................... Tesla...................... 3.4 100 BEV 3.4
12...................................... Mercedes-Benz.............. 2.6 100 BEV 2.6
13...................................... BMW........................ 2.6 50 BEV 1.3
14...................................... Mazda...................... 2.1 25 BEV 0.5
15...................................... Volvo...................... 0.8 100 BEV 0.8
16...................................... Mitsubishi................. 0.6 50 PEV \5\ 0.3
17...................................... Porsche.................... 0.5 80 BEV 0.4
18...................................... Land Rover................. 0.4 60 BEV 0.3
19...................................... Jaguar..................... 0.07 100 BEV 0.7
20...................................... Lucid...................... 0.02 100 BEV 0.02
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................... ........................... 100.0 .............. .............................. 48.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
\1\ 2022 U.S. sales shares based on data from Ward's Automotive Intelligence.
\2\ Where a U.S. target was not specified, the global target was assumed for the U.S.
\3\ PEV = combination of BEV and PHEV. PEV and BEV may include fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEV).
\4\ Based on announced goal of 3.5 million BEVs globally in 2030, divided by 10.5 million vehicles sold in 2022.
\5\ Announcement includes unspecified amount of HEVs.
A version of this table with supporting citations for each automaker announcement, and the raw data with additional tabulations, are available in the
Docket.\83\
[[Page 29193]]
While manufacturer announcements such as these are not binding, and
often are conditioned as forward-looking and subject to uncertainty,
they indicate that manufacturers are confident in the suitability of
PEV technology as an effective and attractive option that can serve the
functional needs of a large portion of light-duty vehicle buyers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\83\ See Memo to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0829 titled
``Electrification Announcements and Implied PEV Penetration by
2030.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As seen in Figure 3, an analysis by the International Energy Agency
similarly concludes that the 2030 U.S. zero-emission vehicle sales
share collectively implied by such announcements (``range of OEM
declarations'') would amount to nearly 50 percent if not more, far
exceeding the 20 percent that IEA considers sufficient to meet existing
U.S. policies and regulations (``Stated Policies'' scenario).\84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\84\ International Energy Agency, ``Global EV Outlook 2022,'' p.
107, May 2022. Accessed on November 18, 2022 at https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/e0d2081d-487d-4818-8c59-69b638969f9e/GlobalElectricVehicleOutlook2022.pdf.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05MY23.006
Fleet electrification plans are not limited to light-duty vehicles.
Numerous commitments to purchase all-electric medium-duty delivery vans
have been announced by large fleet owners including FedEx,\85\
Amazon,\86\ and Walmart,\87\ in partnerships with various OEMs. For
example, Amazon has deployed thousands of electric delivery vans in
over 100 cities, with the goal of 100,000 vans by 2030. Many other
fleet electrification commitments that include large numbers of medium-
duty and heavier vehicles have been announced by large corporations in
many sectors of the economy, including not only retailers like Amazon
and Walmart but also consumer product manufacturers with large delivery
fleets (e.g. IKEA, Unilever), large delivery firms (e.g. DHL, FedEx,
USPS), and numerous firms in many other sectors including power and
utilities, biotech, public transportation, and municipal fleets across
the country.\88\ As another example, Daimler Trucks North America
announced in 2021 that it expected 60 percent of its sales in 2030 and
100 percent of its sales by 2039 would be zero-emission.\89\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\85\ BrightDrop, ``BrightDrop Accelerates EV Production with
First 150 Electric Delivery Vans Integrated into FedEx Fleet,''
Press Release, June 21, 2022.
\86\ Amazon Corporation, ``Amazon's Custom Electric Delivery
Vehicles from Rivian Start Rolling Out Across the U.S.,'' Press
Release, July 21, 2022.
\87\ Walmart, ``Walmart To Purchase 4,500 Canoo Electric
Delivery Vehicles To Be Used for Last Mile Deliveries in Support of
Its Growing eCommerce Business,'' Press Release, July 12, 2022.
\88\ Environmental Defense Fund and ERM, ``Electric Vehicle
Market Update: Manufacturer Commitments and Public Policy
Initiatives Supporting Electric Mobility in the U.S. and
Worldwide,'' September 2022.
\89\ Carey, N., ``Daimler Truck `all in' on green energy as it
targets costs,'' May 20, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These announcements and others like them continue a pattern over
the past several years in which most major manufacturers have taken
steps to aggressively invest in zero-emission technologies and reduce
their reliance on the internal-combustion engine in various markets
around the globe.90 91 According to one analysis, 37 of the
world's automakers are planning to invest a total of almost $1.2
trillion by 2030 toward electrification,\92\ a large
[[Page 29194]]
portion of which will be used for construction of manufacturing
facilities for vehicles, battery cells and packs, and materials,
supporting up to 5.8 terawatt-hours of battery production and 54
million BEVs per year globally.\93\ Similarly, an analysis by the
Center for Automotive Research shows that a significant shift in North
American investment is occurring toward electrification technologies,
with $36 billion of about $38 billion in total automaker manufacturing
facility investments announced in 2021 being slated for
electrification-related manufacturing in North America, with a similar
proportion and amount on track for 2022.\94\ For example, in September
2021, Toyota announced large new investments in battery production and
development to support an increasing focus on electrification,\95\ and
in December 2021, announced plans to increase this investment.\96\ In
December 2021, Hyundai closed its engine development division at its
research and development center in Namyang, South Korea in order to
refocus on BEV development.\97\ In summer 2022, Hyundai invested $5.5
billion to fund new battery and electric vehicle manufacturing
facilities in Georgia, and recently announced a $1.9 billion joint
venture with SK to fund additional battery manufacturing in the
U.S.98 99
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\90\ Environmental Defense Fund and M.J. Bradley & Associates,
``Electric Vehicle Market Status--Update, Manufacturer Commitments
to Future Electric Mobility in the U.S. and Worldwide,'' April 2021.
\91\ International Council on Clean Transportation, ``The end of
the road? An overview of combustion-engine car phase-out
announcements across Europe,'' May 10, 2020.
\92\ Reuters, ``A Reuters analysis of 37 global automakers found
that they plan to invest nearly $1.2 trillion in electric vehicles
and batteries through 2030,'' October 21, 2022. Accessed on November
4, 2022 at https://graphics.reuters.com/AUTOS-INVESTMENT/ELECTRIC/akpeqgzqypr/.
\93\ Reuters, ``Exclusive: Automakers to double spending on EVs,
batteries to $1.2 trillion by 2030,'' October 25, 2022. Accessed on
November 4, 2022 at https://www.reuters.com/technology/exclusive-automakers-double-spending-evs-batteries-12-trillion-by-2030-2022-10-21/.
\94\ Center for Automotive Research, ``Automakers Invest
Billions in North American EV and Battery Manufacturing
Facilities,'' July 21, 2022. Retrieved on November 10, 2022 at
https://www.cargroup.org/automakers-invest-billions-in-north-american-ev-and-battery-manufacturing-facilities/.
\95\ Toyota Motor Corporation, ``Video: Media briefing &
Investors briefing on batteries and carbon neutrality''
(transcript), September 7, 2021. Accessed on September 16, 2021 at
https://global.toyota/en/newsroom/corporate/35971839.html#presentation.
\96\ Toyota Motor Corporation, ``Video: Media Briefing on
Battery EV Strategies,'' Press Release, December 14, 2021. Accessed
on December 14, 2021 at https://global.toyota/en/newsroom/corporate/36428993.html.
\97\ Do, Byung-Uk, Kim, Il-Gue, ``Hyundai Motor closes engine
development division'', The Korea Economic Daily, December 23, 2021.
Accessed on November 29, 2022 at https://www.kedglobal.com/electric-vehicles/newsView/ked202112230013.
\98\ Velez, C. ``Hyundai and SK On to bring even more EV battery
plants to U.S.'' CBT News, November 29, 2022. Accessed on November
29, 2022 at https://www.cbtnews.com/hyundai-and-sk-on-to-bring-even-more-ev-battery-plants-to-u-s/.
\99\ Lee, J., Yang, H. ``Hyundai Motor, SK On sign EV battery
supply pact for N. America'', Reuters, November 29, 2022. Accessed
on November 29, 2022 at https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/hyundai-motor-group-sk-ev-battery-supply-pact-n-america-2022-11-29/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 5, 2021, many of these automakers, as well as the
Alliance for Automotive Innovation, expressed continued commitment to
their announcements of a shift to electrification, and expressed their
support for the goal of achieving 40 to 50 percent sales of zero-
emission vehicles by 2030.\100\ In September 2022, jointly with the
Environmental Defense Fund, General Motors announced a set of
recommendations that ``seek to accelerate a zero-emissions, all-
electric future for passenger vehicles in model year 2027 and beyond,''
including a recommendation that EPA establish standards to achieve at
least a 60 percent reduction in GHG emissions (compared to MY 2021) and
50 percent zero-emitting vehicles by MY 2030, and that standards be
consistent with eliminating tailpipe pollution from new passenger
vehicles by 2035. GM and EDF further recommended that the EPA standards
extend at least through MY 2032, and that EPA should consider adoption
through 2035.\101\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\100\ The White House, ``Statements on the Biden
Administration's Steps to Strengthen American Leadership on Clean
Cars and Trucks,'' August 5, 2021. Accessed on October 19, 2021 at
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/08/05/statements-on-the-biden-administrations-steps-to-strengthen-american-leadership-on-clean-cars-and-trucks/.
\101\ Environmental Defense Fund, ``GM and EDF Announce
Recommended Principles on EPA Emissions Standards for Model Year
2027 and Beyond,'' Press Release, September 20, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Investments in PEV charging infrastructure have grown rapidly in
recent years and are expected to continue to climb. According to
BloombergNEF, annual global investment was $62 billion in 2022, nearly
twice that of the prior year, and while about 10 years was needed for
cumulative investment to total $100 billion, a total of $200 billion
could be reached in just three more years.\102\ U.S. infrastructure
spending has also grown quickly. Combined investments in hardware and
installation for U.S. home and public charging ports was over $1.2
billion in 2021, nearly a three-fold increase from 2017.\103\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\102\ BloombergNEF, ``Next $100 Billion EV-Charger Spend to be
Super Fast,'' January 20, 2023. Accessed March 6, 2023, at https://about.bnef.com/blog/next-100-billion-ev-charger-spend-to-be-super-fast/.
\103\ BloombergNEF, ``Zero-Emission Vehicles Factbook A
BloombergNEF special report prepared for COP27,'' November 2022.
Accessed March 4, 2023, at https://www.bloomberg.com/professional/download/2022-zero-emissions-vehicle-factbook/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. government is making large investments in infrastructure
through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law \104\ and the Inflation
Reduction Act.\105\ However, we expect that private investments will
also play a critical role in meeting future infrastructure needs.
Private charging companies have already attracted billions globally in
venture capital and mergers and acquisitions.\106\ In the United
States, there was $200 million or more in mergers and acquisition
activity in 2022 \107\ indicating strong interest in the future of the
charging industry. And Bain projects that by 2030, the U.S. market for
electric vehicle charging will be ``large and profitable'' with both
revenue and profits estimated to grow by a factor of twenty relative to
2021.\108\ Automakers, electric companies, charging network providers,
and retailers are among those who have made significant commitments to
expand charging infrastructure in the coming years.\109\ See Section
IV.C.4 of this document and DRIA Chapter 5 for a discussion of public
and private infrastructure investments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\104\ https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ58/PLAW-117publ58.pdf.
\105\ https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ169/PLAW-117publ169.pdf.
\106\ Hampleton, ``Autotech & Mobility M&A market report
1H2023''. Accessed March 4, 2023, at https://www.hampletonpartners.com/fileadmin/user_upload/Report_PDFs/Hampleton-Partners-Autotech-Mobility-Report-1H2023-FINAL.pdf.
\107\ St. John, A. et al., ``Automakers need way more plug-in
stations to make their EV plans work. That has sparked a buying
frenzy as big charging players gobble up smaller ones,'' Insider,
November 4, 2022. Accessed March 4, 2023, at https://www.businessinsider.com/ev-charging-industry-merger-acquisition-meet-electric-vehicle-demand-2022-11.
\108\ Zayer, E. et al., ``EV Charging Shifts into High Gear,''
Bain & Company, June 20, 2022. Accessed March 4, 2023, at https://www.bain.com/insights/electric-vehicle-charging-shifts-into-high-gear/.
\109\ Joint Office of Energy and Transportation, ``Private
Sector Continues to Play Key Part in Accelerating Buildout of EV
Charging Networks,'' February 15, 2023. Accessed March 6, 2023, at
https://driveelectric.gov/news/#private-investment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Taken together, these developments indicate that proven, zero-
emissions technologies such as BEVs, PHEVs, and FCEVs are already
poised to become a rapidly growing segment of the U.S. fleet, as
manufacturers continue to invest in these technologies and integrate
them into their product plans, and infrastructure continues to be
developed. Accordingly, EPA considers these technologies to be an
available and feasible way to greatly reduce emissions, and expects
that these technologies will likely play a significant role in meeting
the proposed standards for both criteria pollutants and GHGs.
At the same time, EPA anticipates that a compliant fleet under the
proposed standards would include a diverse range of technologies. The
advanced gasoline technologies that have played a
[[Page 29195]]
fundamental role in meeting previous standards will continue to play an
important role going forward as they remain key to reducing the
criteria and GHG emissions of ICE, mild hybrid (MHEV), and strong HEV
powertrains as well as PHEVs. The proposed standards will also provide
regulatory certainty to support the many private automaker
announcements and investments in zero-emission vehicles that have been
outlined in the preceding paragraphs. In developing the proposed
standards, EPA has also considered many of the key issues associated
with growth in penetration of zero-emission vehicles, including
charging infrastructure, consumer acceptance, critical minerals and
mineral security, and others, as well as the need to consider emissions
from the many ICE vehicles that will enter the fleet during this time.
We discuss each of these issues in more detail in respective sections
of the Preamble and Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis (DRIA).
iii. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and Inflation Reduction Act
A particular consideration with regard to the increased penetration
of zero-emission vehicle technology is Congress' recent passage of the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) \110\ and the Inflation Reduction
Act (IRA).\111\ These measures represent significant Congressional
support for investment in expanding the manufacture, sale, and use of
zero-emission vehicles by addressing elements critical to the
advancement of clean transportation and clean electricity generation in
ways that will facilitate and accelerate the development, production
and adoption of zero-emission technology during the time frame of the
rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\110\ https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ58/PLAW-117publ58.pdf.
\111\ https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ169/PLAW-117publ169.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The BIL became law in November 2021 and includes a wide range of
programs and significant funding for infrastructure investments, many
of which are oriented toward reducing GHG emissions across the U.S.
transportation network, upgrading power generation infrastructure, and
making the transportation infrastructure resilient to climate impacts
such as extreme weather. Notably, in support of light-duty zero-
emissions transportation the BIL included $7.5 billion in funding for
installation of public charging and other alternative fueling
infrastructure. This will have a major impact on feasibility of PEVs
across the U.S. by improving access to charging and other
infrastructure, and it will further support the Administration's goal
of deploying 500,000 PEV chargers by 2030. It also includes $5 billion
for electrification of school buses through the Clean School Bus
Program, providing for further reductions in emissions from the heavy-
duty sector.112 113 To help ensure that clean vehicles are
powered by clean energy, it also includes $65 billion to upgrade the
power infrastructure to facilitate increased use of renewables and
clean energy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\112\ https://www.epa.gov/cleanschoolbus. Accessed February 14,
2023.
\113\ U.S. EPA, ``EPA Clean School Bus Program Second Report to
Congress,'' EPA 420-R-23-002, February 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The IRA became law in August 2022, bringing significant new
momentum to clean vehicles (PEVs and FCEVs) through measures that
reduce the cost to purchase and manufacture them, incentivize the
growth of manufacturing capacity and onshore sourcing of critical
minerals needed for their manufacture, incentivize buildout of public
charging infrastructure for PEVs, and promote modernization of the
electrical grid that will power them. It includes significant purchase
incentives of up to $7,500 for new clean vehicles (Clean Vehicle
Credit, IRS 30D) and up to $4,000 for used vehicles (IRS 25E), which
will have a strong impact on affordability of these vehicles for a wide
range of customers. These incentives extend not only to light-duty
vehicles but also to commercial purchase of light- and medium-duty
vehicles, with a credit of up to $40,000 for the latter (Commercial
Clean Vehicle Credit, IRS 45W). Manufacturer production tax incentives
of $35 per kilowatt-hour (kWh) for U.S. production of battery cells,
$10 per kWh for U.S. production of modules, and 10 percent of
production cost for U.S.-made critical minerals and battery active
materials (Production Tax Credit, IRS 45X), will significantly reduce
the manufacturing cost of these components, further reducing PEV and
FCEV cost for consumers. In addition, the IRA includes significant tax
credits for certain charging infrastructure equipment, and sizeable
incentives for investment in and production of clean electricity.
With respect to sourcing of critical minerals and building a secure
supply chain for clean vehicles, the IRA also includes provisions that
will greatly reduce reliance on foreign imports by strongly supporting
the continued development of a domestic or North American supply chain
for these critical products. Manufacturers who want their customers to
take advantage of the Clean Vehicle Credit must meet a gradually
increasing requirement for sourcing of critical minerals and battery
components from U.S. or free-trade countries, and cannot utilize
content acquired from foreign entities of concern. Manufacturer
eligibility for the Production Tax Credit for cells and modules is
conditioned on their manufacture in the U.S., as is eligibility for the
10 percent credit on the cost of producing critical minerals and
battery active materials. Manufacturers are already taking advantage of
these opportunities to improve their sales and reduce their production
costs by securing eligible sources of critical mineral content and
siting new production facilities in the
U.S.114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 There is a
coordinated effort by Executive Branch agencies, including the
Department of Energy and the National Laboratories, to provide guidance
and resources and to administer funding to support this collective
effort to further develop a robust supply chain for clean vehicles and
the infrastructure that will support them.123 124 125
Section IV.C.6 of this
[[Page 29196]]
Preamble and Chapters 3.1.3.2 and 3.1.3.3 of the DRIA discuss these
provisions and measures in more detail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\114\ Green Car Congress, ``Ford sources battery capacity and
raw materials for 600K EV annual run rate by late 2023, 2M by end of
2026; adding LFP,'' July 22, 2022.
\115\ Ford Motor Company, ``Ford Releases New Battery Capacity
Plan, Raw Materials Details to Scale EVs; On Track to Ramp to 600K
Run Rate by '23 and 2M+ by '26, Leveraging Global Relationships,''
Press Release, July 21, 2022.
\116\ Green Car Congress, ``GM signs major Li-ion supply chain
agreements: CAM with LG Chem and lithium hydroxide with Livent,''
July 26, 2022.
\117\ Grzelewski, J., ``GM says it has enough EV battery raw
materials to hit 2025 production target,'' The Detroit News, July
26, 2022.
\118\ Hall, K., ``GM announces new partnership for EV battery
supply,'' The Detroit News, April 12, 2022.
\119\ Hawkins, A., ``General Motors makes moves to source rare
earth metals for EV motors in North America,'' TheVerge, December 9,
2021.
\120\ Piedmont Lithium, ``Piedmont Lithium Signs Sales Agreement
With Tesla,'' Press Release, September 28, 2020.
\121\ Subramanian, P., ``Why Honda's EV battery plant likely
wouldn't happen without new climate credits,'' Yahoo Finance, August
29, 2022.
\122\ LG Chem, ``LG Chem to Establish Largest Cathode Plant in
US for EV Batteries,'' Press Release, November 22, 2022.
\123\ Executive Order 14017, Securing America's Supply Chains,
February 24, 2021. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/02/24/executive-order-on-americas-supply-chains/.
\124\ The White House, ``FACT SHEET: Biden-Harris Administration
Driving U.S. Battery Manufacturing and Good-Paying Jobs,'' October
19, 2022. Available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/10/19/fact-sheet-biden-harris-administration-driving-u-s-battery-manufacturing-and-good-paying-jobs/.
\125\ Department of Energy, ``Biden Administration, DOE to
Invest $3 Billion to Strengthen U.S. Supply Chain for Advanced
Batteries for Vehicles and Energy Storage,'' February 11, 2022.
Available at: https://www.energy.gov/articles/biden-administration-doe-invest-3-billion-strengthen-us-supply-chain-advanced-batteries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congressional passage of the BIL and IRA represent pivotal
milestones in the creation of a broad-based infrastructure instrumental
to the expansion of clean transportation, including light- and medium-
duty zero-emission vehicles, and we have taken these developments into
account in our assessment of the feasibility of the proposed standards.
B. Summary of Proposed Light- and Medium-Duty Vehicle Emissions
Programs
EPA is proposing emissions standards for both light-duty and
medium-duty vehicles. The light-duty vehicle category includes
passenger cars and light trucks consistent with previous EPA criteria
pollutant and GHG rules. In this rule, heavy-duty Class 2b and 3
vehicles are referred to as ``medium-duty vehicles'' (MDVs) to
distinguish them from Class 4 and higher vehicles that remain under the
heavy-duty program. EPA has not previously used the MDV nomenclature,
referring to these larger vehicles in prior rules as light-heavy-duty
vehicles,\126\ heavy-duty Class 2b and 3 vehicles,\127\ or heavy-duty
pickups and vans.\128\ In the context of this rule, the MDV category
includes primarily large pickups and vans with a gross vehicle weight
rating (GVWR) of between 8,501 and 14,000 pounds and excludes vehicles
used primarily as passenger vehicles (medium-duty passenger vehicles,
or MDPVs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\126\ 66 FR 5002, January 18, 2001.
\127\ 79 FR 23414, April 28, 2014.
\128\ 76 FR 57106, September 15, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed program consists of several key elements: More
stringent emissions standards for criteria pollutants, more stringent
emissions standards for GHGs, changes to certain optional credit
programs, durability provisions for light-duty electrified vehicle
batteries and warranty provisions for both electrified vehicles and
diesel engine-equipped vehicles, and various improvements to several
elements of the existing light-duty program that will also apply to the
proposed program.
The levels of stringency proposed in this rule for both light- and
medium-duty vehicles continue the trend over the past fifty years for
criteria pollutants, and over the past decade for GHGs, of EPA
establishing numerically lower emissions standards based on continued
advancements in emissions control technology that make it possible to
achieve important emissions reductions at a reasonable cost. While
EPA's feasibility assessments in past rulemakings were predominantly
based on advancements in ICE technologies that provided incremental
emissions reductions, in this proposal EPA's technology feasibility
assessment includes the increasing availability of zero and near-zero
tailpipe emissions technologies, including PEVs, as a cost-effective
compliance technology. The technological feasibility of PEVs is further
bolstered by the economic incentives provided in the IRA and the auto
manufacturers' stated plans for producing significant volumes of zero
and near-zero emission vehicles in the timeframe of this rule. Because
of this increased feasibility of zero and near-zero tailpipe emissions
technologies, EPA believes it is appropriate to propose over the six-
year timeframe of these standards even lower emissions standards than
has been possible in past rulemakings.
1. GHG Emissions Standards
EPA is proposing more stringent GHG standards for both light-duty
vehicles and medium-duty vehicles for MYs 2027 through 2032. EPA also
seeks comment on whether the standards should continue to increase in
stringency for future years, such as through MY 2035. For light-duty
vehicles, EPA is proposing standards that would increase in stringency
each year over a six-year period, from MYs 2027-2032. The proposed
standards are projected to result in an industry-wide average target
for the light-duty fleet of 82 grams/mile (g/mile) of CO2 in
MY 2032, representing a 56 percent reduction in projected fleet average
GHG emissions target levels from the existing MY 2026 standards.
For medium-duty vehicles, EPA is proposing to revise the existing
standard for MY 2027 given the increased feasibility of GHG emissions
reducing technologies in this sector in this time frame. EPA's proposed
standards for MDVs would increase in stringency year over year from MY
2027 through MY 2032. When phased in, the MDV standards are projected
to result in an average target of 275 grams/mile of CO2 by
MY 2032, which would represent a reduction of 44 percent compared to
the current MY 2026 standards.
The light-duty CO2 standards continue to be footprint-
based, with separate standards curves for cars and light trucks. EPA
has updated its assessment of the footprint standards curves to reflect
anticipated changes in the vehicle technologies that we project will be
used to meet the standards. EPA also has assessed ways to ensure future
fleet mix changes do not inadvertently provide an incentive for
manufacturers to change the size or regulatory class of vehicles as a
compliance strategy. EPA is proposing to revise the footprint standards
curves to flatten the slope of each curve and to narrow the numerical
stringency difference between the car and truck curves. The medium-duty
vehicle standards continue to be based on a work-factor metric designed
for commercially-oriented vehicles, which reflects a combination of
payload, towing and 4-wheel drive equipment.
EPA has reassessed certain credit programs available under the
existing GHG programs in light of experience with the program
implementation to date, trends in technology development, recent
related statutory provisions, and other factors. EPA is proposing to
revise the air conditioning (AC) credits program in two ways. First,
for AC system efficiency credits under the light-duty GHG program, EPA
is proposing to limit the eligibility for these voluntary credits for
tailpipe CO2 emissions control to ICE vehicles starting in
MY 2027 (i.e., BEVs would not earn AC efficiency credits because even
without such credits they would be counted as zero g/mi CO2
emissions for compliance calculations). Second, EPA is proposing to
remove refrigerant-based AC provisions for both light- and medium-duty
vehicles because, under a separate rulemaking, EPA has proposed to
disallow the use of high global warming potential refrigerants under
the American Innovation and Manufacturing (AIM) Act of 2020.
EPA is also proposing to sunset the off-cycle credits program for
both light and medium-duty vehicles as follows. First, EPA proposes to
phase out menu-based credits by reducing the menu credit cap year-over-
year until it is fully phased out in MY 2031. Specifically, EPA is
proposing a declining menu cap of 10/8/6/3/0 g/mile over MYs 2027-2031
such that MY 2030 would be the last year manufacturers could generate
optional off-cycle credits. Second, EPA proposes to eliminate the 5-
cycle and public process pathways starting in MY 2027. Third, EPA
proposes to limit eligibility for off-cycle credits only to vehicles
with tailpipe emissions greater than zero (i.e., vehicle equipped with
IC engines) starting in MY 2027.
EPA is not reopening its averaging, banking, and trading
provisions, which continue to be a central part of its fleet average
standards compliance program and which help manufacturers to employ a
wide range of compliance
[[Page 29197]]
paths. EPA is also not proposing to restore multiplier incentives for
BEVs, PHEVs and fuel cell vehicles, which currently end after MY 2024
under existing regulations. EPA is proposing to revise multiplier
incentives currently in place for MDVs through MY 2027, established in
the heavy-duty Phase 2 rule, to end the multipliers a model year
earlier, in MY 2026. EPA is also proposing that the requirement for
upstream emissions accounting for BEVs and PHEVs as part of a
manufacturer's compliance calculation, which under the current
regulations would begin in MY 2027, would be removed under the proposed
program; thus, BEVs would continue to be counted as zero grams/mile in
a manufacturer's compliance calculation as has been the case since the
beginning of the light-duty GHG program in MY 2012.
Finally, EPA also is proposing changes to the provisions for small
volume manufacturers (i.e., production of less than 5,000 vehicles per
year) to transition them from the existing approach of unique case-by-
case alternative standards to the primary program standards by MY 2032,
recognizing that additional lead time is appropriate given their
challenges in averaging across limited product lines.
2. Criteria Pollutant Standards
EPA is proposing more stringent emissions standards for criteria
pollutants for both light-duty and medium-duty vehicles for MYs 2027-
2032. For light-duty vehicles, EPA is proposing non-methane organic
gases (NMOG) plus nitrogen oxides (NOX) standards that would
phase-down to a fleet average level of 12 mg/mi by MY 2032,
representing a 60 percent reduction from the existing 30 mg/mi
standards for MY 2025 established in the Tier 3 rule in 2014. For
medium-duty vehicles, EPA is proposing NMOG+NOX standards
that would require a fleet average level of 60 mg/mi by MY 2032,
representing a 66 percent to 76 percent reduction from the Tier 3
standards of 178 mg/mi for Class 2b vehicles and 247 mg/mi for Class 3
vehicles. EPA is proposing cold temperature (-7 [deg]C)
NMOG+NOX standards for light- and medium-duty vehicles to
ensure robust emissions control over a broad range of operating
conditions.
For both light-duty and all medium-duty vehicles, EPA is proposing
a particulate matter (PM) standard of 0.5 mg/mi and a requirement that
the standard be met across three test cycles, including a cold
temperature (-7 [deg]C) test. This proposed standard would revise the
existing PM standards established in the 2014 Tier 3 rule. Through the
application of readily available emissions control technology and
requiring compliance across the broad range of driving conditions
represented by the three test cycles, EPA projects the standards will
reduce tailpipe PM emissions from ICE vehicles by over 95 percent. In
addition to reducing PM emissions, the proposed standards would reduce
emissions of mobile source air toxics.
EPA is also proposing requirements to certify compliance with
criteria pollutants standards for medium-duty vehicles with high gross
combined weight rating (GCWR) under the heavy-duty engine program,
changes to medium-duty vehicle refueling emissions requirements for
incomplete vehicles, and several NMOG+NOX provisions aligned
with the CARB Advanced Clean Cars II program for light-duty vehicles.
EPA is proposing changes to the carbon monoxide and formaldehyde
standards for light- and medium-duty vehicles, including at -7 [deg]C.
EPA is also proposing to eliminate commanded enrichment for ICE-powered
vehicles for power and component protection. Averaging, banking, and
trading provisions may be employed within the new program, and with
certain limitations, credits may be transferred from the Tier 3 program
to provide manufacturers with flexibilities in developing compliance
strategies.
In addition to these proposals, EPA is seeking comment on potential
future gasoline fuel property standards aimed at further reducing PM
emissions, for consideration in a possible subsequent rulemaking, which
could provide an important complement to the vehicle standards being
proposed in the current action. The proposed emissions standards for
new vehicles in model years 2027 and later would achieve significant
air quality benefits. However, there is an opportunity to further
reduce PM emissions from the existing vehicle fleet, the millions of
vehicles that will be produced during the phase-in period of the
proposed vehicle standards, as well as millions of nonroad gasoline
engines, through changes in market fuel composition. Although EPA has
not undertaken sufficient analysis to propose changes to fuel
requirements under CAA section 211(c) in this rulemaking and considers
such changes beyond the scope of this rulemaking, EPA has begun to
consider the possibility of such changes and, in Section IX, EPA
describes and requests comment on various aspects of a possible future
rulemaking aimed at further PM reductions from these sources via
gasoline fuel property standards.
3. Electrified Vehicle Battery Durability and Warranty Provisions
As described in more detail in Section III.F.2, the importance of
battery durability in the context of BEVs and PHEVs as an emission
control technology is well documented and has been cited by several
authorities in recent years. Recognizing that electrified vehicles are
playing an increasing role in automakers' compliance strategies, that
their durability and reliability are important to achieving the
emissions reductions projected by this proposed program, and that
emissions credit calculations are based on mileage over a vehicle's
full useful life, EPA is proposing new battery durability requirements
for light-duty and medium-duty BEVs and PHEVs. In addition, the agency
is proposing revised regulations which would include BEV and PHEV
batteries and associated electric powertrain components under existing
emission warranty provisions. Relatedly, EPA is also proposing the
addition of two new grouping definitions for BEVs and PHEVs (monitor
family and battery durability family), new reporting requirements, and
a new calculation for the PHEV charge depletion test to support the
battery durability requirements. The background and content of the
proposed battery durability and warranty provisions are outlined in
Section III.F.2 of this Preamble and are detailed in the regulatory
text.
4. Light-Duty Vehicle Certification and Testing Program Improvements
EPA is proposing various improvements to the current light-duty
program in order to clarify, simplify, streamline and update the
certification and testing provisions for manufacturers. These proposed
improvements include: Clarification of the certification compliance and
enforcement requirements for CO2 exhaust emission standards
found in 40 CFR 86.1865-12 to more accurately reflect the intention of
the 2010 light-duty vehicle GHG rule; a revision to the In Use
Confirmatory Program (IUCP) threshold criteria; changes to the Part 2
application; updating the On Board Diagnostics (OBD) program to the
latest version of the CARB OBD regulation and the removal of any
conflicting or redundant text from EPA's OBD requirements; streamlining
the test procedures for Fuel Economy Data Vehicles (FEDVs);
streamlining the manufacturer conducted confirmatory
[[Page 29198]]
testing requirements; updating the emissions warranty for diesel
powered vehicles (including Class 2b and 3 vehicles) by designating
major emissions components subject to the 8 year/80,000 mile warranty
period; making the definition of light-duty truck consistent between
programs; and miscellaneous other amendments. EPA is also proposing to
add a new monitoring and warranty requirement for gasoline particulate
filters (GPFs). These improvements and changes are described in more
detail in Sections III.F and III.G.
C. Summary of Emission Reductions, Costs, and Benefits
This section summarizes our analysis of the proposal's estimated
emission impacts, costs, and monetized benefits, which is described in
more detail in Sections V through VIII of this preamble. EPA notes
that, consistent with CAA section 202, in evaluating potential
standards we carefully weigh the statutory factors, including the
emissions impacts of the standards, and the feasibility of the
standards (including cost of compliance in light of available lead
time). We monetize benefits of the proposed standards and evaluate
other costs in part to enable a comparison of costs and benefits
pursuant to E.O. 12866, but we recognize there are benefits that we are
currently unable to fully quantify. EPA's practice has been to set
standards to achieve improved air quality consistent with CAA section
202, and not to rely on cost-benefit calculations, with their
uncertainties and limitations, as identifying the appropriate
standards. Nonetheless, our conclusion that the estimated benefits
considerably exceed the estimated costs of the proposed program
reinforces our view that the proposed standards are appropriate under
section 202(a).
The proposed standards would result in net reductions of emissions
of GHGs and criteria air pollutants in 2055, considering the impacts
from light- and medium-duty vehicles, power plants (i.e., electric
generating units (EGUs)), and refineries. Table 2 shows the GHG
emission impacts in 2055 while Table 3 shows the cumulative impacts for
the years 2027 through 2055. We show cumulative impacts for GHGs as
elevated concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere are resulting in
warming and changes in the Earth's climate. Table 4 shows the criteria
pollutant emissions impacts in 2055. As shown in Table 5, we also
predict reductions in air toxic emissions from light-and medium-duty
vehicles. We project that GHG and criteria pollutant emissions from
EGUs would increase as a result of the increased demand for electricity
associated with the proposal, although those projected impacts decrease
over time because of projected increases in renewables in the future
power generation mix. We also project that GHG and criteria pollutant
emissions from refineries would decrease as a result of the lower
demand for liquid fuel associated with the proposed GHG standards.
Sections VI and VII of this preamble and Chapter 9 of the DRIA provide
more information on the projected emission reductions for the proposed
standards and alternatives.
Table 2--Projected GHG Emission Impacts in 2055 From the Proposed Rule, Light-Duty and Medium-Duty
[Million metric tons]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pollutant Vehicle EGU Refinery * Net impact Net impact (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2............................. -440 16 0 -420 -47
CH4............................. -0.0088 0.00038 0 -0.0084 -45
N2O............................. -0.0077 0.00003 0 -0.0077 -41
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* GHG emission rates were not available for calculating GHG inventories from refineries.
Table 3--Projected Cumulative GHG Emission Impacts Through 2055 From the Proposed Rule, Light-Duty and Medium-
Duty
[Million metric tons]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pollutant Vehicle EGU Refinery * Net impact Net impact (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2............................. -8,000 710 0 -7,300 -26
CH4............................. -0.16 0.035 0 -0.12 -17
N2O............................. -0.14 0.0045 0 -0.13 -25
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4--Projected Criteria Air Pollutant Impacts in 2055 From the Proposed Rule, Light-Duty and Medium-Duty
[U.S. tons]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pollutant Vehicle EGU Refinery Net impact Net impact (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5........................... -9,800 1,500 -6,900 -15,000 -35
NOX............................. -44,000 2,600 -25,000 -66,000 -41
VOC............................. -200,000 1,000 -21,000 -220,000 -50
SOX............................. -2,800 1,600 -11,000 -12,000 -42
CO *............................ -1,800,000 0 0 -1,800,000 -49
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* EPA did not have data available to calculate CO impacts from EGUs or refineries.
[[Page 29199]]
Table 5--Projected Air Toxic Impacts From Vehicles in 2055 From the
Proposed Rule, Light-Duty and Medium-Duty
[U.S. tons]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pollutant Vehicle Vehicle (%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acetaldehyde............................ -840 -49
Acrolein................................ -55 -48
Benzene................................. -2,900 -51
Ethylbenzene............................ -3,400 -50
Formaldehyde............................ -510 -49
Naphthalene............................. -100 -51
1,3-Butadiene........................... -340 -51
15 Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons............ -5 -78
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The GHG emission reductions would contribute toward the goal of
holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2
[deg]C above pre-industrial levels, and subsequently reduce the
probability of severe climate change related impacts including heat
waves, drought, sea level rise, extreme climate and weather events,
coastal flooding, and wildfires. People of color, low-income
populations and/or indigenous peoples may be especially vulnerable to
the impacts of climate change (see Section VIII.I.2).
The decreases in vehicle emissions would reduce traffic-related
pollution in close proximity to roadways. As discussed in Section
II.C.8, concentrations of many air pollutants are elevated near high-
traffic roadways, and populations who live, work, or go to school near
high-traffic roadways experience higher rates of numerous adverse
health effects, compared to populations far away from major roads. An
EPA study estimated that 72 million people live near truck freight
routes, which includes many large highways and other routes where
light- and medium-duty vehicles operate.\129\ Our consideration of
environmental justice literature indicates that people of color and
people with low income are disproportionately exposed to elevated
concentrations of many pollutants in close proximity to major roadways
(see Section VIII.I.3.i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\129\ U.S. EPA (2021). Estimation of Population Size and
Demographic Characteristics among People Living Near Truck Routes in
the Conterminous United States. Memorandum to the Docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We expect that increases in criteria and toxic pollutant emissions
from EGUs and reductions in petroleum-sector emissions could lead to
changes in exposure to these pollutants for people living in the
communities near these facilities. Analyses of communities in close
proximity to these sources (such as EGUs and refineries) have found
that a higher percentage of communities of color and low-income
communities live near these sources when compared to national averages
(see Section VIII.1.3.ii).
The changes in emissions of criteria and toxic pollutants from
vehicles, EGUs, and refineries would also impact ambient levels of
ozone, PM2.5, NO2, SO2, CO, and air
toxics over a larger geographic scale. As discussed in Section VII.B,
we expect that in 2055 the proposal would result in widespread
decreases in ozone, PM2.5, NO2, CO, and some air
toxics, even when accounting for the impacts of increased electricity
generation. We expect that in some areas, increased electricity
generation would increase ambient SO2, PM2.5,
ozone, or some air toxics. However, as the power sector becomes cleaner
over time, these impacts would decrease. Although the specific
locations of increased air pollution are uncertain, we expect them to
be in more limited geographic areas, compared to the widespread
decreases that we predict to result from the reductions in vehicle
emissions.
EPA estimates that the total benefits of this proposal far exceed
the total costs. The present value of monetized benefits range from
$350 billion to $590 billion, with pre-tax fuel savings providing
another $450 billion to $890 billion. The present value of vehicle
technology costs range from $180 billion to $280 billion, while the
present value of repair and maintenance savings are estimated at $280
billion to $580 billion. The results presented here project the
monetized environmental and economic impacts associated with the
proposed program during each calendar year through 2055. Table 6
summarizes EPA's estimates of total costs, savings, and benefits. Note
EPA projects lower maintenance and repair costs for several advanced
technologies (e.g., battery electric vehicles) and those societal
maintenance and repair savings grow significantly over time, and by
2040 and later are larger than our projected new vehicle technology
costs.
The benefits include climate-related economic benefits from
reducing emissions of GHGs that contribute to climate change,
reductions in energy security externalities caused by U.S. petroleum
consumption and imports, the value of certain particulate matter-
related health benefits, the value of additional driving attributed to
the rebound effect, and the value of reduced refueling time needed to
refuel vehicles. Between $63 and $280 billion of the present value of
total monetized benefits through 2055 (assuming a 7 percent and 3
percent discount rate, respectively, as well as different long-term PM-
related mortality risk studies) are attributable to reduced emissions
of criteria pollutants that contribute to ambient concentrations of
smaller particulate matter (PM2.5). PM2.5 is
associated with premature death and serious health effects such as
hospital admissions due to respiratory and cardiovascular illnesses,
nonfatal heart attacks, aggravated asthma, and decreased lung function.
The proposed program would also have other significant social benefits
including $330 billion in climate benefits (with the average SC-GHGs at
a 3 percent discount rate which is the rate used in past GHG rules when
we speak of a single value for simplicity in presentation).\130\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\130\ Climate benefits are monetized using estimates of the
social cost of greenhouse gases (SC-GHG), which in principle
includes the value of all climate change impacts (both negative and
positive), however in practice, data and modeling limitations
naturally restrain the ability of SC-GHG estimates to include all
the important physical, ecological, and economic impacts of climate
change, such that the estimates are a partial accounting of climate
change impacts and will therefore, tend to be underestimates of the
marginal benefits of abatement. See Chapter 10 of the DRIA for a
full discussion of the SC-GHG estimates and the important
considerations and limitations associated with its use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The analysis also includes estimates of economic impacts stemming
from additional vehicle use from increased
[[Page 29200]]
rebound driving, such as the economic damages caused by crashes,
congestion, and noise. See Chapter 10 of the DRIA for more information
regarding these estimates.
Note that some non-emission costs are shown as negative values in
Table 6. Those entries represent savings but are included as costs
because, traditionally, categories such as repair and maintenance have
been viewed as costs of vehicle operation. Where negative values are
shown, we are estimating that those costs are lower in the proposal
than in the no-action case. Congestion and noise costs are attributable
to increased congestion and roadway noise resulting our assumption that
drivers choose to drive more under the proposal versus the No Action
case. Those increased miles are known as rebound miles and are
discussed in Section VIII.
Similarly, some of the traditional benefits of rulemakings that
result in lower fuel consumption by the transportation fleet, i.e., the
non-emission benefits, are shown as negative values. Our past GHG rules
have estimated that time spent refueling vehicles would be reduced due
to the lower fuel consumption of new vehicles; hence, a benefit.
However, in this analysis, we are estimating that refueling time would
increase somewhat due to our assumptions for mid-trip recharging events
for electric vehicles. Therefore, the increased refueling time
represents a disbenefit (a negative benefit) as shown. As noted in
Section VIII and in DRIA Chapter 4, we consider our refueling time
estimate to be dated considering the rapid changes taking place in
electric vehicle charging infrastructure driven largely by the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act, and we
request comment and data on how our estimates could be improved.
Table 6--Monetized Discounted Costs, Benefits, and Net Benefits of the Proposed Program for Calendar Years 2027
Through 2055, Light-Duty and Medium-Duty
[Billions of 2020 dollars] \a\ \b\ \c\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CY 2055 PV, 3% PV, 7% EAV, 3% EAV, 7%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Emission Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vehicle Technology Costs....................... 10 280 180 15 15
Repair Costs................................... -24 -170 -79 -8.9 -6.5
Maintenance Costs.............................. -51 -410 -200 -21 -16
Congestion Costs............................... 0.16 2.3 1.3 0.12 0.11
Noise Costs.................................... 0.0025 0.037 0.021 0.0019 0.0017
Sum of Non-Emission Costs...................... -65 -290 -96 -15 -7.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fueling Impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-tax Fuel Savings........................... 93 890 450 46 37
EVSE Port Costs................................ 7.1 120 68 6.2 5.6
Sum of Fuel Savings less EVSE Port Costs....... 86 770 380 40 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Emission Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drive Value Benefits........................... 0.31 4.8 2.7 0.25 0.22
Refueling Time Benefits........................ -8.2 -85 -45 -4.4 -3.6
Energy Security Benefits....................... 4.4 41 21 2.2 1.7
Sum of Non-Emission Benefits................... -3.6 -39 -21 -2 -1.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Climate Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5% Average..................................... 15 82 82 5.4 5.4
3% Average..................................... 38 330 330 17 17
2.5% Average................................... 52 500 500 25 25
3% 95th Percentile............................. 110 1,000 1,000 52 52
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Criteria Air Pollutant Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5 Health Benefits--Wu et al., 2020......... 16-18 140 63 7.5 5.1
PM2.5 Health Benefits--Pope III et al., 2019... 31-34 280 130 15 10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With Climate 5% Average........................ 180-200 1,400 610 74 48
With Climate 3% Average........................ 200-220 1,600 850 85 60
With Climate 2.5% Average...................... 210-230 1,800 1,000 93 67
With Climate 3% 95th Percentile................ 280-290 2,300 1,500 120 95
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The same discount rate used to discount the value of damages from future emissions (SC-GHG at 5, 3, 2.5
percent) is used to calculate present and equivalent annualized values of SC-GHGs for internal consistency,
while all other costs and benefits are discounted at either 3 percent or 7 percent.
\b\ PM2.5-related health benefits are presented based on two different long-term exposure studies of mortality
risk: a Medicare study (Wu et al., 2020) and a National Health Interview Survey study (Pope III et al., 2019).
The criteria pollutant benefits associated with the standards presented here do not include the full
complement of health and environmental benefits that, if quantified and monetized, would increase the total
monetized benefits.
\c\ For net benefits, the range in 2055 uses the low end of the Wu range and the high end of the Pope III et al.
range. The present and equivalent annualized value of net benefits for a 3 percent discount rate reflect
benefits based on the Pope III et al. study while the present and equivalent annualized values of net benefits
for a 7 percent discount rate reflect benefits based on the Wu et al. study.
[[Page 29201]]
EPA estimates the average upfront per-vehicle cost to meet the
proposed standards to be approximately $1,200 in MY 2032, as shown in
Table 7.\131\ We discuss per-vehicle cost in more detail in Section
IV.C and DRIA Chapter 13. While the average purchase price of vehicles
is estimated to be higher, this is attributable to the larger share of
BEVs relative to ICE vehicles. However, after considering purchase
incentives and their lower operating costs relative to ICE vehicles,
BEVs are estimated to save vehicle owners money over time. For example,
a BEV owner of a model year 2032 sedan, wagon, crossover or SUV would
save more than $9,000 on average on fuel, maintenance, and repair costs
over an eight-year period (the average period of first ownership)
compared to a gasoline vehicle. A BEV pickup truck owner would save
even more--about $13,000. We discuss ownership savings and expenses in
more detail in DRIA Chapter 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\131\ Unless otherwise specified, all monetized values are
expressed in 2020 dollars.
Table 7--Average Incremental Vehicle Cost by Reg Class, Relative to the No Action Scenario
[2020 Dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cars.............................. $249 $102 $32 $100 $527 $844
Trucks............................ 891 767 653 821 1,100 1,385
Total............................. 633 497 401 526 866 1,164
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the proposal would result in significant savings for
consumers from fuel savings and reduced vehicle repair and maintenance.
These lower operating costs would offset the upfront vehicle costs.
Total retail fuel savings for consumers through 2055 are estimated at
$560 billion to $1.1 trillion (7 percent and 3 percent discount rates,
see Section VIII.B.2). Also, reduced maintenance and repair costs
through 2055 are estimated at $280 billion to $580 billion (7 percent
and 3 percent discount rates, see Section VIII of this preamble and
Chapter 10 of the DRIA).
D. What are the alternatives that EPA is considering?
1. Description of the Alternatives
EPA is seeking comment on three alternatives to its proposed
standards. Alternative 1 is more stringent than the proposal across the
MY 2027-2032 time period, and Alternative 2 is less stringent. The
proposal as well as Alternatives 1 and 2 all have a similar
proportional ramp rate of year over year stringency, which includes a
higher rate of stringency increase in the earlier years (MYs 2027-2029)
than in the later years. Alternative 3 achieves the same stringency as
the proposed standards in MY 2032 but provides for a more consistent
rate of stringency increase for MY 2027-2031.
The Alternative 1 projected fleet-wide CO2 targets are
10 g/mi lower on average than the proposed targets; Alternative 2
projected fleet-wide CO2 targets averaged 10 g/mi higher
than the proposed targets.\132\ While the 20 g/mi range of stringency
options may appear fairly narrow, for the MY 2032 standards the
alternatives capture a range of 12 percent higher and lower than the
proposed standards in the final year. Our goal in selecting the
alternatives was to identify a range of stringencies that we believe
are appropriate to consider for the final standards because they
represent a range of standards that are anticipated to be feasible and
are highly protective of human health and the environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\132\ For reference, the targets at a footprint of 50 square
feet were exactly 10 g/mi lower and greater for the alternatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the proposed standards, Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 all
have a larger increase in stringency between MY 2026 and MY 2027,
Alternative 3 was constructed with the goal of evaluating roughly equal
reductions in absolute g/mi targets over the duration of the program
while achieving the same overall targets by MY 2032. This has the
effect of less stringent year-over-year increases in the early years of
the program.
EPA is soliciting comment on all of the model year standards of
Alternatives 1, 2, and 3, and standards generally represented by the
range across those alternatives. EPA anticipates that the appropriate
choice of final standards within this range will reflect the
Administrator's judgments about the uncertainties in EPA's analyses as
well as consideration of public comment and updated information where
available. However, EPA proposes to find that standards substantially
more stringent than Alternative 1 would not be appropriate because of
uncertainties concerning the cost and feasibility of such standards.
EPA proposes to find that standards substantially less stringent than
Alternative 2 or 3 would not be appropriate because they would forgo
feasible emissions reductions that would improve the protection of
public health and welfare.
Table 8, Table 9 and Table 10 compare the projected fleet average
targets for cars, trucks, and the combined fleet, respectively, across
the proposed standards and the three alternatives for model years 2027-
2032.\133\ Table 11 compares the relative percentage year-over-year
reductions of the proposed standards and the three alternatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\133\ In these tables, and throughout this proposal, the MY 2026
targets have been adjusted to reflect differences in off-cycle and
AC credits between the 2021 Rule and this proposal. This is
explained in greater detail in III.B.2.iv.
Table 8--Comparison of Proposed Car Standards to Alternatives
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed stds Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
Model year CO2 (g/mile) CO2 (g/mile) CO2 (g/mile) CO2 (g/mile)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2026 adjusted................................... 152 152 152 152
2027............................................ 134 124 144 139
2028............................................ 116 106 126 126
2029............................................ 99 89 108 112
[[Page 29202]]
2030............................................ 91 81 100 99
2031............................................ 82 72 92 86
2032 and later.................................. 73 63 83 73
% reduction vs. 2026............................ 52% 59% 46% 52%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 9--Comparison of Proposed Truck Standards to Alternatives
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed stds Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
Model year CO2 (g/mile) CO2 (g/mile) CO2 (g/mile) CO2 (g/mile)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2026 adjusted................................... 207 207 207 207
2027............................................ 163 153 173 183
2028............................................ 142 131 152 163
2029............................................ 120 110 130 144
2030............................................ 110 100 121 126
2031............................................ 100 90 111 107
2032 and later.................................. 89 78 99 89
% reduction vs. 2026............................ 57% 62% 52% 57%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 10--Comparison of Proposed Combined Fleet Standards to Alternatives
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed stds Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
Model year CO2 (g/mile) CO2 (g/mile) CO2 (g/mile) CO2 (g/mile)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2026 adjusted................................... 186 186 186 186
2027............................................ 152 141 162 165
2028............................................ 131 121 141 148
2029............................................ 111 101 122 132
2030............................................ 102 92 112 115
2031............................................ 93 83 103 99
2032 and later.................................. 82 72 92 82
% reduction vs. 2026............................ 56% 61% 50% 56%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 11--Combined Fleet Year-Over-Year Decreases for Proposed Standards and Alternatives
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Stds Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
Model year CO2 (g/mile) CO2 (g/mile) CO2 (g/mile) CO2 (g/mile)
(%) (%) (%) (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027............................................ -18 -24 -13 -11
2028............................................ -13 -14 -13 -10
2029............................................ -15 -16 -14 -11
2030............................................ -8 -9 -8 -12
2031............................................ -9 -10 -8 -15
2032............................................ -11 -13 -10 -17
Average YoY..................................... -13 -15 -11 -13
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed standards will result in industry-wide average GHG
emissions target for the light-duty fleet of 82 g/mi in MY 2032,
representing a 56 percent reduction in average emission target levels
from the existing MY 2026 standards established in 2021. Alternative 1
is projected to result in an industry-wide average target of 72 grams/
mile (g/mile) of CO2 in MY 2032, representing a 61 percent
reduction in projected fleet average GHG emissions target levels from
the existing MY 2026 standards. Alternative 2 is projected to result in
an industry-wide average target of 92 g/mile of CO2 in MY
2032, which corresponds to a 50 percent reduction in projected fleet
average GHG emissions target levels from the existing MY 2026
standards. Like the proposed standards, Alternative 3 is projected to
result in an industry-wide average target of 82 g/mile of
CO2 in MY 2032, which corresponds to a 56 percent reduction
in projected fleet average GHG emissions target levels from the
existing MY 2026 standards.
Table 12 gives a comparison of average incremental per-vehicle
costs for the proposed standards and the alternatives. As shown, the
2032 MY industry average vehicle cost increase (compared to the No
Action case) ranges from approximately $1,000 to $1,800 per vehicle for
the alternatives, compared to $1,200 per vehicle for the proposed
standards. These projections represent compliance costs to the industry
and are not the same as the costs experienced by the consumer when
purchasing a new vehicle. For
[[Page 29203]]
example, the costs presented here do not include any state and Federal
purchase incentives that are available to consumers. Also, the
manufacturer decisions for the pricing of individual vehicles may not
align exactly with the cost impacts for that particular vehicle. After
considering purchase incentives and their lower operating costs
relative to ICE vehicles, BEVs are estimated to save vehicle owners
money over time. For example, under the proposed standards, a BEV owner
of a model year 2032 sedan, wagon, crossover or SUV would save more
than $9,000 on average on fuel, maintenance, and repair costs over an
eight-year period (the average period of first ownership) compared to a
gasoline vehicle. A BEV pickup truck owner would save even more--about
$13,000. Consumer savings would be similar to those of the proposal
under Alternative 3, somewhat higher under Alternative 1, and somewhat
lower under Alternative 2. We discuss ownership savings and expenses
under the proposed standards in more detail in DRIA Chapter 4.
Table 12--Comparison of Projected Incremental Per-Vehicle Costs Relative to the No Action Scenario
[2020 Dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed stds Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
Model year $/vehicle $/vehicle $/vehicle $/vehicle
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027............................................ $633 $668 $462 $189
2028............................................ 497 804 355 125
2029............................................ 401 1,120 353 45
2030............................................ 526 1,262 337 250
2031............................................ 866 1,565 718 800
2032............................................ 1,164 1,775 1,041 1,256
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Projected Emission Reductions From the Alternatives
Table 13--Projected GHG Emission Impacts in 2055 From the Proposed Rule, Light-Duty and Medium-Duty
[Million metric tons]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net impact
Pollutant Vehicle EGU Refinery * Net impact (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternative 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2............................................ -480 18 0 -460 -52
CH4............................................ -0.0096 0.00043 0 -0.0092 -49
N2O............................................ -0.0084 0.000034 0 -0.0083 -44
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternative 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2............................................ -400 14 0 -380 -43
CH4............................................ -0.0081 0.00035 0 -0.0078 -42
N2O............................................ -0.0072 0.000027 0 -0.0072 -38
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternative 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2............................................ -440 16 0 -420 -47
CH4............................................ -0.0088 0.00039 0 -0.0084 -45
N2O............................................ -0.0078 0.00003 0 -0.0077 -41
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* GHG emission rates were not available for calculating GHG inventories from refineries.
Table 14--Projected Cumulative GHG Emission Impacts Through 2055 From the Proposed Rule, Light-Duty and Medium-
Duty
[Million metric tons]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net impact
Pollutant Vehicle EGU Refinery Net impact (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternative 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2............................................ -8,900 780 0 -8,100 -29
CH4............................................ -0.17 0.039 0 -0.13 -18
N2O............................................ -0.15 0.005 0 -0.14 -27
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternative 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2............................................ -7,200 630 0 -6,600 -23
CH4............................................ -0.14 0.032 0 -0.11 -15
N2O............................................ -0.13 0.004 0 -0.12 -23
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 29204]]
Alternative 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2............................................ -7,800 670 0 -7,100 -25
CH4............................................ -0.15 0.033 0 -0.12 -16
N2O............................................ -0.13 0.0042 0 -0.13 -24
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* GHG emission rates were not available for calculating GHG inventories from refineries.
Table 15--Projected Criteria Air Pollutant Impacts in 2055 From the Proposed Rule, Light-Duty and Medium-Duty
[U.S. tons]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net impact
Pollutant Vehicle EGU Refinery Net impact (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternative 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5.......................................... -9,800 1,700 -7,600 -16,000 -37
NOX............................................ -47,000 2,800 -27,000 -71,000 -44
VOC............................................ -230,000 1,100 -23,000 -250,000 -55
SOX............................................ -3,000 1,900 -12,000 -13,000 -46
CO *........................................... -2,000,000 0 0 -2,000,000 -55
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternative 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5.......................................... -9,800 1,400 -6,200 -15,000 -34
NOX............................................ -41,000 2,400 -22,000 -61,000 -38
VOC............................................ -190,000 950 -19,000 -200,000 -45
SOX............................................ -2,500 1,500 -9,500 -11,000 -38
CO *........................................... -1,600,000 0 0 -1,600,000 -45
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternative 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5.......................................... -9,800 1,500 -6,900 -15,000 -35
NOX............................................ -44,000 2,600 -25,000 -66,000 -41
VOC............................................ -200,000 1,000 -21,000 -220,000 -50
SOX............................................ -2,800 1,700 -11,000 -12,000 -42
CO *........................................... -1,800,000 0 0 -1,800,000 -50
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* EPA did not have data available to calculate CO impacts from EGUs or refineries.
Table 16--Projected Air Toxic Impacts From Vehicles in 2055 From the
Proposed Rule, Light-Duty and Medium-Duty
[U.S. tons]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pollutant Vehicle Vehicle (%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternative 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acetaldehyde............................ -920 -53
Acrolein................................ -60 -52
Benzene................................. -3,200 -56
Ethylbenzene............................ -3,700 -55
Formaldehyde............................ -550 -53
Naphthalene............................. -110 -56
1,3-Butadiene........................... -370 -56
15 Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons............ -5 -80
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternative 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acetaldehyde............................ -780 -45
Acrolein................................ -51 -44
Benzene................................. -2,600 -47
Ethylbenzene............................ -3,100 -46
Formaldehyde............................ -470 -45
Naphthalene............................. -95 -47
1,3-Butadiene........................... -310 -47
[[Page 29205]]
15 Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons............ -5 -77
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternative 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acetaldehyde............................ -850 -49
Acrolein................................ -55 -48
Benzene................................. -2,900 -51
Ethylbenzene............................ -3,400 -50
Formaldehyde............................ -510 -49
Naphthalene............................. -100 -51
1,3-Butadiene........................... -340 -51
15 Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons............ -5 -78
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Summary of Costs and Benefits of the Alternatives
Table 17, Table 18., and Table 19 show the summary of costs,
savings and benefits under alternatives 1, 2 and 3, respectively.
Table 17--Monetized Discounted Costs, Benefits, and Net Benefits of Alternative 1 for Calendar Years 2027
through 2055, Light-Duty and Medium-Duty
[Billions of 2020 dollars] \a\ \b\ \c\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CY 2055 PV, 3% PV, 7% EAV, 3% EAV, 7%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Emission Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vehicle Technology Costs....................... 11 330 220 17 18
Repair Costs................................... -26 -180 -82 -9.3 -6.7
Maintenance Costs.............................. -57 -450 -220 -24 -18
Congestion Costs............................... 0.11 3.5 2.2 0.18 0.18
Noise Costs.................................... 0.0017 0.055 0.034 0.0028 0.0027
Sum of Non-Emission Costs...................... -71 -300 -82 -15 -6.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fueling Impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-tax Fuel Savings........................... 100 990 510 51 41
EVSE Port Costs................................ 7.1 120 68 6.2 5.6
Sum of Fuel Savings less EVSE Port Costs....... 95 870 440 45 36
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Emission Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drive Value Benefits........................... 0.22 6.5 3.9 0.34 0.32
Refueling Time Benefits........................ -8.8 -90 -47 -4.7 -3.8
Energy Security Benefits....................... 4.8 46 23 2.4 1.9
Sum of Non-Emission Benefits................... -3.8 -38 -20 -2 -1.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Climate Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5% Average..................................... 16 91 91 6 6
3% Average..................................... 41 360 360 19 19
2.5% Average................................... 57 560 560 27 27
3% 95th Percentile............................. 120 1,100 1,100 58 58
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Criteria Air Pollutant Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5 Health Benefits--Wu et al., 2020......... 16-18 150 66 7.7 5.3
PM2.5 Health Benefits--Pope III et al., 2019... 32-35 290 130 15 11
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With Climate 5% Average........................ 200-210 1,500 660 80 52
With Climate 3% Average........................ 220-240 1,800 930 93 65
With Climate 2.5% Average...................... 240-260 2,000 1,100 100 73
[[Page 29206]]
With Climate 3% 95th Percentile................ 300-320 2,500 1,700 130 100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The same discount rate used to discount the value of damages from future emissions (SC-GHG at 5, 3, 2.5
percent) is used to calculate present and equivalent annualized values of SC-GHGs for internal consistency,
while all other costs and benefits are discounted at either 3 percent or 7 percent.
\b\ PM2.5-related health benefits are presented based on two different long-term exposure studies of mortality
risk: a Medicare study (Wu et al., 2020) and a National Health Interview Survey study (Pope III et al., 2019).
The criteria pollutant benefits associated with the standards presented here do not include the full
complement of health and environmental benefits that, if quantified and monetized, would increase the total
monetized benefits.
\c\ For net benefits, the range in 2055 uses the low end of the Wu range and the high end of the Pope III et al.
range. The present and equivalent annualized values for 3 percent use the Pope III et al. values while the 7
percent values use the Wu values.
Table 18--Monetized Discounted Costs, Benefits, and Net Benefits of Alternative 2 for Calendar Years 2027
Through 2055, Light-Duty and Medium-Duty
[Billions of 2020 dollars] \a\ \b\ \c\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CY 2055 PV, 3% PV, 7% EAV, 3% EAV, 7%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Emission Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vehicle Technology Costs....................... 8.8 230 140 12 12
Repair Costs................................... -22 -160 -74 -8.3 -6
Maintenance Costs.............................. -47 -370 -180 -19 -14
Congestion Costs............................... 0.064 0.74 0.48 0.039 0.039
Noise Costs.................................... 0.001 0.012 0.0078 0.00064 0.00064
Sum of Non-Emission Costs...................... -60 -300 -110 -16 -8.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fueling Impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-tax Fuel Savings........................... 84 790 400 41 33
EVSE Port Costs................................ 7.1 120 68 6.2 5.6
Sum of Fuel Savings less EVSE Port Costs....... 77 680 330 35 27
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Emission Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drive Value Benefits........................... 0.17 2.4 1.5 0.12 0.12
Refueling Time Benefits........................ -7.6 -79 -41 -4.1 -3.3
Energy Security Benefits....................... 3.9 37 19 1.9 1.5
Sum of Non-Emission Benefits................... -3.5 -39 -21 -2 -1.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Climate Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5% Average..................................... 13 74 74 4.9 4.9
3% Average..................................... 34 290 290 15 15
2.5% Average................................... 47 450 450 22 22
3% 95th Percentile............................. 100 900 900 47 47
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Criteria Air Pollutant Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5 Health Benefits--Wu et al., 2020......... 15-17 140 61 7.2 4.9
PM2.5 Health Benefits--Pope III et al., 2019... 30-33 270 120 14 10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With Climate 5% Average........................ 160-180 1,300 550 68 44
With Climate 3% Average........................ 180-200 1,500 780 78 54
With Climate 2.5% Average...................... 200-210 1,700 930 85 61
With Climate 3% 95th Percentile................ 250-270 2,100 1,400 110 86
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The same discount rate used to discount the value of damages from future emissions (SC-GHG at 5, 3, 2.5
percent) is used to calculate present and equivalent annualized values of SC-GHGs for internal consistency,
while all other costs and benefits are discounted at either 3 percent or 7 percent.
\b\ PM2.5-related health benefits are presented based on two different long-term exposure studies of mortality
risk: a Medicare study (Wu et al., 2020) and a National Health Interview Survey study (Pope III et al., 2019).
The criteria pollutant benefits associated with the standards presented here do not include the full
complement of health and environmental benefits that, if quantified and monetized, would increase the total
monetized benefits.
\c\ For net benefits, the range in 2055 uses the low end of the Wu range and the high end of the Pope III et al.
range. The present and equivalent annualized values for 3 percent use the Pope III et al. values while the 7
percent values use the Wu values.
[[Page 29207]]
Table 19--Monetized Discounted Costs, Benefits, and Net Benefits of Alternative 3 for Calendar Years 2027
Through 2055, Light-Duty and Medium-Duty
[Billions of 2020 dollars] \a\ \b\ \c\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CY 2055 PV, 3% PV, 7% EAV, 3% EAV, 7%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Emission Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vehicle Technology Costs....................... 11 270 170 14 14
Repair Costs................................... -24 -170 -77 -8.6 -6.3
Maintenance Costs.............................. -51 -390 -190 -20 -15
Congestion Costs............................... 0.11 1.5 0.82 0.078 0.066
Noise Costs.................................... 0.0016 0.024 0.013 0.0012 0.0011
Sum of Non-Emission Costs...................... -64 -290 -95 -15 -7.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fueling Impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-tax Fuel Savings........................... 93 850 430 45 35
EVSE Port Costs................................ 7.1 120 68 6.2 5.6
Sum of Fuel Savings less EVSE Port Costs....... 86 740 360 38 29
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Emission Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drive Value Benefits........................... 0.21 3.2 1.8 0.17 0.15
Refueling Time Benefits........................ -8.2 -83 -43 -4.3 -3.5
Energy Security Benefits....................... 4.4 40 20 2.1 1.6
Sum of Non-Emission Benefits................... -3.6 -39 -21 -2.1 -1.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Climate Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5% Average..................................... 15 80 80 5.3 5.3
3% Average..................................... 38 320 320 17 17
2.5% Average................................... 52 490 490 24 24
3% 95th Percentile............................. 110 970 970 51 51
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Criteria Air Pollutant Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5 Health Benefits--Wu et al., 2020......... 16-18 140 62 7.3 5.0
PM2.5 Health Benefits--Pope III et al., 2019... 31-34 280 120 14 10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With Climate 5% Average........................ 180-190 1,300 580 71 46
With Climate 3% Average........................ 200-220 1,600 820 82 57
With Climate 2.5% Average...................... 210-230 1,800 990 90 64
With Climate 3% 95th Percentile................ 270-290 2,200 1,500 120 91
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The same discount rate used to discount the value of damages from future emissions (SC-GHG at 5, 3, 2.5
percent) is used to calculate present and equivalent annualized values of SC-GHGs for internal consistency,
while all other costs and benefits are discounted at either 3 percent or 7 percent.
\b\ PM2.5-related health benefits are presented based on two different long-term exposure studies of mortality
risk: a Medicare study (Wu et al., 2020) and a National Health Interview Survey study (Pope III et al., 2019).
The criteria pollutant benefits associated with the standards presented here do not include the full
complement of health and environmental benefits that, if quantified and monetized, would increase the total
monetized benefits.
\c\ For net benefits, the range in 2055 uses the low end of the Wu range and the high end of the Pope III et al.
range. The present and equivalent annualized values for 3 percent use the Pope III et al. values while the 7
percent values use the Wu values.
II. Public Health and Welfare Need for Emission Reductions
A. Climate Change From GHG Emissions
Elevated concentrations of GHGs have been warming the planet,
leading to changes in the Earth's climate including changes in the
frequency and intensity of heat waves, precipitation, and extreme
weather events, rising seas, and retreating snow and ice. The changes
taking place in the atmosphere as a result of the well-documented
buildup of GHGs due to human activities are changing the climate at a
pace and in a way that threatens human health, society, and the natural
environment. While EPA is not making any new scientific or factual
findings with regard to the well-documented impact of GHG emissions on
public health and welfare in support of this rule, EPA is providing
some scientific background on climate change to offer additional
context for this rulemaking and to increase the public's understanding
of the environmental impacts of GHGs.
Extensive additional information on climate change is available in
the scientific assessments and the EPA documents that are briefly
described in this section, as well as in the technical and scientific
information supporting them. One of those documents is EPA's 2009
Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases
Under section 202(a) of the CAA (74 FR 66496, December 15, 2009). In
the 2009 Endangerment Finding, the Administrator found under section
202(a) of the CAA that elevated atmospheric concentrations of six key
well-mixed GHGs--CO2, methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O),
HFCs, perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)--``may
reasonably be anticipated to endanger the public health and welfare of
current and future generations'' (74 FR 66523). The 2009 Endangerment
Finding, together with
[[Page 29208]]
the extensive scientific and technical evidence in the supporting
record, documented that climate change caused by human emissions of
GHGs threatens the public health of the U.S. population. It explained
that by raising average temperatures, climate change increases the
likelihood of heat waves, which are associated with increased deaths
and illnesses (74 FR 66497). While climate change also increases the
likelihood of reductions in cold-related mortality, evidence indicates
that the increases in heat mortality will be larger than the decreases
in cold mortality in the U.S. (74 FR 66525). The 2009 Endangerment
Finding further explained that compared with a future without climate
change, climate change is expected to increase tropospheric ozone
pollution over broad areas of the U.S., including in the largest
metropolitan areas with the worst tropospheric ozone problems, and
thereby increase the risk of adverse effects on public health (74 FR
66525). Climate change is also expected to cause more intense
hurricanes and more frequent and intense storms of other types and
heavy precipitation, with impacts on other areas of public health, such
as the potential for increased deaths, injuries, infectious and
waterborne diseases, and stress-related disorders (74 FR 66525).
Children, the elderly, and the poor are among the most vulnerable to
these climate-related health effects (74 FR 66498).
The 2009 Endangerment Finding also documented, together with the
extensive scientific and technical evidence in the supporting record,
that climate change touches nearly every aspect of public welfare \134\
in the U.S., including: Changes in water supply and quality due to
changes in drought and extreme rainfall events; increased risk of storm
surge and flooding in coastal areas and land loss due to inundation;
increases in peak electricity demand and risks to electricity
infrastructure; and the potential for significant agricultural
disruptions and crop failures (though offset to some extent by carbon
fertilization). These impacts are also global and may exacerbate
problems outside the U.S. that raise humanitarian, trade, and national
security issues for the U.S. (74 FR 66530).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\134\ The CAA states in section 302(h) that ``[a]ll language
referring to effects on welfare includes, but is not limited to,
effects on soils, water, crops, vegetation, manmade materials,
animals, wildlife, weather, visibility, and climate, damage to and
deterioration of property, and hazards to transportation, as well as
effects on economic values and on personal comfort and well-being,
whether caused by transformation, conversion, or combination with
other air pollutants.'' 42 U.S.C. 7602(h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2016, the Administrator issued a similar finding for GHG
emissions from aircraft under section 231(a)(2)(A) of the CAA.\135\ In
the 2016 Endangerment Finding, the Administrator found that the body of
scientific evidence amassed in the record for the 2009 Endangerment
Finding compellingly supported a similar endangerment finding under CAA
section 231(a)(2)(A), and also found that the science assessments
released between the 2009 and the 2016 Findings ``strengthen and
further support the judgment that GHGs in the atmosphere may reasonably
be anticipated to endanger the public health and welfare of current and
future generations'' (81 FR 54424).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\135\ ``Finding that Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Aircraft
Cause or Contribute to Air Pollution That May Reasonably Be
Anticipated To Endanger Public Health and Welfare.'' 81 FR 54422,
August 15, 2016. (``2016 Endangerment Finding'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since the 2016 Endangerment Finding, the climate has continued to
change, with new observational records being set for several climate
indicators such as global average surface temperatures, GHG
concentrations, and sea level rise. Additionally, major scientific
assessments continue to be released that further advance our
understanding of the climate system and the impacts that GHGs have on
public health and welfare both for current and future generations.
These updated observations and projections document the rapid rate of
current and future climate change both globally and in the
U.S.136 137 138 139
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\136\ USGCRP, 2018: Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United
States: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume II [Reidmiller,
D.R., C.W. Avery, D.R. Easterling, K.E. Kunkel, K.L.M. Lewis, T.K.
Maycock, and B.C. Stewart (eds.)]. U.S. Global Change Research
Program, Washington, DC, USA, 1515 pp. doi: 10.7930/NCA4.2018.
https://nca2018.globalchange.gov.
\137\ Roy, J., P. Tschakert, H. Waisman, S. Abdul Halim, P.
Antwi-Agyei, P. Dasgupta, B. Hayward, M. Kanninen, D. Liverman, C.
Okereke, P.F. Pinho, K. Riahi, and A.G. Suarez Rodriguez, 2018:
Sustainable Development, Poverty Eradication and Reducing
Inequalities. In: Global Warming of 1.5 [deg]C. An IPCC Special
Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5 [deg]C above pre-
industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission
pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the
threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to
eradicate poverty [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, H.-O. P[ouml]rtner,
D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C.
P[eacute]an, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J.B.R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X.
Zhou, M.I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor, and T.
Waterfield (eds.)]. In Press. https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/chapter-5.
\138\ National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
2019. Climate Change and Ecosystems. Washington, DC: The National
Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25504.
\139\ NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information, State
of the Climate: Global Climate Report for Annual 2020, published
online January 2021, retrieved on February 10, 2021, from https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/202013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Background on Criteria and Air Toxics Pollutants Impacted by This
Proposal
1. Particulate Matter
Particulate matter (PM) is a complex mixture of solid particles and
liquid droplets distributed among numerous atmospheric gases which
interact with solid and liquid phases. Particles in the atmosphere
range in size from less than 0.01 to more than 10 micrometers ([mu]m)
in diameter.\140\ Atmospheric particles can be grouped into several
classes according to their aerodynamic diameter and physical sizes.
Generally, the three broad classes of particles include ultrafine
particles (UFPs, generally considered as particles with a diameter less
than or equal to 0.1 [mu]m [typically based on physical size, thermal
diffusivity or electrical mobility]), ``fine'' particles
(PM2.5; particles with a nominal mean aerodynamic diameter
less than or equal to 2.5 [mu]m), and ``thoracic'' particles
(PM10; particles with a nominal mean aerodynamic diameter
less than or equal to 10 [mu]m). Particles that fall within the size
range between PM2.5 and PM10, are referred to as
``thoracic coarse particles'' (PM10-2.5, particles with a
nominal mean aerodynamic diameter greater than 2.5 [mu]m and less than
or equal to 10 [mu]m). EPA currently has NAAQS for PM2.5 and
PM10.\141\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\140\ U.S. EPA. Policy Assessment (PA) for the Review of the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter (Final
Report, 2020). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC,
EPA/452/R-20/002, 2020.
\141\ Regulatory definitions of PM size fractions, and
information on reference and equivalent methods for measuring PM in
ambient air, are provided in 40 CFR parts 50, 53, and 58. With
regard to NAAQS which provide protection against health and welfare
effects, the 24-hour PM10 standard provides protection
against effects associated with short-term exposure to thoracic
coarse particles (i.e., PM10-2.5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most particles are found in the lower troposphere, where they can
have residence times ranging from a few hours to weeks. Particles are
removed from the atmosphere by wet deposition, such as when they are
carried by rain or snow, or by dry deposition, when particles settle
out of suspension due to gravity. Atmospheric lifetimes are generally
longest for PM2.5, which often remains in the atmosphere for
days to weeks before being removed by wet or dry deposition.\142\ In
contrast, atmospheric lifetimes for UFP and PM10-2.5 are
shorter. Within hours, UFP
[[Page 29209]]
can undergo coagulation and condensation that lead to formation of
larger particles in the accumulation mode, or can be removed from the
atmosphere by evaporation, deposition, or reactions with other
atmospheric components. PM10-2.5 are also generally removed
from the atmosphere within hours, through wet or dry deposition.\143\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\142\ U.S. EPA. Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for
Particulate Matter (Final Report, 2019). U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/188, 2019. Table 2-
1.
\143\ U.S. EPA. Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for
Particulate Matter (Final Report, 2019). U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/188, 2019. Table 2-
1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Particulate matter consists of both primary and secondary
particles. Primary particles are emitted directly from sources, such as
combustion-related activities (e.g., industrial activities, motor
vehicle operation, biomass burning), while secondary particles are
formed through atmospheric chemical reactions of gaseous precursors
(e.g., sulfur oxides (SOX), nitrogen oxides (NOX)
and volatile organic compounds (VOCs)). From 2000 to 2021, national
annual average ambient PM2.5 concentrations have declined by
over 35 percent,\144\ largely reflecting reductions in emissions of
precursor gases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\144\ See https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/particulate-matter-pm25-trends for more information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are two primary NAAQS for PM2.5: An annual
standard (12.0 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\)) and a 24-hour
standard (35 [mu]g/m\3\), and there are two secondary NAAQS for
PM2.5: An annual standard (15.0 [mu]g/m\3\) and a 24-hour
standard (35 [mu]g/m\3\). The initial PM2.5 standards were
set in 1997 and revisions to the standards were finalized in 2006 and
in December 2012 and then retained in 2020. On January 6, 2023, EPA
announced its proposed decision to revise the PM NAAQS.\145\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\145\ https://www.epa.gov/pm-pollution/national-ambient-air-quality-standards-naaqs-pm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are many areas of the country that are currently in
nonattainment for the annual and 24-hour primary PM2.5
NAAQS. As of August 31, 2022, more than 19 million people lived in the
4 areas that are designated as nonattainment for the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS. Also, as of August 31, 2022, more than 31
million people lived in the 14 areas that are designated as
nonattainment for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and more than 20
million people lived in the 5 areas designated as nonattainment for the
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. In total, there are currently 15
PM2.5 nonattainment areas with a population of more than 32
million people.\146\ The proposed standards would take effect beginning
in MY 2027 and would assist areas with attaining the NAAQS and may
relieve areas with already stringent local regulations from some of the
burden associated with adopting additional local controls. The rule
would also assist counties with ambient concentrations near the level
of the NAAQS who are working to ensure long-term attainment or
maintenance of the PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\146\ The population total is calculated by summing, without
double counting, the 1997, 2006 and 2012 PM2.5 nonattainment
populations contained in the Criteria Pollutant Nonattainment
Summary report (https://www.epa.gov/green-book/green-book-data-download).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Ozone
Ground-level ozone pollution forms in areas with high
concentrations of ambient NOX and VOCs when solar radiation
is strong. Major U.S. sources of NOX are highway and nonroad
motor vehicles, engines, power plants and other industrial sources,
with natural sources, such as soil, vegetation, and lightning, serving
as smaller sources. Vegetation is the dominant source of VOCs in the
U.S. Volatile consumer and commercial products, such as propellants and
solvents, highway and nonroad vehicles, engines, fires, and industrial
sources also contribute to the atmospheric burden of VOCs at ground-
level.
The processes underlying ozone formation, transport, and
accumulation are complex. Ground-level ozone is produced and destroyed
by an interwoven network of free radical reactions involving the
hydroxyl radical (OH), NO, NO2, and complex reaction
intermediates derived from VOCs. Many of these reactions are sensitive
to temperature and available sunlight. High ozone events most often
occur when ambient temperatures and sunlight intensities remain high
for several days under stagnant conditions. Ozone and its precursors
can also be transported hundreds of miles downwind, which can lead to
elevated ozone levels in areas with otherwise low VOC or NOX
emissions. As an air mass moves and is exposed to changing ambient
concentrations of NOX and VOCs, the ozone photochemical
regime (relative sensitivity of ozone formation to NOX and
VOC emissions) can change.
When ambient VOC concentrations are high, comparatively small
amounts of NOX catalyze rapid ozone formation. Without
available NOX, ground-level ozone production is severely
limited, and VOC reductions would have little impact on ozone
concentrations. Photochemistry under these conditions is said to be
``NOX-limited.'' When NOX levels are sufficiently
high, faster NO2 oxidation consumes more radicals, dampening
ozone production. Under these ``VOC-limited'' conditions (also referred
to as ``NOX-saturated'' conditions), VOC reductions are
effective in reducing ozone, and NOX can react directly with
ozone, resulting in suppressed ozone concentrations near NOX
emission sources. Under these NOX-saturated conditions,
NOX reductions can actually increase local ozone under
certain circumstances, but overall ozone production (considering
downwind formation) decreases and even in VOC-limited areas,
NOX reductions are not expected to increase ozone levels if
the NOX reductions are sufficiently large--large enough to
become NOX-limited.
The primary NAAQS for ozone, established in 2015 and retained in
2020, is an 8-hour standard with a level of 0.07 ppm.\147\ EPA
announced that it will reconsider the decision to retain the ozone
NAAQS.\148\ EPA is also implementing the previous 8-hour ozone primary
standard, set in 2008, at a level of 0.075 ppm. As of August 31, 2022,
there were 34 ozone nonattainment areas for the 2008 ozone NAAQS,
composed of 141 full or partial counties, with a population of more
than 90 million, and 49 ozone nonattainment areas for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS, composed of 212 full or partial counties, with a population of
more than 125 million. In total, there are currently, as of August 31,
2022, 57 ozone nonattainment areas with a population of more than 130
million people.\149\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\147\ https://www.epa.gov/ground-level-ozone-pollution/ozone-national-ambient-air-quality-standards-naaqs.
\148\ https://www.epa.gov/ground-level-ozone-pollution/epa-reconsider-previous-administrations-decision-retain-2015-ozone.
\149\ The population total is calculated by summing, without
double counting, the 2008 and 2015 ozone nonattainment populations
contained in the Criteria Pollutant Nonattainment Summary report
(https://www.epa.gov/green-book/green-book-data-download).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
States with ozone nonattainment areas are required to take action
to bring those areas into attainment. The attainment date assigned to
an ozone nonattainment area is based on the area's classification. The
attainment dates for areas designated nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS are in the 2015 to 2032 timeframe, depending on the
severity of the problem in each area. Attainment dates for areas
designated nonattainment for the 2015 ozone NAAQS are in the 2021 to
2038 timeframe, again depending on the severity of the problem in each
area.\150\
[[Page 29210]]
The proposed standards would take effect starting in MY 2027 and would
assist areas with attaining the NAAQS and may relieve areas with
already stringent local regulations from some of the burden associated
with adopting additional local controls. The rule would also provide
assistance to counties with ambient concentrations near the level of
the NAAQS who are working to ensure long-term attainment or maintenance
of the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\150\ https://www.epa.gov/ground-level-ozone-pollution/ozone-naaqs-timelines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Nitrogen Oxides
Oxides of nitrogen (NOX) refers to nitric oxide (NO) and
nitrogen dioxide (NO2). Most NO2 is formed in the
air through the oxidation of nitric oxide (NO) emitted when fuel is
burned at a high temperature. NOX is a criteria pollutant,
regulated for its adverse effects on public health and the environment,
and highway vehicles are an important contributor to NOX
emissions. NOX, along with VOCs, are the two major
precursors of ozone and NOX is also a major contributor to
secondary PM2.5 formation. There are two primary NAAQS for
NO2: An annual standard (53 ppb) and a 1-hour standard (100
ppb).\151\ In 2010, EPA established requirements for monitoring
NO2 near roadways expected to have the highest
concentrations within large cities. Monitoring within this near-roadway
network began in 2014, with additional sites deployed in the following
years. At present, there are no nonattainment areas for NO2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\151\ The statistical form of the 1-hour NAAQS for
NO2 is the 3-year average of the yearly distribution of
1-hour daily maximum concentrations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Sulfur Oxides
Sulfur dioxide (SO2), a member of the sulfur oxide
(SOX) family of gases, is formed from burning fuels
containing sulfur (e.g., coal or oil), extracting gasoline from oil, or
extracting metals from ore. SO2 and its gas phase oxidation
products can dissolve in water droplets and further oxidize to form
sulfuric acid which reacts with ammonia to form sulfates, which are
important components of ambient PM.
EPA most recently completed a review of the primary SO2
NAAQS in February 2019 and decided to retain the existing 2010
SO2 NAAQS.\152\ The current primary NAAQS for SO2
is a 1-hour standard of 75 ppb. As of September 30, 2022, more than two
million people lived in the 30 areas that are designated as
nonattainment for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.\153\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\152\ https://www.epa.gov/so2-pollution/primary-national-ambient-air-quality-standard-naaqs-sulfur-dioxide.
\153\ https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/tnsum.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Carbon Monoxide
Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless gas emitted from
combustion processes. Nationally, particularly in urban areas, the
majority of CO emissions to ambient air come from mobile sources.\154\
There are two primary NAAQS for CO: An 8-hour standard (9 ppm) and a 1-
hour standard (35 ppm). There are currently no CO nonattainment areas;
as of September 27, 2010, all CO nonattainment areas have been
redesignated to attainment. The past designations were based on the
existing community-wide monitoring network. EPA made an addition to the
ambient air monitoring requirements for CO during the 2011 NAAQS
review. Those new requirements called for CO monitors to be operated
near roads in Core Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs) of 1 million or more
persons, in addition to the existing community-based network (76 FR
54294, August 31, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\154\ U.S. EPA, (2010). Integrated Science Assessment for Carbon
Monoxide (Final Report). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-09/019F, 2010. http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=218686. See Section 2.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Diesel Exhaust
Diesel exhaust is a complex mixture composed of particulate matter,
carbon dioxide, oxygen, nitrogen, water vapor, carbon monoxide,
nitrogen compounds, sulfur compounds and numerous low-molecular-weight
hydrocarbons. A number of these gaseous hydrocarbon components are
individually known to be toxic, including aldehydes, benzene and 1,3-
butadiene. The diesel particulate matter present in diesel exhaust
consists mostly of fine particles (<2.5 [mu]m), of which a significant
fraction is ultrafine particles (<0.1 [mu]m). These particles have a
large surface area which makes them an excellent medium for adsorbing
organics and their small size makes them highly respirable. Many of the
organic compounds present in the gases and on the particles, such as
polycyclic organic matter, are individually known to have mutagenic and
carcinogenic properties.
Diesel exhaust varies significantly in chemical composition and
particle sizes between different engine types (heavy-duty, light-duty),
engine operating conditions (idle, acceleration, deceleration), and
fuel formulations (high/low sulfur fuel). Also, there are emissions
differences between onroad and nonroad engines because the nonroad
engines are generally of older technology. After being emitted in the
engine exhaust, diesel exhaust undergoes dilution as well as chemical
and physical changes in the atmosphere. The lifetimes of the components
present in diesel exhaust range from seconds to days.
7. Air Toxics
The most recent available data indicate that millions of Americans
live in areas where air toxics pose potential health
concerns.155 156 The levels of air toxics to which people
are exposed vary depending on where people live and work and the kinds
of activities in which they engage, as discussed in detail in EPA's
2007 Mobile Source Air Toxics Rule.\157\ According to EPA's Air Toxics
Screening Assessment (AirToxScreen) for 2018, mobile sources were
responsible for 40 percent of outdoor anthropogenic toxic emissions and
were the largest contributor to national average cancer and noncancer
risk from directly emitted pollutants.158 159 Mobile sources
are also significant contributors to precursor emissions which react to
form air toxics.\160\ Formaldehyde is the largest contributor to cancer
risk of all 71 pollutants quantitatively assessed in the 2018
AirToxScreen. Mobile sources were responsible for 26 percent of primary
anthropogenic emissions of this pollutant in 2018 and are significant
contributors to formaldehyde precursor emissions. Benzene is also a
large contributor to cancer risk, and mobile sources account for about
60 percent of
[[Page 29211]]
average exposure to ambient concentrations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\155\ Air toxics are pollutants known to cause or suspected of
causing cancer or other serious health effects. Air toxics are also
known as toxic air pollutants or hazardous air pollutants. https://www.epa.gov/AirToxScreen/airtoxscreen-glossary-terms#air-toxics.
\156\ U.S. EPA (2022) Technical Support Document EPA Air Toxics
Screening Assessment. 2017AirToxScreen TSD. https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-03/airtoxscreen_2017tsd.pdf.
\157\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2007). Control of
Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources; Final Rule. 72 FR
8434, February 26, 2007.
\158\ U.S. EPA. (2022) 2018 Air Toxics Screening Assessment.
https://www.epa.gov/AirToxScreen/2018-airtoxscreen-assessment-results.
\159\ AirToxScreen also includes estimates of risk attributable
to background concentrations, which includes contributions from
long-range transport, persistent air toxics, and natural sources; as
well as secondary concentrations, where toxics are formed via
secondary formation. Mobile sources substantially contribute to
long-range transport and secondarily formed air toxics.
\160\ Rich Cook, Sharon Phillips, Madeleine Strum, Alison Eyth &
James Thurman (2020): Contribution of mobile sources to secondary
formation of carbonyl compounds, Journal of the Air & Waste
Management Association, DOI: 10.1080/10962247.2020.1813839.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Health Effects Associated With Exposure to Criteria and Air Toxics
Pollutants
Emissions sources impacted by this proposal, including vehicles and
power plants, emit pollutants that contribute to ambient concentrations
of ozone, PM, NO2, SO2, CO, and air toxics. This
section of the preamble discusses the health effects associated with
exposure to these pollutants.
Additionally, because children have increased vulnerability and
susceptibility for adverse health effects related to air pollution
exposures, EPA's findings regarding adverse effects for children
related to exposure to pollutants that are impacted by this rule are
noted in this section. The increased vulnerability and susceptibility
of children to air pollution exposures may arise because infants and
children generally breathe more relative to their size than adults do,
and consequently may be exposed to relatively higher amounts of air
pollution.\161\ Children also tend to breathe through their mouths more
than adults and their nasal passages are less effective at removing
pollutants, which leads to greater lung deposition of some pollutants,
such as PM.162 163 Furthermore, air pollutants may pose
health risks specific to children because children's bodies are still
developing.\164\ For example, during periods of rapid growth such as
fetal development, infancy and puberty, their developing systems and
organs may be more easily harmed.165 166 EPA produces the
report titled ``America's Children and the Environment,'' which
presents national trends on air pollution and other contaminants and
environmental health of children.\167\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\161\ EPA (2009) Metabolically-derived ventilation rates: A
revised approach based upon oxygen consumption rates. Washington,
DC: Office of Research and Development. EPA/600/R-06/129F. http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=202543.
\162\ U.S. EPA Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate
Matter (Final Report, 2019). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/188, 2019. Chapter 4 ``Overall
Conclusions'' p. 4-1.
\163\ Foos, B.; Marty, M.; Schwartz, J.; Bennet, W.; Moya, J.;
Jarabek, A.M.; Salmon, A.G. (2008) Focusing on children's inhalation
dosimetry and health effects for risk assessment: An introduction. J
Toxicol Environ Health 71A: 149-165.
\164\ Children's environmental health includes conception,
infancy, early childhood and through adolescence until 21 years of
age as described in the EPA Memorandum: Issuance of EPA's 2021
Policy on Children's Health. October 5, 2021. Available at https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-10/2021-policy-on-childrens-health.pdf.
\165\ EPA (2006) A Framework for Assessing Health Risks of
Environmental Exposures to Children. EPA, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-
05/093F, 2006.
\166\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2005). Supplemental
guidance for assessing susceptibility from early-life exposure to
carcinogens. Washington, DC: Risk Assessment Forum. EPA/630/R-03/
003F. https://www3.epa.gov/airtoxics/childrens_supplement_final.pdf.
\167\ U.S. EPA. America's Children and the Environment.
Available at: https://www.epa.gov/americaschildrenenvironment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Information on environmental effects associated with exposure to
these pollutants is included in Section II.D, information on
environmental justice is included in Section VIII.I and information on
emission reductions and air quality impacts from this rule are included
in Sections VI and VII of this preamble.
1. Particulate Matter
Scientific evidence spanning animal toxicological, controlled human
exposure, and epidemiologic studies shows that exposure to ambient PM
is associated with a broad range of health effects. These health
effects are discussed in detail in the Integrated Science Assessment
for Particulate Matter, which was finalized in December 2019 (2019 PM
ISA), with a more targeted evaluation of studies published since the
literature cutoff date of the 2019 PM ISA in the Supplement to the
Integrated Science Assessment for PM (Supplement).168 169
The PM ISA characterizes the causal nature of relationships between PM
exposure and broad health categories (e.g., cardiovascular effects,
respiratory effects, etc.) using a weight-of-evidence approach.\170\
Within this characterization, the PM ISA summarizes the health effects
evidence for short-term (i.e., hours up to one month) and long-term
(i.e., one month to years) exposures to PM2.5,
PM10-2.5, and ultrafine particles, and concludes that
exposures to ambient PM2.5 are associated with a number of
adverse health effects. The following discussion highlights the PM
ISA's conclusions, and summarizes additional information from the
Supplement where appropriate, pertaining to the health effects evidence
for both short- and long-term PM exposures. Further discussion of PM-
related health effects can also be found in the 2022 Policy Assessment
for the review of the PM NAAQS.\171\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\168\ U.S. EPA. Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for
Particulate Matter (Final Report, 2019). U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/188, 2019.
\169\ U.S. EPA. Supplement to the 2019 Integrated Science
Assessment for Particulate Matter (Final Report, 2022). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/635/R-22/028,
2022.
\170\ The causal framework draws upon the assessment and
integration of evidence from across scientific disciplines, spanning
atmospheric chemistry, exposure, dosimetry and health effects
studies (i.e., epidemiologic, controlled human exposure, and animal
toxicological studies), and assess the related uncertainties and
limitations that ultimately influence our understanding of the
evidence. This framework employs a five-level hierarchy that
classifies the overall weight-of-evidence with respect to the causal
nature of relationships between criteria pollutant exposures and
health and welfare effects using the following categorizations:
causal relationship; likely to be causal relationship; suggestive
of, but not sufficient to infer, a causal relationship; inadequate
to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship; and not
likely to be a causal relationship (U.S. EPA. (2019). Integrated
Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (Final Report). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/188,
Section P. 3.2.3).
\171\ U.S. EPA. Policy Assessment (PA) for the Reconsideration
of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter
(Final Report, 2022). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC, EPA-452/R-22-004, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA has concluded that recent evidence in combination with evidence
evaluated in the 2009 PM ISA supports a ``causal relationship'' between
both long- and short-term exposures to PM2.5 and premature
mortality and cardiovascular effects and a ``likely to be causal
relationship'' between long- and short-term PM2.5 exposures
and respiratory effects.\172\ Additionally, recent experimental and
epidemiologic studies provide evidence supporting a ``likely to be
causal relationship'' between long-term PM2.5 exposure and
nervous system effects, and long-term PM2.5 exposure and
cancer. Because of remaining uncertainties and limitations in the
evidence base, EPA determined a ``suggestive of, but not sufficient to
infer, a causal relationship'' for long-term PM2.5 exposure
and reproductive and developmental effects (i.e., male/female
reproduction and fertility; pregnancy and birth outcomes), long- and
short-term exposures and metabolic effects, and short-term exposure and
nervous system effects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\172\ U.S. EPA. (2009). Integrated Science Assessment for
Particulate Matter (Final Report). U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-08/139F.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed extensively in the 2019 PM ISA and the Supplement,
recent studies continue to support a ``causal relationship'' between
short- and long-term PM2.5 exposures and
mortality.173 174 For short-term PM2.5 exposure,
multi-city studies, in combination with single- and multi-city studies
evaluated in the 2009 PM ISA, provide evidence of consistent, positive
associations across studies conducted in
[[Page 29212]]
different geographic locations, populations with different demographic
characteristics, and studies using different exposure assignment
techniques. Additionally, the consistent and coherent evidence across
scientific disciplines for cardiovascular morbidity, particularly
ischemic events and heart failure, and to a lesser degree for
respiratory morbidity, including exacerbations of chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma, provide biological plausibility
for cause-specific mortality and ultimately total mortality. Recent
epidemiologic studies evaluated in the Supplement, including studies
that employed alternative methods for confounder control, provide
additional support to the evidence base that contributed to the 2019 PM
ISA conclusion for short-term PM2.5 exposure and mortality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\173\ U.S. EPA. Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for
Particulate Matter (Final Report, 2019). U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/188, 2019.
\174\ U.S. EPA. Supplement to the 2019 Integrated Science
Assessment for Particulate Matter (Final Report, 2022). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/635/R-22/028,
2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2019 PM ISA concluded a ``causal relationship'' between long-
term PM2.5 exposure and mortality. In addition to reanalyses
and extensions of the American Cancer Society (ACS) and Harvard Six
Cities (HSC) cohorts, multiple new cohort studies conducted in the U.S.
and Canada consisting of people employed in a specific job (e.g.,
teacher, nurse), and that apply different exposure assignment
techniques, provide evidence of positive associations between long-term
PM2.5 exposure and mortality. Biological plausibility for
mortality due to long-term PM2.5 exposure is provided by the
coherence of effects across scientific disciplines for cardiovascular
morbidity, particularly for coronary heart disease, stroke, and
atherosclerosis, and for respiratory morbidity, particularly for the
development of COPD. Additionally, recent studies provide evidence
indicating that as long-term PM2.5 concentrations decrease
there is an increase in life expectancy. Recent cohort studies
evaluated in the Supplement, as well as epidemiologic studies that
conducted accountability analyses or employed alternative methods for
confounder controls, support and extend the evidence base that
contributed to the 2019 PM ISA conclusion for long-term
PM2.5 exposure and mortality.
A large body of studies examining both short- and long-term
PM2.5 exposure and cardiovascular effects builds on the
evidence base evaluated in the 2009 PM ISA. The strongest evidence for
cardiovascular effects in response to short-term PM2.5
exposures is for ischemic heart disease and heart failure. The evidence
for short-term PM2.5 exposure and cardiovascular effects is
coherent across scientific disciplines and supports a continuum of
effects ranging from subtle changes in indicators of cardiovascular
health to serious clinical events, such as increased emergency
department visits and hospital admissions due to cardiovascular disease
and cardiovascular mortality. For long-term PM2.5 exposure,
there is strong and consistent epidemiologic evidence of a relationship
with cardiovascular mortality. This evidence is supported by
epidemiologic and animal toxicological studies demonstrating a range of
cardiovascular effects including coronary heart disease, stroke,
impaired heart function, and subclinical markers (e.g., coronary artery
calcification, atherosclerotic plaque progression), which collectively
provide coherence and biological plausibility. Recent epidemiologic
studies evaluated in the Supplement, as well as studies that conducted
accountability analyses or employed alternative methods for confounder
control, support and extend the evidence base that contributed to the
2019 PM ISA conclusion for both short- and long-term PM2.5
exposure and cardiovascular effects.
Studies evaluated in the 2019 PM ISA continue to provide evidence
of a ``likely to be causal relationship'' between both short- and long-
term PM2.5 exposure and respiratory effects. Epidemiologic
studies provide consistent evidence of a relationship between short-
term PM2.5 exposure and asthma exacerbation in children and
COPD exacerbation in adults as indicated by increases in emergency
department visits and hospital admissions, which is supported by animal
toxicological studies indicating worsening allergic airways disease and
subclinical effects related to COPD. Epidemiologic studies also provide
evidence of a relationship between short-term PM2.5 exposure
and respiratory mortality. However, there is inconsistent evidence of
respiratory effects, specifically lung function declines and pulmonary
inflammation, in controlled human exposure studies. With respect to
long term PM2.5 exposure, epidemiologic studies conducted in
the U.S. and abroad provide evidence of a relationship with respiratory
effects, including consistent changes in lung function and lung
function growth rate, increased asthma incidence, asthma prevalence,
and wheeze in children; acceleration of lung function decline in
adults; and respiratory mortality. The epidemiologic evidence is
supported by animal toxicological studies, which provide coherence and
biological plausibility for a range of effects including impaired lung
development, decrements in lung function growth, and asthma
development.
Since the 2009 PM ISA, a growing body of scientific evidence
examined the relationship between long-term PM2.5 exposure
and nervous system effects, resulting for the first time in a causality
determination for this health effects category of a ``likely to be
causal relationship.'' The strongest evidence for effects on the
nervous system come from epidemiologic studies that consistently report
cognitive decrements and reductions in brain volume in adults. The
effects observed in epidemiologic studies in adults are supported by
animal toxicological studies demonstrating effects on the brain of
adult animals including inflammation, morphologic changes, and
neurodegeneration of specific regions of the brain. There is more
limited evidence for neurodevelopmental effects in children, with some
studies reporting positive associations with autism spectrum disorder
and others providing limited evidence of an association with cognitive
function. While there is some evidence from animal toxicological
studies indicating effects on the brain (i.e., inflammatory and
morphological changes) to support a biologically plausible pathway for
neurodevelopmental effects, epidemiologic studies are limited due to
their lack of control for potential confounding by copollutants, the
small number of studies conducted, and uncertainty regarding critical
exposure windows.
Building off the decades of research demonstrating mutagenicity,
DNA damage, and other endpoints related to genotoxicity due to whole PM
exposures, recent experimental and epidemiologic studies focusing
specifically on PM2.5 provide evidence of a relationship
between long-term PM2.5 exposure and cancer. Epidemiologic
studies examining long-term PM2.5 exposure and lung cancer
incidence and mortality provide evidence of generally positive
associations in cohort studies spanning different populations,
locations, and exposure assignment techniques. Additionally, there is
evidence of positive associations with lung cancer incidence and
mortality in analyses limited to never smokers. The epidemiologic
evidence is supported by both experimental and epidemiologic evidence
of genotoxicity, epigenetic effects, carcinogenic potential, and that
PM2.5 exhibits several characteristics of carcinogens, which
collectively
[[Page 29213]]
provides biological plausibility for cancer development and resulted in
the conclusion of a ``likely to be causal relationship.''
For the additional health effects categories evaluated for
PM2.5 in the 2019 PM ISA, experimental and epidemiologic
studies provide limited and/or inconsistent evidence of a relationship
with PM2.5 exposure. As a result, the 2019 PM ISA concluded
that the evidence is ``suggestive of, but not sufficient to infer a
causal relationship'' for short-term PM2.5 exposure and
metabolic effects and nervous system effects, and long-term
PM2.5 exposures and metabolic effects as well as
reproductive and developmental effects.
In addition to evaluating the health effects attributed to short-
and long-term exposure to PM2.5, the 2019 PM ISA also
conducted an extensive evaluation as to whether specific components or
sources of PM2.5 are more strongly related with health
effects than PM2.5 mass. An evaluation of those studies
resulted in the 2019 PM ISA concluding that ``many PM2.5
components and sources are associated with many health effects, and the
evidence does not indicate that any one source or component is
consistently more strongly related to health effects than
PM2.5 mass.'' \175\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\175\ U.S. EPA. Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for
Particulate Matter (Final Report, 2019). U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/188, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For both PM10-2.5 and UFPs, for all health effects
categories evaluated, the 2019 PM ISA concluded that the evidence was
``suggestive of, but not sufficient to infer, a causal relationship''
or ``inadequate to determine the presence or absence of a causal
relationship.'' For PM10-2.5, although a Federal Reference
Method (FRM) was instituted in 2011 to measure PM10-2.5
concentrations nationally, the causality determinations reflect that
the same uncertainty identified in the 2009 PM ISA with respect to the
method used to estimate PM10-2.5 concentrations in
epidemiologic studies persists. Specifically, across epidemiologic
studies, different approaches are used to estimate PM10-2.5
concentrations (e.g., direct measurement of PM10-2.5,
difference between PM10 and PM2.5
concentrations), and it remains unclear how well correlated
PM10-2.5 concentrations are both spatially and temporally
across the different methods used.
For UFPs, which have often been defined as particles <0.1 [mu]m,
the uncertainty in the evidence for the health effect categories
evaluated across experimental and epidemiologic studies reflects the
inconsistency in the exposure metric used (i.e., particle number
concentration, surface area concentration, mass concentration) as well
as the size fractions examined. In epidemiologic studies the size
fraction examined can vary depending on the monitor used and exposure
metric, with some studies examining number count over the entire
particle size range, while experimental studies that use a particle
concentrator often examine particles up to 0.3 [mu]m. Additionally, due
to the lack of a monitoring network, there is limited information on
the spatial and temporal variability of UFPs within the U.S., as well
as population exposures to UFPs, which adds uncertainty to
epidemiologic study results.
The 2019 PM ISA cites extensive evidence indicating that ``both the
general population as well as specific populations and life stages are
at risk for PM2.5-related health effects.'' \176\ For
example, in support of its ``causal'' and ``likely to be causal''
determinations, the ISA cites substantial evidence for: (1) PM-related
mortality and cardiovascular effects in older adults; (2) PM-related
cardiovascular effects in people with pre-existing cardiovascular
disease; (3) PM-related respiratory effects in people with pre-existing
respiratory disease, particularly asthma exacerbations in children; and
(4) PM-related impairments in lung function growth and asthma
development in children. The ISA additionally notes that stratified
analyses (i.e., analyses that directly compare PM-related health
effects across groups) provide strong evidence for racial and ethnic
differences in PM2.5 exposures and in the risk of
PM2.5-related health effects, specifically within Hispanic
and non-Hispanic Black populations, with some evidence of increased
risk for populations of low socioeconomic status. Recent studies
evaluated in the Supplement support the conclusion of the 2019 PM ISA
with respect to disparities in both PM2.5 exposure and
health risk by race and ethnicity and provide additional support for
disparities for populations of lower socioeconomic status.\177\
Additionally, evidence spanning epidemiologic studies that conducted
stratified analyses, experimental studies focusing on animal models of
disease or individuals with pre-existing disease, dosimetry studies, as
well as studies focusing on differential exposure suggest that
populations with pre-existing cardiovascular or respiratory disease,
populations that are overweight or obese, populations that have
particular genetic variants, and current/former smokers could be at
increased risk for adverse PM2.5-related health effects. The
2022 Policy Assessment for the review of the PM NAAQS also highlights
that factors that may contribute to increased risk of PM2.5-
related health effects include lifestage (children and older adults),
pre-existing diseases (cardiovascular disease and respiratory disease),
race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic status.\178\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\176\ U.S. EPA. Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for
Particulate Matter (Final Report, 2019). U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/188, 2019.
\177\ U.S. EPA. Supplement to the 2019 Integrated Science
Assessment for Particulate Matter (Final Report, 2022). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/635/R-22/028,
2022.
\178\ U.S. EPA. Policy Assessment (PA) for the Reconsideration
of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter
(Final Report, 2022). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC, EPA-452/R-22-004, 2022, p. 3-53.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Ozone
This section provides a summary of the health effects associated
with exposure to ambient concentrations of ozone.\179\ The information
in this section is based on the information and conclusions in the
April 2020 Integrated Science Assessment for Ozone (Ozone ISA).\180\
The Ozone ISA concludes that human exposures to ambient concentrations
of ozone are associated with a number of adverse health effects and
characterizes the weight of evidence for these health effects.\181\ The
following discussion highlights the Ozone ISA's conclusions pertaining
to health effects associated with both short-term and long-term periods
of exposure to ozone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\179\ Human exposure to ozone varies over time due to changes in
ambient ozone concentration and because people move between
locations which have notably different ozone concentrations. Also,
the amount of ozone delivered to the lung is influenced not only by
the ambient concentrations but also by the breathing route and rate.
\180\ U.S. EPA. Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for Ozone
and Related Photochemical Oxidants (Final Report). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-20/012,
2020.
\181\ The ISA evaluates evidence and draws conclusions on the
causal relationship between relevant pollutant exposures and health
effects, assigning one of five ``weight of evidence''
determinations: causal relationship, likely to be a causal
relationship, suggestive of a causal relationship, inadequate to
infer a causal relationship, and not likely to be a causal
relationship. For more information on these levels of evidence,
please refer to Table II in the Preamble of the ISA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For short-term exposure to ozone, the Ozone ISA concludes that
respiratory effects, including lung function decrements, pulmonary
inflammation, exacerbation of asthma, respiratory-related hospital
admissions, and mortality, are causally associated with ozone exposure.
It also concludes that
[[Page 29214]]
metabolic effects, including metabolic syndrome (i.e., changes in
insulin or glucose levels, cholesterol levels, obesity, and blood
pressure) and complications due to diabetes are likely to be causally
associated with short-term exposure to ozone and that evidence is
suggestive of a causal relationship between cardiovascular effects,
central nervous system effects and total mortality and short-term
exposure to ozone.
For long-term exposure to ozone, the Ozone ISA concludes that
respiratory effects, including new onset asthma, pulmonary inflammation
and injury, are likely to be causally related with ozone exposure. The
Ozone ISA characterizes the evidence as suggestive of a causal
relationship for associations between long-term ozone exposure and
cardiovascular effects, metabolic effects, reproductive and
developmental effects, central nervous system effects and total
mortality. The evidence is inadequate to infer a causal relationship
between chronic ozone exposure and increased risk of cancer.
Finally, interindividual variation in human responses to ozone
exposure can result in some groups being at increased risk for
detrimental effects in response to exposure. In addition, some groups
are at increased risk of exposure due to their activities, such as
outdoor workers and children. The Ozone ISA identified several groups
that are at increased risk for ozone-related health effects. These
groups are people with asthma, children and older adults, individuals
with reduced intake of certain nutrients (i.e., Vitamins C and E),
outdoor workers, and individuals having certain genetic variants
related to oxidative metabolism or inflammation. Ozone exposure during
childhood can have lasting effects through adulthood. Such effects
include altered function of the respiratory and immune systems.
Children absorb higher doses (normalized to lung surface area) of
ambient ozone, compared to adults, due to their increased time spent
outdoors, higher ventilation rates relative to body size, and a
tendency to breathe a greater fraction of air through the mouth.
Children also have a higher asthma prevalence compared to adults.
Recent epidemiologic studies provide generally consistent evidence that
long-term ozone exposure is associated with the development of asthma
in children. Studies comparing age groups reported higher magnitude
associations for short-term ozone exposure and respiratory hospital
admissions and emergency room visits among children than among adults.
Panel studies also provide support for experimental studies with
consistent associations between short-term ozone exposure and lung
function and pulmonary inflammation in healthy children. Additional
children's vulnerability and susceptibility factors are listed in
Section X.G of the Preamble.
3. Nitrogen Oxides
The most recent review of the health effects of oxides of nitrogen
completed by EPA can be found in the 2016 Integrated Science Assessment
for Oxides of Nitrogen--Health Criteria (Oxides of Nitrogen ISA).\182\
The primary source of NO2 is motor vehicle emissions, and
ambient NO2 concentrations tend to be highly correlated with
other traffic-related pollutants. Thus, a key issue in characterizing
the causality of NO2-health effect relationships consists of
evaluating the extent to which studies supported an effect of
NO2 that is independent of other traffic-related pollutants.
EPA concluded that the findings for asthma exacerbation integrated from
epidemiologic and controlled human exposure studies provided evidence
that is sufficient to infer a causal relationship between respiratory
effects and short-term NO2 exposure. The strongest evidence
supporting an independent effect of NO2 exposure comes from
controlled human exposure studies demonstrating increased airway
responsiveness in individuals with asthma following ambient-relevant
NO2 exposures. The coherence of this evidence with
epidemiologic findings for asthma hospital admissions and ED visits as
well as lung function decrements and increased pulmonary inflammation
in children with asthma describe a plausible pathway by which
NO2 exposure can cause an asthma exacerbation. The 2016 ISA
for Oxides of Nitrogen also concluded that there is likely to be a
causal relationship between long-term NO2 exposure and
respiratory effects. This conclusion is based on new epidemiologic
evidence for associations of NO2 with asthma development in
children combined with biological plausibility from experimental
studies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\182\ U.S. EPA. Integrated Science Assessment for Oxides of
Nitrogen--Health Criteria (2016 Final Report). U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-15/068, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In evaluating a broader range of health effects, the 2016 ISA for
Oxides of Nitrogen concluded that evidence is ``suggestive of, but not
sufficient to infer, a causal relationship'' between short-term
NO2 exposure and cardiovascular effects and mortality and
between long-term NO2 exposure and cardiovascular effects
and diabetes, birth outcomes, and cancer. In addition, the scientific
evidence is inadequate (insufficient consistency of epidemiologic and
toxicological evidence) to infer a causal relationship for long-term
NO2 exposure with fertility, reproduction, and pregnancy, as
well as with postnatal development. A key uncertainty in understanding
the relationship between these non-respiratory health effects and
short- or long-term exposure to NO2 is copollutant
confounding, particularly by other roadway pollutants. The available
evidence for non-respiratory health effects does not adequately address
whether NO2 has an independent effect or whether it
primarily represents effects related to other or a mixture of traffic-
related pollutants.
The 2016 ISA for Oxides of Nitrogen concluded that people with
asthma, children, and older adults are at increased risk for
NO2-related health effects. In these groups and lifestages,
NO2 is consistently related to larger effects on outcomes
related to asthma exacerbation, for which there is confidence in the
relationship with NO2 exposure.
4. Sulfur Oxides
This section provides an overview of the health effects associated
with SO2. Additional information on the health effects of
SO2 can be found in the 2017 Integrated Science Assessment
for Sulfur Oxides--Health Criteria (SOX ISA).\183\ Following
an extensive evaluation of health evidence from animal toxicological,
controlled human exposure, and epidemiologic studies, EPA has concluded
that there is a causal relationship between respiratory health effects
and short-term exposure to SO2. The immediate effect of
SO2 on the respiratory system in humans is
bronchoconstriction. People with asthma are more sensitive to the
effects of SO2, likely resulting from preexisting
inflammation associated with this disease. In addition to those with
asthma (both children and adults), there is suggestive evidence that
all children and older adults may be at increased risk of
SO2-related health effects. In free-breathing laboratory
studies involving controlled human exposures to SO2,
respiratory effects have consistently been observed following 5-10 min
exposures at SO2 concentrations >=400
[[Page 29215]]
ppb in people with asthma engaged in moderate to heavy levels of
exercise, with respiratory effects occurring at concentrations as low
as 200 ppb in some individuals with asthma. A clear concentration-
response relationship has been demonstrated in these studies following
exposures to SO2 at concentrations between 200 and 1000 ppb,
both in terms of increasing severity of respiratory symptoms and
decrements in lung function, as well as the percentage of individuals
with asthma adversely affected. Epidemiologic studies have reported
positive associations between short-term ambient SO2
concentrations and hospital admissions and emergency department visits
for asthma and for all respiratory causes, particularly among children
and older adults (>=65 years). The studies provide supportive evidence
for the causal relationship.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\183\ U.S. EPA. Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for Sulfur
Oxides--Health Criteria (Final Report, Dec 2017). U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-17/451, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For long-term SO2 exposure and respiratory effects, EPA
has concluded that the evidence is suggestive of a causal relationship.
This conclusion is based on new epidemiologic evidence for positive
associations between long-term SO2 exposure and increases in
asthma incidence among children, together with animal toxicological
evidence that provides a pathophysiologic basis for the development of
asthma. However, uncertainty remains regarding the influence of other
pollutants on the observed associations with SO2 because
these epidemiologic studies have not examined the potential for
copollutant confounding.
Consistent associations between short-term exposure to
SO2 and mortality have been observed in epidemiologic
studies, with larger effect estimates reported for respiratory
mortality than for cardiovascular mortality. While this finding is
consistent with the demonstrated effects of SO2 on
respiratory morbidity, uncertainty remains with respect to the
interpretation of these observed mortality associations due to
potential confounding by various copollutants. Therefore, EPA has
concluded that the overall evidence is suggestive of a causal
relationship between short-term exposure to SO2 and
mortality.
5. Carbon Monoxide
Information on the health effects of carbon monoxide (CO) can be
found in the January 2010 Integrated Science Assessment for Carbon
Monoxide (CO ISA).\184\ The CO ISA presents conclusions regarding the
presence of causal relationships between CO exposure and categories of
adverse health effects.\185\ This section provides a summary of the
health effects associated with exposure to ambient concentrations of
CO, along with the CO ISA conclusions.\186\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\184\ U.S. EPA, (2010). Integrated Science Assessment for Carbon
Monoxide (Final Report). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-09/019F, 2010. http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=218686.
\185\ The ISA evaluates the health evidence associated with
different health effects, assigning one of five ``weight of
evidence'' determinations: causal relationship, likely to be a
causal relationship, suggestive of a causal relationship, inadequate
to infer a causal relationship, and not likely to be a causal
relationship. For definitions of these levels of evidence, please
refer to Section 1.6 of the ISA.
\186\ Personal exposure includes contributions from many
sources, and in many different environments. Total personal exposure
to CO includes both ambient and non-ambient components; and both
components may contribute to adverse health effects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Controlled human exposure studies of subjects with coronary artery
disease show a decrease in the time to onset of exercise-induced angina
(chest pain) and electrocardiogram changes following CO exposure. In
addition, epidemiologic studies observed associations between short-
term CO exposure and cardiovascular morbidity, particularly increased
emergency room visits and hospital admissions for coronary heart
disease (including ischemic heart disease, myocardial infarction, and
angina). Some epidemiologic evidence is also available for increased
hospital admissions and emergency room visits for congestive heart
failure and cardiovascular disease as a whole. The CO ISA concludes
that a causal relationship is likely to exist between short-term
exposures to CO and cardiovascular morbidity. It also concludes that
available data are inadequate to conclude that a causal relationship
exists between long-term exposures to CO and cardiovascular morbidity.
Animal studies show various neurological effects with in-utero CO
exposure. Controlled human exposure studies report central nervous
system and behavioral effects following low-level CO exposures,
although the findings have not been consistent across all studies. The
CO ISA concludes that the evidence is suggestive of a causal
relationship with both short- and long-term exposure to CO and central
nervous system effects.
A number of studies cited in the CO ISA have evaluated the role of
CO exposure in birth outcomes such as preterm birth or cardiac birth
defects. There is limited epidemiologic evidence of a CO-induced effect
on preterm births and birth defects, with weak evidence for a decrease
in birth weight. Animal toxicological studies have found perinatal CO
exposure to affect birth weight, as well as other developmental
outcomes. The CO ISA concludes that the evidence is suggestive of a
causal relationship between long-term exposures to CO and developmental
effects and birth outcomes.
Epidemiologic studies provide evidence of associations between
short-term CO concentrations and respiratory morbidity such as changes
in pulmonary function, respiratory symptoms, and hospital admissions. A
limited number of epidemiologic studies considered copollutants such as
ozone, SO2, and PM in two-pollutant models and found that CO
risk estimates were generally robust, although this limited evidence
makes it difficult to disentangle effects attributed to CO itself from
those of the larger complex air pollution mixture. Controlled human
exposure studies have not extensively evaluated the effect of CO on
respiratory morbidity. Animal studies at levels of 50-100 ppm CO show
preliminary evidence of altered pulmonary vascular remodeling and
oxidative injury. The CO ISA concludes that the evidence is suggestive
of a causal relationship between short-term CO exposure and respiratory
morbidity, and inadequate to conclude that a causal relationship exists
between long-term exposure and respiratory morbidity.
Finally, the CO ISA concludes that the epidemiologic evidence is
suggestive of a causal relationship between short-term concentrations
of CO and mortality. Epidemiologic evidence suggests an association
exists between short-term exposure to CO and mortality, but limited
evidence is available to evaluate cause-specific mortality outcomes
associated with CO exposure. In addition, the attenuation of CO risk
estimates which was often observed in copollutant models contributes to
the uncertainty as to whether CO is acting alone or as an indicator for
other combustion-related pollutants. The CO ISA also concludes that
there is not likely to be a causal relationship between relevant long-
term exposures to CO and mortality.
6. Diesel Exhaust
In EPA's 2002 Diesel Health Assessment Document (Diesel HAD),
exposure to diesel exhaust was classified as likely to be carcinogenic
to humans by inhalation from environmental exposures, in accordance
with the revised draft 1996/1999 EPA
[[Page 29216]]
cancer guidelines.187 188 A number of other agencies
(National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, the
International Agency for Research on Cancer, the World Health
Organization, California EPA, and the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services) made similar hazard classifications prior to 2002. EPA
also concluded in the 2002 Diesel HAD that it was not possible to
calculate a cancer unit risk for diesel exhaust due to limitations in
the exposure data for the occupational groups or the absence of a dose-
response relationship.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\187\ U.S. EPA. (1999). Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk
Assessment. Review Draft. NCEA-F-0644, July. Washington, DC: U.S.
EPA. Retrieved on March 19, 2009 from http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=54932.
\188\ U.S. EPA (2002). Health Assessment Document for Diesel
Engine Exhaust. EPA/600/8-90/057F Office of research and
Development, Washington DC. Retrieved on March 17, 2009 from http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=29060. pp. 1-1 1-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the absence of a cancer unit risk, the Diesel HAD sought to
provide additional insight into the significance of the diesel exhaust
cancer hazard by estimating possible ranges of risk that might be
present in the population. An exploratory analysis was used to
characterize a range of possible lung cancer risk. The outcome was that
environmental risks of cancer from long-term diesel exhaust exposures
could plausibly range from as low as 10-5 to as high as
10-3. Because of uncertainties, the analysis acknowledged
that the risks could be lower than 10-5, and a zero risk
from diesel exhaust exposure could not be ruled out.
Noncancer health effects of acute and chronic exposure to diesel
exhaust emissions are also of concern to EPA. EPA derived a diesel
exhaust reference concentration (RfC) from consideration of four well-
conducted chronic rat inhalation studies showing adverse pulmonary
effects. The RfC is 5 [micro]g/m\3\ for diesel exhaust measured as
diesel particulate matter. This RfC does not consider allergenic
effects such as those associated with asthma or immunologic or the
potential for cardiac effects. There was emerging evidence in 2002,
discussed in the Diesel HAD, that exposure to diesel exhaust can
exacerbate these effects, but the exposure-response data were lacking
at that time to derive an RfC based on these then-emerging
considerations. The Diesel HAD states, ``With [diesel particulate
matter] being a ubiquitous component of ambient PM, there is an
uncertainty about the adequacy of the existing [diesel exhaust]
noncancer database to identify all of the pertinent [diesel exhaust]-
caused noncancer health hazards.'' The Diesel HAD also noted ``that
acute exposure to [diesel exhaust] has been associated with irritation
of the eye, nose, and throat, respiratory symptoms (cough and phlegm),
and neurophysiological symptoms such as headache, lightheadedness,
nausea, vomiting, and numbness or tingling of the extremities.'' The
Diesel HAD notes that the cancer and noncancer hazard conclusions
applied to the general use of diesel engines then on the market and as
cleaner engines replace a substantial number of existing ones, the
applicability of the conclusions would need to be reevaluated.
It is important to note that the Diesel HAD also briefly summarizes
health effects associated with ambient PM and discusses EPA's then-
annual PM2.5 NAAQS of 15 [micro]g/m\3\.\189\ There is a
large and extensive body of human data showing a wide spectrum of
adverse health effects associated with exposure to ambient PM, of which
diesel exhaust is an important component. The PM2.5 NAAQS is
designed to provide protection from the noncancer health effects and
premature mortality attributed to exposure to PM2.5. The
contribution of diesel PM to total ambient PM varies in different
regions of the country and also, within a region, from one area to
another. The contribution can be high in near-roadway environments, for
example, or in other locations where diesel engine use is concentrated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\189\ See Section II.B.1 for discussion of the current
PM2.5 NAAQS standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since 2002, several new studies have been published which continue
to report increased lung cancer risk associated with occupational
exposure to diesel exhaust from older engines. Of particular note since
2011 are three new epidemiology studies that have examined lung cancer
in occupational populations, including, truck drivers, underground
nonmetal miners, and other diesel motor-related occupations. These
studies reported increased risk of lung cancer related to exposure to
diesel exhaust, with evidence of positive exposure-response
relationships to varying degrees.190 191 192 These newer
studies (along with others that have appeared in the scientific
literature) add to the evidence EPA evaluated in the 2002 Diesel HAD
and further reinforce the concern that diesel exhaust exposure likely
poses a lung cancer hazard. The findings from these newer studies do
not necessarily apply to newer technology diesel engines (i.e., heavy-
duty highway engines from 2007 and later model years) since the newer
engines have large reductions in the emission constituents compared to
older technology diesel engines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\190\ Garshick, Eric, Francine Laden, Jaime E. Hart, Mary E.
Davis, Ellen A. Eisen, and Thomas J. Smith. 2012. Lung cancer and
elemental carbon exposure in trucking industry workers.
Environmental Health Perspectives 120(9): 1301-1306.
\191\ Silverman, D.T., Samanic, C.M., Lubin, J.H., Blair, A.E.,
Stewart, P.A., Vermeulen, R., & Attfield, M.D. (2012). The diesel
exhaust in miners study: a nested case-control study of lung cancer
and diesel exhaust. Journal of the National Cancer Institute.
\192\ Olsson, Ann C., et al. ``Exposure to diesel motor exhaust
and lung cancer risk in a pooled analysis from case-control studies
in Europe and Canada.'' American journal of respiratory and critical
care medicine 183.7 (2011): 941-948.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In light of the growing body of scientific literature evaluating
the health effects of exposure to diesel exhaust, in June 2012 the
World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer
(IARC), a recognized international authority on the carcinogenic
potential of chemicals and other agents, evaluated the full range of
cancer-related health effects data for diesel engine exhaust. IARC
concluded that diesel exhaust should be regarded as ``carcinogenic to
humans.'' \193\ This designation was an update from its 1988 evaluation
that considered the evidence to be indicative of a ``probable human
carcinogen.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\193\ IARC [International Agency for Research on Cancer].
(2013). Diesel and gasoline engine exhausts and some nitroarenes.
IARC Monographs Volume 105. [Online at http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol105/index.php.]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Air Toxics
Light- and medium-duty engine emissions contribute to ambient
levels of air toxics that are known or suspected human or animal
carcinogens, or that have noncancer health effects. These compounds
include, but are not limited to, acetaldehyde, acrolein, benzene, 1,3-
butadiene, ethylbenzene, formaldehyde, naphthalene, and polycyclic
organic matter, which were all identified as national or regional
cancer risk drivers or contributors in the 2018 AirToxScreen
Assessment.194 195
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\194\ U.S. EPA (2022) Technical Support Document EPA Air Toxics
Screening Assessment. 2017AirToxScreen TSD. https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-03/airtoxscreen_2017tsd.pdf.
\195\ U.S. EPA (2022) 2018 AirToxScreen Risk Drivers. https://www.epa.gov/AirToxScreen/airtoxscreen-risk-drivers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
i. Acetaldehyde
Acetaldehyde is classified in EPA's IRIS database as a probable
human carcinogen, based on nasal tumors in rats, and is considered
toxic by the inhalation, oral, and intravenous
[[Page 29217]]
routes.\196\ The inhalation unit risk estimate (URE) in IRIS for
acetaldehyde is 2.2 x 10-6 per [micro]g/m\3\.\197\ Acetaldehyde is
reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen by the NTP in the 14th
Report on Carcinogens and is classified as possibly carcinogenic to
humans (Group 2B) by the IARC.198 199
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\196\ U.S. EPA (1991). Integrated Risk Information System File
of Acetaldehyde. Research and Development, National Center for
Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC. This material is available
electronically at https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris2/chemicalLanding.cfm?substance_nmbr=290.
\197\ U.S. EPA (1991). Integrated Risk Information System File
of Acetaldehyde. This material is available electronically at
https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris2/chemicalLanding.cfm?substance_nmbr=290.
\198\ NTP (National Toxicology Program). 2016. Report on
Carcinogens, Fourteenth Edition.; Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service.
https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/roc14.
\199\ International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC).
(1999). Re-evaluation of some organic chemicals, hydrazine, and
hydrogen peroxide. IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic
Risk of Chemical to Humans, Vol 71. Lyon, France.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The primary noncancer effects of exposure to acetaldehyde vapors
include irritation of the eyes, skin, and respiratory tract.\200\ In
short-term (4 week) rat studies, degeneration of olfactory epithelium
was observed at various concentration levels of acetaldehyde
exposure.201 202 Data from these studies were used by EPA to
develop an inhalation reference concentration of 9 [micro]g/m3. Some
asthmatics have been shown to be a sensitive subpopulation to
decrements in functional expiratory volume (FEV1 test) and
bronchoconstriction upon acetaldehyde inhalation.\203\ Children,
especially those with diagnosed asthma, may be more likely to show
impaired pulmonary function and symptoms of asthma than are adults
following exposure to acetaldehyde.\204\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\200\ U.S. EPA (1991). Integrated Risk Information System File
of Acetaldehyde. This material is available electronically at
https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris2/chemicalLanding.cfm?substance_nmbr=290.
\201\ U.S. EPA. (2003). Integrated Risk Information System File
of Acrolein. Research and Development, National Center for
Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC. This material is available
electronically at https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris2/chemicalLanding.cfm?substance_nmbr=364.
\202\ Appleman, L.M., R.A. Woutersen, and V.J. Feron. (1982).
Inhalation toxicity of acetaldehyde in rats. I. Acute and subacute
studies. Toxicology. 23: 293-297.
\203\ Myou, S.; Fujimura, M.; Nishi K.; Ohka, T.; and Matsuda,
T. (1993). Aerosolized acetaldehyde induces histamine-mediated
bronchoconstriction in asthmatics. Am. Rev. Respir.Dis.148(4 Pt 1):
940-943.
\204\ California OEHHA, 2014. TSD for Noncancer RELs: Appendix
D. Individual, Acute, 8-Hour, and Chronic Reference Exposure Level
Summaries. December 2008 (updated July 2014). https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/appendixd1final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. Acrolein
EPA most recently evaluated the toxicological and health effects
literature related to acrolein in 2003 and concluded that the human
carcinogenic potential of acrolein could not be determined because the
available data were inadequate. No information was available on the
carcinogenic effects of acrolein in humans and the animal data provided
inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity.\205\ In 2021, the IARC
classified acrolein as probably carcinogenic to humans.\206\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\205\ U.S. EPA. (2003). Integrated Risk Information System File
of Acrolein. Research and Development, National Center for
Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC. This material is available
at http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0364.htm.
\206\ International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC).
(2021). Monographs on the Identification of Carcinogenic Hazards to
humans, Volume 128. Acrolein, Crotonaldehyde, and Arecoline, World
Health Organization, Lyon, France.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lesions to the lungs and upper respiratory tract of rats, rabbits,
and hamsters have been observed after subchronic exposure to
acrolein.\207\ The agency has developed an RfC for acrolein of 0.02
[micro]g/m\3\ and an RfD of 0.5 [micro]g/kg-day.\208\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\207\ U.S. EPA. (2003). Integrated Risk Information System File
of Acrolein. Office of Research and Development, National Center for
Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC. This material is available
at http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0364.htm.
\208\ U.S. EPA. (2003). Integrated Risk Information System File
of Acrolein. Office of Research and Development, National Center for
Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC. This material is available
at http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0364.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acrolein is extremely acrid and irritating to humans when inhaled,
with acute exposure resulting in upper respiratory tract irritation,
mucus hypersecretion and congestion. The intense irritancy of this
carbonyl has been demonstrated during controlled tests in human
subjects, who suffer intolerable eye and nasal mucosal sensory
reactions within minutes of exposure.\209\ These data and additional
studies regarding acute effects of human exposure to acrolein are
summarized in EPA's 2003 IRIS Human Health Assessment for
acrolein.\210\ Studies in humans indicate that levels as low as 0.09
ppm (0.21 mg/m\3\) for five minutes may elicit subjective complaints of
eye irritation with increasing concentrations leading to more extensive
eye, nose and respiratory symptoms. Acute exposures in animal studies
report bronchial hyper-responsiveness. Based on animal data (more
pronounced respiratory irritancy in mice with allergic airway disease
in comparison to non-diseased mice) \211\ and demonstration of similar
effects in humans (e.g., reduction in respiratory rate), individuals
with compromised respiratory function (e.g., emphysema, asthma) are
expected to be at increased risk of developing adverse responses to
strong respiratory irritants such as acrolein. EPA does not currently
have an acute reference concentration for acrolein. The available
health effect reference values for acrolein have been summarized by EPA
and include an ATSDR MRL for acute exposure to acrolein of 7 [micro]g/
m\3\ for 1-14 days exposure; and Reference Exposure Level (REL) values
from the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
(OEHHA) for one-hour and 8-hour exposures of 2.5 [micro]g/m\3\ and 0.7
[micro]g/m\3\, respectively.\212\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\209\ U.S. EPA. (2003). Toxicological review of acrolein in
support of summary information on Integrated Risk Information System
(IRIS) National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC.
EPA/635/R-03/003. p. 10. Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/toxreviews/0364tr.pdf.
\210\ U.S. EPA. (2003). Toxicological review of acrolein in
support of summary information on Integrated Risk Information System
(IRIS) National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC.
EPA/635/R-03/003. Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/toxreviews/0364tr.pdf.
\211\ Morris JB, Symanowicz PT, Olsen JE, et al. (2003).
Immediate sensory nerve-mediated respiratory responses to irritants
in healthy and allergic airway-diseased mice. J Appl Physiol
94(4):1563-1571.
\212\ U.S. EPA. (2009). Graphical Arrays of Chemical-Specific
Health Effect Reference Values for Inhalation Exposures (Final
Report). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/
600/R-09/061, 2009. http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=211003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
iii. Benzene
EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) database lists
benzene as a known human carcinogen (causing leukemia) by all routes of
exposure, and concludes that exposure is associated with additional
health effects, including genetic changes in both humans and animals
and increased proliferation of bone marrow cells in
mice.213 214 215 EPA states in its IRIS database that data
indicate a causal relationship between benzene exposure and acute
lymphocytic leukemia and suggest a
[[Page 29218]]
relationship between benzene exposure and chronic non-lymphocytic
leukemia and chronic lymphocytic leukemia. EPA's IRIS documentation for
benzene also lists a range of 2.2 x 10-6 to 7.8 x 10-6 per [micro]g/
m\3\ as the unit risk estimate (URE) for benzene.216 217 The
International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has determined that
benzene is a human carcinogen, and the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services (DHHS) has characterized benzene as a known human
carcinogen.218 219
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\213\ U.S. EPA. (2000). Integrated Risk Information System File
for Benzene. This material is available electronically at: https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris2/chemicalLanding.cfm?substance_nmbr=276.
\214\ International Agency for Research on Cancer. (1982). IARC
monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risk of chemicals to
humans, Volume 29, Some industrial chemicals and dyestuffs,
International Agency for Research on Cancer, World Health
Organization, Lyon, France 1982.
\215\ Irons, R.D.; Stillman, W.S.; Colagiovanni, D.B.; Henry,
V.A. (1992). Synergistic action of the benzene metabolite
hydroquinone on myelopoietic stimulating activity of granulocyte/
macrophage colony-stimulating factor in vitro, Proc. Natl. Acad.
Sci. 89:3691-3695.
\216\ A unit risk estimate is defined as the increase in the
lifetime risk of cancer of an individual who is exposed for a
lifetime to 1 [micro]g/m\3\ benzene in air.
\217\ U.S. EPA. (2000). Integrated Risk Information System File
for Benzene. This material is available electronically at: https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris2/chemicalLanding.cfm?substance_nmbr=276.
\218\ International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC, 2018.
Monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans, volume
120. World Health Organization--Lyon, France. http://publications.iarc.fr/Book-And-Report-Series/Iarc-Monographs-On-The-Identification-Of-Carcinogenic-Hazards-To-Humans/Benzene-2018.
\219\ NTP (National Toxicology Program). 2016. Report on
Carcinogens, Fourteenth Edition.; Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service.
https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/roc14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A number of adverse noncancer health effects, including blood
disorders such as preleukemia and aplastic anemia, have also been
associated with long-term exposure to benzene.220 221 The
most sensitive noncancer effect observed in humans, based on current
data, is the depression of the absolute lymphocyte count in
blood.222 223 EPA's inhalation reference concentration (RfC)
for benzene is 30 [micro]g/m\3\. The RfC is based on suppressed
absolute lymphocyte counts seen in humans under occupational exposure
conditions. In addition, studies sponsored by the Health Effects
Institute (HEI) provide evidence that biochemical responses occur at
lower levels of benzene exposure than previously
known.224 225 226 227 EPA's IRIS program has not yet
evaluated these new data. EPA does not currently have an acute
reference concentration for benzene. The Agency for Toxic Substances
and Disease Registry (ATSDR) Minimal Risk Level (MRL) for acute
exposure to benzene is 29 [micro]g/m\3\ for 1-14 days
exposure.228 229
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\220\ Aksoy, M. (1989). Hematotoxicity and carcinogenicity of
benzene. Environ. Health Perspect. 82: 193-197. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-
0135.
\221\ Goldstein, B.D. (1988). Benzene toxicity. Occupational
medicine. State of the Art Reviews. 3: 541-554.
\222\ Rothman, N., G.L. Li, M. Dosemeci, W.E. Bechtold, G.E.
Marti, Y.Z. Wang, M. Linet, L.Q. Xi, W. Lu, M.T. Smith, N. Titenko-
Holland, L.P. Zhang, W. Blot, S.N. Yin, and R.B. Hayes. (1996).
Hematotoxicity among Chinese workers heavily exposed to benzene. Am.
J. Ind. Med. 29: 236-246.
\223\ U.S. EPA (2002). Toxicological Review of Benzene
(Noncancer Effects). Environmental Protection Agency, Integrated
Risk Information System (IRIS), Research and Development, National
Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington DC. This material is
available electronically at https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris/iris_documents/documents/toxreviews/0276tr.pdf.
\224\ Qu, O.; Shore, R.; Li, G.; Jin, X.; Chen, C.L.; Cohen, B.;
Melikian, A.; Eastmond, D.; Rappaport, S.; Li, H.; Rupa, D.;
Suramaya, R.; Songnian, W.; Huifant, Y.; Meng, M.; Winnik, M.; Kwok,
E.; Li, Y.; Mu, R.; Xu, B.; Zhang, X.; Li, K. (2003). HEI Report
115, Validation & Evaluation of Biomarkers in Workers Exposed to
Benzene in China.
\225\ Qu, Q., R. Shore, G. Li, X. Jin, L.C. Chen, B. Cohen, et
al. (2002). Hematological changes among Chinese workers with a broad
range of benzene exposures. Am. J. Industr. Med. 42: 275-285.
\226\ Lan, Qing, Zhang, L., Li, G., Vermeulen, R., et al.
(2004). Hematotoxically in Workers Exposed to Low Levels of Benzene.
Science 306: 1774-1776.
\227\ Turtletaub, K.W. and Mani, C. (2003). Benzene metabolism
in rodents at doses relevant to human exposure from Urban Air.
Research Reports Health Effect Inst. Report No.113.
\228\ U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR). (2007). Toxicological profile for benzene. Atlanta, GA:
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service.
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/tp3.pdf.
\229\ A minimal risk level (MRL) is defined as an estimate of
the daily human exposure to a hazardous substance that is likely to
be without appreciable risk of adverse noncancer health effects over
a specified duration of exposure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is limited information from two studies regarding an
increased risk of adverse effects to children whose parents have been
occupationally exposed to benzene.230 231 Data from animal
studies have shown benzene exposures result in damage to the
hematopoietic (blood cell formation) system during
development.232 233 234 Also, key changes related to the
development of childhood leukemia occur in the developing fetus.\235\
Several studies have reported that genetic changes related to eventual
leukemia development occur before birth. For example, there is one
study of genetic changes in twins who developed T cell leukemia at nine
years of age.\236\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\230\ Corti, M; Snyder, CA. (1996) Influences of gender,
development, pregnancy and ethanol consumption on the hematotoxicity
of inhaled 10 ppm benzene. Arch Toxicol 70:209-217.
\231\ McKinney P.A.; Alexander, F.E.; Cartwright, R.A.; et al.
(1991) Parental occupations of children with leukemia in west
Cumbria, north Humberside, and Gateshead, Br Med J 302:681-686.
\232\ Keller, KA; Snyder, CA. (1986) Mice exposed in utero to
low concentrations of benzene exhibit enduring changes in their
colony forming hematopoietic cells. Toxicology 42:171-181.
\233\ Keller, KA; Snyder, CA. (1988) Mice exposed in utero to 20
ppm benzene exhibit altered numbers of recognizable hematopoietic
cells up to seven weeks after exposure. Fundam Appl Toxicol 10:224-
232.
\234\ Corti, M; Snyder, CA. (1996) Influences of gender,
development, pregnancy and ethanol consumption on the hematotoxicity
of inhaled 10 ppm benzene. Arch Toxicol 70:209-217.
\235\ U.S. EPA. (2002). Toxicological Review of Benzene
(Noncancer Effects). National Center for Environmental Assessment,
Washington, DC. Report No. EPA/635/R-02/001F. https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris/iris_documents/documents/toxreviews/0276tr.pdf.
\236\ Ford, AM; Pombo-de-Oliveira, MS; McCarthy, KP; MacLean,
JM; Carrico, KC; Vincent, RF; Greaves, M. (1997) Monoclonal origin
of concordant T-cell malignancy in identical twins. Blood 89:281-
285.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
iv. 1,3-Butadiene
EPA has characterized 1,3-butadiene as carcinogenic to humans by
inhalation.237 238 The IARC has determined that 1,3-
butadiene is a human carcinogen and the U.S. DHHS has characterized
1,3-butadiene as a known human carcinogen.239 240 241 242
There are numerous studies consistently demonstrating that 1,3-
butadiene is metabolized into genotoxic metabolites by experimental
animals and humans. The specific mechanisms of 1,3-butadiene-induced
carcinogenesis are unknown; however, the scientific evidence strongly
suggests that the carcinogenic effects are mediated by genotoxic
metabolites. Animal data suggest that females may be more sensitive
than males for cancer effects associated with 1,3-butadiene exposure;
there are insufficient data in humans from which to draw conclusions
about sensitive subpopulations. The URE for 1,3-butadiene is 3 x 10-5
per [micro]g/m\3\.\243\
[[Page 29219]]
1,3-butadiene also causes a variety of reproductive and developmental
effects in mice; no human data on these effects are available. The most
sensitive effect was ovarian atrophy observed in a lifetime bioassay of
female mice.\244\ Based on this critical effect and the benchmark
concentration methodology, an RfC for chronic health effects was
calculated at 0.9 ppb (approximately 2 [micro]g/m\3\).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\237\ U.S. EPA. (2002). Health Assessment of 1,3-Butadiene.
Office of Research and Development, National Center for
Environmental Assessment, Washington Office, Washington, DC. Report
No. EPA600-P-98-001F. This document is available electronically at
https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris_drafts/recordisplay.cfm?deid=54499.
\238\ U.S. EPA. (2002) ``Full IRIS Summary for 1,3-butadiene
(CASRN 106-99-0)'' Environmental Protection Agency, Integrated Risk
Information System (IRIS), Research and Development, National Center
for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris2/chemicalLanding.cfm?substance_nmbr=139.
\239\ International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC).
(1999). Monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risk of
chemicals to humans, Volume 71, Re-evaluation of some organic
chemicals, hydrazine and hydrogen peroxide, World Health
Organization, Lyon, France.
\240\ International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC).
(2008). Monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risk of
chemicals to humans, 1,3-Butadiene, Ethylene Oxide and Vinyl Halides
(Vinyl Fluoride, Vinyl Chloride and Vinyl Bromide) Volume 97, World
Health Organization, Lyon, France.
\241\ NTP (National Toxicology Program). 2016. Report on
Carcinogens, Fourteenth Edition.; Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service.
https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/roc14.
\242\ International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC).
(2012). Monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risk of
chemicals to humans, Volume 100F chemical agents and related
occupations, World Health Organization, Lyon, France.
\243\ U.S. EPA. (2002). ``Full IRIS Summary for 1,3-butadiene
(CASRN 106-99-0)'' Environmental Protection Agency, Integrated Risk
Information System (IRIS), Research and Development, National Center
for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris2/chemicalLanding.cfm?substance_nmbr=139.
\244\ Bevan, C.; Stadler, J.C.; Elliot, G.S.; et al. (1996).
Subchronic toxicity of 4-vinylcyclohexene in rats and mice by
inhalation. Fundam. Appl. Toxicol. 32:1-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
v. Ethylbenzene
EPA's inhalation RfC for ethylbenzene is 1 mg/m\3\. This conclusion
on a weight of evidence determination and RfC are contained in the 1991
IRIS file for ethylbenzene.\245\ The RfC is based on developmental
effects. A study in rabbits found reductions in live rabbit kits per
litter at 1000 ppm. In addition, a study on rats found an increased
incidence of supernumerary and rudimentary ribs at 1000 ppm, and
elevated incidence of extra ribs at 100 ppm. In 1988, EPA concluded
that data were inadequate to give a weight of evidence characterization
for carcinogenic effects. EPA released an IRIS Assessment Plan for
Ethylbenzene in 2017 \246\ and EPA will be releasing the Systematic
Review Protocol for ethylbenzene in 2023.\247\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\245\ U.S. EPA. (1991). Integrated Risk Information System File
for Ethylbenzene. This material is available electronically at:
https://iris.epa.gov/ChemicalLanding/&substance_nmbr=51.
\246\ U.S. EPA (2017). IRIS Assessment Plan for Ethylbenzene.
EPA/635/R-17/332. This document is available electronically at:
https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris_drafts/recordisplay.cfm?deid=337468.
\247\ U.S. EPA (2022). IRIS Program Outlook. June, 2022. This
material is available electronically at: https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-06/IRIS%20Program%20Outlook_June22.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
California EPA completed a cancer risk assessment for ethylbenzene
in 2007 and developed an inhalation unit risk estimate of 2.5 x 10-
6.\248\ This value was based on incidence of kidney cancer in male
rats. California EPA also developed a chronic inhalation noncancer
reference exposure level (REL) of 2000 [micro]g/m\3\, based on
nephrotoxicity and body weight reduction in rats, liver cellular
alterations, necrosis in mice, and hyperplasia of the pituitary gland
in mice.\249\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\248\ California OEHHA, 2007. Adoption of a Unit Risk Value for
Ethylbenzene. This material is available electronically at: https://oehha.ca.gov/air/report-hot-spots/adoption-unit-risk-value-ethylbenzene.
\249\ California OEHHA, 2008. Technical Supporting Document for
Noncancer RELs, Appendix D3. This material is available
electronically at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/appendixd3final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ATSDR developed chronic Minimal Risk Levels (MRLs) for ethylbenzene
of 0.06 ppm based on renal effects, and an acute MRL of 5 ppm based on
auditory effects.
vi. Formaldehyde
In 1991, EPA concluded that formaldehyde is a Class B1 probable
human carcinogen based on limited evidence in humans and sufficient
evidence in animals.\250\ An Inhalation URE for cancer and a Reference
Dose for oral noncancer effects were developed by EPA and posted on the
IRIS database. Since that time, the NTP and IARC have concluded that
formaldehyde is a known human carcinogen.251 252 253
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\250\ EPA. Integrated Risk Information System. Formaldehyde
(CASRN 50-00-0) https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris2/chemicalLanding.cfm?substance_nmbr=419.
\251\ NTP (National Toxicology Program). 2016. Report on
Carcinogens, Fourteenth Edition.; Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service.
https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/roc14.
\252\ IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to
Humans Volume 88 (2006): Formaldehyde, 2-Butoxyethanol and 1-tert-
Butoxypropan-2-ol.
\253\ IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to
Humans Volume 100F (2012): Formaldehyde.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The conclusions by IARC and NTP reflect the results of
epidemiologic research published since 1991 in combination with
previous animal, human, and mechanistic evidence. Research conducted by
the National Cancer Institute reported an increased risk of
nasopharyngeal cancer and specific lymphohematopoietic malignancies
among workers exposed to formaldehyde.254 255 256 A National
Institute of Occupational Safety and Health study of garment workers
also reported increased risk of death due to leukemia among workers
exposed to formaldehyde.\257\ Extended follow-up of a cohort of British
chemical workers did not report evidence of an increase in
nasopharyngeal or lymphohematopoietic cancers, but a continuing
statistically significant excess in lung cancers was reported.\258\
Finally, a study of embalmers reported formaldehyde exposures to be
associated with an increased risk of myeloid leukemia but not brain
cancer.\259\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\254\ Hauptmann, M.; Lubin, J.H.; Stewart, P.A.; Hayes, R.B.;
Blair, A. 2003. Mortality from lymphohematopoetic malignancies among
workers in formaldehyde industries. Journal of the National Cancer
Institute 95: 1615-1623.
\255\ Hauptmann, M.; Lubin, J.H.; Stewart, P.A.; Hayes, R.B.;
Blair, A. 2004. Mortality from solid cancers among workers in
formaldehyde industries. American Journal of Epidemiology 159: 1117-
1130.
\256\ Beane Freeman, L.E.; Blair, A.; Lubin, J.H.; Stewart,
P.A.; Hayes, R.B.; Hoover, R.N.; Hauptmann, M. 2009. Mortality from
lymphohematopoietic malignancies among workers in formaldehyde
industries: The National Cancer Institute cohort. J. National Cancer
Inst. 101: 751-761.
\257\ Pinkerton, L.E. 2004. Mortality among a cohort of garment
workers exposed to formaldehyde: an update. Occup. Environ. Med. 61:
193-200.
\258\ Coggon, D, EC Harris, J Poole, KT Palmer. 2003. Extended
follow-up of a cohort of British chemical workers exposed to
formaldehyde. J National Cancer Inst. 95:1608-1615.
\259\ Hauptmann, M,; Stewart P.A.; Lubin J.H.; Beane Freeman,
L.E.; Hornung, R.W.; Herrick, R.F.; Hoover, R.N.; Fraumeni, J.F.;
Hayes, R.B. 2009. Mortality from lymphohematopoietic malignancies
and brain cancer among embalmers exposed to formaldehyde. Journal of
the National Cancer Institute 101:1696-1708.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Health effects of formaldehyde in addition to cancer were reviewed
by the Agency for Toxics Substances and Disease Registry in 1999,
supplemented in 2010, and by the World Health
Organization.260 261 262 These organizations reviewed the
scientific literature concerning health effects linked to formaldehyde
exposure to evaluate hazards and dose response relationships and
defined exposure concentrations for minimal risk levels (MRLs). The
health endpoints reviewed included sensory irritation of eyes and
respiratory tract, reduced pulmonary function, nasal histopathology,
and immune system effects. In addition, research on reproductive and
developmental effects and neurological effects were discussed along
with several studies that suggest that formaldehyde may increase the
risk of asthma--particularly in the young.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\260\ ATSDR. 1999. Toxicological Profile for Formaldehyde, U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), July 1999.
\261\ ATSDR. 2010. Addendum to the Toxicological Profile for
Formaldehyde. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS),
October 2010.
\262\ IPCS. 2002. Concise International Chemical Assessment
Document 40. Formaldehyde. World Health Organization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In June 2010, EPA released a draft Toxicological Review of
Formaldehyde--Inhalation Assessment through the IRIS program for peer
review by the National Research Council (NRC) and public comment.\263\
That draft assessment reviewed more recent research from animal and
human studies on cancer and other health effects. The NRC released
their review report in April 2011.\264\ EPA's draft
[[Page 29220]]
assessment, which addresses NRC recommendations, was suspended in
2018.\265\ The draft assessment was unsuspended in March 2021, and an
external review draft was released in April 2022.\266\ This draft
assessment is now undergoing review by the National Academy of
Sciences.\267\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\263\ EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2010.
Toxicological Review of Formaldehyde (CAS No. 50-00-0)--Inhalation
Assessment: In Support of Summary Information on the Integrated Risk
Information System (IRIS). External Review Draft. EPA/635/R-10/002A.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC [online].
Available: http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris_drafts/recordisplay.cfm?deid=223614.
\264\ NRC (National Research Council). 2011. Review of the
Environmental Protection Agency's Draft IRIS Assessment of
Formaldehyde. Washington DC: National Academies Press. http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=13142.
\265\ U.S. EPA (2018). See https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris2/chemicalLanding.cfm?substance_nmbr=419.
\266\ U.S. EPA. IRIS Toxicological Review of Formaldehyde-
Inhalation (Interagency Science Consultation Draft, 2021). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/635/R-21/286,
2021.
\267\ https://www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/review-of-epas-2021-draft-formaldehyde-assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
vii. Naphthalene
Naphthalene is found in small quantities in gasoline and diesel
fuels. Naphthalene emissions have been measured in larger quantities in
both gasoline and diesel exhaust compared with evaporative emissions
from mobile sources, indicating it is primarily a product of
combustion.
Acute (short-term) exposure of humans to naphthalene by inhalation,
ingestion, or dermal contact is associated with hemolytic anemia and
damage to the liver and the nervous system.\268\ Chronic (long term)
exposure of workers and rodents to naphthalene has been reported to
cause cataracts and retinal damage.\269\ Children, especially neonates,
appear to be more susceptible to acute naphthalene poisoning based on
the number of reports of lethal cases in children and infants
(hypothesized to be due to immature naphthalene detoxification
pathways).\270\ EPA released an external review draft of a reassessment
of the inhalation carcinogenicity of naphthalene based on a number of
recent animal carcinogenicity studies.\271\ The draft reassessment
completed external peer review.\272\ Based on external peer review
comments received, EPA is developing a revised draft assessment that
considers inhalation and oral routes of exposure, as well as cancer and
noncancer effects.\273\ The external review draft does not represent
official agency opinion and was released solely for the purposes of
external peer review and public comment. The NTP listed naphthalene as
``reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen'' in 2004 on the
basis of bioassays reporting clear evidence of carcinogenicity in rats
and some evidence of carcinogenicity in mice.\274\ California EPA has
released a new risk assessment for naphthalene, and the IARC has
reevaluated naphthalene and re-classified it as Group 2B: possibly
carcinogenic to humans.\275\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\268\ U.S. EPA. 1998. Toxicological Review of Naphthalene
(Reassessment of the Inhalation Cancer Risk), Environmental
Protection Agency, Integrated Risk Information System, Research and
Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment,
Washington, DC. This material is available electronically at https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris_drafts/recordisplay.cfm?deid=56434.
\269\ U.S. EPA. 1998. Toxicological Review of Naphthalene
(Reassessment of the Inhalation Cancer Risk), Environmental
Protection Agency, Integrated Risk Information System, Research and
Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment,
Washington, DC. This material is available electronically at https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris_drafts/recordisplay.cfm?deid=56434.
\270\ U.S. EPA. (1998). Toxicological Review of Naphthalene
(Reassessment of the Inhalation Cancer Risk), Environmental
Protection Agency, Integrated Risk Information System, Research and
Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment,
Washington, DC. This material is available electronically at https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris_drafts/recordisplay.cfm?deid=56434.
\271\ U.S. EPA. (1998). Toxicological Review of Naphthalene
(Reassessment of the Inhalation Cancer Risk), Environmental
Protection Agency, Integrated Risk Information System, Research and
Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment,
Washington, DC. This material is available electronically at https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris_drafts/recordisplay.cfm?deid=56434.
\272\ Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education. (2004).
External Peer Review for the IRIS Reassessment of the Inhalation
Carcinogenicity of Naphthalene. August 2004. http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=84403.
\273\ U.S. EPA. (2018) See: https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris2/chemicalLanding.cfm?substance_nmbr=436.
\274\ NTP (National Toxicology Program). 2016. Report on
Carcinogens, Fourteenth Edition.; Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service.
https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/roc14.
\275\ International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC).
(2002). Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of
Chemicals for Humans. Vol. 82. Lyon, France.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Naphthalene also causes a number of non-cancer effects in animals
following chronic and less-than-chronic exposure, including abnormal
cell changes and growth in respiratory and nasal tissues.\276\ The
current EPA IRIS assessment includes noncancer data on hyperplasia and
metaplasia in nasal tissue that form the basis of the inhalation RfC of
3 [micro]g/m\3\.\277\ The ATSDR MRL for acute and intermediate duration
oral exposure to naphthalene is 0.6 mg/kg/day based on maternal
toxicity in a developmental toxicology study in rats.\278\ ATSDR also
derived an ad hoc reference value of 6 x 10-2 mg/m\3\ for acute (<=24-
hour) inhalation exposure to naphthalene in a Letter Health
Consultation dated March 24, 2014 to address a potential exposure
concern in Illinois.\279\ The ATSDR acute inhalation reference value
was based on a qualitative identification of an exposure level
interpreted not to cause pulmonary lesions in mice. More recently, EPA
developed acute RfCs for 1-, 8-, and 24-hour exposure scenarios; the
<=24-hour reference value is 2 x 10-2 mg/m\3\.\280\ EPA's acute RfCs
are based on a systematic review of the literature, benchmark dose
modeling of naphthalene-induced nasal lesions in rats, and application
of a PBPK (physiologically based pharmacokinetic) model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\276\ U.S. EPA. (1998). Toxicological Review of Naphthalene,
Environmental Protection Agency, Integrated Risk Information System,
Research and Development, National Center for Environmental
Assessment, Washington, DC. This material is available
electronically at https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris_drafts/recordisplay.cfm?deid=56434.
\277\ U.S. EPA. (1998). Toxicological Review of Naphthalene.
Environmental Protection Agency, Integrated Risk Information System
(IRIS), Research and Development, National Center for Environmental
Assessment, Washington, DC https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris_drafts/recordisplay.cfm?deid=56434.
\278\ ATSDR. Toxicological Profile for Naphthalene, 1-
Methylnaphthalene, and 2-Methylnaphthalene (2005). https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/tp67-p.pdf.
\279\ ATSDR. Letter Health Consultation, Radiac Abrasives, Inc.,
Chicago, Illinois (2014). https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/pha/RadiacAbrasives/Radiac%20Abrasives,%20Inc.%20_%20LHC%20(Final)%20_%2003-24-
2014%20(2)_508.pdf.
\280\ U. S. EPA. Derivation of an acute reference concentration
for inhalation exposure to naphthalene. Report No. EPA/600/R-21/292.
https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/risk/recordisplay.cfm?deid=355035.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
viii. POM/PAHs
The term polycyclic organic matter (POM) defines a broad class of
compounds that includes the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon compounds
(PAHs). One of these compounds, naphthalene, is discussed separately in
Section II.C.7.vii. POM compounds are formed primarily from combustion
and are present in the atmosphere in gas and particulate form as well
as in some fried and grilled foods. Epidemiologic studies have reported
an increase in lung cancer in humans exposed to diesel exhaust, coke
oven emissions, roofing tar emissions, and cigarette smoke; all of
these mixtures contain POM compounds.281 282 In 1991 EPA
classified seven PAHs (benzo[a]pyrene, benz[a]anthracene, chrysene,
benzo[b]fluoranthene, benzo[k]fluoranthene, dibenz[a,h]anthracene, and
[[Page 29221]]
indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene) as Group B2, probable human carcinogens based
on the 1986 EPA Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment.\283\ Studies
in multiple animal species demonstrate that benzo[a]pyrene is
carcinogenic at multiple tumor sites (alimentary tract, liver, kidney,
respiratory tract, pharynx, and skin) by all routes of exposure. An
increasing number of occupational studies demonstrate a positive
exposure-response relationship with cumulative benzo[a]pyrene exposure
and lung cancer. The inhalation URE in IRIS for benzo[a]pyrene is 6 x
10-4 per [micro]g/m\3\ and the oral slope factor for cancer is 1 per
mg/kg-day.\284\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\281\ Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR).
(1995). Toxicological profile for Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
(PAHs). Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Public Health Service. Available electronically at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/TP.asp?id=122&tid=25.
\282\ U.S. EPA (2002). Health Assessment Document for Diesel
Engine Exhaust. EPA/600/8-90/057F Office of Research and
Development, Washington DC. http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=29060.
\283\ U.S. EPA (1991). Drinking Water Criteria Document for
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHS). ECAO-CIN-0010. EPA Research
and Development.
\284\ U.S. EPA (2017). Toxicological Review of Benzo[a]pyrene.
This material is available electronically at: https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris/iris_documents/documents/toxreviews/0136tr.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Animal studies demonstrate that exposure to benzo[a]pyrene is also
associated with developmental (including developmental neurotoxicity),
reproductive, and immunological effects. In addition, epidemiology
studies involving exposure to PAH mixtures have reported associations
between internal biomarkers of exposure to benzo[a]pyrene
(benzo[a]pyrene diol epoxide-DNA adducts) and adverse birth outcomes
(including reduced birth weight, postnatal body weight, and head
circumference), neurobehavioral effects, and decreased fertility. The
inhalation RfC for benzo[a]pyrene is 2 x 10-6 mg/m\3\ and
the RfD for oral exposure is 3 x 10-4 mg/kg-day.\285\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\285\ U.S. EPA (2017). Toxicological Review of Benzo[a]pyrene.
This material is available electronically at: https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris/iris_documents/documents/toxreviews/0136tr.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Exposure and Health Effects Associated With Traffic
Locations in close proximity to major roadways generally have
elevated concentrations of many air pollutants emitted from motor
vehicles. Hundreds of studies have been published in peer-reviewed
journals, concluding that concentrations of CO, CO2, NO,
NO2, benzene, aldehydes, particulate matter, black carbon,
and many other compounds are elevated in ambient air within
approximately 300-600 meters (about 1,000-2,000 feet) of major
roadways. The highest concentrations of most pollutants emitted
directly by motor vehicles are found at locations within 50 meters
(about 165 feet) of the edge of a roadway's traffic lanes.
A large-scale review of air quality measurements in the vicinity of
major roadways between 1978 and 2008 concluded that the pollutants with
the steepest concentration gradients in vicinities of roadways were CO,
ultrafine particles, metals, elemental carbon (EC), NO, NOX,
and several VOCs.\286\ These pollutants showed a large reduction in
concentrations within 100 meters downwind of the roadway. Pollutants
that showed more gradual reductions with distance from roadways
included benzene, NO2, PM2.5, and
PM10. In reviewing the literature, Karner et al., (2010)
reported that results varied based on the method of statistical
analysis used to determine the gradient in pollutant concentration.
More recent studies continue to show significant concentration
gradients of traffic-related air pollution around major
roads.287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 There is
evidence that EPA's regulations for vehicles have lowered the near-road
concentrations and gradients.\297\ Starting in 2010, EPA required
through the NAAQS process that air quality monitors be placed near
high-traffic roadways for determining concentrations of CO,
NO2, and PM2.5 (in addition to those existing
monitors located in neighborhoods and other locations farther away from
pollution sources). The monitoring data for NO2 indicate
that in urban areas, monitors near roadways often report the highest
concentrations of NO2.\298\ More recent studies of traffic-
related air pollutants continue to report sharp gradients around
roadways, particularly within several hundred meters.299 300
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\286\ Karner, A.A.; Eisinger, D.S.; Niemeier, D.A. (2010). Near-
roadway air quality: synthesizing the findings from real-world data.
Environ Sci Technol 44: 5334-5344.
\287\ McDonald, B.C.; McBride, Z.C.; Martin, E.W.; Harley, R.A.
(2014) High-resolution mapping of motor vehicle carbon dioxide
emissions. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos.,119, 5283-5298, doi:10.1002/
2013JD021219.
\288\ Kimbrough, S.; Baldauf, R.W.; Hagler, G.S.W.; Shores,
R.C.; Mitchell, W.; Whitaker, D.A.; Croghan, C.W.; Vallero, D.A.
(2013) Long-term continuous measurement of near-road air pollution
in Las Vegas: seasonal variability in traffic emissions impact on
air quality. Air Qual Atmos Health 6: 295-305. DOI 10.1007/s11869-
012-0171-x.
\289\ Kimbrough, S.; Palma, T.; Baldauf, R.W. (2014) Analysis of
mobile source air toxics (MSATs)--Near-road VOC and carbonyl
concentrations. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association,
64:3, 349-359, DOI: 10.1080/10962247.2013.863814.
\290\ Kimbrough, S.; Owen, R.C.; Snyder, M.; Richmond-Bryant, J.
(2017) NO to NO2 Conversion Rate Analysis and
Implications for Dispersion Model Chemistry Methods using Las Vegas,
Nevada Near-Road Field Measurements. Atmos Environ 165: 23-24.
\291\ Hilker, N.; Wang, J.W.; Jong, C-H.; Healy, R.M.; Sofowote,
U.; Debosz, J.; Su, Y.; Noble, M.; Munoz, A.; Doerkson, G.; White,
L.; Audette, C.; Herod, D.; Brook, J.R.; Evans, G.J. (2019) Traffic-
related air pollution near roadways: discerning local impacts from
background. Atmos. Meas. Tech., 12, 5247-5261. https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-12-5247-2019.
\292\ Grivas, G.; Stavroulas, I.; Liakakou, E.; Kaskaoutis,
D.G.; Bougiatioti, A.; Paraskevopoulou, D.; Gerasopoulos, E.;
Mihalopoulos, N. (2019) Measuring the spatial variability of black
carbon in Athens during wintertime. Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health
(2019) 12:1405-1417. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11869-019-00756-y.
\293\ Apte, J.S.; Messier, K.P.; Gani, S.; Brauer, M.;
Kirchstetter, T.W.; Lunden, M.M.; Marshall, J.D.; Portier, C.J.;
Vermeulen, R.C.H.; Hamburg, S.P. (2017) High-Resolution Air
Pollution Mapping with Google Street View Cars: Exploiting Big Data.
Environ Sci Technol 51: 6999-7008. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b00891.
\294\ Dabek-Zlotorzynska, E.; Celo, V.; Ding, L.; Herod, D.;
Jeong, C-H.; Evans, G.; Hilker, N. (2019) Characteristics and
sources of PM2.5 and reactive gases near roadways in two
metropolitan areas in Canada. Atmos Environ 218: 116980. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2019.116980.
\295\ Apte, J.S.; Messier, K.R.; Gani, S.; et al. (2017) High-
resolution air pollution mapping with Google Street View cars:
exploiting big data. Environ Sci Technol 51: 6999-7018, [Online at
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b00891.]
\296\ Gu, P.; Li, H.Z.; Ye, Q.; et al. (2018) Intercity
variability of particulate matter is driven by carbonaceous sources
and correlated with land-use variables. Environ Sci Technol 52: 52:
11545-11554. [Online at http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b03833.]
\297\ Sarnat, J.A.; Russell, A.; Liang, D.; Moutinho, J.L;
Golan, R.; Weber, R.; Gao, D.; Sarnat, S.; Chang, H.H.; Greenwald,
R.; Yu, T. (2018) Developing Multipollutant Exposure Indicators of
Traffic Pollution: The Dorm Room Inhalation to Vehicle Emissions
(DRIVE) Study. Health Effects Institute Research Report Number 196.
[Online at: https://www.healtheffects.org/publication/developing-multipollutant-exposure-indicators-traffic-pollution-dorm-room-inhalation.]
\298\ Gantt, B; Owen, R.C.; Watkins, N. (2021) Characterizing
nitrogen oxides and fine particulate matter near major highways in
the United States using the National Near-road Monitoring Network.
Environ Sci Technol 55: 2831-2838. [Online at https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c05851.]
\299\ Apte, J.S.; Messier, K.R.; Gani, S.; et al. (2017) High-
resolution air pollution mapping with Google Street View cars:
exploiting big data. Environ Sci Technol 51: 6999-7018, [Online at
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b00891.]
\300\ Gu, P.; Li, H.Z.; Ye, Q.; et al. (2018) Intercity
variability of particulate matter is driven by carbonaceous sources
and correlated with land-use variables. Environ Sci Technol 52: 52:
11545-11554. [Online at http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b03833.]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For pollutants with relatively high background concentrations
relative to near-road concentrations, detecting concentration gradients
can be difficult. For example, many carbonyls have high background
concentrations as a result of photochemical breakdown of precursors
from many different organic compounds. However, several studies have
measured carbonyls in multiple weather conditions and found higher
concentrations of many carbonyls downwind of
roadways.301 302 These
[[Page 29222]]
findings suggest a substantial roadway source of these carbonyls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\301\ Liu, W.; Zhang, J.; Kwon, J.l; et l. (2006).
Concentrations and source characteristics of airborne carbonyl
compounds measured outside urban residences. J Air Waste Manage
Assoc 56: 1196-1204.
\302\ Cahill, T.M.; Charles, M.J.; Seaman, V.Y. (2010).
Development and application of a sensitive method to determine
concentrations of acrolein and other carbonyls in ambient air.
Health Effects Institute Research Report 149. Available at https://www.healtheffects.org/system/files/Cahill149.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the past 30 years, many studies have been published with results
reporting that populations who live, work, or go to school near high-
traffic roadways experience higher rates of numerous adverse health
effects, compared to populations far away from major roads.\303\ In
addition, numerous studies have found adverse health effects associated
with spending time in traffic, such as commuting or walking along high-
traffic roadways, including studies among
children.304 305 306 307 The health outcomes with the
strongest evidence linking them with traffic-associated air pollutants
are respiratory effects, particularly in asthmatic children, and
cardiovascular effects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\303\ In the widely-used PubMed database of health publications,
between January 1, 1990 and December 31, 2021, 1,979 publications
contained the keywords ``traffic, pollution, epidemiology,'' with
approximately half the studies published after 2015.
\304\ Laden, F.; Hart, J.E.; Smith, T.J.; Davis, M.E.; Garshick,
E. (2007) Cause-specific mortality in the unionized U.S. trucking
industry. Environmental Health Perspect 115:1192-1196.
\305\ Peters, A.; von Klot, S.; Heier, M.; Trentinaglia, I.;
H[ouml]rmann, A.; Wichmann, H.E.; L[ouml]wel, H. (2004) Exposure to
traffic and the onset of myocardial infarction. New England J Med
351: 1721-1730.
\306\ Zanobetti, A.; Stone, P.H.; Spelzer, F.E.; Schwartz, J.D.;
Coull, B.A.; Suh, H.H.; Nearling, B.D.; Mittleman, M.A.; Verrier,
R.L.; Gold, D.R. (2009) T-wave alternans, air pollution and traffic
in high-risk subjects. Am J Cardiol 104: 665-670.
\307\ Adar, S.; Adamkiewicz, G.; Gold, D.R.; Schwartz, J.;
Coull, B.A.; Suh, H. (2007) Ambient and microenvironmental particles
and exhaled nitric oxide before and after a group bus trip. Environ
Health Perspect 115: 507-512.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Numerous reviews of this body of health literature have been
published. In a 2022 final report, an expert panel of the Health
Effects Institute (HEI) employed a systematic review focusing on
selected health endpoints related to exposure to traffic-related air
pollution.\308\ The HEI panel concluded that there was a high level of
confidence in evidence between long-term exposure to traffic-related
air pollution and health effects in adults, including all-cause,
circulatory, and ischemic heart disease mortality.\309\ The panel also
found that there is a moderate-to-high level of confidence in evidence
of associations with asthma onset and acute respiratory infections in
children and lung cancer and asthma onset in adults. This report
follows on an earlier expert review published by HEI in 2010, where it
found strongest evidence for asthma-related traffic impacts. Other
literature reviews have been published with conclusions generally
similar to the HEI panels'.310 311 312 313 Additionally, in
2014, researchers from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) published a systematic review and meta-analysis of
studies evaluating the risk of childhood leukemia associated with
traffic exposure and reported positive associations between
``postnatal'' proximity to traffic and leukemia risks, but no such
association for ``prenatal'' exposures.\314\ The U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services' National Toxicology Program (NTP) published
a monograph including a systematic review of traffic-related air
pollution and its impacts on hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. The
NTP concluded that exposure to traffic-related air pollution is
``presumed to be a hazard to pregnant women'' for developing
hypertensive disorders of pregnancy.\315\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\308\ HEI Panel on the Health Effects of Long-Term Exposure to
Traffic-Related Air Pollution (2022) Systematic review and meta-
analysis of selected health effects of long-term exposure to
traffic-related air pollution. Health Effects Institute Special
Report 23. [Online at https://www.healtheffects.org/publication/systematic-review-and-meta-analysis-selected-health-effects-long-term-exposure-traffic.] This more recent review focused on health
outcomes related to birth effects, respiratory effects,
cardiometabolic effects, and mortality.
\309\ Boogaard, H.; Patton. A.P.; Atkinson, R.W.; Brook, J.R.;
Chang, H.H.; Crouse, D.L.; Fussell, J.C.; Hoek, G.; Hoffman, B.;
Kappeler, R.; Kutlar Joss, M.; Ondras, M.; Sagiv, S.K.; Somoli, E.;
Shaikh, R.; Szpiro, A.A.; Van Vliet E.D.S.; Vinneau, D.; Weuve, J.;
Lurmann, F.W.; Forastiere, F. (2022) Long-term exposure to traffic-
related air pollution and selected health outcomes: a systematic
review and meta-analysis. Environ Intl 164: 107262. [Online at
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2022.107262.]
\310\ Boothe, V.L.; Shendell, D.G. (2008). Potential health
effects associated with residential proximity to freeways and
primary roads: review of scientific literature, 1999-2006. J Environ
Health 70: 33-41.
\311\ Salam, M.T.; Islam, T.; Gilliland, F.D. (2008). Recent
evidence for adverse effects of residential proximity to traffic
sources on asthma. Curr Opin Pulm Med 14: 3-8.
\312\ Sun, X.; Zhang, S.; Ma, X. (2014) No association between
traffic density and risk of childhood leukemia: a meta-analysis.
Asia Pac J Cancer Prev 15: 5229-5232.
\313\ Raaschou-Nielsen, O.; Reynolds, P. (2006). Air pollution
and childhood cancer: a review of the epidemiological literature.
Int J Cancer 118: 2920-9.
\314\ Boothe, VL.; Boehmer, T.K.; Wendel, A.M.; Yip, F.Y. (2014)
Residential traffic exposure and childhood leukemia: a systematic
review and meta-analysis. Am J Prev Med 46: 413-422.
\315\ National Toxicology Program (2019) NTP Monograph n the
Systematic Review of Traffic-related Air Pollution and Hypertensive
Disorders of Pregnancy. NTP Monograph 7. https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/ohat/trap/mgraph/trap_final_508.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Health outcomes with few publications suggest the possibility of
other effects still lacking sufficient evidence to draw definitive
conclusions. Among these outcomes with a small number of positive
studies are neurological impacts (e.g., autism and reduced cognitive
function) and reproductive outcomes (e.g., preterm birth, low birth
weight).316 317 318 319 320
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\316\ Volk, H.E.; Hertz-Picciotto, I.; Delwiche, L.; et al.
(2011). Residential proximity to freeways and autism in the CHARGE
study. Environ Health Perspect 119: 873-877.
\317\ Franco-Suglia, S.; Gryparis, A.; Wright, R.O.; et al.
(2007). Association of black carbon with cognition among children in
a prospective birth cohort study. Am J Epidemiol. doi: 10.1093/aje/
kwm308. [Online at http://dx.doi.org].
\318\ Power, M.C.; Weisskopf, M.G.; Alexeef, SE; et al. (2011).
Traffic-related air pollution and cognitive function in a cohort of
older men. Environ Health Perspect 2011: 682-687.
\319\ Wu, J.; Wilhelm, M.; Chung, J.; et al. (2011). Comparing
exposure assessment methods for traffic-related air pollution in and
adverse pregnancy outcome study. Environ Res 111: 685-6692.
\320\ Stenson, C.; Wheeler, A.J.; Carver, A.; et al. (2021) The
impact of traffic-related air pollution on child and adolescent
academic performance: a systematic review. Environ Intl 155: 106696
[Online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2021.106696.]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to health outcomes, particularly cardiopulmonary
effects, conclusions of numerous studies suggest mechanisms by which
traffic-related air pollution affects health. For example, numerous
studies indicate that near-roadway exposures may increase systemic
inflammation, affecting organ systems, including blood vessels and
lungs.321 322 323 324 Additionally, long-term exposures in
near-road environments have been associated with inflammation-
associated conditions, such as atherosclerosis and
asthma.325 326 327
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\321\ Riediker, M. (2007). Cardiovascular effects of fine
particulate matter components in highway patrol officers. Inhal
Toxicol 19: 99-105. doi: 10.1080/08958370701495238.
\322\ Alexeef, SE; Coull, B.A.; Gryparis, A.; et al. (2011).
Medium-term exposure to traffic-related air pollution and markers of
inflammation and endothelial function. Environ Health Perspect 119:
481-486. Doi:10.1289/ehp.1002560.
\323\ Eckel. S.P.; Berhane, K.; Salam, M.T.; et al. (2011).
Residential Traffic-related pollution exposure and exhaled nitric
oxide in the Children's Health Study. Environ Health Perspect.
doi:10.1289/ehp.1103516.
\324\ Zhang, J.; McCreanor, J.E.; Cullinan, P.; et al. (2009).
Health effects of real-world exposure diesel exhaust in persons with
asthma. Res Rep Health Effects Inst 138. [Online at http://www.healtheffects.org].
\325\ Adar, S.D.; Klein, R.; Klein, E.K.; et al. (2010). Air
pollution and the microvasculature: a cross-sectional assessment of
in vivo retinal images in the population-based Multi-Ethnic Study of
Atherosclerosis. PLoS Med 7(11): E1000372. doi:10.1371/
journal.pmed.1000372. Available at http://dx.doi.org.
\326\ Kan, H.; Heiss, G.; Rose, K.M.; et al. (2008). Prospective
analysis of traffic exposure as a risk factor for incident coronary
heart disease: The Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study.
Environ Health Perspect 116: 1463-1468. doi:10.1289/ehp.11290.
Available at http://dx.doi.org.
\327\ McConnell, R.; Islam, T.; Shankardass, K.; et al. (2010).
Childhood incident asthma and traffic-related air pollution at home
and school. Environ Health Perspect 1021-1026.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several studies suggest that some factors may increase
susceptibility to
[[Page 29223]]
the effects of traffic-associated air pollution. Several studies have
found stronger respiratory associations in children experiencing
chronic social stress, such as in violent neighborhoods or in homes
with high family stress.328 329 330
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\328\ Islam, T.; Urban, R.; Gauderman, W.J.; et al. (2011).
Parental stress increases the detrimental effect of traffic exposure
on children's lung function. Am J Respir Crit Care Med.
\329\ Clougherty, J.E.; Levy, J.I.; Kubzansky, L.D.; et al.
(2007). Synergistic effects of traffic-related air pollution and
exposure to violence on urban asthma etiology. Environ Health
Perspect 115: 1140-1146.
\330\ Chen, E.; Schrier, H.M.; Strunk, R.C.; et al. (2008).
Chronic traffic-related air pollution and stress interact to predict
biologic and clinical outcomes in asthma. Environ Health Perspect
116: 970-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The risks associated with residence, workplace, or schools near
major roads are of potentially high public health significance due to
the large population in such locations. The 2013 U.S. Census Bureau's
American Housing Survey (AHS) was the last AHS that included whether
housing units were within 300 feet of an ``airport, railroad, or
highway with four or more lanes.'' \331\ The 2013 survey reports that
17.3 million housing units, or 13 percent of all housing units in the
U.S., were in such areas. Assuming that populations and housing units
are in the same locations, this corresponds to a population of more
than 41 million U.S. residents within 300 feet (approximately 90
meters) of high-traffic roadways or other transportation sources.
According to the Central Intelligence Agency's World Factbook, based on
data collected between 2012-2014, the United States had 6,586,610 km of
roadways, 293,564 km of railways, and 13,513 airports. As such,
highways represent the overwhelming majority of transportation
facilities described by this factor in the AHS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\331\ The variable was known as ``ETRANS'' in the questions
about the neighborhood.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We analyzed national databases that allowed us to evaluate whether
homes and schools were located near a major road and whether
disparities in exposure may be occurring in these environments. Until
2009, the AHS included descriptive statistics of over 70,000 housing
units across the nation and asked about transportation infrastructure
near respondents' homes every two years.332 333 We also
analyzed the U.S. Department of Education's Common Core of Data, which
includes enrollment and location information for schools across the
U.S.\334\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\332\ U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, & U.S.
Census Bureau. (n.d.). Age of other residential buildings within 300
feet. In American Housing Survey for the United States: 2009 (pp. A-
1). Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/ahs/data/2009/ahs-2009-summary-tables0/h150-09.html.
\333\ The 2013 AHS again included the ``etrans'' question about
highways, airports, and railroads within half a block of the housing
unit but has not maintained the question since then.
\334\ http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In analyzing the 2009 AHS, we focused on whether a housing unit was
located within 300 feet of a ``4-or-more lane highway, railroad, or
airport'' (this distance was used in the AHS analysis).\335\ We
analyzed whether there were differences between households in such
locations compared with those in locations farther from these
transportation facilities.\336\ We included other variables, such as
land use category, region of country, and housing type. We found that
homes with a non-White householder were 22-34 percent more likely to be
located within 300 feet of these large transportation facilities than
homes with White householders. Homes with a Hispanic householder were
17-33 percent more likely to be located within 300 feet of these large
transportation facilities than homes with non-Hispanic householders.
Households near large transportation facilities were, on average, lower
in income and educational attainment and more likely to be a rental
property and located in an urban area compared with households more
distant from transportation facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\335\ This variable primarily represents roadway proximity.
According to the Central Intelligence Agency's World Factbook, in
2010, the United States had 6,506,204 km of roadways, 224,792 km of
railways, and 15,079 airports. Highways thus represent the
overwhelming majority of transportation facilities described by this
factor in the AHS.
\336\ Bailey, C. (2011) Demographic and Social Patterns in
Housing Units Near Large Highways and other Transportation Sources.
Memorandum to docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In examining schools near major roadways, we used the Common Core
of Data from the U.S. Department of Education, which includes
information on all public elementary and secondary schools and school
districts nationwide.\337\ To determine school proximities to major
roadways, we used a geographic information system (GIS) to map each
school and roadways based on the U.S. Census's TIGER roadway file.\338\
We estimated that about 10 million students attend public schools
within 200 meters of major roads, about 20 percent of the total number
of public school students in the U.S.\339\ About 800,000 students
attend public schools within 200 meters of primary roads, or about 2
percent of the total. We found that students of color were
overrepresented at schools within 200 meters of primary roadways, and
schools within 200 meters of primary roadways had a disproportionate
population of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunches.\340\
Black students represent 22 percent of students at schools located
within 200 meters of a primary road, compared to 17 percent of students
in all U.S. schools. Hispanic students represent 30 percent of students
at schools located within 200 meters of a primary road, compared to 22
percent of students in all U.S. schools.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\337\ http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/.
\338\ Pedde, M.; Bailey, C. (2011) Identification of Schools
within 200 Meters of U.S. Primary and Secondary Roads. Memorandum to
the docket.
\339\ Here, ``major roads'' refer to those TIGER classifies as
either ``Primary'' or ``Secondary.'' The Census Bureau describes
primary roads as ``generally divided limited-access highways within
the Federal interstate system or under state management.'' Secondary
roads are ``main arteries, usually in the U.S. highway, state
highway, or county highway system.''
\340\ For this analysis we analyzed a 200-meter distance based
on the understanding that roadways generally influence air quality
within a few hundred meters from the vicinity of heavily traveled
roadways or along corridors with significant trucking traffic. See
U.S. EPA, 2014. Near Roadway Air Pollution and Health: Frequently
Asked Questions. EPA-420-F-14-044. For a surrogate of lower
socioeconomic status (SES), we used student eligibility for the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's (USDA) National School Lunch Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research into the impact of traffic-related air pollution on school
performance is tentative. Two reviews of this literature found some
evidence that children exposed to higher levels of traffic-related air
pollution show poorer academic performance than those exposed to lower
levels of traffic-related air pollution.341 342 However,
this evidence was judged to be weak due to limitations in the
assessment methods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\341\ Stenson, C.; Wheeler, A.J.; Carver, A.; et al. (2021) The
impact of traffic-related air pollution on child and adolescent
academic performance: a systematic review. Environ Intl 155: 106696.
[Online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2021.106696.]
\342\ Gartland, N; Aljofi, H.E.; Dienes, K.; Munford, L.A.;
Theakston, A.L.; van Tongeren, M. (2022) The effects of traffic air
pollution in and around schools on executive function and academic
performance in children: a rapid review. Int J Environ Res Public
Health 10: 749. [Online at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8776123/.]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA also conducted a study to estimate the number of people living
near truck freight routes in the United States, which includes many
large highways and other routes where light- and medium-duty vehicles
operate.343 344 Based on a population
[[Page 29224]]
analysis using the U.S. Department of Transportation's (USDOT) Freight
Analysis Framework 4 (FAF4) and population data from the 2010 decennial
census, an estimated 72 million people live within 200 meters of these
FAF4 roads, which are used by all types of vehicles.345 346
This analysis includes the population living within twice the distance
of major roads compared with the analysis of housing units near major
roads described earlier in this section. The larger distance and other
methodological differences explain the difference in the two estimates
for populations living near major roads. Relative to the rest of the
population, people of color and those with lower incomes are more
likely to live near FAF4 roads.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\343\ U.S. EPA (2021). Estimation of Population Size and
Demographic Characteristics among People Living Near Truck Routes in
the Conterminous United States. Memorandum to the Docket.
\344\ FAF4 includes the following roadway types: interstate
highways, other FHWA-designated routes in the National Highway
System (NHS), National Network (NN) routes not part of the NHS,
other rural and urban principal arterials, intermodal connectors,
rural minor arterials for those counties not served by either NHS or
NN routes, and urban bypass and streets as appropriate for network
connectivity. Full documentation of the FAF4 road network is found
at https://fafdev.ornl.gov/fafweb/data/Final%20Report_FAF4_August_2016_BP.pdf.
\345\ FAF4 is a model from the USDOT's Bureau of Transportation
Statistics (BTS) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), which
provides data associated with freight movement in the U.S. It
includes data from the 2012 Commodity Flow Survey (CFS), the Census
Bureau on international trade, as well as data associated with
construction, agriculture, utilities, warehouses, and other
industries. FAF4 estimates the modal choices for moving goods by
trucks, trains, boats, and other types of freight modes. It includes
traffic assignments, including truck flows on a network of truck
routes. https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/faf/.
\346\ The same analysis estimated the population living within
100 meters of a FAF4 truck route is 41 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's Exposure Factor Handbook also indicates that, on average,
Americans spend more than an hour traveling each day, bringing nearly
all residents into a high-exposure microenvironment for part of the
day.\347\ The duration of commuting results in another important
contributor to overall exposure to traffic-related air pollution.
Studies of health that address time spent in transit have found
evidence of elevated risk of cardiac impacts.348 349 350
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\347\ EPA. (2011) Exposure Factors Handbook: 2011 Edition.
Chapter 16. Online at https://www.epa.gov/expobox/about-exposure-factors-handbook.
\348\ Riediker, M.; Cascio, W.E.; Griggs, T.R.; et al. (2004)
Particulate matter exposure in cars is associated with
cardiovascular effects in healthy young men. Am J Respir Crit Care
Med 169. [Online at https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.200310-1463OC.]
\349\ Peters, A.; von Klot, S.; Heier, M.; et al. (2004)
Exposure to traffic and the onset of myocardial infarction. New Engl
J Med 1721-1730. [Online at https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa040203.]
\350\ Adar, S.D.; Gold, D.R.; Coull, B.A.; (2007) Focused
exposure to airborne traffic particles and heart rate variability in
the elderly. Epidemiology 18: 95-103 [Online at 351: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ede.0000249409.81050.46.]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Welfare Effects Associated With Exposure to Criteria and Air Toxics
Pollutants Impacted by the Proposed Standards
This section discusses the welfare effects associated with
pollutants affected by this rule, specifically particulate matter,
ozone, NOX, SOX, and air toxics.
1. Visibility
Visibility can be defined as the degree to which the atmosphere is
transparent to visible light.\351\ Visibility impairment is caused by
light scattering and absorption by suspended particles and gases. It is
dominated by contributions from suspended particles except under
pristine conditions. Visibility is important because it has direct
significance to people's enjoyment of daily activities in all parts of
the country. Individuals value good visibility for the well-being it
provides them directly, where they live and work, and in places where
they enjoy recreational opportunities. Visibility is also highly valued
in significant natural areas, such as national parks and wilderness
areas, and special emphasis is given to protecting visibility in these
areas. For more information on visibility see the final 2019
PMISA.\352\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\351\ National Research Council, (1993). Protecting Visibility
in National Parks and Wilderness Areas. National Academy of Sciences
Committee on Haze in National Parks and Wilderness Areas. National
Academy Press, Washington, DC. This book can be viewed on the
National Academy Press website at https://www.nap.edu/catalog/2097/protecting-visibility-in-national-parks-and-wilderness-areas.
\352\ U.S. EPA. Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for
Particulate Matter (Final Report, 2019). U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/188, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is working to address visibility impairment. Reductions in air
pollution from implementation of various programs associated with the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 provisions have resulted in
substantial improvements in visibility and will continue to do so in
the future. Nationally, because trends in haze are closely associated
with trends in particulate sulfate and nitrate due to the relationship
between their concentration and light extinction, visibility trends
have improved as emissions of SO2 and NOX have
decreased over time due to air pollution regulations such as the Acid
Rain Program.\353\ However, in the western part of the country, changes
in total light extinction were smaller, and the contribution of
particulate organic matter to atmospheric light extinction was
increasing due to increasing wildfire emissions.\354\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\353\ U.S. EPA. Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for
Particulate Matter (Final Report, 2019). U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/188, 2019.
\354\ Hand, JL; Prenni, AJ; Copeland, S; Schichtel, BA; Malm,
WC. (2020). Thirty years of the Clean Air Act Amendments: Impacts on
haze in remote regions of the United States (1990-2018). Atmos
Environ 243: 117865.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, Congress recognized
visibility's value to society by establishing a national goal to
protect national parks and wilderness areas from visibility impairment
caused by manmade pollution.\355\ In 1999, EPA finalized the regional
haze program to protect the visibility in Mandatory Class I Federal
areas.\356\ There are 156 national parks, forests and wilderness areas
categorized as Mandatory Class I Federal areas.\357\ These areas are
defined in CAA section 162 as those national parks exceeding 6,000
acres, wilderness areas and memorial parks exceeding 5,000 acres, and
all international parks which were in existence on August 7, 1977.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\355\ See Section 169(a) of the Clean Air Act.
\356\ 64 FR 35714, July 1, 1999.
\357\ 62 FR 38680-38681, July 18, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA has also concluded that PM2.5 causes adverse effects
on visibility in other areas that are not targeted by the Regional Haze
Rule, such as urban areas, depending on PM2.5 concentrations
and other factors such as dry chemical composition and relative
humidity (i.e., an indicator of the water composition of the
particles). The secondary (welfare-based) PM NAAQS provide protection
against visibility effects. In recent PM NAAQS reviews, EPA evaluated a
target level of protection for visibility impairment that is expected
to be met through attainment of the existing secondary PM
standards.\358\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\358\ On June 10, 2021, EPA announced that it will reconsider
the decision to retain the PM NAAQS. https://www.epa.gov/pm-pollution/national-ambient-air-quality-standards-naaqs-pm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Ozone Effects on Ecosystems
The welfare effects of ozone include effects on ecosystems, which
can be observed across a variety of scales, i.e., subcellular,
cellular, leaf, whole plant, population, and ecosystem. Ozone effects
that begin at small spatial scales, such as the leaf of an individual
plant, when they occur at sufficient magnitudes (or to a sufficient
degree) can result in effects being propagated along a continuum to
higher and higher levels of biological organization. For example,
effects at the individual plant level, such as altered rates of leaf
gas exchange, growth, and reproduction, can, when widespread, result in
broad changes in ecosystems, such as productivity, carbon storage,
water
[[Page 29225]]
cycling, nutrient cycling, and community composition.
Ozone can produce both acute and chronic injury in sensitive plant
species depending on the concentration level and the duration of the
exposure.\359\ In those sensitive species,\360\ effects from repeated
exposure to ozone throughout the growing season of the plant can tend
to accumulate, so even relatively low concentrations experienced for a
longer duration have the potential to create chronic stress on
vegetation.361 362 Ozone damage to sensitive plant species
includes impaired photosynthesis and visible injury to leaves. The
impairment of photosynthesis, the process by which the plant makes
carbohydrates (its source of energy and food), can lead to reduced crop
yields, timber production, and plant productivity and growth. Impaired
photosynthesis can also lead to a reduction in root growth and
carbohydrate storage below ground, resulting in other, more subtle
plant and ecosystems impacts.\363\ These latter impacts include
increased susceptibility of plants to insect attack, disease, harsh
weather, interspecies competition and overall decreased plant vigor.
The adverse effects of ozone on areas with sensitive species could
potentially lead to species shifts and loss from the affected
ecosystems,\364\ resulting in a loss or reduction in associated
ecosystem goods and services. Additionally, visible ozone injury to
leaves can result in a loss of aesthetic value in areas of special
scenic significance like national parks and wilderness areas and
reduced use of sensitive ornamentals in landscaping.\365\ In addition
to ozone effects on vegetation, newer evidence suggests that ozone
affects interactions between plants and insects by altering chemical
signals (e.g., floral scents) that plants use to communicate to other
community members, such as attraction of pollinators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\359\ 73 FR 16486, March 27, 2008.
\360\ 73 FR 16491, March 27, 2008. Only a small percentage of
all the plant species growing within the U.S. (over 43,000 species
have been catalogued in the USDA PLANTS database) have been studied
with respect to ozone sensitivity.
\361\ U.S. EPA. Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for Ozone
and Related Photochemical Oxidants (Final Report). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-20/012,
2020.
\362\ The concentration at which ozone levels overwhelm a
plant's ability to detoxify or compensate for oxidant exposure
varies. Thus, whether a plant is classified as sensitive or tolerant
depends in part on the exposure levels being considered.
\363\ 73 FR 16492, March 27, 2008.
\364\ 73 FR 16493-16494, March 27, 2008. Ozone impacts could be
occurring in areas where plant species sensitive to ozone have not
yet been studied or identified.
\365\ 73 FR 16490-16497, March 27, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Ozone ISA presents more detailed information on how ozone
affects vegetation and ecosystems.366 367 The Ozone ISA
reports causal and likely causal relationships between ozone exposure
and a number of welfare effects and characterizes the weight of
evidence for different effects associated with ozone.\368\ The ISA
concludes that visible foliar injury effects on vegetation, reduced
vegetation growth, reduced plant reproduction, reduced productivity in
terrestrial ecosystems, reduced yield and quality of agricultural
crops, alteration of below-ground biogeochemical cycles, and altered
terrestrial community composition are causally associated with exposure
to ozone. It also concludes that increased tree mortality, altered
herbivore growth and reproduction, altered plant-insect signaling,
reduced carbon sequestration in terrestrial ecosystems, and alteration
of terrestrial ecosystem water cycling are likely to be causally
associated with exposure to ozone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\366\ U.S. EPA. Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for Ozone
and Related Photochemical Oxidants (Final Report). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-20/012,
2020.
\367\ U.S. EPA. Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for Ozone
and Related Photochemical Oxidants (Final Report). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-20/012,
2020.
\368\ The Ozone ISA evaluates the evidence associated with
different ozone related health and welfare effects, assigning one of
five ``weight of evidence'' determinations: causal relationship,
likely to be a causal relationship, suggestive of a causal
relationship, inadequate to infer a causal relationship, and not
likely to be a causal relationship. For more information on these
levels of evidence, please refer to Table II of the ISA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Deposition
The Integrated Science Assessment for Oxides of Nitrogen, Oxides of
Sulfur, and Particulate Matter--Ecological Criteria documents the
ecological effects of the deposition of these criteria air
pollutants.\369\ It is clear from the body of evidence that oxides of
nitrogen, oxides of sulfur, and particulate matter contribute to total
nitrogen (N) and sulfur (S) deposition. In turn, N and S deposition
cause either nutrient enrichment or acidification depending on the
sensitivity of the landscape or the species in question. Both
enrichment and acidification are characterized by an alteration of the
biogeochemistry and the physiology of organisms, resulting in harmful
declines in biodiversity in terrestrial, freshwater, wetland, and
estuarine ecosystems in the U.S. Decreases in biodiversity mean that
some species become relatively less abundant and may be locally
extirpated. In addition to the loss of unique living species, the
decline in total biodiversity can be harmful because biodiversity is an
important determinant of the stability of ecosystems and their ability
to provide socially valuable ecosystem services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\369\ U.S. EPA. Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for Oxides
of Nitrogen, Oxides of Sulfur and Particulate Matter Ecological
Criteria (Final Report). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-20/278, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terrestrial, wetland, freshwater, and estuarine ecosystems in the
U.S. are affected by N enrichment/eutrophication caused by N
deposition. These effects have been consistently documented across the
U.S. for hundreds of species. In aquatic systems increased nitrogen can
alter species assemblages and cause eutrophication. In terrestrial
systems nitrogen loading can lead to loss of nitrogen-sensitive lichen
species, decreased biodiversity of grasslands, meadows and other
sensitive habitats, and increased potential for invasive species. For a
broader explanation of the topics treated here, refer to the
description in Chapter 9 of the DRIA.
The sensitivity of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems to
acidification from nitrogen and sulfur deposition is predominantly
governed by geology. Prolonged exposure to excess nitrogen and sulfur
deposition in sensitive areas acidifies lakes, rivers, and soils.
Increased acidity in surface waters creates inhospitable conditions for
biota and affects the abundance and biodiversity of fishes, zooplankton
and macroinvertebrates and ecosystem function. Over time, acidifying
deposition also removes essential nutrients from forest soils,
depleting the capacity of soils to neutralize future acid loadings and
negatively affecting forest sustainability. Major effects in forests
include a decline in sensitive tree species, such as red spruce (Picea
rubens) and sugar maple (Acer saccharum).
Building materials including metals, stones, cements, and paints
undergo natural weathering processes from exposure to environmental
elements (e.g., wind, moisture, temperature fluctuations, sunlight,
etc.). Pollution can worsen and accelerate these effects. Deposition of
PM is associated with both physical damage (materials damage effects)
and impaired aesthetic qualities (soiling effects). Wet and dry
deposition of PM can physically affect materials, adding to the effects
of natural weathering processes, by potentially promoting or
accelerating the corrosion of metals, by degrading paints and by
deteriorating building materials such as
[[Page 29226]]
stone, concrete, and marble.\370\ The effects of PM are exacerbated by
the presence of acidic gases and can be additive or synergistic due to
the complex mixture of pollutants in the air and surface
characteristics of the material. Acidic deposition has been shown to
have an effect on materials including zinc/galvanized steel and other
metal, carbonate stone (as monuments and building facings), and surface
coatings (paints).\371\ The effects on historic buildings and outdoor
works of art are of particular concern because of the uniqueness and
irreplaceability of many of these objects. In addition to aesthetic and
functional effects on metals, stone, and glass, altered energy
efficiency of photovoltaic panels by PM deposition is also becoming an
important consideration for impacts of air pollutants on materials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\370\ U.S. EPA. Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for
Particulate Matter (Final Report, 2019). U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/188, 2019.
\371\ Irving, P.M., e.d. 1991. Acid Deposition: State of Science
and Technology, Volume III, Terrestrial, Materials, Health, and
Visibility Effects, The U.S. National Acid Precipitation Assessment
Program, Chapter 24, page 24-76.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Welfare Effects Associated With Air Toxics
Emissions from producing, transporting, and combusting fuel
contribute to ambient levels of pollutants that contribute to adverse
effects on vegetation. VOCs, some of which are considered air toxics,
have long been suspected to play a role in vegetation damage.\372\ In
laboratory experiments, a wide range of tolerance to VOCs has been
observed.\373\ Decreases in harvested seed pod weight have been
reported for the more sensitive plants, and some studies have reported
effects on seed germination, flowering, and fruit ripening. Effects of
individual VOCs or their role in conjunction with other stressors
(e.g., acidification, drought, temperature extremes) have not been well
studied. In a recent study of a mixture of VOCs including ethanol and
toluene on herbaceous plants, significant effects on seed production,
leaf water content and photosynthetic efficiency were reported for some
plant species.\374\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\372\ U.S. EPA. (1991). Effects of organic chemicals in the
atmosphere on terrestrial plants. EPA/600/3-91/001.
\373\ Cape JN, ID Leith, J Binnie, J Content, M Donkin, M
Skewes, DN Price AR Brown, AD Sharpe. (2003). Effects of VOCs on
herbaceous plants in an open-top chamber experiment. Environ.
Pollut. 124:341-343.
\374\ Cape JN, ID Leith, J Binnie, J Content, M Donkin, M
Skewes, DN Price AR Brown, AD Sharpe. (2003). Effects of VOCs on
herbaceous plants in an open-top chamber experiment. Environ.
Pollut. 124:341-343.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research suggests an adverse impact of vehicle exhaust on plants,
which has in some cases been attributed to aromatic compounds and in
other cases to NOX.375 376 377 The impacts of
VOCs on plant reproduction may have long-term implications for
biodiversity and survival of native species near major roadways. Most
of the studies of the impacts of VOCs on vegetation have focused on
short-term exposure and few studies have focused on long-term effects
of VOCs on vegetation and the potential for metabolites of these
compounds to affect herbivores or insects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\375\ Viskari E-L. (2000). Epicuticular wax of Norway spruce
needles as indicator of traffic pollutant deposition. Water, Air,
and Soil Pollut. 121:327-337.
\376\ Ugrekhelidze D, F Korte, G Kvesitadze. (1997). Uptake and
transformation of benzene and toluene by plant leaves. Ecotox.
Environ. Safety 37:24-29.
\377\ Kammerbauer H, H Selinger, R Rommelt, A Ziegler-Jons, D
Knoppik, B Hock. (1987). Toxic components of motor vehicle emissions
for the spruce Picea abies. Environ. Pollut. 48:235-243.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. EPA Proposal for Light- and Medium-Duty Vehicle Standards for
Model Years 2027 and Later
A. Introduction and Background
This Preamble Section III outlines the proposed GHG and criteria
pollutant standards and related provisions that are included in the
proposal.
Throughout this section and elsewhere in this NPRM, EPA uses the
following conventions to identify specific vehicle technology types.
More information about these vehicle technologies may be found in the
2016 EPA Draft Technical Assessment Report.\378\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\378\ Draft Technical Assessment Report, EPA-420-D-16-900, July
2016.
ICE vehicle: an internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicle with
no powertrain electrification
BEV: Battery Electric Vehicle
PHEV: Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle
PEV: Plug-in Electric Vehicle (refers collectively to BEVs and
PHEVs)
HEV: Hybrid Electric Vehicle (or strong hybrid) \379\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\379\ Strong hybrids typically operate at high voltage (greater
than 60 volts and most often up to several hundred volts) to provide
significant engine assist and regenerative braking, and most
commonly occur in what are known as P2 and power-split or other
parallel/series drive configurations. See also Draft Technical
Assessment Report, EPA-420-D-16-900, July 2016, pp. 5-11 and 5-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MHEV: Mild Hybrid Electric Vehicle \380\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\380\ Mild hybrids most commonly operate at or about 48 volts
and provide idle-stop capability and launch assistance. See also
Draft Technical Assessment Report, EPA-420-D-16-900, July 2016, p.
5-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hybrid: refers collectively to HEVs (or strong hybrid) and
MHEVs
FCEV: Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle
Electrified: any of the preceding vehicle types with an
electric drive, including FCEV
ZEV: Zero-Emission Vehicle (used primarily in reference to the
California ZEV program)
Because ZEV has a specific meaning under the California program,
EPA in this proposal is generally refraining from using the term except
in reference to the California program. Executive Order (E.O.) 14037
also uses the term ``zero-emission vehicle'' to refer generally to
BEVs, FCEVs, and PHEVs, so EPA may also use ``ZEV'' when referencing
the E.O.
Additionally, in the context of the criteria pollutant program, the
abbreviation LDV refers to light-duty vehicles that are not otherwise
designated as a light-duty truck (LDT) or medium-duty passenger vehicle
(MDPV).\381\ In this proposal, the new nomenclature ``medium-duty
vehicle'' (MDV) refers to Class 2b and 3 vehicles, as described in the
following section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\381\ Title 40 CFR 86.1803.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. What vehicle categories and pollutants are covered by the proposal?
EPA is proposing emissions standards for both light-duty vehicles
and medium-duty (Class 2b and 3) vehicles. The light-duty vehicle
category includes passenger cars, light trucks, and medium-duty
passenger vehicles (MDPVs), consistent with previous EPA GHG and
criteria pollutant rules.\382\ In this proposed rule, Class 2b and 3
vehicles are referred to as ``medium-duty vehicles'' (MDVs) to
distinguish them from Class 4 and higher vehicles that remain under the
heavy-duty program in 40 CFR parts 1036 and 1037. EPA has not
previously used the MDV nomenclature, referring to these larger
vehicles in prior rules as either heavy-duty Class 2b and 3 vehicles or
heavy-duty pickups and vans.\383\ The MDV category includes large
pickups, vans, and incomplete vehicles, but excludes MDPVs. Examples of
vehicles in this
[[Page 29227]]
category include GM or Stellantis 2500 and 3500 series, and Ford 250
and 350 series, pickups and vans. EPA notes that it is proposing that
certain Class 2b and 3 vehicles would be subject to engine-based
criteria pollutant emissions standards under EPA's heavy-duty engine
standards rather than being included in the MDV category, as discussed
in Section III.C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\382\ Light-duty trucks (LDTs) that have gross vehicle weight
ratings above 6,000 pounds and all MDVs are considered ``heavy-duty
vehicles'' under the CAA. See section 202(b)(3)(C). For regulatory
purposes, we generally refer to those LDTs which are above 6,000
pounds GVWR and at or below 8,500 pounds GVWR as ``heavy light-duty
trucks'' made up of LDT3s and LDT4s, and we have defined MDPVs
primarily as vehicles between 8,501 and 10,000 pounds GVWR designed
primarily for the transportation of persons. See 40 CFR 86.1803-01.
\383\ See 76 FR 57106 and 79 FR 23414. Heavy-duty vehicles
subject to standards under 40 CFR part 86, subpart S, are defined at
40 CFR 86.1803-01 to include all vehicles above 8,500 pounds GVWR,
and also incomplete vehicles with lower GVWR if they have curb
weight above 6,000 pounds or basic vehicle frontal area greater than
45 square feet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is proposing new standards for emissions of GHGs and
hydrocarbons, oxides of nitrogen (NOX), and particulate
matter (PM). EPA's proposed standards are based on an assessment of all
available and potential vehicle emissions control technologies,
including advancements in gasoline vehicle technologies, strong
hybridization, and zero-emission technologies over the model years
affected by the proposal.
2. Light-Duty and Medium-Duty Vehicle Standards: Background and History
Previously, EPA has addressed medium-duty vehicle emissions as part
of regulatory programs for GHG emissions along with the heavy-duty
sector, and for criteria pollutant emissions along with the light-duty
sector. As a result, the program structure for medium-duty vehicles is
similar to that of the light-duty program for criteria pollutants but
differs from that of light-duty program for GHG emissions. This section
provides a brief overview of the rules and the standards structures for
EPA's light-duty GHG emissions standards, MDV GHG emissions standards,
and criteria pollutant emissions standards. While the current proposal
is addressing both light- and medium-duty vehicles under a single
umbrella rulemaking, EPA is proposing standards for each class and for
each pollutant pursuant to the relevant statutory provisions for each
class and pollutant based on its assessment of the feasibility of more
stringent standards for each class and pollutant, and the programs
would continue to follow the basic structures EPA has previously
adopted.
i. GHG Standards
EPA has issued four rules establishing light-duty vehicle GHG
standards, which EPA refers to in this proposal based on the year in
which the previous final rule was issued, as shown in Table 20.\384\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\384\ The first three rules were issued jointly with NHTSA,
while EPA issued the 2021 Rule in coordination with NHTSA but not as
a joint rulemaking.
Table 20--Previous GHG Light-Duty Vehicles Standards Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule MYs covered Title Federal Register citation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2010 Rule................. Initial 2010 rule Light-Duty Vehicle 75 FR 25324, May 7, 2010.
established standards Greenhouse Gas
for MYs 2012-2016 and Emission Standards and
later. Corporate Average Fuel
Economy Standards.
2012 Rule................. Set more stringent 2017 and Later Model 77 FR 62624, October 15, 2012.
standards for MYs 2017- Year Light-Duty
2025 and later. Vehicle Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and
Corporate Average Fuel
Economy Standards.
2020 Rule................. Revised the standards The Safer Affordable 85 FR 24174, April 30, 2020.
for MYs 2022-2025 to Fuel-Efficient (SAFE)
make them less Vehicles Rule for
stringent and Model Years 2021-2026
established a new Passenger Cars and
standard for MYs 2026 Light Trucks.
and later.
2021 Rule................. Revised the standards Revised 2023 and Later 86 FR 74434, December 30, 2021.
for MYs 2023-2026 to Model Year Light-Duty
make them more Vehicle Greenhouse Gas
stringent, with the MY Emissions Standards.
2026 standards being
the most stringent GHG
standards established
by EPA to date.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The GHG standards have all been based on fleet average
CO2 emissions. Each vehicle model is assigned a
CO2 target based on the vehicle's ``footprint'' in square
feet (ft\2\), generally consisting of the area of the rectangle formed
by the four points at which the tires rest on the ground. Generally,
vehicles with larger footprints have higher assigned CO2
emissions targets. The most recent set of footprint curves established
by the 2021 rule for model years 2023-2026 are shown in Figure 4 and
Figure 5, along with the curves for MYs 2021-2022, included for
comparison. As shown, passenger cars and light trucks have separate
footprint standards curves, which result in separate fleet average
standards for the two sets of vehicles. The fleet-average standards are
the production-weighted fleet average of the footprint targets for all
the vehicles in a manufacturer's fleet for a given model year. As a
result, the footprint-based fleet average standards, which
manufacturers are required to meet on an annual basis, will vary for
each manufacturer based on its actual production of vehicles in a given
model year. Individual vehicles are not required to meet their
footprint-based CO2 targets, although they are required to
demonstrate compliance with applicable in-use standards.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
[[Page 29228]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05MY23.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05MY23.008
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
For medium-duty vehicles,\385\ EPA has established GHG standards
previously as part of our heavy-duty vehicle GHG Phase 1 and 2 rules,
shown in Table 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\385\ Note, the HD GHG rules referred to MDVs as HD pickups and
vans.
[[Page 29229]]
Table 21--Prior Heavy-Duty GHG Rules Covering MDVs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule MYs covered Title Federal Register citation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HD Phase 1................. Initial MDV Greenhouse Gas Emissions 76 FR 57106, September 15, 2011.
standards phased in Standards and Fuel
over MYs 2014-2018. Efficiency Standards for
Medium- and Heavy-Duty
Engines and Vehicles.
HD Phase 2................. More stringent MDV Greenhouse Gas Emissions 81 FR 73478, October 25, 2016.
standards phased in and Fuel Efficiency
over MYs 2021-2027. Standards for Medium-
and Heavy-Duty Engines
and Vehicles--Phase 2.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The MDV standards are also attribute-based. However, they are based
on a ``work factor'' attribute rather than the footprint attribute used
in the light-duty vehicle program. Work-based measures such as payload
and towing capability are two key factors that characterize differences
in the design of vehicles, as well as differences in how the vehicles
are expected to be regularly used. The work factor attribute combines
vehicle payload capacity and vehicle towing capacity, in pounds (lb),
with an additional fixed adjustment for four-wheel drive vehicles. This
adjustment accounts for the fact that four-wheel drive, critical to
enabling heavy-duty work (payload or trailer towing) in certain road
conditions, adds roughly 500 pounds to the vehicle weight. The work
factor is calculated as follows:
75 percent maximum payload + 25 percent of maximum towing + 375 lb if
four-wheel drive.
--Maximum payload is calculated as GVWR minus curb weight
--Maximum towing is calculated as Gross Combined Weight Rating (GCWR)
minus GVWR
Under this approach, GHG targets are determined for each vehicle
with a unique work factor (analogous to a target for each discrete
vehicle footprint in the light-duty vehicle rules). These targets are
then production weighted and summed to derive a manufacturer's annual
fleet average standard for its MDVs. The current program includes
separate standards for gasoline and diesel-fueled vehicles.\386\ The
Phase 2 work factors are shown in Figure 6 and Figure 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\386\ See 81 FR 73736-73739.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05MY23.009
[[Page 29230]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05MY23.010
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
ii. Criteria and Toxic Pollutant Emissions Standards
Over the last several decades, EPA has set progressively more
stringent vehicle emissions standards for criteria pollutants. Most
recently, in 2014, EPA adopted Tier 3 emissions standards. Unlike GHG
standards, criteria pollutant standards are not attribute-based. The
Tier 3 rule included standards for both light-duty and medium-duty
vehicles. Similar to the prior Tier 2 standards, Tier 3 established
``bins'' of Federal Test Procedure (FTP) standards, shown in Table 22.
Each bin contains a milligrams per mile (mg/mile) standard for non-
methane organic gases (NMOG) plus oxides of nitrogen (NOX)
or NMOG+NOX, particulate matter (PM), carbon monoxide (CO),
and formaldehyde (HCHO).
Table 22--Tier 3 FTP Standards for LDVs and MDPVs
[mg/mile]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NMOG+NOX PM CO HCHO
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bin 160......................................... 160 3 4.2 4
Bin 125......................................... 125 3 2.1 4
Bin 70.......................................... 70 3 1.7 4
Bin 50.......................................... 50 3 1.7 4
Bin 30.......................................... 30 3 1.0 4
Bin 20.......................................... 20 3 1.0 4
Bin 0........................................... 0 0 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturers select, or assign, a standards bin to each vehicle
model and vehicles must meet all of the standards in that bin over the
vehicle's full useful life. Each manufacturer must also meet a fleet
average NMOG + NOX standard each model year, which declines
over a phase-in period for the Tier 3 final standards. The declining
NMOG+NOX standards are shown in Table 23. As shown, the
fleet is split between two categories: (1) Passenger cars and small
light trucks and (2) larger light trucks and MDPVs, with final
NMOG+NOX fleet average standards of 30 mg/mile for both
vehicle categories.\387\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\387\ Small light trucks are those vehicles in the LDT1 class,
while larger light trucks are those in the LDT2-4 classes.
[[Page 29231]]
Table 23--Tier 3 NMOG+NOX Fleet Average FTP Standards for Light-Duty Vehicles and MDPVs
[mg/mile]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2025 and
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 later
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Passenger cars and small 86 79 72 65 58 51 44 37 30
trucks......................
Large light trucks and MDPVs. 101 93 83 74 65 56 47 38 30
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Tier 3 rule also established more stringent criteria pollutant
emissions standards for MDVs. The Tier 3 MDV standards are also based
on a bin structure, but with generally less stringent bin standards and
with less stringent NMOG+NOX fleet average standards. As
discussed in Section III.A.1, the MDV category consists of vehicles
with gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWR) between 8,501-14,000 pounds.
For Tier 3, EPA set separate standards for two sub-categories of
vehicles, Class 2b (8,501-10,000 pounds GVWR) and Class 3 (10,001-
14,000 pounds GVWR) vehicles. Table 24 provides the final Tier 3 FTP
standards bins for MDVs and Table 25 provides the NMOG+NOX
fleet average standards that apply to these vehicles in MYs 2018 and
later. It is important to note that MDVs are tested at a higher test
weight than light-duty vehicles, as discussed in Section III.B.3, and
as such the numeric standards are not directly comparable across the
light-duty and MDV categories.
Table 24--MDV Tier 3 FTP Final Standards Bins
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NMOG+NOX PM CO HCHO
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class 2b (10,001-14,000 lb GVWR)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bin 250......................................... 250 8 6.4 6
Bin 200......................................... 200 8 4.2 6
Bin 170......................................... 170 8 4.2 6
Bin 150......................................... 150 8 3.2 6
Bin 0........................................... 0 0 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class 3 (8.501-10,000 lb GVWR)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bin 400......................................... 400 10 7.3 6
Bin 270......................................... 270 10 4.2 6
Bin 230......................................... 230 10 4.2 6
Bin 200......................................... 200 10 3.7 6
Bin 0........................................... 0 0 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 25--MDV Final Fleet Average NMOG+NOX Standards
[mg/mile]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 and later
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class 2b....................... 278 253 228 203 178
Class 3........................ 451 400 349 298 247
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA has also established supplemental Federal test procedure (SFTP)
standards for light and medium-duty vehicles, as well as cold
temperature standards for CO and HC. These standards address emissions
outside of the FTP test conditions such as at high vehicle speeds and
differing ambient temperatures. EPA is not reopening the current SFTP
standards in this rulemaking.
3. EPA's Statutory Authority Under the Clean Air Act (CAA)
Title II of the Clean Air Act provides for comprehensive regulation
of mobile sources, authorizing EPA to regulate emissions of air
pollutants from all mobile source categories, including motor vehicles
under CAA section 202(a). EPA is setting standards under multiple
provisions of CAA section 202(a). GHG standards for all motor vehicles
and light duty criteria pollutant standards are set under section
202(a)(1)-(2). Criteria pollutant standards for larger light-duty
trucks and MDVs, which are considered ``heavy-duty vehicles'' under the
CAA by virtue of having GVWR above 6,000 pounds, are being set pursuant
to section 202(a)(3), which requires that standards applicable to
emissions of hydrocarbons, NOX, CO, and PM from heavy-duty
vehicles (which includes MDVs) reflect the greatest degree of emission
reduction available for the model year to which such standards apply,
giving appropriate consideration to cost, energy, and safety. In turn,
CAA section 216(2) defines ``motor vehicle'' as ``any self-propelled
vehicle designed for transporting persons or property on a street or
highway.'' Congress has intentionally and consistently used the broad
term ``any self-propelled vehicle'' since the Motor Vehicle Control Act
of 1965 so as not to limit standards adopted under CAA section 202 to
vehicles running on a particular fuel, power source, or system of
propulsion. Congress's focus was on emissions from classes of motor
vehicles and the ``requisite technologies'' that could feasibly reduce
those emissions giving appropriate consideration to cost of compliance
and lead time, as opposed
[[Page 29232]]
to being limited to any particular type of vehicle.
Section 202(a)(1) of the CAA states that ``the Administrator shall
by regulation prescribe (and from time to time revise) . . . standards
applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any class or
classes of new motor vehicles . . . which in his judgment cause, or
contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to
endanger public health or welfare.'' CAA section 202(a)(1) also
requires that any standards promulgated thereunder ``shall be
applicable to such vehicles and engines for their useful life (as
determined under [CAA section 202(d)], relating to useful life of
vehicles for purposes of certification), whether such vehicle and
engines are designed as complete systems or incorporate devices to
prevent or control such pollution.''
While emission standards set by the EPA under CAA section 202(a)(1)
generally do not mandate use of particular technologies, they are
technology-based, as the levels chosen must be premised on a finding of
technological feasibility. Thus, standards promulgated under CAA
section 202(a) are to take effect only ``after such period as the
Administrator finds necessary to permit the development and application
of the requisite technology, giving appropriate consideration to the
cost of compliance within such period.'' CAA section 202(a)(2); see
also NRDC v. EPA, 655 F. 2d 318, 322 (D.C. Cir. 1981). EPA must
consider costs to those entities which are directly subject to the
standards. Motor & Equipment Mfrs. Ass'n Inc. v. EPA, 627 F. 2d 1095,
1118 (D.C. Cir. 1979). Thus, ``the [s]ection 202(a)(2) reference to
compliance costs encompasses only the cost to the motor-vehicle
industry to come into compliance with the new emission standards, and
does not mandate consideration of costs to other entities not directly
subject to the proposed standards.'' Coalition for Responsible
Regulation, 684 F.3d at 128. EPA is afforded considerable discretion
under section 202(a) when assessing issues of technical feasibility and
availability of lead time to implement new technology. Such
determinations are ``subject to the restraints of reasonableness,''
which ``does not open the door to `crystal ball' inquiry.'' NRDC, 655
F. 2d at 328, quoting International Harvester Co. v. Ruckelshaus, 478
F. 2d 615, 629 (D.C. Cir. 1973). However, ``EPA is not obliged to
provide detailed solutions to every engineering problem posed in the
perfection of [a particular device]. In the absence of theoretical
objections to the technology, the agency need only identify the major
steps necessary for development of the device and give plausible
reasons for its belief that the industry will be able to solve those
problems in the time remaining. EPA is not required to rebut all
speculation that unspecified factors may hinder `real world' emission
control.'' NRDC, 655 F. 2d at 333-34. In developing such technology-
based standards, EPA has the discretion to consider different standards
for appropriate groupings of vehicles (``class or classes of new motor
vehicles''), or a single standard for a larger grouping of motor
vehicles. NRDC, 655 F.2d at 338.\388\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\388\ Additionally, with respect to regulation of vehicular
greenhouse gas emissions, EPA is not ``required to treat NHTSA's . .
. regulations as establishing the baseline for the [section 202(a)
standards].'' Coalition for Responsible Regulation, 684 F.3d at 127
(noting that the section 202(a) standards provide ``benefits above
and beyond those resulting from NHTSA's fuel-economy standards'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although standards under CAA section 202(a)(1) are technology-
based, they are not based exclusively on technological capability.
Pursuant to the broad grant of authority in section 202, when setting
emission standards for light duty vehicles EPA may also consider other
factors and has done so previously when setting such standards. For
instance, in recent light duty greenhouse gas rules, EPA has also
considered such issues as: Technology effectiveness; its cost (per
vehicle, per manufacturer, and per consumer); the feasibility and
practicability of potential standards in light of the lead time
available to implement the technology; the impacts of potential
standards on emissions reductions of both GHGs and criteria pollutants;
the impacts of standards on oil conservation and energy security; the
impacts of standards on fuel savings by consumers; as well as other
relevant factors such as safety.
In addition, EPA has clear authority to set standards under CAA
section 202(a)(1)-(2) that are technology-forcing when EPA considers
that to be appropriate but is not required to do so (as compared to
standards under section 202(a)(3), which require the greatest degree of
emissions reduction achievable, giving appropriate consideration to
cost, energy and safety factors). CAA section 202(a) does not specify
the degree of weight to apply to each factor, and EPA accordingly has
discretion in choosing an appropriate balance among factors. See Sierra
Club v. EPA, 325 F.3d 374, 378 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (even where a provision
is technology-forcing, the provision ``does not resolve how the
Administrator should weigh all [the statutory] factors in the process
of finding the `greatest emission reduction achievable' ''); National
Petrochemical and Refiners Ass'n v. EPA, 287 F.3d 1130, 1135 (D.C. Cir.
2002) (EPA decisions, under CAA provision authorizing technology-
forcing standards, based on complex scientific or technical analysis
are accorded particularly great deference); see also Husqvarna AB v.
EPA, 254 F. 3d 195, 200 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (great discretion to balance
statutory factors in considering level of technology-based standard,
and statutory requirement ``to [give appropriate] consideration to the
cost of applying . . . technology'' does not mandate a specific method
of cost analysis); Hercules Inc. v. EPA, 598 F. 2d 91, 106 (D.C. Cir.
1978) (``In reviewing a numerical standard we must ask whether the
agency's numbers are within a zone of reasonableness, not whether its
numbers are precisely right.'').\389\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\389\ See also; Permian Basin Area Rate Cases, 390 U.S. 747, 797
(1968) (same); Federal Power Commission v. Conway Corp., 426 U.S.
271, 278 (1976) (same); Exxon Mobil Gas Marketing Co. v. Federal
Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 297 F. 3d 1071, 1084 (D.C. Cir. 2002)
(same).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regard to the specific technologies that could be used to meet
the emission standards promulgated under the relevant statutory
authorities, EPA's rules have historically not required the use of any
particular technology, but rather have allowed manufacturers to use any
technology that demonstrates the engines or vehicles meet the standards
over the applicable test procedures. Similarly, in determining the
standards, EPA appropriately considers updated data and analysis on
pollution control technologies, without a priori limiting its
consideration to a particular set of technologies. Given the continuous
development of pollution control technologies since the early days of
the CAA, this approach means that EPA routinely considers novel and
projected technologies developed or refined since the time of the CAA's
enactment, including, for instance, electric vehicle technologies. This
forward-looking regulatory approach keeps pace with real-world
technological developments and comports with Congressional intent.
Section 202 does not specify or expect any particular type of motor
vehicle propulsion system to remain prevalent, and it was clear as
early as the 1960s that ICE vehicles might be inadequate to achieve the
country's air quality goals. In 1967, the Senate Committees on Commerce
and Public Works held five days of hearings on ``electric vehicles and
other alternatives to the internal
[[Page 29233]]
combustion engine,'' which Chairman Magnuson opened by saying ``The
electric will help alleviate air pollution. . . . The electric car does
not mean a new way of life, but rather it is a new technology to help
solve the new problems of our age.'' \390\ In a 1970 message to
Congress seeking a stronger CAA, President Nixon stated he was
initiating a program to develop ``an unconventionally powered,
virtually pollution free automobile'' because of the possibility that
``the sheer number of cars in densely populated areas will begin
outrunning the technological limits of our capacity to reduce pollution
from the internal combustion engine.'' \391\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\390\ Electric Vehicles and Other Alternatives to the Internal
Combustion Engine: Joint Hearings before the Comm. on Commerce and
the Subcomm. on Air and Water Pollution of the Comm. on Pub. Works,
90th Cong. (1967).
\391\ Richard Nixon, Special Message to the Congress on
Environmental Quality (Feb. 10, 1970), https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/special-message-the-congress-environmental-quality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since the earliest days of the CAA, Congress has emphasized that
the goal of section 202 is to address air quality hazards from motor
vehicles, not to simply reduce emissions from internal combustion
engines to the extent feasible. In the Senate Report accompanying the
1970 CAA Amendments, Congress made clear the EPA ``is expected to press
for the development and application of improved technology rather than
be limited by that which exists'' and identified several unconventional
technologies that could successfully meet air quality-based emissions
targets for motor vehicles.\392\ In the 1970 amendments Congress
further demonstrated its recognition that developing new technology to
ensure that pollution control keeps pace with economic development is
not merely a matter of refining the ICE, but requires considering new
types of motor vehicle propulsion. Congress provided EPA with authority
to fund the development of ``low emission alternatives to the present
internal combustion engine'' as well as a program to encourage Federal
purchases of ``low-emission vehicles.'' See CAA section 104(a)(2)
(previously codified as CAA section 212). Congress also adopted section
202(e) expressly to grant the Administrator discretion regarding the
certification of vehicles and engines based on ``new power source[s] or
propulsion system[s],'' that is to say, power sources and propulsion
systems beyond the existing internal combustion engine and fuels
available at the time of the statute's enactment, if those vehicles
emit pollutants which the Administrator judges contribute to dangerous
air pollution but has not yet established standards for under section
202(a). As the D.C. Circuit held in 1973, ``We may also note that it is
the belief of many experts-both in and out of the automobile industry-
that air pollution cannot be effectively checked until the industry
finds a substitute for the conventional automotive power plant-the
reciprocating internal combustion (i.e., ``piston'') engine. . . . It
is clear from the legislative history that Congress expected the Clean
Air Amendments to force the industry to broaden the scope of its
research-to study new types of engines and new control systems.''
International Harvester Co. v. Ruckelshaus, 478 F.2d 615, 634-35 (D.C.
Cir. 1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\392\ S. Rep. No. 91-1196, at 24-27 (1970).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since that time, Congress has continued to emphasize the importance
of technology development to achieving the goals of the CAA. In the
1990 amendments, Congress instituted a clean fuel vehicles program to
promote further progress in emissions reductions and the adoption of
new technologies and alternative fuels, which also applied to motor
vehicles as defined under section 216, see CAA section 241(1), and
explicitly defined motor vehicles qualifying under the program as
including vehicles running on an alternative fuel or ``power source
(including electricity),'' CAA section 241(2). Congress also directed
EPA to phase-in certain section 202(a) standards, see CAA section
202(g), which confirms EPA's authority to promulgate standards, such as
fleet averages, phase-ins, and averaging, banking, and trading
programs, that are fulfilled through compliance over an entire fleet,
or a portion thereof, rather than through compliance by individual
vehicles.\393\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\393\ EPA has a long history of exercising its authority to
include compliance flexibilities in standards. As early as 1983,
manufacturers could comply with criteria-pollutant standards using
averaging. EPA introduced banking and trading in 1990. Fleet average
standards were adopted for light duty vehicles in 2000. All of these
flexibilities have likewise been part of EPA's GHG standards program
since the program's inception in 2010, and consistently since then.
Averaging, banking, and trading is discussed further in Section
III.B.4 and additional history is discussed in EPA's Answering Brief
in Texas v. EPA (D.C. Cir., 22-1031).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The recently enacted Inflation Reduction Act \394\ ``reinforces the
longstanding authority and responsibility of [EPA] to regulate GHGs as
air pollutants under the Clean Air Act,'' \395\ and ``the IRA clearly
and deliberately instructs EPA to use'' this authority by ``combin[ing]
economic incentives to reduce climate pollution with regulatory drivers
to spur greater reductions under EPA's CAA authorities.'' \396\ The IRA
specifically affirms Congress's previously articulated statements that
non-ICE technologies will be a key component of achieving emissions
reductions from the mobile source sector, and Congress provided a
number of significant financial incentives for PEVs and the
infrastructure necessary to support them.\397\ The Congressional Record
reflects that ``Congress recognizes EPA's longstanding authority under
CAA section 202 to adopt standards that rely on zero emission
technologies, and Congress expects that future EPA regulations will
increasingly rely on and incentivize zero-emission vehicles as
appropriate.'' \398\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\394\ See Inflation Reduction Act, Public Law 117-169, at
Sec. Sec. 13403, 13404, 13501, 13502, 60101, 136 Stat. 1818,
(2022), available at https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/hr5376/BILLS-117hr5376enr.pdf.
\395\ 168 Cong. Rec. E868-02 (daily ed. Aug. 12, 2022)
(statement of Rep. Pallone).
\396\ 168 Cong. Rec. E879-02, at 880 (daily ed. Aug. 26, 2022)
(statement of Rep. Pallone).
\397\ See Inflation Reduction Act, Public Law 117-169, at
Sec. Sec. 13403, 13404, 13501, 13502, 60101, 136 Stat. 1818,
(2022), available at https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/hr5376/BILLS-117hr5376enr.pdf.
\398\ 168 Cong. Rec. E879-02, at 880 (daily ed. Aug. 26, 2022)
(statement of Rep. Pallone).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consistent with Congress's intent, EPA's CAA Title II emission
standards have been based on and stimulated the development of a broad
set of advanced automotive technologies, such as on-board computers and
fuel injection systems, which have been the building blocks of
automotive designs and have yielded not only lower pollutant emissions,
but improved vehicle performance, reliability, and durability.
Beginning in 2010, EPA has set standards under section 202 for GHGs and
manufacturers have responded by continuing to develop and deploy a wide
range of technologies, including more fuel-efficient engine designs,
transmissions, aerodynamics, tires, materials improvements for mass
reduction, as well as various levels of electrified vehicle
technologies including mild hybrids, strong and plug-in hybrids,
battery electric vehicles, and fuel cell electric vehicles. In
addition, the continued application of performance-based standards with
fleet-wide averaging provides an opportunity for all technology
improvements and innovation to be reflected in a vehicle manufacturer's
compliance results.
i. Testing Authority
Under section 203 of the CAA, sales of vehicles are prohibited
unless the
[[Page 29234]]
vehicle is covered by a certificate of conformity. EPA issues
certificates of conformity pursuant to section 206 of the CAA, based on
(necessarily) pre-sale testing conducted either by EPA or by the
manufacturer. The Federal Test Procedure (FTP or ``city'' test) and the
Highway Fuel Economy Test (HFET or ``highway'' test) are used for this
purpose. Compliance with standards is required not only at
certification but throughout a vehicle's useful life, so that testing
requirements may continue post-certification. To assure each vehicle
complies during its useful life, EPA may apply an adjustment factor to
account for vehicle emission control deterioration or variability in
use (section 206(a)).
EPA establishes the test procedures under which compliance with the
CAA emissions standards is measured. EPA's testing authority under the
CAA is broad and flexible. EPA has also developed tests with additional
cycles (the so-called 5-cycle tests) which are used for purposes of
fuel economy labeling, SFTP standards, and extending off-cycle credits
under the light-duty vehicle GHG program.
ii. Compliance and Enforcement Authority
EPA oversees testing, collects and processes test data, and
performs calculations to determine compliance with CAA standards. CAA
standards apply not only at certification but also throughout the
vehicle's useful life. The CAA provides for penalties should
manufacturers fail to comply with their fleet average standards, and
there is no option for manufacturers to pay fines in lieu of compliance
with the standards. Under the CAA, penalties for violation of a fleet
average standard are typically determined on a vehicle-specific basis
by determining the number of a manufacturer's highest emitting vehicles
that cause the fleet average standard violation. Penalties for
reporting requirements under Title II of the CAA apply per day of
violation, and other violations apply on a per vehicle, or a per part
or component basis. See CAA sections 203(a) and 205(a) and 40 CFR 19.4.
Section 207 of the CAA grants EPA broad authority to require
manufacturers to remedy vehicles if EPA determines there are a
substantial number of noncomplying vehicles. In addition, under CAA
section 207, manufacturers are required to provide emission-related
warranties. CAA section 207(i) specifies that the warranty period for
light-duty vehicles is 2 years or 24,000 miles of use (whichever first
occurs), except for specified major emission control components, for
which the warranty period is 8 years or 80,000 miles of use (whichever
first occurs).
B. Proposed GHG Standards for Model Years 2027 and Later
1. Overview
This Section III.B provides details regarding EPA's proposed GHG
standards and related program provisions. EPA is proposing
significantly more stringent GHG standards for light and medium-duty
vehicles for MYs 2027 and later. For light-duty, the proposed standards
would further reduce the fleet average GHG emissions target levels by
56 percent from the MY 2026 standards, the final year of standards
established in the 2021 rule. For MDVs, the standards would represent a
reduction of 37 percent compared to the MY 2027 standards, the final
phase year of the previously established Phase 2 standards for those
vehicles.
Section III.B.2 provides details regarding the structure and level
of the proposed light-duty vehicle standards while Section III.B.3
provides details regarding EPA's proposed GHG standards for MDVs.
Additional GHG program provisions are discussed in Sections III.B.4-
III.B.9, including averaging, banking, and trading, proposed air
conditioning system requirements, proposed phase out of off-cycle
credits, proposed treatment of PEVs and FCEVs in the GHG fleet average,
and proposed alternative standards for small volume manufacturers.
2. Proposed Light-Duty Vehicle GHG Standards
i. Structure of the Existing Light-Duty Vehicle CO2
Standards
Since MY 2012, EPA has adopted attribute-based standards for
passenger cars and light trucks. The CAA has no requirement to
promulgate attribute-based standards, though in past rules EPA has
relied on both universal and attribute-based standards (e.g., for
nonroad engines, EPA uses the attribute of horsepower). However, given
the advantages of using attribute-based standards, from MY 2012 onward
EPA has adopted and maintained vehicle footprint as the attribute for
the GHG standards. Footprint is defined as a vehicle's wheelbase
multiplied by its track width--in other words, the area enclosed by the
points at which the wheels meet the ground.
EPA has implemented footprint-based standards since MY 2012 by
establishing two kinds of standards--fleet average standards determined
by a manufacturer's fleet makeup, and in-use standards that will apply
to the individual vehicles that make up the manufacturer's fleet. Under
the footprint-based standards, each manufacturer has a CO2
emissions performance target unique to its fleet, depending on the
footprints of the vehicles produced by that manufacturer. While a
manufacturer's fleet average standard could be estimated throughout the
model year based on projected production volume of its vehicle fleet,
the fleet average standard to which the manufacturer must comply is
based on its final model year production figures. Each vehicle in the
fleet has a compliance value which is used to calculate both the in-use
standard applicable to that vehicle and the fleet average emissions. A
manufacturer's calculation of fleet average emissions at the end of the
model year will thus be based on the production-weighted average
emissions of each vehicle in its fleet. EPA is not reopening the
footprint-based structure for the standards or seeking comment on any
alternatives to this structure.
Each manufacturer has separate footprint-based standards for cars
and for trucks. EPA is not reopening the existing regulatory
definitions of passenger cars and light trucks; we propose to continue
to reference the NHTSA regulatory class definitions as EPA has done
since the inception of the GHG program. Similarly, EPA is not
requesting comment on alternatives to the regulatory class definitions
which are being maintained.
ii. How did EPA determine the proposed slopes and relative stringencies
of the car and truck footprint standards curves?
In this proposal, EPA is retaining vehicle footprint, the existing
car/truck regulatory class definitions, and separate standards curves
for each regulatory class, as in previous rulemakings. However, we
propose to adjust the relative slope and offset between the car and
truck footprint standards curves as described in this section.
We analyzed the fleet and found that most light-duty vehicles
(which do not tow or haul) are used to move passengers and their
nominal cargo and could be represented by a single curve. However,
within our analysis we identified a subset of light trucks that provide
additional towing and hauling capabilities which are more appropriately
controlled with a
[[Page 29235]]
modified set of standards.\399\ We have accommodated those vehicles by
providing an additional GHG offset for this increased utility which is
embodied in the truck curve. In this way, we maintain two curves--one
for cars and one for trucks--that are closely related from an
analytical perspective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\399\ This analysis is described in a Memo to Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0829 titled ``Fleet and Vehicle Attribute Analysis for
the Development of Standard Curves.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When setting GHG standards, EPA recognizes the current diversity
and distribution of vehicles in the market and that Americans have
widely varying preferences in vehicles and that GHG control technology
is feasible for a wide variety of vehicles. This is one of the primary
reasons for adopting attribute-based standards and is also an important
consideration in choosing specific attribute-based standards (i.e., the
footprint curves). Over time, vehicle footprint sizes have steadily
increased.\400\ This has partially offset gains in fuel economy and
reductions in emissions. For example, in MY 2021, average fuel economy
and emissions were essentially flat (despite improvements in emissions
for all classes of vehicles) because of increases in the sizes of
vehicles purchased. In developing footprint curves for this proposal,
EPA's intent was to establish slopes that would not (of their own
accord) initiate overall fleet upsizing or downsizing as a compliance
strategy. A slope too flat would incentivize overall fleet downsizing,
while a steep slope would foster upsizing. Fuller details on the
analysis that was used to determine a ``neutral'' slope determination
is provided in DRIA Chapter 1.1.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\400\ The 2022 EPA Automotive Trends Report, https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-12/420r22029.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The slopes proposed in this rulemaking, especially the car curves,
are flatter than those of prior rulemakings. This is by design and
reflects our projection of the likelihood that a future fleet will be
characterized by a greatly increased penetration of BEVs, even in a no-
action scenario. Consider that for the 2012 LD GHG rulemaking, the
footprint-based curves were originally developed for a fleet that was
completely made up of internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles. From a
physics perspective, a positive footprint slope for ICE vehicles makes
sense because as a vehicle's size increases, its mass, road loads, and
required power (and corresponding tailpipe CO2 emissions)
will increase accordingly. However, because the proposed standards are
based on tailpipe emissions (and upstream emissions are not included as
part of a manufacturer's compliance calculation) for all vehicle types
and BEVs emit zero tailpipe emissions, a fleet of all BEVs would emit 0
g/mi, regardless of their respective footprints. As the percentage of
BEVs increases, the percentage of ICE vehicles (those vehicles
correlated to a positive slope) decrease. Mathematically, the slope of
the average footprint targets should trend towards zero as the
percentage of BEVs increases.
All-wheel drive (AWD) is one of the defining features for crossover
vehicles to be classified as light trucks,\401\ and for this reason the
offset in tailpipe emissions targets (i.e., between the car and truck
regulatory classes) for these vehicles should be appropriately set. The
design differences for many cross-over vehicle models that are offered
in both a two-wheel drive (2WD) and an AWD version (aside from their
driveline) are difficult to detect. They often have the same engine,
similar curb weight (except for the additional weight of an AWD
system), and similar operating features (although AWD versions might be
offered at a premium trim level that is not required of the
drivetrain). EPA analyzed empirical data for models that were offered
in both 2WD and AWD versions to quantify the average increase in
tailpipe emissions due to addition of AWD for an otherwise identical
vehicle model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\401\ We use the term AWD to include all types of four-wheel
drive systems, consistent with SAE standard J1952.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The light truck classification consists of crossovers (ranging from
compact up through large crossovers), sport utility vehicles and pickup
trucks. Many crossover vehicles and SUVs exhibit similar towing
capability between their 2WD and AWD versions (there are some
exceptions in cases where AWD is packaged with a larger more powerful
engine than the base 2WD version). However, full size pickup trucks are
the light-duty market segment with the most towing and hauling
capability. The purpose of maintaining a unique truck curve is centered
around accounting for the utility of these vehicles in particular.
EPA is therefore proposing that the truck curve be based on the car
curve (to represent the base utility across all vehicles for carrying
people and their light cargo), but with the additional allowance of
increased utility that distinguishes these vehicles used for more work-
like activity. EPA determined a relationship between gross combined
weight rating (GCWR) (which combines the cumulative utility for hauling
and towing to a vehicle's curb weight) and required engine torque. EPA
then used its ALPHA model to predict how the tailpipe emissions at
equivalent test weight (ETW) (curb weight + 300 pounds) would increase
as a function of increased utility (GCWR) based on required engine
torque and assumed modest increases in vehicle weight and road loads
commensurate with a more tow-capable vehicle.
EPA also assessed the relative magnitude of tow rating across the
light truck fleet as a function of footprint. Vehicles with the
greatest utility are full size pickup trucks, while light trucks with
the least utility tend to be the smaller crossovers, with an increased
tow or haul rating near zero. As a result, EPA proposes a simple offset
for the truck curve, compared to the car curve, that increases with
footprint.
The offsets for AWD and utility were then scaled as a function of
the nominal fleet-wide BEV penetrations anticipated to be achieved
under the proposed stringency levels. For example, in our feasibility
assessment we would project approximately 50 percent BEV penetration on
average across the fleet by MY 2030 and thus, the AWD offset and the
utility-based offset for the MY 2030 were each multiplied by 50 percent
to reflect the share of the new vehicle sales that are projected to
remain as ICE vehicles for that year.
In summary, the truck curve is, mathematically, the sum of the
scaled AWD and utility-based offsets to the car curve. A more thorough
description of the truck curve as it relates to the car curve, and a
discussion of the empirical and modeling data used in developing these
offsets is presented in DRIA Chapter 1.1.3.2. EPA solicits comments on
the proposed changes to the shape of the footprint curves, including
the flattening of the car curve and our approach for deriving the truck
curve from the car curve.
iii. How did EPA determine the proposed cutpoints for the footprint
standards curves?
The cutpoints are defined as the footprint boundaries (low and
high) within which the sloped portion of the footprint curve resides.
Above the high, and below the low, cutpoints, the curves are flat. The
rationale for the setting of the original cutpoints for the 2017-2025
rule was based on analysis of the distribution of vehicle footprint for
the 2008 fleet and is discussed in the 2012
[[Page 29236]]
proposal \402\ and the Technical Support Document (TSD).\403\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\402\ Preamble, II.C.6.a,b.
\403\ 2017-2025 TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is proposing to increase the lower cutpoint for the car and
truck curves by 1 square foot per year from MY 2027 through MY 2030
from 41 to 45 square feet. This will provide slightly less stringent
standards for the smallest vehicles and may encourage more vehicle
model offerings by manufacturers of these vehicles, which are already
among the cleanest vehicles and which may be more accessible to lower-
income households. At a minimum, EPA believes the structure of the
footprint standards should not disincentivize manufacturers from
offering these smallest vehicles, as the continuation of offerings in
this segment is an important affordability consideration.
EPA is also proposing to gradually reduce the upper cutpoint for
trucks, which will be 74.0 square feet starting in 2023 through 2026,
and then decreasing by 1.0 square foot per year from MY 2027 through MY
2030 (down to 70.0 square feet by MY 2030). As the upper cutpoint for
trucks has increased from 66.0 square feet in 2016 to 69.0 square feet
in 2020, we have witnessed a corresponding trend towards larger full
size pickup trucks which are subject to less stringent CO2
targets. The proposed MY 2030 upper truck cutpoint of 70.0 square feet
(consistent with the sales-weighted average footprint of current full-
size pickups) is intended to help ensure no loss of emissions
reductions in the future through upsizing. However, we do not view the
cutpoints as a primary driver for significant additional emissions
reductions beyond those achieved by the year-over-year change in the
curves. Both the truck size trend and an analysis of truck footprint
vs. CO2 are detailed in DRIA Chapter 1.3. The upper cutpoint
for cars (56 feet) will remain unchanged.
EPA requests comments on the proposed cutpoints and may consider
different cutpoints based on comments in the final rule.
iv. What are the proposed light-duty vehicle CO2 standards?
a. What CO2 footprint standards curves is EPA proposing?
EPA is proposing separate car and light truck standards--that is,
vehicles defined as passenger vehicles (``cars'') would have one set of
footprint-based standards curves, and vehicles defined as light trucks
would have a different set.\404\ In general, for a given footprint, the
CO2 g/mile target \405\ for trucks is higher than the target
for a car with the same footprint. The curves are described
mathematically in EPA's regulations by a family of piecewise linear
functions (with respect to vehicle footprint) that gradually and
continually ramp down from the MY 2026 curves established in the 2021
rule. EPA's proposed minimum and maximum footprint targets and the
corresponding cutpoints are provided for cars and trucks, respectively,
in Table 26 and Table 27 for MYs 2027-2032 along with the slope and
intercept defining the linear function for footprints falling between
the minimum and maximum footprint values. For footprints falling
between the minimum and maximum, the targets are calculated as follows:
Slope x Footprint + Intercept = Target.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\404\ See 49 CFR part 523. Generally, passenger cars include
cars and smaller crossovers and SUVs, while the truck category
includes larger crossovers and SUVs, minivans, and pickup trucks.
\405\ Because compliance is based on a sales-weighting of the
full range of vehicles in a manufacturer's car and truck fleets, the
foot-print based CO2 emission levels of specific vehicles
within the fleet are referred to as targets, rather than standards.
Table 26--Proposed Footprint-Based Standard Curve Coefficients for Cars
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MIN CO2 (g/mi).......................................... 130.9 114.1 96.9 89.5 81.2 71.8
MAX CO2 (g/mi).......................................... 139.8 121.3 102.5 94.2 85.5 75.6
Slope (g/mi/ft2)........................................ 0.64 0.56 0.47 0.43 0.39 0.35
Intercept (g/mi)........................................ 104.0 90.2 76.3 70.1 63.6 56.2
MIN footprint (ft2)..................................... 42 43 44 45 45 45
MAX footprint (ft2)..................................... 56 56 56 56 56 56
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 27--Proposed Footprint-Based Standard Curve Coefficients for Light Trucks
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MIN CO2 (g/mi).......................................... 133.0 117.5 101.0 94.4 85.6 75.7
MAX CO2 (g/mi).......................................... 212.3 181.7 151.5 137.3 124.5 110.1
Slope (g/mi/ft2)........................................ 2.56 2.22 1.87 1.72 1.56 1.38
Intercept (g/mi)........................................ 25.6 22.2 18.7 17.2 15.6 13.8
MIN footprint (ft2)..................................... 42 43 44 45 45 45
MAX footprint (ft2)..................................... 73 72 71 70 70 70
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 8 and Figure 9 show the car and truck curves, respectively,
for MY 2027 through MY 2032. Included for reference is the original MY
2026 curve for each. However, to compare tailpipe stringency between MY
2026 with the proposed standards, it was necessary to adjust the MY
2026 curve to reflect the proposed reduction in allowable AC and off-
cycle credits \406\ effective in MY 2027. In the figures, the adjusted
MY 2026 curve has been increased by the amount of the total credits
reduced from MY 2026 to MY 2027. The magnitude of this adjustment is
calculated in Table 28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\406\ As proposed, AC efficiency and off-cycle credits are only
eligible to ICE vehicles for MY 2027 and beyond. The AC and off-
cycle credits in Table 28 for MY 2027 reflect scaling of a projected
reduced number of ICE vehicles.
[[Page 29237]]
Table 28--Off-Cycle and Air Conditioning (AC) Credit Adjustments Made To Normalize MY 2026 Standards
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MY 2026 (no action) MY 2027 (proposed) 2026
Reg class -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Adjust g/
Off-cycle AC eff AC refrig Total Off-cycle AC eff AC refrig Total mi
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Car.......................................................... 10.0 5.0 13.8 28.8 6.0 3.0 0 9.0 19.8
Truck........................................................ 10.0 7.2 17.2 34.4 6.0 4.3 0 10.3 24.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05MY23.011
[[Page 29238]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05MY23.012
As discussed in Section III.B.2.ii, the slope of the car curve is
significantly flatter in 2027 and continues to flatten progressively
each year through 2032. The truck curve, largely driven by the
allowance for towing utility, has a similar shape as in past
rulemakings although its slope also flattens progressively each year
from 2027 through 2032.
b. What fleet-wide CO2 emissions levels correspond to the
standards?
EPA is proposing more stringent standards for MYs 2027-2032 that
are projected to result in an industry-wide average target for the
light-duty fleet of 82 g/mile of CO2 in MY 2032. The
projected average annual decrease in combined industry average targets
from the current standards in MY 2026 to the new standards in MY 2032
is 12.8 percent per year. Compared to past rulemakings the annual
percentage reductions are significantly higher; however, EPA's
feasibility assessments in past rulemakings were predominantly based on
ICE-based technologies that provided incremental tailpipe GHG
reductions. Since then, advancements in BEV technology and the
increasing feasibility of BEVs as an available and reasonable-cost
compliance technology have changed the magnitude of the emissions
reductions that will be achievable during the timeframe of this
rulemaking compared to prior rules. The combination of economic
incentives provided in the IRA and the auto manufacturers' stated plans
for producing significant volumes of zero and near-zero emission
vehicles in the timeframe of this rule makes it possible for EPA to
propose standards at a level of stringency greater than was feasible in
past rules. While tailpipe emissions controls for criteria pollutants
from conventional ICE-based vehicles can have effectiveness values
greater than 90 percent under certain circumstances, electrification
provides 100 percent effectiveness under all operating and
environmental conditions. This is nearly two orders of magnitude more
effective than the historical improvements in GHG emission reductions.
EPA is not reopening its current approach of having separate
standards for cars and light trucks under existing program definitions.
The 82 g/mile estimated industry-wide target for MY 2032 noted in the
previous paragraph is based on EPA's current fleet mix projections for
MY 2032 (approximately 40 percent cars and 60 percent trucks, assuming
only slight variations from MY 2026). As is the nature of attribute-
based standards, the final fleet average standards for each
manufacturer ultimately will depend on each manufacturer's actual
rather than projected production in each MY from MY 2027 to MY 2032
under the sales-weighted footprint-based standard curves for the car
and truck regulatory classes. Figure 10 shows the projected industry-
average CO2 targets based on projected fleet mix through MY
2032.
[[Page 29239]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05MY23.013
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
Prior EPA standards have been based in part on EPA's projection of
average industry wide CO2-equivalent emission reductions
from AC improvements, where the footprint curves were made numerically
more stringent by an amount equivalent to this projection of AC
refrigerant leakage credits. As discussed in Section III.B.5-6, EPA is
proposing to end refrigerant-based credits in MY 2027, to limit off-
cycle credits and AC efficiency credits to vehicles equipped with an IC
engine, and to phase-out off-cycle credits.
Table 29 shows overall fleet average target levels for both cars
and light trucks that are projected for the proposed standards. A more
detailed manufacturer by manufacturer break down of the projected
CO2 targets and achieved levels is provided in DRIA Chapter
13. The actual fleet-wide average g/mile level that would be achieved
in any year for cars and trucks will depend on the actual production of
vehicles for that year, as well as the use of the various credit and
averaging, banking, and trading provisions. For example, in any year,
manufacturers would be able to generate credits from cars and use them
for compliance with the truck standard, or vice versa. In DRIA Chapter
9.6, EPA discusses the year-by-year estimate of GHG emissions
reductions that are projected to be achieved by the proposed standards.
In general, the structure of the proposed standards allows an
incremental phase-in to the MY 2032 level and reflects consideration of
the appropriate lead time for manufacturers to take actions necessary
to meet the proposed standards. The technical feasibility of the
standards is discussed in Section IV.A and in the DRIA. Note that MY
2032 is the final MY in which the proposed CO2 standards
would become more stringent. The MY 2032 standards would remain in
place for later MYs, unless and until revised by EPA in a future
rulemaking for those MYs.
EPA is requesting comments on whether the standards should increase
in stringency beyond MY 2032. EPA seeks comment on whether the
trajectory (i.e., the levels of year-over-year stringency rates) of the
proposed standards for MYs 2027 through 2032 should be extended through
2033, 2034 or 2035, or whether EPA should consider additional
approaches to the trajectory of any standards that were to continue
increasing in stringency beyond 2032. EPA is interested in
stakeholders' feedback on any additional data and information that
could inform EPA's consideration of potential standards beyond MY 2032.
This request for comment on standards beyond MY 2032 is not specific to
the light-duty GHG program but also for the medium-duty GHG program and
the criteria pollutant standards as well.
EPA has estimated the overall fleet-wide CO2 emission
levels that correspond with the attribute-based footprint standards,
based on projections of the composition of each manufacturer's fleet in
each year of the program. As shown in Table 29, for passenger cars, the
proposed MY 2032 standards are projected to result in CO2
fleet-average levels of 73 g/mi in MY 2032, which is 52 percent lower
than that of the (adjusted) MY 2026 standards. For trucks, the
projected MY 2032 fleet average CO2 target is 89 g/mi which
is 57 percent lower than that of the (adjusted) MY 2026 standards. The
projected MY 2032 combined fleet target
[[Page 29240]]
of 82 g/mi is 56 percent lower than that of the (adjusted) MY 2026
standards.
The derivation of the 82 g/mile estimate is described in Section
IV.D. EPA aggregated the estimates for individual manufacturers based
on projected production volumes into the fleet-wide averages for cars,
trucks, and the entire fleet.\407\ The combined fleet estimates are
based on a projected fleet mix of cars and trucks that varies over the
MY 2027-2032 timeframe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\407\ Due to rounding during calculations, the estimated fleet-
wide CO2 levels may vary by plus or minus 1 gram.
\408\ MY 2026 targets are provided for reference, based on for
fleet mix (40% cars and 60% trucks) and then adjusted (upward) by 20
g/mi for cars, 24 g/mi for trucks, and 22 g/mi total for the fleet,
to normalize as a point of comparison to reflect the reduced
available off-cycle and AC credits as proposed for MY 2027.
\409\ Fleet CO2 targets are calculated based on
projected car and truck share. Truck share for the fleet is expected
at 60% for MY 2026-2029, and 59% for MY 2030 and later.
Table 29--Estimated Fleet-Wide CO2 Targets Corresponding to the Proposed Standards \408\ \409\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cars CO2 (g/ Trucks CO2 (g/ Fleet CO2 (g/
Model year mile) mile) mile)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2026 adjusted................................................... 152 207 186
2027............................................................ 134 163 152
2028............................................................ 116 142 131
2029............................................................ 99 120 111
2030............................................................ 91 110 102
2031............................................................ 82 100 93
2032 and later.................................................. 73 89 82
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is proposing standards that set increasingly stringent levels
of CO2 control from MY 2027 though MY 2032. Applying the
CO2 footprint curves applicable in each MY to the vehicles
(and their footprint distributions) expected to be sold in each MY
produces progressively more stringent estimates of fleet-wide
CO2 emission standards. EPA believes manufacturers can
achieve the proposed standards' important CO2 emissions
reductions through the application of available control technology at
reasonable cost, as well as the use of program averaging, credit
banking and trading, and optional air conditioning efficiency credits
and off-cycle credits, as available.
While EPA believes the proposed standards are appropriate for
light-duty vehicle manufacturers on an overall industry basis, we
recognize that some companies have made public announcements for plans
for zero emission vehicle product launches (as discussed in Section
I.A.2.ii) that may lead to CO2 emissions even lower than
those projected under the proposed standards. The existing program's
averaging, banking, and trading provisions allow manufacturers to earn
credits for overcompliance with the standards that can be banked for
the company's future use (up to five model years) or traded to other
companies (as discussed further in Section III.B.4). Beyond these
credit banking and trading provisions, EPA is interested in public
comments on whether there could be additional ways in which the program
could provide for alternative pathways that could encourage
manufacturers to achieve even lower CO2 emissions earlier in
the program; for example, by producing higher volumes of zero-emission
vehicles earlier than would be necessitated under the proposed
standards. Such an alternative pathway could be one way to recognize
the environmental benefits of earlier introductions of even greater
volumes of the cleanest vehicles. EPA seeks public comment on the
potential merits of such an alternative pathway concept, whether it
would be advantageous for both the GHG as well as the criteria
pollutant standards program, and how it might be structured.
The existing program includes several provisions that we are not
reopening and so would continue during the implementation timeframe of
this proposed rule. Consistent with the requirement of CAA section
202(a)(1) that standards be applicable to vehicles ``for their useful
life,'' the proposed MY 2027-2032 vehicle standards will apply for the
useful life of the vehicle.\410\ EPA is proposing one test procedure
change and that is the use of Tier 3 test fuel to demonstrate GHG
compliance as described in Section III.B.2.iv.c; criteria pollutant
standard demonstration already require the use of Tier 3 fuel. No other
changes are proposed to the test procedures over which emissions are
measured and weighted to determine compliance with the GHG standards.
These procedures are the Federal Test Procedure (FTP or ``city'' test)
and the Highway Fuel Economy Test (HFET or ``highway'' test). While EPA
may consider requiring the use of test procedures other than the 2-
cycle test procedures in a future rulemaking, EPA is not considering
any test procedure changes in this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\410\ The GHG emission standards apply for a useful life of 10
years or 120,000 miles for LDVs and LLDTs and 11 years or 120,000
miles for HLDTs and MDPVs. See 40 CFR 86.1805-17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA has analyzed the feasibility of achieving the proposed
CO2 standards through the application of currently available
technologies, based on projections of the technology and technology
penetration rates to reduce emissions of CO2, during the
normal redesign process for cars and trucks, taking into account the
effectiveness and cost of the technology. The results of the analysis
are discussed in detail in Section IV, and in the DRIA. EPA also
presents the overall estimated costs and benefits of the proposed car
and truck CO2 standards in Section VIII.
c. What test fuel is EPA proposing?
Within the structure of the footprint-based GHG standards, EPA is
also proposing that gasoline powered vehicle compliance with the
proposed standards be demonstrated on Tier 3 test fuel. The current GHG
standards for light-duty gasoline vehicles are set on the required use
of Indolene, or Tier 2 test fuel. Tier 3 test fuel more closely
represents the typical market fuel available to consumers in that it
contains 10 percent ethanol. EPA proposed an adjustment factor to allow
demonstration of compliance with the existing GHG standards using Tier
3 test fuel but has not yet adopted those changes (85 FR 28564, May 13,
2020). This proposal does not include an adjustment factor for tailpipe
GHG emissions but rather requires manufacturers to test on Tier 3 test
fuel and use the resultant tailpipe emissions directly in their
compliance calculation. Such an adjustment factor is not required
because the technology penetrations, feasibility, and cost
[[Page 29241]]
estimates in this proposal are based on compliance using Tier 3 test
fuel.
Both the current and proposed criteria pollutant standards were set
based on vehicle performance with Tier 3 test fuel; as a result,
manufacturers currently use two different test fuels to demonstrate
compliance with GHG and criteria pollutant standards. Setting new GHG
standards based on Tier 3 test fuel is intended to address concern for
test burden related to using two different test fuels.
The difference in GHG emissions between the two fuels is small but
significant. EPA estimates that testing on Tier 3 test fuel will result
in about 1.5 percent lower CO2 emissions.\411\ Because this
difference in GHG emissions between the two fuels is significant in the
context of measuring compliance with existing GHG standards, but small
relative to the change in stringency of the proposed GHG standards, and
because the cost of compliance on Tier 3 test fuel is reflected in this
analysis for this proposal, EPA believes that this rulemaking and the
associated proposed new GHG standards create an opportune time to shift
compliance to Tier 3 fuel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\411\ EPA-420-R-18-004, ``Tier 3 Certification Fuel Impacts Test
Program,'' January 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is proposing to apply the change from Indolene to Tier 3 test
fuel for demonstrating compliance with GHG standards starting in model
year 2027. Manufacturers may optionally carry-over Indolene-based for
test results for model years 2027 through 2029. We accordingly propose
to allow manufacturers to continue to rely on the interim provisions
adopted in 40 CFR 600.117 through model year 2029. These interim
provisions address various testing concerns related to the arrangement
for using different test fuels for different purposes.
For manufacturers that rely on testing with Indolene in model years
2027 through 2029, we propose to allow manufacturers to use good
engineering judgment to apply a downward adjustment of 1.0166 percent
to GHG emission test results as a correction to correlate with test
results that would be expected when testing with Tier 3 test fuel. We
separately proposed to apply an analogous correction for the opposite
arrangement--testing with Tier 3 test fuel to demonstrate compliance
with a GHG standard referenced to Indolene test fuel (85 FR 28564; May
13, 2020). We did not separately finalize the provisions in that
proposed rule.
Similar considerations apply for measuring fuel economy, both to
meet Corporate Average Fuel Economy requirements and to determine
values for fuel economy labeling. EPA is proposing to apply the
corrections described in the 2020 proposal. Those changes include: (1)
New test fuel specifications for specific gravity and carbon weight
fraction to properly calculate emissions in a way that accounts for the
fuel properties of ethanol, (2) a revised equation for calculating fuel
economy that uses an ``R-factor'' of 0.81 to account for the greater
energy content of Indolene, and (3) amended instructions for
calculating fuel economy label values based on 5-cycle values and
derived 5-cycle values. Our overall goal is for manufacturers to
transition to fuel economy testing with Tier 3 test fuel on the same
schedule as described for demonstrating compliance with GHG standards
in the preceding paragraphs. We will be reevaluating comments received
on the 2020 proposal as well as the comments for this proposal and
considering if any corrections and adjustments are required, with any
appropriate modifications based on the comments received and on the
changing circumstances reflected in the current proposed rule for
setting new standards for MY 2027 and later vehicles. The proposed
change to Tier 3 test fuel impacts the demonstration of compliance with
GHG and fuel economy standards and the fuel economy label. In addition,
several vehicle manufacturers have requested to move to Tier 3 test
fuel in advance of the MY 2027 start of this proposed program.
For the GHG compliance program, we are proposing to evaluate GHG
compliance with standards that are set using Tier 3 fuel starting in MY
2027; therefore, any vehicles that continue to be tested on Indolene,
would need to have the results adjusted to be consistent with results
on Tier 3 fuel. For the CAFE fuel economy standards, we are proposing
to continue to evaluate fuel economy compliance with standards that are
established on Indolene; therefore, any vehicles that are tested on
Tier 3 fuel would need to have the results adjusted to be consistent
with results on Indolene. Similar to the CAFE fuel economy standards,
we are proposing to keep the fuel economy label consistent with the
current program; therefore, any vehicles that are tested on Tier 3 fuel
would need to have the results adjusted to be consistent with results
on Indolene.
Supported by the data and analysis in the 2020 proposal, EPA
proposes the following (Table 30) to address fuel-related testing and
certification requirements through the transition to the proposed
standards. Vehicle manufacturers may choose to test their vehicles with
either Indolene or Tier 3 test fuel through MY 2029. Manufacturers must
certify all vehicles to GHG standards using Tier 3 test fuel starting
in MY 2027; however, manufacturers may continue to meet fuel economy
requirements through MY 2029 for any appropriate vehicles based on
carryover data from testing performed before MY 2027.
Table 30--Proposed Fuel-Related Testing and Certification Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GHG standards Fuel economy standards Fuel economy and environment label values
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Test fuel MY 2030 and MY 2030 and
Pre-MY 2027 MYs 2027-2029 MY 2030 and beyond Pre-MY 2027 MYs 2027-2029 beyond Pre-MY 2027 MYs 2027-2029 beyond
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indolene........ No adjustment Carry-over test Not allowed....... No adjustment Carry-over results Not allowed...... No adjustment Carry-over Not allowed.
required. results only; required. only; no required. results only; no
divide test adjustment adjustment
results by 1.0166. required. required.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 3.......... Multiply test No adjustment required
results by 1.0166.
Apply revised FE equation proposed in 2020 rule
Apply revised FE equation proposed in 2020 rule. Apply
proposed CO2 adjustment (multiply test results by
1.0166).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 29242]]
EPA requests comment regarding the implementation of this test fuel
change and whether the change to Tier 3 test fuel should apply to GHG
standards only or to GHG standards, fuel economy standards and fuel
economy and environmental label combined, as described in Table 30.
3. Proposed Medium-Duty Vehicle GHG Standards
i. What CO2 standards curves is EPA proposing?
Medium-duty vehicles (8,501 to 14,000 pounds GVWR) that are not
categorized as MDPVs utilize a ``work-factor'' metric for determining
GHG targets. Unlike the light-duty attribute metric of footprint, which
is oriented around a vehicle's usage for personal transportation, the
work-factor metric is designed around work potential for commercially
oriented vehicles and accounts for a combination of payload, towing and
4-wheel drive equipment.
Our proposed GHG standards for MDVs are entirely chassis-
dynamometer based and continue to be work-factor-based as with the
previous heavy-duty Phase 2 standards. The standards also continue to
use the same work factor (WF) and GHG target definitions (81 FR 73478,
October 25, 2016). However, for MDVs above 22,000 pounds GCWR, we are
proposing to limit the GCWR input into the work factor equation to
22,000 pounds GCWR in order to prevent increases in the GHG emissions
target standards that are not fully captured within the loads and
operation reflected during chassis dynamometer GHG emissions testing.
The testing methodology does not directly incorporate any GCWR (i.e.,
trailer towing) related direct load or weight increases; however, they
are reflected in the higher target standards when calculating the GHG
targets using GCWR values above 22,000 pounds Without some limiting
``cap,'' the resulting high target standards relative to actual
measured performance are unsupported and may generate windfall
compliance credits for higher GCWR ratings.
CO2e Target (g/mi) = [a x WF] + b
WF = Work Factor = [0.75 x [Payload Capacity + xwd] + [0.25 x Towing
Capacity]
Payload Capacity = GVWR (lb.)-Curb Weight (lb.)
xwd = 500 lb. if equipped with 4-wheel-drive, otherwise 0 lb.
Towing Capacity = GCWR (lb.)-GVWR (lb.)
and with a and b as defined in Table 31:
Table 31--Proposed Coefficients for MDV Target GHG Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model year a b
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027.................................... 0.0348 268
2028.................................... 0.0339 261
2029.................................... 0.0310 239
2030.................................... 0.0280 216
2031.................................... 0.0251 193
2032.................................... 0.0221 170
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The MDV target GHG standards are compared to the current HD Phase 2
gasoline standards in Figure 11. Note that the standards continue
beyond the data markers shown in Figure 11. The data markers within the
figure reflect the approximate transition from light-duty trucks to
MDVs at a WF of approximately 3,000 pounds and the approximate location
of 22,000 pounds GCWR in work factor space (e.g., a WF of approximately
5,500 pounds). Beginning in 2027, the MDV GHG program moves gasoline,
diesel, and PEV MDVs to fuel-neutral standards, i.e., identical
standards regardless of the fuel or energy source used. We consider
these standards feasible taking into consideration the opportunities
for increased MDV electrification, primarily within the van segment.
The smaller displacement diesel engines remaining within the MDV
program are currently within the van segment and are all derived from
passenger car or other light-duty applications. The gasoline MDVs have
also historically used engines derived from light-duty applications.
The larger displacement (6L and above) diesel engines in Class 2b and
Class 3 applications all have GCWR above (in some cases, significantly
above) 22,000 pounds and were not derived from light-duty applications.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
[[Page 29243]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05MY23.014
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
The agency seeks comment on the proposed target standards for MDV
for the different model years and the approach of a single target for
all propulsion fuels including zero emission technologies. The agency
also seeks comment on the appropriateness of the proposed GCWR input
limit to the work factor equation to more accurately capture the work
performed as tested.
ii. What fleet-wide CO2 emissions levels correspond to the
standards?
Table 32 shows overall fleet average target levels for both medium-
duty vans and pickup trucks that are projected for the proposed
standards. A more detailed break-down of the projected CO2
targets and achieved levels is provided in DRIA Chapter 13. The actual
fleet-wide average g/mile level that would be achieved in any year for
medium-duty vans and pickup trucks will depend on the actual production
of vehicles for that year, as well as the use of the credit averaging,
banking, and trading provisions.
Table 32--Projected Targets for Proposed MDV Standards, by Body Style
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pickups CO2 (g/ Combined CO2 (g/
Model year Vans CO2 (g/ mile) mile)
mile)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027........................................................... 393 462 438
2028........................................................... 379 452 427
2029........................................................... 345 413 389
2030........................................................... 309 374 352
2031........................................................... 276 331 312
2032 and later................................................. 243 292 275
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
iii. MDV Incentive Multipliers
In HD GHG Phase 1, EPA provided advanced technology credits for
heavy-duty vehicles and engines, including for MDVs. EPA included
incentive multipliers in Phase 1 for hybrid powertrains, all-electric
vehicles, and fuel cell electric vehicles to promote the implementation
of advanced technologies that were not included in our technical basis
of the feasibility of the Phase 1 emission standards (see 40 CFR
86.1819-14(k)(7), 1036.150(h), and 1037.150(p)). For MDV, the HD GHG
Phase 2 CO2 emission standards that followed Phase 1 were
premised on the use of mild hybrid powertrains and we removed mild
hybrid powertrains as an option for advanced technology credits. At the
time of the HD GHG Phase 2 final rule, we believed the HD GHG Phase 2
standards themselves provided sufficient incentive to develop those
specific technologies. However, none of the HD GHG Phase 2 standards
for MDV were based on projected utilization of the other, even more-
advanced Phase 1 advanced credit technologies (e.g., plug-in hybrid
electric vehicles, all-electric vehicles, and fuel cell electric
vehicles). For HD GHG Phase 2, EPA promulgated advanced technology
credit multipliers
[[Page 29244]]
through MY 2027, as shown in Table 33 (see also 40 CFR 1037.150(p)).
Table 33--Advanced Technology Multipliers in Existing HD GHG Phase 2 for
MYs 2021 Through 2027
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technology Multiplier
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles..................... 3.5
All-electric vehicles................................ 4.5
Fuel cell electric vehicles.......................... 5.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As stated in the HD GHG Phase 2 rulemaking, our intention with
these multipliers was to create a meaningful incentive for those
manufacturers considering developing and applying these qualifying
advanced technologies into their vehicles. The multipliers under the
existing program are consistent with values recommended by CARB in
their HD GHG Phase 2 comments.\412\ CARB's values were based on a cost
analysis that compared the costs of these advanced technologies to
costs of other GHG-reducing technologies. CARB's cost analysis showed
that multipliers in the range we ultimately promulgated as part of the
HD GHG Phase 2 final rule would make these advanced technologies more
competitive with the other GHG-reducing technologies and could allow
manufacturers to more easily generate a viable business case to develop
these advanced technologies for HD vehicles and bring them to market at
a competitive price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\412\ Letter from Michael Carter, CARB, to Gina McCarthy,
Administrator, EPA and Mark Rosekind, Administrator, NHTSA, June 16,
2016. EPA Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827 attachment 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In establishing the multipliers in the HD GHG Phase 2 final rule,
we also considered the tendency of the HD sector to lag behind the
light-duty sector in the adoption of a number of advanced technologies.
There are many possible reasons for this, such as:
--HD vehicles are more expensive than light-duty vehicles, which makes
it a greater monetary risk for purchasers to invest in new
technologies.
--These vehicles are primarily work vehicles, which makes predictable
reliability of existing technologies and versatility important.
--Sales volumes are much lower for HD vehicles, especially for some
specialized vehicles applications.
At the time of the HD GHG Phase 2 rulemaking, we concluded that as
a result of factors such as these, and the fact that adoption rates for
the aforementioned advanced technologies in HD vehicles were
essentially non-existent in 2016, it seemed unlikely that market
adoption of these advanced technologies would grow significantly within
the next decade without additional incentives.
As we stated in the HD GHG Phase 2 final rule preamble, our
determination that it was appropriate to provide large multipliers for
these advanced technologies, at least in the short term, was because
these advanced technologies have the potential to lead to very large
reductions in GHG emissions and fuel consumption, and advance
technology development substantially in the long term. However, because
the credit multipliers are so large, we also stated that they should
not be made available indefinitely. Therefore, they were included in
the HD GHG Phase 2 final rule as an interim program continuing only
through MY 2027.
The HD GHG Phase 2 advanced technology credit multipliers represent
a tradeoff between incentivizing new advanced technologies that could
have significant benefits well beyond what is required under the
standards and providing credits that do not reflect real world
reductions in emissions, which could allow higher emissions from
credit-using engines and vehicles. At low adoption levels, we believe
the balance between the benefits of encouraging additional
electrification as compared to any negative emissions impacts of
multipliers would be appropriate and would justify maintaining the
current advanced technology multipliers. At the time we finalized the
HD GHG Phase 2 program in 2016, we balanced these factors based on our
estimate that there would be very little market penetration of ZEVs in
the heavy-duty market in the MY 2021 to MY 2027 timeframe, during which
the advanced technology credit multipliers would be in effect.
Additionally, the primary technology packages in our technical
assessment of the feasibility of the HD GHG Phase 2 standards did not
include any ZEVs.
In our assessment conducted during the development of HD GHG Phase
2, we found only one manufacturer had certified HD BEVs through MY
2016, and we projected ``limited adoption of all-electric vehicles into
the market'' for MYs 2021 through 2027.\413\ However, as discussed in
Section IV, we are now in a transitional period where manufacturers are
actively increasing their PHEV and BEV vehicle offerings and are being
further supported through the IRA tax credits, and we expect this
growth to continue through the remaining timeframe for the HD GHG Phase
2 program and into the time frame of the proposed program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\413\ 81 FR 75300 (October 25, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While we did anticipate some growth in electrification would occur
due to the credit incentives in the HD GHG Phase 2 final rule when we
finalized the rule, we did not expect the level of innovation since
observed, or the IRA or BIL incentives. Based on this new information,
we believe the existing advanced technology multiplier credit levels
for MDVs are no longer appropriate for maintaining the balance between
encouraging manufacturers to continue to invest in new advanced
technologies over the long term and potential emissions increases in
the short term. We believe that, if left as is, the MDV multiplier
credits may allow for backsliding of emission reductions expected from
ICE vehicles for some manufacturers in the near term (i.e., the
generation of excess credits which could delay the introduction of
technology in the near or mid-term) as sales of advanced technology
MDVs which can generate the incentive credit continue to increase. In
light of the rapid increase in vehicle electrification in the MDV
market, EPA proposes to remove the BEV, PHEV, and FCEV multipliers for
MY 2027 (EPA is not proposing revisions or requesting comment in this
proposed rulemaking on the Phase 2 multipliers for the vocational
vehicle and tractor vehicle segments of the heavy-duty Phase 2
program). We also request comment on phasing out the multipliers over
multiple model years by revising the multipliers to reduce their
magnitude for model years prior to MY 2027, for example for MYs 2025-
2026. We note that we did not rely on credits generated from credit
multipliers in developing the proposed MDV GHG standards, nor did EPA
assess the
[[Page 29245]]
impacts of the Phase 2 multipliers on our feasibility assessment. We
request comment, including data & analysis, regarding the potential
impact of Phase 2 MDV multipliers on our proposed standards in this
action, and how EPA should consider such comments in the determining
the continued appropriateness of the Phase 2 multipliers for MDVs.
4. Averaging, Banking, and Trading Provisions for GHG Standards
Averaging, banking, and trading (ABT) is an important compliance
flexibility that has long been built into various highway engine and
vehicle programs (and nonroad engine and equipment programs) to support
emissions standards that, through the introduction and application of
new technologies, result in reductions in air pollution. EPA's first
mobile source program to feature averaging was issued in 1983 and
included averaging for diesel light-duty vehicles to provide
flexibility in meeting new PM standards.\414\ EPA introduced
NOX and PM averaging for highway heavy-duty vehicles in
1985.\415\ EPA introduced credit banking and trading in 1990 with new
more stringent highway heavy-duty NOX and PM standards to
provide additional compliance flexibility for manufacturers.\416\ Since
those early rules, EPA has included ABT in many programs across a wide
range of mobile sources.\417\ For light-duty vehicles, EPA has included
ABT in several criteria pollutant emissions standards rules including
in the National Low Emissions Vehicle (NLEV) program,\418\ the Tier 2
standards,\419\ and the Tier 3 standards.\420\ ABT has also been a key
feature of all GHG rules for both light-duty and heavy-duty
vehicles.\421\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\414\ 48 FR 33456, July 21, 1983.
\415\ 50 FR 30584, March 15, 1985.
\416\ 55 FR 30584, July 26, 1990.
\417\ We note that in upholding the first HD final rule that
included averaging, the D.C. Circuit rejected petitioner's challenge
that Congress meant to prohibit averaging in standards promulgated
under section 202(a). NRDC v. Thomas, 805 F.2d 410, 425 (D.C. Cir.
1986). In the 1990 Clean Act Amendments, Congress, noting NRDC v.
Thomas, opted to let the existing law ``remain in effect,''
reflecting that ``[t]he intention was to retain the status quo,''
i.e., EPA's existing authority to allow averaging for standards
under section 202(a). 136 Cong. Rec. 36,713, 1990 WL 1222468 at
*1136 Cong. Rec. 35,367, 1990 WL 1222469 at *1.
\418\ 62 FR 31192, June 6, 1997.
\419\ 65 FR 6698, February 10, 2000.
\420\ 79 FR 23414, April 28, 2014.
\421\ The Federal Register citations for previous vehicle GHG
rules are provided in Section III.A.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABT is important because it can help to address issues of
technological feasibility and lead-time, as well as considerations of
cost. In many cases, ABT resolves issues of lead-time or technical
feasibility, enabling automakers to comply with standards that are more
economically efficient and with less lead time. This provides important
environmental benefits and at the same time it increases flexibility
and reduces costs for the regulated industry. Furthermore, by
encouraging automakers to exceed minimum requirements where possible,
the ABT program encourages technological innovation, which makes
further reductions in fleetwide emissions possible. The light-duty ABT
program for GHG standards includes existing provisions initially
established in the 2010 rule for how credits may be generated and used
within the program.\422\ These provisions include credit carry-forward,
credit carry-back (also called deficit carry-forward), credit transfers
(within a manufacturer), and credit trading (across manufacturers). The
MDV GHG program includes similar ABT provisions. EPA is explaining the
ABT provisions of the GHG program for the public's convenience and
information but is not proposing changes or reopening these provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\422\ 40 CFR 86.1865-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Credit carry-forward refers to banking (saving) credits for future
use, after satisfying any needs to offset prior MY debits within a
vehicle category (car fleet or truck fleet). Credit carry-back refers
to using credits to offset any deficit in meeting the fleet average
standards that had accrued in a prior MY. A manufacturer may have a
deficit at the end of a MY (after averaging across its fleet using
credit transfers between cars and trucks)--that is, a manufacturer's
fleet average emissions level may fail to meet the manufacturer's
required fleet average standard for the MY, for a limited number of
model years, as provided in the regulations. The CAA does not specify
or limit the duration of such credit provisions. In previous rules, EPA
chose to generally adopt 5-year credit carry-forward and 3-year credit
carry-back provisions \423\ as a reasonable approach that maintained
consistency between EPA's GHG and NHTSA CAFE regulatory
provisions.\424\ While some stakeholders had suggested that light-duty
GHG credits should have an unlimited credit life, EPA did not adopt
that suggestion for the light-duty GHG program because it would pose
enforcement challenges and could lead to some manufacturers
accumulating large banks of credits that could interfere with the
program's goal to develop and transition to progressively more advanced
emissions control technologies in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\423\ Although the existing credit carry-forward and carry-back
provisions generally remained in place for MY 2017 and later
standards, EPA finalized provisions in the 2012 rule allowing all
unused (banked) credits generated in MYs 2010-2015 (but not MY 2009
early credits) to be carried forward through MY 2021. See 77 FR
62788. In addition, in the 2021 rule, EPA adopted a targeted one-
year extension (6 years total carry-forward) of credit carry-forward
for MY 2017 and 2018 credits. See 86 FR 74453.
\424\ The EPCA/EISA statutory framework for the CAFE program
limits credit carry-forward to 5 years and credit carry-back to 3
years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transferring credits in the GHG program refers to exchanging
credits between the two averaging sets--passenger cars and light
trucks--within a manufacturer. For example, credits accrued by
overcompliance with a manufacturer's car fleet average standard can be
used to offset debits accrued due to that manufacturer not meeting the
truck fleet average standard in a given model year.\425\ MDVs are a
separate averaging set and credits are not allowed to be transferred
between vehicles meeting the light and medium-duty GHG standards due to
the very different standards structure, vehicle testing differences
(e.g., MDVs are tested at an adjusted loaded vehicle weight of vehicle
curb weight plus half payload whereas light-duty vehicles are tested at
an estimated test weight of curb weight plus 300 pounds) and
marketplace competitiveness issues.\426\ This prohibition includes
traded credits such that, once traded, credits may not be transferred
between the light and medium-duty fleets. Finally, accumulated credits
may be traded to another manufacturer. Credit trading has occurred on a
regular basis in EPA's light-duty vehicle program.\427\ Manufacturers
acquiring credits may offset credit shortfalls and bank credits for use
toward future compliance within the carry-forward constraints of the
program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\425\ There is a VMT factor included in the credit calculations
such that light trucks generate and use more credits than passenger
cars based on higher lifetime VMT projections for light trucks
compared to passenger cars. The lifetime VMT used for passenger cars
and light trucks are 195,264 and 225,865, respectively.
\426\ Only a small subset of manufacturers produce both light
and medium-duty vehicles and allowing credits to be transferred
between the two categories could provide additional flexibility to
those manufacturers not available to manufacturer of only light-duty
vehicles.
\427\ EPA provides general information on credit trades annually
as part of its annual Automotive Trends and GHG Compliance Report.
The latest report is available at: https://www.epa.gov/automotive-trends and in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 29246]]
The ABT provisions are an integral part of the vehicle GHG program,
and the agency expects that manufacturers will continue to utilize
these provisions into the future. EPA's annual Automotive Trends Report
provides details on the use of these provisions in the GHG
program.\428\ ABT allows EPA to consider standards more stringent than
we would otherwise consider by giving manufacturers an important tool
to resolve any potential lead time and cost issues. EPA is not
proposing any revisions to the GHG program ABT provisions or reopening
them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\428\ ``The 2022 EPA Automotive Trends Report, Greenhouse Gas
Emissions, Fuel Economy, and Technology since 1975,'' EPA-420-R-22-
029, December 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Proposed Vehicle Air Conditioning System Related Provisions
EPA has included air conditioning (AC) system credits in its light-
duty GHG program since the initial program adopted in the 2010 rule.
Although the use of AC credits has been voluntary, EPA has consistently
adjusted the level of the CO2 standards downward, making
them more stringent, to reflect the availability of the credits.
Manufacturers opting not to use the AC credits would need to meet the
standards through additional CO2 reductions. EPA is
proposing to revise the AC credits program for light-duty vehicles in
two ways. First, for AC system efficiency credits, EPA is proposing to
limit the eligibility for voluntary credits for tailpipe CO2
emissions control to ICE vehicles starting in MY 2027 (i.e., BEVs would
not earn AC efficiency credits). Second, for AC refrigerant leakage
control, EPA is proposing to remove the credit. EPA is also proposing
to sunset the refrigerant-related provisions applicable to MDV
standards. EPA requests comment on its proposed changes to the AC
credit program.
i. Background on AC Credits in Current Programs
There are two mechanisms by which AC systems contribute to the
emissions of GHGs: Through leakage of hydrofluorocarbon refrigerants
into the atmosphere (sometimes called ``direct emissions'') and through
the consumption of fuel to provide mechanical power to the AC system
(sometimes called ``indirect emissions'').\429\ When EPA established
the current light-duty refrigerant credits in the 2012 rule, the most
common refrigerant was hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) 134a which has a global
warming potential of 1430. The high global warming potential of HFC-
134a, means that leakage of a gram of HFC134(a) would have 1430 times
the global warming potential of a gram of CO2. Since the
2012 rule, manufacturers have reduced the impacts of refrigerant
leakage significantly by using systems that incorporate leak-tight
components, or, ultimately, by using a refrigerant with a lower global
warming potential. Manufacturers have steadily increased their use of
low GWP refrigerant HFO-1234yf which has a GWP of 4, much lower than
the GWP of the HFC refrigerant it replaces. The AC system also
contributes to increased tailpipe CO2 emissions through the
additional work required to operate the compressor, fans, and blowers.
This additional power demand is ultimately met by using additional
fuel, which is converted into CO2 by the engine during
combustion and exhausted through the tailpipe. These emissions can be
reduced by increasing the overall efficiency of an AC system, thus
reducing the additional load on the engine from AC operation, which in
turn means a reduction in fuel consumption and a commensurate reduction
in CO2 emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\429\ 40 CFR 1867-12 and 40 CFR 86.1868-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA has consistently adjusted the stringency of the light-duty
CO2 footprint curves to reflect the availability of AC
credits by shifting the footprint curves downward. In the 2012 rule and
again in subsequent rules, EPA increased the stringency of the
footprint curves by a total of 19 g/mile for cars and 24 g/mile for
trucks to reflect the availability and anticipated use of the
relatively low-cost AC credit opportunities.
For MDVs, EPA adopted a somewhat different approach to address AC
refrigerant emissions. In the Phase 1 rule, EPA adopted a refrigerant
leakage standard rather than a voluntary credit program.\430\ This
approach eliminated the need to adjust the CO2 work factor-
based standards to account for the availability of refrigerant-based
credit, as EPA has done in setting the prior light-duty standards. EPA
projected that manufacturers would meet the leakage standard either
through the use of leak tight components or through the use of
alternative refrigerants. In the Phase 2 rule, EPA revised the
refrigerant leakage standard to be refrigerant neutral.\431\ The MDV
program does not include AC efficiency related credits or
requirements.\432\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\430\ 76 FR 57194 and 73525.
\431\ Under the Phase 2 program, loss of refrigerant from air
conditioning systems may not exceed a total leakage rate of 11.0
grams per year or a percent leakage rate of 1.50 percent per year,
whichever is greater. See 81 FR 73742 and 40 CFR 1037.115(e).
\432\ In the previous heavy-duty GHG rules, EPA discussed but
did not propose or finalize AC efficiency credits for MDVs. For
further discussion see 76 FR 57196 and 81 FR 73742.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. Proposed Modifications to the AC Efficiency Credits
The current light-duty vehicle AC indirect emissions reduction
credits in 40 CFR 86.1868-12, which EPA also commonly refers to as AC
efficiency credits, are based on a technology menu with a testing
component to confirm that the technologies provide emissions reductions
when installed as a system on vehicles. The menu includes credits for
improved system components and air recirculation settings designed to
reduce the AC load on the IC engine.\433\ The AC efficiency credits are
capped at 5.0 g/mile for passenger cars and 7.2 g/mile for light
trucks. In addition, a limited amount of vehicle tailpipe testing
(i.e., the ``AC17'' test) is required for manufacturers claiming
credits to verify anticipated emissions reductions are occurring. The
credits have been effective in incentivizing AC efficiency improvements
since the program's inception, and manufacturers' use of AC menu
credits has steadily increased over time. In MY 2021, 17 of 20
manufacturers reported efficiency credits resulting in an average
credit of 5.7 g/mile.\434\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\433\ Joint Technical Support Document, Final Rulemaking for
2017-2025 Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and
Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards, EPA-420-R-12-901, August
2012.
\434\ ``The 2022 EPA Automotive Trends Report, Greenhouse Gas
Emissions, Fuel Economy, and Technology since 1975,'' EPA-420-R-22-
029, December 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is proposing to retain AC efficiency credits but, starting with
MY 2027, limit eligibility to only vehicles equipped with IC engines.
Thus, BEVs would no longer be eligible for these credits after MY 2026.
The AC efficiency credits are based on emissions reductions from ICE
vehicles. Currently, BEVs are generating credits even though the
credits are based solely on improvements to ICE vehicles, and not
representative of emissions reductions for BEVs. When EPA adopted this
construct in the MY 2012 rule, BEV sales were relatively small, and the
0 g/mile accounting was temporary with upstream net emissions
accounting part of the final standards. However, as discussed in
Section III.B.7, EPA is proposing to continue the 0 g/mile treatment of
PEV electric operation (by removing the MY 2027 date currently
specified in the regulations for including upstream emissions in
[[Page 29247]]
compliance calculations for BEVs). Another BEV related issue is that
BEVs have generated g/mile AC credits even though they have been
counted as 0 g/mile in the fleet average calculations. This accounting
has contributed to manufacturers reporting BEV emissions as less than
zero, which is not representative of actual vehicle emissions and can
be a source of confusion. For example, in the latest Trends report,
Tesla, which sells only BEVs, reported a fleet average performance
value of negative 126 g/mile including 18.8 g/mile of AC credits.\435\
Initially, when BEV sales were very low, these issues and their impacts
were small, and the AC efficiency credits in turn provided some amount
of incentive for more efficient BEVs overall and resulting upstream
emission reductions. However, EPA has reconsidered the appropriateness
of applying AC efficiency credits to BEVs in light of the increasing
level of BEVs anticipated in future model years and the proposal to
indefinitely exclude upstream emissions from BEV compliance
calculations. For all these reasons, EPA believes limiting eligibility
for AC efficiency credits to only ICE vehicles in the longer term is
appropriate. EPA notes that the stringency of the proposed standards
have been adjusted to reflect the inclusion of AC credits only for ICE
equipped vehicles, as discussed in Section III.B.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\435\ ``The 2022 EPA Automotive Trends Report, Greenhouse Gas
Emissions, Fuel Economy, and Technology since 1975,'' EPA-420-R-22-
029, December 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 2012 rule, as a condition for claiming credits, EPA required
manufacturers to conduct a limited number of emissions tests to help
confirm that projected emissions reductions based on the menu are
occurring with actual vehicles.\436\ The test procedure used for
testing is the ``AC17'' test and consists of the SC03 driving cycle
(part of fuel economy label 5-cycle testing, where vehicles are tested
under high temperature conditions), the fuel economy highway cycle, a
preconditioning cycle, and a solar peak period (4-hour duration).\437\
The AC17 test is mandatory for MYs 2017 and later (with the exception
that manufacturers are not required to test BEVs).\438\ Testing is at a
limited ``AC grouping'' level, rather than the every model type level
required for the CO2 footprint standards. In MYs 2017-2019,
AC17 test data was required to be reported to EPA but was not used to
determine the credit levels for vehicles. Starting in MY 2020, the AC17
test results factor into ``qualifying/adjusting'' the level of credits
through an A to B comparison with a baseline system. In cases where the
test results do not support full menu credits, proportional credits may
be generated based on the test results. Testing is limited in any given
model year to no more than one vehicle from each vehicle platform that
generates credits. Manufacturers with vehicles in a platform that are
generating credits must choose a different vehicle model each year,
starting with the highest sales volume vehicle, then the next highest
the following year and so on until all models are tested or the
platform undergoes a major redesign. EPA is not proposing to change the
AC17 testing provisions from their current form for manufacturers
claiming AC efficiency credits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\436\ See 77 FR 62721.
\437\ Joint Technical Support Document, Final Rulemaking for
2017-2025 Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and
Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards, Chapter 5, EPA-420-R-12-
901, August 2012.
\438\ 77 FR 62722.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA notes that its proposed approaches for AC efficiency credits
and off-cycle credits, discussed in detail in Section III.B.6, differ
even though the types of emissions the credits are designed to address
(i.e., emissions not considered on the 2-cycle compliance test cycles)
are similar. As discussed in Section III.B.6, while EPA is proposing to
phase out the off-cycle credits entirely after MY 2030, EPA is not
proposing to phase out AC efficiency credits for ICE vehicles or
reopening them because the AC efficiency credits program is more robust
as it includes a check of vehicle emissions performance through AC17
testing. EPA established the AC17 testing requirements as part of the
2012 rule to provide an assurance that the AC systems earning credits
were providing anticipated emissions reductions. The off-cycle credits
program includes no such mechanism to check performance. EPA is not
reopening or proposing any changes to the existing AC17 testing
provisions as part of this rule; therefore, the AC17 testing
requirements of manufacturers earning AC efficiency credits would
remain in effect under the MY 2027 and later program.
EPA's MDV work factor-based program does not include AC system
efficiency provisions \439\ and EPA is not reopening or considering new
provisions for MDVs in this proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\439\ See 81 FR 73742, October 25, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
iii. Proposed Removal of AC Credits for Reduced Refrigerant Leakage
The current light-duty vehicle AC credits program in 40 CFR
86.1867-12 that was adopted in the 2012 rule also includes credits for
low refrigerant leakage systems and/or the use of alternative low
global warming potential (GWP) refrigerants rather than
hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). The potential available AC leakage credits
are larger than the AC efficiency credits. The program caps refrigerant
related credits for passenger cars and light trucks, respectively, at
13.8 and 17.2 g/mile when an alternative refrigerant is used and 6.3
and 7.8 g/mile in cases where an alternative refrigerant is not used.
Although the credits program has been voluntary since its inception, it
has been effective in helping to incentivize the use of low GWP
refrigerants. Since EPA established the voluntary refrigerant-based
credits, low GWP refrigerant HFO-1234yf has been successfully used by
many manufacturers to claim the full refrigerant replacement credits.
As of MY 2021, 95 percent of new vehicles used the low GWP
refrigerant.\440\ EPA adopted a somewhat different approach for MDVs by
including in the program a refrigerant leakage standard rather than a
voluntary credit.\441\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\440\ ``The 2022 EPA Automotive Trends Report, Greenhouse Gas
Emissions, Fuel Economy, and Technology since 1975,'' EPA-420-R-22-
029, December 2022.
\441\ See 40 CFR 1037.115(e) and 81 FR 73726, October 25, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In December 2020, the American Innovation and Manufacturing (AIM)
Act (42 U.S.C. 7675) was enacted. The AIM Act, among other things,
authorizes EPA to phase down production and consumption of HFCs in
specific sectors and subsectors, including their use in vehicle AC
systems. The AIM Act has sent a strong signal to all vehicle
manufacturers that there is no future for using high GWP refrigerants
in new vehicles. In December 2022, in response to the AIM Act, EPA
proposed to restrict the use of high GWP refrigerants such as HFCs in
vehicle applications.\442\ The new restriction on refrigerant use, if
finalized as proposed, would be effective in MY 2025 for light-duty
vehicles and MY 2026 for MDVs, well ahead of the start of the new
CO2 vehicle standards EPA is proposing.\443\
[[Page 29248]]
Auto manufacturers have already successfully developed and employed
HFO-1234-yf low GWP refrigerants across the large majority of the fleet
and there is no reason at this time to believe that manufacturers would
redesign those systems again under the AIM Act, in the absence of EPA
vehicle-based credits, to develop and use systems equipped with a
higher GWP refrigerant. In light of the proposed high GWP phase out and
the fact that EPA has been directed by the AIM Act to do so, EPA
believes sunsetting the voluntary refrigerant-related credits in MY
2027 in its vehicles GHG program is appropriate and reasonable. This
would avoid duplicative programs established under two different
statutes, simplify EPA's vehicles program, and reduce manufacturer
reporting burden associated with claiming the voluntary credits. For
all these reasons, EPA is also ending the MDV refrigerant leakage
standard in MY 2027. EPA requests comment on its AC refrigerant-related
proposals. While EPA does not believe continuing the light-duty and
medium-duty vehicle refrigerants provisions in this program is
necessary, EPA requests comments on whether there is any value in
retaining its current provisions. EPA notes that for light-duty
vehicles the footprint-based standards would need to be adjusted to be
made more stringent to account for the availability and use of
refrigerant credits if they are retained, consistent with previous
light-duty vehicle GHG rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\442\ 87 FR 76738.
\443\ EPA is not reopening or proposing to eliminate the
refrigerant-based credits for MYs 2025-2026 because such an action
would need to be accompanied by a proposal to revise the stringency
of the footprint curves for those model years, established in the
2021 rule to account for the absence of the availability of
refrigerant-based credits. EPA is not proposing to revisit the
standards it established for MYs 2023-2026.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Off-Cycle Credits Program
i. Background on the Off-Cycle Credits Provisions
Starting with MY 2008, EPA started employing a ``five-cycle'' test
methodology to measure fuel economy for purposes of new car window
stickers (labels) to give consumers better information on the fuel
economy they could more reasonably expect under real-world driving
conditions.\444\ However, for GHG compliance, EPA continues to use the
established ``two-cycle'' (city and highway test cycles, also known as
the FTP and HFET) test methodology.\445\ As learned through development
of the ``five-cycle'' methodology and prior rulemakings, there are
technologies that provide real-world GHG emissions improvements, but
whose improvements are not fully reflected on the ``two-cycle'' test.
EPA established the off-cycle credit program in 40 CFR 86.1869-12 to
provide an appropriate level of CO2 credit for technologies
that achieve CO2 reductions but may not otherwise be chosen
as a GHG control strategy, as their GHG benefits are not measured on
the specified 2-cycle test. For example: High efficiency lighting is
not measured on EPA's 2-cycle tests because lighting is not turned on
as part of the test procedure, but it reduces CO2 emissions
by decreasing the electrical load on the alternator and engine. Both
light-duty and medium-duty vehicles may generate off-cycle credits, but
the program is much more limited in the medium-duty work factor-based
program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\444\ https://www.epa.gov/vehicle-and-fuel-emissions-testing/dynamometer-drive-schedules. See also 75 FR 25439 for a discussion
of 5-cycle testing.
\445\ The city and highway test cycles, commonly referred to
together as the ``2-cycle tests'' are laboratory compliance tests
that are effectively required by law for CAFE, and also used for
determining compliance with the GHG standards. 49 U.S.C. 32904(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under EPA's existing regulations, there are three pathways by which
a manufacturer may accrue light-duty vehicle off-cycle technology
credits.\446\ The first pathway is a predetermined list or ``menu'' of
credit values for specific off-cycle technologies that was effective
starting in MY 2014.\447\ This pathway allows manufacturers to use
credit values established by EPA for a wide range of off-cycle
technologies, with minimal or no data submittal or testing
requirements. The menu includes a fleetwide cap on credits to address
the uncertainty of a one-size-fits-all credit level for all vehicles
and the limitations of the data and analysis used as the basis of the
menu credits. The menu cap is 10 g/mile except for a temporary
increased cap of 15 g/mile available only for MYs 2023-2026, adopted by
EPA in the 2021 rule.\448\ The existing menu technologies and
associated credits are summarized in Table 34 and Table 35.\449\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\446\ ``The 2022 EPA Automotive Trends Report, Greenhouse Gas
Emissions, Fuel Economy, and Technology since 1975,'' EPA-420-R-22-
029, December 2022, for information regarding the use of each
pathway by manufacturers.
\447\ See 40 CFR 86.1869-12(b).
\448\ See 86 FR 74465.
\449\ See 40 CFR 86.1869-12(b). See also ``Joint Technical
Support Document: Final Rulemaking for 2017-2025 Light-duty Vehicle
Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy
Standards for the Final Rule,'' EPA-420-R-12-901, August 2012, for
further information on the definitions and derivation of the credit
values.
Table 34--Existing Off-Cycle Technologies and Credits for Cars and Light
Trucks
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Credit for cars (g/ Credit for light
Technology mile) trucks (g/mile)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
High Efficiency Alternator (at 1.0................ 1.0.
73%; scalable).
High Efficiency Exterior 1.0................ 1.0.
Lighting (at 100W).
Waste Heat Recovery (at 100W; 0.7................ 0.7.
scalable).
Solar Roof Panels (for 75W, 3.3................ 3.3.
battery charging only).
Solar Roof Panels (for 75W, 2.5................ 2.5.
active cabin ventilation plus
battery charging).
Active Aerodynamic Improvements 0.6................ 1.0.
(scalable).
Engine Idle Start-Stop with 2.5................ 4.4.
heater circulation system.
Engine Idle Start-Stop without 1.5................ 2.9.
heater circulation system.
Active Transmission Warm-Up.... 1.5................ 3.2.
Active Engine Warm-Up.......... 1.5................ 3.2
Solar/Thermal Control.......... Up to 3.0.......... Up to 4.3.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 35--Existing Off-Cycle Technologies and Credits for Solar/Thermal
Control Technologies for Cars and Light Trucks
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Car credit (g/ Truck credit (g/
Thermal control technology mile) mile)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Glass or Glazing.............. Up to 2.9.......... Up to 3.9
[[Page 29249]]
Active Seat Ventilation....... 1.0................ 1.3
Solar Reflective Paint........ 0.4................ 0.5
Passive Cabin Ventilation..... 1.7................ 2.3
Active Cabin Ventilation...... 2.1................ 2.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A second pathway allows manufacturers of light-duty vehicles to use
5-cycle testing to demonstrate and justify off-cycle CO2
credits.\450\ The additional emissions tests allow emission benefits to
be demonstrated over some elements of real-world driving not captured
by the GHG compliance tests, including high speeds, rapid
accelerations, and cold temperatures. Under this pathway, manufacturers
submit test data to EPA, and EPA determines whether there is sufficient
technical basis to approve the off-cycle credits. The third pathway
allows manufacturers to seek EPA approval, through a notice and comment
process, to use an alternative methodology other than the menu or 5-
cycle methodology for determining the off-cycle technology
CO2 credits.\451\ This option is only available if the
benefit of the technology cannot be adequately demonstrated using the
5-cycle methodology. For MDVs, the manufacturers may use the public
process or 5-cycle pathways for generating credits.\452\ There is no
off-cycle credits menu for MDVs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\450\ See 40 CFR 86.1869-12(c).
\451\ See 40 CFR 86.1869-12(d).
\452\ See 40 CFR 86.1819-14(d)(13).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA designed the off-cycle program to provide an incentive for new
and innovative technologies that reduce real world CO2
emissions primarily outside of the 2-cycle test procedures (i.e., off-
cycle) such that most of the emissions reductions are not reflected or
``captured'' during certification testing. The program also provides
flexibility to manufacturers since off-cycle credits may be used to
meet their emissions reduction obligations. In past rules, EPA has not
adjusted the standards levels to reflect the availability of off-cycle
credits like we did in the case of AC credits. However, in the 2021
rule, we did include use of off-cycle credits by manufacturers in our
cost analysis. Specifically, we assumed in our modeling for the 2021
rule that 10 g/mile of off-cycle credits would be used at an
incremental cost of $42/grams/mile.\453\ The menu credit levels are
based on estimated CO2 reductions from ICE vehicles.
However, the current program also allows BEVs to generate menu credits.
Allowing vehicles with tailpipe values of 0 g/mile to generate off-
cycle credits has resulted in emissions compliance values of less than
0 g/mile.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\453\ ``Revised 2023 and Later Model Year Light-Duty Vehicle GHG
Emissions Standards: Regulatory Impact Analysis,'' EPA-420-R-21-028,
December 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since MY 2012, the program has successfully encouraged the
introduction and use of a variety of off-cycle technologies, especially
menu technologies under the light-duty program. The use of several menu
technologies has steadily increased over time, including engine stop-
start, active aerodynamics, high efficiency alternators, high
efficiency lighting, and thermal controls that reduce AC energy demand.
The program has allowed manufacturers to reduce emissions by applying
off-cycle technologies, at lower overall costs, compared to the
technologies that would have otherwise been used to provide reductions
over the 2-cycle test, consistent with the intent of the program. Since
2012, the quantity of off-cycle credits generated by manufacturers
steadily increased over time. In 2021, the industry averaged 8.7 g/mile
of credits with more than 95 percent of those credits based on the
menu. Seven manufacturers (BMW, Ford, GM, Honda, Jaguar Land Rover,
Stellantis, and VW) claimed the maximum menu credit available of 10 g/
mile, while Honda claimed the highest level of off-cycle credits
overall at 10.6 g/mile.\454\ Several manufacturers used at least some
off-cycle technologies on 80-100 percent of vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\454\ ``The 2022 EPA Automotive Trends Report, Greenhouse Gas
Emissions, Fuel Economy, and Technology since 1975,'' EPA-420-R-22-
029, December 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The program has had mixed results for 5-cycle and public process
pathways. There have been few 5-cycle credit demonstrations, and the
public process pathway has been challenging due to the complexity of
demonstrating real-world emissions reductions for technologies not
listed on the menu. The public process pathway was used successfully by
several manufacturers for high efficiency alternators, resulting in EPA
adding them to the off-cycle menu beginning in MY 2021.\455\ The
program has resulted in a number of concepts for potential off-cycle
technologies over the years, but few have been implemented, at least
partly due to the difficulty in demonstrating the quantifiable real-
world emissions reductions associated with using the technology. Many
credits sought by manufacturers have been relatively small (less than 1
g/mile). Manufacturers have commented several times that the process
takes too long, but the length of time is often associated with the
need for additional data and information or issues regarding whether a
technology is eligible for credits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\455\ 85 FR 25236.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. Proposed Phase Out of Off-Cycle Credits
EPA is proposing to sunset the off-cycle program for both light and
medium-duty vehicles as follows: (1) EPA proposes to phase out menu-
based credits in the light-duty vehicle program by reducing the menu
credit cap year-over-year until it is fully phased out in MY 2031.
Specifically, EPA is proposing a declining menu cap starting with the
10 g/mile cap currently in place for MY 2027 and then phasing down to
8.0/6.0/3.0/0.0 g/mile over MYs 2028-2031 such that MY 2030 would be
the last year manufacturers could generate credits; (2) EPA proposes to
eliminate the 5-cycle and public process pathways starting in MY 2027;
and (3) EPA proposes to limit eligibility for off-cycle credits to
vehicles with tailpipe emissions greater than zero (i.e., vehicles
equipped with IC engines) starting in MY 2027. There are several
factors that have led EPA to propose phasing out the off-cycle credits
program in this manner, as discussed in this section.
EPA believes phasing out the off-cycle program is generally
consistent with EPA's proposed standards and the direction the industry
is headed in
[[Page 29250]]
changing their vehicle mix away from ICE technologies toward vehicle
electrification technologies. EPA originally created the off-cycle
program both to provide flexibility to manufacturers and to encourage
the development of new and innovative technologies that might not
otherwise be used because their benefits were not captured on the 2-
cycle test. EPA believes the off-cycle credits program has successfully
served these purposes. However, the credits were based on estimated
emissions improvements for ICE vehicle which at the time accounted for
the vast majority of vehicles produced. Now with the industry focusing
most R&D resources on vehicle electrification technology development
and increasing production, as discussed in Section I.A.2,456
457 458 off-cycle credits are not likely to be a
key area of focus for manufacturers. In addition, EPA believes that it
is not likely that manufacturers would invest resources on off-cycle
technology in the future for their ICE vehicle fleet that is likely to
become a smaller part of their overall vehicle mix over the next
several years. For example, in MY 2021, credits per technology
generated under the public process pathway were all well below 1 g/mile
\459\ and there is little reason to expect the program to drive
significant new innovation in the future. The public process pathway
has been in place since the 2010 rule and manufacturers have had ample
opportunity to consider potential off-cycle technologies. Also,
manufacturers would be recouping any investment in off-cycle
technologies, with relatively small emission reductions, over a
decreasing number of vehicles as ICE vehicle production declines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\456\ Reuters, ``A Reuters analysis of 37 global automakers
found that they plan to invest nearly $1.2 trillion in electric
vehicles and batteries through 2030,'' October 21, 2022. Accessed on
November 4, 2022 at https://graphics.reuters.com/AUTOS-INVESTMENT/ELECTRIC/akpeqgzqypr/ .
\457\ Reuters, ``Exclusive: Automakers to double spending on
EVs, batteries to $1.2 trillion by 2030,'' October 25, 2022.
Accessed on November 4, 2022 at https://www.reuters.com/technology/exclusive-automakers-double-spending-evs-batteries-12-trillion-by-2030-2022-10-21/.
\458\ Center for Automotive Research, ``Automakers Invest
Billions in North American EV and Battery Manufacturing
Facilities,'' July 21, 2022. Retrieved on November 10, 2022 at
https://www.cargroup.org/automakers-invest-billions-in-north-american-ev-and-battery-manufacturing-facilities/.
\459\ ``The 2022 EPA Automotive Trends Report, Greenhouse Gas
Emissions, Fuel Economy, and Technology since 1975,'' EPA-420-R-22-
029, December 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the off-cycle credits were initially small relative to
the average fleet emissions and standards. For example, in the 2012
rule, EPA established menu credits of up to 10 g/mile, a relatively
small value compared to a projected fleet-wide average compliance value
of about 243 g/mile in MY 2016 phasing down to 163 g/mile in MY
2025.\460\ Across the MY 2016-2025 program, therefore, EPA projected
menu credits would be about 4 percent to 6 percent of the standard.
Now, EPA is proposing standards that would reduce fleet average
emissions to about 82 g/mile and therefore off-cycle credits would
become an outsized portion (e.g., up to 12 percent) of the program if
they were retained in their current form. One concern is that there is
not currently a mechanism to check that off-cycle technologies provide
emissions reductions in use commensurate with the level of the credits
the menu provides. This is becoming more of a concern as vehicles
become less polluting overall. The menu credits are based on MY 2008
vintage engine and vehicle baseline technologies (assessed during the
2012 rule) and therefore the credit levels are potentially becoming
less representative of the emissions reductions provided by the off-
cycle technologies as vehicle emissions are reduced. Some stakeholders
have also become increasingly concerned that the emissions reductions
reflected in the off-cycle credits may not be being achieved.\461\
Also, details such as the synergistic effects and overlap among off-
cycle technologies take on more importance as the credits represent a
larger portion of the emissions reductions. During the rulemaking to
revise the MY 2023-2026 standards, EPA received comments that due to
the potential for loss of GHG emissions reductions, the off-cycle
program should be further constrained, or discontinued, or that a
significantly more robust mechanism be implemented for verifying
purported emissions reductions of off-cycle technologies. The potential
for a loss of GHG emissions reductions could become further exacerbated
as the standards become more stringent.\462\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\460\ 77 FR 62641.
\461\ ``Revised 2023 and Later Model Year Light-Duty Vehicle
Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards: Response to Comments,'' Chapter
8, EPA-420-R-21-027, December 2021.
\462\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initially, EPA addressed the uncertainty surrounding the precise
emissions reductions from equipping vehicle models with off-cycle
technologies by making the initial credit values conservative, but the
values may no longer be conservative, and may even provide more credits
than appropriate for later MY vehicles. Because off-cycle credits
effectively displace two-cycle emissions reductions, EPA has long
strived to ensure that off-cycle credits are based on real-world
reductions and do not result in a loss of emissions reductions overall.
EPA received comments in past rules that it should revise the program
to better ensure real-world emissions reductions.\463\ However, EPA has
learned through its experience with the program to date that such
demonstrations can be exceedingly challenging. At this time, EPA has
not identified a single robust methodology that can provide sufficient
assurance across potential off-cycle technologies due to the wide
variety of off-cycle real world conditions over which a potential
technology may reduce emissions. EPA does not have a proposed
methodology that would provide such assurance across a range of
technologies. Finally, while the off-cycle program provides an
incentive for off-cycle emissions reduction technologies, it does not
include full accounting of off-cycle emissions. Vehicle equipment such
as remote start and even roof racks added at the dealership may well
increase off-cycle emissions. For all of these reasons, EPA believes
the role of off-cycle credits should be de-emphasized in the future and
in the longer term the credits should be phased out.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\463\ Ibid. See also 85 FR 25232-25242.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is proposing to phase out menu credits over the MY 2028-2031
timeframe as a reasonable way to bring the program to an end. The cap
would be reduced as shown in Table 36. EPA is proposing to end the
program through a phase-out rather than simply ending the program
entirely in MY 2027 to provide a transition period to help
manufacturers who have made substantial use of the program in their
product planning. Currently, the cap is applied to individual
manufacturers by dividing the credits generated by a manufacturer's
entire vehicle production to determine an average credit level for the
model year. EPA proposes that starting in MY 2027, the denominator
would include only eligible vehicles (i.e., vehicles equipped with an
IC engine) rather than all vehicles produced by the manufacturer. EPA
requests comment on its approach for phasing out the off-cycle program,
including the number of years over which the menu phase out would occur
as well as the proposed menu credit caps in those years.
[[Page 29251]]
Table 36--Proposed Off-Cycle Menu Credit Cap Phase Down
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Off-cycle menu
Model year credit cap (g/
mile)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MY 2027 (current program)............................ 10
MY 2028.............................................. 8.0
MY 2029.............................................. 6.0
MY 2030.............................................. 3.0
MY 2031 and later.................................... 0.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, as discussed in detail in Section III.B.8, EPA is proposing
to revise the utility factor for PHEVs. While PHEVs would remain
eligible for off-cycle credits under EPA's proposed eligibility
criteria, EPA proposes, as a reasonable approach for addressing off-
cycle credits for PHEVs, to scale the menu credit cap for PHEVs by the
vehicle's assigned utility factor. For example, if a PHEV has a utility
factor of 0.3, meaning the vehicle is estimated to operate as an ICE
vehicle 70 percent of the vehicle's VMT, the PHEV would be eligible for
70 percent of the cap value. For example, if the cap is 10.0 g/mile in
MY 2027, PHEVs would be eligible for off-cycle credits up to 7.0 g/
mile. Therefore, manufacturers producing PHEVs would not be eligible
for the full menu credit cap value shown in Table 36. EPA proposes that
the menu credit cap for each manufacturer's eligible vehicles would be
the production-weighted average of ICE vehicles counting at the full
cap amount and PHEVs at their maximum credit allowance. EPA proposes
that manufacturers would apply the utility factor to the total off-
cycle credits generated by the PHEVs to properly account for the value
of the off-cycle credit corresponding to expected engine operation. As
is the case in the current program, individual vehicles could generate
more credits than the fleetwide cap value but the fleet average credits
per vehicle must remain at or below the applicable menu cap. EPA
requests comments on this as well as other potential ways of addressing
off-cycle credits for PHEVs.
There are two pathways for generating credits in addition to the
menu. In cases where additional laboratory testing can demonstrate
emission benefits, the ``5-cycle'' pathway allows manufacturers to use
a broader array of emission tests (known as 5-cycle testing because the
methodology uses five different testing procedures) to demonstrate and
justify off-cycle CO2 credits. The additional emission tests
allow emission benefits to be demonstrated over elements of real-world
driving not captured by the GHG compliance tests, including high
speeds, rapid accelerations, interior air conditioning and heater usage
and cold temperature operation. The third pathway for off-cycle
technology performance credits allows manufacturers to seek EPA
approval to use an alternative methodology for determining off-cycle
technology CO2 credits. This option is only available if the
benefit of the technology cannot be adequately demonstrated using the
5-cycle methodology. The regulations require that EPA seek public
comment on and publish each manufacturer's application for credits
sought using this pathway. After reviewing the petitions submitted by
manufacturers and the comments, EPA drafts and publishes decision
documents that explain the impacts and applicability of the unique
alternative method technologies via the Federal Register. The public
process pathway is also available for MD vehicles.
Regarding the 5-cycle pathway, these credits have a more rigorous
basis compared to credits generated under the other pathways because
they are based on vehicle testing. However, the 5-cycle pathway has
been used infrequently. In MY 2021, there were no credits generated
using the 5-cycle pathway and historically only one manufacturer has
used the pathway since MY 2012.\464\ MDV manufacturers also are not
using the 5-cycle pathway. Given that the 5-cycle pathway is not being
actively used and we are not aware of any OEM plans to make significant
use of the 5-cycle pathway in the future, EPA believes phasing it out
for both light-duty and medium-duty vehicles in MY 2027 is reasonable.
EPA requests comment on this approach for 5-cycle based credits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\464\ ``The 2022 EPA Automotive Trends Report, Greenhouse Gas
Emissions, Fuel Economy, and Technology since 1975,'' EPA-420-R-22-
029, December 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since MY 2012, manufacturers have used the public process pathway
more extensively than the 5-cycle pathway. In fact, several
manufacturers successfully applied for high efficiency alternator
credits through the public process which led EPA to add the technology
to the menu as part of the 2020 rule.\465\ However, as of MY 2021, the
public process pathway is resulting in relatively few credits. While
there were nine manufacturers generating credits, the average per
vehicle credit across all manufacturers was 0.2 g/mile. Manufacturers
claiming credits averaged between 0.0-0.7 g/mile per vehicle.\466\
Thus, more than 95 percent of off-cycle credits in MY 2021 were based
on the menu. For MDVs, manufacturers are not generating any credits
under the public process pathway. In addition, there are significant
resources involved both for the manufacturer in developing a
methodology and submitting it to EPA and for EPA in evaluating the
applications, including soliciting public comments. Given that the
pathway is little used, is resulting in few credits, and can be
resource-intensive for both manufacturers and EPA, EPA is proposing to
eliminate this pathway in MY 2027 as well. EPA would eliminate the
pathway for both LD and MDVs. EPA requests comment on its proposal to
end the public process pathway in MY 2027.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\465\ 85 FR 25236.
\466\ ``The 2022 EPA Automotive Trends Report, Greenhouse Gas
Emissions, Fuel Economy, and Technology since 1975,'' EPA-420-R-22-
029, December 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding EPA's proposal to limit off-cycle credit eligibility to
vehicles equipped with ICE engine, the menu credits levels were based
on potential emissions reductions from ICE vehicles and are not
representative of emissions reductions for BEVs, especially in a
program based solely on tailpipe emissions. Especially now that EPA is
proposing to make the 0 g/mile treatment of BEV operation a permanent
part of the program (see Section III.B.7), with no accounting for
upstream emissions, EPA believes it is most appropriate to limit
eligibility for off-cycle credits to vehicle with tailpipe emissions,
discontinuing off-cycle credits for BEVs. While off-cycle technologies
may provide some overall efficiency improvement for BEVs (with some
potential upstream emissions benefit), off-cycle technologies do not
impact BEV tailpipe emissions, since BEVs have no tailpipe emissions
and therefore are not relevant for this program. This issue will only
become more pronounced as the
[[Page 29252]]
implementation of BEV technologies in the fleet increases. Therefore,
EPA is proposing to end off-cycle credits for vehicles with no IC
engine beginning in MY 2027.\467\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\467\ EPA is not proposing to reopen previously established
standards for earlier MYs, for example MYs 2025-2026, to eliminate
off-cycle credits for BEVs prior to MY 2027 because off-cycle
credits were integral to EPA's cost analysis for the prior standards
and such an action would need to be accompanied by a new analysis of
the footprint standards for those model years to account for the
elimination of off-cycle credits for BEVs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is proposing substantial revisions to the off-cycle credits
program, including restricting eligibility and eliminating credit
pathways starting in MY 2027 and phasing out the program entirely
starting with MY 2031. EPA requests comment on these proposals.
Commenters advocating for continuing the off-cycle program in some form
are encouraged to consider EPA's concerns as described in this section
and to provide data to the extent possible to support their comments.
For example, to the extent commenters support keeping the off-cycle
menu in some form, EPA would be especially interested in comments
supported with data on how the level of the credits should be adjusted
to better reflect emission reductions for future ICE vehicles.
7. Treatment of PEVs and FCEVs in the Fleet Average
In the 2012 rule, for MYs 2022-2025, EPA allowed manufacturers to
use a 0 g/mi compliance value (i.e., a value reflecting tailpipe
emissions only) for the electric-only portion of operation of BEVs/
PHEVs/FCEVs up to a per-company cumulative production cap.\468\ As
originally envisioned in the 2012 rule, starting with MY 2022, the
compliance value for BEVs, FCEVs, and the electric portion of PHEVs in
excess of individual automaker cumulative production caps would be
based on net upstream emissions accounting (i.e., EPA would attribute a
pro rata share of national CO2 emissions from electricity
generation to each mile driven under electric power minus a pro rata
share of upstream emissions associated with from gasoline production).
The 2012 rule would have required net upstream emissions accounting for
all MY 2022 and later electrified vehicles. However, in the 2020 rule,
prior to upstream accounting taking effect, EPA revised its regulations
to extend the use of 0 g/mile compliance value through MY 2026 with no
production cap, effectively continuing the practice of basing
compliance only on tailpipe emissions for all vehicle and fuel types.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\468\ See 77 FR 62816.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is proposing to make the current treatment of PEVs and FCEVs
through MY 2026 permanent. EPA proposes to include only emissions
measured directly from the vehicle in the vehicle GHG program for MYs
2027 and later (or until EPA changes the regulations through future
rulemaking) consistent with the treatment of all other vehicles.
Electric vehicle operation would therefore continue to be counted as 0
g/mile, based on tailpipe emissions only. Vehicles with no IC engine
(i.e., BEVs and FCEVs) would be counted as 0 g/mile in compliance
calculations, while PHEVs would apply the 0 g/mile factor to electric-
only vehicle operation (see also Section III.B.8 for EPA's proposed
treatment of PHEVs). The program has now been in place for a decade,
since MY 2012, with no upstream accounting and has functioned as
intended, encouraging the continued development and introduction of
electric vehicle technology. These emissions reduction technologies are
now coming into the mainstream and can serve as the primary
technologies upon which EPA can base more stringent standards. As a
separate and independent reason for making the current treatment
permanent, EPA originally proposed using upstream emissions in PEV
compliance calculations at a time when there was little if any
regulation of stationary sources for GHGs, and noted at the time this
was a departure from its usual practice of relying on stationary source
programs to address pollution risks from stationary sources.\469\ In
the 2020 rule, EPA extended 0 g/mi in part because power sector
emissions were declining and the trend was projected to continue and
stated ``EPA agrees that, at this time, manufacturers should not
account for upstream utility emissions.'' \470\ As noted elsewhere,
power sector emissions are expected to decline further in the future.
EPA continues to believe that it is appropriate for any vehicle which
has zero tailpipe emissions to use 0 g/mi as its compliance value.\471\
This approach of looking only at tailpipe emissions and letting
stationary source GHG emissions be addressed by separate stationary
source programs is consistent with how every other light duty vehicle
calculates its compliance value. If EPA deviated from this tailpipe
emissions approach by including upstream accounting, it would appear
appropriate to do so for all vehicles, including gasoline-fueled
vehicles. EPA notes that while upstream emissions are not included in
vehicle compliance determinations, which are based on direct vehicle
emissions, upstream emissions impacts from fuel production at
refineries and electricity generating units are considered in EPA's
analysis of overall estimated emissions impacts and projected benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\469\ 75 FR 25434.
\470\ 85 FR 25208.
\471\ See Section IV.C.3 for a full discussion of power sector
emissions projections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA requests comments on its proposed treatment of electrified
vehicles in manufacturer compliance calculations.
8. Proposed Approach for the PHEV Utility Factor
EPA is proposing to revise the light-duty vehicle PHEV Fleet
Utility Factor curve used in CO2 compliance calculation for
PHEVs, beginning in MY 2027. The agency believes the current light-duty
vehicle PHEV compliance methodology significantly underestimates PHEV
CO2 emissions. The mechanism that is used to apportion the
benefit of a PHEV's electric operation for purposes of determining the
PHEV's contribution towards the fleet average GHG requirements is the
fleet utility factor (FUF). We have analyzed available data and
compiled literature 472 473 474 475 showing that the current
utility factors are overestimating the operation of PHEVs on
electricity, and therefore would underestimate the CO2 g/mi
compliance result. The current and proposed FUFs are shown in Figure
12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\472\ Krajinska, Poliscanova, Mathieu, & Ambel, Transport &
Environment. 2020. ``A new Dieselgate in the making.'' November:
https://www.transportenvironment.org/discover/plug-hybrids-europe-heading-new-dieselgate/.
\473\ Pl[ouml]tz, P., Moll, C., Bieker, G., Mock, P., Li, Y.
2020. Real-world usage of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles: fuel
consumption, electric driving, and CO2 emissions. ICCT,
September 2020. Retrieved from https://theicct.org/publication/real-world-usage-of-plug-in-hybrid-electric-vehicles-fuel-consumption-electric-driving-and-co2-emissions/.
\474\ Pl[ouml]tz, P., Link, S., Ringelschwendner, H., Keller,
M., Moll, C., Bieker, G., Dornoff, J., Mock, P. 2022. Real-world
usage of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles in Europe: A 2022 update
on fuel consumption, electric driving, and CO2 emissions.
ICCT, June 2022. Retrieved from https://theicct.org/publication/real-world-phev-use-jun22/.
\475\ Patrick Pl[ouml]tz et al 2021 Environ. Res. Lett. 16
054078. From lab-to-road: real-world fuel consumption and
CO2 emissions of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/abef8c.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 29253]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05MY23.015
The current FUFs were developed in SAE 2841 \476\ and are used to
estimate the percentage of operation that is expected to be in charge
depleting mode (vehicle operation that occurs while the battery charge
is being depleted, sometimes referred to as electric range). The
measurement of the charge depleting (CD) range is performed over the
EPA city and highway test cycles, also called the 2-cycle tests. The
tested cycle-specific charge depleting range is used as an input to the
FUF curves (or lookup tables, as shown in Tables 1 and 2 in 40 CFR
600.116-12) to determine the specific city and highway FUFs. The
resulting FUFs are used to calculate a composite CO2 value
for the city and highway CO2 results, by weighting the
charge depleting CO2 by the FUF and weighting the charge
sustaining (CS) CO2 by one minus the FUF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\476\ SAE J2841. ``Utility Factor Definitions for Plug-In Hybrid
Electric Vehicles Using Travel Survey Data,'' Issued March 2009,
Revised September 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FUFs developed in SAE J2841 rely on a few important assumptions
and underlying data: (1) Trip data from the 2001 National Household
Travel Survey,\477\ used to establish daily driving distance
assumptions, and (2) the assumption that the vehicle is fully charged
before each day's operation. These assumptions are important because
they affect the shape of the utility factor curves, and therefore
affect the weighting of CD (primarily electric operation) \478\
CO2 and CS (primarily internal combustion engine operation)
\479\ CO2 in the compliance value calculation. SAE J2841 was
developed more than ten years ago during the early introduction of
light-duty PHEVs and at the time was a reasonable approach for
weighting the CD and CS vehicle performance for a vehicle
manufacturer's compliance calculation given the available information.
The PHEV market has since grown and there is significantly more real-
world data available to EPA on which to design an appropriate
compliance program for PHEVs. The agency believes that the use of an
FUF is still an appropriate and reasonable means of calculating the
contribution of PHEVs to GHG emissions and compliance, but the real-
world data available today clearly no longer supports the FUF
established in SAE J2841 more than a decade ago.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\477\ We used the latest NHTS data (2017) and executed the
utility factor code that is in SAE J2841, Appendix C, and found that
the latest NHTS data did not significantly change the utility factor
curves. NHTS data can be found at U.S. Department of Transportation,
Federal Highway Administration, 2017 National Household Travel
Survey. URL: https://nhts.ornl.gov/.
\478\ The complexity of PHEV designs is such that not all PHEVs
operate solely on the electric portion of the propulsion system even
when the battery has energy available. Engine operation during these
scenarios may be required because of such design aspects as blended
operation when both the electric power and the engine are being
utilized, or during conditions such as when heat or air conditioning
is needed for the cabin and can only be obtained with engine
operation.
\479\ Because most CD operation occurs without engine operation,
the CO2 value for CD operation is often 0 or near 0 g/mi.
This means that a high utility factor results in a CO2
compliance value that is heavily-weighted with 0 or near 0 g/mi.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the tailpipe CO2 produced from PHEVs varies
significantly between CD and CS operation, both the charge depleting
range and the utility factor curves play an important role in
determining the magnitude of CO2 that is calculated for
compliance. In charge depleting mode, EPA is proposing to maintain a
zero gram per mile contribution when the internal combustion engine is
not running. The significant difference is between, potentially, zero
grams per mile in CD mode versus CO2 grams per mile that are
likely to be similar to a hybrid (non-plug-in) vehicle in CS mode.
Charge depleting range for a PHEV is determined by performing single
cycle city and highway charge depleting tests according to SAE Standard
J1711,\480\ Recommended Practice for Measuring the Exhaust Emissions
and Fuel Economy of Hybrid-Electric Vehicles,
[[Page 29254]]
Including Plug-In Hybrid Vehicles. The charge depleting range is
determined by arithmetically averaging the city and highway range
values weighted 55 percent/45 percent, respectively as noted in 40 CFR
600.311-12(j)(4)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\480\ SAE J1711. 2023. ``Recommended Practice for Measuring the
Exhaust Emissions and Fuel Economy of Hybrid-Electric Vehicles,
Including Plug-in Hybrid Vehicles.'' Issued 1999-03, Revised 2010-
06, Revised 2023-02, February.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
i. FUF Comparisons With Real World Data
Recent literature and data have identified that the current utility
factor curves may overestimate the fraction of driving that occurs in
charge depleting operation.481 482 This literature also
concludes that vehicles with lower charge depleting ranges have even
greater discrepancy in CO2 emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\481\ Pl[ouml]tz, P. and J[ouml]hrens, J. (2021): Realistic Test
Cycle Utility Factors for Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles in
Europe. Karlsruhe: Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation
Research ISI. Retrieved from. https://www.isi.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/isi/dokumente/cce/2021/BMU_Kurzpapier_UF_final.pdf.
\482\ https://www.transportenvironment.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/TE-Anlaysis_-Update-of-PHEV-utility-factors-1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA and ICCT \483\ have also evaluated recently available OBD data
\484\ that has been collected through the California Bureau of
Automotive Repair (BAR) and found that the data shows that, on average,
there is more charge sustaining operation and more gasoline operation
than is predicted by the current fleet utility factor curves. The BAR
OBD data enable the evaluation of real-world PHEV distances travelled
in various operational modes; these include charge-depleting engine-off
distance, charge-sustaining engine-on distance, total distance
traveled, odometer readings, total fuel consumed, and total grid energy
inputs and outputs of the battery pack. These fields of data allow us
to use the BAR OBD data to filter the data and calculate 5-cycle
comparable real-world driving ratios of charge depleting distance to
total distance and to then compare to the existing FUFs, using the 5-
cycle range from the fuel economy and environment label.\485\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\483\ ``Real world usage of plug-in hybrid vehicles in the
United States.'' Aaron Isenstadt, Zifei Yang, Stephanie Searle, John
German, ICCT Report, December 2022.
\484\ California Air Resource Board [OBD data records dated
October 2022], https://www.bar.ca.gov/records-requests.
\485\ Because the data collected is real-world data, we used the
combined city and highway 5-cycle label range as an input to the FUF
curve described in SAE J2841, to create an apples-to-apples
comparison. The existing regulatory FUFs are separate city and
highway curves, and the charge depleting ranges that are used with
the city and highway FUF curves are 2-cycle range.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the BAR OBD data, ICCT also evaluated a dataset from
Fuelly.com. Fuelly.com is a website and smartphone application that
allows users to self-report fuel consumption data. The curve that is
fitted from the Fuelly.com data also yields lower utility factors than
the SAE J2841 FUF curve, for the same charge depleting distance;
however, the Fuelly curve is not as low as the BAR OBD curve.
A comparison of the results of EPA's data analysis as well as the
ICCT analyses is shown in Figure 13. The FUF applied in the current
regulations is labeled as ``SAE J2841 FUF''. EPA's data analysis of the
BAR OBD data is labeled as ``Linear Regression Fit'' and the two ICCT
curves are labeled as ``ICCT-BAR'' and ``ICCT-FUELLY''. ICCT created
the ICCT-BAR and ICCT-Fuelly curves by adjusting the normalized
distances in the UF equation for both the BAR OBD data and the Fuelly
user-reported data, using sample-size weighted nonlinear least squares
regression.\486\ As shown in Figure 13, the EPA ``Linear Regression
Fit'', where about 78 percent of the total data points are between 12-
to 32-miles for the CD range, lies on top of the ``ICCT-BAR'' curve.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\486\ Supra footnote 483.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The BAR OBD data is a recent and relatively large dataset that
includes the charge depleting distance (or electric operating distance)
and total distance, which makes it a reasonable source for evaluating
the real-world utility factors for recent PHEV usage. However, we
recognize that the curve developed from this data is a departure from
the SAE J2841 FUF curves, that the BAR OBD data has some limitations
(see DRIA Chapter 3), and that the original SAE J2841 FUF methodology
was also a reasonable approach at the time it was adopted. Therefore,
we created the proposed curve by averaging the SAE J2841 FUF curve and
the ICCT-BAR curve. The resulting proposed FUF curve lies almost on top
of the ICCT-FUELLY curve. Some of the data suggest that a lower curve
might more appropriately reflect current real-world usage, however, EPA
recognizes that PHEV technology has the potential to provide
significant GHG reductions and an overly low FUF curve could
disincentivize manufacturers to apply this technology. In addition,
anticipated longer all-electric range and greater all-electric
performance, partially driven by CARB's ACC II program, as well as
increased consumer technology familiarity and available infrastructure
should result in performance more closely matching our proposed curve.
EPA will continue to monitor real-world data as it becomes available.
[[Page 29255]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05MY23.016
We believe that it is important for PHEV compliance utility factors
to accurately reflect the apportionment of charge depleting operation,
for weighting the 2-cycle CO2 test results; therefore, we
are proposing to update the city and highway fleet utility factor
curves with a new, single curve that is shown in Figure 12. We are
proposing a single curve to better reflect real world performance where
the underlying real-world data is not parsed into city and highway
data. Since the fleet average calculations are based on a combined city
and highway CO2 value, a single FUF curve can be used for
these calculations. EPA is requesting comment on whether the ICCT-BAR
curve shown in Figure 13 is a more appropriate fleet utility factor
curve instead of the FUF proposed curve, as shown in the same figure.
EPA has chosen the proposed FUF curve based on the best data
available. Commentors may have other data sets from PHEV vehicles; EPA
would welcome additional data on real-world PHEV operation, which we
would consider and may use to update the utility factor in a future
rulemaking. The type of data that would be most useful would have
measured mileage in charge depleting range and measured total mileage
for a large number of PHEV vehicles that are nationally representative
and cover a broad range of PHEV models.
ii. Impact on Compliance
The proposed revisions to the PHEV FUF curve will increase
CO2 compliance values for PHEVs because the charge depleting
test values will be weighted less heavily than they are currently in
compliance calculations. Based on EPA's review of real-world utility
factor data it appears the assumptions in SAE J2841 tend to
overestimate the charge depleting operation of PHEVs. As such, the
Agency is proposing to use the FUF determined from real world data.
This change will result in a reduction to the FUF used to determine
PHEV CO2 compliance values. PHEVs that are designed with a
large charge depleting range would still have a significantly lower
compliance value than their hybrid counterparts would have.
iii. Consideration of CARB ACC II PHEV Provisions
CARB recently set minimum performance requirements for PHEVs in
their ACC II program. These requirements include performance over the
US06 test cycle and a minimum range and are meant to set qualifications
for PHEV's to be included in a manufacturer's ZEV compliance. EPA is
not proposing to adopt the range and US06 performance requirements or
fleet penetration limits that are included in the CARB ACC II ZEV
provisions. EPA agrees that the performance provisions required by CARB
in ACC II are important real-world performance attributes and have the
ability to provide greater environmental benefits as compared to PHEVs
that are less capable. However, unlike the ACC II program, the GHG
program in this proposal is performance-based and not a ZEV mandate. In
that regard, EPA believes that it is appropriate to have a robust GHG
compliance program for PHEVs that properly accounts for their GHG
emissions independent of a PHEV's range or capability over the US06
test cycle.
9. Small Volume Manufacturer GHG Standards
i. Background
EPA's light-duty vehicle greenhouse gas (GHG) program for model
years (MYs) 2012-2016 provided a conditional exemption for small volume
manufacturers (SVMs) with annual U.S. sales of less than 5,000 vehicles
due to unique feasibility issues faced by these SVMs.\487\ The
exemption was conditioned on the manufacturer making a good faith
effort to obtain credits from larger volume manufacturers. For the MY
2017-2025 light-duty vehicle GHG program (i.e., the 2012 rule), EPA
adopted specific
[[Page 29256]]
regulations allowing SVMs to petition EPA for alternative standards,
again recognizing that the primary program standards may not be
feasible for SVMs and could drive these manufacturers from the U.S.
market.\488\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\487\ 75 FR 25419-25421, May 7, 2010. Note that SVMs are
generally not small businesses that qualify for EPA's small business
provisions discussed in Section III.B.10.
\488\ 77 FR 62789-62795, October 15, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA acknowledged in the 2012 final rule that SVMs may face a
greater challenge in meeting CO2 standards compared to large
manufacturers because they only produce a few vehicle models, mostly
focused on high performance sports cars and luxury vehicles. SVMs have
limited product lines across which to average emissions, and the few
vehicles they produce often have very high vehicle CO2 g/
mile levels. EPA also noted that the total U.S. annual vehicle sales of
SVMs are much less than 1 percent of total sales of all manufacturers
and contribute minimally to total vehicular GHG emissions, and foregone
GHG reductions from SVMs likewise are a small percentage of total
industry-wide reductions. EPA adopted a regulatory pathway for SVMs to
apply for alternative GHG emissions standards for MYs 2017 and later,
based on information provided by each SVM on factors such as technical
feasibility, cost, and lead time.\489\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\489\ 40 CFR 86.1818-12(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The regulations established in the 2012 rule outline eligibility
criteria and a framework for establishing SVM alternative standards.
Manufacturer average annual U.S. sales must remain below 5,000 vehicles
to be eligible for SVM alternative standards.\490\ The regulations
specify the requirements for supporting technical data and information
that a manufacturer must submit to EPA as part of its application.\491\
SVMs may apply for alternative standards for up to five model years at
a time. SVMs may use the averaging, banking, and trading provisions to
meet the alternative standards, but may not trade credits to another
manufacturer.\492\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\490\ 40 CFR 86.1818-12(g)(1).
\491\ 40 CFR 86.1818-12(g)(4).
\492\ 40 CFR 86.1818-12(g)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA received applications for SVM alternative standards for MYs
2017-2021 from four manufacturers: Aston Martin, Ferrari, Lotus and
McLaren.\493\ The regulations require SVMs to submit information,
including cost information, to EPA as part of their applications. Each
SVM provided its technical basis for the requested standards including
a discussion of technologies that could and could not be feasibly
applied to their vehicles in the time frame of the standards. In 2019,
EPA issued proposed determinations of SVM alternative standards,
including background information and EPA's assessment of the proposed
standards, and requested public comment.\494\ In 2020, EPA finalized
the SVM alternative standard determinations as proposed, shown in Table
37.\495\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\493\ Ferrari was previously owned by Fiat Chrysler Automobiles
(FCA) and petitioned EPA for operationally independent status under
40 CFR 86.1838-01(d). In a separate decision EPA granted this status
to Ferrari starting with the 2012 model year, allowing Ferrari to be
treated as an SVM under EPA's GHG program. Ferrari has since become
an independent company and is no longer owned by FCA.
\494\ 84 FR 37277.
\495\ 85 FR 39561 (July 1, 2020). See also docket EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0210 for additional information on the SVM alternative
standards setting proceedings.
Table 37--Summary of Current SVM Alternative Standards
[g/mile]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aston Martin Ferrari Lotus McLaren
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MY 2017......................................... 431 421 361 372
MY 2018......................................... 396 408 361 372
MY 2019......................................... 380 395 344 368
MY 2020......................................... 374 386 341 360
MY 2021......................................... 376 373 308 329
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. Proposed SVM Standards for MY 2022 and Later
EPA established the SVM alternative standards option in the 2012
rule when ICE technologies were the primary CO2 control
technologies and vehicle electrification technologies were in their
relative infancy. The landscape has fundamentally changed with
electrification technologies maturing to become significant control
technologies in this proposal. Vehicle electrification technologies are
currently being implemented across many vehicle types including both
luxury and high-performance vehicles by larger manufacturers and EPA
expects this trend to continue. EPA believes that meeting the
CO2 standards is becoming less a feasibility issue and more
a lead time issue for SVMs. Also, the credit trading market has become
more robust since we initially established the SVM unique standards
provisions. Now that it has, we would expect SVMs to be able to seek
credit purchases as a compliance strategy.\496\ As electrification
technologies become more widespread and commonly used, EPA believes
there is no reason SVMs cannot adopt similar technological approaches
with enough lead time (or purchase credits from other OEMs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\496\ ``The 2022 EPA Automotive Trends Report, Greenhouse Gas
Emissions, Fuel Economy, and Technology since 1975,'' EPA-420-R-22-
029, December 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given this changed landscape for SVMs, EPA believes it is
appropriate to transition away from unique SVM standards and bring SVMs
into the primary program. As a reasonable way to transition SVMs into
the primary program, EPA is proposing to phase in primary standards
gradually over MYs 2025-2032 resulting in SVMs being ``caught up'' to
the proposed primary program standards by MY 2032.\497\ Specifically,
EPA proposes that SVM alternative standards established for MY 2021
would apply through MY 2024 to provide stability for SVMs so that SVMs
have an opportunity to reduce their GHG emissions in future years. EPA
proposes that starting in MY 2025, SVMs would meet primary program
standards albeit with additional lead-time. As shown in Table 38, EPA
proposes that SVMs would meet the primary program standards for MY 2023
in MY 2025, providing two years of additional lead time. EPA is also
proposing a period of stability rather than year-over-year incremental
reductions in the standards levels for SVMs. SVMs have fewer vehicle
models over which to average, and EPA believes a staggered phase down
in standards with a period of stability between the steps is
reasonable. As shown in Table 38, EPA proposes that the two-year offset
would then continue with a period of stability between step changes
[[Page 29257]]
in the standards until SVMs are required to meet the proposed MY 2032
standards in MY 2032. EPA is not reopening the eligibility requirements
for the proposed SVM standards currently in the regulations for SVM
alternative standards and SVMs would need to remain eligible to use
these proposed provisions.\498\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\497\ See 40 CFR 86.1818-12(c) for the primary program standards
through MY 2026.
\498\ See 40 CFR 86.1818-12(g).
Table 38--Proposed Additional Lead Time for SVM Standards Under the
Primary Program
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primary
program Years of
Model year standards that additional
apply lead time
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2025.................................... 2023 2
2026.................................... 2023 3
2027.................................... 2025 2
2028.................................... 2025 3
2029.................................... 2027 2
2030.................................... 2028 2
2031.................................... 2030 1
2032 and later.......................... 2032 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This additional lead time approach is similar to the approach EPA
used in the 2012 rule to provide additional lead time to intermediate
volume manufacturers.\499\ As with the intermediate volume manufacturer
temporary lead time flexibility, EPA believes that the proposed
additional lead time for SVMs will be sufficient to ease the transition
to more stringent standards in the early years of the proposed program
that could otherwise present a difficult hurdle for them to overcome.
The proposed alternative phase-in would provide necessary lead time for
SVMs to better plan and implement the incorporation of CO2
reducing technologies and/or provide time needed to seek and secure
credits from other manufacturers to bring them into compliance with the
primary standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\499\ 77 FR 62623 (October 15, 2023) at 62795.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Importantly, SVMs would continue to remain eligible to use the ABT
5-year credit carry-forward provisions, allowing SVMs to bank credits
in these intermediate years to further help smooth the transition from
one step change in the standards to the next. EPA is, however,
proposing to prohibit any SVM opting to use the additional lead time
allowance from trading credits generated under the additional lead time
standards to another manufacturer. These proposed credit provisions are
also currently in place as part of the current SVM alternative
standards. EPA believes that credit banking along with the staggered
phase down of the standards would help SVMs meet the standards,
recognizing that they have limited product lines. As with the SVM
alternative standards, SVMs would have the option of following the
additional lead time pathway with credit trading restrictions or opt
into the primary program with no such restrictions. Once opted into the
primary program, however, manufacturers would no longer be eligible for
the alternative standards.
EPA requests comment on the proposal to apply the primary program
standards, including the proposed standards, to SVMs with the specified
additional lead time through MY 2032 EPA requests comment on whether
the phase-in appropriately provides additional lead time for SVMs,
including whether SVMs should be brought into the primary program
sooner than proposed.
C. Proposed Criteria and Toxic Pollutant Emissions Standards for Model
Years 2027-2032
EPA is proposing changes to criteria pollutant emissions standards
for both light-duty vehicles and medium duty vehicles (MDV). Light-duty
vehicles include LDV, LDT, and MDPV. NMOG+NOX changes for
light-duty vehicles include a fleet average that declines from 2027-
2032 in the early compliance program (or steps down in 2030 for GVWR
>6,000 pounds in the default program), the elimination of higher
certification bins, a requirement for the same fleet average emissions
standard to be met across four test cycles (25 [deg]C FTP, HFET, US06,
SC03), a change from fleet average NMHC standards to one fleet average
NMOG+NOX standard in the -7 [deg]C FTP test, and three
NMOG+NOX provisions similar to requirements defined by the
CARB Advanced Clean Cars II program. NMOG+NOX changes for
MDV include a fleet average that declines from 2027-2032 in the early
compliance program (or steps down in 2030 in the default program), the
elimination of higher certification bins, a requirement for the same
fleet average emissions standard to be met across four test cycles (25
[deg]C FTP, HFET, US06, SC03), and a new fleet average
NMOG+NOX standard in the -7 [deg]C FTP. EPA is proposing a
requirement for spark ignition and compression ignition MDV with GCWR
above 22,000 pounds to comply with engine-dynamometer-based criteria
pollutant emissions standards under the heavy-duty engine program \500\
instead of the chassis-dynamometer-based criteria pollutant emissions
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\500\ https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-engines/final-rule-and-related-materials-control-air-pollution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is proposing to continue light-duty vehicle and MDV fleet
average FTP NMOG+NOX standards that include both ICE-based
and zero emission vehicles in a manufacturer's compliance calculation.
Performance-based standards that include both ICE and zero emission
vehicles are consistent with the existing NMOG+NOX program
as well as the GHG program. EPA has considered the availability of
battery electric vehicles as a compliance strategy in determining the
appropriate fleet average standards. Given the cost-effectiveness of
BEVs for compliance with both criteria pollutant and GHG standards, EPA
anticipates that most (if not all) automakers will include BEVs in
their compliance strategies. However, the standards continue to be a
performance-based fleet average standard with multiple paths to
compliance, depending on choices manufacturers make about deployment of
a variety of emissions control technologies for ICE as well as
electrification and credit trading.
EPA is proposing a PM standard of 0.5 mg/mi for light-duty vehicles
and MDV
[[Page 29258]]
that must be met across three test cycles (-7 [deg]C FTP, 25 [deg]C
FTP, US06), a requirement for PM certification tests at the test group
level, and a requirement that every in-use vehicle program (IUVP) test
vehicle is tested for PM. The 0.5 mg/mi standard is a per-vehicle cap,
not a fleet average.
EPA is proposing CO and formaldehyde (HCHO) emissions requirement
changes for light-duty vehicles and MDVs including transitioning to
emissions caps (as opposed to bin-specific standards) for all emissions
standards, a requirement that CO emissions caps be met across four test
cycles (25 [deg]C FTP, HFET, US06, SC03), and a CO emissions cap for
the -7 [deg]C FTP that is the same for all light-duty vehicles and
MDVs.
EPA is proposing a refueling standards change to require incomplete
MDVs to have the same on-board refueling vapor recovery standards as
complete MDVs. EPA is also proposing eliminating commanded enrichment
as an AECD for power and component protection.
The proposal allows light-duty vehicle 25 [deg]C FTP
NMOG+NOX credits and -7 [deg]C FTP NMHC credits (converting
to NMOG+NOX credits) to be carried into the new program. It
only allows MDV 25 [deg]C FTP NMOG+NOX credits to be carried
into the new program if a manufacturer selects the early compliance
pathway. New credits may be generated, banked and traded within the new
program to provide manufacturers with flexibilities in developing
compliance strategies.
1. Phase-in of Criteria Pollutant Standards
The proposed phase-in for criteria pollutant standards, including
NMOG+NOX, PM, CO, HCHO, CARB ACC II NMOG+NOX
provisions, and elimination of enrichment, is described in this
section. Proposed refueling standards for incomplete vehicles begin
with model year 2030 and are not part of the early phase-in scenario
for the other pollutant standards. Table 39 shows eight phase-in
scenarios that manufacturers may choose from. Manufacturers may comply
with phase-in scenarios based on model year (MY) sales or MY U.S.
directed production volume.
Under the default compliance scenario shown in the bottom matrix in
Table 39, 40 percent of vehicles with gross vehicle weight rating
(GVWR) at or below 6,000 pounds must comply in MY 2027, 80 percent in
MY 2028, and 100 percent in MY 2029 and after. For the heavier vehicle
classes, 100 percent of vehicles must comply starting in MY 2030 in a
single step under the default compliance pathway, which provides a full
four years of lead time as required by CAA section 202(a)(3)(C). Under
this default compliance scenario, chassis cert vehicles between 8501
and 14,000 pounds GVWR may not carry forward Tier 3 NMOG+NOX
credits (as allowed by the early phase-in schedule), and engine cert
vehicles between 8501 and 14,000 pounds GVWR may not use HD phase 2
work factor based GHG standards after 2027 (as allowed by the early
phase-in schedule). Details are provided in Sections III.B.3, III.C.5,
and III.C.9.
The top matrix in Table 39 describes the phase-in scenario where a
manufacturer chooses an early phase-in schedule for all vehicle
classes. In this scenario 40 percent of the vehicles of each class
(each column) comply in MY 2027, 80 percent comply in MY 2028, and 100
percent comply starting in MY 2029 and after. If a manufacturer chooses
this phase-in scenario, phase-in percentages for vehicles at or below
8500 pounds GVWR are calculated as one group. Chassis cert vehicles
between 8501 and 14,000 pounds GVWR may carry forward Tier 3
NMOG+NOX credits, and engine cert vehicles between 8501 and
14,000 pounds GVWR may use the HD phase 2 work factor based GHG
standards from MY 2026 without a capped GCWR input from MY 2027 to MY
2029. Then in MY 2030 chassis cert vehicles between 8501 and 14,000
pounds GVWR must switch to new work factor based GHG standards with the
capped work factor equation.
The six phase-in scenarios between default and early show other
options that manufacturers may select from. Any scenario that follows
an early phase-in schedule for vehicles at or below 8500 pounds GVWR,
results in phase-in percentages being calculated as one group. Any
scenario that follows an early phase-in schedule for chassis cert
vehicles between 8501 and 14,000 pounds GVWR may carry forward Tier 3
NMOG+NOX credits. And any scenario that follows an early
phase-in schedule for engine cert vehicles between 8501 and 14,000
pounds GVWR may use the HD phase 2 work factor based GHG standards from
MY 2026 without a capped GCWR input from MY 2027 to MY 2029.
Vehicles that are not part of the phase-in percentages are
considered interim vehicles, which must continue to demonstrate
compliance with all Tier 3 regulations with the exception that all
vehicles (interim and those that are part of the phase-in percentages)
contribute to the NMOG+NOX fleet average standards shown in
Table 40 and Table 41.
EPA requests comment on increasing or decreasing the proposed
phase-in percentages shown in Table 39.
Table 39--Proposed Criteria Pollutant Phase-In Scenarios Available to Manufacturers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8,501-14,000 lb. 8,501-14,000 lb.
Model year <=8,500 lb. GVWR Chassis GVWR Engine cert
GVWR (%) cert (%) (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Early phase-in schedule for all vehicle classes (Scenario A)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027........................................................ 40 40 40
2028........................................................ 80 80 80
2029........................................................ 100 100 100
2030+....................................................... 100 100 100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Intermediate scenario (Scenario B)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027........................................................ 40 0 40
2028........................................................ 80 0 80
2029........................................................ 100 0 100
2030+....................................................... 100 100 100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 29259]]
Intermediate scenario (Scenario C)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027........................................................ 40 40 0
2028........................................................ 80 80 0
2029........................................................ 100 100 0
2030+....................................................... 100 100 100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Intermediate scenario (Scenario D)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027........................................................ 40 0 0
2028........................................................ 80 0 0
2029........................................................ 100 0 0
2030+....................................................... 100 100 100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8,501-14,000 lb. 8,501-14,000 lb.
Model year <=6,000 lb. 6,001-8500 lb. GVWR Chassis GVWR Engine cert
GVWR GVWR (%) cert (%) (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Intermediate scenario (Scenario E)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027........................................ 40 0 40 40
2028........................................ 80 0 80 80
2029........................................ 100 0 100 100
2030+....................................... 100 100 100 100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Intermediate scenario (Scenario F)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027........................................ 40 0 0 40
2028........................................ 80 0 0 80
2029........................................ 100 0 0 100
2030+....................................... 100 100 100 100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Intermediate scenario (Scenario G)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027........................................ 40 0 40 0
2028........................................ 80 0 80 0
2029........................................ 100 0 100 0
2030+....................................... 100 100 100 100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Default compliance scenario (Scenario H)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027........................................ 40 0 0 0
2028........................................ 80 0 0 0
2029........................................ 100 0 0 0
2030+....................................... 100 100 100 100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Proposed NMOG+NOX Standards
EPA is proposing new NMOG+NOX standards for MY 2027 and
later. The standards are structured to take into account the increased
electrification of new light-duty vehicles and MDVs that is projected
to occur over the next decade.
The current Tier 3 fleet average NMOG+NOX emissions
standards were fully phased-in for Class 2b and Class 3 (MDV within
this proposal) in MY 2022 at 178 and 247 mg/mi, respectively. Tier 3
standards for light-duty vehicles, including LDT3 and LDT4 above 6,000
pounds GVWR and medium-duty passenger vehicles (MDPVs), will be fully
phased into the Tier 3 30 mg/mi fleet average NMOG+NOX
standard in MY 2025. Tier 3 standards include a Bin 0 which allows
PEV's to be averaged with conventional ICE-based vehicles. In the
absence of our proposed NMOG+NOX standards, as sales of PEVs
continue to increase, there would be an opportunity for the ICE portion
of light-duty vehicles and MDVs to reduce emission control system
content (i.e., system costs) and comply with less stringent
NMOG+NOX standard bins under Tier 3. If this were to occur,
it would have the effect of increasing NMOG+NOX emissions
from the ICE portion of the light-duty vehicle and MDV fleet and delay
the overall fleet emission reductions of NMOG+NOX that would
have occurred from increased penetration of PEVs into the light-duty
vehicle and MDV fleets.
The structure of the proposed NMOG+NOX standards has
been designed to cap the NMOG+NOX contribution of ICE
vehicles at approximately Tier 3 levels for light-duty vehicles and at
approximately 100 mg/mi NMOG+NOX for MDV. The feasibility of
ICE MDV meeting 100 mg/mi NMOG+NOX by 2027 is discussed in
further detail within Chapter 3.2.1.3 of the DRIA. EPA projects the
year-over-year reductions in MY 2027 and later light-duty vehicle and
MDV NMOG+NOX standards from an average of 30 mg/mi and 100
mg/mi,
[[Page 29260]]
respectively, thus would occur primarily from increased year-over-year
electrification of new vehicle sales and the resulting averaging of
zero emission vehicles with ICE vehicles within the fleet average
light-duty vehicle and MDV NMOG+NOX standards.
The CAA requires 4 years of lead time and 3 years of standards
stability for heavy-duty vehicles. There are three categories of
vehicles that are currently regulated as light-duty vehicles but are
defined within the CAA as heavy-duty vehicles for purposes of lead time
and standards stability: The heavy-light-duty truck categories (LDT3
and LDT4) and MDPV.\501\ Furthermore, MDVs are also defined as heavy-
duty vehicles under the CAA. EPA is proposing several alternative
pathways for these three categories of vehicles for compliance with the
proposed NMOG+NOX standards. The Agency's early compliance
NMOG+NOX program would apply to all LDV, LDT, MDPV, and MDV
vehicles beginning in 2027 in order to coincide with the timing of
increased electrification of these vehicles. However, mandatory
regulations beginning in 2027 would not provide 4 years of lead time as
required for vehicles defined as heavy-duty under the CAA. To address
this issue, we are proposing two schedules for compliance with
NMOG+NOX standards for LDT3, LDT4, MDPV, and MDV. The eight
alternatives describe the breadth of compliance scenarios. The two
schedules referenced here include one for early compliance and one for
later compliance for each reg class.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\501\ Light-duty truck 3 (LDT3) is defined as any truck with
more than 6,000 pounds GVWR and with an ALVW of 5,750 pounds or
less. Light-duty truck 4 (LDT4) is defined as any truck is defined
as any truck with more than 6,000 pounds GVWR and with an ALVW of
more than 5,750 pounds. See 40 CFR 86.1803-01--Definitions. For
current and proposed MDPV definitions, see Section III.D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The early compliance pathway shown in Table 40 has LDT3, LDT4 and
MDPV meeting identical and gradually declining fleet average
NMOG+NOX emissions standards to those for LDV, LDT1 and LDT2
as described in Section III.C.2.iii; and includes separate gradually
declining fleet average NMOG+NOX emissions standards for MDV
at or below 22,000 pounds GCWR as described in Section III.C.2.iv. This
pathway for earlier compliance with NMOG+NOX emissions
standards for LDT3, LDT4, MDPV, and MDV includes additional
flexibilities. We request comment on the addition of a temporary ``bin
200'' (200 mg/mi NMOG+ NOX) that would apply solely to MY
2027 and MY 2028 Class 3 MDV for manufacturers opting into early
compliance for MDV.
The second, and default, schedule to NMOG+NOX compliance
shown in Table 41 has LDV, LDT1, and LDT2 meeting a gradually declining
fleet average NMOG+NOX standards from 2027 through 2032.
Vehicles in the LDT3, LDT4, and MDPV categories would continue to meet
Tier 3 standards through the end of MY 2029 and then would proceed to
meeting a 12 mg/mi NMOG+NOX standard in a single step in MY
2030 in order to comply with CAA provisions for 4 years of lead time
and 3 years of standards stability. Similarly, MDVs would continue to
meet Tier 3 standards through the end of MY 2029 and then MDVs at or
below 22,000 pounds GCWR would proceed to meeting a 60 mg/mi
NMOG+NOX standard in a single step in 2030 in order to
comply with CAA provisions for 4 years of lead time and 3 years of
standards stability.
We are also proposing a similar choice between early compliance and
default compliance pathways for MDVs with high GCWR, which are defined
as being above 22,000 pounds. Under the early compliance pathway, high
GCWR MDVs would comply with MY 2027 and later heavy-duty engine
criteria pollutant emissions standards beginning with MY 2027 (Section
III.C.5). Manufacturers with high GCWR MDVs choosing the early
compliance pathway would have additional flexibilities with respect to
GHG compliance. They could delay entry into the MDV GHG work factor-
based fleet average standards until the beginning of MY 2030 (see
Section III.B.3).
Under the default compliance path, high GCWR MDVs would continue to
comply with Tier 3 standards until the end of MY 2029 and then would
comply with MY 2027 and later heavy-duty engine criteria pollutant
emissions standards beginning with MY 2030 in order to comply with CAA
provisions for 4 years of lead time. Under this default compliance
path, high GCWR MDVs would comply with fleet average MDV GHG emissions
beginning with MY 2027 (see Section III.B.3).
Table 40--LDV, LDT, MDPV, and MDV Fleet Average NMOG+NOX Standards Under the Early Compliance Pathway
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LDV, LDT1, LDT2, MDV[dagger] NMOG+NOX (mg/mi)
LDT3[dagger],
Model year LDT4[dagger] & -------------------------------
MDPV[dagger] NMOG+NOX
(mg/mi) Class 2b Class 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2026................................................... * 30 * 178 * 247
2027................................................... 22 160
2028................................................... 20 140
2029................................................... 18 120
2030................................................... 16 100
2031................................................... 14 80
2032 and later......................................... 12 60
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Tier 3 standards provided for reference.
[dagger] NMOG+NOX credit generated under Tier 3 can be carried forward for 5 years after it is generated. MDV
standards only apply for vehicles at or below 22,000 lb. GCWR.
[[Page 29261]]
Table 41--LDV, LDT, MDPV and MDV Fleet Average NMOG+NOX Standards under the Default Compliance Pathway
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MDV[dagger] NMOG+NOX (mg/mi)
LDV, LDT1 & LDT2 LDT3, LDT4 & MDPV
Model year NMOG+NOX (mg/mi) NMOG+NOX (mg/mi) -------------------------------
Class 2b Class 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2026.......................... * 30 * 30 * 178 * 247
2027.......................... 22 * 30 * 178 * 247
2028.......................... 20 * 30 * 178 * 247
2029.......................... 18 * 30 * 178 * 247
2030.......................... 16 12 60
2031.......................... 14 12 60
2032 and later................ 12 12 60
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Tier 3 standards provided for reference.
[dagger] MDV standards only apply for vehicles at or below 22,000 lb GCWR.
i. NMOG+NOX Bin Structure for Light-Duty Vehicles and MDVs
The bin structure being proposed for light-duty vehicles and MDVs
is shown in Table 42. The upper two bins (Bin 160 and Bin 125) are only
available to MDV at or below 22,000 pounds GCWR.\502\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\502\ MDV at or above 22,000 pounds GCWR must comply with 2027
and later heavy-duty engine emissions standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For light-duty vehicles, the proposed bin structure removes the two
highest Tier 3 bins (Bin 160 and Bin 125) and adds several new bins
(Bin 60, Bin 40, Bin 10). For MDV, the proposed bin structure moves
away from separate bins for Class 2b and Class 3 vehicles, adopting
light-duty vehicle bins with higher bins only available to MDV.
Table 42--Light-Duty Vehicle and MDV NMOG+NOX Bin Structure
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NMOG+NOX (mg/
LDV bin mi)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bin 160 *............................................... 160
Bin 125 *............................................... 125
Bin 70.................................................. 70
Bin 60.................................................. 60
Bin 50.................................................. 50
Bin 40.................................................. 40
Bin 30.................................................. 30
Bin 20.................................................. 20
Bin 10.................................................. 10
Bin 0................................................... 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* MDV only.
ii. Smog Scores for the Fuel Economy and Environment Label
This proposed rule includes new Tier 4 bins that do not directly
align with the existing smog scores used on the Fuel Economy and
Environment Label (see 40 CFR 600.311-12(g)). We are therefore seeking
comment on fitting the new Tier 4 bins into the existing MY 2025 Tier 3
smog score structure for the Tier 4 phase-in period (MY 2027-2029), and
we are also seeking comment on a new Tier 4 smog score structure for MY
2030 and later. For both ratings structures, it is important to avoid
having any bin assigned to a higher score in a newer model year than it
was assigned in an older model year (no ``backsliding'' for smog score
ratings).
For MY 2027-2029, EPA is seeking comment on how the new Tier 4 bins
and California LEV IV categories should fit into the existing Tier 3
bin structure for smog scores. For example, EPA seeks comment on what
smog score should apply to the new Tier 4, bin 10 and new California
LEV IV category of SULEV 15. The current MY 2025 Tier 3 rating system
in Table 1 of 40 CFR 600.311-12(g) has a smog score of 10 for bin 0 and
a score of 7 for bin 20, suggesting that a smog score of 8 might be
appropriate for SULEV 15 and a smog score of 9 might be appropriate for
bin 10; however we may also consider assigning bin 10 and SULEV 15 to
the same rating, either 8 or 9. In addition, EPA is seeking comment on
the smog scores that should apply to Tier 4 bin 60/LEV IV ULEV 60, Tier
4 bin 40/LEV 40, and SULEV 25. We seek comment on assigning bin 60/ULEV
60 a score of 4, sharing a rating with bin 70 ULEV 70; assigning bin
40/ULEV 40 a rating of 5, sharing a rating with bin 50; and assigning
SULEV 25 a rating of 6, sharing a rating with bin 30. These assignments
would allow the MY 2025 Tier 3 ratings to remain in place, while
placing the new Tier 4 bins and LEV IV categories in logical locations.
For MY 2030 and later, we seek comment on maintaining the smog
rating bin assignments from MY 2027-2029 for bin 40/ULEV 40 and lower
bins. Since there is no longer a need for Tier 3 bin 160 or bin 125
after MY 2029, we seek comment on assigning a smog score of 2 to bin
70/ULEV 70, a score of 3 to bin 60/ULEV 60, and a score of 4 to bin 50/
ULEV 50. This approach allows bin 40 through bin 70 to each correspond
to a single smog score.
We welcome comment on this approach and after consideration of
comment may adopt final smog scores that are higher or lower.
iii. NMOG+NOX Standards and Test Cycles for Light-Duty
Vehicles
EPA is proposing increasingly stringent light-duty vehicle
NMOG+NOX standards (Table 43) for the sales weighted average
inclusive of all LDV, LDT and MDPV (e.g. ICE vehicles, BEVs, PHEVs,
fuel cell, vehicles, etc.). The proposed phase-in of the standards by
vehicle category is described in Section III.C.1.
EPA recognizes that vehicles will differ with respect to their
levels of NMOG+NOX emissions control depending on degree of
electrification, choice of fuel, ICE technology, and other differences.
The proposed fleet average standards are feasible in light of
anticipated technology penetration rates commensurate with the GHG
technology implementation during this same time period and increasing
electrification of light-duty vehicles.
Table 43--NMOG+NOX Fleet Average Standards Over the FTP [dagger] for
Light-Duty Vehicles *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NMOG+NOX (mg/
Model year mi)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027.................................................... 22
2028.................................................... 20
2029.................................................... 18
2030.................................................... 16
2031.................................................... 14
2032 and later.......................................... 12
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[dagger] As defined in 40 CFR 1066.801(c)(1)(i) and 1066.815.
* For a complete description of fleet average NMOG+NOX standards for
LDT3, LDT4, and MDPV under both the early compliance and default
programs, see Section III.C.1.
The declining fleet average standards over the FTP cycle ensure
that NMOG+NOX continues to decrease over time for the light-
duty fleet. The
[[Page 29262]]
elimination of the two highest bins (Table 42) caps the maximum
NMOG+NOX emissions from an individual new vehicle model. EPA
anticipates that electrified technology, including BEVs, will play a
significant role within the compliance strategies for meeting the fleet
average NMOG+NOX standards for each manufacturer. However,
EPA anticipates that manufacturers may use multiple technology
solutions to comply with fleet average NMOG+NOX standards.
For example, a manufacturer may choose to offset any ICE increases with
increased BEV sales, or could alternatively improve engine and exhaust
aftertreatment designs to reduce emissions for ICE vehicles while
planning for a more conservative percentage of BEV sales as part of
their compliance with the declining fleet average NMOG+NOX
standards reflected in Table 43.
Since technologies are available to further reduce
NMOG+NOX emissions relative to the current fleet, and since
more than 20 percent of MY 2021 Bin 30 vehicle certifications already
show an FTP certification value under 15 mg/mi NMOG+NOX,
achieving reduced NMOG+NOX emissions through improved ICE
technologies is feasible and reasonable. Regardless of the compliance
strategy chosen, overall, the fleet will become significantly cleaner.
EPA is proposing that the same bin-specific numerical standards be
applied across four test cycles: 25 [deg]C FTP,\503\ HFET,\504\ US06
\505\ and SC03.\506\ This means that a manufacturer certifying a
vehicle to comply with Bin 30 NMOG+NOX standards would be
required to meet the Bin 30 emissions standards for all four test
cycles. Meeting the same NMOG+NOX standards across four
cycles is an increase in stringency from Tier 3, which had one standard
for the higher of FTP and HFET, and a less stringent composite based
standard for the SFTP (weighted average of 0.35*FTP + 0.28*US06 +
0.37*SC03).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\503\ 40 CFR 1066.801(c)(1)(i) and 1066.815.
\504\ 40 CFR 1066.840.
\505\ 40 CFR 1066.831.
\506\ 40 CFR 1066.835.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Present-day engine, transmission, and exhaust aftertreatment
control technologies allow closed-loop air-to-fuel (A/F) ratio control
and good exhaust catalyst performance throughout the US06 and SC03
cycles. As a result, higher emissions standards over these cycles are
no longer necessary. Approximately 60 percent of the test group/vehicle
model certifications from MY 2021 have higher NMOG+NOX
emissions over the FTP cycle as compared to the US06 cycle, supporting
the conclusion that a single standard is feasible and appropriate.
EPA is proposing to replace the existing -7 [deg]C FTP NMHC fleet
average standard of 300 mg/mi for passenger cars and LDT1, and 500 mg/
mi fleet average standard for LDT2 through LDT4 and MDPV, with a single
NMOG+NOX fleet average standard of 300 mg/mi for LDV, LDT1
through 4 and MDPVs to harmonize with the combined NMOG+NOX
approach adopted in Tier 3 for all other cycles (i.e., 25 [deg]C FTP,
HFET, US06, and SC03 cycles). EPA emissions testing at -7 [deg]C FTP
showed that a 300 mg/mi standard is feasible with a large compliance
margin for NMOG+NOX. See DRIA for additional certification
data to support the proposed fleet average NMOG+NOX standard
of 300 mg/mi. EPA did not include EVs in the assessment of the proposed
fleet average standard and therefore EVs and other zero emission
vehicles are not included and not averaged into the fleet average -7
[deg]C FTP NMOG+NOX standards.
Since -7 [deg]C FTP and 25 [deg]C FTP are both cold soak tests that
include TWC operation during light-off and at operating temperature, it
is appropriate to apply the same Tier 3 useful life to both standards.
EPA requests comment on whether a 400 mg/mi cap should replace the
proposed 300 mg/mi fleet average for the -7 [deg]C FTP
NMOG+NOX standard. Additional discussion on the feasibility
of the proposed standards can be found in DRIA Chapter 3.2.
The proposed standards apply equally at high altitude, rather than
including compliance relief provisions from Tier 3 for certification at
high altitude. Modern engine management systems can use idle speed,
engine spark timing, valve timing, and other controls to offset the
effect of lower air density on exhaust catalyst performance at high
altitudes.
iv. NMOG+NOX Standards and Test Cycles for MDV at or Below
22,000 lb GCWR
The proposed MDV (medium duty vehicles, 8,501 to 14,000 pounds
GVWR) NMOG+NOX standards for vehicles at or below 22,000
pounds GCWR are shown in Table 44. Certification data show that for MY
2022-2023, 75 percent of sales-weighted Class 2b/3 gasoline vehicle
certifications were below 120 mg/mi in FTP and US06 tests. Diesel-
powered MDVs designed for high towing capability (i.e., GCWR above
22,000 pounds) were higher (75 percent were below 180 mg/mi) but they
are not being used to inform the proposed MDV standard because the
Agency is proposing the requirement that MDVs (diesel and gasoline)
with GCWR (gross combined weight rating) above 22,000 pounds comply
with criteria pollutant emissions standards under the HD engine
program, as described in Section I.A.1, MDVs at or below 22,000 pounds
GCWR have comparable emissions performance to LDVs and LDTs. The year-
over-year fleet average FTP standards for MDV at or below 22,000 pounds
GCWR and the rationale for the manufacturer's choice of early
compliance and default compliance pathways is described in Section
III.C.1. For further discussion of MDV NMOG+NOX feasibility,
please refer to Chapter 3.2 of the DRIA.
The proposed MDV NMOG+NOX standards are based on
applying existing light-duty vehicle technologies, including
electrification, to MDV. As with the light-duty vehicle categories, EPA
anticipates that there will be multiple compliance pathways, such as
increased electrification of vans together with achieving 100 mg/mile
NMOG+NOX for ICE-power MDV. Present-day MDV engine and
aftertreatment technology allows fast catalyst light-off after cold-
start followed by closed-loop A/F control and excellent exhaust
catalyst emission control on MDV, even at the adjusted loaded vehicle
weight, ALVW [(curb + GVWR)/2] test weight, which is higher than loaded
vehicle weight, LVW (curb + 300 pounds) used for testing light-duty
vehicles. The proposed MDV standards begin to take effect in 2030,
consistent with the CAA section 202(a)(3)(C) lead time requirement for
these vehicles.
[[Page 29263]]
Table 44--MDV Fleet Average NMOG+NOX Standards Under the Early
Compliance Pathway [dagger]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NMOG+NOX (mg/mi)
Model year -------------------------------
Class 2b Class 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2026.................................... * 178 * 247
2027.................................... 160
2028.................................... 140
2029.................................... 120
2030.................................... 100
2031.................................... 80
2032 and later.......................... 60
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[dagger] Please refer to Section III.C.1 for further discussion of the
early compliance and default compliance pathways.
* Tier 3 standards provided for reference.
Table 45--MDV Fleet Average Chassis Dynamometer FTP NMOG+NOX Standards
Under the Default Compliance Pathway
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MDV [dagger] NMOG+NOX (mg/mi)
Model year -------------------------------
Class 2b Class 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2026.................................... * 178 * 247
2027.................................... * 178 * 247;
2028.................................... * 178 * 247
2029.................................... * 178 * 247
2030.................................... 60
2031.................................... 60
2032 and later.......................... 60
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Tier 3 standards provided for reference.
[dagger] MDV chassis dynamometer NMOG+NOX standards only apply for
vehicles at or below 22,000 lb GCWR.
If a manufacturer has a fleet mix with relatively high sales of MDV
BEV, that would ease compliance with MDV NMOG+NOX fleet
average standards for MDV ICE-powered vehicles. If the manufacturer has
a fleet mix with relatively low BEV sales, then improvements in
NMOG+NOX emissions control for ICE-powered vehicles would be
required to meet the fleet average standards. Improvements to
NMOG+NOX emissions from ICE-powered vehicles are feasible
with available engine, aftertreatment, and sensor technology, and has
been shown within an analysis of MY 2022-2023 MDV certification data
(see DRIA Chapter 3.2). Fleet average NMOG+NOX will continue
to decline to well below the final Tier 3 NMOG+NOX standards
of 178 mg/mi and 247 mg/mi for Class 2b and 3 vehicles, respectively.
The proposed standards require the same MDV numerical standards be
met across all four test cycles, the 25 [deg]C FTP, HFET, US06 and
SC03, consistent with the proposed approach for light-duty vehicles
described in Section III.C.1.ii. This would mean that a manufacturer
certifying a vehicle to bin 60 would be required to meet the bin 60
emissions standards for all four cycles.
Meeting the same NMOG+NOX standard across four cycles is
an increase in stringency from Tier 3, which had one standard over the
FTP and less stringent bin standards for the HD-SFTP (weighted average
of 0.35xFTP + 0.28xHDSIM + 0.37xSC03, where HDSIM is the driving
schedule specified in 40 CFR 86.1816-18(b)(1)(ii)). Current MDV control
technologies allow closed-loop A/F control and high exhaust catalyst
emissions conversion throughout the US06 and SC03 cycles, so compliance
with higher numerical emissions standards over these cycles is no
longer needed. Manufacturer submitted certification data and EPA
testing show that Tier 3 MDV typically have similar NMOG+NOX
emissions in US06 and 25 [deg]C FTP cycles, and NMOG+NOX
from the SC03 is typically much lower. Testing of a 2022 F250 7.3L at
EPA showed average NMOG+NOX emissions of 56 mg/mi in the 25
[deg]C FTP and 48 mg/mi in the US06. Manufacturer-submitted
certifications show that MY 2021+2022 gasoline 2b/3 trucks achieved, on
average, 69/87 mg/mi in the FTP, and 75/NA \507\ mg/mi in the US06, and
18/25 mg/mi in the SC03.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\507\ Tier 3 US06 certification data are not available for class
3 trucks because Tier 3 requires them to certify using the LA92
instead of the US06.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several Tier 3 provisions would end with the elimination of the HD-
SFTP and the combining of bins for Class 2b and class 3 vehicles.
First, Class 2b vehicles with power-to-weight ratios at or below 0.024
hp/pound could no longer replace the full US06 component of the SFTP
with the second of three sampling bags from the US06. Second, class 3
vehicles would no longer use the LA-92 cycle in the HD-SFTP calculation
but would rather have to meet the NMOG+NOX standard in each
of four test cycles (25 [deg]C FTP, HFET, US06 and SC03). Third, the
SC03 could no longer be replaced with the FTP in the SFTP calculation.
The proposed standards do not include relief provisions for MDV
certification at high altitude. Modern engine systems can use idle
speed, engine spark timing, valve timing, and other controls to offset
the effect of lower air density on catalyst light-off at high
altitudes.
EPA is also proposing a new -7 [deg]C FTP NMOG+NOX fleet
average standard of 300 mg/mi for gasoline and diesel MDV. EPA testing
has demonstrated the feasibility of a single fleet average -7 [deg]C
FTP NMOG+NOX standard of 300 mg/mi across light-duty
vehicles and MDV. EPA did not include EV's in the assessment of the
proposed fleet average standard and therefore EVs and other zero
emission vehicles are not included and not averaged into the fleet
average -7 [deg]C FTP NMOG+NOX standards.
[[Page 29264]]
Since -7 [deg]C FTP and 25 [deg]C FTP are both cold soak tests that
include TWC operation during light-off and at operating temperature, it
is appropriate to apply the same Tier 3 useful life to both standards.
EPA requests comment on whether a 400 mg/mi cap should replace the
proposed 300 mg/mi fleet average for the -7 [deg]C FTP
NMOG+NOX standard. Additional discussion on the feasibility
of the proposed standards can be found in DRIA 3.2.
3. Revised PM Standard
i. PM Standard and Test Cycles for Light-Duty Vehicles and MDV
EPA is proposing several changes to the current Tier 3 p.m.
requirements. These changes include a more stringent standard for the
25 [deg]C FTP and US06 test cycles, and addition of a cold PM standard
for the existing Cold Test (-7 [deg]C FTP). The same numerical standard
of 0.5 mg/mi and the same certification test cycles are being proposed
for both light-duty vehicles (LDV, LDT, and MDPV) and MDV (Class 2b and
3 vehicles) at or below 22,000 pounds GCWR, as shown in Table 46 for
light-duty vehicles and Table 47 for MDV. Comparisons to current Tier 3
p.m. standards are provided for reference. The same Tier 3 defined
useful life standard applies to all three test cycles.
Table 46--Proposed Light-Duty Vehicle PM Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed PM
Test cycle Tier 3 standards (mg/ standard (mg/
mi) mi)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
25 [deg]C FTP................... 3..................... 0.5
US06............................ 6..................... 0.5
-7 [deg]C FTP................... Not applicable........ 0.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 47--Proposed MDV (Class 2b and 3) at or Below 22,000 lb GCWR PM Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed PM
Test cycle Tier 3 standards (mg/mi) standard (mg/
mi)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25 [deg]C FTP............................. 8/10 for 2b/3 vehicles.............................. 0.5
US06...................................... 10/7 for 2b/3 vehicle on SFTP....................... 0.5
-7 [deg]C FTP............................. Not applicable...................................... 0.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA believes that these standards are appropriate and feasible to
reduce PM emissions over the broadest range of vehicle operating and
environmental conditions. The current Tier 3 p.m. standards capture
only a portion of vehicle operation. EPA has observed that PM emissions
increase dramatically during cold cold-starts and during high engine
power driving not captured by on-cycle tests. While several vehicles in
the current fleet demonstrate emissions performance that could comply
with the proposed standards at 25 [deg]C, the -7 [deg]C PM standard
will most likely lead to the adoption of Gasoline Particulate Filters
(GPF) as the most practical and cost-effective means to control PM
emissions. GPF is a mature and cost-effective technology that operates
under all vehicle operating conditions. Current GPF technology (e.g.,
MY 2022 GPFs) has high filtration efficiency, even during and
immediately after GPF regenerations, when the GPF cannot rely on soot
loading to improve filtration. GPFs are being widely used in Europe and
China and vehicle manufacturers are already building GPF-equipped
vehicles in the United States for sale in other countries.
In support of the proposed PM standards, EPA has conducted robust
and detailed GPF testing to characterize GPF performance. During this
testing EPA not only measured the change in PM and polyaromatic
hydrocarbon (PAH) emissions, with and without the GPF installed, but
also assessed impacts on GHG emissions and vehicle performance. In
summary, EPA noted that with a properly sized GPF, no measurable impact
on GHG emissions and only slight impact on vehicle performance should
occur, while PM emissions are typically reduced by over 95 percent and
filter-collected PAH emissions are typically reduced by over 99
percent. A review of GPF technology, analyses of its benefits,
challenges and costs, and demonstration of the feasibility of the
proposed PM standard are discussed in Chapter 3.2 of the DRIA.
ii. Phase-In for Light-Duty Vehicles and MDV at or Below 22,000 lb GCWR
The proposed phase-in for the PM standard is the same as for other
criteria emissions, as described in Section III.C.1. EPA requests
comment on accelerating the phase-in for PM relative to other criteria
emissions requirements of this rule (NMOG+NOX, CO, HCHO,
NMOG+NOX previsions aligned with the CARB ACC II program,
certifying high GCWR MDV under the HD engine program for criteria
pollutants, evaporative emissions, and elimination of enrichment)
because GPFs are a mature technology that has been in mass production
since 2017 in Europe, since 2020 in China, and since 2023 in India, and
because several manufacturers assemble vehicles equipped with GPF in
the U.S. for export to other markets. An accelerated phase-in could
also be supported by increased availability of BEVs. EPA requests
comment on accelerating PM phase-in to 50% or 80% in MY 2027 and 100%
in MY 2028 for vehicles with GVWR<=14,000 pounds under the early
compliance pathway, and for vehicles with GVWR<=6000 pounds under the
default compliance pathway.
iii. Feasibility of the PM Standard and Selection of Test Cycles
The PM standards that EPA is proposing would require vehicle
manufacturers to produce vehicles that emit PM at GPF-equipped levels
(GPF-level PM). The proposed rule does not require that GPF hardware be
used on vehicles, but rather reflects EPA's judgement that it is
feasible and appropriate to achieve the proposed PM standards
considering the availability of this technology. It is expected that
GPF technology will be the most practical and cost-effective pathway
for meeting the standard, especially in -7 [deg]C FTP and US06 test
cycles.
[[Page 29265]]
To establish what level of PM standards are appropriate for this
proposal, EPA conducted a test program that considered multiple vehicle
types and powertrain technologies as well as GPF technology. Much like
many other aspects of aftertreatment technology and emissions controls,
GPFs have gone through considerable development since their initial
introduction and as a result have provided significantly improved
effectiveness with each successive iteration. EPA evaluated available
technology with respect to the emissions benefits observed over the
regulated cycles, including two generations of GPF technology.
The PM test program included five chassis dynamometer test cells at
EPA, Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC), and FEV North
America Inc., and five test vehicles (2011 F150, 2019 F150, 2021 F150
HEV, 2021 Corolla, 2022 F250) tested in stock and GPF configurations.
These test vehicles include a passenger car, three Class 2a trucks, and
one Class 2b truck. The two generations of GPFs include series
production MY 2019 and series production MY 2022 models, catalyzed and
bare substrates, and close-coupled and underfloor GPF installations.
Results from the test program are summarized in Figure 14. The study
demonstrates that Tier 3 light-duty vehicles and MDV equipped with GPFs
that are currently in series production in Europe and China (i.e., MY
2022 GPF) can easily meet the proposed standard of 0.5 mg/mi in all
three test cycles with a large compliance margin.
In Figure 14, tests without GPFs are shown in black, tests with MY
2019 GPFs are shown in gray, and tests performed with MY 2022 GPFs are
shown in stripes. The top of each bar represents the highest
measurement set mean of one vehicle in one laboratory and the bottom of
each bar represents the lowest measurement set mean. The tops of the
black bars are off scale in this figure, but their values are indicated
with numbers above the bars.
The striped bars include PM measurements from two vehicles: A 2021
F150 HEV (Class 2a vehicle) retrofit with a MY 2022 bare GPF in the
underfloor location, and a 2022 F250 7.3L (Class 2b vehicle) retrofit
with two MY 2022 bare GPFs, one for each engine bank, in the underfloor
location.
Results show that only the GPF-equipped vehicles could meet the 0.5
mg/mi proposed standard in the -7 [deg]C FTP test. The MY 2019 GPFs
failed to meet the proposed standard in the US06 because passive GPF
regeneration occurred as a result of high exhaust gas temperatures (GPF
inlet gas temperature greater than 600 [deg]C). GPF regeneration
oxidizes stored soot and reduces GPF filtration efficiency during and
immediately after the regeneration. Vehicles equipped with MY 2022 GPFs
met the 0.5 mg/mi standard in all three test cycles with a compliance
margin of 100 percent or more. The MY 2022 GPFs showed high filtration
efficiencies generally over 95 percent, even in the US06 cycle because
they did not rely on stored soot for high filtration efficiency. The
mean of test sets with MY 2022 GPF are over 95 percent lower than the
mean of non-GPF test sets in each of the three test cycles.
The data show that MY 2022 GPFs are capable of emissions
performance commensurate with EPA's goal of requiring GPF-level
emissions over the broadest range of vehicle operating and
environmental conditions. The results support the conclusion that a 0.5
mg/mi PM standard over the -7 [deg]C FTP, 25 [deg]C FTP, and US06 test
cycles is feasible and appropriate.
The -7 [deg]C FTP test cycle is crucial to the proposed PM standard
because it differentiates vehicles with GPF-level PM from vehicles with
Tier 3 levels of PM, and because -7 [deg]C is an important real-world
temperature that addresses uncontrolled cold PM emissions in Tier 3.
The US06 cycle is similarly crucial to the proposed PM standard
because it induces passive GPF regeneration across vehicle-GPF
combinations (i.e., light-duty vehicles and MDV, naturally aspirated
and turbocharged engines, close-coupled and underfloor GPF
installations, bare and catalyzed GPFs), and GPF regeneration is an
important mode of operation with respect to emissions. GPF regeneration
does not occur in the -7 [deg]C FTP, 25 [deg]C FTP, and LA-92 across
vehicle and exhaust system combinations. Including a certification test
in which passive GPF regeneration occurs is important because it
ensures low tailpipe PM during and immediately after GPF regenerations,
which occur during high load operation, including road grades, towing,
and driving at higher speeds.
Older GPF technology does not exhibit high PM filtration during and
immediately after GPF regeneration. Older GPF technology can have
filtration efficiency as low as 50 percent, as opposed to generally
more than 95 percent demonstrated by the MY 2022 GPFs shown in Figure
14. Without the US06 test cycle, manufacturers could employ old GPF
technology that has poor PM control during high load operation. Average
US06 p.m. from the MY 2019 GPFs is 15 times higher than average US06
p.m. from the MY 2022 GPFs from the data shown in Figure 14.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
[[Page 29266]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05MY23.017
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
MDVs are certified at higher test weights and road load
coefficients than light-duty vehicles, but measurements show that
series production MY 2022 GPF technology enables meeting the proposed
0.5 mg/mi standard equally well on MDV as light-duty vehicles, with
compliance margins of over 100 percent. Measurements comparing PM from
a Class 2b vehicle with a current technology GPF (MDV MY 2022 F250 with
a MY 2022 GPF), to a Class 2a vehicle with a current technology GPF
(LDV MY 2021 F150 HEV with a MY 2022 GPF) are shown in Figure 15.
Additional testing supports the same conclusion for Class 3 vehicles.
[[Page 29267]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05MY23.018
As was the case for light-duty vehicles, the -7 [deg]C FTP cycle is
crucial because it differentiates Tier 3 levels of PM from GPF-level PM
and because -7 [deg]C is an important real-world temperature that
addresses uncontrolled cold PM emissions in Tier 3. Furthermore, as was
the case for light-duty vehicles, the US06 cycle is crucial to the
proposed PM standard for MDV because the US06 induces passive GPF
regeneration across different vehicle-GPF combinations and GPF
regeneration is an important mode of operation with respect to
emissions. The LA-92, which was used instead of the US06 cycle on Class
3 vehicles in Tier 3, does not induce GPF regeneration, and for this
reason the US06 cycle is required for all light-duty vehicles and MDV
in the proposed standard.
GPF inlet gas temperatures measured on the MY 2022 F250 7.3L during
sampled US06, sampled hot LA-92, and -7 [deg]C FTP operation, are shown
in Figure 16. Fast soot oxidation begins in a GPF around 600
[deg]C.\508\ The US06 is the only cycle where GPF inlet gas temperature
of the MY 2022 F250 exceeded 600 [deg]C and it exceeded it for a
significant amount of time (265 seconds), resulting in passive GPF
regeneration. Peak inlet gas temperature was 674 [deg]C in the US06. In
contrast, GPF inlet gas temperature never exceeded 600 [deg]C in the
LA-92 and only exceeded 500 [deg]C for a limited period of time. Peak
GPF inlet gas temperature in the LA-92 (566 [deg]C) was closer to the -
7 [deg]C FTP (493 [deg]C) than the US06 (674 [deg]C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\508\ Achleitner, E., Frenzel, H., Grimm, J., Maiwald, O.,
R[ouml]sel, G., Senft, P., Zhang, H., ``System approach for a
vehicle with gasoline direct injection and particulate filter for
RDE,'' 39th International Vienna Motor Symposium, Vienna, April 26-
27, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this vehicle configuration, GPF regeneration does not occur in
LA-92, 25 [deg]C FTP, or -7 [deg]C FTP cycles to a significant degree,
which makes those cycles unable to force PM emissions control
commensurate with MY 2022 GPF technology. Additional tests performed
with the MY 2022 F250 with MY 2022 GPFs using test weight and road load
coefficients from a MY 2022 F350 Class 3 vehicle show that even with
the higher test weight and road load, the GPFs did not undergo
substantial regeneration in the LA-92 cycle. Without requiring the US06
as a certification cycle for MDV, the GPF may not undergo GPF
regeneration and high PM filtration, which new GPF technology offers,
would not be ensured during high load operation, including trailer
towing, road grades, or high speeds, for which these vehicles are
designed.
[[Page 29268]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05MY23.019
Under the proposed standards, Class 2b vehicles with power-to-
weight ratios at or below 0.024 hp/pound could no longer replace the
full US06 component of the SFTP with the second of three phases of the
US06 for their PM certification. If a test vehicle is unable to follow
the trace, it must perform maximum effort to follow the trace, and that
would not result in a voided test. This procedure mimics how vehicles
with low power-to-weight tend to be driven in the real world.
Also, Class 3 vehicles would not use the LA-92 for PM
certification, as they did in Tier 3. Instead, Class 3 vehicles would
have to meet the 0.5 mg/mi PM standard across the same three test
cycles as light-duty vehicles and other MDV: -7 [deg]C FTP, 25 [deg]C
FTP, and US06.
GPF technology is both mature and cost effective. It has been used
in series production on all new pure gasoline direct injection (GDI)
vehicle models in Europe since 2017 (WLTC and RDE test cycles) and on
all pure GDI vehicles in Europe since first registration of 2019 (WLTC
and RDE test cycles) to meet Europe's emissions standards. All gasoline
vehicles in China have had to meet similar standards in the WLTC since
2020, and in the WLTC and RDE starting in 2023. All pure GDI vehicles
in India also have to meet similar GPF-forcing standards starting in
2023. GPFs like the MY 2022 GPFs described by Figure 14 and Figure 15
are being used in series production by U.S., European, and Asian
manufacturers, and several manufacturers currently assemble vehicles
equipped with GPF in the U.S. for export to other markets.
Further details and discussion of test vehicles, GPFs, test
procedures, and results are provided in the DRIA 3.2.
iv. PM Measurement Considerations
Current test procedures, as outlined in 40 CFR part 1066, allow
robust gravimetric PM measurements well below the proposed PM standard
of 0.5 mg/mi. Repeat measurements in EPA laboratories, at different
levels of PM below 0.5 mg/mi, are shown in Figure 17. The size of the
error bars relative to the measurement averages at and below 0.5 mg/mi
demonstrates that the measurement methodology is sufficiently precise
to support a 0.5 mg/mi standard. Other than selecting test settings
appropriate for quantifying low PM, no test procedure changes are
needed. Good engineering judgment should be used with respect to
dilution factor, filter media selection, filter flow rate, using a
single filter for all phases of a test cycle, filter static charge
removal, robotic weighing, and minimizing contamination during filter
handling. EPA is not reopening the test procedures, nor does the agency
believe that test procedure changes are required, to measure PM for the
proposed PM standards. Further discussion of selecting test settings is
discussed in the DRIA.
[[Page 29269]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05MY23.020
v. Pre-Production Certification
EPA is proposing that PM emissions be certified over -7 [deg]C FTP,
25 [deg]C FTP, and US06 cycles with at least one Emissions Data Vehicle
(EDV) per test group in model years 2027, 2028, and 2029+ for light-
duty vehicles and MDV compliant with the new 0.5 mg/mi standard in the
early compliance program. In the default program, PM emissions would be
certified with at least one EDV per test group in model years 2027,
2028, and 2029+ for light-duty vehicles compliant with the new
standard, and with at least one EDV per test group in 2030+ for MDV
compliant with the new standard. See 40 CFR 86.1829-15. This level of
certification testing matches the requirement to certify gaseous
criteria emissions at the test group level and ensures that the
significantly lower PM emissions standard of 0.5 mg/mi is being met
across a wide range of ICE technologies. The requirement to certify PM
emissions at the test group level is an increase in testing
requirements relative to Tier 3, where PM emissions could be certified
at the durability group level. The increase in testing requirement is
tempered by the phase-in of the PM standard described in Table 39, and
since BEVs do not require testing.
EPA solicits comment on whether pre-production PM certification
should go back to testing at the durability group level in 2030 for
light-duty vehicles and in 2031 for MDV after PM control technologies
have been demonstrated across a range of ICE technologies. If PM
certification were to go back to testing at the durability level in
2030/2031, manufacturers would still have to attest that the 0.5 mg/mi
standard is being met by all test groups.
EPA is proposing to update the instructions to select a worst-case
test vehicle from each test group by considering -7 [deg]C FTP testing
with all the other criteria standards. This contrasts with the current
approach, in which manufacturers select worst-case test vehicles
separate from -7 [deg]C FTP testing and then select a test vehicle for
-7 [deg]C FTP testing from those test vehicles included in the same
durability group. The current approach is appropriate for measuring CO
and NMHC for -7 [deg]C FTP testing. However, the concern for PM
emissions with -7 [deg]C FTP testing are on par with concern for the
other standards already considered for selecting a worst-case test
vehicle to represent the test group. EPA requests comments on different
approaches for selecting test vehicles to most effectively apply test
resources to ensure compliance with the range of emission standards.
vi. In-Use Compliance Testing
In addition to pre-production certification, the proposed PM
standard requires in-use compliance testing as part of the in-use
vehicle program (IUVP). The proposed PM standard requires that PM from
each in-use test vehicle be tested using 25 [deg]C FTP and US06 cycles
and meet the 0.5 mg/mi PM standard. In-use vehicles are also required
to comply with the -7 [deg]C FTP standard, but manufacturers are not
required to test using this cycle to reduce testing burden. EPA may
test in-use vehicles using -7 [deg]C FTP, 25 [deg]C FTP, and US06
cycles to ensure compliance. Given the certification test demonstration
for meeting the -7 [deg]C FTP PM standard, along with expected IUVP
testing over 25 [deg]C FTP and US06 cycles and the potential for EPA
testing, we find that there is not enough justification to require the
additional test burden associated with IUVP testing for PM emissions
over the -7 [deg]C FTP cycle.
vii. OBD Monitoring
Since GPF technology is expected to be an important enabler for
meeting the proposed PM standard, OBD monitoring of the GPF system is
necessary. If a vehicle uses a GPF, the OBD system must detect GPF-
related malfunctions, store trouble codes related to detected
malfunctions, and alert operators appropriately.
It is expected that the OBD system detect system tampering and
major malfunctions using, for example, using a pressure sensor. The
same pressure
[[Page 29270]]
sensor that senses GPF soot overloading may be used to detect system
tampering and major malfunctions. It is expected that if a pressure
sensor is used for OBD functions, it should detect a GPF pressure drop
greater than zero and less than an expected maximum as a function of
engine operating point. Further OBD discussion is provided in Section
III.G.
viii. GPF Cost
A GPF cost model is described in DRIA Chapter 3.2 and GPF cost is
included in the OMEGA model. The model anticipates the direct
manufacturing cost (DMC) for a bare downstream GPF ranges from $51
dollars for a 1.0-liter engine using a relatively low GPF volume to
engine displacement ratio, up to $166 dollars for a 7.0 liter engine
using a relatively high GPF volume to engine displacement ratio.
4. Revised CO and Formaldehyde (HCHO) Standards
i. CO and HCHO Standards for Light-Duty Vehicles
EPA is proposing CO and formaldehyde (HCHO) emissions caps for
light-duty vehicles shown in Table 48. The proposed value of the CO
emissions cap for the 25 [deg]C FTP, HFET, US06, SC03 test cycles, 1.7
g/mi, is the same as the Tier 3 bin-specific standards for Bin 50 and
Bin 70, but it must be met across four cycles instead of the Tier 3
cycles of 25 [deg]C FTP and a separate standard for the SFTP.
The proposed value of the HCHO emissions cap, 4 mg/mi, is the same
as the Tier 3 bin-specific standards for Bin 20 through Bin 160. The
HCHO cap only applies to the 25 [deg]C FTP, as in Tier 3.
The proposed CO emissions cap for the -7 [deg]C FTP is 10.0 g/mi.
This differs from the current standards in that the same cap applies to
all light-duty vehicles. The current CO cap is 10.0 g/mi for LDV and
LDT1, and 12.5 g/mi for LDT2, LDT3, LDT4, and MDPV.
Table 48--Light-Duty Vehicle CO and HCHO Emissions Caps
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO cap for 25 [deg]C FTP, HFET, US06, SC03 (g/mi)....... 1.7
HCHO cap for 25 [deg]C FTP (mg/mi)...................... 4
CO cap for -7 [deg]C FTP (g/mi)......................... 10.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. CO and HCHO Standards for MDV at or Below 22,000 lb GCWR
EPA is proposing CO and formaldehyde (HCHO) emissions caps for MDV
at or below 22,000 pounds GCWR shown in Table 49. The proposed value of
the CO emissions cap for the 25 [deg]C FTP, HFET, US06, SC03 test
cycles, 3.2 g/mi, is the same as the Tier 3 bin-specific standard for
Bin 20 through Bin 160, but it must be met across four cycles instead
of the Tier 3 cycles of 25 [deg]C FTP and a separate standard for the
SFTP.
The proposed value of the HCHO emissions cap, 6 mg/mi, is the same
as the Tier 3 bin-specific standards for Bin 20 through Bin 160. The
HCHO cap only applies to the 25 [deg]C FTP, as in Tier 3.
The proposed CO emissions cap for the -7 [deg]C FTP is 10.0 g/mi.
Table 49--MDV at or Below 22,000 lb GCWR CO and HCHO Emissions Caps
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO cap for 25 [deg]C FTP, HFET, US06, SC03 (g/mi).............. 3.2
HCHO cap for 25 [deg]C FTP (mg/mi)............................. 6
CO cap for -7 [deg]C FTP (g/mi)................................ 10.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Present-day MDV gasoline engine aftertreatment technology allows
fast catalyst light-off followed by closed-loop A/F control and
excellent emissions conversion on Class 2b and 3 vehicles, even at the
ALVW [(curb + GVW)/2] test weight, which is higher than light-duty
vehicle test weight of LVW (curb + 300 pounds). Testing of a 2022 F250
7.3L in the -7 [deg]C FTP at EPA showed average CO emissions of 2.7 g/
mi CO, demonstrating that a 10.0 g/mi standard is feasible for MDV.
5. Requirements To Certify MDV With High GCWR Under the HD Engine
Program for Criteria Emissions
The Agency is proposing mandatory engine certification for
compliance with criteria pollutant emissions standards for MDVs above
22,000 pounds GCWR. The proposed standards would include both spark
ignition and compression ignition (diesel) engines, complete and
incomplete vehicles, and require compliance with all of the same engine
certification criteria pollutant requirements and standards as for 2027
and later engines installed in Class 4 and higher HD vehicles,
including NMHC, CO, NOX and PM standards, useful life,
warranty and in-use requirements that were finalized in December
2022.\509\ Complete MDVs would still require chassis dynamometer
testing for demonstrating compliance with GHG standards as described in
Section III.B.3 and would be included within the fleet average MDV GHG
emissions standards along with the other MDVs at or below 22,000 GCWR.
Manufacturers could certify incomplete MDVs to GHG standards under 40
CFR 86.1819 or 40 CFR part 1037. Note that existing regulations (40 CFR
1037.150(l)) allow a comparable dual testing methodology, which
utilizes engine dynamometer certification for demonstration of
compliance with criteria pollutant emissions standards while
maintaining chassis dynamometer certification for demonstration of
compliance with GHG emissions standards under 40 CFR 86.1819. One
manufacturer has been using this provision to certify all gasoline
vehicles over 14,000-pound GVWR and the corresponding engines since MY
2016. Proposed requirements are summarized in Table 50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\509\ See https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-engines/final-rule-and-related-materials-control-air-pollution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The purpose of this proposed change is to ensure that criteria
pollutant emissions are controlled under the sustained high load
conditions that many of these vehicles encounter, particularly during
heavy towing operation. Some Class 2b and Class 3 trucks have towing
capability exceeding that of Class 4 and Class 5 trucks. Some diesel
Class 3 emissions families have GCWR in excess of 40,000 pounds. The
agency considers trucks above 22,000 pounds GCWR to be predominantly
work vehicles that will reasonably encounter significant towing and/or
other highly loaded use during normal operation. Many of these vehicles
currently do not have exhaust aftertreatment sized for effective
emissions control under sustained high loads. Current chassis
dynamometer test cycles used for demonstrating compliance do not
include such sustained high load operation. Manufacturers have also
indicated to the agency that there is a trade-off between sustained
high load exhaust aftertreatment performance and cold-start light off
performance over the FTP cycle. It is more appropriate that trucks
above 22,000 pounds GCWR be tested as heavy-duty engines due
capabilities and predominant use that are much more closely aligned
with Class 4 and above heavy-duty applications than with light-duty
vehicles and light-duty trucks.
Based on an analysis of the MY 2022 and MY 2023 emissions
certification data, most MDV complete and incomplete diesel pickup
trucks would be required to switch to engine dynamometer certification;
MY 2022 vans would not be required to use engine dynamometer
certification; and only a small number of gasoline pickup trucks would
be required to switch to engine certification.
[[Page 29271]]
As described in Section III.C.1, under the CAA trucks over 6,000
pounds GVWR are allowed 4 years of lead time before they are required
to begin implementation of new criteria pollutant emission standards.
The agency is providing an earlier implementation pathway beginning in
2027 in order for manufacturers to better plan for program changes over
a larger time window and to encourage earlier emissions reductions.
Because of this earlier opportunity for manufacturers and the potential
for the agency to realize earlier emission reductions, we are providing
additional flexibilities.
Manufacturers who choose to optionally implement this engine
certification requirement for all their trucks above 22,000 pounds GCWR
beginning in 2027 model year will be allowed an additional GHG
compliance flexibility. If manufacturers choose to certify their
vehicles to these proposed standards in 2027 MY, they will be allowed
to continue to use the HD GHG Phase 2 based final 2026 work factor-
based target GHG standards, without a capped GCWR input for the work
factor-based target standard. This allowance would continue through
2029 MY, after which vehicle manufacturers would be required to switch
to the new work factor standards and the capped GCWR work factor
equation input proposed in Section III.B.3 in 2030. This will provide
an opportunity for manufacturers to balance the implementation of new
GHG program plans for these much higher GCWR vehicles while also
achieving important criteria pollutant emission reductions earlier in
the program. The agency seeks comments on additional flexibilities that
achieve the same or similar emission reductions.
The default compliance pathway for MDV would be compliance with
2027 and later HD engine emissions standards beginning in 2030. Under
the default compliance pathway, GHG compliance flexibilities to extend
compliance with the heavy-duty Phase 2 GHG standards beyond the 2026
model year do not apply and manufacturers would need to meet the
proposed MDV GHG standards described in Section III.B.3 beginning with
the 2027 model year.
The Agency seeks comment on several alternatives for high GCWR MDV
criteria pollutant emissions standards: (1) MDV above 22,000 pounds
GCWR would comply with the MDV chassis dynamometer standards proposed
in Section III.C with the introduction of additional engine-
dynamometer-based standards over the Supplemental Emissions Test as
finalized within the Heavy-duty 2027 and later standards; (2) MDV above
22,000 pounds GCWR would comply with the MDV chassis dynamometer
standards proposed in Section III.C with additional in-use testing and
standards comparable to those used within the California ACC II; (3)
Introduction of other test procedures for demonstration of effective
criteria pollutant emissions control under the sustained high-load
conditions encountered during operation above 22,000 pounds GCWR.
Table 50--Certification Requirements of High GCWR Vehicles
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Criteria
Vehicle GVWR (lb) GCWR (lb) pollutant GHG standards Compared to
standards tier 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Complete..................... 8500-14,000 <=22,000 Part 86........ Part 86........ Same.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Incomplete................... 8500-14,000 <=22,000 Part 86 Same.
-OR-
Part 1036 Part 1036 & 1037
------------------------------------------------------------------
Complete..................... 8500-14,000 >22,000 Part 1036...... Part 86........ New for
criteria.
Incomplete................... 8500-14,000 >22,000 Part 1036...... Part 86 or 1037 New for
criteria.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Refueling Standards for Incomplete Spark-Ignition Vehicles
The agency is proposing to require that incomplete medium duty
vehicles meet the same on-board refueling vapor recovery (ORVR)
standards as complete vehicles. Incomplete vehicles have not been
required to comply with the ORVR requirements to date because of the
potential complexity of their fuel systems, primarily the filler neck
and fuel tank. Unlike complete vehicles, which have permanent fuel
system designs that are fully integrated into the vehicle structure at
time of original construction by manufacturers, it was previously
believed that incomplete vehicles may need to change or modify some of
fuel system components during their finishing assembly. For this
reason, it was previously determined that ORVR might introduce
complexity for the upfitters that is unnecessarily burdensome.
Since then, the agency has newly assessed both current ORVR
equipped vehicles and their incomplete versions. Based on our updated
assessment, the agency believes that the fuel system designs are almost
identical with only the ORVR components removed for the incomplete
version. The complete and incomplete vehicles appear to share the same
fuel tanks, lines, and filler tubes. The original thought that
extensive differences between the original manufacturer's designs and
the upfitter modifications to the fuel system would be required have
not been observed. Therefore, the agency believes that all incomplete
vehicles can comply with the same ORVR standards as complete vehicles
with the addition of the same ORVR components on the incomplete
vehicles as the complete version of the vehicle possesses.
The current practice of manufacturers of the original incomplete
vehicles is to specify to the upfitter that modifications of the fuel
system are not allowed by the upfitter. This is because the incomplete
vehicle manufacturers are responsible for all current evaporative
requirements (2-day, 3-day, running loss, spitback, etc.) and almost
any modification could compromise compliance with those program
standards. There is also an aspect of compliance with crash and safety
requirements that prevent upfitters from making changes to the fuel
system components. For these reasons, with rare exception, the fuel
system design and installation is completed by the original vehicle
manufacturer. The exception that the agency observed is that some
incomplete vehicles do not have the filler tube permanently mounted to
a body structure until the upfitter adds the finishing body hardware
(i.e., flatbed, box). In these cases, the upfitter is limited to only
attaching the filler tube to their added structure but must maintain
the original manufacturer designs that are certified to meet
[[Page 29272]]
existing EPA evaporative emission standards.
Net emission impacts are expected to be small in the context of the
entire inventory and were not estimated for the NPRM, but the VOC and
air toxics reductions will be important in locations where these
vehicles are commonly refueled.
i. Summary of Medium Duty Vehicle Refueling Emission Standards and Test
Procedures
Compliance with evaporative and refueling emission standards is
demonstrated at the vehicle level. The vehicle manufacturers produce MD
spark-ignition (SI) complete vehicles and, in some instances, sell
incomplete vehicles to secondary manufacturers. As noted in the
following sections, we are proposing refueling emission standards for
incomplete vehicles 8501 to 14,000 pounds GVWR. These proposed
standards would apply over a useful life of 15 years or 150,000 miles,
whichever occurs first, consistent with existing evaporative emission
standards for these vehicles and for complete versions. No changes to
evaporative and refueling emission standards for complete vehicles are
being proposed by this rulemaking.
ii. Current Refueling Emission Standard and Test Procedures
Spark-ignition medium duty vehicles generally operate with volatile
liquid fuel (such as gasoline or ethanol) or gaseous fuel (such as
natural gas or LPG) that have the potential to release high levels of
evaporative and refueling HC emissions. As a result, EPA has issued
evaporative emission standards that apply to vehicles operated on these
fuels.\510\ Refueling emissions are evaporative emissions that result
when the pumped liquid fuel displaces the vapor in the vehicle tank.
Without refueling emission controls, most of those vapors are released
into the ambient air. The HC emissions emitted are a function of
temperature and the Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP).\511\ The emissions
control technology which collects and stores the vapor generated during
refueling events is the Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery (ORVR) system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\510\ 40 CFR 86.1813-17.
\511\ E.M. Liston, American Petroleum Institute, and Stanford
Research Institute. A Study of Variables that Effect the Amount of
Vapor Emitted During the Refueling of Automobiles. Available online:
http://books.google.com/books?id=KW2IGwAACAAJ, 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Light-duty vehicles and chassis-certified complete medium-duty
vehicles that are 14,000 pounds GVWR and under have been meeting
evaporative and refueling requirements for many years. ORVR
requirements for light-duty vehicles started phasing in as part of
EPA's National Low Emission Vehicle (NLEV) and Clean Fuel Vehicle (CFV)
programs in 1998.\512\ In EPA's Tier 2 vehicle program, all complete
vehicles with a GVWR of 8,501 to 14,000 pounds were required to phase-
in ORVR requirements between 2004 and 2006 model years.\513\ In the
Tier 3 rulemaking, all complete vehicles were required to meet a more-
stringent standard of 0.20 grams of HC per gallon of gasoline dispensed
by MY 2022 (see 40 CFR 86.1813-17(b)).\514\ The recent 2027 heavy duty
final rule added refueling standards for incomplete heavy-duty vehicles
over 14,000 pounds GVWR. This left incomplete medium duty SI engine
powered vehicles 8,501 to 14,000 pounds GVWR as the only SI vehicles
not required to meet refueling standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\512\ 62 FR 31192 (June 6, 1997) and 63 FR 926 (January 7,
1998).
\513\ 65 FR 6698 (February 10, 2000).
\514\ 79 FR 23414 (April 28, 2014) and 80 FR 0978 (February 19,
2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the agency does not believe manufacturers of the very limited
volumes of incomplete LD vehicles (i.e., mainly some LD pick-ups for
commercial customers who upfit application specific boxes and flatbeds)
are currently ``removing'' any ORVR related hardware already required
for the complete vehicle version like what has been observed in the MDV
applications, and this proposal focuses on the known incomplete
vehicles without ORVR in MDVs, the agency seeks comment on whether to
extend this ORVR requirement to all incomplete LDVs and MDVs to prevent
any future removal of ORVR from LDVs.
iii. Proposed ORVR HC Standard
We are proposing a refueling emission standard of 0.20 grams HC per
gallon of dispensed fuel for incomplete vehicles 8,501 to 14,000 pounds
GVWR (0.15 grams for gaseous-fueled vehicles), which is the same as the
existing refueling standards for complete vehicles.\515\ We note that
these proposed refueling emission standards would apply to all liquid-
fueled and gaseous-fueled spark-ignition medium-duty vehicles,
including gasoline and ethanol blends.\516\ We believe it is feasible
for manufacturers to achieve these standards by adopting the technology
in use on complete vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\515\ 40 CFR 86.1813-17.
\516\ Refueling requirements for incomplete medium duty vehicles
that are fueled by CNG or LNG would be the same as the current
complete gaseous-fueled Spark-ignition medium-duty vehicle
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are proposing to apply the refueling standards for new
incomplete vehicles starting with model year 2030. This meets the
statutory obligation to allow four years of lead time for new emissions
standards for criteria pollutants for heavy-duty vehicles. This
schedule also complements the alternative phase-in provisions adopted
in our final rule setting these same standards for vehicles above
14,000 pounds GVWR (88 FR 4296, January 24, 2023). Those alternative
phase-in provisions allowed for manufacturers to phase in certification
of all their incomplete medium-duty and heavy-duty vehicles to the new
standards from 2027 through 2030. This proposed rule provides a
complete set of options for manufacturers. Specifically, manufacturers
may certify incomplete heavy-duty vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR to
the refueling standards in 2027 and incomplete medium-duty vehicles to
the refueling standards in 2030. The second option is to meet the
phase-in for the combined set of vehicles for 2027 through 2030.
We request comment on our proposed standards.
iv. Impact on Secondary Manufacturers
For incomplete vehicles 8,501 to 14,000 pounds GVWR, the chassis
manufacturer performs the evaporative emissions testing and obtains the
vehicle certificate from EPA. When the chassis manufacturer sells the
incomplete vehicle to a secondary vehicle manufacturer, the chassis
manufacturer provides specific instructions to the secondary
manufacturer indicating what they must do to maintain the certified
configuration, how to properly install components, and what, if any,
modifications may be performed. For the evaporative emission system, a
chassis manufacturer may require specific tube lengths and locations of
certain hardware, and modifications to the fuel tank, fuel lines,
evaporative canister, filler tube, gas cap and any other certified
hardware would likely be limited.
We anticipate that the addition of any ORVR hardware and all ORVR-
related aspects of the certified configuration would continue to be
managed and controlled by the chassis manufacturer that holds the
vehicle certificate. The engineering associated with all aspects of the
fuel system design, which would include the ORVR system, is closely
tied to the engine design, and the chassis manufacturer is the most
qualified party to ensure its performance and
[[Page 29273]]
compliance with applicable standards. Example fuel system changes the
OEM may implement include larger canisters bracketed to the chassis
frame close to the fuel tanks. Additional valves may be necessary to
route the vapors to the canister(s) during refueling. Most other
evaporative and fuel lines would remain in the same locations to meet
existing evaporative requirements. There may be slightly different
filler neck tube designs (smaller fuel transfer tube) as well as some
additional tubes and valves to allow proper fuel nozzle turn-off (click
off) at the pump, but this is not expected to include relocating the
filler neck. Based on the comments received during the 2027 HD rule
making that established refueling requirements for incomplete vehicles
over 14,000 GVWR, we believe these changes would not adversely impact
the secondary manufacturers finishing the vehicles.\517\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\517\ See comments from the Manufacturers of Emission Controls
Association (EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-0365) and Ingevity Corporation
(EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-0271).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The instructions provided by the chassis manufacturer to the
secondary manufacturer to meet our proposed refueling standards should
include new guidelines to maintain the certified ORVR configuration. We
do not expect the new ORVR system to require significant changes to the
vehicle build process, since chassis manufacturers would have a
business incentive to ensure that the ORVR system integrates smoothly
in a wide range of commercial vehicle bodies. Accordingly, we do not
expect that addition of the ORVR hardware would result in any
appreciable change in the secondary manufacturer's obligations or
require secondary builders to perform significant modifications to
their products.
v. Feasibility Analysis for the Proposed Refueling Emission Standards
This section describes the effectiveness and projected costs of the
emissions technologies that we analyzed for our proposed refueling
standards. Feasibility of the proposed refueling standard of 0.20 grams
of HC per gallon is based on the widespread adoption of ORVR systems
used in the light-duty and complete medium-duty vehicle sectors. As
described in this section, we believe manufacturers can effectively use
the same technologies already implemented in the complete medium-duty
versions of the same vehicles to meet the proposed standard.
vi. Summary of Refueling Emission Technologies Considered
This section summarizes the specific technologies we considered as
the basis for our analysis of the proposed refueling emission
standards. The technologies presented in this section are described in
greater detail in the DRIA.
Instead of releasing HC vapors into the ambient air, ORVR systems
capture HC emissions during refueling events when liquid fuel displaces
HC vapors present in the vehicle fuel tank as the tank is filled. These
systems recover the HC vapors and store them for later purging from the
system and use as fuel to operate the engine. An ORVR system consists
of four main components that are incorporated into the existing fuel
system: Filler pipe and seal, flow control valve, carbon canister, and
purge system.
The filler pipe is the section of line from the fuel tank to where
fuel enters the fuel system from the fuel nozzle. The filler pipe is
typically sized to handle the maximum fill rate of liquid fuel allowed
by law and integrates either a mechanical or liquid seal to prevent
fuel vapors from exiting through the filler pipe to the atmosphere. The
flow control valve senses that the fuel tank is getting filled and
triggers a unique low-restriction flow path to the canister. The carbon
canister is a container of activated charcoal designed to effectively
capture and store fuel vapors. Carbon canisters are already a part of
MD SI fuel systems to control evaporative emissions. Fuel systems with
ORVR would require additional capacity, by increasing either the
canister volume or the effectiveness of the carbon material. The purge
system is an electro-mechanical valve used to redirect fuel vapors from
the fuel tank and canister to the running engine where they are burned
in the combustion chamber.\518\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\518\ This process displaces some amount of the liquid fuel that
would otherwise be used from the fuel tank and results in a small
fuel savings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fuel systems on 8,501 to 14,000 pounds GVWR incomplete heavy-
duty vehicles are similar, if not identical to those on complete
medium-duty vehicles that are currently subject to refueling standards.
These incomplete vehicles may have slightly larger fuel tanks than most
certified (complete) medium-duty vehicles and in some applications may
have dual fuel tanks. These differences may necessitate greater ORVR
system storage capacity and possibly some unique accommodations for
dual tanks (e.g., separate fuel filler locations), as commented by ORVR
suppliers in response to the similar program in the HD 2027 ANPR.\519\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\519\ See comments from the Manufacturers of Emission Controls
Association (EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-0365) and Ingevity Corporation
(EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-0271).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
vii. Projected Refueling Emission Technology Packages
The ORVR emission controls we projected in our feasibility analysis
build upon four components currently installed on complete medium-duty
vehicles 8,501 to 14,000 pounds GVWR to meet the Tier 3 evaporative
emission standards: The carbon canister, flow control valves, filler
pipe and seal, and the purge system. For our feasibility analysis, we
assumed a 35-gallon fuel tank to represent an average tank size \520\
of medium-duty gasoline fueled vehicles 8,501 to 14,000 pounds GVWR. A
summary of the projected technology updates and costs are presented in
this section. See the DRIA for additional details.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\520\ Advertised MY 2022 fuel tank sizes ranged from 31 to 43
gallons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to capture the vapor volume of fuel tanks during
refueling, we project manufacturers would increase canister vapor or
``working'' capacity of their liquid-sealed canisters by 15 to 40
percent depending on the individual vehicle systems. If a manufacturer
chooses to increase the canister volume using conventional carbon, we
project a canister meeting Tier 3 evaporative emission requirements
with approximately 2.5 liters of conventional carbon would need up to
an additional 1 liters of carbon to capture refueling emissions from a
35-gallon fuel tank. A change in canister volume to accommodate
additional carbon would result in increased costs for retooling and
additional canister plastic, as well as design considerations to fit
the larger canister on the vehicle. Alternatively, a manufacturer could
choose to use the same size fuel tank and canister currently used to
meet refueling requirements for complete medium duty vehicles to avoid
the re-tooling costs. Another approach, based on discussions with
canister and carbon manufacturers, could be for manufacturers to use a
higher adsorption carbon and modify compartmentalization within the
existing shell to increase the canister working capacity. We do not
have data to estimate the performance or cost of higher adsorption
carbon and so did not include this additional approach in our analysis.
The projected increase in canister volumes assumes manufacturers
would use a liquid seal in the filler pipe, which
[[Page 29274]]
is less effective than a mechanical seal. For a manufacturer that
replaces their liquid seal with a mechanical seal, we assumed an
approximate 20 percent reduction in the necessary canister volume.
Despite the greater effectiveness of a mechanical seal, manufacturers
in the past have not preferred this approach because it introduces
another wearable part that can deteriorate, introduces safety concerns,
and may require replacement during the useful life of the vehicle. To
meet the proposed ORVR standards, manufacturers may choose the
mechanical seal design to avoid retooling charges. We included this
potential compliance approach in our cost analysis. We assumed a cost
of $10.00 per seal for a manufacturer to convert from a liquid seal to
a mechanical seal. We also analyzed costs based on the use of liquid
seals, and we assumed zero cost in our analysis for manufacturers to
maintain their current liquid seal approach for filler pipes already
used in the complete medium-duty applications.
In order to manage the large volume of vapors during refueling,
manufacturers' ORVR updates would include flow control valves
integrated into the roll-over/vapor lines. We assumed manufacturers
would, on average, install one flow control valve per vehicle that
would cost $6.50 per valve. And lastly, we project manufacturers may
need to update their purge strategy to account for the additional fuel
vapors from refueling. Manufacturers may add hardware and optimize
calibrations to ensure adequate purge in the time allotted over the
preconditioning drive cycle of the demonstration test.
Table 51 presents the ORVR system specifications and assumptions
used in our cost analysis, including key characteristics of the
baseline incomplete vehicle's evaporative emission control system.
Currently manufacturers may size the canisters of their Tier 3
evaporative emission control systems based on the diurnal 3-day test
and the Bleed Emission Test Procedure (BETP).\521\ During the diurnal
test, the canister is loaded with hydrocarbons over two or three days,
allowing the hydrocarbons to load a conventional carbon canister (1,500
GWC, gasoline working capacity) at a 70 g/L effectiveness. In contrast,
a refueling event takes place over a few minutes, and the ORVR directs
the vapor from the gas tank onto the carbon in the canister at a
canister loading effectiveness of 50 g/L. For our analysis, we added a
design safety margin of 10 percent extra carbon to our ORVR systems.
While less overall vapor mass may be vented into the canister from the
fuel tank during a refueling event compared to the three-day diurnal
test period, a higher amount of carbon is needed to contain the faster
rate of vapor loaded at a lower efficiency during a refueling event.
These factors were used to calculate the canister volumes for the two
filler neck options in our cost analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\521\ 40 CFR 86.1813-17(a).
Table 51--ORVR Specifications and Assumptions Used in the Cost Analysis for HD SI Incomplete Vehicles Above
14,000 lbs GVWR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORVR filler neck options
Tier 3 baseline ----------------------------------------------
Mechanical seal Liquid seal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diurnal.................... ORVR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diurnal Heat Build.................. 72-96 [deg]F............... 80 [deg]F
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
RVP................................. 9 psi
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nominal Tank Volume................. 35 gallons
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fill Volume......................... 40%........................ 10% to 100%
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Ingestion Rate.................. ........................... 0%........................... 13.50%
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mass Vented per heat build, g/d..... 60......................... ............................. ..............
Mass Vented per refueling event..... ........................... 128.......................... 158
Hot Soak Vapor Load................. 2.5........................ ............................. ..............
Mass vented over 48-hour test....... 114........................ ............................. ..............
Mass vented over 72-hour test....... 162........................ ............................. ..............
1,500 GWC, g/L \a\.................. 70......................... 50........................... 50
Excess Capacity..................... 10%........................ 10%.......................... 10%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated Canister Volume
Requirement, liters \b\
48-hour Evaporative only........ 1.8........................ ............................. ..............
72-hour Evaporative only........ 2.5........................ ............................. ..............
Total of 72-hour + ORVR \c\..... ........................... 2.8.......................... 3.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Efficiency of conventional carbon.
\b\ Canister Volume = 1.1 (mass vented)/1,500 GWC (Efficiency).
\c\ ORVR adds .3 liters and 1 liter for Mechanical Seal and Liquid Seal, respectively.
The ORVR components described in this section represent
technologies that we think most manufacturers would choose to adopt to
meet our proposed refueling requirements. It is possible that
manufacturers may choose a different approach, or that unique fuel
system characteristics may require additional hardware modifications
not described here, but we do not have reason to believe costs would be
significantly higher than presented in the following section. We
request comment, including data, on our assumptions related to the
increased canister working capacity demands, the appropriateness of our
average fuel tank size, the technology costs for the
[[Page 29275]]
specific ORVR components considered and any additional information that
can improve our cost projections in the final rule analysis.
viii. Summary of Costs To Meet Proposed Refueling Emission Standards
Table 52 shows cost estimations for the different approaches
evaluated. In calculating the overall cost of our proposed program, we
used $19, the average of both approaches, to represent the cost for
manufacturers to adopt the additional canister capacity and hardware to
meet our proposed refueling emission standards for incomplete medium
duty vehicles. See Section V of this preamble for a summary of our
overall program cost and Chapter 3 of the DRIA for more details.
Table 52--Estimated Direct Manufacturing Costs for ORVR Over Tier 3 as
Baseline
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Liquid seal Mechanical seal
-------------------------------------
New canister New canister
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional Canister Costs......... $10 $4
Additional Tooling \a\............ 0.50 0.50
Flow Control Valves............... 6.50 6.50
Seal.............................. 0 10
-------------------------------------
Total \b\..................... 17 21
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Assumes the retooling costs will be spread over a five-year period.
\b\ Possible additional hardware for spitback requirements.
Incomplete vehicles may include dual fuel tanks, which may require
some unique accommodations to adopt ORVR systems. A dual fuel tank
chassis configuration would need separate canisters and separate filler
pipes and seals for each fuel tank. Depending on the design, a dual
fuel tank chassis configuration may require a separate purge valve for
each fuel tank. We assume manufacturers would install one additional
purge valve for dual fuel tank applications that also incorporate
independent canisters for the second fuel tank/canister configuration
and manufacturers adopting a mechanical seal in their filler pipe would
install an anti-spitback valve for each filler pipe. See the DRIA for a
summary of the design considerations for these fuel tank
configurations. We did not include an estimate of the population or
impact of dual fuel tank vehicles in our cost analysis of our proposed
refueling emission standards because we believe that is a very rare
option found on only one manufacturer's MY 2022 incomplete pickup
model.
ix. Summary of Additional Program Considerations
We are requesting comment regarding the cost, feasibility, and
appropriateness of our proposed refueling emission standard for
incomplete light-duty trucks. While we do not believe that any
significant volume of incomplete LD vehicles is produced, we request
comment on extending this proposal to all incomplete vehicles. The
proposed standard is based on the current refueling standard that
applies to complete light-duty and medium-duty gasoline-fueled
vehicles. We are proposing that compliance with these standards may be
demonstrated under an existing regulatory provision allowing them to
group incomplete vehicles with completes if they share identical
evaporative emission hardware and meet other engineering and
temperature profile requirements impacting evaporative emissions and
durability.
EPA has identified a potential issue with Non-Integrated Refueling
Canister Only Systems (NIRCOS) designed fuel vapor handling designs.
During refueling events, because the sealed system may be under
pressure and the pressure must be released before the fuel cap is
removed, these NIRCOS systems initially release any tank vapors into
the canister prior to the cap removal and the refueling event. These
initial pressurized fuel vapors are not allowed to be simply vented
through the gas cap and are therefore appropriately released into and
absorbed by the carbon canister. However, the identified issue relates
to the ORVR test procedure which does not account for this extra fuel
vapor loading prior to the refueling event. The testing procedure for
ORVR certification starts with a fully purged canister with no vapor
loading from the release of the pressurized vapors prior to the cap
removal that would likely occur in actual operation in the real world.
To address this limited issue, instead of a challenging change to
the established ORVR test procedure, the agency is seeking comment for
the need for an engineering requirement related to the canister working
capacity that would provide an increase in the capacity in order to
properly capture this initial pressurized vapor load and still have the
needed capacity to handle the vapors generated during the refueling
event. The agency requests comment on the need to address this limited
issue.
EPA requests comment on the proposed evaporative emissions
standards.
7. NMOG+NOX Provisions Aligned With CARB ACC II Program
EPA proposes the adoption of three NMOG+NOX provisions
for light-duty vehicles (LDV, LDT, MDPV) aligned with the CARB ACC II
program. Each provision addresses frequently encountered vehicle
operating conditions that are not currently captured in EPA test
procedures and produce significant criteria pollutant emissions. The
operating conditions include high power cold starts in plug-in hybrid
vehicles, early drive-away (i.e., drive-away times shorter than in the
FTP), and mid-temperature engine starts. EPA believes that the
rationale and technical assessment performed by CARB applies not only
for vehicles sold in California but for products sold across the
country. EPA would require vehicle manufacturers to attest to meeting
the three specific CARB ACC II program standards using CARB-defined
test procedures.\522\ The proposed phase-in for the three CARB ACC II
program provisions is the same as for other criteria emissions
standards and is described in Section III.C.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\522\ CARB Title 16, Section 1961.4. Final Regulation Order.
Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures--2026 and Subsequent
Model Year Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks, and Medium-Duty
Vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 29276]]
i. PHEV High Power Cold Starts
The first provision addresses NMOG+NOX emissions from
PHEV high power cold starts (HPCS), which is when a driver demands more
torque than the battery and electric motor can supply, and the ICE is
started and immediately produces high torque while also working to
light off the catalyst. NMOG+NOX exhaust emissions for this
provision are measured over the Cold Start US06 Charge-Depleting
Emission Test, as described in, ``California Test Procedures for 2026
and Subsequent Model Year Zero-Emission Vehicles and Plug-in Hybrid
Electric Vehicles, in the Passenger Car, Light-Duty Truck and Medium-
Duty Vehicle Classes.'' \523\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\523\ CARB Title 16, Section 1961.4. Final Regulation Order.
Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures--2026 and Subsequent
Model Year Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks, and Medium-Duty
Vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's proposed bin-specific standards are shown in Table 53. The
bins are slightly different than the ACC II bins. Specifically, EPA is
not proposing Bin 125, Bin 25 or Bin 15, as found in CARB ACC II, and
is instead proposing Bin 10. EPA is proposing Step 1 of this provision
to start with MY 2027, one year later than CARB, and for Step 2 of the
provision to start in MY 2029, which is the same as CARB.
Table 53--High Power Cold Start Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cold start US06 PHEV standards (150,000-mile durability vehicle basis)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NMOG+NOX (g/mi)
Vehicle emission category -----------------------------------------------
Step 1: 2027 to 2028 MY Step 2: 2029+ MY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bin 70.......................................................... 0.320 0.200
Bin 60.......................................................... 0.280 0.175
Bin 50.......................................................... 0.240 0.150
Bin 40.......................................................... 0.200 0.125
Bin 30.......................................................... 0.150 0.100
Bin 20.......................................................... 0.100 0.067
Bin 10.......................................................... 0.050 0.034
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Step 1, PHEVs with Cold Start US06 all-electric range of at
least 10 miles are exempt from the standard. For Step 2, PHEVs with
Cold Start US06 all-electric range of at least 40 miles are exempt from
the standard. CARB testing identified several existing PHEVs that
started on the US06 and met the standard by a small margin.
EPA requests comment on Step 2 of the PHEV HPCS standard,
specifically whether the Step 2 standard should (1) be finalized as
proposed, (2) have a start date later than MY 2029, (3) have an
alternative stringency, either for all light-duty vehicles or just for
LDT3 and LDT4, or (4) should be removed, leaving Step 1 to apply
indefinitely. EPA encourages commenters to provide underlying data to
support their comments, particularly addressing any technical
challenges regarding the lead time or feasibility of the Step 2
standard. EPA will consider the comments along with any additional
available data in assessing the Step 2 standards for the final rule.
ii. Early Driveaway
EPA is proposing NMOG+NOX emissions standards that
address emissions from earlier gear engagement and drive-away described
by the CARB ACC II program.\524\ In a regular 25 [deg]C FTP, gear
engagement happens at 15 seconds and driveaway happens at 20 seconds,
but studies have shown many drivers begin driving earlier than this.
Vehicle manufacturers have historically designed their aftertreatment
systems and controls to meet emissions standards based on the timing of
the FTP drive away. However, given the existing field data regarding
the propensity of drivers to drive off sooner than the delay
represented in the FTP and that vehicle manufacturers have demonstrated
that they are able to address and reduce the emissions associated with
this event, EPA feels it is appropriate to require vehicle
manufacturers to meet this ACC II requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\524\ CARB Title 16, Section 1961.4. Final Regulation Order.
Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures--2026 and Subsequent
Model Year Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks, and Medium-Duty
Vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA believes that CARB has properly captured early driveaway
vehicle operation in the test procedures developed for ACC II. The bin-
specific standards are shown in Table 54, which are congruent with
those of the ACC II program. The bins are slightly different than the
ACC II bins. Specifically, EPA is not proposing Bin 125, Bin 25 or Bin
15, as found in ACC II, and is instead proposing Bin 10.
Table 54--Early Driveaway Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NMOG+NOX (g/
Vehicle emissions category mi)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bin 70.................................................... 0.082
Bin 60.................................................... 0.072
Bin 50.................................................... 0.062
Bin 40.................................................... 0.052
Bin 30.................................................... 0.042
Bin 20.................................................... 0.032
Bin 10.................................................... 0.022
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vehicles are exempt from the ACC II early driveaway bin standards
if the vehicle prevents engine starting during the first 20 seconds of
a cold-start FTP test interval and the vehicle does not use technology
(e.g., electrically heated catalyst) that would cause the engine or
emission controls to be preconditioned such that NMOG+NOX
emissions would be higher during the first 505 seconds of the early
driveaway emission test compared to the NMOG+NOX emissions
during the first 505 seconds of the standard FTP emission test.
iii. Intermediate Soak Mid-Temperature Starts
EPA also proposes to adopt a third provision defined by the CARB
ACC II program that addresses NMOG+NOX emissions from
intermediate soak mid-temperature starts.\525\ Current EPA test
[[Page 29277]]
procedures capture emissions from vehicle cold start and vehicle hot
start. However, many vehicles in actual operation experience starts
after an intermediate time (i.e., soak times between 10 minutes and 12
hours). Vehicle manufacturers are not currently required to control the
emissions associated with these mid-temperature starts to the same
degree that they manage cold and hot starts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\525\ CARB Title 16, Section 1961.4. Final Regulation Order.
Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures--2026 and Subsequent
Model Year Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks, and Medium-Duty
Vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 3 vehicles achieve low start emissions when soak times are
short because the engine and aftertreatment are still hot from prior
operation. Start emissions after long soak periods are addressed by the
12+ hour soak of the 25 [deg]C FTP, which requires vehicle calibrations
to quickly heat the catalyst and sensors from an engine at ambient
temperature. The mid-temperature intermediate soak provision addresses
emissions from intermediate soak times where the engine and
aftertreatment have cooled but may still be warmer than ambient
temperature.
Vehicle manufacturers have demonstrated that they are able to
address and reduce the emissions associated with this type of event,
and EPA feels it is appropriate to require vehicle manufacturers to
meet this requirement. EPA believes that CARB has properly captured the
vehicle operation in the test procedures they developed for ACC II.
The bin-specific proposed standards shown in Table 55, are
congruent with those of the ACC II program. The bins are slightly
different than the ACC II bins. Specifically, EPA is not proposing Bin
125, Bin 25, or Bin 15, as found in ACC II, and is instead proposing
Bin 10.
Manufacturers would need to submit data at each of the three
standards: 9-11 minutes for the 10-minute requirement, 39-41 minutes
for the 40-minute requirement, and 5-7 hours for the 3-12 hour
requirement, and attest to meeting the standards at other soak times by
linearly interpolating between 10 minutes and 40 minutes, and between
40 minutes and 12 hours. The proposed intermediate soak mid-temperature
standards are shown in Table 55.
Table 55--Intermediate Soak Mid-Temperature Start Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10-Minute soak 40-Minute soak 3-12 hour soak
Vehicle emissions category NMOG+NOX (g/mi) NMOG+NOX (g/mi) NMOG+NOX (g/mi)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bin 70.................................................... 0.035 0.054 0.070
Bin 60.................................................... 0.030 0.046 0.060
Bin 50.................................................... 0.025 0.038 0.050
Bin 40.................................................... 0.020 0.031 0.040
Bin 30.................................................... 0.015 0.023 0.030
Bin 20.................................................... 0.010 0.015 0.020
Bin 10.................................................... 0.005 0.008 0.010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA recognized that requiring compliance to an emissions standard
represented by a curve requires more testing effort than requiring
compliance to a point standard and thus requests comment on whether to
simplify the compliance requirements of this provision, in light of
benefits and costs.
8. Elimination of Commanded Enrichment for Power or Component
Protection
EPA is proposing to eliminate the allowance of the use of commanded
enrichment as an AECD on SI engines used in light-duty vehicles and MDV
for either power or component protection during normal operation and
use. Normal operation is defined at 40 CFR 86.1803-01 to include
vehicle speeds and grades of public roads, and vehicle loading and
towing within manufacturer recommendations, even if the operation
occurs infrequently. Commanded enrichment includes lean best torque
enrichment.
Brief rich excursions are allowed during (1) engine start, (2)
lambda dithering \526\ or slight lambda biasing to achieve optimal
three-way catalyst (TWC) conversion efficiency of criteria emissions,
(3) catalyst re-wetting after deceleration fuel cut off (DFCO), (4)
brief lambda excursions during engine transients, (5) intrusive OBD
monitoring of aftertreatment, evaporative canister purge valve, etc.,
and (6) in vehicle ``limp-home'' operation where the malfunction
indicator light (MIL, commonly known as the ``check engine light'') or
other warning systems are triggered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\526\ Lambda dithering is an engine-TWC control strategy that
commands or allows small fluctuations in exhaust lambda that can
expand the lambda range over which a TWC exhibits good conversion of
hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide and oxides of nitrogen. Lambda is
actual air fuel ratio divided by stoichiometric air fuel ratio.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most current vehicles incorporate AECDs that utilize enrichment
(i.e., commanding air/fuel ratio less than the stoichiometric air/fuel
ratio) for the purpose of protecting components in the exhaust system
from thermal damage during normal operation and use. Some vehicles
incorporate similar strategies for the purpose of increasing the power
output of the engine. Such strategies significantly reduce the
effectiveness of the aftertreatment system.
Technologies exist that can prevent thermal damage of engine and/or
exhaust system components without the use of enrichment during normal
operation and use (see DRIA Chapter 3 for technology discussion).
Modern vehicles have sufficient power without the use of enrichment.
The use of enrichment only has the potential to incrementally increase
power but significantly reduces the effectiveness of the catalytic
aftertreatment system, resulting in a ten-fold or greater increase of
CO and HC emissions.
EPA requests comment on the proposed prohibition of commanded
enrichment as an AECD, including analyses of benefits and costs, and
additional exceptions where brief rich operation should be allowed.
9. Averaging, Banking, and Trading Provisions
Section III.B.4 describes averaging, banking, and trading (ABT)
credit provisions included in the proposed GHG program and the basis
for providing them. ABT provisions are also included in the proposed
criteria pollutant program for NMOG+NOX standards. ABT has a
long history for both light duty and heavy duty vehicles and EPA is not
reopening or soliciting comment on the basic structure of the ABT
program for criteria pollutants or GHG.
[[Page 29278]]
As introduced in Sections III.C.1 and III.C.2, EPA is proposing to
allow light-duty vehicle (LDV, LDT, MDPV) 25 [deg]C FTP
NMOG+NOX credits to be transferred into the proposed program
up to the end of the Tier 3 five-year credit life. Light-duty vehicle -
7 [deg]C FTP NMHC credits may also be transferred into the proposed
program on a 1:1 basis for -7 [deg]C FTP NMOG+NOX credits up
to the end of the five-year credit life. EPA is proposing to consider -
7 [deg]C FTP NMHC credits to be equal in value and freely exchangeable
with the credits corresponding to the proposed -7 [deg]C FTP
NMOG+NOX standards.
EPA proposes that MDV (Class 2b and 3 vehicles) 25 [deg]C FTP
NMOG+NOX credits may only be transferred into the proposed
program if a manufacturer selects the early compliance schedule for
MDV. If so, these MDV credits may be transferred into the program up to
the end of the Tier 3 five-year credit life. There were no -7 [deg]C
FTP NMHC or NMOG+NOX standards for MDV in Tier 3 so there
are no MDV -7 [deg]C FTP credits to transfer.
New credits may be generated, banked, and traded within the new
program to provide manufacturers with flexibilities in developing
compliance strategies.
D. Proposed Modifications to the Medium-Duty Passenger Vehicle
Definition
In EPA's 2000 Tier 2 criteria pollutant rule, EPA established a new
medium-duty passenger vehicle (MDPV) regulatory classification \527\ to
bring passenger vehicles over 8,500 pounds GVWR into the Tier 2
program.\528\ EPA created the MDPV classification under the Tier 2
program because the agency determined that a portion of the MDV fleet
was predominantly being utilized as passenger vehicles instead of being
used for ``work,'' for example, to transport goods or pull trailers.
These larger vehicles were driven in the same way as passenger
vehicles, despite the fact their weight threshold put them in the HD
category, and from an emissions control standpoint we found it was
feasible for these vehicles to meet the same set of emissions standards
as other passenger vehicles. The MDPV definition was focused primarily
on the largest SUVs and passenger vans above 8,500 pounds GVWR. These
vehicles would have otherwise remained subject to less stringent heavy-
duty vehicle standards. When EPA established its GHG standards in 2010,
EPA included MDPVs in the light-duty vehicle GHG program as well.
Essentially, MDPVs are heavy-duty vehicles that are included in light-
duty vehicle programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\527\ 65 FR 6697 (February 10, 2000) at 6749.
\528\ EPA defined medium-duty passenger vehicles as any complete
heavy-duty vehicle less than 10,000 pounds GVWR designed primarily
for the transportation of persons including conversion vans (i.e.,
vans which are intended to be converted to vans primarily intended
for the transportation of persons). The definition does not include
any vehicle that (1) has a capacity of more than 12 persons total
or, (2) that is designed to accommodate more than 9 persons in
seating rearward of the driver's seat or, (3) has a cargo box (e.g.,
a pickup box or bed) of six feet or more in interior length.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As we did in the Tier 2 rule, we are once again cognizant of
potential market changes that could move passenger vehicles out of the
LD regulatory class, and we have examined changes to the MDPV
definition to avoid this situation. For example, the new GM Hummer
pickup and SUVs are over 10,000 pounds GVWR due to battery weight but
do not have significant work capabilities (e.g., towing and hauling),
as measured by the work factor, relative to other vehicles in the MDV
category. EPA is proposing two modifications to the MDPV definition
starting in MY 2027 to address passenger vehicles that could
potentially fall outside the current definition. First, EPA is
proposing to include in the MDPV definition any passenger vehicles at
or below 14,000 pounds GVWR with a work factor at or below 5,000 pounds
except for pickups with an open bed interior length of eight feet or
larger which would continue to be excluded from the MDPV category.\529\
This modification would address new BEVs that are primarily passenger
vehicles but fall above the current 10,000 pound MDPV threshold
primarily due to battery pack weight increasing the vehicle's GVWR. EPA
believes these vehicles should be in the light-duty vehicle program
because they are passenger vehicles and would likely displace the
purchase of other passenger vehicles rather than a heavy-duty vehicle
due to their relatively low utility. In selecting the proposed 5,000-
pound work factor cut point, EPA reviewed current vehicle offerings and
does not believe this threshold would pull into the MDPV category a
significant number of work vans or trucks. EPA requests comment on this
approach for addressing heavy passenger vehicles as well as other
approaches that might more effectively capture these types of new
vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\529\ In the proposed regulatory text, EPA is proposing that
pickups with an interior bed length of 94 inches or greater would be
excluded, which would exclude pickups with eight-foot beds (96
inches) with a 2-inch allowance for vehicle design variability. This
also applies for the second change to the MDPV definition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently, the MDPV category generally includes pickups below
10,000 pounds GVWR with an open cargo bed length of less than six feet
(72.0 inches). The second proposed MDPV definition modification is to
include in the MDPV category any pickups with a GVWR below 9,900 pounds
and an interior bed length less than eight feet regardless of whether
the vehicle work factor is above 5,000 pounds. Pickups at or above
9,900 pounds up to 14,000 pounds GVWR with a work factor above 5,000
pounds would be included as MDPVs only if their interior bed length is
less than six feet.
Currently, there is a clear distinction between pickups in the
light-duty vehicle category and those in the medium-duty category.
Light-duty pickups are those pickups with a GVWR at or below 8,500
pounds and they currently generally have a GVWR below 8,000 pounds. MD
pickups are those pickups that are at or above 8,501 pounds and all
such vehicles currently have a GVWR above 9,900 pounds.\530\ The
proposed changes to the MDPV definition are intended to account for any
new pickup offerings that would fall into the GVWR ``space'' at or
above 8,501 pounds but below 9,900 pounds. EPA is not aware of any
current or planned products that would be covered by this proposed
modification. However, EPA is concerned that differences between the
light-duty and medium-duty pickups could become blurred if
manufacturers were to offer somewhat more capable pickups with GVWR
just above 8,500 pounds. Manufacturers could in essence move their
light-duty pickups up into the medium-duty category through relatively
minor vehicle modifications. EPA believes it is appropriate to address
this possibility given that the light-duty vehicle footprint standards,
as proposed, would be more stringent compared to the proposed work
factor-based standards for MDVs and could provide an unintended
incentive for manufacturers to take such an approach. EPA requests
comment on this proposed change in the MDPV category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\530\ Currently, these pickups are covered by HDV standards in
40 CFR 86.1816-18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 56 summarizes the MDPV proposal in terms of what vehicles
would not be covered as MDPVs under EPA's proposed changes to the
qualifying criteria.
[[Page 29279]]
Table 56--Summary of Exclusions for the Proposed Revised MDPV Definition
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A vehicle would not be an MDPV if:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Work factor (WF)
-----------------------------------------
WF <5,000 lbs. WF >5,000 lbs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GVWR <9,900 lbs............... bed length >94.0 bed length >94.0
inches. inches.
9,900 lb <=GVWR <=14,000 lbs.. bed length >94.0 bed length >72.0
inches. inches.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, EPA is also clarifying that MDPVs will include only
vehicles with seating behind the driver's seat such that vehicles like
cargo vans and regular cab pickups with no rear seating would remain in
the MDV category and subject to work factor-based standards regardless
of the proposed changes to the MDPV definition. Also, pickups with 8-
foot beds would continue to be excluded from the MDPV category under
all circumstances. Prior to MY 2027, EPA proposes that a manufacturer
may optionally place vehicles that are brought into the MDPV category
by the proposed MDPV definition revisions into the light-duty vehicles
program rather than the MDV program. Due to lead time concerns, EPA is
proposing that the changes would be mandatory starting in MY 2027. In
addition, for the proposed Tier 4 criteria pollutant standards
discussed in Section III.C, manufacturers opting for the Tier 4 full
lead time optional standards would not be required to include vehicles
meeting the revised MDPV definition in their Tier 4 fleet calculations
until their fleet is fully covered by the Tier 4 standards to ensure
the program would be compliant with applicable CAA lead time
requirements. In the meantime, manufacturers would continue to certify
those vehicles to the Tier 3 standards for heavy-duty vehicles in 40
CFR 86.1816-18. EPA requests comment on its proposed revisions to the
MDPV category including timing of implementation.
Historically, consumers without the need for the additional utility
offered by medium-duty pickups have sound reasons for buying the light-
duty versions. Medium-duty versions compared to their light-duty
counterparts tend to be higher priced, less fuel efficient, less
maneuverable, and may also have a harsher ride when unloaded due to
heavier suspensions. However, EPA recognizes that there is the
possibility that the pickup market could shift from light-duty versions
to medium-duty versions of pickups due to consumer preference changes,
but also due to manufacturer changes to vehicle designs and pricing and
marketing strategies. At this time, EPA is not proposing to
fundamentally change its program to pull a large portion of medium-duty
pickups into the light-duty program to address this possibility due to
the potential disruption such an approach would have both for the
vehicle industry and for consumers needing highly capable work
vehicles. EPA plans to monitor vehicle market trends over the next
several years to identify any new trends that could potentially lead to
the loss of emissions reductions, and if so, to explore appropriate
ways to address such a situation. EPA is requesting comment on the
potential likelihood of this type of market shift from the light- to
the medium-duty sector, and potential ways to address the issue if
needed in a future rulemaking.
EPA performed a study to assess the GHG increases of a medium duty
pickup compared to a similar sized light-duty pickup when they are
operated similarly as primarily unloaded vehicles transporting just the
operator and also if they are lightly loaded with \1/2\ the payload
capacity. This comparison reflects the issue that medium-duty pickups
have certain heavier duty design aspects (frames, axles, brakes,
transmissions, etc.) intended for trailer towing work that negatively
impact GHG emissions when they are only operated with lighter loads
similar to the expected operation from a light-duty pickup.
Figure 18 summarizes the chassis test data for the F150 and the
F250, each tested in its original configuration and alternative
configuration (as a 2b for the F150, and as a 2a for the F250). The
F250 with the 7.3L engine, tested at curb+300 pounds. ETW, emitted 172
g/mi more than the F150. Similarly, the F250 emitted 170 g/mi more than
the F150 with both tested at ALVW.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05MY23.021
The GHG emission difference observed in the data indicates that
light to medium load operation results in much higher CO2
emissions in the medium-duty pickup under similar passenger or payload
conditions. The medium-duty pickup is designed primarily for regular
towing and therefore may have higher emissions under other operating
conditions compared to light-duty pickups designed more for
transportation of passengers or cargo in the bed.
E. What alternatives did EPA consider?
EPA is seeking comment on three alternatives to its proposed light-
duty
[[Page 29280]]
GHG standards. Alternative 1 is more stringent than the proposal across
the MY 2027-2032 time period, and Alternative 2 is less stringent. The
proposal as well as Alternatives 1 and 2 all have a similar
proportional ramp rates of year over year stringency, which includes a
higher rate of stringency increase in the earlier years (MYs 2027-2029)
than in the later years. Alternative 3 achieves the same stringency as
the proposed standards in MY 2032 but provides for a more consistent
rate of stringency increase for MY 2027-2031.
In selecting the stringencies for the alternatives, EPA assessed a
range available technologies (including the costs and pace of
deployment) along with the resulting emissions reductions associated
with each alternative. Each of the stringency alternatives are
supported by a set of feasible technologies. The Alternative 1
projected fleet-wide CO2 targets are 10 g/mi lower on
average than the proposed targets; Alternative 2 projected fleet-wide
CO2 targets averaged 10 g/mi higher than the proposed
targets.\531\ While the 20 g/mi range of stringency options may appear
fairly narrow, for the MY 2032 standards the alternatives capture a
range of 12 percent higher and lower than the proposed standards in the
final year. Our goal in selecting the alternatives was to identify a
range of stringencies that we believe are appropriate to consider for
the final standards because they represent a range of standards that
are anticipated to be feasible and are highly protective of human
health and the environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\531\ For reference, the targets at a footprint of 50 square
feet were exactly 10 g/mi lower and greater for the alternatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the proposed standards, Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 are
all characterized by larger increases in stringency between in the
earlier years than in the later years, Alternative 3 was constructed
with the goal of evaluating roughly equal reductions in absolute g/mi
targets over the duration of the program while achieving the same
overall targets as the proposed standards by MY 2032. This has the
effect of less stringent year-over-year increases in the early years of
the program.
As noted elsewhere in this preamble, EPA may choose to update its
modeling for the final rulemaking, e.g., by updating inputs for costs
to reflect newly available information or to incorporate PHEV
technology as outlined in the DRIA while considering information and
views provided by stakeholders in public comments. Thus, we recognize
that our cost estimates and assessments of feasibility may change, and
EPA is soliciting comment on all of the model year standards of
Alternatives 1, 2, and 3, and standards generally represented by the
range across those alternatives. EPA anticipates that the appropriate
choice of final standards within this range will reflect the
Administrator's judgments about the uncertainties in EPA's analyses as
well as consideration of public comment and updated information where
available. However, EPA proposes to find that standards substantially
more stringent than Alternative 1 would not be appropriate because of
uncertainties concerning the cost and feasibility of such standards.
EPA proposes to find that standards substantially less stringent than
Alternative 2 would not be appropriate because they would forgo
feasible emissions reductions that would improve the protection of
public health and welfare.
Table 57 and Table 58 give the details for the car and truck curves
for Alternative 1, and Table 59 and Table 60 give details for
Alternative 2. Table 61 and Table 62 provide details for Alternative 3
for cars and trucks.
Table 57--Footprint-Based Standard Curve Coefficients for Cars--Alternative 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027 2028 2028 2030 2031 2032
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MIN CO2 (g/mi).................... 121.3 104.4 87.2 79.7 71.5 62.0
MAX CO2 (g/mi).................... 129.6 111.0 92.3 83.9 75.3 65.3
Slope (g/mi/ft2).................. 0.59 0.51 0.42 0.38 0.34 0.30
Intercept (g/mi).................. 96.4 82.6 68.6 62.4 56.0 48.6
MIN footprint (ft2)............... 42 43 44 45 45 45
MAX footprint (ft2)............... 56 56 56 56 56 56
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 58--Footprint-Based Standard Curve Coefficients for Trucks--Alternative 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027 2028 2028 2030 2031 2032
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MIN CO2 (g/mi).................... 124.3 108.6 92.0 85.3 76.5 66.5
MAX CO2 (g/mi).................... 198.4 168.1 138.0 124.0 111.2 96.7
Slope (g/mi/ft2).................. 2.39 2.05 1.70 1.55 1.39 1.21
Intercept (g/mi).................. 23.9 20.5 17.0 15.5 13.9 12.1
MIN footprint (ft2)............... 42 43 44 45 45 45
MAX footprint (ft2)............... 73 72 71 70 70 70
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 59--Footprint-Based Standard Curve Coefficients for Cars--Alternative 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027 2028 2028 2030 2031 2032
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MIN CO2 (g/mi).................... 140.5 123.8 106.6 99.2 91.0 81.5
MAX CO2 (g/mi).................... 150.1 131.6 112.8 104.5 95.8 85.9
Slope (g/mi/ft2).................. 0.69 0.60 0.52 0.48 0.44 0.39
Intercept (g/mi).................. 111.6 97.9 83.9 77.7 71.3 63.9
MIN footprint (ft2)............... 42 43 44 45 45 45
MAX footprint (ft2)............... 56 56 56 56 56 56
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 29281]]
Table 60--Footprint-Based Standard Curve Coefficients for Trucks--Alternative 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027 2028 2028 2030 2031 2032
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MIN CO2 (g/mi).................... 141.7 126.3 110.0 103.6 94.8 84.8
MAX CO2 (g/mi).................... 226.1 195.4 165.0 150.7 137.9 123.4
Slope (g/mi/ft2).................. 2.72 2.38 2.04 1.88 1.72 1.54
Intercept (g/mi).................. 27.2 23.8 20.4 18.8 17.2 15.4
MIN footprint (ft2)............... 42 43 44 45 45 45
MAX footprint (ft2)............... 73 72 71 70 70 70
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 61--Footprint-Based Standard Curve Coefficients for Cars--Alternative 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027 2028 2028 2030 2031 2032
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MIN CO2 (g/mi).................... 135.9 123.8 110.6 98.2 85.3 71.8
MAX CO2 (g/mi).................... 145.2 131.6 117.0 103.4 89.8 75.6
Slope (g/mi/ft2).................. 0.66 0.60 0.54 0.47 0.41 0.35
Intercept (g/mi).................. 108.0 97.9 87.0 76.9 66.8 56.2
MIN footprint (ft2)............... 42 43 44 45 45 45
MAX footprint (ft2)............... 56 56 56 56 56 56
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 62--Footprint-Based Standard Curve Coefficients for Trucks--Alternative 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027 2028 2028 2030 2031 2032
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MIN CO2 (g/mi).................... 150.3 136.8 122.7 108.8 91.8 75.7
MAX CO2 (g/mi).................... 239.9 211.7 184.0 158.3 133.5 110.1
Slope (g/mi/ft2).................. 2.89 2.58 2.27 1.98 1.67 1.38
Intercept (g/mi).................. 28.9 25.8 22.7 19.8 16.7 13.8
MIN footprint (ft2)............... 42 43 44 45 45 45
MAX footprint (ft2)............... 73 72 71 70 70 70
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed standards will result in industry-wide average GHG
emissions target of 82 g/mi of CO2 in MY 2032, representing
a 56 percent reduction in average emissions levels from the existing MY
2026 standards established in 2021. Alternative 1 is projected to
result in an industry-wide average target for the light-duty fleet of
72 g/mi in MY 2032, representing a 61 percent reduction in projected
fleet average GHG emissions target levels from the existing MY 2026
standards. Alternative 2 is projected to result in an industry-wide
average target of 92 g/mile of CO2 in MY 2032, representing
a 50 percent reduction in projected fleet average GHG emissions target
levels from the existing MY 2026 standards. Alternative 3 would result
in the same MY 2032 industry-wide target as the proposed standards (82
g/mi) albeit at a more gradual rate, as shown in the less stringent
targets prior to MY 2031.
Figure 19 compares the projected targets for the proposed standards
and the alternatives. Further analysis of the alternatives is provided
in Section IV.D.4.
[[Page 29282]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05MY23.022
F. Proposed Certification, Compliance, and Enforcement Provisions
1. Electric Vehicle Test Procedures
Under the current program, manufacturers and EPA test light-duty
BEVs to determine the vehicle's miles per gallon equivalent (MPGe) and
the vehicle range. PHEVs are also tested to determine the PHEV's charge
depleting range. The results of these tests are used to generate range
and fuel economy values published on the fuel economy label.
Currently, BEV testing consists of performing a full charge-
depleting test using the multi-cycle test (MCT) outlined in the 2012 or
2017 version of SAE standard J1634, Battery Electric Vehicle Energy
Consumption and Range Test Procedure. The multi-cycle test consists of
8 cycles: Four urban dynamometer driving schedule (UDDS) cycles, two
highway fuel economy test (HFET) cycles, and two constant speed cycles
(CSCs). The test is used to determine the vehicle's usable battery
energy (UBE) in DC Watt-hours, cycle energy consumption in Watt-hours
per mile (Wh/mi), and AC recharge energy in AC watt-hours. These
results are used to determine the BEV's unadjusted range and MPGe.
The MCT generates unadjusted city (UDDS) and highway (HFET) two-
cycle test results. These results are adjusted to 5-cycle values which
are then published on the fuel economy label. EPA regulations allow
manufacturers to multiply their two-cycles using a defined 0.7
adjustment factor or determine a BEV 5-cycle adjustment factor by
running all of the EPA 5-cycle tests (FTP, HFET, US06, SC03, and 20
[deg]F FTP). This adjustment is performed to account for the
differences between vehicle operation observed on the two-cycle tests
and vehicle operation occurring at higher speeds and loads along with
hot and cold ambient temperatures not seen on the UDDS or HFET cycles.
PHEVs include both an internal combustion engine and an electric
motor and can be powered by the battery or engine or a combination of
both power devices. Charge depleting operation is when the electric
motor is primarily propelling the vehicle with energy from the battery.
Charge sustaining operation is when the internal combustion engine is
contributing energy to power the vehicle and maintain a specific state
of charge. PHEVs are tested in both charge depleting and charge
sustaining operation to determine the electrical range capability of
the vehicle and the charge sustaining fuel economy.
PHEV charge depletion testing consists of performing a single cycle
charge depleting UDDS test and a single cycle charge depleting HFET
test. These tests are specified in the 2010 version of SAE Standard
J1711, Recommended Practice for Measuring the Exhaust Emissions and
Fuel Economy of Hybrid-Electric Vehicles, Including Plug-In Hybrid
Vehicles. The result of these tests is the actual charge depleting
distance the vehicle can drive. The actual charge depleting distance is
multiplied by a 0.7 adjustment factor to determine the 5-cycle charge
depleting range. The UDDS and HFET distances are averaged to determine
an estimated all-electric range for the vehicle. SAE Standard J1711
does not specify a methodology for determining UBE when performing
charge depleting tests on PHEVs.
As part of this rulemaking, EPA is proposing to adopt battery
durability and warranty requirements for light-duty and medium-duty
BEVs and PHEVs (see Sections III.F.2 and III.F.3). The adoption of
battery durability requirements would create a requirement for
additional testing of
[[Page 29283]]
BEVs and PHEVs by manufacturers to be performed several times during
their useful life, and reporting requirements to demonstrate that the
vehicles are meeting the proposed durability requirements.
As described in Section III.F.2, the proposed battery durability
program would require manufacturers to develop and implement an on-
board battery state-of-health monitor and demonstrate its accuracy
through in-use vehicle testing. For this testing, the tests would be
based on the currently-used charge depletion tests that are used for
range and fuel economy labeling of light-duty BEVs and PHEVs, with the
addition of the recording of the vehicle monitor value and comparison
of the results from the charge depleting test to the monitor value
reported by the vehicle. Specifically, light-duty and Class 2b and 3
BEVs would be tested according to the MCT to determine the vehicle's
UBE and range. PHEVs would be tested according to the single cycle UDDS
and HFET test to determine the vehicle's charge depleting UBE and
range. Class 2b and 3 BEVs and PHEVs would be tested at adjusted loaded
vehicle weight (ALVW),\532\ consistent with the testing required for
measuring criteria and GHG emissions. These testing requirements are
described in more detail in Section III.F.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\532\ ALVW is the numerical average of vehicle curb weight and
gross vehicle weight rating.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to manufacturers performing these dynamometer tests,
onboard state-of-health monitor values would be collected from a larger
sample of in-use vehicles to demonstrate that the vehicles are meeting
the durability requirements, as described further in Section III.F.2.
This would not involve additional dynamometer testing but only
acquisition of monitor data from in-use vehicles.
The calculations performed for the PHEV charge depleting tests
would have an additional step to determine the total charge depletion
energy during the single cycle tests. Currently, PHEV charge depletion
testing consists of observing when the vehicle is no longer depleting
the battery by measuring the net ampere-hours. Once this measurement
determines that the vehicle has switched to a mode in which it is
maintaining rather than depleting the battery charge, the conclusion of
the charge depletion test is identified.
To determine UBE for a PHEV, EPA is proposing that manufacturers
measure the DC discharge energy of the PHEV's rechargeable energy
storage system (RESS, i.e. the high-voltage battery) by measuring the
change in state-of-charge in ampere-hours over each cycle and the
average voltage of each cycle as required by SAE J1711. The average
voltage can be either an average of continuous voltage measurements
over the entire cycle, or the average voltage measured prior to the
start of the cycle and at the conclusion of the cycle as defined in SAE
J1711. The measured DC discharge energy in watt-hours for each cycle
would be determined by multiplying the average cycle voltage by the
cycle's change in ampere-hours. The DC discharge energy is added for
all the charge depleting cycles including the transition cycles used to
determine the charge depleting cycle range, Rcdc as defined
in SAE J1711.
EPA is seeking comment regarding this proposed methodology for
determining UBE for PHEVs using the data captured during full charge
testing according to the 2010 version of SAE J1711.
EPA is also seeking comment regarding the proposed use of the
method described for light-duty vehicle with SAE J1711 for determining
UBE for Class 2b and 3 PHEVs. In addition, EPA is seeking comment on
whether to perform the tests on Class 2b and 3 PHEVs at ALVW as
proposed, or at loaded vehicle weight (LVW), which is curb weight plus
300 pounds.
EPA is also seeking comment regarding the proposed use of the 2017
version of SAE J1634 for determining UBE for class 2b and 3 BEVs. In
addition, EPA is seeking comment on whether to perform charge depleting
tests on Class 2b and 3 BEVs at ALVW as proposed, or at loaded vehicle
weight (LVW), which is curb weight plus 300 pounds.
EPA is not reopening or proposing changes to the MCT test for
testing BEVs.
2. Battery Durability
EPA emissions standards are currently and have historically been
standards that apply for the full useful life of the vehicle, as is
required under CAA section 202(a)(1) (``Such standards shall be
applicable to such vehicles and engines for their useful life'').
Accordingly, EPA has historically required manufacturers to demonstrate
the durability of their engines and emission control systems on
vehicles with ICE engines including under our CAA section 206
authority, and has also specified minimum warranty requirements for ICE
emission control components. Without durability demonstration
requirements, EPA would not be able to assess whether vehicles
originally manufactured in compliance with relevant emissions standards
would remain compliant over the course of their useful life.
Recognizing that PEVs are playing an increasing role in automakers'
compliance strategies, and that emissions credit calculations are based
on mileage over a vehicle's full useful life, the same logic applies to
PEV durability. Under 40 CFR 86.1865-12(k), credits are calculated by
determining the grams/mile each vehicle achieves beyond the standard
and multiplying that by the number of such vehicles and a lifetime
mileage attributed to each vehicle (195,264 miles for passenger
automobiles and 225,865 miles for light trucks). Having a lifetime
mileage figure for each vehicle is integral to calculating the credits
attributable to that vehicle, whether those credits are used for
calculating compliance with fleet average standards, or for banking or
trading. Compliance with fleet average standards in particular depends
on all vehicles in the fleet achieving their certified level of
emissions performance throughout their useful life. Without durability
requirements applicable to PEVs guaranteeing certain performance over
the entire useful life of the vehicles, EPA has no guarantee that a
manufacturer's overall compliance with fleet emissions standards would
continue throughout that useful life. Similarly, EPA would have no
assurance that the proposed standards would achieve the emissions
reductions projected by this proposed program. Therefore, EPA is
proposing new battery durability monitoring and performance
requirements for light-duty BEVs and PHEVs, and battery durability
monitoring requirements for Class 2b and 3 BEVs and PHEVs, beginning
with MY 2027.
As implemented by manufacturers in current BEVs and PHEVs, lithium-
ion battery technology has been shown to be effective and durable for
use in these vehicles. It is also well known that the energy capacity
of a battery will naturally degrade to some degree with time and usage,
resulting in a reduction in driving range as the vehicle ages. The
degree of this energy capacity and range reduction effectively becomes
an issue of durability if it negatively affects how the vehicle can be
used, or how many miles it is likely to be driven during its useful
life.
HEV and PHEV manufacturers are currently required to account for
potential battery degradation that could result in an increase in
CO2 emissions. In addition, vehicle manufacturers are
required to demonstrate compliance with criteria pollutant standards
using
[[Page 29284]]
fully aged emission control components that represent expected
degradation during useful life. EPA is applying this well-established
requirement to the durability of BEV and PHEV batteries.
The importance of battery durability in the context of zero- and
near-zero emission vehicles, such as BEVs and PHEVs, has been cited by
several authorities in recent years. In their 2021 Phase 3 report,\533\
the National Academies of Science (NAS) identified battery durability
as an important issue with the rise of electrification.\534\ Several
rulemaking bodies have also recognized the importance of battery
durability in a world with rapidly increasing numbers of zero-emission
vehicles. In 2015 the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UN
ECE) began studying the need for a Global Technical Regulation (GTR)
governing battery durability in light-duty vehicles. In April 2022 it
published United Nations Global Technical Regulation No. 22, ``In-
Vehicle Battery Durability for Electrified Vehicles,'' \535\ or GTR No.
22, which provides a regulatory structure for contracting parties to
set standards for battery durability in light-duty BEVs and PHEVs.\536\
The European Commission and other contracting parties have also
recognized the importance of durability provisions and are working to
adopt the GTR standards in their local regulatory structures. In
addition, the California Air Resources Board, as part of the Advanced
Clean Cars II (ACC II) program, has also included battery durability
\537\ and warranty \538\ requirements as part of a suite of customer
assurance provisions designed to ensure that zero-emission vehicles
maintain similar standards for usability, useful life, and maintenance
as for ICE vehicles. Additional background on UN GTR No. 22 and the
California Air Resources Board battery durability and warranty
requirements may be found in DRIA Chapter 1.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\533\ National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
2021. ``Assessment of Technologies for Improving Light-Duty Vehicle
Fuel Economy 2025-2035''. Washington, DC: The National Academies
Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/26092.
\534\ Among the findings outlined in that report, NAS noted
that: ``battery capacity degradation is considered a barrier for
market penetration of BEVs,'' (p. 5-114), and that ``[knowledge of]
real-world battery lifetime could have implications on R&D
priorities, warranty provision, consumer confidence and acceptance,
and role of electrification in fuel economy policy.'' (p. 5-115).
NAS also noted that ``life prediction guides battery sizing,
warranty, and resale value [and repurposing and recycling]'' (p. 5-
115), and discussed at length the complexities of SOH estimation,
life-cycle prediction, and testing for battery degradation (p. 5-113
to 5-115).
\535\ United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, Addendum
22: United Nations Global Technical Regulation No. 22, United
Nations Global Technical Regulation on In-vehicle Battery Durability
for Electrified Vehicles, April 14, 2022. Available at: https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2022-04/ECE_TRANS_180a22e.pdf.
\536\ EPA representatives chaired the informal working group
that developed this GTR and worked closely with global regulatory
agencies and industry partners to complete its development in a form
that could be adopted in various regions of the world, including
potentially the United States.
\537\ State of California, California Code of Regulations, title
13, section 1962.4.
\538\ State of California, California Code of Regulations, title
13, section 1962.8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA concurs with the emerging consensus that battery durability is
an important issue. The ability of a zero-emission vehicle to achieve
the expected emission reductions during its lifetime depends in part on
the ability of the battery to maintain sufficient driving range,
capacity, power, and general operability for a period of use comparable
to that expected of a conventional vehicle. Durable and reliable
electrified vehicles are therefore critical to ensuring that projected
emissions reductions are achieved by this proposed program.
Vehicle manufacturers can use powertrain electrification as an
emissions control technology to comply with EPA standards and to
generate credits for use in averaging, banking, and trading. EPA
believes that, as with other emission control technologies, it is
appropriate to set requirements to ensure that electrified vehicles
certifying to EPA standards are durable and capable of providing the
emissions reductions for which they are credited under the structure of
the rule. To expand on the previous discussion, under the EPA GHG
program, vehicles of all types (including ICE vehicles as well as PEVs)
are assessed on a fleet average basis in which credits that are
generated by vehicles that over-comply with their footprint-based
standard act to offset debits generated by vehicles that do not
themselves meet the proposed standards, and these credits can also be
traded among manufacturers. Credits and debits are based on a
calculation of Megagrams of CO2 emitted per vehicle over the
assumed lifetime mileage of 195,264 miles for cars, and 225,865 miles
for light-duty trucks. Generally, credits generated by PEVs will offset
debits generated by ICE vehicles. In order for the environmental
benefits that are credited to PEVs to be fully realized under this
structure, it is important that their potential to achieve a similar
mileage during their lifetime be comparable to that of ICE vehicles,
and this depends in part on the life of the battery. In particular, and
especially for BEVs and PHEVs with shorter driving ranges, loss of a
large portion of the original driving range capability as the vehicle
ages could reduce total lifetime mileage and the ability for electric
miles to displace conventional miles traveled. PHEVs could also
experience higher fuel consumption and increased criteria pollutant
emissions if the battery undergoes excessive degradation.
EPA is thus including in this proposal a requirement for battery
durability that is applicable to BEVs and PHEVs. The requirements and
general framework of the proposed battery durability program are
largely identical to those outlined in GTR No. 22 and broadly parallel
the GTR in terms of the minimum performance requirements, as well as
the hardware, monitoring and compliance requirements, the associated
statistical methods and metrics that apply to determination of
compliance, and criteria for establishing battery durability and
monitor families. We are proposing to incorporate the April 14, 2022,
version of GTR No. 22 by reference, with the exception of some naming
conventions and procedural changes required to adapt the GTR to EPA-
based testing and compliance demonstration, and modification of some
specific provisions (for example, not requiring an SOCR monitor).
The battery durability requirements consist of two primary
components as shown in Table 63. The first component is a requirement
for manufacturers to provide a customer-readable battery state-of-
health (SOH) monitor for both light-duty and Class 2b and 3 BEVs and
PHEVs. The second component is the definition of a minimum performance
requirement (MPR) for the SOH of the high voltage battery, applicable
only to light-duty BEVs and PHEVs. HEVs and FCEVs are not included in
the scope of GTR No. 22 or the proposed durability program.
[[Page 29285]]
Table 63--Applicability of Battery Durability Requirements to Light-Duty
and Class 2b/3 Vehicles
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Light-duty BEVs Class 2b and 3
Proposed requirement and PHEVs BEVs and PHEVs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Battery State of Health (SOH) Yes............... Yes.
Monitor.
Monitor accuracy requirement.... Yes............... Yes.
Minimum Performance Requirement Yes............... No.
(MPR).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturers would be required to install a battery SOH monitor
which estimates, monitors, and communicates the vehicle's state of
certified energy (SOCE) as defined in GTR No. 22, and which can be read
by the vehicle owner. This would require manufacturers to implement
onboard algorithms to estimate the current state of certified energy of
the battery, in terms of its current usable battery energy (UBE)
expressed as a percentage of the original UBE when the vehicle was new.
The state of certified range (SOCR) monitor defined in GTR No. 22 would
not be required.
For light-duty BEVs and PHEVs, the information provided by this
monitor would be used for demonstrating compliance with a minimum
performance requirement (MPR) which specifies a minimum percentage
retention of the original UBE when the vehicle was new. As shown in
Table 64, under the proposed rule, light-duty BEV and PHEV batteries
would be subject to an MPR that requires them to retain no less than 80
percent of their original UBE at 5 years or 62,000 miles, and no less
than 70 percent at 8 years or 100,000 miles.
Table 64--Proposed Minimum Performance Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Light-duty BEVs Class 2b and 3
Years or mileage and PHEVs BEVs and PHEVs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 years or 62,000 miles......... 80 percent SOCE... N/A.
8 years or 100,000 miles........ 70 percent SOCE... N/A.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In alignment with GTR No. 22, which does not currently subject UN
ECE Category N vehicles of Category 2 (work vehicles that primarily
carry goods) to the MPR requirement, Class 2b and 3 PEVs would not be
subject to the MPR. In developing GTR No. 22, the EVE IWG chose not to
set an MPR for Category 2 PEVs at this time, largely because the early
stage of adoption of these vehicles meant that in-use data regarding
battery performance of these vehicles was not readily available. MPR
requirements for category 2 PEVs were therefore reserved for possible
inclusion in a future amendment to the GTR, but monitoring requirements
were retained in order to allow information on degradation to be
collected from these vehicles to help inform a future amendment. For
similar reasons, EPA is retaining the monitor requirement for Class 2b
and 3 PEVs but is not requiring the MPR.
The proposed durability requirements would require manufacturers to
perform testing beyond what is currently required. Currently, light-
duty vehicle manufacturers are required to perform range testing on
BEVs and PHEVs, the latter in Charge Depleting mode. These results are
currently used to inform the fuel economy label and are not required
for vehicle certification. Class 2b/3 vehicles do not currently have
this requirement. Under the proposal, manufacturers would be required
to determine and report the UBE of light-duty and Class 2b/3 BEVs and
PHEVs when new, and demonstrate through in-use vehicle testing that the
SOCE monitor meets an accuracy standard.
Under the proposal, manufacturers would group the PEVs that they
manufacture into monitor families and battery durability families as
defined in GTR No. 22 (and described in more detail in Section
III.F.4). Because a certified UBE value is needed for vehicles in each
durability family in order to determine monitor accuracy and compliance
of that family with the MPR, and the testing program that is currently
performed for fuel economy labeling purposes does not necessarily
determine such a value for all vehicle configurations that would need
it for durability purposes, additional testing of vehicles that would
not otherwise need to be tested for labeling purposes may need to be
performed at time of certification.
For both light-duty and medium-duty vehicles, as described in the
``Part A'' monitor accuracy provisions outlined in GTR No. 22,
manufacturers will be required to meet a standard for accuracy of their
on-board SOCE monitors. To determine the accuracy of the monitors,
between 3 and 16 vehicles from each monitor family would be recruited
and procured in-use at each of 1 year, 3 years, and 5 years. The
onboard monitor values for SOCE would be recorded, and each vehicle
would then be tested to determine actual (measured) UBE capability of
the battery. As described in Section III.F.1, for this testing EPA is
proposing to use SAE Standard J1634 for determining UBE for BEVs and is
proposing a method for determining UBE for PHEVs based on SAE J1711.
The UBE measured by the test would be used to calculate the measured
SOCE of the battery, as the measured UBE divided by the certified UBE.
The measured SOCE would be compared to the value reported by the SOCE
monitor prior to the test. The accuracy of the SOCE monitor must be
within 5 percent of the measured SOCE, as defined and determined via
the Part A statistical method defined in GTR No. 22.
For light-duty vehicles, in a similar manner to the ``Part B''
compliance provisions of GTR No. 22, once having demonstrated Part A
accuracy for the SOCE monitor of vehicles within a monitor family,
manufacturers would demonstrate compliance with the MPR by collecting
the values of the onboard SOCE monitors of a statistically adequate and
representative sample of in-use vehicles, in general no less than 500
vehicles from each battery durability family that shares that monitor
family, and reporting the data and results to EPA. The manufacturer
would use good engineering judgment in determining that the sample is
statistically adequate and representative of the in-use vehicles
comprising each durability family, subject to specific provisions in
the regulation and approval by EPA. Manufacturers may
[[Page 29286]]
obtain this sample by any appropriate method, for example by over-the-
air data collection or by other means. A battery durability family
(described further in a later section) would pass if 90 percent or more
of the monitor values read from the sample are above the MPR.
In the case that a monitor family fails the Part A accuracy
requirement, the manufacturer would be required to recall the vehicles
in the failing monitor family to bring the SOCE monitor into
compliance, as demonstrated by passing the Part A statistical test with
vehicles using the repaired monitor. In the case that a durability
family fails the Part B durability performance requirement,
manufacturers would have to adjust their credit balance to remove
compliance credits previously earned by those vehicles.
For Part B, GTR No. 22 does not specify a means of data collection,
although for many manufacturers it might most easily be achieved via
means such as telematics (remote, wireless queries) which is becoming
increasingly present in new vehicles. EPA is proposing that
manufacturers may use any sampling technique which accurately collects
data from the number of vehicles outlined in the GTR. For example,
vehicle manufacturers may choose to physically connect to the required
number of vehicles and read the SOCE values directly in lieu of a
remote, telematics-based data collection.
Many of the organizations and authorities that have examined the
issue of battery durability, including the UN Economic Commission for
Europe (UN ECE), the European Commission, and the California Air
Resources Board, have recognized that monitoring the state of a
vehicle's full-charge driving range capability (instead of or in
addition to UBE capability) as an indicator of battery durability
performance may be an attractive option because driving range is a
metric that is more directly experienced and understood by the
consumer. To this end, GTR No. 22 requires manufacturers to install a
state of certified range (SOCR) monitor in addition to an SOCE monitor.
In developing GTR No. 22, the UN ECE felt that developing an accurate
SOCR monitor may be more difficult than developing an SOCE monitor. In
GTR No. 22 the SOCR monitor is therefore not required to be customer
facing, and its information is collected only for information gathering
purposes to inform the possible development of an SOCR-based
performance requirement in the future. EPA also notes that the
California Air Resources Board has based its ACC II battery durability
requirement on a range metric instead of an SOCE metric. In this
proposal, EPA is not proposing a requirement for an SOCR monitor and is
not proposing that the durability performance requirement utilize a
range-based metric. However, EPA recognizes the potential advantage
that an accurate range-based metric may offer, as well as the value of
collecting information to evaluate the performance of an SOCR monitor
for possible future adoption. EPA requests comment on the inclusion of
a requirement for an SOCR monitor and associated reporting requirements
as specified in GTR No. 22.
EPA also recognizes that the California Air Resources Board
durability program includes a specific provision that requires
manufacturers to disclose and account for any battery reserve capacity
that the manufacturer has chosen to initially withhold from use for
release later in the life of the vehicle in order to maintain driving
range or usable energy capacity after degradation has occurred. This
provision of the California regulation is meant to allow consumers to
know the state of chemical degradation of the battery independently of
apparent range or energy capacity. Although EPA is not proposing a
similar requirement, EPA requests comment on including a reserve
capacity declaration requirement and use of reserve capacity
information in calculating an SOCE or SOCR metric.
EPA also requests comment on all other aspects of the proposed
battery durability standards, particularly with respect to: The minimum
performance requirements, the testing and compliance requirements for
Part A and Part B, and the possibility of adopting more stringent or
less stringent battery durability standards.
Additional background on UN GTR No. 22 and the California Air
Resources Board battery durability and warranty requirements may be
found in DRIA Chapter 1.3.
3. Battery and Vehicle Component Warranty
EPA is also proposing new warranty requirements for BEV and PHEV
batteries and associated electric powertrain components (e.g., electric
machines, inverters, and similar key electric powertrain components).
The proposed warranty requirements build on existing emissions control
warranty provisions by establishing specific new requirements tailored
to the emission control-related role of the high-voltage battery and
associated electric powertrain components in the durability and
emissions performance of PEVs.
For light-duty BEVs and PHEVs, EPA is proposing to designate the
high-voltage battery and associated electric powertrain components as
specified major emission control components under CAA section
207(i)(2), subject to a warranty period of 8 years or 80,000 miles. For
medium-duty (Class 2b and 3) BEVs and PHEVs, EPA is proposing to
specify the warranty period of 8 years or 80,000 miles for the battery
and associated electric powertrain components on such vehicles.
As described in the previous section, the National Academies of
Science (NAS) in their 2021 Phase 3 report \539\ identified battery
warranty along with battery durability as an important issue with the
rise of electrification. The proposed warranty requirements would be
equivalent to those that EPA has the authority to require and has
historically applied to other specified major emission control-related
components for ICE vehicles under EPA's light-duty vehicle regulations,
and would similarly implement and be under the authority of CAA section
207. EPA believes that this practice of ensuring a minimum level of
warranty protection should be extended to the high-voltage battery and
other electric powertrain components of BEVs and PHEVs for multiple
reasons. Recognizing that BEVs and PHEVs are playing an increasing role
in manufacturers' compliance strategies, the high-voltage battery and
the powertrain components that depend on it are emission control
devices critical to the operation and emission performance of BEVs and
PHEVs, as they play a critical role in reducing the emissions of PHEVs
and in allowing BEVs to operate with zero tailpipe emissions. Further,
EPA anticipates that compliance with the proposed program is likely to
be achieved with larger penetrations of BEVs and PHEVs than under the
current program. Although the projected emissions reductions are based
on a spectrum of control technologies, in light of the cost-effective
reductions achieved, especially by BEVs, EPA anticipates most if not
all automakers will include credits generated by BEVs and PHEVs as part
of their compliance strategies, even if those credits are obtained from
other manufacturers; thus this is a particular concern given that the
calculation of credits for averaging (as well as banking and trading)
depend on the battery and emission
[[Page 29287]]
performance being maintained for the full useful life of the vehicle.
Additionally, warranty provisions are a strong complement to the
proposed battery durability requirements. We believe that a component
under warranty is more likely to be properly maintained and repaired or
replaced if it fails, which would help ensure that credits granted for
BEV and PHEV sales represent real emission reductions achieved over the
life of the vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\539\ National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
2021. ``Assessment of Technologies for Improving Light-Duty Vehicle
Fuel Economy 2025-2035''. Washington, DC: The National Academies
Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/26092.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is our assessment that the high-voltage battery systems and
associated electric powertrain components of both light-duty and
medium-duty BEVs and PHEVs qualify for warranty designation by the
Administrator as provided under CAA section 207(i). The high-voltage
battery and the powertrain components that depend on it are emissions
control devices critical to the emissions performance of the vehicle,
as they play a critical role in reducing the emissions of PHEVs, and in
allowing BEVs to operate with zero tailpipe emissions.
CAA section 207(i)(1) specifies that the warranty period for light-
duty vehicles is 2 years or 24,000 miles of use (whichever first
occurs), except for specified major emission control components (SMECC)
described in 207(i)(2), for which the warranty period is 8 years or
80,000 miles of use (whichever first occurs). For other vehicles, CAA
207(i)(1) specifies that the warranty period shall be the period
established by the Administrator.
For light-duty vehicles, 207(i)(2) specifically identifies
catalytic converters, electronic emissions control units (ECUs), and
onboard emissions diagnostic devices as SMECC. Currently, BEV and PHEV
battery and electric powertrain components are not so specified, which
limits their coverage requirement to the 2 years or 24,000 miles of CAA
section 207(i)(1), a period which EPA believes is not sufficient, given
the importance of these components to the operation and emissions
performance of these vehicles. As discussed in connection with battery
durability, this is of particular concern given that the calculation of
fleet average performance and of credits for banking and trading depend
on the battery and emissions performance being maintained for the full
useful life of the vehicle. However, to allow for designation of other
pollution control components as SMECC, CAA section 207(i)(2) provides
that the Administrator may so designate any other pollution control
device or component, subject to the conditions that the device or
component was not in general use on vehicles and engines manufactured
prior to the model year 1990 and that the retail cost (exclusive of
installation costs) of such device or component exceeds $200 (in 1989
dollars), adjusted for inflation or deflation as calculated by the
Administrator at the time of such determination.\540\ Adjusted for
inflation, the $200 retail cost threshold would be about $500 today. As
BEVs and PHEVs were not in general use prior to 1990, and their high-
voltage battery systems and associated powertrain components exceed
this cost threshold, the Administrator proposes to determine that these
emission control devices meet the criteria for designation as specified
major emission control components. Accordingly, the Administrator
proposes to designate these components as specified major emission
control components according to his authority under CAA section
207(i)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\540\ See 42 U.S.C. 7541(i)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, for medium-duty (Class 2b and 3) BEVs and PHEVs, the
Administrator proposes to establish a warranty period of 8 years or
80,000 miles for the battery and associated electric powertrain
components on these vehicles, according to his authority under CAA
section 207(i)(1). The proposed program would provide warranty coverage
for the emission control components on Class 2b and 3 BEVs and PHEVs
equal to that proposed for the same components on light-duty BEVs and
PHEVs.
EPA requests comment on all aspects of the proposed warranty
provisions for light-duty and medium-duty PEVs, batteries, and
associated electric powertrain components.
4. Definitions of Durability Group, Monitor Family, and Battery
Durability Family
EPA is proposing revisions to the durability group definition for
vehicles with an IC engine, and proposing to add two new grouping
definitions, monitor family and battery durability family, for BEVs and
PHEVs.
i. Proposed Durability Group Revisions
EPA anticipates the adoption and use of gasoline particulate
filters (GPFs) to reduce PM emissions to the levels required with the
proposed PM standard. Particulate filters are currently utilized on
diesel-powered vehicles to meet the existing Tier 3 PM standard. EPA's
durability group definition in 40 CFR 86.1820-01 includes a catalyst
grouping statistic based on the engine displacement and catalyst volume
and loading to define the acceptable range of designs that may be
combined into a single durability group. Currently EPA does not require
manufacturers to consider PM filters in the determination of the
durability group.
PM filters can also be coated with precious metals resulting in the
particulate filter performing the functions of a three-way catalyst in
addition to reducing particulates. The Agency expects that
manufacturers may choose to adopt PM filters with three-way catalyst
coatings on some applications to reduce aftertreatment system cost by
not increasing the number of substrates. We are accordingly proposing
to clarify that manufacturers need to include the volume and precious
metal loading of the PM filter along with the corresponding values from
catalyst when calculating the catalyst grouping statistic. The volume
of the PM filter would not be included in the catalyst grouping
statistic if the PM filter does not include precious metals.
The durability group is used to specify groups of vehicles which
are expected to have similar emission deterioration and emission
component durability characteristics throughout their useful life. The
inclusion of a particulate filter on a gasoline-fueled vehicle
aftertreatment system can have an impact on the durability
characteristics of the aftertreatment system and as such the Agency
proposes that this device, or the lack of a PM filter in the
aftertreatment system, needs to be included in the durability group
determination for internal combustion engine aftertreatment systems.
Specifically, we are proposing that vehicles may be included in the
same durability group only if all the vehicles have no particulate
filter, or if all the vehicles have non-catalyzed particulate filters,
or if all the vehicles have catalyzed particulate filters.
We are proposing to apply these updates to durability groups
equally for both gasoline and diesel applications. However, diesel
vehicles certified under 40 CFR part 86, subpart S, generally use a
consistent configuration with particulate filters, so the proposed
changes are not likely to lead to changes in certification practices
for those vehicles.
We request comment on all aspects of the proposed changes for
durability groups in 40 CFR 86.1820-01.
ii. BEV and PHEV Monitor Family
As described in Section III.F.2, EPA is proposing battery
durability requirements for BEVs and PHEVs. As part of this durability
proposal, the Agency is proposing two new groupings for BEVs and PHEVs,
a monitor family and a battery durability family. For
[[Page 29288]]
BEVs, the new monitor family and new battery durability family would
replace the current regulatory requirement to define BEV test and
durability groups. Manufacturers would be required to define a
durability group, test group, evaporative/refueling family, monitor
family, and battery durability family for PHEVs.
To support the proposed monitor accuracy evaluation requirements
described in Section III.F.2, manufacturers would install a battery SOH
monitor which accurately estimates, monitors, and communicates the SOCE
of the high-voltage battery (as defined in GTR No. 22 and described in
Section III.F.2) at the current point in the vehicle's lifetime. To
evaluate the accuracy of the monitor during the life of the vehicle,
manufacturers would procure and test consumer vehicles in-use. The SOCE
monitor would be subject to the accuracy standard.
It is expected that the accuracy of the monitors may be similar for
vehicles with sufficiently similar design characteristics. To account
for this and thus reduce test burden, EPA is proposing to create
monitor families for BEVs and PHEVs. As described in GTR No. 22,
vehicles that are sufficiently similar in their characteristics such
that the monitor can be expected to perform with the same accuracy may
be assigned to the same monitor family. The criteria for inclusion in
the same monitor family includes characteristics such as the algorithm
used for SOCE monitoring, electrified vehicle type (BEV or PHEV),
sensor characteristics and sensor configuration, and battery cell
characteristics that would not be expected to influence SOCE monitor
accuracy.
More specifically, for vehicles to be in the same monitor family:
The SOCE monitoring algorithm needs to utilize the same logic and have
the same value for all calibration variables used in the algorithm; the
algorithm used to determine UBE needs to utilize the same sampling and
integration periods and the same integration technique; the locations
of the sensor(s) (i.e. at the pack, module, or battery cell level) for
monitoring DC discharge energy need to be the same; and the accuracy of
the sensor(s) and the tolerance of the sensor(s) accuracy used for
monitoring energy and range need to be the same. BEVs and PHEVs cannot
be included in the same monitor family.
If a manufacturer determines that additional vehicle
characteristics affect the accuracy of SOCE estimation, the
manufacturer can request the Administrator to allow the creation of
additional monitor families. To request additional monitor families,
the manufacturer will seek Agency approval and describe in their
application the factors which produce SOCE estimation errors and how
the monitor family will be divided to reduce the estimation errors.
Manufacturers can request the Administrator include in the same
monitor family vehicles for which these characteristics would not
otherwise allow them to be in the same monitor family (except for
including BEVs and PHEVs in the same monitor family). The manufacturer
will need to include data demonstrating that these differences do not
cause errors in the estimation of SOCE when seeking Agency approval.
iii. BEV and PHEV Battery Durability Family
It is expected that the degradation of UBE (as indicated by SOCE)
may be similar for vehicles with sufficiently similar design
characteristics. To account for this and thus reduce test burden, EPA
is proposing to create battery durability families for BEVs and PHEVs.
As described in GTR No. 22, vehicles that are sufficiently similar in
their characteristics such that the UBE may be expected to degrade in
the same way may be assigned to the same battery durability family. The
following powertrain characteristics and design features would be used
to determine battery durability families: Maximum specified charging
power, method of battery thermal management, battery capacity, battery
(cathode) chemistry, and the net power of the electrical machines. In
addition, BEVs and PHEVs cannot be placed in the same battery
durability family.
Manufacturers can request the Administrator include in the same
battery durability family vehicles for which these characteristics
would not otherwise allow them to be in the same battery durability
family (except for including BEVs and PHEVs in the same battery
durability family). The manufacturer will need to include data with
their request which demonstrates that these differences do not impact
the durability of the vehicles with respect to maintaining UBE
throughout the life of the BEV or PHEV.
If a manufacturer determines that additional vehicle
characteristics result in durability differences which impact UBE, the
Manufacturer can request the Administrator to allow the creation of
additional battery durability families. To request additional battery
durability families the manufacturer will seek Agency approval. In
their request for approval, the Manufacturer will describe the factors
which produce differences in vehicle aging and how the durability
grouping will be divided to better capture the differences in expected
deterioration.
5. Light-Duty Program Improvements
i. GHG Compliance and Enforcement Requirements
EPA is proposing to clarify the certification compliance and
enforcement requirements for GHG exhaust emission standards found in 40
CFR 86.1865-12 to more accurately reflect the intention of the 2010
light-duty vehicle GHG rule (75 FR 253243, May 7, 2010). In the 2010
rule, EPA set full useful life greenhouse gas emissions standards for
which each vehicle is required to comply. The preamble to that rule
clearly explained that the CAA requires a vehicle to comply with
emission standards over its regulatory useful life and affords EPA
broad authority for the implementation of this requirement and that EPA
has authority to require a manufacturer to remedy any noncompliance
issues. EPA also explained that there may be cases where a repairable
defect could cause the non-compliance and in those cases a recall could
be the appropriate remedy. Alternatively, there may be scenarios in
which a GHG non-compliance exists with no repairable cause of the
exceedance. Therefore, the remedy can range from adjusting a
manufacturer's credit balance to the voluntary or mandatory recall of
noncompliant vehicles.
In the 2010 rule EPA clearly intended to use its existing recall
authority to remedy greenhouse gas non-compliances when appropriate and
to use the authority to correct the greenhouse gas credit balance as a
remedy when no practical repair for in-use vehicles could be identified
(see 75 FR 25474). However, the regulations did not describe these in-
use compliance provisions with as much clarity as the preambular
statements. Therefore, EPA is proposing clarifications to 40 CFR
86.1865-12(j) to make clear that EPA may use its existing recall
authority to remedy greenhouse gas non-compliances when appropriate and
specifically may use such authority to correct a manufacturer's
greenhouse gas credit balance as a remedy when no practical repair can
be identified.
In the 2010 rule, EPA set vehicle in-use emissions standards for
CREE to be 10 percent above the vehicle-level emission test results or
model-type value if no subconfiguration test data are available. This
10 percent factor was intended to account for test-to test variability
or production variability
[[Page 29289]]
within a subconfiguration or model type. EPA clearly did not intend for
this factor to be used as an allowance for manufacturers to design and
produce vehicles which generate CO2 emissions up to 10
percent higher than the actual values they use to certify and to
calculate the year end fleet average. In fact, EPA expressed concerns
in the rule making that ``this in-use compliance factor could be
perceived as providing manufacturers with the ability to design their
fleets to generate CO2 emissions up to 10 percent higher
than the actual values they use to certify'' (see 75 FR 25476). Given
the expectation that in-use vehicles should be designed to perform
consistent with the values used to calculate the year end fleet
average, EPA is taking comment on whether the Agency should eliminate
the 10 percent compliance factor adjustment for the in-use standard.
Instead, EPA would apply a 10 percent factor to the threshold used for
determining when additional testing is required in the In-Use
Confirmatory Program (IUCP).
For the reasons that EPA articulated in the 2010 rulemaking, EPA
expects that some in-use vehicles may generate slightly more
CO2 than the certified values and some vehicles may emit
slightly less, but the average CO2 emissions of a
manufacturer's fleet and each model within it should be very close to
the levels reported to EPA and used to calculate overall fleet average.
The in-use data submitted over the last ten years largely supports this
expectation. Nevertheless, EPA believes it is important that
manufacturers understand their obligations under the in-use program and
that EPA has the appropriate tools to hold manufacturers responsible
should they fail to meet these obligations. Therefore, EPA is
requesting comment on two different regulatory options, either of which
would align with our original intent in the 2010 rule.
The first option is to clarify the regulatory language to make it
clear that if a manufacturer's in-use data demonstrates that a
manufacturer's CO2 results are consistently higher than the
values used for calculation of the fleet average for any class or
category of vehicle, EPA may use its authority to correct a
manufacturer's greenhouse gas credit balance to ensure the
manufacturer's GHG fleet average is representative of the actual
vehicles it produces. This means that the credit balance post-
correction will reflect the actual in-use performance of the vehicles.
In other words, if the manufacturer reports a value of X g/mi in
calculating its fleet average, but its vehicles emit X+A g/mi in-use,
we may correct the manufacturer's balance by the entire discrepancy
(A).
The second option is to set the in-use standards at the vehicle-
level emission test results or model-type average value if no
subconfiguration test data are available in the GHG report. Under this
approach, manufacturers will have the option to voluntarily raise the
GHG values submitted in the GHG report if they wish to create an in-use
compliance margin. The proposed change in this second option would make
the GHG ABT program consistent with all other ABT programs used in the
light duty program. In all other ABT programs (e.g., FTP
NMOG+NOX, MSAT, SFTP), manufacturers must choose a bin level
or Family Emissions Limit (FEL) in which to certify. Manufacturers
typically design their vehicle to emit well below the bin level or FEL
to establish a compliance margin; however, the fleet average emissions
are calculated based on the bin level or FEL, not the actual
certification level. In those cases, the fleet average emissions
calculated in the ABT report would be representative of the actual
fleet as long as the vehicles comply with the certified bin level or
FEL. Only the light duty GHG ABT program allowed manufacturers to
calculate the fleet average emissions based on the certification level.
EPA allowed this with the expectation that vehicles in actual use would
not normally emit more CO2 than they did at the time of
certification (i.e., CO2 emissions are not expected to
increase with time or mileage).
Under either option, EPA is seeking to further clarify our position
on this issue: When EPA uses its recall authority or its authority to
correct a manufacturer's greenhouse gas credit balance to remedy
greenhouse gas non-compliances, EPA may require a remedy that fully
accounts for the difference in the actual in-use GHG emissions and the
values the manufacturer used to certify and to calculate the year end
fleet average. EPA is seeking comment on both proposed options, either
of which may be adopted in the final rule.
The overarching principle of compliance to the fleet average
standards is that the calculated fleet average in the GHG report must
accurately represent the actual fleet of vehicles a manufacture
produced. If a manufacturer provides false, inaccurate, or
unrepresentative data as part of their GHG report, the manufacturer may
be subject to enforcement and EPA may void ab initio the certificates
of conformity which relied on that data. Vehicles are covered by a
certificate of conformity only if they are in all material respects as
described in the manufacturer's application for certification (Part I
and Part II) including the GHG report. If vehicles generate
substantially more CO2 emissions in actual use than what was
reported, those vehicles are not covered by the certificate of
conformity. EPA is proposing two changes to the regulatory language
that are designed to clarify the Agency's understanding of its
authority to void certificates and/or find that vehicles were sold in
violation of a condition of a certificate. Currently 40 CFR 86.1850
states that if a manufacturer submits false or incomplete information
or renders inaccurate any test data which it submits, or fails to make
a good engineering judgment, EPA may deny issuance of, suspend, or
revoke a previously issued certificate of conformity. However,
suspension or revocation of a certificate of conformity shall extend no
further than to forbid the introduction into commerce of vehicles
previously covered by the certificate which are still in the possession
of the manufacturer. Since the GHG report is not required to be
submitted until May 1 of the calendar year after the model year has
ended, suspending or revoking a certificate is no longer a relevant
remedy. Therefore, because of situations where certificate suspension
or revocation is no longer relevant, EPA is proposing to allow the
Agency to void ab initio a previously issued certificate of conformity
in the list of possible actions the agency may take if a manufacturer
commits any of the infractions listed in 40 CFR 86.1850(b). In
addition, EPA is proposing edits to 40 CFR 86.1848 to make it clearer
that any vehicles sold that fail to meet any condition upon which the
certificate was issued are not covered by the certificate and thus were
sold in violation of CAA 203(a)(1).
ii. In-Use Confirmatory Program (IUCP)
Currently, EPA regulations require manufacturers to conduct in-use
testing as a condition of certification. Specifically, manufacturers
must commit to later procure and test privately-owned vehicles that
have been normally used and maintained. The vehicles are tested to
determine the in-use levels of criteria pollutants when they are in
their first and fourth years of service. This testing is referred to as
the In-Use Verification Program (IUVP) testing, which was first
implemented as part of EPA's CAP 2000 certification program.\541\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\541\ 64 FR 23906, May 4, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 29290]]
Another component of the CAP 2000 certification program is the In-
Use Confirmatory Program (IUCP). This is a manufacturer-conducted in-
use test program that can be used as the basis for EPA to order an
emission recall (although it is not the only potential basis for
recall). For vehicles tested in the IUVP to qualify for IUCP, there is
a threshold of 1.30 times the certification emission standard for
criteria emissions (e.g., NMOG+NOX, CO) and an additional
requirement that at least 50 percent of the test vehicles for the test
group fail for the same substance. If these criteria are met for a test
group, the manufacturer is required to test an additional 10 vehicles
which are screened for proper use and maintenance.
The 2010 light-duty GHG rule set full useful life greenhouse gas
emissions standards for which each vehicle is required to comply and
required in-use testing under the In-Use Verification Program (IUVP)
testing provisions. At that time, EPA did not set criteria for In-Use
Confirmatory Program (IUCP) for GHG but indicated that IUCP will be a
valuable future tool for achieving compliance and that EPA would
reassess IUCP thresholds for GHG in a future rule when more data is
available.\542\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\542\ 75 FR 25475, May 7, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since the 2010 rule, EPA has received in-use greenhouse gas
emissions test results from over 9,500 vehicles. EPA believes there is
now sufficient data to establish IUCP threshold criteria based on
greenhouse gas emissions and that doing so is warranted.
The 2010 rule established an in-use CO2 standard to be
10 percent above the vehicle-level emission test results or model-type
value if no subconfiguration test data are available. Over 95 percent
of the test results EPA received complied with this in-use standard
based on the 10 percent margin. Therefore, EPA is proposing two options
for approaches to setting the in-use GHG standards: Either (1) if the
in-use standard continues to include a 10 percent adjustment factor
applied to the reported GHG result, set the IUCP threshold criteria to
be at least 50 percent of the test vehicles for the test group exceed
the relevant in-use CO2 standard; or (2) if the in-use
standard is identical to the reported GHG result, set the IUCP
threshold criteria to be at least 50 percent of the test vehicles for
the test group exceed the relevant in-use CO2 standard by at
least 10 percent. In either approach EPA is not proposing an additional
criteria based on the average emissions of the test group. The 50
percent failure rate is consistent with the IUCP criteria for criteria
emissions that has existed since the CAP 2000 rule was finalized.
However, unlike the IUCP criteria for criteria emissions, EPA is not
proposing a threshold for the average emissions of the test group
(which is 1.3 times for criteria emissions) for a number of reasons.
First, unlike criteria pollutants where the in-use standards are
generally the same as the certification standards, EPA is proposing a
margin of 10 percent above the reported GHG result for the IUCP
criteria. Adding an additional multiplier on top of that would be
unnecessary, and EPA believes a 10 percent exceedance threshold (either
as a part of the in-use standard or as a threshold criteria) is
appropriate given the Agency's experience with GHG compliance over the
past decade. Second, unlike for criteria pollutants, the CO2
emissions performance of vehicles is generally not expected to
deteriorate with age and mileage (see the 2010 rule). Third, unlike
with criteria pollutants, the in-use GHG standards are not consistent
within a test group and the compliance level is not determined by the
same emissions data vehicle. GHG in-use standards can be different for
each subconfiguration or model type. Fourth, the review of the data
supports ten percent above the reported GHG value as an appropriate
criterion, because over 95 percent of the test results EPA received
complied with this in-use standard based on the 10 percent margin. The
proposed IUCP criteria is intended to capture vehicles with both
unusually high increase in CO2 emissions compared to the
reported value and an unusually high failure rate.
iii. Part 2 Application Changes
EPA is also proposing changes to 40 CFR 86.1844-01(e) ``Part 2
Application'' to make it clearer that the part 2 application must
include the part numbers and descriptions of the GHG emissions related
parts, components, systems, software or elements of design, and AECDs
including those used to qualify for GHG credits (e.g., air conditioning
credits, off cycle credits, advanced technology vehicle credits) as
previously specified in EPA guidance letter CD-14-19. These changes are
not intended to alter the existing reporting requirements, but rather
to clarify the existing requirement.
EPA is also proposing changes to 40 CFR 86.1844-01(e) ``Part 2
Application'' and 40 CFR 85.2110 to no longer accept paper copies of
service manuals, Technical Service Bulletins (TSB), owner's manuals, or
warranty booklets. In response to the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA) mandate and OMB's Memorandum for Heads of
Executive Departments and Agencies, M-19-21, Transition to Electronic
Records, EPA will no longer accept paper copies of these documents.
iv. Fuel Economy and In-Use Verification Test Procedure Streamlining
The ``Federal Test Procedure'' (FTP) defines the process for
measuring vehicle exhaust emissions, evaporative emissions, and fuel
economy and is outlined in 40 CFR 1066.801(e). The process includes
preconditioning steps to ensure the repeatability of the test results,
as described in 40 CFR 86.132-96. EPA proposes two changes to the
preconditioning process used for testing of only fuel economy data
vehicles (FEDVs) (not emission data vehicles) in order reduce the
testing burden while maintaining the repeatability and improving the
accuracy of the test results.\543\ The proposed changes are related to
the fuel drain and refueling step and the preconditioning of the
evaporative canister. EPA is also proposing to remove one fuel drain
and refueling step for in-use surveillance vehicles. In addition, we
are proposing changes to the fuel cap placement during vehicle storage
for all emission data and fuel economy vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\543\ See proposed regulations in 40 CFR 86.132-96 and
1066.801(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently, all FEDVs must follow the regulations in for
preconditioning before conducting the cold-start portion of the test.
Included in this preconditioning is the requirement to drain and refuel
the fuel tank twice. We propose to remove the second fuel drain step,
that occurs after running the Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule (UDDS)
preconditioning cycle, but before the cold start test. The fuel drain
and refuel step was originally included in the test procedure because
fresh fuel was important for carbureted engines and could impact the
test results. However, with today's fuel injection systems, EPA's
assessment is that the refueling of the vehicle with fresh fuel does
not impact the measured fuel economy of the vehicle.\544\ Removing this
step would save a significant amount of fuel for each test run by the
manufacturer and run by EPA and reduce the number of voided tests due
to mis-fueling and fueling time violations. It would also reduce the
labor associated with refueling the vehicle for each test. EPA also
proposes to remove this step for in-use vehicle testing on vehicles
tested
[[Page 29291]]
under 40 CFR 86.1845-04 (verification testing). It is difficult to
drain fuel from an in-use vehicle because they normally do not have
fuel drains. Removing this step will save time and fuel from the in-use
verification process as well. EPA will still require this step for in-
use confirmatory vehicles tested under 40 CFR 86.1846-01.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\544\ Memo to Docket. ``EPA FTP Streamlining Test Results.'' See
Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0829. March 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA also proposes to remove the canister loading, and purging as
appropriate, steps from the preconditioning for FEDVs. This would
provide the following benefits to manufacturers and EPA: The time to
run the test would be reduced, less butane would be consumed by the
laboratories which reduces the cost of running a test, and the fuel
economy measurement accuracy would improve. EPA conservatively
estimates that at least 88 kg of butane was consumed by manufacturers
in the 2021 calendar year for the purposes of fuel economy testing,
based on 909 fuel economy test submissions to EPA and assuming 97 grams
of butane per canister. The measurement accuracy would improve because
the calculations for fuel economy assume that 100 percent of the fuel
consumed during the testing has the carbon balance of the liquid fuel
in the tank. The butane vapor that is added to the canister during
preconditioning has a different carbon content, and thus causes very
small inaccuracies in the fuel economy results. EPA's test program also
shows that the canister loading does not have any statistically
significant effect on the fuel economy results from the cold start and
highway fuel economy tests.\545\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\545\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the regulations in 40 CFR 86.132-96(a) currently state
that fuel cap(s) shall be removed during any period when the vehicle is
parked outside awaiting testing but may be in place while in the test
area. EPA proposes to revise the regulations such that the vehicle
shall always be stored in a way that prevents fuel contamination and
unnatural loading of the evaporative control system while awaiting
testing regardless of location. At this time EPA considers the
possibility of contaminates getting into the fuel system while the fuel
cap is off to be more significant that any possible ``overloading'' of
the canister. Modern vehicles purge the canister sufficiently during
the preconditioning cycles to ensure that tests completed on vehicles
that have been parked will not affect testing results significantly.
Custodians of test vehicles should avoid parking test vehicles outdoors
during hot conditions for long periods of time.
We request comment and data quantifying any effects of removing the
second fuel drain and fill step and removing the canister loading steps
from the FTP for fuel economy data vehicles and in-use verification
vehicles, along with any impacts of keeping the fuel tank cap in place
prior to testing.
v. Miscellaneous Amendments
We are proposing to amend the pre-certification exemption in 40 CFR
85.1702 and 85.1706 to clarify that the exemption is limited to
companies that already hold a certificate showing that they meet EPA
emission standards. This has been a longstanding practice for highway
and nonroad engines and vehicles. Companies that are not certificate
holders may continue to request a testing exemption under 40 CFR
85.1705.
We are proposing to update the test procedures in 40 CFR 86.113 to
reference test fuel specifications in 40 CFR part 1065 for diesel fuel,
natural gas, and LPG. We do not expect this change to cause
manufacturers to change the test fuels they use for certification, or
to prevent any manufacturer from using carryover data to continue
certifying vehicles in later model years. In the case of diesel fuel,
the two sets of specifications are very similar except that 40 CFR
1065.703 takes a different approach for aromatic content of the fuel by
specifying a minimum aromatic content of 100 g/kg. We expect current
diesel test fuels to meet this specification. In the case of natural
gas, 40 CFR 1065.715 decreases the minimum methane content from 89 to
87 percent, with corresponding adjustments in allowable levels of
nonmethane compounds. In this case too, manufacturers would be able to
continue meeting test fuel specifications without changing their
current practice. In the case of LPG, 40 CFR 86.113-94 directs
manufacturers to ask EPA to approve a test fuel. In the absence of any
other specific requirements, we would likely rely on the published fuel
specifications in 40 CFR 1065.720 even without a direct reference. We
request comment on these proposed changes to fuel specifications. In
particular, we request comment on any unintended conflict between the
old and the new specifications, and on any potential need to adjust
test fuel specifications to maintain consistency with existing
requirements.
The regulation currently requires manufacturers to include
information in the application for certification for fuel-fired heaters
(40 CFR 86.1844-01(d)(15)). The regulation also requires manufacturers
to account for fuel-fired heater emissions in credit calculations for
Tier 2 vehicles (40 CFR 86.1860-04(f)(4)). The Tier 3 regulation
inadvertently omitted the requirement related to credit calculations in
40 CFR 86.1860-17. We are proposing to restore the requirement to
account for emissions from fuel-fired heaters in credit calculations in
40 CFR 86.1844-01(d)(15).
This proposed rule includes several structural changes that lead to
a need to make several changes to the regulations for correct
terminology and appropriate organization, including the following
examples:
We are replacing cold temperature NMHC standards with cold
temperature NMOG+NOX standards, and we are adding a cold
temperature PM standard. The proposed rule includes updates to refer to
cold temperature standards generally, or to cold temperature
NMOG+NOX standards instead of or in addition to cold
temperature NMHC standards. 40 CFR 86.1864-10 is similarly adjusted to
refer to cold temperature fleet average standards and cold temperature
emission credits instead of referencing NMHC.
We are setting separate emission standards for US06 and
SC03 driving schedules rather than setting standards based on a
composite calculation for the driving schedules that make up the
Supplemental FTP. As a result, we are generally adjusting terminology
for Tier 4 vehicles to refer to the specific cycles rather than the
Supplemental FTP.
The existing regulation includes several references to
Tier 3 standards (or Tier 3 emission credits, etc.). Those references
were generally written to say when regulatory provisions started to
apply. Some of those provisions need to continue into Tier 4, but not
all. The proposed rule includes new language in several places to
clarify whether or how those provisions apply for Tier 4 vehicles.
The proposed rule eliminates many of the differences in
the way we apply emission standards for light-duty and heavy-duty
vehicles (we are also starting to refer to heavy-duty vehicles as
medium-duty vehicles). As a result, we are proposing the new criteria
exhaust emission standards for all these vehicles in 40 CFR 86.1811
rather than continuing to rely on a separate section (40 CFR 86.1816)
for heavy-duty vehicles.
The proposal includes several instances of removing regulatory text
that has been obsolete for several years. Removing obsolete text is
important to prevent people from making errors from thinking that
obsolete text continues to
[[Page 29292]]
apply. The final rule may include additional housekeeping amendments to
remove obsolete text and to remove or update cross references to
obsolete or removed regulatory text.
One case of obsolete text is related to special test procedures as
specified in 40 CFR 86.1840-01. Vehicle manufacturers have completed a
transition to following the exhaust test procedures specified in 40 CFR
part 1066, such that those new test procedures apply instead of the
test procedures in 40 CFR part 86, subpart B, starting with model year
2022. Since we address special test procedures in 40 CFR
1066.10(copyright), which in turn relies on 40 CFR 1065.10(c)(2), we no
longer need to rely on 40 CFR 86.1840-01 for special test procedures.
We note the following aspects of the transition for special test
procedures:
We are proposing to apply the provisions for special
procedures equally to all vehicles certified under 40 CFR part 86,
subpart S. The special test procedures were written in a way that did
not apply for incomplete vehicles certified under 40 CFR part 86,
subpart S. This is very likely an artifact of the changing scope of the
regulation since 2001.
We are keeping the reference to infrequently regenerating
aftertreatment devices in 40 CFR 86.1840-01 as an example of special
test procedures to clarify that we are not proposing to change the way
manufacturers demonstrate compliance for vehicles with infrequently
regenerating aftertreatment devices. Specifically, we are not proposing
to adopt the measurement and reporting requirements that apply for
heavy-duty engines under 40 CFR 1065.680.
We are proposing to apply the provisions related to
infrequently regenerating aftertreatment devices equally to all
vehicles certified under 40 CFR part 86, subpart S. The provisions in
40 CFR 86.1840-01 were written in a way that they did not apply for
medium-duty passenger vehicles. This is very likely an artifact of the
changing scope of the regulation since 2001.
We are proposing the following additional amendments:
Section 85.1510(d): Waiving the requirement for
Independent Commercial Importers to apply fuel economy labels to
electric vehicles. Performing the necessary measurements to determine
label values would generally require accessing high-voltage portions of
the vehicles electrical system. Manufacturers can appropriately and
safely make these measurements as part of product development and
testing. These measurements can pose an unreasonable safety risk when
making these measurements on production vehicles. The benefit of
labeling information for these vehicles is not enough to outweigh the
safety risks of generating that information.
Section 86.1816-18: The published final rule to adopt the
Tier 3 exhaust emission standards for Class 2b and Class 3 vehicles
inadvertently increased the numerical value of those standards a
trillion-fold by identifying the units as Tg/mile. We are proposing to
revert to g/mile as we intended by adopting the Tier 3 standards.
6. Light- and Medium-Duty Emissions Warranty for Certain ICE Components
EPA is proposing to designate several emission control components
of light-duty ICE vehicles as specified major emission control
components. These include components of the diesel Selective Reductant
Catalysts (SRC) system, components of the diesel Exhaust Gas
Recirculation (EGR) system, and diesel and gasoline particulate filters
(DPFs and GPFs). As the result of this designation, these components
will have the same warranty requirements as other components that have
been established as specified major emission control components.
As described in Section III.F.3, CAA section 207(i) specifies that
the warranty period for light-duty vehicles is 2 years or 24,000 miles
of use (whichever first occurs), except the warranty period for
specified major emission control components is 8 years or 80,000 miles
of use (whichever first occurs). The Act defines the term ``specified
major emission control component'' to mean only a catalytic converter,
an electronic emissions control unit (ECU), and an onboard emissions
diagnostic device, except that the Administrator may designate any
other pollution control device or component as a specified major
emission control component if--
(A) the device or component was not in general use on vehicles and
engines manufactured prior to the model year 1990; and
(B) the Administrator determines that the retail cost (exclusive of
installation costs) of such device or component exceeds $200 (in 1989
dollars),\546\ adjusted for inflation or deflation as calculated by the
Administrator at the time of such determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\546\ Equivalent to approximately $500 today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA believes that GPFs meet the requirements set forth in CAA
section 207(i) and should be designated as specified major emission
control components. GPFs were not in general use prior to model year
1990 and their cost exceeds the threshold specified in the CAA. EPA
anticipates that the PM standards in this proposal will require the
application of a GPF. In the event of a GPF failure, PM emissions will
most likely exceed the proposed standards. It is imperative that a
properly functioning GPF be installed on a vehicle in order to achieve
the environmental benefits projected by this proposal.
In order to meet the current emissions standards, diesel vehicles
utilize Selective Reductant Catalysts (SRC) as the primary catalytic
converter for NOX emissions controls and well as a Diesel
Oxidation Catalyst (DOC) as the primary catalytic converter for CO and
hydrocarbons and a Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF) as the primary
catalytic converter to control particulate matter (PM). In the event
that any one of these components fail, EPA anticipates that the
relevant standard will be exceeded. The proper functioning of each of
these components is necessary for the relevant emissions benefits to be
achieved.
More specifically, the SCR catalytic converter relies on a system
of components needed to inject a liquid reductant called Diesel Exhaust
Fluid (DEF) into the catalytic converter. This system includes pumps,
injectors, NOX sensors, DEF level and quality sensors,
storage tanks, DEF heaters and other components that all must function
properly for the catalytic converter to work. These components meet the
criteria for designation as specified major emission control
components.
Vehicles with diesel engines do not rely solely on aftertreatment
to control emissions. Diesel engines utilize Exhaust Gas Recirculation
(EGR) to control engine out emissions as a critical element of the
emissions control system. Components of the EGR system such as
electronic EGR valves and EGR coolers meet the criteria for designation
as specified major emission control components.
The emission-related warranty period for heavy duty engines and
vehicles under CAA section 207(i) is ``the period established by the
Administrator by regulation (promulgated prior to November 15, 1990)
for such purposes unless the Administrator subsequently modifies such
regulation.'' The regulations specify that the warranty period for
light heavy-duty vehicles under 40 CFR 1037.120 is 5 years or 50,000
miles of use (whichever first occurs). EPA is proposing to clarify that
this same warranty period applies for medium-duty vehicles certified
under 40 CFR part 86, subpart S, except that a longer warranty period
of 8 years or
[[Page 29293]]
80,000 miles would apply for engine-related components described in
this section as specified major emission control components.
The warranty provisions in CAA section 207 do not explicitly apply
to medium-duty passenger vehicles. However, as with the new standards
in this proposed rule, we are proposing to apply warranty requirements
to medium-duty passenger vehicles in the same way that they apply to
light-duty vehicles.
7. Definition of Light-Duty Truck
EPA currently has separate regulatory definitions for light truck
for GHG standards and light-duty truck for criteria pollutant
standards. Historically this was not an issue because the car versus
truck definition was clear. Nearly all vehicles were passenger cars or
pickup trucks with open cargo beds. The earliest sport utility vehicles
(SUVs) were primarily derived from pickup truck platforms and were
therefore considered light trucks. However, current versions of some of
these SUVs are now built off of car-based platforms and have carlike
features. Current differences between the two light truck definitions
leads to some SUVs being certified to GHG standards as a truck and to
criteria pollutant standards as a car. To address this concern, we are
proposing to transition to a single definition of light-duty truck with
the implementation of the Tier 4 criteria pollutant emission standards.
Currently, the first ``light truck'' definition is used for
determining compliance with the light-duty GHG emission standards (40
CFR 600.002). This definition matches the definition that NHTSA uses in
determining compliance with their fuel economy standards (49 CFR
523.5). This definition contains specific vehicle design
characteristics that must be met to qualify a vehicle as a truck.
The second ``light-duty truck'' definition is used for certifying
vehicles to the criteria pollutant standards (40 CFR 86.1803-01). This
broader definition allows for some SUVs to qualify as trucks even if
the specific vehicle does not contain the truck-like design attributes.
The definition also includes some ambiguity that requires the
manufacturers and EPA to apply judgment to determine the appropriate
classification.
To address this concern, we are proposing to revise the definition
of light-duty truck used in the criteria pollutant standards to simply
refer to the definition of light-truck used in the GHG standards. This
proposed change would eliminate any confusion and simplify reporting
for manufacturers because each vehicle would be treated consistently as
either a car or a truck for all standards and reporting requirements.
We request comment on this proposed revision.
G. Proposed On-Board Diagnostics Program Updates
EPA regulations state that onboard diagnostics (OBD) systems must
generally detect malfunctions in the emission control system, store
trouble codes corresponding to detected malfunctions, and alert
operators appropriately. EPA adopted at 40 CFR 86.1806-17 a requirement
for manufacturers to meet the 2013 California Air Resources Board
(CARB) OBD regulation as a requirement for an EPA certificate, with
certain additional provisions, clarifications and exceptions, in the
Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Emission and Fuel Standards final rulemaking (79
FR 23414, April 28, 2014). Since that time, CARB has made several
updates to their OBD regulations and continues to consider changes
periodically. In this NPRM, EPA is proposing to update to the latest
version of the CARB OBD regulation (California's 2022 OBD-II
requirements that are part of title 13, section 1968.2 of the
California Code of Regulations, approved on November 22, 2022). This is
accomplished by adding a new section for model year 2027 and later
vehicles and only putting in requirements in that section that are not
in the new CARB regulation. For example, EPA is adding a new monitoring
requirement for gasoline particulate filters (GPFs) since the CARB
regulation does not specifically have a requirement for a particulate
filter diagnostic for gasoline vehicles and EPA is projecting that
manufacturers will utilize GPFs as a control strategy in meeting the
proposed PM standards. Details are available in DRIA Chapter 3.3.
H. Coordination With Federal and State Partners
Executive Order 14037 directs EPA and DOT to coordinate, as
appropriate and consistent with applicable law, during consideration of
this rulemaking. EPA has coordinated and consulted with DOT/NHTSA, both
on a bilateral level during the development of the proposed program as
well as through the interagency review of the EPA proposal led by the
Office of Management and Budget. EPA has set some previous light-duty
vehicle GHG emission standards in joint rulemakings where NHTSA also
established CAFE standards. Most recently, in establishing standards
for model year 2023-2026, EPA and NHTSA concluded that it was
appropriate to coordinate and consult but not to engage in joint
rulemaking. EPA has similarly concluded that it is not necessary for
this EPA proposal to be issued in a joint action with NHTSA. In
reaching this conclusion, EPA notes there is no statutory requirement
for joint rulemaking and that the agencies have different statutory
mandates and their respective programs have always reflected those
differences. As the Supreme Court has noted ``EPA has been charged with
protecting the public's `health' and `welfare,' a statutory obligation
wholly independent of DOT's mandate to promote energy efficiency.''
\547\ Although there is no statutory requirement for EPA to consult
with NHTSA, EPA has consulted significantly with NHTSA in the
development of this rule. For example, staff of the two agencies met
frequently to discuss various technical issues including modeling
inputs and assumptions, shared technical information, and shared views
related to the assessments conducted for each rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\547\ Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. at 532.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA also has consulted with analysts from other Federal agencies in
developing this proposal, including the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, the Department of Energy and several national labs. EPA
collaborates with DOE and Argonne National Laboratory on battery cost
analyses and critical materials forecasting. EPA, National Renewable
Energy Laboratory (NREL) and DOE collaborate on forecasting the
development of a national charging infrastructure and projecting
regional charging demand for input into EPA's power sector modeling.
EPA also coordinates with the Joint Office of Energy and Transportation
on charging infrastructure. EPA and the Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory collaborate on issues of consumer acceptance of plug-in
electric vehicles. EPA and the Oak Ridge National Laboratory
collaborate on energy security issues. EPA also participates in the
Federal Consortium for Advanced Batteries led by DOE and the Joint
Office of Energy and Transportation. EPA and DOE also have entered into
a Joint Memorandum of Understanding to provide a framework for
interagency cooperation and consultation on electric sector resource
adequacy and operational reliability.\548\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\548\ Joint Memorandum on Interagency Communication and
Consultation on Electric Reliability, U.S. Department of Energy and
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, March 8, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 29294]]
E.O. 14037 also directs EPA to coordinate with California and other
states that are leading the way in reducing vehicle emissions. EPA has
engaged with the California Air Resources Board on technical issues in
developing this proposal. EPA has considered certain aspects of the
CARB Advanced Clean Cars II program, adopted in August 2022, as
discussed elsewhere in this notice. We also have engaged with other
states, including members of the National Association of Clean Air
Agencies, Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management, and the
Ozone Transport Commission.
I. Stakeholder Engagement
EPA has conducted extensive engagement with a diverse range of
interested stakeholders in developing this proposal. We have engaged
with those groups with whom E.O. 14037 specifically directs EPA to
engage, including labor unions, states, industry, environmental justice
organizations and public health experts. In addition, we have engaged
with NGOs representing environmental, public health and consumer
interests, automotive manufacturers, suppliers, dealers, utilities,
charging providers, local governments, Tribal governments, alternative
fuels industries, and other organizations. For example, in April-May
2022, EPA held a series of engagement sessions with various interested
stakeholder groups so that EPA could hear early input in developing its
proposal. These engagement sessions included all of the identified
stakeholder groups. EPA has continued engagement with many of these
stakeholders throughout the development of this proposal. EPA looks
forward to hearing from all stakeholders through comments on this
proposal and during the public hearing.
IV. Technical Assessment of the Proposed Standards
A. What approach did EPA use in analyzing potential standards?
For this proposal, EPA has conducted a new technical assessment of
the proposed standards, along with an assessment of alternative
standards and sensitivity cases. The overall approach used here is
consistent with our prior rulemakings for GHG and criteria pollutants
for light- and medium-duty vehicles. We continue to refer to the
extensive body of prior technical work that has underpinned those
rules, and where appropriate we have incorporated both updated and new
tools, models and data in conducting this assessment. Some of the areas
of particular focus are related to the significant developments in
vehicle electrification that have continued to occur since our most
recent previous technical assessment published with the 2021 rule.
Battery costs continue to decline, and vehicle manufacturers have
continued to introduce PEV products in increased volumes and new market
segments, improving the ability to characterize the cost and
performance of best-practice designs. New legislation also has provided
significant incentives for both the manufacture and purchase of PEVs,
and the expansion of charging infrastructure. Additionally, in light of
the projected levels of electrification anticipated under the proposed
standards, EPA's new technical assessment contains significantly
increased focus on the availability of critical minerals, supply chain
development, battery manufacturing capacity, and mineral security.
Our modeling can be broadly divided into two categories. The first
category is compliance modeling for the vehicle manufacturers, which
includes the potential design and technology application decisions to
achieve compliance under the modeled standard. The second category is
`effects' modeling, which is intended to capture how changes in vehicle
design and use will impact human health, the environment, and other
factors that are relevant to a societal benefits-costs analysis.
As in the 2010 and 2012 rules, EPA is again using the Optimization
Model for reducing Emissions of Greenhouse gases from Automobiles
(OMEGA) to model vehicle manufacturer compliance with GHG standards. In
the 2021 GHG rule EPA used DOT's CAFE Compliance and Effects Modeling
System (CCEMS). This approach helped to maintain consistency with the
CCEMS modeling used for the 2020 rule allowing for a more direct
comparison of results given a single modeling tool having been used for
both analyses. For this proposal, EPA is returning to the use of the
OMEGA model, and we do so for a few important reasons. For one, the
updated version of OMEGA extends the prior version's projections of
cost-effective manufacturer compliance decisions by also accounting for
the relationship between manufacturer compliance decisions and consumer
demand and including important constraints on technology adoption.
Also, the updated OMEGA allows for evaluation of the influence of other
policies beyond the GHG standards being evaluated, such as state-level
ZEV policies. These features make this updated version of OMEGA well-
suited for analyzing standards in a market where BEVs are expected to
account for a steadily increasing share of new vehicle sales. EPA has
utilized the OMEGA model in evaluating the effects of not only the GHG
program but the criteria pollutant emissions program as well. Finally,
despite the strengths of the CCEMS and its modeling approach, it is
designed around the CAFE program and the statute behind that program,
while OMEGA is designed around EPA's GHG program and the Clean Air Act.
This model takes as inputs detailed information about existing
vehicles, technologies, costs, and definitions of the policies under
consideration. From these inputs, the model projects the stock of
vehicles and vehicle attributes, and their use over the analysis
period. For the analysis supporting this proposal, EPA has developed an
updated and peer-reviewed version of the OMEGA model to better account
for the significant evolution over the past decade in vehicle markets,
technologies, and mobility services. In particular, recent advancements
in BEVs and their introduction into the full range of market segments
provides strong evidence that increased vehicle electrification can
play a central role in achieving greater levels of emissions reduction
in the future. Among the key new features of OMEGA is the
representation of consumer-producer interactions when modeling
compliance pathways and the associated technology penetration into the
vehicle fleet. This capability allows us to project the impacts of the
producer and consumer incentives contained in the IRA and BIL
legislation. Compared to the previous model version, the updated
version of OMEGA has extended capability to model a wider range of GHG
program provisions, and it has been critical in the assessment of
various policy alternatives that were considered for this proposal.
OMEGA is described in detail in DRIA Chapter 2.2.
The ALPHA vehicle simulation model is used to estimate emissions,
energy rates, and other relevant vehicle performance estimates. These
ALPHA simulation results create the inputs to the OMEGA model for the
range of technologies considered in this rulemaking. We have built upon
our existing library of benchmarked engines and transmissions used in
previous rulemakings by adding several new technologies for non-hybrid
and hybrid ICE vehicles, and newly refined models of BEV powertrains.
For this proposal, we have also adopted an updated approach for
representing the ALPHA simulation results in OMEGA, using `response
surfaces' of emissions and
[[Page 29295]]
energy rates. These continuous technology representations can be
applied across vehicles of different size, weight, and performance
characteristics without requiring that vehicles be binned into discrete
vehicle classes. The response surface approach also simplifies the
model validation process, since the absolute values of absolute
emissions and energy rates that are produced can be readily checked
against actual vehicle test data. This is in contrast to the validation
process needed for the incremental effectiveness values that were
estimated in previous rulemakings using either a `lumped parameter
model' or direct table lookup of effectiveness. The modeling in ALPHA
and generation of response surfaces is described in DRIA Chapter 2.4.
The technology cost estimates used in this assessment are from both
new and previously referenced sources, including some values used in
recent rulemakings where those remain the best available estimates.
Vehicle teardown studies remain an important source of detailed cost
estimates, and for this rulemaking EPA has contracted a new teardown
study that compares ICE and BEV manufacturing costs for a high-volume
crossover utility vehicle. Battery costs are an especially important
element for this rulemaking. Consistent with prior rulemakings, we have
used DOE's BatPaC model to estimate current battery pack costs which,
similar to other technology costs, are assumed to decline over time as
production volumes grow and manufacturing efficiencies improve. The
costing approaches and assumptions are described in more detail in DRIA
Chapter 2.5.
The main function of the OMEGA compliance modeling is to simulate
how a manufacturer can meet future GHG standards through the
application of technologies. Among multiple pathways that typically
exist for achieving compliance, OMEGA aims to find the pathway that
minimizes costs for the manufacturer given a set of inputs that
includes technology costs and emissions rates. The compliance modeling
for this rulemaking also includes constraints on new vehicle production
and sales that are informed by our assessment of manufacturer and
consumer decisions, and in some cases account for factors that were not
included in the technical assessments in our prior rulemakings.
EPA also consulted and considered data and forecasts from
government agencies, analyst firms, and industry in order to assess
capacity for battery production and to thereby establish appropriate
constraints on PEV battery production (in terms of gigawatt-hours (GWh)
in a given year) during the time frame of the proposal.\549\ This
effectively acts as an upper limit on BEV production, particularly
during the earlier years of the analysis, and represents, for example,
considerations such as availability of critical minerals and the lead
time required to construct battery production facilities. The
development of the battery GWh constraint and the sources considered
are described in detail in DRIA Chapter 3.1.3.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\549\ Sources included, among others, Wood Mackenzie proprietary
forecasts of battery manufacturing capacity, battery costs, and
critical mineral availability; Department of Energy analyses and
forecasts of critical mineral availability and battery manufacturing
capacity; and other public sources. See DRIA Chapter 3.1.3.2 for a
description of these sources and how they were used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consistent with compliance modeling for past rulemakings, the OMEGA
model also limits the rate at which new vehicle designs can be
introduced by applying redesign cycle constraints (DRIA Chapter 2.6).
EPA has evaluated historic vehicle data (e.g., the rate of product
redesigns) to ensure that the technology production pace in the
modeling is feasible. In addition to vehicle production constraints,
market assumptions and limits on manufacturer pricing cross-
subsidization have been implemented to constrain the number of BEVs
that can enter the fleet. EPA has evaluated market projections from
both public and proprietary sources to calibrate the OMEGA model's
representation of the consumer market's ICE-BEV share response. A
detailed discussion of the constraints used in EPA's compliance
modeling is provided in DRIA Chapter 2.7.
As in prior rulemakings, this assessment is a projection of the
future, and is subject to a range of uncertainties. We have assessed a
number of sensitivity cases for key assumptions in order to evaluate
how they would impact the results.
B. EPA's Approach To Considering the No Action Case and Sensitivities
EPA has assessed the effects of this proposal with respect to a No
Action case, for all stringency alternatives and several sensitivities.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provides guidance for
regulatory analysis through Circular A4. Circular A4 describes, in
general, how a regulatory agency should conduct an analysis in support
of a future regulation and includes a requirement for assessing the
baseline, or ``no action'', condition: ``what the world will be like if
the proposed rule is not adopted''. In addition, Circular A4 provides
that the regulating agency may also consider ``alternative baselines,''
which EPA has considered via several sensitivities in this proposal. In
the development of a No Action case, EPA also considers existing
finalized rulemakings. For this proposal, these finalized rules include
the 2014 Tier 3 criteria pollutant regulation, the 2016 Phase 2 GHG
standards for medium-duty vehicles, and the recently finalized MY 2023-
2026 light-duty GHG standards.
EPA recognizes that during the timeframe of our existing standards
the industry and market has already developed considerable momentum
toward continuing increases in BEV uptake (as discussed at length
throughout this preamble). This dynamic raises an important question
about what the projected market penetration for BEVs in the absence of
the proposed standards will be. EPA also recognizes there are many
projections from third parties and various stakeholders for increased
BEV penetration into the future. There are a range of assumptions that
vary across such projections such as consumer adoption, financial
incentives, manufacturing capacity and vehicle price. Vehicle price is
also impacted by range and efficiency assumptions (more efficient EVs
require smaller batteries to travel the same distance and smaller
batteries cost less). Depending on what specific assumptions regarding
the future are made, there can be significant variation in future BEV
projections. Increasingly favorable consumer sentiment towards BEVs,
decreasing costs (either through a reduction in manufacturing costs or
through financial incentives), and a broadening number of BEV product
offerings all support a projected higher number of new vehicle BEV
sales in the future, independent of additional regulatory action. As
described in preamble Section I.A.2.ii, EPA reviewed several recent
reports and studies containing BEV projections which altogether span a
range from 32 to 50 percent of new vehicle sales in 2030 and as high as
67 percent by 2032.
EPA has considered a similar set of factors as those studies
conducted by other stakeholders to develop the No Action case for this
proposal. EPA's No Action case has been primarily informed by the
technical assessment conducted by the agency in support of this
proposal. This includes detailed vehicle and battery cost analyses,
impacts of consumer and manufacturing financial incentives (such as
those provided by the Inflation Reduction
[[Page 29296]]
Act), consumer acceptance studies, vehicle performance modeling and
technology applications, and battery manufacturing assessments.
The No Action case in our central analysis reaches 39 percent BEVs
in 2032, shown in Table 81, compared to an actual 3 percent BEV share
of new vehicles in MY 2021. This projected BEV increase is driven by
EPA's projections of an increase in consumer interest and acceptance
over that period, the availability of economic incentives for electric
vehicles for both manufacturers and consumers provided by the IRA, cost
learning for BEV technology over time, and the ongoing effect of the
2021 rulemaking and the associated stringency increases in MYs 2022
through 2026. In the absence of this proposed rulemaking, the MY 2026
standards carry forward indefinitely into future years and define the
No Action policy case for the analysis in this proposal. Notably, this
projection does not include announcements made by manufacturers about
their future plans and corporate goals, or state laws that have
recently been adopted or are likely to be adopted in the next decade.
While our projected BEV penetrations in the No Action case show a
substantial increase over time, the 39 percent value in MY 2032 is
lower than some third-party projections and manufacturer
announcements.\550\ For example, the International Energy Agency (IEA)
synthesized industry announcements to date and concluded that if
industry follows its announced plans, 50 percent of new vehicle sales
in the U.S. would be zero-emission by 2030.\551\ The same IEA analysis
found that the combined effect of all current policies without
consideration of these announcements would result in more than 20
percent BEV sales in 2030. Our own projection of the No Action BEV
share of new vehicles falls between these two IEA cases, and well below
the higher case of what the industry has announced it will do. While we
consider manufacturer announcements as additional evidence that high
levels of BEV penetration are feasible, for purposes of this proposal
we have not integrated manufacturer announcements directly into our
modeling of the No Action baseline. We note here that there are two key
reasons why our central No-Action case projections of BEV penetration
for this rulemaking are lower than announcements from some manufacturer
and some third-party projections. First, our analysis does not include
the effect of state-level policies whereas projections from other
sources may include those policies. We did not include these policies
because many are still not in effect; however, we do anticipate that in
the next decade, state-level policies may play an important role in
driving BEV penetration. For this reason, we have included a
sensitivity No Action case, which includes the ZEV requirements of the
California Advanced Clean Car (ACC) II program for California and other
participating states. Second, our analysis is based on the assumption
that manufacturers follow a purely cost-minimizing compliance strategy.
We do not account for strategic business decisions or corporate
policies that might cause a manufacturer to pursue a higher-BEV
strategy such as the numerous manufacturer announcements and published
corporate goals that suggest this approach may underestimate the rate
of BEV adoption in a No Action scenario.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\550\ A summary of industry announcements and third-party
projections of BEV penetrations is provided in Section I.A.2.
\551\ International Energy Agency, ``Global EV Outlook 2022,''
p. 107, May 2022. Accessed on November 18, 2022 at https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/e0d2081d-487d-4818-8c59-69b638969f9e/GlobalElectricVehicleOutlook2022.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a way to explore the impact that alternative assumptions would
have on the future BEV penetrations under the No Action case, the
agency has also conducted a range of sensitivities in addition to a
central No Action case. Specifically, EPA conducted three categories of
sensitivity cases to explore how various input assumptions affected the
No Action case as well as the Proposal and the Alternatives. First, EPA
explored a sensitivity reflecting state adoption of the California
Advanced Clean Cars II (ACC II) program. Second, EPA conducted
sensitivities of both higher and lower battery costs. Third, EPA made
assumptions about a faster or slower pace of consumer acceptance of
BEVs. Our central No Action case projects 39 percent BEVs in MY2032.
Across the sensitivity analyses, MY2032 BEV projections ranged from 29
to 66 percent in their respective No Action cases. Each of the
sensitivity cases is discussed in more detail in Section IV.E. Our
projections through MY 2032 for BEV penetrations in the No Action case
are shown in Figure 20.
[[Page 29297]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05MY23.023
We acknowledge the range of possible assumptions, and on balance,
we believe that EPA's approach to assessing potential No Action cases
provides a technically robust method of determining the feasibility and
costs associated with the emissions reductions required by the proposed
standards.
EPA requests comment on our approach to the No Action case, both
the methodologies and detailed technical inputs used by EPA to develop
the No Action case for this proposal, and also on other approaches EPA
may consider as an alternative to the approach used in this proposal.
EPA will assess the comments and other information gathered in response
to this proposal in determining an appropriate approach to the No
Action case for the final rule.
C. How did EPA consider technology feasibility and related issues?
1. Light- and Medium-Duty Technology Feasibility
The levels of stringency considered in this proposal continue a
trend of more stringent emission standards established by EPA in prior
rulemakings based on EPA's consideration of available and projected
technologies consistent with the factors EPA must consider when
establishing standards under the Clean Air Act. As with prior rules, as
part of the development of this proposed rulemaking, EPA has assessed
the feasibility of the proposed standards in light of current and
anticipated progress by automakers in developing and deploying new
emissions-reducing technologies.
Compliance with the EPA GHG and criteria pollutant standards over
the past decade has been achieved predominantly through the application
of advanced technologies and improved aftertreatment systems to
internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles. For example, in the analyses
performed for the 2012 GHG rule, a significant portion of EPA's
analysis included an assessment of technologies available to
manufacturers for achieving compliance with the standards. Advanced ICE
technologies were identified as playing a major role in manufacturer
compliance with the emission reductions required by those rules.
In that same time frame, as the EPA standards have increased in
stringency, automakers have relied to an increasing degree on a range
of electrification technologies, including hybrid electric vehicles
(HEVs) and, in recent years, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs)
and battery-electric vehicles (BEVs). As these technologies have been
advancing rapidly over the past decade, and as battery costs have
continued to decline, automakers have begun to include BEVs and PHEVs
(together referred to as PEVs or plug-in electric vehicles) as an
integral and growing part of their current and future product lines,
leading to an increasing diversity of these clean vehicles planned for
high-volume production. HEV and PHEV vehicle architectures not only
decrease GHG emissions but provide the vehicle manufacturers with
additional technology options for reducing criteria pollutant
emissions. Blended ICE and electric operation allow the vehicle
manufacturers to control the engine for optimal operating conditions to
reduce criteria pollutants. In addition, the inclusion of a higher
voltage battery provides the opportunity to preheat the catalyst to
reduce cold start emissions. In EPA's 2021 rule that set GHG emission
standards for MYs 2023 through 2026, we projected that manufacturers
would comply with the 2026 standards with about 17 percent PEVs at the
industry-wide level, reflecting the increased cost-effectiveness of PEV
technologies in achieving compliance with increasingly stringent
emissions standards.
This trend in technology application for light-duty vehicles is
evidence of a continuing shift toward electrification as an important
technology for both criteria pollutant and GHG compliance. As many
advanced ICE technologies have now reached high penetrations across the
breadth of manufacturers' product lines, electrification technology
becomes increasingly attractive as a cost-effective pathway to further
emission reductions. As described in detail in the Executive Summary,
manufacturers have increasingly begun to shift research and development
investment away from ICE technologies and are allocating large amounts
of new investment to electrification technologies. For more discussion
of this rapidly increasing trend, see preamble Section I.A.2.
In addition to the light-duty vehicle sector, the medium-duty
sector is also experiencing a shift toward
[[Page 29298]]
electrification in several important market segments. As described in
Section I.A.2 of this preamble, numerous commitments to produce all-
electric medium-duty delivery vans have been announced by large fleet
companies in partnerships with various OEMs. This rapid shift to BEVs
in a fleet that is currently predominantly gasoline- and diesel-fueled
suggests that the operators of these fleets consider BEV delivery vans
the best available and most cost-effective technology for meeting their
needs. Owing to the large size of these vehicle fleets, this segment
alone is likely to represent a significant portion of the future
electrification of the medium-duty vehicle fleet.
These trends in light- and medium-duty vehicle technology suggest
that electrification is already poised to play a rapidly increasing
role in the onroad fleet and provides further evidence that BEV and
PHEV technologies are increasingly seen as an effective and feasible
set of vehicle technologies that are available to manufacturers to help
comply with increasing levels of emission reductions.
EPA has assessed the feasibility of the proposed standards in light
of current and anticipated progress by automakers in developing and
deploying new emissions-reducing technologies and has presented the
bulk of this analysis in Chapter 3 of the DRIA. DRIA 3.1.1 provides
further discussion of recent trends and feasibility of light-duty
vehicle technologies that manufacturers have available to meet the
proposed standards. DRIA 3.1.2 discusses recent trends in
electrification of medium-duty vehicles. The following paragraphs
summarize other aspects of PEV feasibility, such as technology costs,
consumer acceptance, charging infrastructure, supply chain,
manufacturing capacity, critical minerals, and effects of BEV
penetration on upstream emissions; the respective chapters of the DRIA
provide additional detail.
While EPA has not specifically modeled the adoption of plug-in
hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) architectures in the analysis for this
proposal, the agency recognizes that PHEVs can provide significant
reductions in GHG emissions and that some vehicle manufacturers may
choose to utilize this technology as part of their technology offering
portfolio in response to customer demands/needs and in response to EPA
emission standards (as some firms are already doing today). PHEVs have
been available in the light-duty vehicle market in the U.S. for more
than a decade and a number of models are available now across a larger
breadth of vehicle types, including sedans, such as the Toyota Prius
Prime, and crossover SUVs, such as the Subaru Crosstrek, Ford Escape
PHEV, Kia Niro Plug-in Hybrid, Kia Sportage Plug-In Hybrid, Hyundai
Tucson Plug-In Hybrid, Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV and Toyota RAV4 Prime.
Stellantis currently offers a minivan PHEV in its Chrysler Pacifica
Hybrid. Large PHEV SUVs are also currently available, including the
Jeep Grand Cherokee and Jeep Wrangler 4xe, the Kia Sorento Plug in
Hybrid, the Lincoln Corsair Grand Touring, the Lincoln Aviator, and the
Volvo XC90 Recharge.
Although no PHEV pickup truck applications currently exist, EPA
believes the PHEV architecture may lend itself well to future pickup
truck applications, including some MDV pickup truck applications. One
major manufacturer, Stellantis, recently announced at the 2023 Consumer
Electronics Show that a range-extender will be an option on their new
full-size Ram 1500 REV electric pickup.\552\ A PHEV pickup architecture
would provide several benefits: Some amount of zero-emission electric
range (depending on battery size); increased total vehicle range during
heavy towing and hauling operations using both charge depleting and
charge sustaining modes (depending on ICE-powertrain sizing); job-site
utility with auxiliary power capabilities similar to portable worksite
generators, and the efficiency improvements normally associated with
strong hybrids that provide regenerative braking, extended engine idle-
off, and launch assist for high torque demand applications. Depending
on the vehicle architecture, PHEVs used in pickup truck applications
may also offer additional capabilities, similar to BEV pickups, with
respect to torque control and/or torque vectoring to reduce wheel slip
during launch in trailer towing applications. In addition, PHEVs may
help provide a bridge for consumers that may not be ready to adopt a
fully electric vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\552\ Kiley, D. Ram 1500 BEV Expected To Hit Market With 500
Miles of Range. ``Wards Auto'', January 5, 2023. https://www.wardsauto.com/print/389039.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The MY 2023 Jeep Grand Cherokee 4xe with the ``Trailhawk'' package
is an example of a large SUV with significant tow capability and
similar packages may eventually be used in pickup truck applications.
The vehicle has a 6,125 pound GVWR and a 12,125-pound GCWR using a
combination of a 270 bhp turbocharged GDI engine with P2 and P0
electric machines of 100kW and 33kW, respectively. The vehicle also
uses a 17.3 kWh (nominal size) battery pack that provides 25 miles of
all-electric range. The MY 2023 Jeep Wrangler 4xe uses a similar
powertrain and battery pack. The Wrangler 4xe equipped with the
``Rubicon'' package has a 6,400-pound GVWR and a 9,200-pound GCWR.
EPA requests comment on the types of PHEVs EPA could consider in
our analysis for the final rulemaking, including whether or not EPA
should explicitly model PHEVs in light-duty and MDV pickup
applications. EPA also requests comment on recommendations for likely
PHEV architectures that should be investigated, and any relevant
performance or utility data that may help inform our modeling and
analyses. EPA has initiated contract work with Southwest Research
Institute to investigate likely technology architectures of both PHEV
and internal combustion engine range-extended electric light-duty and
MDV pickup trucks that we anticipate will provide data in time for the
final rule. In addition, within DRIA Chapter 2.6.1.4 ``PHEV Powertrain
Costs,'' EPA provides component technology descriptions and cost
estimates that include the major components needed to manufacture a
PHEV, including batteries, e-motors, power electronics and other
ancillary systems. EPA requests comment on our PHEV cost estimates
contained in the DRIA. EPA may rely upon those estimates and other
information gathered in response to this proposal and EPA's on-going
technical work for estimating the costs for PHEVs for the final rule.
Many light-duty and medium-duty PHEVs purchased for commercial use
would be eligible for the Commercial Clean Vehicle Credit (45W) under
the IRA, which provides a credit of up to $7,500 for qualified vehicles
with gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWRs) of under 14,000 pounds and up
to $40,000 for qualified vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR. As the
amount of the credit depends on the GVWR and the incremental cost of
the vehicle relative a comparable ICE vehicle, EPA also requests
comment on estimating the amount of the credit that will on average
apply to commercial MDV PHEVs, such as PHEV pickups, and other
commercial PHEVs and BEVs.
2. Approach To Estimating Electrification Technology Costs
Among the various technology costs that are relevant to technology
feasibility, costs for electrification technology are of particular
interest due to the increased penetrations of
[[Page 29299]]
electrified vehicles that are projected in the compliance analysis.
This section provides a general review of how battery and other
electrification component costs were developed for this analysis. A
more detailed discussion of the development of the electrification cost
estimates used in the proposal, and the sources we considered, may be
found in DRIA Chapter 2.
To develop battery cost estimates for PEVs, EPA relied on a number
of resources. First, as part of our ongoing research activities, we
followed recent and anticipated trends in PEV battery design and
configuration in order to understand the general design parameters of
batteries that are appearing in high-production PEV models and whose
cost therefore should be modeled in the analysis. To identify
appropriate pack designs, we sought to model batteries with pack
topologies, cell sizes, and chemistry that are similar to those seen in
emerging high-production battery platforms, such as for example the GM
Ultium battery platform, the VW MEB vehicle platform, and the Hyundai
E-GMP vehicle platform. EPA considers these platforms to exemplify the
trend toward BEV-specific vehicle platforms with battery packs of
several capacities that are constructed from various numbers of modules
that utilize one or two standard cell sizes of relatively large
capacity, generally forming a flat battery pack assembly suitable for
residing in the vehicle floor.
EPA then used Argonne National Laboratory's BatPaC model version
5.0 as a key tool to generate base year (2022) direct manufacturing
cost estimates for battery packs of such a design, as they are likely
to be experienced today in a well optimized, high-volume battery
production facility. As described in more detail in DRIA Chapter
2.5.2.1.2, we generated a population of pack costs for various pack
energy capacities (kWh) and developed curve fits to express base year
cost per kWh as a function of gross kWh,\553\ for a number of annual
production volumes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\553\ As described in DRIA Chapter 2, larger packs tend to
achieve a lower cost per kWh, and this tendency is evident in BatPaC
results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To determine battery manufacturing costs in future years of the
analysis, we first looked to industry forecasts and other literature
regarding expected cost reductions for typical BEV battery packs in
future years, expected to result from factors commonly cited in these
forecasts, such as improved manufacturing efficiency and increasing
production volumes. We then used this information to derive a nominal
reference trajectory for future battery pack cost per kWh for an
average BEV battery pack. The development of the reference trajectory
is described in DRIA 2.5.2.1.3.
This generic reference trajectory was used as a reference point
with which to qualitatively compare BEV battery costs per kWh that are
output by the OMEGA model. When the OMEGA model generates a compliant
fleet in a given future year of the analysis, battery costs for BEVs in
that year are determined dynamically, by applying a learning cost
reduction to the base year cost. The learning factor is calculated
based on the cumulative GWh of battery production necessary to supply
the number of BEVs that OMEGA has thus far placed in the analysis
fleet, up to that analysis year. This is consistent with ``learning by
doing,'' a standard basis for representing cost reductions due to
learning in which a specific percentage cost reduction occurs with each
doubling of cumulative production over time. This dynamic method of
assigning a cost reduction due to learning means that OMEGA runs that
result in different cumulative battery production levels will result in
somewhat different battery costs.
Because it is concerned with projecting a compliant U.S. fleet,
OMEGA estimates only the cumulative GWh of battery production needed to
supply the U.S. PEV fleet. On a global scale, and across other battery
applications such as stationary storage or other classes of vehicles,
cumulative GWh of battery production is likely to be much larger than
that for the U.S. fleet alone, and could potentially lead to a greater
potential for learning to occur over the same time frame. Therefore,
our use of cumulative U.S. production may be conservative with respect
to the potential for volume-based learning to occur. EPA invites
comment on whether and how EPA should consider the issue of global
battery production in the context of our application of learning for
the final rule analysis.
As an example of the pack direct manufacturing costs used in the
analysis, Figure 21 shows the sales-weighted average battery pack
direct manufacturing cost per kWh generated by OMEGA for the central
case of the proposal, alongside the reference trajectory. The Proposal
costs compare quite favorably to the reference trajectory and vary
generally as expected. From 2022 to 2025 they are somewhat lower, due
to the substantially larger average pack size (96 to 103 kWh) compared
to the 75 kWh of the reference trajectory. Post-2027, the Proposal
costs are also lower than the reference trajectory, again due in part
to the larger pack size, and increasingly, to the growing cumulative
production volume due to the additional BEVs driven by the proposal.
[[Page 29300]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05MY23.024
The average pack size for BEVs generated by OMEGA is plotted on the
right axis. The 96 kWh to 103 kWh average pack capacity is due in part
to their use in relatively large vehicles, such as large SUVs and light
trucks, which form a significant part of the OMEGA modeled compliance
fleet and to which OMEGA directs a significant amount of
electrification in its identification of a least cost compliance
pathway. Another factor is the use of a 300-mile driving range for all
BEVs in the analysis, which is a longer average range than in some
other studies but which EPA believes is an appropriate modeling choice
to reflect currently prevailing range expectations by consumers.\554\
More discussion of the OMEGA model and the OMEGA results can be found
in Section IV.C and in the DRIA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\554\ For light-duty, OMEGA uses a 300 mile range for BEVs. For
medium-duty, OMEGA uses a 300 mile range for pickup BEVs and a 150
mile range for van BEVs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To reflect the anticipated effect of the Inflation Reduction Act
(IRA) on battery production costs to manufacturers, we applied a
further battery cost reduction based on the Section 45X Advanced
Manufacturing Production Tax Credit. This provision of the IRA provides
a $35 per kWh tax credit for manufacturers of battery cells, and an
additional $10 per kWh for manufacturers of battery modules, as well as
a credit equal to 10 percent of the manufacturing cost of electrode
active materials and another 10 percent for the manufacturing cost of
critical minerals (all applicable only to manufacture in the United
States). The credits, with the exception of the critical minerals
credit, are available immediately to manufacturers who meet the U.S.
production requirement and phase out from 2030 to 2032.
We assumed that manufacturer ability to take advantage of the $35
cell credit and the $10 module credit would ramp up linearly from 60
percent of total cells and modules in 2023 (a conservative estimate of
the current percentage of U.S.-based battery and cell manufacturing
likely to be eligible today for the credit) \555\ \556\ \557\ to 100
percent in 2027, and then ramping down by 25 percent per year as the
law phases out the credit from 2030 (75 percent) through 2033 (zero
percent). Although a large percentage of 2023 U.S. BEV battery and cell
manufacturing is represented by the production of one OEM, we expect
that the many large U.S. battery production facilities that are being
actively developed by suppliers and other OEMs (as described in Section
IV.C.6 of this Preamble) will allow benefit of the credit to be
accessible to all manufacturers by 2027.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\555\ U.S. Department of Energy, ``FOTW #1192, June 28, 2021:
Most U.S. Light-Duty Plug-In Electric Vehicle Battery Cells and
Packs Produced Domestically from 2018 to 2020,'' June 28, 2021.
https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1192-june-28-2021-most-us-light-duty-plug-electric-vehicle-battery.
\556\ Argonne National Laboratory, ``Lithium-Ion Battery Supply
Chain for E-Drive Vehicles in the United States: 2010-2020,'' ANL/
ESD-21/3, March 2021.
\557\ U.S. Department of Energy, ``Vehicle Technologies Office
Transportation Analysis Fact of the Week #1278, Most Battery Cells
and Battery Packs in Plug-in Vehicles Sold in the United States From
2010 to 2021 Were Domestically Produced,'' February 20, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because RPE is meant to be a multiplier against the direct
manufacturing cost, and the 45X credit does not reduce the actual
direct manufacturing cost at the factory but only compensates the cost
after the fact, we felt that it was most appropriate to apply the 45X
credit to the marked-up cost. The 45X cell and module credits per kWh
were applied by first marking up the direct manufacturing cost by the
1.5 RPE factor to determine the indirect cost (i.e., 50 percent of the
manufacturing cost), then deducting the credit amount from the marked-
up cost to create a post-credit marked-up cost. The post-credit direct
manufacturing cost would then become the post-credit marked-up cost
minus the indirect cost. Details on the application of the 45X credit
in OMEGA can be found in DRIA 2.5.2.1.
EPA did not apply a further cost reduction to represent the 10
percent electrode active material or critical mineral production
credits under 45X,
[[Page 29301]]
which are also available to be utilized by manufacturers. Although not
explicitly modeled, these credits could have a substantial impact on
reducing battery costs for some manufacturers in the short term and
many in the long term, and so their exclusion from the currently
modeled cost estimates represents a conservative assumption. EPA
requests comment on how the effect of these specific credits might be
quantitatively represented in battery production cost for the final
rule analysis.
The IRA also includes consumer purchase incentives, which do not
affect battery manufacturing cost, but reduce vehicle purchase cost to
consumers.
A substantial Clean Vehicle Credit (CVC, or IRS 30D) of up to
$7,500 is available to eligible buyers of eligible PEVs, subject to a
number of requirements such as location of final assembly (in North
America), critical minerals and battery component origin, vehicle
retail price, and buyer income. Similarly, a Commercial Clean Vehicle
Credit (CCVC, or IRS 45W) of up to $7,500 is available for light-duty
vehicles purchased for commercial use. Guidance by the Internal Revenue
Service indicates that vehicles leased to consumers (rather than sold)
are commercial vehicles that will qualify for the full credit to be
paid to the lessor.\558\ EPA recognizes that this guidance could lead
to increased relevance of the CCVC for vehicles and buyers that would
not otherwise be eligible for the CVCC, and that this could constitute
an additional PEV cost reduction for certain consumers. Relevant
considerations in quantifying the extent to which the CVCC may
influence cost of PEVs to consumers would include factors such as the
degree to which the value of the CVCC credit (paid to lessor) would be
represented in reduced payments to the lessee, and the degree to which
manufacturers and dealers that currently sell vehicles outright choose
to switch to a leasing model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\558\ Internal Revenue Service, ``Topic G--Frequently Asked
Questions About Qualified Commercial Clean Vehicles Credit,''
February 3, 2023. https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/topic-g-frequently-asked-questions-about-qualified-commercial-clean-vehicles-credit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because of the requirements of the 30D credit and the uncertainties
regarding utilization of the 45W credit, EPA is not assuming that all
BEV sales will qualify for the full $7,500 30D or 45W credit. A portion
of the market that is unable to capture the 30D credit may be capable
of utilizing the 45W credit. For these reasons, in the OMEGA model we
have applied a portion of the $7,500 maximum from either incentive. For
2023 we estimated that an average credit amount (across all PEV
purchases) of $3,750 per vehicle could reasonably be expected to be
realized through a combination of the 30D and 45W tax credits. For
later years, we recognized that the attractiveness of the credits to
manufacturers and consumers would likely increase eligibility over
time. To reflect this, we ramped the value linearly to $6,000 by 2032,
the last year of the credits. We did not ramp to the full theoretical
value of $7,500, in expectation that not all purchases will qualify for
30D due to MSRP or income limitations, and that not all PEVs are likely
to enter the market through leasing.
The credit amount is modeled in OMEGA as a direct reduction to the
consumer purchase costs,\559\ and therefore has an influence on the
shares of BEVs demanded by consumers. The purchase incentive is assumed
to be realized entirely by the consumer and does not impact the vehicle
production costs for producer. For more discussion and the values used
by OMEGA, please see DRIA Chapter 2.6.8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\559\ As described in Chapter 4.1 of the DRIA, the modeling of
consumer demand for ICE and BEV vehicles considers purchase and
ownership costs as components of a ``consumer generalized cost'' for
the ICE and BEV options. The purchase cost reflects the vehicle
purchase price and any assumed purchase incentives under 30D of the
IRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA also considered potential impacts on battery manufacturing cost
that might result from the proposed battery durability and warranty
requirements described in Sections III.F.2 and III.F.3. Because the
durability minimum performance requirement and the minimum battery
warranty are similar to currently observed industry practices regarding
durability performance and warranty terms, EPA does not expect that the
proposed requirements will result in an increase in battery
manufacturing costs.
Forecasting of future battery costs is a very active research area,
particularly at this time of rapidly increasing demand in an actively
evolving industry. As new forecasts of battery cost become available,
EPA plans to consider this information for the final rule analysis. One
example of the potential for new information to emerge periodically on
this active topic is the recently released report (December 6, 2022)
from Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) describing the results of
their annual Battery Price Survey, which indicates that after years of
steady decline, the global average price for lithium-ion battery packs
(volume-weighted across the passenger, commercial, bus, and stationary
markets) climbed by about 7 percent in 2022, from $141 per kWh the year
before to $151 per kWh in 2022.560 561 For passenger BEV
batteries the average price paid was reported to be $138 per kWh.
Although the BNEF report is useful to understand trends in prices that
are reported as being paid across the industry, it is difficult to
compare the BNEF costs to the modeled costs in our analysis, which
apply to a specific class of pack design manufactured in large
quantities at a large manufacturing facility, to fulfill large orders
for a major OEM. In contrast, the survey respondents are likely to
include both large and small purchasers of diverse battery packs whose
designs and average gross capacities may differ from those modeled in
the analysis. Recognizing these and other uncertainties, EPA believes
that our proposed battery cost estimates are reasonable based on the
record at this time. To improve upon these estimates for the final rule
analysis, EPA plans to continue to monitor emerging studies and will
review the cost estimates based on available information and public
comment. We also plan to work with ANL to continue updating our
estimates of battery cost for current and future years, by adjusting
key inputs to the BatPaC model to represent expected improvements to
production processes, forecasts of future mineral costs, and design
improvements. This will allow refinement of the scaling factors based
on BatPaC modeling in addition to our consideration of industry
forecasts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\560\ Bloomberg New Energy Finance, ``Rising Battery Prices
Threaten to Derail the Arrival of Affordable EVs,'' December 6,
2022. Accessed on December 6, 2022 at: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-12-06/rising-battery-prices-threaten-to-derail-the-arrival-of-affordable-evs.
\561\ Bloomberg New Energy Finance, ``Lithium-ion Battery Pack
Prices Rise for First Time to an Average of $151/kWh,'' December 6,
2022. Accessed on December 6, 2022 at: https://about.bnef.com/blog/lithium-ion-battery-pack-prices-rise-for-first-time-to-an-average-of-151-kwh/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Figure 22 we compare the example battery costs of Figure 21 to
the high and low battery cost sensitivities that were examined in the
2021 rule. The dotted lines show the high- and low-cost sensitivities
in the 2021 rule, applicable to a 60-kWh pack as per the discussion
that was provided in the 2021 rule. For comparison to the current
proposal, the solid line shows the example OMEGA cost per kWh shown in
Figure 21. The average battery size generated for BEVs by OMEGA is
larger than the 60 kWh example from the 2021 rule, at about 100 kWh.
[[Page 29302]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05MY23.025
It can be seen that the average battery costs in the current
proposal remain with the band delineated by the high and low
sensitivities of the 2021 final rule analysis, out to MY 2028-2029. At
MY 2029, the cost begins to decline below the lower sensitivity in the
2021 rule. In general, part of the lower cost is due to the larger pack
capacity. Also, in the central case of the 2021 final rule analysis, we
had chosen to hold the battery cost learning rate constant after MY
2029, essentially subjecting it to a floor that was meant to represent
uncertainty about the potential for continued reductions due to rising
demand and prices for critical minerals that were beginning to become
apparent at the time of the rulemaking. We had noted that this was a
conservative assumption, reflecting uncertainty at the time about what
the appropriate level of learning would be in light of emerging cost
increases for critical minerals. We also noted that we would continue
to study the potential for cost reductions in batteries during and
after the time frame of the rule, noting that pending updates to the
ANL BatPaC model, as well as collection of emerging data on forecasts
for future mineral prices and production capacity, would make it
possible to more confidently characterize the rate of decline in
battery costs, and that we would incorporate this information in the
current proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\562\ For valid comparison to the example costs reported in the
2021 final rule, the costs depicted in the figure represent a 60-kWh
pack and thus are slightly higher than the cost trajectory shown in
DRIA Chapter 2.5.2.1.3 (``Trajectory of future battery pack
manufacturing costs for a 75 kWh BEV pack'') which represents a 75-
kWh pack.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since then, these developments have improved our ability to
understand the potential for cost reductions past 2029, in place of the
lower limit we had assumed in the 2021 analysis. While predicting the
actual cost of batteries this far into the future is highly uncertain,
most analysts expect continued progress to occur as a result of
continued improvement in battery manufacturing and battery chemistry
during this extended future timeframe.
Forecasting of future battery costs is subject to a great deal of
uncertainty due to factors such as the ongoing and active development
of the technology and rapidly increasing demand. EPA welcomes comment
on the battery costs used in this analysis and how to best represent
future expectations of trends in battery costs, as well as additional
data and information that EPA should consider in assessing battery
costs for the final rule analysis.
Detailed discussion of the development of the battery cost
estimates used in the proposal and the sources we considered may be
found in DRIA Chapter 2.
EPA has also updated the non-battery powertrain costs that were
used to determine the direct manufacturing cost of electrified
powertrains. We referred to a variety of industry and academic sources,
focusing primarily on teardowns of components and vehicles conducted by
leading engineering firms. These included the 2017 teardown of the
Chevy Bolt conducted by Munro and Associates for UBS; \563\ a 2018
teardown of several electrified vehicle components conducted by Ricardo
for the California Air Resources Board; \564\ a set of commercial
teardown reports published in 2019 and 2020 by Munro & Associates;
565 566 567 568 569 570 and the
[[Page 29303]]
2021 NAS Phase 3 report.\571\ Throughout the process of compiling the
results of these studies, we collaborated with technical experts from
the California Air Resources Board and NHTSA. More discussion of the
technical basis for the non-battery electrified vehicle cost estimates
used in the proposal may be found in DRIA Chapter 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\563\ UBS AG, ``Q-Series: UBS Evidence Lab Electric Car
Teardown--Disruption Ahead?'' UBS Evidence Lab, May 18, 2017.
\564\ California Air Resources Board, ``Advanced Strong Hybrid
and Plug-In Hybrid Engineering Evaluation and Cost Analysis,'' CARB
Agreement 15CAR018, prepared for CARB and California EPA by Munro &
Associates, Inc. and Ricardo Strategic Consulting, April 21, 2017.
\565\ Munro and Associates, ``Twelve Motor Side-by-Side
Analysis,'' provided November 2020.
\566\ Munro and Associates, ``6 Inverter Side-by-Side
Analysis,'' provided January 2021.
\567\ Munro and Associates, ``3 Inverter Side-by-Side
Analysis,'' provided November 2020.
\568\ Munro and Associates, ``BMW i3 Cost Analysis,'' dated
January 2016, provided November 2020.
\569\ Munro and Associates, ``2020 Tesla Model Y Cost
Analysis,'' provided November 2020.
\570\ Munro and Associates, ``2017 Tesla Model 3 Cost
Analysis,'' dated 2018, provided November 12, 2020.
\571\ National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
2021. ``Assessment of Technologies for Improving Light-Duty Vehicle
Fuel Economy 2025-2035''. Washington, DC: The National Academies
Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/26092.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also commissioned a new full-vehicle teardown study comparing a
gasoline-fueled VW Tiguan to the battery-electric VW ID.4, conducted
for EPA by FEV of America.\572\ The study was designed to compare the
manufacturing cost and assembly labor requirements for two comparable
vehicles, one an ICE vehicle and one a BEV, both of which were built on
respective dedicated-ICE \573\ and dedicated-BEV \574\ platforms by the
same manufacturer. The teardown applies a bill-of-materials approach to
both vehicles and derives cost and assembly labor estimates for each
component. The report was delivered to EPA in February 2023 and will
undergo a contractor-managed peer review process to be completed by
mid-2023. The results of this study will be used to inform the analysis
for the final rulemaking where appropriate. For example, component
costs for the BEV and ICE vehicle may be used to support or update our
battery or non-battery costs for electrified vehicles, or our costs for
ICE vehicles; assembly labor data may be used to further inform the
employment analysis; and any other qualitative or quantitative
information that may be drawn from the report may be used in the
analysis. An additional task under this work assignment was for FEV to
review the non-battery electric powertrain costs EPA has described in
Chapter 2.6.1 of the DRIA, with respect to the cost values used and the
method of scaling these costs across different vehicle performance
characteristics and vehicle classes, and to suggest alternative values
or scalings where applicable. More details about the goals of the
teardown study can be found in DRIA 2.5.2.2.3. The complete teardown
report, the associated bill-of-materials data worksheets, and the FEV
review of non-battery costs and scaling are available in the
Docket.\575\ \576\ EPA may rely on this information and other
information gathered in response to this proposal and EPA's ongoing
technical work for estimating the costs for ICE vehicles and PEVs for
the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\572\ FEV Consulting Inc., ``Cost and Technology Evaluation,
Conventional Powertrain Vehicle Compared to an Electrified
Powertrain Vehicle, Same Vehicle Class and OEM,'' prepared for
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Contract No. 68HERC19D00008,
February 2023.
\573\ VW MQB A2 (``Modularer Querbaukasten'' or ``Modular
Transversal Toolkit'', version A2) global vehicle platform.
\574\ VW MEB (``Modularer E-Antriebs Baukasten'' or ``modular
electric-drive toolkit) global vehicle platform.
\575\ Memo to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0829, titled ``Cost
and Technology Evaluation, Conventional Powertrain Vehicle Compared
to an Electrified Powertrain Vehicle, Same Vehicle Class and OEM.''
\576\ Memo to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0829, titled ``EV
Non-Battery Cost Review by FEV.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA requests comment on all aspects of the battery and non-battery
costs used in this analysis, including the base year costs, the
forecast and estimation of future battery costs, assumptions relating
to driving range, and similar issues that would affect modeling of
battery and non-battery costs. EPA also requests comment on alternative
ways to account for the effect of the IRA provisions, including the
45X, 30D, 45W, and other relevant provisions, in the estimation of
battery or vehicle production cost to manufacturers or other impacts on
the cost of PEVs to consumers, and will consider such comments for the
analysis for the final rulemaking. We also request comment on our
application of learning to battery cost reduction, and evidence and
data related to the potential use of global battery production volumes
instead of domestic volumes in that context, and/or the use of battery
production volumes in related sectors.
3. Analysis of Power Sector Emissions
As PEVs are anticipated to represent a significant share of the
future U.S. light- and medium-duty vehicle fleet, EPA has developed new
approaches to estimate the upstream emissions (i.e., from electricity
generation and transmission) of increased PEV charging demand as part
of the assessment of the proposed standards. Electric generation was
modeled using EPA's Power Sector Modeling Platform, which in turn uses
the Integrated Planning Model (IPM).\577\ IPM provides projections of
least-cost capacity expansion, electricity dispatch, and emission
control strategies for meeting energy demand and environmental,
transmission, dispatch, and reliability constraints represented within
74 regions of the 48 contiguous United States. The power sector
modeling used for determining the PEV upstream emissions inventory and
costs for the proposal and alternatives included changes to the
platform to better represent the impacts of both the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law (BIL) and the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) on
electric power generation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\577\ https://www.epa.gov/power-sector-modeling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The regionalization of IPM and the anticipation of a highly
regionalized initial rollout of electric vehicles under the California
ZEV program necessitated modeling of the regionalization of PEV charge
demand in order to fully capture emissions and other impacts on the
electric power sector. National-level VMT and charge demand from
scenarios modeled within the OMEGA compliance model were regionalized
into the 74 IPM regions using the EVI-X modeling suite of electric
vehicle charging infrastructure analysis tools developed by the
National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) combined with a PEV likely
adopter model. Chapter 5 of the DRIA contains a detailed description of
the analysis of PEV charging demand, electric generation and the
resulting emissions and cost for different projected vehicle
electrification scenarios.
Power sector modeling results of generation and grid mix from 2030
to 2050 and CO2 emissions from 2028 to 2050 for the
contiguous United States (CONUS) are shown in Figure 23. Power sector
CO2 emissions for the proposal are compared to a no-action
case in Figure 24. Power sector modeling results are summarized in more
detail within Chapter 5 of the DRIA. The results show significant
continued year-over-year growth in both total generation and the use of
renewables for electric generation (Figure 23) and year-over-year
reductions in CO2 emissions (Figure 24). Emissions of
NOX (Figure 25), SO2 (Figure 26),
PM2.5, and other EGU emissions followed similar general
trends to the CO2 emissions results. The largest differences
in modeled EGU emissions between the proposal and No Action case were
in 2035, when CO2, NOX and SO2 were
approximately 7 percent, 6 percent and 9 percent higher, respectively.
It should be noted, however, that this represents EGU emissions only
and does not include anticipated emissions reductions from vehicle
tailpipe or refinery emissions. By 2050, modeled EGU PM2.5,
and NOX emissions increased by less than 3 percent for the
proposal than for a No Action case and by less than 5 percent for
CO2 and SO2 emissions.
Power sector modeling results showed that the increased use of
renewables will largely displace coal and (to a lesser
[[Page 29304]]
extent) natural gas EGUs and will primarily be driven by provisions of
the IRA. By 2035, power sector modeling results also showed that non-
hydroelectric renewables (primarily wind and solar) will be the largest
source of electric generation (approximately 46 percent of total
generation), and they would account for more than 70 percent of
generation by 2050. This displacement of coal EGUs by renewables was
also the primary factor in the year-over-year reductions in
CO2, NOX, SO2, PM2.5, and
other EGU emissions. Impacts on EGU GHG and criteria pollutant
emissions due to grid-related IRA provisions were substantially larger
than the impact of increased electricity demand due to increased
electrification of light and medium-duty vehicles within the proposal.
As EGU emissions continue to decrease between 2028 and 2050 due to
increasing use of renewables, and as vehicles increasingly electrify,
the power sector GHG and criteria pollutant emissions associated with
light- and medium-duty vehicle operation will continue to decrease.
Power sector modeling also showed a significant increase in the use
of batteries for grid storage. When modeling PEV charge demand for both
the proposal and for a No Action case, grid battery storage capacity
increased from approximately zero capacity in 2020 to approximately 70
GW in 2030 and 170 GW in 2050, representing the equivalent of
approximately 100 GWh and 300 GWh of annual generation, respectively.
The increase in grid battery storage was primarily due to modeling of
incentives put in place under the IRA.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05MY23.026
[[Page 29305]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05MY23.027
[[Page 29306]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05MY23.028
[[Page 29307]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05MY23.029
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
4. PEV Charging Infrastructure Considerations
Charging infrastructure has been growing rapidly in the past few
years. There are over 50,000 non-residential public and private
charging stations in the U.S. today with more than 140,000 electric
vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) ports (or outlets that can charge
vehicles simultaneously).\578\ This is an increase from just over
85,000 EVSE ports as of the end of 2019.\579\ While estimates for
future infrastructure needs vary widely in the literature, an NREL
report found that the overall ratio of EVSE ports to the number of PEVs
on the road today generally compares favorably to projected needs in
two national studies.\580\ Of course, keeping up with charging needs as
PEV adoption grows will require continued expansion of charging
infrastructure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\578\ U.S. DOE, Alternative Fuels Data Center, ``Electric
Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Trends''. Accessed February 28,
2023, at https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/electricity_infrastructure_trends.html.
\579\ Ibid.
\580\ Brown, A. et al., ``Electric Vehicle Charging
Infrastructure Trends from the Alternative Fueling Station Locator:
Second Quarter 2022,'' December 2022, Golden, CO: National Renewable
Energy Laboratory. NREL/TP-5400-84263. Accessed March 6, 2023, at
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy23osti/84263.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA anticipates a mix of public and private investments will be
available to help meet these future infrastructure needs. The
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) provides up to $7.5 billion over
five years to build out a national PEV charging network.\581\ Two-
thirds of this funding is for the National Electric Vehicle
Infrastructure (NEVI) Formula Program with the remaining $2.5 billion
for the Charging and Fueling Infrastructure (CFI) Discretionary Grant
Program. Both programs are administered under the Federal Highway
Administration with support from the Joint Office of Energy and
Transportation. The first phase of NEVI funding--a formula program for
states--was launched in 2022 and initial plans for all 50 states, DC,
and Puerto Rico have now been approved. Together, this initial $1.5
billion of investments will help deploy or expand charging
infrastructure on about 75,000 miles of highway.\582\ In March 2023,
the first funding opportunity was opened under the CFI Program with up
to $700 million to deploy PEV charging and hydrogen, propane, or
natural gas fueling infrastructure in communities and along
corridors.\583\ Ensuring equitable access to charging is one of the
stated goals of these infrastructure funds. Accordingly,
[[Page 29308]]
FHWA instructed states to incorporate public engagement in their
planning process for the NEVI Formula Program, including reaching out
to Tribes, and rural, underserved, and disadvantaged communities.\584\
Both the formula funding and discretionary grant program are subject to
the Justice40 target that 40 percent of the benefits go to
disadvantaged communities. Other programs with funding authorizations
under the BIL that could be used in part to support charging
infrastructure installations include the Congestion Mitigation & Air
Quality Improvement Program, National Highway Performance Program, and
Surface Transportation Block Grant Program among others.\585\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\581\ Enacted as the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act,
Public Law 117-58. 2021. Accessed January 10, 2023, at https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3684.
\582\ U.S. DOT, FHWA, ``Historic Step: All Fifty States Plus
D.C. and Puerto Rico Greenlit to Move EV Charging Networks Forward,
Covering 75,000 Miles of Highway,'' September 27, 2022. Accessed
January 10, 2023, at https://highways.dot.gov/newsroom/historic-step-all-fifty-states-plus-dc-and-puerto-rico-greenlit-move-ev-charging-networks.
\583\ Joint Office of Energy and Transportation, ``Biden-Harris
Admin Opens First Round Applications for $2.5 Billion Program to
Build EV Charging in U.S. Communities,'' March 14, 2023. Accessed
March 31, 2023, at https://driveelectric.gov/news/#charging-fueling-infrastructure.
\584\ U.S. DOT, FHWA, ``The National Electric Vehicle
Infrastructure (NEVI) Formula Program Guidance,'' February 10, 2022.
Accessed January 10, 2023, at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/alternative_fuel_corridors/nominations/90d_nevi_formula_program_guidance.pdf.
\585\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) signed into law on August 16,
2022, can also help reduce the costs for deploying infrastructure.\586\
The IRA extends the Alternative Fuel Refueling Property Tax Credit
(Section 13404) through Dec 31, 2032, with modifications. Under the new
provisions, residents in low-income or rural areas would be eligible
for a 30 percent credit for the cost of installing residential charging
equipment up to a $1,000 cap. Businesses would be eligible for up to 30
percent of the costs associated with purchasing and installing charging
equipment in these areas (subject to a $100,000 cap per item) if
prevailing wage and apprenticeship requirements are met and up to 6
percent otherwise. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates the cost
of this tax credit from FY 2022-2031 to be $1.738 billion,\587\ which
reflects a significant level of support for charging infrastructure and
other eligible alternative fuel property.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\586\ Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, Public Law 117-169, 2022.
Accessed December 2, 2022, at https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/hr5376/BILLS-117hr5376enr.pdf.
\587\ Joint Committee on Taxation, ``Estimated Budget Effects of
the Revenue Provisions of Title I--Committee on Finance, of an
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 5376, ``An Act to
Provide for Reconciliation Pursuant to Title II of S. Con. Res.
14,'' as Passed by the Senate on August 7, 2022, and Scheduled for
Consideration by the House of Representatives on August 12, 2022''
JCX-18-22, August 9, 2022. Accessed January 11, 2023, at https://www.jct.gov/publications/2022/jcx-18-22/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
States, utilities, auto manufacturers, charging network providers,
and others are also investing in and supporting PEV charging
infrastructure deployment. California announced plans in 2021 to invest
over $300 million in light-duty charging infrastructure and nearly $700
million in medium- and heavy-duty ZEV infrastructure.\588\ Several
states including New Jersey and Utah offer partial rebates for
residential, workplace, or public charging while others such as Georgia
and DC offer tax credits.\589\ The NC Clean Energy Technology Center
identified more than 200 actions taken across 38 states and DC related
to providing financial incentives for electric vehicles and or charging
infrastructure in 2022, a four-fold increase over the number of actions
in 2017.\590\ The Edison Electric Institute estimates that electric
companies have already invested nearly $3.7 billion.\591\ And over 60
electric companies and cooperatives serving customers in 48 states and
the District of Columbia have joined together to advance fast charging
through the National Electric Highway Coalition.\592\ Auto
manufacturers are investing in charging infrastructure by offering
consumers help with costs to install home charging or providing support
for public charging. For example, GM will pay for a standard
installation of a Level 2 (240 VAC) outlet for customers purchasing or
leasing a new Bolt.\593\ GM is also partnering with charging provider
EVgo to deploy over 2,700 DCFC ports \594\ and charging provider FLO to
deploy as many as 40,000 L2 ports.\595\ Volkswagen, Hyundai, and Kia
all offer customers complimentary charging at Electrify America's
public charging stations (subject to time limits or caps) in
conjunction with the purchase of select new EV models.\596\ Ford has
agreements with several charging providers to make it easier for their
customers to charge and pay across different networks \597\ and plans
to install publicly accessible DCFC ports at nearly 2,000
dealerships.\598\ Mercedes-Benz recently announced that it is planning
to build 2,500 charging points in North America by 2027.\599\ Tesla has
its own network with over 17,000 DCFC ports and nearly 10,000 Level 2
ports in the United States.\600\ Tesla recently announced that by 2024,
7,500 or more existing and new ports (including 3,500 DCFC) would be
open to all PEVs.\601\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\588\ California Energy Commission, ``CEC Approves $1.4 Billion
Plan for Zero-Emission Transportation Infrastructure and
Manufacturing,'' November 15, 2021. Accessed January 11, 2023, at
https://www.energy.ca.gov/news/2021-11/cec-approves-14-billion-plan-zero-emission-transportation-infrastructure-and.
\589\ Details on eligibility, qualifying expenses, and rebate or
tax credit amounts vary by state. See DOE Alternative Fuels Data
Center, State Laws and Incentives. Accessed January 11, 2023, at
https://afdc.energy.gov/laws/state.
\590\ Apadula, E. et al., ``50 States of Electric Vehicles Q4
2022 Quarterly Report & 2022 Annual Review Executive Summary,''
February 2023, NC Clean Energy Technology Center. Accessed March 8,
2023, at https://nccleantech.ncsu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Q4-22_EV_execsummary_Final.pdf. (Note: Includes actions by states and
investor-owned utilities.)
\591\ EEI, ``Issues & Policy: National Electric Highway
Coalition''. Accessed January 11, 2023, at https://www.eei.org/issues-and-policy/national-electric-highway-coalition. (Note: $3.7
billion total includes infrastructure deployments and other customer
programs to advance transportation electrification.)
\592\ Ibid.
\593\ Chevrolet, ``Installation Made Easy. Home Charging
Installation on Us.'' Accessed March 3, 2023, at https://www.chevrolet.com/electric/living-electric/home-charging-installation.
\594\ GM, ``To Put 'Everybody In' an Electric Vehicle, GM
introduces Ultium Charge 360,'' Accessed January 11, 2023, at
https://media.gm.com/media/us/en/gm/home.detail.html/content/Pages/news/us/en/2021/apr/0428-ultium-charge-360.html.
\595\ Joint Office of Transportation and Energy, ``Private
Sector Continues to Play Key Part in Accelerating Buildout of EV
Charging Networks,'' February 15, 2023. Accessed March 6, 2023, at
https://driveelectric.gov/news/#private-investment.
\596\ Details of complimentary charging and eligible vehicle
models vary by auto manufacturer. See: https://www.vw.com/en/models/id-4.html, https://www.hyundaiusa.com/us/en/electrified/charging,
and https://owners.kia.com/content/owners/en/kia-electrify.html.
\597\ Ford, ``Ford Introduces North America's Largest Electric
Vehicle Charging Network, Helping Customers Confidently Switch to an
All-Electric Lifestyle,'' October 17, 2019. Accessed January 11,
2023, at https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/news/2019/10/17/ford-introduces-north-americas-largest-electric-vehicle-charting-network.html.
\598\ Joint Office of Transportation and Energy, ``Private
Sector Continues to Play Key Part in Accelerating Buildout of EV
Charging Networks,'' February 15, 2023. Accessed March 6, 2023, at
https://driveelectric.gov/news/#private-investment.
\599\ Reuters, ``Mercedes to launch vehicle-charging network,
starting in North America,'' January 6, 2023. Accessed January 11,
2023, at https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/mercedes-launch-vehicle-charging-network-starting-north-america-2023-01-05/.
\600\ DOE, Alternative Fuels Data Center, ``Electric Vehicle
Charging Station Locations''. Accessed February 28, 2023, at https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/electricity_locations.html#/find/nearest?fuel=ELEC.
\601\ The White House, ``Fact Sheet: Biden-Harris Administration
Announces New Standards and Major Progress for a Made-in-America
National Network of Electric Vehicle Chargers,'' February 15, 2023.
Accessed March 6, 2023, at https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/02/15/fact-sheet-biden-harris-administration-announces-new-standards-and-major-progress-for-a-made-in-america-national-network-of-electric-vehicle-chargers/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other charging networks are also expanding. Francis Energy, which
has fewer than 1,000 EVSE ports today,\602\ aims to deploy over 50,000
by the end of the decade.\603\ Electrify America
[[Page 29309]]
plans to more than double its network size \604\ to 10,000 fast
charging ports across 1,800 U.S. and Canadian stations by 2026. This is
supported in part by a $450 million investment from Siemens and
Volkswagen Group.\605\ Blink plans to invest over $60 million to grow
its network over the next decade. Charging companies are also
partnering with major retailers, restaurants, and other businesses to
make charging available to customers and the public. For example, EVgo
is deploying DCFC at certain Meijer locations, CBL properties, and
Wawa. Volta is installing DCFC and L2 ports at select Giant Food,
Kroger, and Stop and Shop stores, while ChargePoint and Volvo Cars are
partnering with Starbucks to make charging available at select
Starbucks locations.\606\ Other efforts will expand charging access
along major highways, including at up to 500 Pilot and Flying J travel
centers (through a partnership between Pilot, GM, and EVgo) and 200
TravelCenters of America and Petro locations (through a partnership
between TravelCenters of America and Electrify America).\607\ BP plans
to invest $1 billion toward charging infrastructure by the end of the
decade, including through a partnership to provide charging at various
Hertz locations across the country that could support rental and
ridesharing vehicles, taxis, and the general public.\608\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\602\ DOE, Alternative Fuels Data Center, ``Electric Vehicle
Charging Station Locations''. Accessed March 6, 2023, at https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/electricity_locations.html#/find/nearest?fuel=ELEC.
\603\ Joint Office of Transportation and Energy, ``Private
Sector Continues to Play Key Part in Accelerating Buildout of EV
Charging Networks,'' February 15, 2023. Accessed March 6, 2023, at
https://driveelectric.gov/news/#private-investment.
\604\ DOE, Alternative Fuels Data Center, ``Electric Vehicle
Charging Station Locations''. Accessed March 6, 2023, at https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/electricity_locations.html#/find/nearest?fuel=ELEC.
\605\ Joint Office of Transportation and Energy, ``Private
Sector Continues to Play Key Part in Accelerating Buildout of EV
Charging Networks,'' February 15, 2023. Accessed March 6, 2023, at
https://driveelectric.gov/news/#private-investment.
\606\ Ibid.
\607\ Ibid.
\608\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We assess the infrastructure needs and the associated costs for
this proposal from 2027 to 2055. We start with estimates of electricity
demand for the PEV penetration levels in the proposal compared to those
in the No Action case using the methodology described in Section
IV.C.3.\609\ A suite of NREL models is used to characterize the
quantity and mix of EVSE ports that could meet this demand, including
EVI-Pro to simulate charging demand from typical daily travel, EVI-
RoadTrip to simulate demand from long-distance travel, and EVI-OnDemand
to simulate demand from ride-hailing applications. EVSE ports are
broken out by charging location (home, work, or public) and by charging
type and power level: AC Level 1 (L1), AC Level 2 (L2), and DC fast
charging with a maximum power of 50 kW, 150 kW, 250 kW, or 350 kW (DC-
50, DC-150, DC-250, and DC-350). We anticipate that the highest number
of ports will be needed at homes, growing from under 12 million in 2027
to over 75 million in 2055 under the proposal. This is followed by
workplace charging, estimated at about 400,000 EVSE ports in 2027 and
over 12.7 million in 2055. Finally, we estimate public charging needs
growing from just over 110,000 ports to more than 1.9 million in that
timeframe.\610\ Figure 27 illustrates the growth in charging network
size needed for the proposal and No Action case over select years.\611\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\609\ The No Action case referred to as part of the
infrastructure cost analysis was based on earlier work with lower
projected PEV penetration rates than the No Action case used for
compliance modeling and described in Section IV.B. (See discussion
in DRIA Chapter 5.3.2.6.)
\610\ The number of EVSE ports needed to meet a given level of
electricity demand will vary based on assumptions about the mix of
charging ports, charging preferences, and other factors. See DRIA
Chapter 5 for a more detailed description of the assumptions
underlying the EVSE port counts shown here.
\611\ See DRIA Chapter 5 for estimated port counts for each year
from 2027 to 2055 in the proposal and No Action case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 29310]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05MY23.030
We estimate the costs to deploy the number of EVSE ports needed
each year (2027-2055) to achieve the modeled network sizes for the
proposal and No Action case.\612\ Costs for each EVSE port are sourced
from recent literature and are intended to reflect upfront hardware and
installation costs. PEVs typically come with a charging cord that can
be used for L1 charging by plugging it into a standard 120 V outlet,
and, in some cases, for L2 charging by plugging into a 240 V outlet. We
include the cost for this cord as part of the vehicle costs described
in DRIA Chapter 2, and therefore we do not include it here. We make the
simplifying assumption that PEV owners opting for L1 home charging
already have access to a 120 V outlet and therefore do not incur
installation costs.\613\ Table 65 shows our assumed costs per EVSE
port.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\612\ We assume a 15-year equipment lifetime for EVSE ports. We
did not estimate costs for EVSE maintenance or repair though we note
that this may be able to extend equipment lifetimes. See discussion
in DRIA Chapter 5.
\613\ For Level 2 home charging, some PEV owners may opt to
simply install or upgrade to a 240 V outlet for use with a charging
cord while others may choose to purchase or install a wall-mounted
or other Level 2 charging unit. We assume a 50%:50% mix for the
costs shown in Table 65.
Table 65--Costs (Hardware and Installation) per EVSE Port
[2019 dollars] \614\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Home Work Public
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
L1 SFH L2 Other L2 L2 L2 DC-50 DC-150 DC-250 DC-350
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$0 $1,100 $3,700 $5,900 $5,900 $56,000 $121,000 $153,000 $185,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are many factors that can impact equipment and installation
costs, including whether a charging unit has multiple EVSE ports, how
many ports are installed per site as well as regional differences.
Costs also vary in the literature. EPA welcomes comments on additional
studies or information that EPA should consider in assessing PEV
charging infrastructure costs for the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\614\ Costs shown are expressed in 2019 dollars, consistent with
the original sources from the literature.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
See DRIA Chapter 5 for a more complete discussion of this analysis
including low and high sensitivities not shown here. The final PEV
charging infrastructure costs are presented in Section VIII of this
Preamble.
[[Page 29311]]
EPA acknowledges that there may be additional infrastructure needs
and costs beyond those associated with charging equipment itself. While
planning for additional electricity demand is a standard practice for
utilities and not specific to PEV charging, the buildout of public and
private charging stations (particularly those with multiple high-
powered DC fast charging units) could in some cases require upgrades to
local distribution systems. For example, a recent study found power
needs as low as 200 kW could trigger a requirement to install a
distribution transformer.\615\ The use of onsite power control systems,
battery storage or renewables may be able to reduce the need for some
distribution upgrades; station operators may also opt to install these
to mitigate demand charges associated with peak power.\616\ However,
there is considerable uncertainty associated with the uptake of these
technologies as well as with future distribution upgrade needs, and we
do not model them directly as part of our infrastructure cost analysis.
We welcome comments on this and other aspects of our cost analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\615\ Borlaug, B. et al., ``Heavy-duty truck electrification and
the impacts of depot charging on electricity distribution systems,''
Nat Energy 6, 673-682 (2021). Accessed on January 11, 2023, at
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-021-00855-0.
\616\ Alexander, M. et al., ``Assembly Bill 2127: Electric
Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Assessment,'' July 2021, California
Energy Commission. Accessed March 9, 2023, at https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and-topics/programs/electric-vehicle-charging-infrastructure-assessment-ab-2127.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in the previous section, we model changes to power
generation due to the increased electricity demand anticipated in the
proposal as part of our upstream analysis. We project the additional
generation needed to meet the demand of the light- and medium-duty PEVs
in the proposal to be relatively modest compared to the No Action case,
ranging from less than 0.4 percent in 2030 to approximately 4 percent
in 2050 (as shown in Figure 23). The U.S. electricity end use between
the years 1992 and 2021 increased by around 25% \617\ without any
adverse effects on electric grid reliability or electricity generation
capacity shortages. As the proposal is estimated to increase electric
power end use by electric vehicles by between 0.1% (2028) and 4.2%
(2055)--approximately 18% of the increase that occurred between 1995
and 2021--grid reliability is not expected to be adversely affected by
the modest increase in electricity demand associated with electric
vehicle charging.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\617\ Annual Energy Outlook 2022, U.S. Energy Information
Administration, March 3, 2022 (https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/narrative/introduction/sub-topic-01.php).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The private sector and the government share responsibility for the
reliability of the electric power grid. Most of the electric power
grid--the commercial electric power transmission and distribution
system comprising power lines and other infrastructure--is owned and
operated by private industry. However, Federal, state, local, Tribal,
and territorial governments also have significant roles in enhancing
the reliability of the electric power grid.\618\ The Federal government
plays a key role in enhancing electric power grid reliability.\619\ For
instance, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is responsible for
coordinating the overall Federal effort to promote the security and
reliability of the nation's critical infrastructure sectors; the
Department of Energy (DOE) leads Federal efforts to ensure that the
nation's energy delivery system is secure, resilient, and reliable,
including research and technology development by national laboratories;
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) regulates wholesale
electricity markets and is responsible for reviewing and approving
mandatory electric Reliability Standards, which are developed by the
North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC). NERC is the
federally designated U.S. electric reliability organization which
develops and enforces Reliability Standards; annually assesses seasonal
and long-term reliability; monitors the bulk power system through
system awareness; and educates, trains, and certifies industry
personnel. These efforts help to keep the U.S. electric power grid is
reliable.\620\ We also consulted with FERC and EPRI staff on bulk power
system reliability and related issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\618\ Federal Efforts to Enhance Grid Resilience. General
Accounting Office, GAO-17-153, 1/25/2017. https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-17-153.pdf.
\619\ Electricity Grid Resilience. General Accounting Office,
GAO-21-105403, 9/20/2021, https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-21-105403.pdf.
\620\ https://www.nerc.com/AboutNERC/Pages/default.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. electric power utilities routinely upgrade the nation's
electric power system to improve grid reliability and to meet new
electric power demands. For example, when confronted with rapid
adoption of air conditioners in the 1960s and 1970s, U.S. electric
power utilities successfully met the new demand for electricity by
planning and building upgrades to the electric power distribution
system. Likewise, U.S. electric power utilities planned and built
distribution system upgrades required to service the rapid growth of
power-intensive data centers and server farms over the past two
decades. U.S. electric power utilities have already successfully
designed and built the distribution system infrastructure required for
1.4 million battery electric vehicles.\621\ Utilities have also
successfully integrated 46.1 GW of new utility-scale electric
generating capacity into the grid (EIA, 2022).\622\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\621\ U.S. DOE Alternative Fuels Data Center, Maps and Data--
Electric Vehicle Registrations by State, https://afdc.energy.gov/data/.
\622\ EIA, Electric Power Annual 2021, November 2022. https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_01_01.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When taking into consideration ongoing upgrades to the U.S.
electric power grid, and that the U.S. electric power utilities
generally have more capacity to produce electricity than is consumed
(EIA, 2022), the expected increase in electric power demand
attributable to vehicle electrification is not expected to adversely
affect grid reliability due to the modest increase in electricity
demand associated with electric vehicle charging. Moreover,
distribution system infrastructure became the largest share of capital
expenditures for U.S. investor-owned utilities (IOUs) in 2018,
according to the Edison Electric Institute (EEI).\623\ EEI also
projected that such expenditures would constitute one-third of total
IOU spending in 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\623\ https://www.eei.org/-/media/Project/EEI/Documents/Issues-and-Policy/Finance-And-Tax/bar_cap_ex.pdf?la=en&hash=3D08D74D12F1CCA51EE89256F53EBABEEAAF4673.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) \624\ and the
California Energy Commission (CEC) \625\ have been actively engaged in
Vehicle-Grid Integration (VGI) efforts for over a decade, along with
the California Independent System Operator \626\ (California ISO),
large private and public electrical utilities (SCE, PG&E, SDG&E, etc.),
most major automakers (Ford, GM, FCA, BMW, Audi, Nissan,
[[Page 29312]]
Toyota, Honda, and others), and EV charger companies, the Electric
Power Research Institute (EPRI), and various other research
organizations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\624\ Order Instituting Rulemaking to Continue the Development
of Rates and Infrastructure for Vehicle Electrification. California
Public Utilities Commission, Rulemaking 18-12-006, 12/21/2020.
\625\ Chhaya, Sunil, Norman McCollough, Viswanath Ananth,
Arindam Maitra, Ramakrishnan Ravikumar, Jamie Dunckley--Electric
Power Research Institute; George Bellino--Clean Fuel Connection,
Eric Cutter, Energy & Environment Economics, Michael Bourton, Kitu
Systems, Inc., Richard Scholer, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, Charlie
Botsford, AeroVironment, Inc., 2019. Distribution System Constrained
Vehicle-to-Grid Services for Improved Grid Stability and
Reliability. California Energy Commission. Publication Number: CEC-
500-2019-027.
\626\ California Independent System Operator (CAISO). 2014.
California VGI Roadmap: Enabling Vehicle-based Grid Services.
https://www.caiso.com/Documents/Vehicle-GridIntegrationRoadmap.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These ongoing research efforts have demonstrated the ability of
U.S. electric utilities to reschedule up to 20 percent of electric
vehicle charging loads occurring at any hour of the day to any other
hour of the day.\627\ Conversely, these research efforts have also
demonstrated the ability of U.S. electric power utilities to reschedule
up to 30 percent of electric vehicle charging loads occurring at any
hour of day to any particular hour of that day. As the expected
increase in electric power demand resulting from PEV charging in this
proposal will be well under 20 percent, we do not anticipate it to pose
grid reliability issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\627\ Lipman, Timothy, Alissa Harrington, and Adam Langton.
2021. Total Charge Management of Electric Vehicles. California
Energy Commission. Publication Number: CEC-500-2021- 055.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ability to shift and curtail electric power is a feature that
can improve grid operations and, therefore, grid reliability.
Integration of electric vehicle charging into the power grid, by means
of vehicle-to-grid software and systems that allow management of
vehicle charging time and rate, has been found to create value for
electric vehicle drivers, electric grid operators, and ratepayers.\628\
Management of PEV charging can reduce overall costs to utility
ratepayers by delaying electric utility customer rate increases
associated with equipment upgrades and may allow utilities to use
electric vehicle charging as a resource to manage intermittent
renewables. The development of new electric utility tariffs, including
those for submetering for electric vehicles, will also help to
facilitate the management of electric vehicle charging.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\628\ Chhaya, S., et al., ``Distribution System Constrained
Vehicle-to-Grid Services for Improved Grid Stability and
Reliability; Publication Number: CEC-500-2019-027, 2019. Accessed
December 13, 2022 at https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021-06/CEC-500-2019-027.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also note that DOE is engaged in multiple efforts to modernize
the grid and improve resilience and reliability. For example, in
November 2022, DOE announced $13 billion in funding opportunities under
BIL to support transmission and distribution infrastructure. This
includes $3 billion for smart grid grants with a focus on PEV
integration among other topics.\629\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\629\ DOE, ``Biden-Harris Administration Announces $13 Billion
to Modernize and Expand America's Power Grid,'' November 18, 2022.
Accessed January 11, 2023, at https://www.energy.gov/articles/biden-harris-administration-announces-13-billion-modernize-and-expand-americas-power-grid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Consumer Acceptance
Consumer uptake of zero-emission vehicle technology is expected to
continue to grow with the key enablers of PEV acceptance, namely
increasing market presence, more model choices, expanding
infrastructure, and decreasing costs to consumers.\630\ First, annual
sales of light-duty PEVs in the U.S. have grown robustly and are
expected to continue to grow. New PEV sales represented 2.2 percent
(1.7 percent BEV and 0.5 percent PHEV) of new light-duty vehicle sales
in 2020 (Davis and Boundy 2021; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
2021b), and annual PEV market share in 2021 was 4.6 percent (3.4
percent for BEVs and 1.2 percent for PHEVs). As of May 2022, actual PEV
market share was 6.6 percent (5.2 percent for BEVs and 1.4 percent for
PHEVs).\631\ This history of robust growth combined with vehicle
manufacturers' plans to expand of PEV production strongly suggests that
PEV market share will continue to grow rapidly. Second, the number of
PEV models available to consumers is increasing, meeting to consumers
demand for a variety of body styles and price points. Specifically, the
number of BEV and PHEV models available for sale in the U.S. has more
than doubled from about 24 in MY 2015 to about 60 in MY 2021, with
offerings in a growing range of vehicle segments.\632\ Recent model
announcements indicate that this number will increase to more than 80
models by MY 2023,\633\ and more than 180 models by 2025.\634\ Third,
the expansion of charging infrastructure has been keeping up with PEV
adoption. This trend is widely expected to continue, particularly in
light of very large public and private investments. Lastly, while the
initial purchase price of BEVs is currently higher than for most ICE
vehicles, the price difference is likely to narrow or become
insignificant as the cost of batteries fall and PEV production rises in
the coming years.\635\ Among the many studies that address cost parity,
an emerging consensus suggests that purchase price parity is likely to
be achievable by the mid-2020s for some vehicle segments and models,
and TCO parity even sooner for a broader segment of the
market.636 637
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\630\ Jackman, D K, K S Fujita, H C Yang, and M Taylor. 2023.
Literature Review of U.S. Consumer Acceptance of New Personally
Owned Light Duty Plug-in Electric Vehicles. Washington, DC: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
\631\ https://www.autosinnovate.org/resources/electric-vehicle-sales-dashboard.
\632\ Fueleconomy.gov, 2015 Fuel Economy Guide and 2021 Fuel
Economy Guide.
\633\ Environmental Defense Fund and M.J. Bradley & Associates,
``Electric Vehicle Market Status--Update, Manufacturer Commitments
to Future Electric Mobility in the U.S. and Worldwide,'' April 2021.
\634\ Environmental Defense Fund and ERM, ``Electric Vehicle
Market Update: Manufacturer Commitments and Public Policy
Initiatives Supporting Electric Mobility in the U.S. and
Worldwide,'' September 2022.
\635\ International Council on Clean Transportation,
``Assessment of Light-Duty Electric Vehicle Costs and Consumer
Benefits in the United States in the 2022-2035 Time Frame,'' October
2022.
\636\ Ibid.
\637\ Environmental Defense Fund and ERM, ``Electric Vehicle
Market Update: Manufacturer Commitments and Public Policy
Initiatives Supporting Electric Mobility in the U.S. and
Worldwide,'' September 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA, in coordination with the Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory, conducted a peer-reviewed literature review of consumer
acceptance of PEVs. In this literature review, we present what we refer
to as the ``4A framework,'' consisting of awareness, access, approval,
and adoption, that we use to define acceptance and organize a
comprehensive review of the scientific literature on this topic.\638\
Through that review, we identify enablers and obstacles to consumer
acceptance of PEVs. Across all stages of the 4A framework, we find that
the enablers and obstacles of PEV acceptance are largely external to
the consumer. We conclude that there is no evidence in the reviewed
literature to suggest anything immutable within consumers or inherent
to PEVs that irremediably obstructs acceptance. Rather, acceptance of
PEVs is achievable among mainstream consumers. For more information on
LD vehicle purchase considerations, see DRIA Chapter 4.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\638\ Jackman, D K, K S Fujita, H C Yang, and M Taylor. 2023.
Literature Review of U.S. Consumer Acceptance of New Personally
Owned Light Duty Plug-in Electric Vehicles. Washington, DC: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Supply Chain, Manufacturing, and Mineral Security Considerations
Although the market share of PEVs in the U.S. is already rapidly
growing, EPA recognizes that the proposed standards may accelerate this
trend. Assessing the feasibility of incremental penetrations of PEVs
that may result from the proposed standards includes consideration of
the capability of the supply chain to provide the required quantities
of critical minerals, components, and battery manufacturing capacity.
This section provides a general review of how we considered supply
chain and manufacturing considerations in this analysis, the sources we
considered, and how we used this information in the analysis. It also
provides a high-level discussion of the security implications
[[Page 29313]]
of increased demand for minerals and other commodities used to
manufacture electrified vehicles. Additional details on these aspects
of the analysis may be found in DRIA Chapter 3.1.3, including how we
used this information to develop modeling constraints on PEV
penetration for the compliance analysis.
In performing this analysis, we considered the ability for global
and domestic manufacturing and critical mineral capacity to respond to
the projected demand for zero-emission vehicles that manufacturers may
choose to produce to comply under the various Alternatives. We
consulted with industry and government agency sources (including DOE,
USGS, and several analysis firms) to collect information on production
capacity, price forecasts, global mineral markets, and related topics,
and have considered this information to inform our assumptions about
future manufacturing capabilities and costs. We have included
consideration of the influence of critical minerals and materials
availability as well as vehicle and battery manufacturing capacities on
production of PEVs at various market penetration scenarios.
We believe that the proposed rate of stringency is appropriate in
light of this assessment. It is also our assessment that widespread
automotive electrification in the U.S. will not lead to a critical
long-term dependence on foreign imports of minerals or components, nor
that increased demand for these products will become a vulnerability to
national security. First, in many cases the reason that these products
are often sourced from outside of the U.S. is not because the products
cannot be produced in the U.S., but because other countries have
already invested in developing a supply chain for their production. It
is likely that a domestic supply chain for these products would develop
over time as U.S. manufacturers work to secure reliable and
geographically proximate supplies of the components and materials
needed to build the products they manufacture, and to remain
competitive in a global market where electrification is already
proceeding rapidly. Second, many automakers, suppliers, startups, and
related industries have already recognized the need for increased
domestic production capacity as a business opportunity and are basing
business models on building out various aspects of the supply chain.
Third, Congress and the Administration have taken significant steps to
accelerate this activity by funding, facilitating, and otherwise
promoting the rapid growth of U.S. supply chains for these products
through the Inflation Reduction Act, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law,
and numerous Executive Branch initiatives. EPA has confidence that
these efforts are effectively addressing supply chain concerns.
Finally, utilization of critical minerals is different from the
utilization of foreign oil, in that oil is consumed as a fuel while
minerals become a constituent of manufactured vehicles. Minerals that
are imported for vehicle production remain in the vehicle and can be
reclaimed through recycling. Each of these points will be expanded in
more detail in the following sections.
i. Critical Minerals
Critical minerals are commonly taken to include a large diversity
of products, ranging from relatively plentiful materials that are
constrained primarily by production capacity and refining, such as
aluminum, to those that are both relatively rare and costly to process,
such as the rare-earth metals that are used in magnets for permanent-
magnet synchronous motors (PMSMs) and some semiconductor products.
Extraction, processing, and recycling of certain critical minerals (for
example, lithium, cobalt, nickel, manganese, graphite, and rare earth
metals) are important parts of the supply chain supporting the
production of electrified vehicle components.
These minerals are also experiencing increasing demand across many
other sectors of the global economy, not just the transportation
industry, as the world seeks to reduce carbon emissions. As with any
emerging technology, a transition period must take place in which a
robust supply chain develops to support production of these products.
At the present time in the U.S. many of these minerals are commonly
sourced from global suppliers and do not yet benefit from a fully
developed domestic supply chain. As demand for these materials
increases due to increasing production of PEVs, current mining and
processing capacity across the world will be driven to expand over
time. The process of establishing new mining capacity, as well as
processing capacity for the mined product, can be subject to uncertain
issues such as permitting, investor expectations of demand and future
prices, and many others, making it difficult to predict with precision
the rate at which new capacity will be brought online in the future.
For example, depending on the source (hardrock mining or brine),
lithium mining capacity can take from five to ten years to develop a
new mine or mineral source, and has in some cases taken longer.
However, industry interest and motivation toward developing these
resources has become very high and is expected to remain so, as the
demand outlook for lithium and other battery minerals is very robust.
For example, rapid growth in lithium demand has driven new development
of resources and robust growth in supply, which is likely a factor in
recently observed reductions in lithium price, with strong profit
margins remaining even afterward.\639\ Due to such factors the price of
lithium is likely to stabilize at or near its historical levels by the
mid-2020s,\640\ a perspective also supported, for example, in
proprietary battery price forecasts such as those EPA has examined from
Wood Mackenzie.641 642 This expected stabilization of prices
after a period of elevation is a common feature of commodity markets
that experience rapid growth in demand, and further supports the
outlook that sufficient chemical product will be available to meet
growing demand.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\639\ New York Times, ``Falling Lithium Prices Are Making
Electric Cars More Affordable,'' March 20, 2023. Accessed on March
23, 2023 at https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/20/business/lithium-prices-falling-electric-vehicles.html.
\640\ Sun et al., ``Surging lithium price will not impede the
electric vehicle boom,'' Joule, doi:10.1016/j.joule. 2022.06.028
(https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2022.06.028).
\641\ Wood Mackenzie, ``Battery & raw materials--Investment
horizon outlook to 2032,'' September 2022 (filename: brms-q3-2022-
iho.pdf). Available to subscribers.
\642\ Wood Mackenzie, ``Battery & raw materials--Investment
horizon outlook to 2032,'' accompanying data set, September 2022
(filename: brms-data-q3-2022.xlsx). Available to subscribers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) lists 50 minerals as ``critical
to the U.S. economy and national security.'' 643 644
According to USGS, the Energy Act of 2020 defines a ``critical
mineral'' as ``a non-fuel mineral or mineral material essential to the
economic or national security of the U.S. and which has a supply chain
vulnerable to disruption.'' \645\ Critical minerals are not
[[Page 29314]]
necessarily short in supply but are seen as essential to the
manufacture of products that are important to the economy or national
security. The risk to their availability may stem from geological
scarcity, geopolitics, trade policy, or similar factors.\646\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\643\ U.S. Geological Survey, ``U.S. Geological Survey Releases
2022 List of Critical Minerals,'' February 22, 2022. Available at:
https://www.usgs.gov/news/national-news-release/us-geological-survey-releases-2022-list-critical-minerals.
\644\ The full list includes: Aluminum, antimony, arsenic,
barite, beryllium, bismuth, cerium, cesium, chromium, cobalt,
dysprosium, erbium, europium, fluorspar, gadolinium, gallium,
germanium, graphite, hafnium, holmium, indium, iridium, lanthanum,
lithium, lutetium, magnesium, manganese, neodymium, nickel, niobium,
palladium, platinum, praseodymium, rhodium, rubidium, ruthenium,
samarium, scandium, tantalum, tellurium, terbium, thulium, tin,
titanium, tungsten, vanadium, ytterbium, yttrium, zinc, and
zirconium.
\645\ U.S. Geological Survey, ``U.S. Geological Survey Releases
2022 List of Critical Minerals,'' February 22, 2022. Available at:
https://www.usgs.gov/news/national-news-release/us-geological-survey-releases-2022-list-critical-minerals.
\646\ International Energy Agency, ``The Role of Critical
Minerals in Clean Energy Transitions,'' World Energy Outlook Special
Report, Revised version. March 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission control catalysts for ICE vehicles utilize critical
minerals including cerium, palladium, platinum, and rhodium. These are
also required for PHEVs due to the presence of the ICE. Critical
minerals most relevant to lithium-ion battery production include
cobalt, graphite, lithium, manganese, and nickel, which are important
constituents of electrode active materials, their presence and relative
amounts depending on the chemistry formulation. Aluminum is also used
for cathode foils and in some cell chemistries. Rare-earth metals are
used in permanent-magnet electric machines, and include several
elements such as dysprosium, neodymium, and samarium.
Some of the electrification technologies that use critical minerals
have alternatives that use other minerals or eliminate them entirely.
For these, automakers in some cases have some flexibility to modify
their designs to reduce or avoid use of minerals that are difficult or
expensive to procure. For example, in some PEV battery applications it
is feasible and increasingly common to employ an iron phosphate cathode
which has lower energy density but does not require cobalt, nickel, or
manganese. Similarly, rare earths used in permanent-magnet electric
machines have potential alternatives in the form of ferrite or other
advanced magnets, or the use of induction machines or advanced
externally excited motors, which do not use permanent magnets.
This discussion therefore focuses on minerals that are most
critical for battery production, including nickel, cobalt, graphite,
and lithium.
Availability of critical minerals for use in battery production
depends on two primary considerations: Production of raw minerals from
mining (or recycling) operations, and refining operations that produce
purified and processed substances (precursors, electrolyte solutions,
and finished electrode powders) made from the raw minerals, that can
then be made into battery cells.
As shown in Figure 28, in 2019 about 50 percent of global nickel
production occurred in Indonesia, Philippines, and Russia, with the
rest distributed around the world. Nearly 70 percent of cobalt
originated from the Democratic Republic of Congo, with some significant
production in Russia and Australia, and about 20 percent in the rest of
the world. More than 60 percent of graphite production occurred in
China, with significant contribution from Mozambique and Brazil for
another 20 percent. About half of lithium was mined in Australia, with
Chile accounting for another 20 percent, and China about 10 percent.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05MY23.032
According to the Administration's 100-day review under E.O. 14017,
of the major actors in mineral refining, 60 percent of lithium refining
occurred in China, with 30 percent in Chile, and 10 percent in
Argentina. 72 percent of cobalt refining occurred in China, with
another 17 percent distributed among Finland, Canada, and Norway. 21
percent of Class 1 nickel refining occurred in Russia, with 16 percent
in China, 15 percent in Japan, and 13 percent in Canada.\648\ Similar
conclusions were reached in an analysis by the International Energy
Agency, shown in Figure 29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\647\ International Energy Agency, ``The Role of Critical
Minerals in Clean Energy Transitions,'' World Energy Outlook Special
Report, Revised version. March 2022.
\648\ The White House, ``Building Resilient Supply Chains,
Revitalizing American Manufacturing, and Fostering Broad-Based
Growth,'' 100-Day Reviews under Executive Order 14017, June 2021 (p.
121).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 29315]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05MY23.033
Currently, the U.S. is lagging behind much of the rest of the world
in critical mineral production. Although the U.S. has nickel reserves,
and opportunity also exists to recover significant nickel from mine
waste remediation and similar activities, it is more convenient for
U.S. nickel to be imported from other countries, with 68 percent coming
from Canada, Norway, Australia, and Finland, countries with which the
U.S. has good trade relations.\650\ According to the USGS, ample
reserves of nickel exist in the U.S. and globally, potentially
constrained only by processing capacity.\651\ The U.S. has numerous
cobalt deposits but few are developed while some have produced cobalt
only in the past; about 72 percent of U.S. consumption is
imported.\652\ Similar observations may be made about graphite and
lithium. Significant lithium deposits do exist in the U.S. in Nevada
and California as well as several other locations,653 654
and are currently the target of development by suppliers and
automakers.\655\ U.S. deposits of natural graphite also exist but
graphite has not been produced in the U.S. since the 1950s and
significant known resources are largely undeveloped.\656\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\649\ International Energy Agency, ``The Role of Critical
Minerals in Clean Energy Transitions,'' World Energy Outlook Special
Report, Revised version. March 2022.
\650\ The White House, ``Building Resilient Supply Chains,
Revitalizing American Manufacturing, and Fostering Broad-Based
Growth,'' 100-Day Reviews under Executive Order 14017, June 2021.
\651\ Ibid.
\652\ U.S. Geological Survey, ``Cobalt Deposits in the United
States,'' June 1, 2020. Available at https://www.usgs.gov/data/cobalt-deposits-united-states.
\653\ U.S. Geological Survey, ``Mineral Commodity Summaries
2022--Lithium'', January 2022. Available at https://pubs.usgs.gov/periodicals/mcs2022/mcs2022-lithium.pdf.
\654\ U.S. Geological Survey, ``Lithium Deposits in the United
States,'' June 1, 2020. Available at https://www.usgs.gov/data/lithium-deposits-united-states.
\655\ Investing News, ``Which Lithium Juniors Have Supply Deals
With EV Makers?,'' February 8, 2023. Accessed on March 24, 2023 at
https://investingnews.com/lithium-juniors-ev-supply-deals/ deals/.
\656\ U.S. Geological Survey, ``USGS Updates Mineral Database
with Graphite Deposits in the United States,'' February 28, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As described in the following sections, the development of mining
and processing capacity in the U.S. is a primary focus of efforts on
the part of both industry and the Administration toward building a
robust domestic supply chain for electrified vehicle production and
will be greatly facilitated by the provisions of the BIL and the IRA as
well as large private business investments that are already underway
and continuing.
ii. Battery and Mineral Production Capacity
Although much of the content needed for electrified vehicle
manufacture is currently imported from other countries, a number of
prominent examples of rapid U.S. manufacturing growth and supply chain
development already indicate that this is rapidly changing. For
example, even though most global battery manufacturing capacity is
currently located outside the U.S., most of the batteries and cells
present in the domestic PEV fleet were manufactured in the U.S.
Specifically, about 57 percent of cells and 84 percent of assembled
packs sold in the U.S. from 2010 to 2021 were produced in the
U.S.657 658 This indicates that U.S. PEV production has not
been exclusively reliant on foreign manufacture of batteries and cells,
and suggests that it need not become so as PEV penetration increases.
Many manufacturers are rapidly building battery and cell manufacturing
facilities in the U.S. and are also taking steps to secure domestically
sourced minerals and related commodities to supply production for these
plants. Highlights of these developments and what they mean for the
domestic supply chain going forward are described in this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\657\ Argonne National Laboratory, ``Lithium-Ion Battery Supply
Chain for E-Drive Vehicles in the United States: 2010-2020,'' ANL/
ESD-21/3, March 2021.
\658\ U.S. Department of Energy, ``Vehicle Technologies Office
Transportation Analysis Fact of the Week #1278, Most Battery Cells
and Battery Packs in Plug-in Vehicles Sold in the United States From
2010 to 2021 Were Domestically Produced,'' February 20, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Battery manufacturing, in terms of constructed and planned plant
capacity for assembly of cells and packs, does not appear to pose a
critical constraint to expected uptake of PEVs, either globally or
domestically. A 2021 report from Argonne National Laboratory (ANL)
\659\ examined the state of the global supply
[[Page 29316]]
chain for electrified vehicles and included a comparison of recent
projections of future global battery manufacturing capacity and
projections of future global battery demand from various analysis firms
out to 2030, as seen in Figure 30. The three most recent projections of
capacity (from BNEF, Roland Berger, and S&P Global in 2020-2021) that
were collected by ANL exceed the corresponding projections of demand by
a significant margin in every year for which they were projected,
suggesting that global battery manufacturing capacity is generally
expected to respond strongly to increasing demand.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\659\ Argonne National Laboratory, ``Lithium-Ion Battery Supply
Chain for E-Drive Vehicles in the United States: 2010-2020,'' ANL/
ESD-21/3, March 2021.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05MY23.034
Global demand for zero-emission vehicles has led to widespread and
ongoing investment in manufacturing capacity for the vehicles and their
components, including electric machines, power electronics, and
batteries. The need to further develop a robust domestic supply chain
for these components has accordingly received broad attention in the
industry. As described in Section I.A.2.ii of this Preamble,
manufacturers are increasingly adopting product plans with high levels
of electrification and are continuing to make very large investments
toward increasing manufacturing capacity and securing sources and
suppliers for critical minerals, materials, and components.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\660\ Argonne National Laboratory, ``Lithium-Ion Battery Supply
Chain for E-Drive Vehicles in the United States: 2010-2020,'' ANL/
ESD-21/3, March 2021.
\661\ Federal Consortium for Advanced Batteries, ``National
Blueprint for Lithium Batteries 2021-2030,'' June 2021 (Figure 2).
Available at https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2021-06/FCAB%20National%20Blueprint%20Lithium%20Batteries%200621_0.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As also noted, one analysis indicates that 37 of the world's
automakers are planning to invest a total of almost $1.2 trillion by
2030 toward electrification,\662\ a large portion of which will be used
for construction of manufacturing facilities for vehicles, battery
cells and packs, and materials, supporting up to 5.8 terawatt-hours of
battery production and 54 million BEVs per year globally.\663\
Similarly, an analysis by the Center for Automotive Research shows that
a significant shift in North American investment is occurring toward
electrification technologies, with $36 billion of about $38 billion in
total automaker manufacturing facility investments
[[Page 29317]]
announced in 2021 being slated for electrification-related
manufacturing in North America, with a similar proportion and amount on
track for 2022.\664\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\662\ Reuters, ``A Reuters analysis of 37 global automakers
found that they plan to invest nearly $1.2 trillion in electric
vehicles and batteries through 2030,'' October 21, 2022. Accessed on
November 4, 2022 at https://graphics.reuters.com/AUTOS-INVESTMENT/ELECTRIC/akpeqgzqypr/.
\663\ Reuters, ``Exclusive: Automakers to double spending on
EVs, batteries to $1.2 trillion by 2030,'' October 25, 2022.
Accessed on November 4, 2022 at https://www.reuters.com/technology/exclusive-automakers-double-spending-evs-batteries-12-trillion-by-2030-2022-10-21/.
\664\ Center for Automotive Research, ``Automakers Invest
Billions in North American EV and Battery Manufacturing
Facilities,'' July 21, 2022. Retrieved on November 10, 2022 at
https://www.cargroup.org/automakers-invest-billions-in-north-american-ev-and-battery-manufacturing-facilities/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the Department of Energy, at least 13 new battery
plants, most of which will include cell manufacturing, are expected to
become operational in the U.S. in the next four years.\665\ Among
these, in partnership with SK Innovation, Ford is building three large
new battery plants in Kentucky and Tennessee \666\ and a fourth in
Michigan.\667\ General Motors is partnering with LG Chem to build
another three plants in Tennessee, Michigan, and Ohio, and considering
another in Indiana. LG Chem has also announced plans for a cathode
material production facility in Tennessee, said to be sufficient to
supply 1.2 million high-performance electric vehicles per year by
2027.\668\ Contemporary Amperex (CATL) is considering construction of
plants in Arizona, Kentucky, and South Carolina. Panasonic, already
partnering with Tesla for its factories in Texas and Nevada, are
planning two new factories in Oklahoma and Kansas. Toyota plans to be
operational with a plant in Greensboro, North Carolina in 2025, and
Volkswagen in Chattanooga, Tennessee at about the same time. According
to a May 2022 forecast by S&P Global, announcements such as these could
result in a U.S. annual manufacturing capacity of 382 GWh by 2025,\669\
or 580 GWh by 2027,\670\ up from roughly 60 GWh671
672 today. A more recent forecast by the Department of
Energy, as shown in Figure 31, illustrates the rapid recent growth in
new plant announcements, estimating that announcements for North
America to date will enable an estimated 838 GWh of annual capacity by
2025, 896 GWh by 2027, and 998 GWh by 2030, the vast majority of which
is cell manufacturing capacity, enough to supply from 10 to 13 million
BEVs per year.\673\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\665\ Department of Energy, Fact of the Week #1217, ``Thirteen
New Electric Vehicle Battery Plants Are Planned in the U.S. Within
the Next Five Years,'' December 20, 2021.
\666\ Ford Media Center, ``Ford to Lead America's Shift to
Electric Vehicles with New Mega Campus in Tennessee and Twin Battery
Plants in Kentucky; $11.4B Investment to Create 11,000 Jobs and
Power New Lineup of Advanced EVs,'' Press Release, September 27,
2021.
\667\ Ford Media Center, ``Ford Taps Michigan for New LFP
Battery Plant; New Battery Chemistry Offers Customers Value,
Durability, Fast Charging, Creates 2,500 More New American Jobs,''
Press Release, February 13, 2023.
\668\ LG Chem, ``LG Chem to Establish Largest Cathode Plant in
US for EV Batteries,'' Press Release, November 22, 2022.
\669\ S&P Global Market Intelligence, ``US ready for a battery
factory boom, but now it needs to hold the charge,'' October 3,
2022. Accessed on November 22, 2022 at https://www.spglobal.com/
marketintelligence/ en/news-insights/latest-news-headlines /us-
ready-for-a-battery-factory-boom- but-now-it-needs-to- hold-the-
charge-72262329.
\670\ S&P Global Mobility, ``Growth of Li-ion battery
manufacturing capacity in key EV markets,'' May 20, 2022. Accessed
on November 22, 2022 at https://www.spglobal.com/mobility/en/research- analysis/growth-of-liion-battery- manufacturing-
capacity.html.
\671\ Federal Consortium for Advanced Batteries, ``National
Blueprint for Lithium Batteries 2021-2030,'' June 2021.
Available at https://www.energy.gov/sites/default /files/2021-
06/FCAB%20National %20Blueprint%20Lithium %20Batteries%200621_0.pdf.
\672\ S&P Global Mobility, ``Growth of Li-ion battery
manufacturing capacity in key EV markets,'' May 20, 2022. Accessed
on November 22, 2022 at https://www.spglobal.com/mobility/en/research-analysis/growth-of-liion-battery-manufacturing-capacity.html.
\673\ Argonne National Laboratory, ``Assessment of Light-Duty
Plug-in Electric Vehicles in the United States, 2010-2021,'' ANL-22/
71, November 2022.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05MY23.035
[[Page 29318]]
For comparison, Figure 32 shows the annual gross battery production
needed for BEVs in the U.S. new vehicle fleet in the central case of
the Proposal analysis. The annual battery production required for the
compliant fleet generated by OMEGA is about 925 GWh in 2030, less than
the 998 GWh of North American capacity projected for the same year in
Figure 31. Demand reaches about 1,050 GWh per year in 2032. These
figures compare to a maximum of about 620 GWh under the No Action case.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05MY23.036
In order to produce at the levels indicated when fully built out,
the North American battery plants represented in Figure 31 will require
access to sufficient inputs in the form of cathode and anode powders,
foils, separators, parts, and other commodities. In conjunction with
these construction plans, manufacturers are also moving to secure
supplies of the minerals and components necessary to produce batteries
at these facilities. For example, Ford has recently moved to secure
sources of raw materials for its battery needs; 674
675 General Motors has signed similar supply chain
agreements, for battery materials 676 677
678 as well as for rare-earth metals for electric machines;
\679\ and Tesla has also moved to secure a domestic lithium
supply.\680\ Announcements in this general vein occur frequently and
are evidence of widespread industry attention to this business need.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\674\ Green Car Congress, ``Ford sources battery capacity and
raw materials for 600K EV annual run rate by late 2023, 2M by end of
2026; adding LFP,'' July 22, 2022.
\675\ Ford Motor Company, ``Ford Releases New Battery Capacity
Plan, Raw Materials Details to Scale EVs; On Track to Ramp to 600K
Run Rate by '23 and 2M+ by '26, Leveraging Global Relationships,''
Press Release, July 21, 2022.
\676\ Green Car Congress, ``GM signs major Li-ion supply chain
agreements: CAM with LG Chem and lithium hydroxide with Livent,''
July 26, 2022.
\677\ Grzelewski, J., ``GM says it has enough EV battery raw
materials to hit 2025 production target,'' The Detroit News, July
26, 2022.
\678\ Hall, K., ``GM announces new partnership for EV battery
supply,'' The Detroit News, April 12, 2022.
\679\ Hawkins, A., ``General Motors makes moves to source rare
earth metals for EV motors in North America,'' The Verge, December
9, 2021.
\680\ Piedmont Lithium, ``Piedmont Lithium Signs Sales Agreement
With Tesla,'' Press Release, September 28, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law (BIL) are providing significant support to
accelerate these efforts to build out a U.S. supply chain for mineral,
cell, and battery production. The IRA offers sizeable incentives and
other support for further development of domestic and North American
manufacture of these vehicles and components. According to the
Congressional Budget Office, an estimated $30.6 billion will be
realized by manufacturers through the Advanced Manufacturing Production
Credit, which includes a tax credit to manufacturers for battery
production in the U.S. According to one third party estimate based on
information from Benchmark Mineral Intelligence, the recent increase in
U.S. battery manufacturing plant announcements could increase this
figure to $136 billion or more.\681\ Another $6.2 billion or more may
be realized through expansion of the Advanced Energy Project Credit, a
30 percent tax credit for investments in projects that reequip, expand,
or establish certain energy manufacturing facilities.\682\ The IRA also
provides for Clean Vehicle Credits of up to $7,500 toward the purchase
or lease of clean vehicles with significant critical mineral and
battery component content
[[Page 29319]]
manufactured in North America. Together, these provisions create a
strong motivation for manufacturers to support the continued
development of a North American supply chain and already appear to be
proving influential on the plans of manufacturers to procure domestic
or North American mineral and component sources and to construct
domestic manufacturing facilities to claim the benefits of the
act.683 684
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\681\ Axios.com, ``Axios What's Next,'' February 1, 2023.
Accessed on March 1, 2023 at https://www.axios.com/newsletters/axios-whats-next-1185bdcc-1b58-4a12-9f15-8ffc8e63b11e.html?chunk=0&utm_term=emshare#story0.
\682\ Congressional Research Service, ``Tax Provisions in the
Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (H.R. 5376),'' August 10, 2022.
\683\ Subramanian, P., ``Why Honda's EV battery plant likely
wouldn't happen without new climate credits,'' Yahoo Finance, August
29, 2022.
\684\ LG Chem, ``LG Chem to Establish Largest Cathode Plant in
US for EV Batteries,'' Press Release, November 22, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the BIL provides $7.9 billion to support development
of the domestic supply chain for battery manufacturing, recycling, and
critical minerals.\685\ Notably, it supports the development and
implementation of a $675 million Critical Materials Research,
Development, Demonstration, and Commercialization Program administered
by the Department of Energy (DOE),\686\ and has created numerous other
programs in related areas, such as for example, critical minerals data
collection by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).\687\ Provisions extend
across several areas including critical minerals mining and recycling
research, USGS energy and minerals research, rare earth elements
extraction and separation research and demonstration, and expansion of
DOE loan programs in critical minerals and zero-carbon
technologies.688 689 The Department of Energy is working to
facilitate and support further development of the supply chain, by
identifying weaknesses for prioritization and rapidly funding those
areas through numerous programs and funding
opportunities.690 691 692 According to
a final report from the Department of Energy's Li-Bridge alliance,\693\
``the U.S. industry can double its value-added share by 2030 (capturing
an additional $17 billion in direct value-add annually and 40,000 jobs
in 2030 from mining to cell manufacturing), dramatically increase U.S.
national and economic security, and position itself on the path to a
near-circular economy by 2050.'' \694\ The $7.9 billion provided by the
BIL for U.S. battery supply chain projects \695\ represents a total of
about $14 billion when industry cost matching is
considered.696 697 Other recently announced
projects will utilize another $40 billion in private funding.\698\
According to DOE's Li-Bridge alliance, the total of these commitments
already represents more than half of the capital investment that Li-
Bridge considers necessary for supply chain investment to 2030.\699\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\685\ Congressional Research Service, ``Energy and Minerals
Provisions in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (Pub. L.
117-58)'', February 16, 2022. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R47034.
\686\ Department of Energy, ``Biden-Harris Administration
Launches $675 Million Bipartisan Infrastructure Law Program to
Expand Domestic Critical Materials Supply Chains,'' August 9, 2022.
Available at https://www.energy.gov/articles/biden-harris-administration-launches-675-million-bipartisan-infrastructure-law-program.
\687\ U.S. Geological Survey, ``Bipartisan Infrastructure Law
supports critical-minerals research in central Great Plains,''
October 26, 2022. Available at https://www.usgs.gov/news/state-news-release/bipartisan-infrastructure-law-supports-critical-minerals-research-central.
\688\ Congressional Research Service, ``Energy and Minerals
Provisions in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (Pub. L.
117-58)'', February 16, 2022. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R47034.
\689\ International Energy Agency, ``Infrastructure and Jobs
act: Critical Minerals,'' October 26, 2022. https://www.iea.org/policies/14995-infrastructure-and-jobs-act-critical-minerals.
\690\ Department of Energy, Li-Bridge, ``Building a Robust and
Resilient U.S. Lithium Battery Supply Chain,'' February 2023.
\691\ The White House, ``Building Resilient Supply Chains,
Revitalizing American Manufacturing, and Fostering Broad-Based
Growth,'' 100-Day Reviews under Executive Order 14017, June 2021.
\692\ Federal Consortium for Advanced Batteries, ``National
Blueprint for Lithium Batteries 2021-2030,'' June 2021.
Available at https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2021-06/FCAB%20National%20Blueprint%20Lithium%20Batteries%200621_0.pdf.
\693\ https://www.anl.gov/li-bridge.
\694\ Department of Energy, Li-Bridge, '' Building a Robust and
Resilient U.S. Lithium Battery Supply Chain,'' February 2023.
\695\ Congressional Research Service, ``Energy and Minerals
Provisions in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (Pub. L.
117-58)'', February 16, 2022. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R47034.
\696\ Department of Energy, Li-Bridge, ``Building a Robust and
Resilient U.S. Lithium Battery Supply Chain,'' February 2023 (p. 9).
\697\ Department of Energy, EERE Funding Opportunity Exchange,
EERE Funding Opportunity Announcements. Accessed March 4, 2023 at
https://eere-exchange.energy.gov/Default.aspx#FoaId0596def9-c1cc-478d-aa4f-14b472864eba.
\698\ Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, ``Automakers' bold plans
for electric vehicles spur U.S. battery boom,'' October 11, 2022.
Accessed on March 4, 2023 at https://www.dallasfed.org/research/economics/2022/1011.
\699\ Department of Energy, Li-Bridge, ``Building a Robust and
Resilient U.S. Lithium Battery Supply Chain,'' February 2023 (p. 9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, the DOE Loan Programs Office is administering a major
loans program focusing on extraction, processing and recycling of
lithium and other critical minerals that will support continued market
growth,\700\ through the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing
(ATVM) Loan Program and Title 17 Innovative Energy Loan Guarantee
Program. This program includes over $20 billion of available loans and
loan guarantees to finance critical materials projects. Some examples
of recent projects, amounting to $3.4 billion in loan support, are
outlined in DRIA 3.1.3.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\700\ Department of Energy Loan Programs Office, ``Critical
Materials Loans & Loan Guarantees,'' https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2021-06/DOE-LPO_Program_Handout_Critical_Materials_June2021_0.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although predicting mineral supply and demand into the future is
highly uncertain, it is possible to identify general trends likely to
occur in the future. As seen in Figure 33 and Figure 34, preliminary
projections prepared by Li-Bridge for DOE,\701\ and presented to the
Federal Consortium for Advanced Batteries (FCAB) \702\ in November
2022, indicate that global supplies of cathode active material (CAM)
and lithium chemical product are expected to be sufficient through
2035.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\701\ Slides 6 and 7 of presentation by Li-Bridge to Federal
Consortium for Advanced Batteries (FCAB), November 17, 2022.
\702\ https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/federal-consortium-advanced-batteries-fcab.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
[[Page 29320]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05MY23.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05MY23.038
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
Similarly, the International Energy Agency (IEA) published its
Global EV Outlook 2022 which examined the outlook for supply and demand
for lithium, cobalt, and nickel between 2020 and 2030 under several
demand scenarios.\703\ As shown in Figure 35, it found that the supply
should be sufficient for their ``Stated Policies'' (STEPS) scenario, in
which the projected demand represents ``existing policies and measures,
as well as policy ambitions and targets that have been legislated by
governments around the world,'' and includes ``current EV-related
policies and regulations and future developments based on the expected
impacts of announced deployments and plans from industry
[[Page 29321]]
stakeholders.'' Under their ``Announced Pledges'' (APS) scenario, a
higher demand scenario which ``assumes that the announced ambitions and
targets made by governments around the world, including the most recent
ones, are met in full and on time,'' nickel and cobalt would still be
at sufficient supply, but lithium would begin to fall short after 2025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\703\ International Energy Agency, ``Global EV Outlook 2022,''
p. 185, May 2022.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05MY23.039
Although the IEA Global EV Outlook 2022 was published in May 2022,
more recent information indicates that the market is responding
robustly to demand \704\ and lithium supplies are expanding as new
resources are characterized, projects continue through engineering
economic assessments, and others begin permitting or construction. For
example, in October 2022, the IEA projected that global Lithium
Carbonate Equivalent (LCE) production from operating mines and those
under construction would sufficiently meet primary demand until at
least 2028 under the Stated Policies Scenario.\705\ Even 2028 is likely
a very conservative estimate. In March 2023, DOE communicated to EPA
that an ongoing DOE assessment of U.S. lithium resource development
projects had identified additional resources not represented in leading
assessments. For example, DOE determined that a December 2022 BNEF
projection that lithium mine production could meet end-use demand until
at least 2028 did not include additional U.S. resources later
identified by DOE and Argonne National Laboratory.\706\ Specifically,
the BNEF data included only three U.S. projects: Silver Peak (phase I
and II), Rhyolite Ridge (phase I), and Carolina Lithium (phase I). As
depicted in Figure 36, adding to the BNEF assessment, DOE and Argonne
National Laboratory had identified 19 additional lithium production
projects in the United States in addition to the three identified in
the December 2022 BNEF data. Some of these projects are likely to ramp
in before 2030 and if considered in the other projections likely would
advance lithium sufficiency well beyond 2028. For example, the 19 U.S.
projects potentially represent an additional 1,000 kilotons per year
LCE not accounted for in the BNEF analysis,\707\ which would be enough
to meet the BNEF Net-Zero demand projection, as depicted in Figure 36.
Note that these do not include recycling projects, which could increase
domestic lithium supply beyond that shown, nor an additional five U.S.
projects for which potential LCE production capacity is not yet
established. The identification of these additional projects exemplify
the dynamic nature of the industry and the likely conservative aspect
of existing assessments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\704\ Bloomberg New Energy Finance, ``Lithium-ion Battery Pack
Prices Rise for First Time to an Average of $151/kWh,'' December 6,
2022. Accessed on December 6, 2022 at: https://about.bnef.com/blog/lithium-ion-battery-pack-prices-rise-for-first-time-to-an-average-of-151-kwh/.
\705\ International Energy Agency, ``Committed mine production
and primary demand for lithium, 2020-2030,'' October 26, 2022.
Accessed on March 9, 2023 at https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/committed-mine-production-and-primary-demand-for-lithium-2020-2030.
\706\ Department of Energy, communication to EPA titled
``Lithium Supplies--additional datapoints and research,'' March 8,
2023. See memorandum to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0829 titled
``DOE Communication to EPA Regarding Critical Mineral Projects.''
\707\ Department of Energy, communication to EPA titled
``Lithium Supplies--additional datapoints and research,'' March 8,
2023. See Memo to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0829, titled ``DOE
Communication to EPA Regarding Critical Mineral Projects.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 29322]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05MY23.040
Recent unexpected drops (as of March 2023) in lithium prices are
believed to have been the result of robust growth in lithium supply
from developments similar to these,\708\ and further supports the
expectation of a stabilization in commodity prices, which in turn
supports an expectation that sufficient supply will be developed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\708\ New York Times, ``Falling Lithium Prices Are Making
Electric Cars More Affordable,'' March 20, 2023. Accessed on March
23, 2023 at https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/20/business/lithium-prices-falling-electric-vehicles.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the Inflation Reduction Act's requirement that
qualification for $3,750 of the Clean Vehicle Credit depends in part on
sourcing of critical minerals from the U.S. or countries with which the
U.S. has a free trade agreement has spurred other countries to consider
action that would expand lithium supply. For example, the European
Union is seeking to promote rapid development of Europe's battery
supply chains by considering targeted measures such as accelerating
permitting processes and encouraging private investment. To these ends
the European Parliament proposed a Critical Raw Materials Act on March
16, 2023, which includes these and other measures to encourage the
development of new supplies of critical minerals not currently
anticipated in market projections.709 710 711
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\709\ European Union, ``7th High-Level Meeting of the European
Battery Alliance: main takeaways by the Chair Maro[scaron]
[Scaron]ef[ccaron]ovi[ccaron] and the Council Presidency,'' March 1,
2023. Accessed on March 9, 2023 at https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2023-03/Main%20takeaways_7th%20High-Level%20Meeting%20of%20EBA.pdf.
\710\ New York Times, ``U.S. Eyes Trade Deals With Allies to
Ease Clash Over Electric Car Subsidies,'' February 24, 2023.
\711\ European Parliament, ``Proposal for a regulation of the
European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for
ensuring a secure and sustainable supply of critical raw
materials,'' March 16, 2023. https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/publications/european-critical-raw-materials-act_en.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In DRIA 3.1.3.2 and 3.1.3.3 we detail these and many other examples
that demonstrate how momentum has picked up in the lithium market since
IEA's May 2022 report. For more discussion, please see DRIA Chapters
3.1.3.2 and 3.1.3.3.
In the critical mineral analysis outlined in DRIA Chapter 3.1.3.2,
we selected lithium supply as the primary mineral-based limiting factor
in constraining the potential rate of BEV penetration for modeling
purposes. Of the IEA scenarios considered, in those that anticipated a
potential shortfall in any mineral, lithium demand was the first to
show potential for exceeding supply in some scenarios. In addition,
with respect to other cathode and anode minerals, we note that there is
some flexibility in choice of these minerals, as in many cases,
opportunity will exist to reduce cobalt and manganese content or to
substitute with iron-phosphate chemistries that do not utilize nickel,
cobalt or manganese, or use other forms of carbon in the anode, or in
conjunction with silicon. However, all currently produced chemistries
require lithium in the electrolyte and the cathode, and these have no
viable
[[Page 29323]]
substitute at this time.\712\ Accordingly, in DRIA 3.1.3.2 we focused
on lithium availability as a potential limiting factor on the rate of
growth of PEV production, and thus the most appropriate basis for
establishing a modeling constraint on the rate of PEV penetration into
the fleet over the time frame of the proposed rule. In that analysis,
we conclude that lithium supply is likely to be adequate to meet
anticipated demand as demand increases and supply grows.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\712\ In DRIA 3.1.3.3 we discuss the outlook for alternatives to
lithium in battery chemistries that are under development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite recent short-term fluctuations in price, the price of
lithium is expected to stabilize at or near its historical levels by
the mid-2020s.713 714 This perspective is also supported by
proprietary battery price forecasts by Wood Mackenzie that include the
predicted effect of temporarily elevated mineral prices and show
battery costs falling again past 2024.715 716 This is
consistent with the BNEF battery price outlook 2022 which expects
battery prices to start dropping again in 2024, and BNEF's 2022 Battery
Price Survey which predicts that average pack prices should fall below
$100/kWh by 2026.\717\ Taken together these outlooks support the
perspective that lithium is not likely to encounter a critical shortage
as supply responds to meet growing demand. For more discussion of the
mineral supply outlook for the time frame of the proposed rule, see
Chapter 3.1.3.2 of the DRIA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\713\ Sun et al., ``Surging lithium price will not impede the
electric vehicle boom,'' Joule, doi:10.1016/j.joule. 2022.06.028
(https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2022.06.028).
\714\ Green Car Congress, ``Tsinghua researchers conclude
surging lithium price will not impede EV boom,'' July 29, 2022.
\715\ Wood Mackenzie, ``Battery & raw materials--Investment
horizon outlook to 2032,'' September 2022 (filename: brms-q3-2022-
iho.pdf). Available to subscribers.
\716\ Wood Mackenzie, ``Battery & raw materials--Investment
horizon outlook to 2032,'' accompanying data set, September 2022
(filename: brms-data-q3-2022.xlsx). Available to subscribers.
\717\ Bloomberg New Energy Finance, ``Lithium-ion Battery Pack
Prices Rise for First Time to an Average of $151/kWh,'' December 6,
2022. Accessed on December 6, 2022 at: https://about.bnef.com/blog/lithium-ion-battery-pack-prices-rise-for-first-time-to-an-average-of-151-kwh/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA has considered this information on the development of the
supply chain to meet future PEV production needs and has represented
this information in developing modeling constraints for use by the
OMEGA model that represent limitations on annual rate of growth of PEV
production imposed by the rate of growth of the global supply chain for
batteries and minerals. Specifically, in our compliance modeling we
imposed an upper limit on Gigawatt-hours (GWh) of gross battery energy
capacity that can be produced and made available for production of BEVs
that enter the new U.S. vehicle market in a given year of the analysis.
The development of this constraint used by the OMEGA model is discussed
in Chapter 3.1.3.2 of the DRIA.
EPA requests comment on the GWh constraint described in that DRIA
chapter, and on alternative methods for representing constraints on
future PEV production that may result from limitations on the supply
chain for batteries and the critical minerals and other components that
are used in their manufacture.
iii. Mineral Security
As stated at the beginning of this section, it is our assessment
that increased automotive electrification in the U.S. does not
constitute a vulnerability to national security, for several reasons
supported by the discussion in this Section IV.C.6 and in DRIA 3.1.3.2.
A domestic supply chain for battery and cell manufacturing is
rapidly forming by the actions of stakeholders including automakers and
suppliers who wish to take advantage of the business opportunities that
this need presents, and by automakers who recognize the need to remain
competitive in a global market that is shifting to electrification. It
is, therefore, already a goal of the U.S. manufacturing industry to
create a robust supply chain for these products, in order to supply not
only the domestic vehicle market, but also all of the other
applications for these products in global markets as the world
decarbonizes.
Further, the Inflation Reduction Act and the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law are proving to be a highly effective means by which
Congress and the Administration have provided support for the building
of a robust supply chain, and to accelerate this activity to ensure
that it forms as rapidly as possible. An example is the work of Li-
Bridge, a public-private alliance committed to accelerating the
development of a robust and secure domestic supply chain for lithium-
based batteries. It has set forth a goal that by 2030 the United States
should capture 60 percent of the economic value associated with the
U.S. domestic demand for lithium batteries. Achieving this target would
double the economic value expected in the U.S. under ``business as
usual'' growth.\718\ More evidence of recent growth in the supply chain
is found in a February 2023 report by Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory (PNNL), which documents robust growth in the North American
lithium battery industry.\719\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\718\ Department of Energy, Li-Bridge, ``Building a Robust and
Resilient U.S. Lithium Battery Supply Chain,'' February 2023.
\719\ Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, ``North American
Lithium Battery Materials V 1.2,'' February 2023. Available at
https://www.pnnl.gov/projects/north-american-lithium-battery-materials-industry-report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, it is important to note that utilization of critical
minerals is different from the utilization of foreign oil, in that oil
is consumed as a fuel while minerals become a constituent of
manufactured vehicles. That is, mineral security is not a perfect
analogy to energy security. Supply disruptions and fluctuating prices
are relevant to critical minerals as well, but the impacts of such
disruptions are felt differently and by different parties. Disruptions
in oil supply or gasoline price has an immediate impact on consumers
through higher fuel prices, and thus constrains the ability to travel.
In contrast, supply disruptions or price fluctuations of minerals
affect only the production and price of new vehicles. In practice,
short-term price fluctuations do not always translate to higher
production cost as most manufacturers purchase minerals via long-term
contracts that insulate them to a degree from changes in spot prices.
Moreover, critical minerals are not a single commodity but a number of
distinct commodities, each having its own supply and demand dynamics,
and some being capable of substitution by other minerals. Importantly,
while oil is consumed as a fuel and thus requires continuous supply,
minerals become part of the vehicle and have the potential to be
recovered and recycled. Thus, even when minerals are imported from
other countries, their acquisition adds to the domestic mineral stock
that is available for domestic recycling in the future.
Over the long term, battery recycling will be a critical component
of the PEV supply chain and will contribute to mineral security and
sustainability, effectively acting as a domestically produced mineral
source that reduces overall reliance on foreign-sourced products. While
growth in the return of end-of-life PEV batteries will lag the market
penetration of PEVs, it is important to consider the development of a
battery recycling supply chain during the time frame of the rule and
beyond.
By 2050, battery recycling could be capable of meeting 25 to 50
percent of total lithium demand for battery
[[Page 29324]]
production.720 721 To this end, battery recycling is a very
active area of research. The Department of Energy coordinates much
research in this area through the ReCell Center, described as ``a
national collaboration of industry, academia and national laboratories
working together to advance recycling technologies along the entire
battery life-cycle for current and future battery chemistries.'' \722\
Funding is also being disbursed as directed by the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law.\723\ A growing number of private companies are
entering the battery recycling market as the rate of recyclable
material becoming available from battery production facilities and
salvaged vehicles has grown, and manufacturers are already reaching
agreements to use these recycled materials for domestic battery
manufacturing. For example, Panasonic has contracted with Redwood
Materials Inc. to supply domestically processed cathode material, much
of which will be sourced from recycled batteries.\724\ Ford and Volvo
have also partnered with Redwood to collect end-of-life batteries for
recycling and promote a circular, closed-loop supply chain utilizing
recycled materials.\725\ Redwood has also announced a battery active
materials plant in South Carolina with capacity to supply materials for
100 GWh per year of battery production, and is likely to provide these
materials to many of the ``battery belt'' factories that are developing
in a corridor between Michigan and Georgia.\726\ General Motors and LG
Energy Solution have also partnered with Li-Cycle to provide recycling
of GM's Ultium cells.\727\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\720\ Sun et al., ``Surging lithium price will not impede the
electric vehicle boom,'' Joule, doi:10.1016/j.joule. 2022.06.028
(https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2022.06.028).
\721\ Ziemann et al., ``Modeling the potential impact of lithium
recycling from EV batteries on lithium demand: a dynamic MFA
approach,'' Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 133, pp. 76-85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec. 2018.01.031.
\722\ https://recellcenter.org/about/.
\723\ Department of Energy, ``Biden-Harris Administration
Announces Nearly $74 Million To Advance Domestic Battery Recycling
And Reuse, Strengthen Nation's Battery Supply Chain,'' Press
Release, November 16, 2022.
\724\ Randall, T., ``The Battery Supply Chain Is Finally Coming
to America,'' Bloomberg, November 15, 2022.
\725\ Automotive News Europe, ``Ford, Volvo join Redwood in EV
battery recycling push in California,'' February 17, 2022. https://europe.autonews.com/automakers/ford-volvo-join-redwood-ev-battery-recycling-push-california.
\726\ Wards Auto, ``Battery Recycler Redwood Plans $3.5 Billion
South Carolina Plant,'' December 27, 2022. https://www.wardsauto.com/industry-news/battery-recycler-redwood-plans-35-billion-south-carolinaplant.
\727\ General Motors, ``Ultium Cells LLC and Li-Cycle
Collaborate to Expand Recycling in North America,'' Press Release,
May 11, 2021. https://news.gm.com/newsroom.detail.html/Pages/news/us/en/2021/may/0511-ultium.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recycling infrastructure is one of the targets of several
provisions of the BIL. It includes a Battery Processing and
Manufacturing program, which grants significant funds to promote U.S.
processing and manufacturing of batteries for automotive and electric
grid use, by awarding grants for demonstration projects, new
construction, retooling and retrofitting, and facility expansion. It
will provide a total of $3 billion for battery material processing, $3
billion for battery manufacturing and recycling, $10 million for a
lithium-ion battery recycling prize competition, $60 million for
research and development activities in battery recycling, an additional
$50 million for state and local programs, and $15 million to develop a
collection system for used batteries. In addition, the Electric Drive
Vehicle Battery Recycling and Second-Life Application Program will
provide $200 million in funds for research, development, and
demonstration of battery recycling and second-life applications.\728\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\728\ Environmental Defense Fund and ERM, ``Electric Vehicle
Market Update: Manufacturer Commitments and Public Policy
Initiatives Supporting Electric Mobility in the U.S. and
Worldwide,'' September 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The efforts to fund and build a mid-chain processing supply chain
for active materials and related products will also be important to
reclaiming minerals through domestic recycling. While domestic
recycling can recover minerals and other materials needed for battery
cell production, they commonly are recovered in elemental forms that
require further midstream processing into precursor substances and
active material powders that can be used in cell production. The DOE
ReCell Center coordinates extensive research on development of a
domestic lithium-ion recycling supply chain, including direct
recycling, in which materials can be recycled for direct use in cell
production without destroying their chemical structure, and advanced
resource recovery, which uses chemical conversion to recover raw
minerals for processing into new constituents.\729\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\729\ Department of Energy, ``The ReCell Center for Advanced
Battery Recycling FY22 Q4 Report,'' October 20, 2022. Available at:
https://recellcenter.org/2022/12/15/recell-advanced-battery-recycling-center-fourth-quarter-progress-report-2022/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently, pilot-scale battery recycling research projects and
private recycling startups have access to only limited amounts of
recycling stock that originate from sources such as manufacturer waste,
crashed vehicles, and occasional manufacturer recall/repair events. As
PEVs are currently only a small portion of the U.S. vehicle stock, some
time will pass before vehicle scrappage can provide a steady supply of
end-of-life batteries to support large-scale battery recycling. During
this time, we expect that the midchain processing portion of the supply
chain will continue to develop and will be able to capture much of the
resources made available by the recycling of used batteries coming in
from the fleet.
D. Projected Compliance Costs and Technology Penetrations
1. CO2 Targets and Compliance Levels
i. Light-Duty Vehicle Targets and Compliance Levels
The proposed footprint standards curve coefficients for light-duty
vehicles were presented in Section III.B.2.iv. Here we present the
projected industry average fleet targets for both the Proposal and the
No Action case for reference. These average targets (for the proposed
standards and the No Action case,\730\ respectively) are presented for
both the car and truck regulatory classes in Table 66 and Table 67, and
then for three different modeled body styles: Sedans, crossovers and
SUVs, and pickup trucks,\731\ in Table 68 and Table 69. The projected
targets for each are based on the industry sales weighted average of
vehicle models (and their respective footprints) within the regulatory
class or body style.\732\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\730\ The No-Action case continues MY 2026 flexibilities for the
off-cycle and A/C credits available to OEMs as defined in the 2021
Final Rule.
\731\ All sedans are of the car regulatory class; crossovers and
SUVs include both cars and trucks; and all pickups are of the truck
regulatory class.
\732\ Note that these targets are projected based on both
projected future sales in applicable MYs and our proposed standards;
after the standards are finalized the targets will change depending
on each manufacturer's actual sales.
[[Page 29325]]
Table 66--Projected Targets for Proposed LDV Standards, by Regulatory Class
[CO2 grams/mile]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cars.............................. 134 116 99 91 82 73
Trucks............................ 163 142 120 110 100 89
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total......................... 152 131 111 102 93 82
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 67--Projected Targets for LDV No-Action Case, by Regulatory Class
[CO2 grams/mile]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cars.............................. 131 132 132 132 131 131
Trucks............................ 183 182 183 183 183 183
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total......................... 162 162 163 162 162 161
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 68--Projected Targets for Proposed LDV Standards, by Body Style
[CO2 grams/mile]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sedans............................ 134 117 99 91 82 73
Crossovers/SUVs................... 149 130 110 101 92 81
Pickups........................... 195 166 141 129 118 105
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total......................... 152 131 111 102 93 82
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 69--Projected Targets for LDV No-Action Case, by Body Style
[CO2 grams/mile]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sedans............................ 132 132 133 132 132 131
Crossovers/SUVs................... 161 161 162 161 161 161
Pickups........................... 222 219 220 222 222 223
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total......................... 162 162 163 162 162 161
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The modeled achieved CO2 levels for the proposed
standards and the No Action case are shown for both the car and truck
regulatory class in Table 70 and Table 71 and then by body style in
Table 72 and Table 73, respectively. These values were produced by the
modeling analysis and represent the projected certification emissions
values for possible compliance approaches with the proposed standards,
grouped by body style. These achieved values, shown as sales weighted
averages over the respective sedan, crossover/SUV, and pickup truck
body styles, include the 2-cycle tailpipe emissions based on the
modeled application of emissions-reduction technologies minus the
modeled application of off-cycle credit technologies and A/C efficiency
credits.
Table 70--Proposed LDV Standards--Achieved Levels by Regulatory Class
[CO2 grams/mile]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cars.............................. 115 100 84 72 68 60
Trucks............................ 176 149 123 113 106 95
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total......................... 151 129 107 97 91 81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 71--LDV No-Action Case--Achieved Levels by Regulatory Class
[CO2 grams/mile]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cars.............................. 117 111 104 102 109 113
Trucks............................ 183 169 155 153 158 160
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 29326]]
Total......................... 157 146 135 132 138 141
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 72--Proposed LDV Standards--Achieved Levels by Body Style
[CO2 grams/mile]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sedans............................ 108 93 78 63 57 47
Crossovers/SUVs................... 140 123 102 97 97 95
Pickups........................... 276 220 181 160 131 91
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total......................... 151 129 107 97 91 81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 73--LDV No Action Case--Achieved Levels by Body Style
[CO2 grams/mile]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sedans............................ 106 101 96 95 103 108
Crossovers/SUVs................... 149 139 129 130 139 141
Pickups........................... 279 251 227 211 204 203
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total......................... 157 146 135 132 138 141
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparing the target and achieved values it can be seen that the
achieved values are over target (higher emissions) for the average
pickup truck, and under target (lower emissions) for the average sedan.
This is a feature of the unlimited credit transfer provision, which
results in a compliance determination that is based on the combined car
and truck fleet credits for each manufacturer, rather than a separate
determination of each fleet's compliance. The application of
technologies is influenced by the relative cost-effectiveness of
technologies among each manufacturer's vehicles. For the combined
fleet, the achieved values are typically close to or slightly under the
target values, which would represent the banking of credits that can be
carried over into other model years. This indicates that overall, the
modeled fleet tracks the standards very closely from year-to-year. Note
that an achieved value for a manufacturer's combined fleet that is
above the target in a given model year does not indicate a likely
failure to comply with the standards, since the model includes the GHG
program credit banking provisions that allow credits from one year to
be carried into another year.
The modeling predicts that the industry will over comply against
the MY 2027-2032 standards in the No Action scenario, driven by the
projected significant increase in BEVs. This is in part due to the
economic opportunities provided for BEVs to both manufacturers and
consumers by the IRA. Figure 37 shows a plot of industry average
achieved tailpipe g/mi compared to the projected targets for both the
No Action case and the proposed standards. The modeling shows that the
industry as a whole should be able to achieve the proposed standards
over the MY 2027-2032 time frame.
[[Page 29327]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05MY23.041
ii. Medium-Duty Vehicle Targets and Compliance Levels
Based on the proposed work-factor based standards curve
coefficients described in Section III.B.3, we present the projected
industry average medium-duty vehicle fleet targets for both the
proposed standards and the No Action case in Table 74 and Table 75.
These average targets are shown for two different modeled body styles:
Vans and pickup trucks. The projected targets for each case are based
on the industry sales weighted average of vehicle models (and their
respective work factors) within each body style.\733\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\733\ Note that these targets are projected based on both
projected future sales in applicable MYs and our proposed standards;
the targets will change each MY depending on each manufacturer's
actual sales.
Table 74--Projected Targets for Proposed MDV Standards, by Body Style
[CO2 grams/mile]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vans.............................. 393 379 345 309 276 243
Pickups........................... 462 452 413 374 331 292
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total......................... 438 427 389 352 312 275
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 75--Projected Targets for MD Vehicles, No-Action Case, by Body Style
[CO2 grams/mile]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vans.............................. 410 410 410 410 410 410
Pickups........................... 517 517 517 518 518 518
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total......................... 480 480 480 481 481 481
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 29328]]
The modeled achieved CO2 levels for the proposed
standards are shown for both vans and pickups in Table 76. These values
were produced by the modeling analysis and represent the projected
certification emissions values for possible compliance approaches with
the proposed standards, grouped by body style.
Table 76--Proposed Standards for MD Vehicles--Projected Achieved Levels by Body Style
[CO2 grams/mile]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vans.............................. 292 202 119 36 12 10
Pickups........................... 515 546 534 512 466 410
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total......................... 437 426 390 347 310 272
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Compliance Costs per Vehicle for the Proposed Standards
i. Light-Duty Projected Compliance Costs
EPA has performed an assessment of the estimated per-vehicle costs
for manufacturers to meet the proposed MY 2027-2032 GHG and criteria
air pollutant standards. The fleet average costs per vehicle, again
grouped by both regulatory class and body style, are shown in Table 77
and Table 78. As shown, the combined cost for cars and trucks increases
gradually from MY 2027 through MY 2032. Incremental costs for pickups
(shown in Table 78) decrease slightly in MY 2029 and 2030 before
increasing again as the incentives in the IRA begin to phase out.
Table 77--Average Incremental Vehicle Cost by Regulatory Class, Relative to the No Action Scenario
[2020 dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cars.............................. $249 $102 $32 $100 $527 $844
Trucks............................ 891 767 653 821 1,100 1,385
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total......................... 633 497 401 526 866 1,164
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 78--Average Incremental Vehicle Cost by Body Style, Relative to the No Action Scenario
[2020 dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sedans............................ $181 $79 $51 $194 $625 $1,015
Crossovers/SUVs................... 657 448 332 487 804 962
Pickups........................... 1,374 1,478 1,333 1,324 1,574 2,266
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total......................... 633 497 401 526 866 1,164
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall, EPA estimates the average costs of today's proposal at
approximately $1,200 per vehicle in MY 2032 relative to meeting the No
Action scenario in MY 2032. However, these estimates represent the
incremental costs to manufacturers; for consumers, these costs are
offset by savings in the reduced fuel costs, maintenance and repair
costs, as discussed in Section VIII. Additionally, consumers may also
benefit from IRA purchase incentives for PEVs.
ii. Medium-Duty Projected Compliance Costs
EPA's assessment of the estimated per-vehicle costs for
manufacturers to meet the proposed MY 2027-2032 GHG and criteria air
pollutant standards for medium-duty vehicles is presented here. The
fleet average costs per vehicle, grouped by body style, are shown in
Table 79. As shown, the combined cost for vans and pickups generally
increases from MY 2027 through MY 2032.
Table 79--Average Incremental Vehicle Cost by Body Style, Medium-Duty Vehicles
[2020 dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vans.............................. $322 $658 $711 $1,184 $1,592 $1,932
Pickups........................... 386 31 67 374 603 1,706
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total......................... 364 249 290 654 944 1,784
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall, EPA estimates the average costs of today's proposal at
approximately $1,800 per medium-duty vehicle in MY 2032 relative to
meeting the No Action scenario in MY 2032. Similar to our light-duty
costs, these estimates represent the incremental costs to
manufacturers; for consumers, these costs are offset by savings in the
[[Page 29329]]
reduced fuel costs, maintenance and repair costs, as discussed in
Section VIII. Additionally, consumers may also benefit from IRA
purchase incentives for PEVs.
3. Technology Penetration Rates
i. Light-Duty Technology Penetrations
In this section, we discuss the projected new sales technology
penetration rates from EPA's analysis for the proposed standards. Table
80 and Table 81 show the EPA projected penetration rates of BEV
technology under the proposed standards and No Action case,
respectively, by body style. It is important to note that this is a
projection and represents one out of many possible compliance pathways
for the industry. The proposed standards are performance-based and do
not mandate any specific technology for any manufacturer or any vehicle
type. Each manufacturer is free to choose its own set of technologies
with which it will demonstrate compliance with the standards. In our
projection, as the proposed standards become more stringent over MYs
2027 to 2032, the penetration of BEVs increases by almost 30 percentage
points over this 6-year period, from 36 percent in MY 2027 up to 67
percent of overall vehicle production in MY 2032.
It is important to note that EPA's current analysis does not
include PHEVs, though we recognize that many manufacturers' product
plans include PHEVs. EPA recognizes that the inclusion of PHEVs could
potentially increase the combined ZEV share projection beyond the BEV
penetration levels shown in Table 81. EPA plans to incorporate PHEVs
into our analysis for the final rule. In DRIA Chapter 2.6.4, we present
information on the potential costs for PHEVs. We seek comment on this
information and on any other data and information we should consider in
developing the technical approach to incorporating PHEVs as a
compliance technology option in our assessment for the final rule.
Table 80--Fleet BEV Penetration Rates, by Body Style, Under the Proposed Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027 (%) 2028 (%) 2029 (%) 2030 (%) 2031 (%) 2032 (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sedans............................ 45 53 61 69 73 78
Crossovers/SUVs................... 38 46 56 59 61 62
Pickups........................... 11 23 37 45 55 68
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total......................... 36 45 55 60 63 67
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 81--Fleet BEV Penetration Rates, by Body Style, Under the No Action Case
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027 (%) 2028 (%) 2029 (%) 2030 (%) 2031 (%) 2032 (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sedans............................ 39 41 45 46 44 43
Crossovers/SUVs................... 26 32 37 40 39 39
Pickups........................... 7 16 24 29 31 33
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total......................... 27 32 37 40 40 39
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 82 and Table 83 show the projected market penetrations for
strong HEVs in the proposed standards and the No Action case. While a
relatively small percentage of HEVs is projected in the early years of
the proposed standards, HEVs were generally not projected in the
compliance modeling for the No Action case. While manufacturers may in
fact choose HEVs, the modeling indicates they are less cost effective
than the BEVs which have been subsidized by the IRA and emit 0 g/mi
tailpipe CO2. Moreover, in the No Action case, the modeling
indicates that the industry is already overachieving the standards,
resulting in less need for HEVs. In the proposed standards case, the
steady decline in projected HEVs is primarily a result of continued
projected reductions in battery costs which make BEVs increasingly more
cost effective relative to HEVs.
Table 82--Fleet Strong HEV Penetration Rates Under the Proposed Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027 (%) 2028 (%) 2029 (%) 2030 (%) 2031 (%) 2032 (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sedans............................ 4 3 2 2 1 0
Crossovers/SUVs................... 2 2 2 1 1 0
Pickups........................... 6 2 1 1 1 0
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total......................... 3 2 2 1 1 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 83--Fleet Strong HEV Penetrations Rates Under the No Action Case
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027 (%) 2028 (%) 2029 (%) 2030 (%) 2031 (%) 2032 (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sedans............................ 6 6 4 4 0 0
Crossovers/SUVs................... 3 3 3 1 0 0
Pickups........................... 4 0 0 0 0 0
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 29330]]
Total......................... 4 3 3 2 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consistent with past rulemakings, EPA has evaluated a range of
advanced technologies for ICE vehicles. Two of these technologies were
noteworthy in the modeling results: Advanced turbocharged downsized
engines (TURB12) and advanced Atkinson (ATK) engines.\734\ Further
details on EPA's modeling of engine technologies can be found in DRIA
Chapters 2.4.5.1 and 3.5.1. Turbocharged engines and Atkinson engines
are some of the most cost-effective ICE technologies for GHG
compliance, however, like HEVs, are still not as cost-effective as BEVs
subsidized by the IRA. Similar to the trends in projected HEV
penetration, the advanced ICE technologies are projected to decline as
BEVs become more cost effective over the period of the proposed
standards; however, for the No Action case, penetrations of TURB12 and
ATK increase. Table 84 and Table 85 show the projected market
penetrations for downsized turbocharged engines in the proposed
standards and the No Action case, while Table 86 and Table 87 show the
projections for Atkinson engines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\734\ As summarized in Table 86 and Table 87, the Atkinson
engines also include a turbocharged variant (Miller cycle), however
this is a very small portion of the technology penetrations shown.
Table 84--TURB12 Penetration Rates Under the Proposed Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027 (%) 2028 (%) 2029 (%) 2030 (%) 2031 (%) 2032 (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sedans............................ 22 20 17 16 18 14
Crossovers/SUVs................... 3 3 5 6 8 8
Pickups........................... 6 0 0 0 0 0
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total......................... 8 7 7 8 10 9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 85--TURB12 Penetrations Rates Under the No Action Case
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027 (%) 2028 (%) 2029 (%) 2030 (%) 2031 (%) 2032 (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sedans............................ 28 29 29 31 39 40
Crossovers/SUVs................... 3 3 5 9 13 13
Pickups........................... 6 0 0 0 0 0
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total......................... 10 9 11 14 18 19
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 86--ATK Penetration Rates Under the Proposed Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027 (%) 2028 (%) 2029 (%) 2030 (%) 2031 (%) 2032 (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sedans............................ 28 23 19 13 8 7
Crossovers/SUVs................... 55 49 37 34 30 29
Pickups........................... 35 75 61 54 44 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total......................... 45 46 36 31 26 23
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 87--ATK Penetrations Rates Under the No Action Case
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027 (%) 2028 (%) 2029 (%) 2030 (%) 2031 (%) 2032 (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sedans............................ 25 24 21 18 16 17
Crossovers/SUVs................... 68 63 54 49 48 48
Pickups........................... 42 84 76 71 68 66
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total......................... 53 55 49 44 42 42
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 29331]]
ii. Medium-Duty Technology Penetrations
In this section we discuss the projected new MDV \735\ sales
technology penetration rates from EPA's analysis for the proposed
standards. Table 88 shows the EPA projected penetration rates of BEV
technology under the proposed standards by body style. It is important
to note that this is a projection and represents one out of many
possible compliance pathways for the industry. The proposed standards
are performance-based and do not mandate any specific technology for
any manufacturer or any vehicle type. Each manufacturer is free to
choose its own set of technologies with which it will demonstrate
compliance with the standards. As the proposed standards become more
stringent over MYs 2027 to 2032, the projected penetration of BEVs
(driven mostly by electrification of vans) increases from 17 percent in
MY 2027 up to 46 percent of overall vehicle production in MY 2032.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\735\ MDVs were not broken down into separate Class 2b and Class
3 categories in the analysis for the proposal. The proposed GHG and
criteria pollutant emissions standards regulate Class 2b and Class 3
as a single MDV class. The analysis did include a breakdown between
MDV vans and MDV pickups due to differences in use-case and
applicable technologies between MDV vans and MDV pickups.
Table 88--Fleet BEV Penetration Rates, by Body Style, Under the Proposed Standards for MDVs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027 (%) 2028 (%) 2029 (%) 2030 (%) 2031 (%) 2032 (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vans.............................. 35 55 73 92 97 98
Pickups........................... 7 1 3 4 15 19
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total......................... 17 20 28 34 43 46
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Alternative Light-Duty GHG Standards: Projected CO2 Fleet
Targets, Costs and Technology Penetrations
In Section III.E, we describe three alternative sets of standards
that we considered in developing the level of stringency of the
proposed program--Alternative 1 (more stringent than the proposed
program), Alternative 2 (less stringent), and Alternative 3 (a slower
phase-in of the 2032 MY stringency level in the proposed standards).
All four potential programs would incorporate fairly linear year-over-
year increases in GHG stringency from MY 2027 through MY 2032, with
stringencies that vary by (on average) 10 g/mi between the alternatives
and the proposed standards. The alternatives are projected to result in
reductions in average GHG emissions targets ranging from 51 percent to
67 percent from the MY 2026 standards, compared to a projected 56
percent reduction for the proposed standards.
Alternative 1 projected fleet-wide CO2 targets are 10 g/
mi lower on average than the proposed targets; Alternative 2 projected
fleet-wide CO2 targets averaged 10 g/mi higher than the
proposed targets.\736\ Alternative 3 projected targets in MY 2032 match
those of the proposed standards. Table 89, Table 90 and Table 91 show
the projected sales weighted averaged targets (MY 2027-2032) for cars,
trucks, and the fleet total for the three alternatives. Similarly,
Table 92, Table 93, and Table 94 show targets for sedans, crossovers/
SUVs and pickups for the three alternatives. Table 95 provides a
comparison for the projected industry-wide targets for the alternatives
compared to the proposed standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\736\ For reference, the targets at a footprint of 50 square
feet were exactly 10 g/mi lower and greater for the alternatives.
Table 89--Projected Targets by Regulatory Class [CO2 grams/mile]--Alternative 1
[CO2 grams/mile]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cars.............................. 124 106 89 81 72 63
Trucks............................ 153 131 110 100 90 78
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total......................... 141 121 101 92 83 72
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 90--Projected Targets by Regulatory Class [CO2 grams/mile]--Alternative 2
[CO2 grams/mile]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cars.............................. 144 126 108 100 92 83
Trucks............................ 173 152 130 121 111 99
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total......................... 162 141 122 112 103 92
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 91--Projected Targets by Regulatory Class [CO2 grams/mile]--Alternative 3
[CO2 grams/mile]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cars.............................. 139 126 112 99 86 73
[[Page 29332]]
Trucks............................ 183 163 144 126 107 89
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total......................... 165 148 132 115 99 82
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 92--Projected Targets by Body Style--Alternative 1
[CO2 grams/mile]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sedans............................ 124 107 89 81 73 63
Crossovers/SUVs................... 139 120 100 91 82 71
Pickups........................... 182 154 129 117 105 91
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total......................... 141 121 101 92 83 72
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 93--Projected Targets by Body Style--Alternative 2
[CO2 grams/mile]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sedans............................ 144 126 108 101 92 83
Crossovers/SUVs................... 158 139 120 111 101 91
Pickups........................... 207 179 153 142 130 116
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total......................... 162 141 122 112 103 92
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 94--Projected Targets by Body Style--Alternative 3
[CO2 grams/mile]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sedans............................ 139 126 112 99 87 73
Crossovers/SUVs................... 165 148 131 115 98 81
Pickups........................... 216 190 169 148 126 104
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total......................... 165 148 132 115 99 82
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 95--Comparison of Proposed Combined Fleet Targets to Alternatives
[CO2 grams/mile]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model year Proposed stds Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2026 adjusted............................... 186 186 186 186
2027........................................ 152 141 162 165
2028........................................ 131 121 141 148
2029........................................ 111 101 122 132
2030........................................ 102 92 112 115
2031........................................ 93 83 103 99
2032 and later.............................. 82 72 92 82
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 96, Table 97 and Table 98 provide the modeled fleet BEV
penetration rates, by body style, for MY 2027-2032 for the three
alternatives. Table 98 compares the projected BEV penetration rates for
the alternatives compared to the proposed standards.
Table 96--Fleet BEV Penetration Rates, by Body Style, Under Alternative 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027 (%) 2028 (%) 2029 (%) 2030 (%) 2031 (%) 2032 (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sedans............................ 46 52 59 68 75 75
Crossovers/SUVs................... 39 49 57 65 65 71
Pickups........................... 12 27 38 47 45 52
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 29333]]
Total......................... 37 46 54 63 65 69
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 97--Fleet BEV Penetration Rates, by Body Style, Under Alternative 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027 (%) 2028 (%) 2029 (%) 2030 (%) 2031 (%) 2032 (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sedans............................ 44 49 60 62 69 72
Crossovers/SUVs................... 34 41 53 54 56 63
Pickups........................... 12 21 33 45 53 52
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total......................... 33 40 52 55 59 64
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 98--Fleet BEV Penetration Rates, by Body Style, Under Alternative 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027 (%) 2028 (%) 2029 (%) 2030 (%) 2031 (%) 2032 (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sedans............................ 43 49 52 60 69 75
Crossovers/SUVs................... 33 40 47 53 59 64
Pickups........................... 10 20 32 43 55 68
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total......................... 32 39 46 54 62 68
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 99--Comparison of Projected BEV Penetrations for Alternatives vs Proposed Standards
[CO2 grams/mile]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed stds Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
Model year (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027........................................ 36 37 33 32
2028........................................ 45 46 40 39
2029........................................ 55 54 52 46
2030........................................ 60 63 55 54
2031........................................ 63 65 59 62
2032........................................ 67 69 64 68
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As shown in Table 100 for Alternative 1, Table 101 for Alternative
2, and Table 102 for Alternative 3, the 2032 MY industry average
vehicle cost increase (compared to the No Action case) ranges from
approximately $1,000 to $1,800 per vehicle for the alternatives,
compared to $1,200 per vehicle for the proposed standards.
Table 100--Fleet Average Cost Per Vehicle Relative to the No Action Scenario [2020 dollars]--
Alternative 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sedans............................ $204 $276 $480 $601 $1,143 $1,301
Crossovers/SUVs................... 704 740 1,228 1,422 1,788 2,056
Pickups........................... 1,382 2,033 1,871 1,866 1,469 1,544
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total......................... 668 804 1,120 1,262 1,565 1,775
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 101--Fleet Average Cost per Vehicle Relative to the No Action Scenario [2020 dollars]--
Alternative 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sedans............................ $106 -$74 $16 $8 $556 $827
Crossovers/SUVs................... 391 233 263 250 599 1,029
Pickups........................... 1,406 1,656 1,353 1,328 1,511 1,503
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total......................... 462 355 353 337 718 1,041
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 29334]]
Table 102--Fleet Average Cost per Vehicle Relative to the No Action Scenario [2020 dollars]--
Alternative 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sedans............................ -$21 -$28 -$208 -$65 $562 $1,030
Crossovers/SUVs................... 251 122 58 288 786 1,142
Pickups........................... 320 421 467 698 1,311 2,148
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total......................... 189 125 45 250 800 1,256
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 103--Comparison of Projected Incremental Costs Relative to the No Action Scenario
[CO2 grams/mile)] [2020 Dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model year Proposed stds Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027........................................ $633 $668 $462 $189
2028........................................ 497 804 355 125
2029........................................ 401 1,120 353 45
2030........................................ 526 1,262 337 250
2031........................................ 866 1,565 718 800
2032........................................ 1,164 1,775 1,041 1,256
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Sensitivities--LD GHG Compliance Modeling
EPA often conducts sensitivity analyses to help assess key areas of
uncertainty in both underlying data and modeling assumptions,
consistent with OMB Circular No. A-94 which establishes guidelines for
conducting benefit-cost analysis of Federal programs. In the analysis
for this proposal, EPA has evaluated the feasibility and
appropriateness of the proposed standards using the central case
assumptions for technology, market acceptance, and various other
assumptions described throughout this Preamble and DRIA. For a select
number of these key assumptions, we have conducted sensitivity analyses
for the proposed and alternative policies using alternative sets of
assumptions. We believe that together with the central case
assumptions, these sensitivities span ranges of values that reasonably
cover the uncertainty in the critical areas of battery costs and the
market for BEVs.
1. State-Level ZEV Policies (ACC II)
We have provided an analysis that accounts for state-level zero-
emissions vehicle (ZEV) policies as described by California's ACC II
program and other participating states under CAA Section 177. At the
time this analysis was conducted, California had not yet submitted to
EPA a request for a waiver for its ACC II program and EPA is not
prejudging the outcome of any waiver process or whether or not certain
states are able to adopt California's regulations under the criteria of
section 177.\737\ Nevertheless, it is an important question to analyze
what the potential effect of state adoption of ZEV policies might be in
the context of the No Action case, particularly since manufacturers may
be adjusting product plans to account for ACC II, and thus we are
providing this sensitivity analysis to explore this question. As shown
in Table 104, state adoption of ACC II is projected to amount to about
30 percent of total U.S. light-duty sales in 2027 and beyond. Within
the states adopting ACC II, manufacturers are required to sell a
certain portion of vehicles that meet the ZEV definition, which
includes BEVs, FCEVs, and a limited number of PHEVs that satisfy a
minimum requirement for charge depleting range. The required ZEV shares
increase by model year, reaching 100 percent in 2035 as shown in Table
105.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\737\ If California were to submit a waiver request for the ACC
II program and EPA were to subsequently grant the waiver, then it
may be appropriate to update the No Action case in the final
rulemaking to reflect the ACC II program.
Table 104--Sales Share of U.S. New Light-Duty Vehicles in States
Adopting ACC II, by Model Year
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Portion of U.S. new States adopting ACC
Model years light-duty sales (%) II
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2018 to 2025................ 12.6 CA.
2026........................ 22.6 CA, MA, NY, OR, VT,
WA.
2027 and later.............. 30.4 CA, CO, CT, MA, MD,
ME, NJ, NY, OR, RI,
VT, WA.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 105--ZEV Percentage Sales Requirements Within States Adopting ACC II, by Model Year
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14.5 17.0 19.5 22.0 35.0 43.0 51.0 59.0 68.0 76.0 82.0 88.0 94.0 100.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's analysis of state-level ZEV mandates was conducted by
separating the base year fleet into two regions. We applied a minimum
BEV sales share constraint to the portion of new vehicles in the ACC
II-adopting states, using the
[[Page 29335]]
values in Table 105. For the remainder of new vehicles, a minimum BEV
sales share value of zero was specified. In both ZEV and non-ZEV
regions, the OMEGA modeling allowed manufacturers to exceed the minimum
BEV shares if it resulted in lower producer generalized cost, while
still meeting other modeling constraints including compliance with the
National GHG standards for the particular policy case and satisfying
the consumer demand for BEVs. The results of the analysis for this
state-level ZEV mandate sensitivity are summarized in Table 106 through
Table 109.
Table 106--Projected Targets With ACC II, for No Action Case, Proposed and Alternatives--Cars and Trucks
Combined
[CO2 grams/mile]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No Action......................... 164 164 165 165 164 164
Proposed.......................... 151 131 111 102 93 82
Alternative 1..................... 141 121 102 92 83 72
Alternative 2..................... 161 141 121 112 103 92
Alternative 3..................... 166 149 132 115 99 82
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 107--Projected Achieved Levels With ACC II, for No Action Case, Proposed and Alternatives--Cars and Trucks
Combined
[CO2 grams/mile]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No Action......................... 146 123 104 100 103 99
Proposed.......................... 149 129 107 96 90 81
Alternative 1..................... 145 122 99 83 73 66
Alternative 2..................... 153 132 119 110 100 90
Alternative 3..................... 154 133 122 113 96 81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 108--BEV Penetrations With ACC II, for No Action Case, Proposed and Alternatives--Cars and Trucks Combined
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027 (%) 2028 (%) 2029 (%) 2030 (%) 2031 (%) 2032 (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No Action......................... 32 42 49 52 52 54
Proposed.......................... 37 45 55 61 64 68
Alternative 1..................... 38 47 55 63 68 72
Alternative 2..................... 37 46 51 57 61 65
Alternative 3..................... 36 45 50 55 62 68
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 109--Average Incremental Vehicle Cost vs. No Action Case With ACC II, Proposed and Alternatives--Cars and Trucks Combined
[2020 Dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 6-yr avg
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed..................................................... $172 $56 $11 $57 $268 $423 $164
Alternative 1................................................ 454 639 1,130 1,050 1,212 1,186 945
Alternative 2................................................ 106 -$29 -$184 -$188 73 235 2
Alternative 3................................................ 85 -43 -221 -182 214 483 56
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Battery Costs
We have included sensitivities for battery pack costs that are (a)
25 percent higher and (b) 15 percent lower (on a $/kWh basis) than the
battery pack costs in the central case. The high and low sensitivities
were selected so as to bound what EPA considered to be a reasonable
envelope for future nominal battery pack cost per kWh, as informed by
the full range of forecasts in the literature (see the discussion of
battery cost forecasts we considered in Preamble Section IV.C.2 and
DRIA Chapter 2.5.2.1.3).
i. Low Battery Costs
[[Page 29336]]
Table 110--Projected Targets With Low Battery Costs for No Action Case, Proposed and Alternatives--Cars and
Trucks Combined
[CO2 grams/mile]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No Action......................... 162 162 164 164 164 163
Proposed.......................... 152 132 111 102 93 82
Alternative 1..................... 141 122 102 93 83 72
Alternative 2..................... 161 141 121 113 103 92
Alternative 3..................... 165 148 131 115 99 82
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 111--Projected Achieved Levels With Low Battery Costs, for No Action Case, Proposed and Alternatives--Cars
and Trucks Combined
[CO2 grams/mile]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No Action......................... 152 138 108 106 99 111
Proposed.......................... 154 130 110 100 83 80
Alternative 1..................... 154 125 102 83 70 65
Alternative 2..................... 157 136 119 96 98 90
Alternative 3..................... 161 141 124 109 95 80
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 112--BEV Penetrations With Low Battery Costs, for No Action Case, Proposed and Alternatives--Cars and
Trucks Combined
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027 (%) 2028 (%) 2029 (%) 2030 (%) 2031 (%) 2032 (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No Action......................... 34 39 51 52 55 51
Proposed.......................... 38 46 54 59 66 68
Alternative 1..................... 38 46 54 63 68 71
Alternative 2..................... 37 46 53 63 62 66
Alternative 3..................... 36 44 51 58 63 69
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 113--Average Incremental Vehicle Cost vs. No Action Case for Low Battery Costs, Proposed and Alternatives--Cars and Trucks Combined
[2020 Dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 6-yr avg
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed..................................................... $623 $553 $303 $313 $365 $490 $441
Alternative 1................................................ 623 1,441 1,690 1,568 1,392 1,443 1,360
Alternative 2................................................ 319 213 -13 112 7 286 154
Alternative 3................................................ 161 128 -81 -22 64 446 116
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. High Battery Costs
Table 114--Projected Targets With High Battery Costs for No Action Case, Proposed and Alternatives--Cars and
Trucks Combined
[CO2 grams/mile]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No Action......................... 166 165 164 163 161 161
Proposed.......................... 153 132 112 102 93 82
Alternative 1..................... 143 122 102 92 83 72
Alternative 2..................... 163 142 122 112 103 92
Alternative 3..................... 167 150 133 116 99 82
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 29337]]
Table 115--Projected Achieved Levels with High Battery Costs, for No Action Case, Proposed and Alternatives--
Cars and Trucks Combined
[CO2 grams/mile]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No Action......................... 162 153 152 155 160 159
Proposed.......................... 151 130 110 100 92 81
Alternative 1..................... 144 121 100 90 82 71
Alternative 2..................... 159 139 119 110 101 92
Alternative 3..................... 164 147 131 115 98 83
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 116--BEV Penetrations With High Battery Costs, for No Action Case, Proposed and Alternatives--Cars and
Trucks Combined
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027 (%) 2028 (%) 2029 (%) 2030 (%) 2031 (%) 2032 (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No Action......................... 21 26 28 29 29 29
Proposed.......................... 33 41 51 55 60 65
Alternative 1..................... 36 44 54 60 63 69
Alternative 2..................... 29 36 47 52 56 60
Alternative 3..................... 27 33 42 50 58 64
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 117--Average Incremental Vehicle Cost vs. No Action Case for High Battery Costs, Proposed and Alternatives--Cars and Trucks Combined
[2020 Dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 6-yr avg
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed..................................................... $1,246 $1,057 $1,329 $1,553 $2,103 $2,505 $1,632
Alternative 1................................................ 1,884 1,676 1,768 1,885 2,430 2,750 2,066
Alternative 2................................................ 888 874 1,227 1,347 1,938 2,340 1,436
Alternative 3................................................ 820 785 1,138 1,484 2,242 2,803 1,545
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Consumer Acceptance
We have included sensitivities on the rate of BEV acceptance as
well. Given the prevalence of automaker announcements in the media, we
estimate results assuming a faster rate of BEV acceptance for all body
styles. We also acknowledge that, though unlikely given available data
and current trends, BEV acceptance may be slower than we estimate in
our central case, possibly due to use cases such as towing or
populations in remote locations. For information on what these BEV
acceptance rates are, refer to DRIA Chapter 4.1.3. Results assuming a
faster rate of BEV acceptance are provided in Table 118 through Table
121. Results assuming a slower rate of BEV acceptance are shown in
Table 122 through Table 125.
i. Faster BEV Acceptance
Table 118--Projected Targets With Faster BEV Acceptance for No Action Case, Proposed and Alternatives--Cars and
Trucks Combined
[CO2 grams/mile]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No Action......................... 163 163 164 165 165 166
Proposed.......................... 151 132 112 103 93 83
Alternative 1..................... 141 122 102 93 83 72
Alternative 2..................... 161 141 121 113 103 93
Alternative 3..................... 165 148 132 116 99 82
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 119--Projected Achieved Levels With Faster BEV Acceptance, for No Action Case, Proposed and Alternatives--
Cars and Trucks Combined
[CO2 grams/mile]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No Action......................... 147 131 100 76 79 71
Proposed.......................... 157 129 107 86 73 59
Alternative 1..................... 156 128 104 80 66 53
Alternative 2..................... 157 136 116 100 80 71
Alternative 3..................... 159 140 118 96 90 76
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 29338]]
Table 120--BEV Penetrations With Faster BEV Acceptance, for No Action Case, Proposed and Alternatives--Cars and
Trucks Combined
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027 (%) 2028 (%) 2029 (%) 2030 (%) 2031 (%) 2032 (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No Action......................... 36 42 54 63 63 66
Proposed.......................... 38 46 55 63 69 75
Alternative 1..................... 38 46 55 63 69 76
Alternative 2..................... 38 46 54 61 69 73
Alternative 3..................... 38 46 54 63 66 71
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 121--Average Incremental Vehicle Cost vs. No Action Case for Faster BEV Acceptance, Proposed and Alternatives--Cars and Trucks Combined
[2020 Dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 6-yr avg
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed..................................................... $287 $982 $809 $602 $746 $712 $690
Alternative 1................................................ 317 1,001 1,209 1,533 1,675 1,445 1,196
Alternative 2................................................ 212 214 -34 -194 179 163 90
Alternative 3................................................ 54 33 -176 -235 -66 53 -56
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. Slower BEV Acceptance
Table 122--Projected Targets With Slower BEV Acceptance for No Action Case, Proposed and Alternatives--Cars and
Trucks Combined
[CO2 grams/mile]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No Action......................... 164 162 162 161 161 160
Proposed.......................... 153 133 112 103 93 82
Alternative 1..................... 143 122 102 92 83 72
Alternative 2..................... 163 142 122 112 103 92
Alternative 3..................... 167 149 132 115 99 82
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 123--Projected Achieved Levels With Slower BEV Acceptance, for No Action Case, Proposed and Alternatives--
Cars and Trucks Combined
[CO2 grams/mile]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No Action......................... 161 160 154 159 152 158
Proposed.......................... 150 131 110 101 92 82
Alternative 1..................... 144 118 99 90 81 74
Alternative 2..................... 160 140 119 111 101 90
Alternative 3..................... 164 148 128 113 97 80
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 124--BEV Penetrations With Slower BEV Acceptance, for No Action Case, Proposed and Alternatives--Cars and
Trucks Combined
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027 (%) 2028 (%) 2029 (%) 2030 (%) 2031 (%) 2032 (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No Action......................... 22 23 28 27 33 31
Proposed.......................... 34 42 53 59 63 68
Alternative 1..................... 36 47 55 61 66 69
Alternative 2..................... 29 39 50 55 59 64
Alternative 3..................... 28 35 45 53 61 68
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 125--Average Incremental Vehicle Cost vs. No Action Case for Slower BEV Acceptance, Proposed and Alternatives--Cars and Trucks Combined
[2020 Dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 6-yr avg
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed..................................................... $877 $1,135 $755 $898 $995 $1,498 $1,026
[[Page 29339]]
Alternative 1................................................ 1,336 1,470 1,143 1,244 1,393 1,731 1,386
Alternative 2................................................ 695 853 560 689 888 1,344 838
Alternative 3................................................ 508 734 473 702 1,005 1,621 841
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Impact of Sensitivities on Proposed LD GHG Standards
The following is a summary of the sensitivities conducted and a
comparison on resulting BEV penetrations and incremental technology
costs for the proposed standards compared to the respective No Action
case.
As can be seen, the projected targets for the proposed standards
are not affected by the range of sensitivities discussed in this
section. It is important to note that manufacturers are able to meet
the targets for the proposed standards in every year for the range of
sensitivities analyzed here. However, the achieved levels do vary in
each sensitivity: in some cases, there is greater level of
overcompliance (most notably in the High BEV acceptance case).
Table 126 and Table 127 give a comparison for the projected targets
and achieved levels for the proposed standards, based on the various
identified sensitivities. While BEV penetrations projected to meet the
proposed standards (shown in Table 128) do not vary much across the
sensitivity cases, BEV penetrations in the No Action case do vary
significantly: projected MY 2032 BEV penetrations range from 31 percent
to 61 percent based on different input assumptions which affect either
required BEV share (in the case of the State-level Policies scenario)
or consumer demand for electric vehicles. The range of BEV penetrations
in the No Action case is provided in Table 129.
Of the metrics considered, the range of sensitivities have the
greatest impact on incremental vehicle cost compared to the No Action
case. Compared to a 6-year average incremental costs of about $1100 for
the Central Case, these sensitivities result in a range of 6-year
average incremental costs from $200 per vehicle to about $1600. The two
sensitivity cases which result in less BEV penetrations in the No
Action case--High Battery Costs and the Slower BEV Acceptance cases--
result in the highest incremental costs, while the lower incremental
costs are for the three sensitivity cases that result in more BEVs in
the No Action case: The Low Battery Costs, Faster BEV Acceptance, and
the State-Level Policies scenario.
Table 126--Range of Targets for Proposed Standards--Cars and Trucks Combined
[CO2 grams/mile]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Central Case...................... 152 131 111 102 93 82
State-level Policies.............. 151 131 111 102 93 82
Low Battery Costs................. 152 132 111 102 93 82
High Battery Costs................ 153 132 112 102 93 82
Faster BEV Acceptance............. 151 132 112 103 93 83
Slower BEV Acceptance............. 153 133 112 103 93 82
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 127--Range of Achieved Levels for Proposed Standards--Cars and Trucks Combined
[CO2 grams/mile]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Central Case...................... 151 129 107 97 91 81
State-level Policies.............. 149 129 107 96 90 81
Low Battery Costs................. 154 130 110 100 83 80
High Battery Costs................ 151 130 110 100 92 81
Faster BEV Acceptance............. 157 129 107 86 73 59
Slower BEV Acceptance............. 150 131 110 101 92 82
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 128--Range of BEV Penetrations for Proposed Standards--Cars and Trucks Combined
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027 (%) 2028 (%) 2029 (%) 2030 (%) 2031 (%) 2032 (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Central Case...................... 36 45 55 60 63 67
State-level Policies.............. 38 46 54 59 66 68
Low Battery Costs................. 38 46 54 59 66 68
High Battery Costs................ 33 41 51 55 60 65
Faster BEV Acceptance............. 38 46 55 63 69 75
Slower BEV Acceptance............. 34 42 53 59 63 68
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 29340]]
Table 129--Range of BEV Penetrations for No Action Case--Cars and Trucks Combined
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027 (%) 2028 (%) 2029 (%) 2030 (%) 2031 (%) 2032 (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Central Case...................... 27 32 37 40 40 39
State-level Policies.............. 32 42 49 52 52 54
Low Battery Costs................. 34 39 51 52 55 51
High Battery Costs................ 21 26 28 29 29 29
Faster BEV Acceptance............. 36 42 54 63 63 66
Slower BEV Acceptance............. 22 23 28 27 33 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 130--Range of Incremental Vehicle Cost vs. No Action Case for Proposed Standards--Cars and Trucks Combined
[2020 Dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 6-yr avg
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Central Case................................................. $633 $497 $401 $526 $866 $1,164 $681
State-level Policies......................................... 172 56 11 57 268 423 164
Low Battery Costs............................................ 623 553 303 313 365 490 441
High Battery Costs........................................... 1,246 1,057 1,329 1,553 2,103 2,505 1,632
Faster BEV Acceptance........................................ 287 982 809 602 746 712 690
Slower BEV Acceptance........................................ 877 1,135 755 898 995 1,498 1,026
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. Sensitivities--MD GHG Compliance Modeling
1. Battery Costs (Low and High)
For medium duty vehicles, we have carried over the high and low
battery pack cost sensitivities, similar to those conducted for the
light-duty GHG analysis (for more information refer to Section IV.E.2).
The low and high battery pack cost sensitivities have been combined
into the summary tables in this section.
Table 131 and Table 132 gives a comparison for the targets and the
projected achieved levels for the proposed standards, based on battery
costs assumed for the central case and the low and high cost
sensitivity cases.
The range of BEV penetrations for the proposed MD standards are
provided in Table 133.
Battery costs have the greatest impact on incremental vehicle cost
compared to the No Action case. Compared to a 6-year average
incremental costs of about $700 for the Central Case, these
sensitivities result in a range of incremental costs from $300 per
vehicle to about $1500. Incremental vehicle costs for the proposed
standards for the three sensitivities are provided in Table 134.
Table 131--Projected Targets for Proposed Standards: Central Case, Low and High Battery Sensitivities--Medium
Duty Vehicles
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Central Case...................... 438 427 389 352 312 275
Low Battery Costs................. 437 423 386 349 312 275
High Battery Costs................ 439 428 390 355 316 276
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 132--Projected Achieved Levels for Proposed Standards: Central Case, Low and High Battery Sensitivities--
Medium Duty Vehicles
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Central Case...................... 437 426 390 347 310 272
Low Battery Costs................. 436 423 385 350 307 273
High Battery Costs................ 439 428 389 352 313 273
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 133--BEV Penetrations for Proposed Standards: Central Case, Low and High Battery Sensitivities--Medium
Duty Vehicles
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027 (%) 2028 (%) 2029 (%) 2030 (%) 2031 (%) 2032 (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Central Case...................... 17 20 28 34 43 46
Low Battery Costs................. 17 18 26 33 38 44
High Battery Costs................ 14 17 25 27 36 43
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 29341]]
Table 134--Average Incremental Vehicle Cost vs. No Action Case for Proposed Standards: Central Case, Low and High Battery Sensitivities--Medium Duty
Vehicles
[2020 dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 6-yr avg
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Central Case................................................. $364 $249 $290 $654 $944 $1,784 $714
Low Battery Costs............................................ 118 4 -142 5 564 1,094 274
High Battery Costs........................................... 810 640 919 1,648 2,191 3,072 1,547
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. EPA's Basis That the Proposed Standards Are Feasible and Appropriate
Under the Clean Air Act
A. Overview
As discussed in Section II of this preamble, there is a critical
need for further criteria pollutant and GHG reductions to address the
adverse impacts of air pollution from light and medium duty vehicles on
public health and welfare. With continued advances in internal
combustion emissions controls and vehicle electrification technologies
coming into the mainstream as primary vehicle emissions controls, EPA
believes substantial further emissions reductions are feasible and
appropriate under the Clean Air Act.
The Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to establish emissions standards
for motor vehicles to regulate emissions of air pollutants that
contribute to air pollution which, in the Administrator's judgment, may
reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. As
discussed in Section II, emissions from motor vehicles contribute to
ambient levels of pollutants for which EPA has established health-based
NAAQS. These pollutants are linked with respiratory and/or
cardiovascular problems and other adverse health impacts leading to
increased medication use, hospital admissions, emergency department
visits, and premature mortality.
In addition, light and medium-duty vehicles are significant
contributors to the U.S. GHG emissions inventories, and additional
reductions in GHGs from vehicles are needed to avoid the worst
consequences of climate change as discussed in Section II.
This proposed rule also considers the large potential impact that
the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) will have on facilitating production
and adoption of PEV technology, which is highly effective technology
for controlling tailpipe emissions of criteria pollutants and GHGs.
Prior to the passage of the IRA, EPA received input from auto
manufacturers that increasing the market share of PEVs is now
technologically feasible but that it is important to address consumer
issues such as charging infrastructure and the cost to purchase a PEV,
as well as manufacturing issues such as battery supply and
manufacturing costs. The IRA provides powerful incentives in all of
these areas that will help facilitate increased market penetration of
PEV technology in the time frame considered in this rulemaking. Thus,
it is an important element of EPA's cost and feasibility assessment,
and EPA has considered the impacts of the IRA in our assessment of the
appropriate proposed standards.\738\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\738\ It is important to note that, although E.O. 14037
identified a goal for 50 percent of U.S. new vehicle sales to be
zero-emission vehicles by 2030, the E.O. only directed EPA to
consider beginning work on a new rulemaking and to do so consistent
with applicable law. EPA exercised its technical judgment based on
the record before it in developing this proposal consistent with the
authority of section 202 of the Clean Air Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Consideration of Technological Feasibility, Compliance Costs and
Lead Time
The technological readiness of the auto industry to meet the
proposed standards for model years 2027-2032 is best understood in the
context of over a decade of light-duty vehicle emissions reduction
programs in which the auto industry has introduced emissions-reducing
technologies in a wide lineup of ever more cost effective, efficient,
and high-volume vehicle applications . Among the range of technologies
that have been demonstrated over the past decade, electrification
technologies have seen particularly rapid development and lower costs,
and as a result the number of PEVs projected across all the policy
alternatives considered here is much higher than in any of EPA's prior
rulemaking analyses. In particular, BEVs have zero tailpipe emissions
and so are capable of supporting rates of annual stringency increases
that are much greater than were typical in earlier rulemakings.
In this rulemaking, unlike some prior vehicle emissions standards,
the technology necessary to achieve significantly more stringent
standards has already been developed and demonstrated in production
vehicles. PEVs are now being produced in large numbers in every segment
and size of the current light-duty fleet, ranging from small cars such
as GM's Bolt EV to light trucks such as Ford's F150 Lightning, and
their production for the U.S. market is roughly doubling every
year.\739\ Large fleet owners have also begun fulfilling fleet
electrification commitments by taking delivery of rapidly growing
numbers of BEV medium-duty delivery vans.\740\ In setting standards,
EPA considers the extent of further deployment that is warranted in
light of the benefits to public health and welfare, and potential
constraints, such as costs, raw material availability, component
supplies, redesign cycles, infrastructure, and consumer acceptance. The
extent of these potential constraints has diminished significantly,
even since the 2021 rule, in light of increased investment by
automakers, increased acceptance by consumers, and significant support
from Congress to address such areas as upfront purchase price, charging
infrastructure, critical mineral supplies, and domestic supply chain
manufacturing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\739\ Estimated at 8.4 percent of production in MY 2022, up from
4.4 percent in MY 2021 and 2.2 percent in MY 2020. See also the
discussion of U.S. PEV penetration in I.A.2.ii.
\740\ See the discussion of fleet electrification commitments in
I.A.2.ii.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the same time, in response to the increased stringency of the
proposed standards, automakers would be expected to adopt advanced
technologies at an increasing pace across more of their vehicle fleets.
EPA has carefully considered potential constraints on further
deployment of these advanced technologies. For example, in addition to
considering the breadth of current product offerings, EPA has also
considered vehicle redesign cycles. Based on previous public comments
and industry trends, manufacturers generally require about five years
to design, develop, and produce a new vehicle model.\741\ EPA's
technical assessment for this proposal
[[Page 29342]]
accounts for these redesign limits.\742\ Within the modeling that EPA
conducted to support this proposal, we have assumed limits to the rate
at which a manufacturer can choose to ramp in the transition from an
ICE vehicle to a BEV. We have also applied limits to the ramp up of
battery production, considering the time needed to increase the
availability of raw materials and construct or expand battery
production facilities. Constraints for redesign and battery production
in our compliance modeling are described in more detail in Chapter 2.6
of the DRIA. Our modeling also incorporates constraints related to
consumer acceptance. Under our central case analysis assumptions, the
model anticipates that consumers will in the near term tend to favor
ICE vehicles over PEVs when two vehicles are comparable in cost and
capability.\743\ Taking into account individual consumer preferences,
we anticipate that PEV acceptance and adoption will continue to
accelerate as consumer familiarity with PEVs grows, as demonstrated in
the scientific literature on PEV acceptance and consistent with typical
diffusion of innovation. Adoption of PEVs is expected to be further
supported by expansion of key enablers of PEV acceptance, namely
increasing market presence of PEV, more model choices, expanding
infrastructure, and decreasing costs to consumers.\744\ See also
Preamble Section IV.C.5 and DRIA Chapter 4. Overall, given the number
and breadth of current low- or zero-emission vehicles and the
assumptions we have made to limit the rate at which new vehicle
technologies are adopted, our assessment shows that there is sufficient
lead time for the industry to more broadly deploy existing technologies
and successfully comply with the proposed standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\741\ For example, in its comments on the 2012 rule, Ford stated
that manufacturers typically begin to firm up their product plans
roughly five years in advance of actual production. (Docket OAR-
2009-0472-7082.1, p. 10.)
\742\ In our compliance modeling, we have limited vehicle
redesign opportunities through MY 2029 in our compliance modeling to
every 7 years for light- and medium-duty pickup trucks and medium-
duty vans, and 5 years for all other vehicles. We are assuming that
manufacturers have sufficient lead team to adjust product redesign
years after MY 2029, so we do not continue to apply redesign
constraints for MYs 2030 and beyond.
\743\ EPA's compliance modeling estimates the consumer demand
for BEV and ICE vehicles using a consumer ``generalized cost'' that
includes elements of the purchase cost (including any purchase
incentives), vehicle maintenance and repair costs, and fuel
operating costs as described in DRIA Chapter 4.1.
\744\ Jackman, D K, K S Fujita, H C Yang, and M Taylor. 2023.
Literature Review of U.S. Consumer Acceptance of New Personally
Owned Light Duty Plug-in Electric Vehicles. Washington, DC: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our analysis projects that for the industry overall, 65 percent of
new vehicles in MY 2032 would be BEVs. EPA believes that this is an
achievable level based on our technical assessment for this proposal
that includes consideration of the feasibility and lead time required
for BEVs and acceptance of BEVs in the market. Our assessment of the
appropriateness of the level of BEVs in our analysis is also informed
by public announcements by manufacturers about their plans to
transition fleets to electrified vehicles, as described in Section
I.A.2 of this Preamble and further developed in DRIA 3.1.3.1. More
detail about our technical assessment, and the assumptions for the
production feasibility and consumer acceptance of BEVs is provided in
Section IV of this Preamble, and Chapters 2, 3, 4, and 6 of the DRIA.
At the same time, we note that the proposed standards are
performance-based and do not mandate any specific technology for any
manufacturer or any vehicle. Moreover, the overall industry does not
necessarily need to reach this level of BEVs in order to comply--the
projection in our analysis is one of many possible compliance pathways
that manufacturers could choose to take under the performance-based
standards. For example, manufacturers that choose to increase their
sales of HEV and PHEV technologies or apply more advanced technology to
non-hybrid ICE vehicles would require a smaller number of BEVs than we
have projected in our assessment to comply with the proposed standards.
In considering feasibility of the proposed standards, EPA also
considers the impact of available compliance flexibilities on
automakers' compliance options.\745\ The advanced technologies that
automakers are continuing to incorporate in vehicle models today
directly contribute to each company's compliance plan (i.e., these
vehicle models have lower criteria pollutant and GHG emissions), and
manufacturers can choose to comply with the proposed standards outright
through their choice of emissions reducing technologies. In addition,
automakers typically have widely utilized the program's established
averaging, banking, and trading (ABT) provisions which provide a
variety of flexible paths to plan compliance. We have discussed this
dynamic at length in past rules, and we anticipate that this same
dynamic will support compliance with this rulemaking. Although the ABT
program for GHG and criteria pollutants have some differences (as
discussed in detail in Sections III.B.4 and III.C.9), they
fundamentally operate in a similar fashion. The credit program was
designed to recognize that automakers typically have compliance
opportunities and strategies that differ across their fleet, as well a
multi-year redesign cycle, so not every vehicle will be redesigned
every year to add emissions-reducing technology. Moreover, when
technology is added, it will generally not achieve emissions reductions
corresponding exactly to a single year-over-year change in stringency
of the standards. Instead, in any given model year, some vehicles will
be ``credit generators,'' over-performing compared to their criteria
pollutant standards or footprint-based CO2 emissions targets
in that model year, while other vehicles will be ``debit generators''
and under-performing against their standards or targets. As the
proposed standards reach increasingly lower numerical emissions levels,
some vehicle designs that had generated credits in earlier model years
may instead generate debits in later model years. In MY 2032 when the
proposed standards reach the lowest level, it is possible that only
BEVs and PHEVs are generating positive credits, and all ICE vehicles
generate varying levels of deficits. Even in this case, the application
of ICE technologies can remain an important part of a manufacturer's
compliance strategy by reducing the amount of debits generated by these
vehicles. A greater application of ICE technologies (e.g., strong
hybrids) can enable compliance with fewer BEVs than if less ICE
technology was adopted, and therefore enable the tailoring of a
compliance strategy to the manufacturer's specific market and product
offerings. Together, an automaker's mix of credit-generating and debit-
generating vehicles determine its compliance with both criteria
pollutant and GHG standards for that year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\745\ While EPA is considering these compliance flexibilities in
assessing the feasibility of the proposed standards, EPA is not
reopening such flexibilities, except to the extent that we are
proposing or soliciting comment on a specific flexibility as in
Section III of this preamble. Specifically, EPA is not reopening
ABT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, the trading provisions of the program allow manufacturers
to design a compliance strategy relying not only on overcompliance and
undercompliance by different vehicles or in different years, but even
by different manufacturers. Credit trading is a compliance flexibility
provision that allows one vehicle manufacturer to purchase credits from
another, accommodating the ability of manufacturers to make strategic
choices in planning for and reacting to normal fluctuations in an
automotive business cycle. When credits are available for less
[[Page 29343]]
than the marginal cost of compliance, EPA would anticipate that an
automaker might choose to adopt a compliance strategy relying on
purchasing credits.
The proposed performance-based standards with ABT provisions give
manufacturers a degree of flexibility in the design of specific
vehicles and their fleet offerings, while allowing industry overall to
meet the standards and thus achieve the health and environmental
benefits projected for this rulemaking at a lower cost. EPA has
considered ABT in the feasibility assessments for many previous
rulemakings since EPA first began incorporating ABT credits provisions
in mobile source rulemakings in the 1980s (see Section III.B.4 for
further information on the history of ABT) and continues that practice
here. First, by fully averaging across vehicles in the car and truck
regulatory classes and by allowing for credit banking across years,
manufacturers have the flexibility to adopt emissions-reducing
technologies in the manner that best suits their particular market and
business circumstances. Similarly, with the opportunity to trade
credits with other firms, each manufacturer can, in effect, average
credits among a pool of vehicles that extends beyond their own fleet.
EPA's annual Automotive Trends Report illustrates how different
automakers have chosen to make use of the GHG program's various credit
features.\746\ It is clear that manufacturers are widely utilizing the
various credit programs available, and we have every expectation that
manufacturers will continue to take advantage of the compliance
flexibilities and crediting programs to their fullest extent, thereby
providing them with additional tools in finding the lowest cost
compliance solutions in light of the proposed revised standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\746\ ``The 2022 EPA Automotive Trends Report, Greenhouse Gas
Emissions, Fuel Economy, and Technology since 1975,'' EPA-420-R-22-
029 December 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the potential value of credit trading as a means of reducing
costs to automakers was always clear, there is increasing evidence that
automakers have successfully adopted credit trading as an important
compliance strategy that reduces costs. The market for trading credits
is now well established. As shown in the most recent EPA Trends Report,
19 vehicle firms collectively have participated in nearly 100 credit
trading transactions totaling 169 Tg of credits since the inception of
the EPA program through Model Year 2021. These firms include many of
the largest automotive firms.\747\ Several of these manufacturers have
publicly acknowledged the importance of considering credit purchase or
sales as part of their business plans to improve their competitive
position.748 749 For firms with new vehicle production made
up entirely or primarily of credit-generating vehicles, the revenue
generated from credit sales can help to fund the development of GHG-
reducing technologies and offset production costs. Other firms have the
option of purchasing credits if they choose to make a fleet that is
overall deficit-generating. This can be a cost-effective compliance
strategy, especially for companies that make lower-volume vehicles
where the incremental development costs for GHG-reducing technologies
would be higher on a per-vehicle basis than for another company. The
opportunity to purchase credits can also enable a company to continue
specializing in vehicle applications where the application of advanced
GHG-reducing technologies may be more costly than purchasing credits.
For example, manufacturers of light- and medium-duty pickups might
choose to purchase credits rather than apply BEV technology to some of
those vehicles used frequently for long distance towing applications,
at least in the shorter term when higher capacity batteries might be
used to accommodate the existing charging infrastructure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\747\ EPA 2020 Trends Report, page 110 and Figure 5.15.
\748\ ``FCA historically pursued compliance with fuel economy
and greenhouse gas regulations in the markets where it operated
through the most cost effective combination of developing,
manufacturing and selling vehicles with better fuel economy and
lower GHG emissions, purchasing compliance credits, and, as allowed
by the U.S. federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy (``CAFE'')
program, paying regulatory penalties.'' Stellantis N.V. (2020).
``Annual Report and Form 20-F for the year ended December 31,
2020.''
\749\ ``We have several options to comply with existing and
potential new global regulations. Such options include increasing
production and sale of certain vehicles, such as EVs, and curtailing
production of less fuel efficient ICE vehicles; technology changes,
including fuel consumption efficiency and engine upgrades; payment
of penalties; and/or purchase of credits from third parties. We
regularly evaluate our current and future product plans and
strategies for compliance with fuel economy and GHG regulations''
General Motors Company (2022). ``Annual Report and Form 10-K for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2021.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In light of the evidence of increased adoption of trading as a
compliance strategy, EPA has included the ability of manufacturers to
trade credits as part of our central case compliance modeling for this
proposal, rather than as a sensitivity analysis as we did in the
modeling for the 2021 rule. We anticipate that the economic
efficiencies of credit trading will generally be attractive to
automakers, and thus we consider it appropriate to take trading into
account in estimating the costs of the standards. However, trading is
an optional compliance flexibility, and we recognize that automakers
may choose to use it in their compliance strategies to varying degrees.
If a manufacturer chooses not to participate in credit trading for
whatever reason, additional compliance strategies can be used to
supplement the adoption of emissions-reducing technologies. For
example, such manufacturers also could elect to shift market segments
and sales volumes as a strategy for increasing the proportion of
credit-generating vehicles relative to debit-generating vehicles. Thus,
reduced use of credit trading may result in somewhat higher costs for
the program, but we do not believe it would alter our conclusion that
the standards are feasible.
As part of its assessment of technological feasibility and lead
time, EPA has considered the cost for the auto industry to comply with
the proposed revised standards. See Section VI.B and Chapter 10 of the
DRIA for our analysis of compliance costs.
The estimated average costs to manufacturers to meet the proposed
standards are approximately $1,200 (2020 dollars) per vehicle in MY
2032, which is within the range of costs projected in prior rules,
which EPA estimated at about $1,800 (2010 dollars) and $1,000 (2018
dollars) per vehicle for the 2012 and 2021 rules respectively. Across
the range of sensitivities, the projected costs are approximately $200
to $1,600 per vehicle in MY 2032, which is a range EPA believes is
reasonable and within the range of cost estimates in prior rules. The
estimated MY 2032 costs of $1,200 represent under 3 percent of the
average cost of a new vehicle today (about $46,000 in 2022).\750\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\750\ Note that these values are averages across all body
styles, powertrains, makes, models, and trims, and there will be
differences for each individual vehicle. Also note that, as
discussed in DRIA Chapter 4.2, the price of a new vehicle has been
increasing over time due to factors not associated with our rules.
If the average price of a MY 2032 vehicle is higher than that of a
MY 2022 vehicle, this estimated increase in cost could well be
smaller than 3 percent compared to the cost of a new MY 2032
vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As also discussed in Section I.A.2.ii of this Preamble, EPA has
observed a shift toward electrification both in vehicle sales and
across the automotive industry at large, and that these changes are
being driven to a large degree by the technological innovation of the
automotive industry and the significant funds, estimated at $1.2
trillion by at
[[Page 29344]]
least one analysis,751 752 those firms intend to spend by
2030 on developing and deploying electrification technologies. EPA
believes its standards will support this very significant investment
and, particularly in light of the available compliance flexibilities
and multiple paths for compliance, are feasible and will not cause
economic disruption in the automotive industry. We do not believe the
estimated increase in marginal vehicle cost will lead to detrimental
effects to automakers for multiple reasons, including the fact that
macroeconomic effects are a much larger factor in OEM revenues (for
example, the chip shortage), and that automakers regularly adjust
product plans and choose the mix of vehicles they produce to maximize
profits. We also note that through the third quarter of 2022, domestic
automakers reported their highest profits since 2016, even though
domestic vehicle sales fell from the previous year. In addition, the
significant investments by industry and Congress (e.g., BIL and IRA) in
supporting technology which eliminates both criteria and GHG tailpipe
emissions, presents an opportunity for a significant step forward in
achieving the goals of the Clean Air Act. The compliance costs per
vehicle in this proposal are reasonable and consistent with those in
past GHG rules while the standards would achieve substantially greater
emissions reductions of GHGs and substantial emissions reductions for
criteria pollutants as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\751\ Reuters, ``A Reuters analysis of 37 global automakers
found that they plan to invest nearly $1.2 trillion in electric
vehicles and batteries through 2030,'' October 21, 2022. Accessed on
November 4, 2022 at https://graphics.reuters.com/AUTOS-INVESTMENT/ELECTRIC/akpeqgzqypr/.
\752\ Reuters, ``Exclusive: Automakers to double spending on
EVs, batteries to $1.2 trillion by 2030,'' October 25, 2022.
Accessed on November 4, 2022 at https://www.reuters.com/technology/exclusive-automakers-double-spending-evs-batteries-12-trillion-by-2030-2022-10-21/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For this proposal, EPA finds that the expected compliance costs for
automakers are reasonable in light of the emissions reductions in air
pollutants and the resulting benefits for public health and welfare.
C. Consideration of Emissions of GHGs and Criteria Air Pollutants
An essential factor that EPA considered in determining the
appropriate level of the proposed standards is the reductions in air
pollutant emissions that would result from the program, including
emissions of GHGs, criteria pollutants and air toxics and associated
public health and welfare impacts.
The cumulative GHG emissions reductions through 2055 are projected
to be 7,400 MMT of CO2, 0.12 MMT of CH4 and 0.13
MMT of N2O, as the fleet turns over year-by-year to new
vehicles that meet the proposed light- and medium-duty standards. This
represents a 26 percent reduction in CO2 over that time
period relative to the no-action case. See Section VI and Chapter 9 of
the DRIA. We also project, in calendar year 2055, 35 percent to 40
percent reductions in PM2.5, NOX, and
SOX emissions. Further, we project over 40 percent reduction
in VOC emissions in the year 2055. See Section VII and Chapter 9 of the
DRIA. EPA finds that the additional emissions reductions that would be
achieved under these proposed standards are important in reducing the
public health and welfare impacts of air pollution.
As discussed in Section VIII, we monetize benefits of the proposed
standards and evaluate other costs in part to enable a comparison of
costs and benefits pursuant to E.O. 12866, but we recognize there are
benefits that we are currently unable to fully quantify. EPA's practice
has been to set standards to achieve improved air quality consistent
with CAA section 202, and not to rely on cost-benefit calculations,
with their uncertainties and limitations, as identifying the
appropriate standards. Nonetheless, our conclusion that the estimated
benefits considerably exceed the estimated costs of the proposed
program reinforces our view that the proposed standards are appropriate
under section 202(a).
The present value of climate benefits attributable to the proposed
standards are estimated at $83 billion to $1.0 trillion across a range
of discount rates and values for the social cost of carbon (present
values in 2027 for GHG reductions through 2055). See Section VIII and
Chapter 10 of the DRIA for a full discussion of the SC-GHG estimates
used to monetize climate benefits and the data and modeling limitations
that naturally restrain the ability of SC-GHG estimates to include all
the important physical, ecological, and economic impacts of climate
change, such that the estimates are a partial accounting of climate
change impacts and will therefore, tend to be underestimates of the
marginal benefits of abatement. The present value of PM2.5-
related health benefits attributable to the proposed standards through
2055 are estimated to total $64 billion to $290 billion (assuming a 7
percent and 3 percent discount rate, respectively, as well as different
long-term PM-related mortality risk studies; see Section VIII.E).\753\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\753\ The criteria pollutant benefits associated with the
standards presented here do not include the full complement of
health and environmental benefits that, if quantified and monetized,
would increase the total monetized benefits (such as the benefits
associated with reductions in human exposure to ambient
concentrations of ozone). See Section VIII.E and DRIA Chapter 7 for
more information about benefits we are not currently able to fully
quantify.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Consideration of Impacts on Consumers, Energy, Safety and Other
Factors
EPA also considered the impact of the proposed light- and medium-
duty standards on consumers as well as on energy and safety. EPA
concludes that the proposed standards would be beneficial for consumers
because the lower operating costs would offset increases in vehicle
technology costs, irrespective of BEV purchase incentives in the IRA.
Vehicle technology cost increases for light-and medium-duty vehicles
through 2055 are estimated at $260 billion to $380 billion (7 and 3
percent discount rates.) Total fuel savings, net of reduced liquid fuel
and increased electricity, for consumers through 2055 are estimated at
$560 billion to $1.1 trillion (7 percent and 3 percent discount rates.)
Reduced maintenance and repair costs through 2055 are estimated at $280
billion to $580 billion (7 percent and 3 percent discount rates) (See
Sections VIII.B and VIII.F and Chapter 10 of the DRIA). Thus, the
proposal would result in significant savings for consumers.
EPA also carefully considered the consumer impacts of these
proposed standards. We recognize that increases in upfront purchase
costs are likely to be of particular concern to low-income households,
but we anticipate that automakers will continue to offer a variety of
models at different price points (see Chapter 4 of the DRIA). Moreover,
because lower-income households spend more of their income on fuel than
other households, the effects of reduced fuel costs may be especially
important for these households. Similarly, low-income households are
more likely to buy used vehicles and own older vehicles, and thus would
benefit from significant savings in repair and maintenance costs if
they purchase electric vehicles. Furthermore, for used BEVs, there is
evidence that the original purchase incentive is passed on to the next
buyer (i.e., reduces the used price of BEVs). In addition, BEV purchase
incentives for used vehicles are provided for the first time ever
through the IRA.
[[Page 29345]]
EPA also evaluated the impacts of the proposed light- and medium-
duty standards on energy, in terms of fuel consumption and energy
security. This proposal is projected to reduce U.S. gasoline
consumption by 950 billion gallons through 2055 (see DRIA Chapter 9).
EPA considered the impacts of this projected reduction in fuel
consumption on energy security, specifically the avoided costs of
macroeconomic disruption (See Section VIII.G). A reduction of U.S. net
petroleum imports reduces both financial and strategic risks caused by
potential sudden disruptions in the supply of petroleum to the U.S.,
thus increasing U.S. energy security. We estimate the energy security
benefits of the proposal through 2055 at $21 billion to $42 billion (7
percent and 3 percent discount rate, see Chapter 10 of the DRIA). EPA
considers this proposal to be beneficial from an energy security
perspective.
Section 202(a)(4)(A) of the CAA specifically prohibits the use of
an emission control device, system or element of design that will cause
or contribute to an unreasonable risk to public health, welfare, or
safety. EPA has a long history of considering the safety implications
of its emission standards,\754\ up to and including the more recent
light-duty GHG regulations: The 2010 rule which established the MY
2012-2016 light-duty vehicle GHG standards, the 2012 rule which first
established MY 2017-2025 light-duty vehicle GHG standards, and the 2020
and 2021 rules. The relationship between GHG emissions standards and
safety is multi-faceted, and can be influenced not only by control
technologies, but also by consumer decisions about vehicle ownership
and use. EPA has estimated the impacts of this proposal on safety by
accounting for changes in new vehicle purchase, fleet turnover and VMT,
changes in vehicle footprint, and vehicle weight changes that are in
some cases lower (as an emissions control strategy) and in other cases
higher (with the additional weight often associated with electrified
vehicles). EPA finds that under this proposal, there is no
statistically significant change in the estimated risk of fatalities
per distance traveled. EPA is presenting non-statistically significant
values here in part to enable comparison with prior rules. We have
found virtually no change in fatality risk as a result of the proposed
standards, with an estimated increase of 0.2 percent per distance
traveled (see Section VIII.F). However, as the costs of driving decline
due to the improvement in fuel economy, consumers overall will choose
to drive more miles (this is the ``VMT rebound'' effect). As a result
of this personal decision by consumers to drive more due to the reduced
cost of driving, EPA projects this will result in an increase in
accidents, injuries, and fatalities (i.e., although the rate of injury
per mile stays virtually unchanged, an increase in miles driven results
in an increase in total number of injuries). EPA's goal in setting
motor vehicle standards is to protect public health and welfare while
recognizing the importance of the mobility choices of Americans.
Because the only statistically significant projected increase in
accidents, injuries, and fatalities would be the result of consumers'
voluntary choices to drive more when operating costs are reduced, EPA
believes it Is appropriate to place emphasis on the level of risk of
injury per mile traveled, and to consider the projected change in
injuries in that context.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\754\ See, e.g., 45 FR 14496, 14503 (1980) (``EPA would not
require a particulate control technology that was known to involve
serious safety problems.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The increase in fatalities per distance traveled is not
statistically significant, and the only statistically significant
increase in fatalities is due to consumers' voluntary choices to drive
more. As with the 2021 rule, EPA considers safety impacts in the
context of all projected health impacts from the rule including public
health benefits from the projected reductions in air pollution. In
considering these estimates in the context of anticipated public health
benefits, EPA notes that the estimated present value of monetized
benefits of reduced PM2.5 through 2055 is between $63
billion and $280 billion (depending on study and discount rate), and
that the illustrative air quality modeling which, as discussed further
in Chapter 8 of the DRIA assesses a regulatory scenario with lower
rates of PEV penetration than EPA is projecting in this proposal,
estimates that in 2055 such a scenario would prevent between 730 and
1,400 premature deaths associated with exposure to PM2.5 and
prevent between 15 and 330 premature deaths associated with exposure to
ozone. We expect that the cumulative number of premature deaths avoided
that would occur during the entire period of 2027-2055 as a result of
the proposed rule would be much larger than the 2055 estimate.
E. Selection of Proposed Standards Under CAA 202(a)
Under section 202(a) EPA has a statutory obligation to set
standards to reduce air pollution from classes of motor vehicles that
the Administrator has found contribute to air pollution that may be
expected to endanger public health and welfare. Consistent with our
longstanding approach to setting motor vehicle standards, the
Administrator has considered a number of factors in proposing these
vehicles standards. In setting such standards, the Administrator must
provide adequate lead time for the development and application of
technology to meet the standards, taking into consideration the cost of
compliance. Furthermore, in setting standards for NMOG+NOX,
PM and CO for heavy duty vehicles (including MDVs and light trucks over
6,000 pounds GWVR), standards shall reflect the greatest degree of
emissions reduction that the Administrator determines is achievable for
the model year, giving appropriate consideration to cost, energy and
safety factors. EPA's proposed standards properly implement these
statutory provisions. As discussed in Sections II, VI, and VII, the
proposed standards will achieve significant and important reductions in
emissions of a wide range of air pollutants that endanger public health
and welfare. Furthermore, as discussed throughout this preamble, the
emission reduction technologies needed to meet the proposed standards
have already been developed and are feasible and available for
manufacturers to utilize in their fleets at reasonable cost in the
timeframe of these proposed standards, even after considering key
constraints including battery manufacturing capacity, critical
materials availability, and vehicle redesign cadence.
Moreover, the flexibilities already available under EPA's existing
regulations, including fleet average standards and the ABT program--in
effect enabling manufacturers to spread the compliance requirement for
any particular model year across multiple model years--support EPA's
conclusion that the proposed standards provide sufficient time for the
development and application of technology, giving appropriate
consideration to cost.
Section 202(a)(3) is explicit that, for certain pollutants for
certain vehicles, the Administrator shall establish standards that
achieve the greatest degree of emissions reduction achievable, although
the provision identifies other factors to consider and requires the
Administrator to exercise judgment in weighing those factors. Section
202(a)(1)-(2) provides greater discretion to the Administrator to weigh
various factors but, as with the 2021 rule, the Administrator notes
that the purpose of adopting standards under that provision of the
Clean Air Act is to
[[Page 29346]]
address air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger
public health and welfare and that reducing air pollution has
traditionally been the focus of such standards. Thus, for this proposal
the agency's focus in identifying proposed standards, and a range of
alternative standards, is on achieving significant emissions
reductions, within the constraints identified by CAA section 202.
There have been very significant developments in the adoption of
PEVs since EPA promulgated the 2021 rule. While at the time of the 2021
rule, estimates of financial commitments to electric vehicles by the
automotive industry were in the range of $500-600 billion, more recent
estimates are $1.2 trillion, approximately twice that of only two years
ago.755 756 The European Union has given preliminary
approval to a requirement to end tailpipe GHG emissions by 2035 (with a
55% reduction for cars by 2030), to complement other countries'
decisions to phase out ICE engines. In the United States, sales of PEVs
have continued to follow an accelerated rate of growth, reaching 8.4
percent of U.S. light-duty vehicle production in 2022, up from 4.4
percent in MY 2021 and 2.2 percent in MY 2020.\757\ In 2022, BEVs alone
accounted for about 807,000 U.S. new car sales, or about 5.8 percent of
the new light-duty passenger vehicle market, up from 3.2 percent BEVs
the year before.\758\ The year-over-year growth in U.S. BEV sales
suggests that an increasing share of new vehicle buyers are concluding
that a PEV is the best vehicle to meet their needs. Waiting lists for
BEVs, as well as recent published studies, indicate that consumer
demand for PEVs is strong, and that limited availability is likely a
greater constraint than consumer acceptance.\759\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\755\ Reuters, ``A Reuters analysis of 37 global automakers
found that they plan to invest nearly $1.2 trillion in electric
vehicles and batteries through 2030,'' October 21, 2022. Accessed on
November 4, 2022 at https://graphics.reuters.com/AUTOS-INVESTMENT/ELECTRIC/akpeqgzqypr/.
\756\ Reuters, ``Exclusive: Automakers to double spending on
EVs, batteries to $1.2 trillion by 2030,'' October 25, 2022.
Accessed on November 4, 2022 at https://www.reuters.com/technology/exclusive-automakers-double-spending-evs-batteries-12-trillion-by-2030-2022-10-21/.
\757\ Environmental Protection Agency, ``The 2022 EPA Automotive
Trends Report: Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Fuel Economy, and
Technology since 1975,'' (forthcoming).
\758\ Colias, M., ``U.S. EV Sales Jolted Higher in 2022 as
Newcomers Target Tesla,'' Wall Street Journal, January 6, 2023.
\759\ Gillingham, K, A van Benthem, S Weber, D Saafi, and X He.
2023. ``Has Consumer Acceptance of Electric Vehicles Been
Increasing: Evidence from Microdata on Every New Vehicle Sale in the
United States.'' American Economics Association: Papers &
Proceedings, forthcoming, Bartlett, Jeff. 2022. More Americans Would
Buy and Electric Vehicle, and Some Consumers Would Use Low-Carbon
Fuels, Survey Shows. Consumer Reports. July 7. Accessed March 2,
2023. https://www.consumerreports.org/hybrids-evs/interest-in-electric-vehicles-and-low-carbon-fuels-survey-a8457332578/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the most significant developments for U.S. automakers and
consumers is Congressional passage of the IRA, which takes a
comprehensive approach to addressing many of the potential barriers to
wider adoption of PEVs in the United States. The IRA provides tens of
billions of dollars in tax credits and direct Federal funding to reduce
the upfront cost to consumers of purchasing PEVs, to increase the
number of charging stations across the country, to reduce the cost of
manufacturing batteries, and to promote domestic sources of critical
minerals and other important elements of the PEV supply chain. By
addressing all of these potential obstacles to wider PEV adoption in a
coordinated, well-financed, strategy, Congress significantly advanced
the potential for PEV adoption in the near term.
In developing this proposal, EPA has recognized that these
significant developments in automaker investment, PEV market growth,
and Congressional support through the BIL and IRA represent a
significant opportunity to ensure that the emissions reductions these
developments make possible will be realized as fully as possible and at
a reasonable cost over the time frame of the rule. It is clear that
these prior developments have already led to PEVs being increasingly
employed across the fleet in both light-duty and medium-duty
applications, largely independent of EPA's prior standards. Although
the 2021 rule projected a PEV penetration rate of 17 percent for 2026,
our updated modeling of the No Action case for this rule suggests a PEV
penetration rate for 2027 of 27 percent, even with no change in the
standards. This projection is consistent with, if not more conservative
than, the projections of third-party analysts.760 761 This
proposal seeks to build on the trends that these developments and
projections indicate, and accelerate the continued deployment of these
technologies to achieve further emissions reductions in 2027 and
beyond.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\760\ In 2021, IHS Markit projected 27.8 percent BEV, PHEV, and
range-extended electric vehicle (REX) for 2027. ``US EPA Proposed
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Model Years 2023-2026; What
to Expect,'' August 9, 2021. Accessed on October 28, 2021 at https://www.spglobal.com/mobility/en/research-analysis/us-epa-proposed-greenhouse-gas-emissions-standards-my2023-26.html.
\761\ In early 2023 ICCT projected 39 percent PEVs for 2027
under the moderate IRA impact scenario. See International Council on
Clean Transportation, ``Analyzing the Impact of the Inflation
Reduction Act on Electric Vehicle Uptake in the US,'' ICCT White
Paper, January 2023. Available at https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/ira-impact-evs-us-jan23.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In developing our PEV penetration estimates, EPA considered a
variety of constraints which have to date limited PEV adoption and/or
could limit it in the future, including: Cost to manufacturers and
consumers; refresh and redesign cycles for manufacturers; availability
of raw materials, batteries, and other necessary supply chain elements;
adequate electricity supply and distribution; and barriers to consumer
acceptance such as adequate charging infrastructure and a wide range of
vehicle model choices that meet a diverse set of consumer needs.\762\
EPA has consulted with analysts from other agencies, including the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE, DOT, and the Joint Office
for Energy and Transportation, extensively reviewed published
literature and other data, and, as discussed thoroughly in this
preamble and the accompanying DRIA, has incorporated limitations into
our modeling to address these potential constraints, as appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\762\ Although has considered consumer acceptance (including
consumer costs) in exercising our discretion under the statute based
on the record before us, to assess the feasibility and
appropriateness of the proposed standards, we note that it is not a
statutorily-enumerated factor under section 202(a)(1)-(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also developed further analyses, recognizing that there are
uncertainties in our projections. For example, battery costs may turn
out to be higher, or lower, than we project, and consumers may adopt
PEVs faster or slower than we anticipate. Overall, we identified a
range of potential costs and PEV penetrations which we view as
representing a wider range of possible, and still feasible and
reasonable, compliance pathways under the proposed standards.
Taking both the significant developments in the automotive market
and all of these potential constraints and uncertainties into account,
EPA's analyses found that it would be feasible to reduce net emissions
(compared to the No Action case) by 46 percent for CO2, 35
percent for PM2.5, 40 percent for NOX, and 47
percent for VOCs by the final year analyzed. EPA also analyzed a range
of standards which are somewhat more stringent and somewhat less
stringent than the proposed standards. EPA anticipates that the
appropriate choice of final standards within this range will reflect
the Administrator's judgments about the uncertainties in EPA's analyses
as well
[[Page 29347]]
as consideration of public comment and updated information where
available. However, EPA proposes to find that standards substantially
more stringent than Alternative 1 would not be appropriate because of
uncertainties concerning the cost and feasibility of such standards.
EPA proposes to find that standards substantially less stringent than
Alternative 2 or 3 would not be appropriate because they would forgo
feasible emissions reductions that would improve the protection of
public health and welfare.
Taking into consideration the importance of reducing criteria
pollutant and GHG emissions and the primary purpose of CAA section 202
to reduce the threat posed to human health and the environment by air
pollution, the Administrator finds it is appropriate and consistent
with the text and purpose of section 202 to adopt standard that, when
implemented, would result in significant reductions of light-duty
vehicle emissions both in the near term and over the longer term,
taking into consideration the cost of compliance within the available
lead time. Likewise, the Administrator concludes that these standards
are consistent with the text and purpose of section 202 for heavy-duty
vehicles by achieving significant reductions of GHGs, taking into
consideration the cost of compliance within the available lead time,
and by achieving the greatest degree of emissions reduction achievable
for certain other pollutants, taking into consideration cost, lead-
time, energy and safety factors.
Finally, EPA notes that the estimated benefits of the proposed
standards exceed the estimated costs, and estimates net benefits of
this proposal through 2055 at $850 billion to $1.6 trillion (7 percent
and 3 percent discount rates, with 3 percent SC-GHG) (see Section VIII
and Chapter 10 of the DRIA). We recognize the uncertainties and
limitations in these estimates (including unquantified benefits), and
the Administrator has not relied on these estimates in identifying the
appropriate standards under section 202. Nonetheless, our conclusion
that the estimated benefits considerably exceed the estimated costs of
the proposed program reinforces our view that the proposed standards
are appropriate.
In summary, after consideration of the very significant reductions
in criteria pollutant and GHG emissions, given the technical
feasibility of the proposed standards and the moderate costs per
vehicle in the available lead time, and taking into account a number of
other factors such as the savings to consumers in operating costs over
the lifetime of the vehicle, safety, the benefits for energy security,
and the significantly greater quantified benefits compared to
quantified costs, EPA believes that the proposed standards are
appropriate under EPA's section 202(a) authority.
VI. How would this proposal reduce GHG emissions and their associated
effects?
A. Estimating Emission Inventories in OMEGA
To estimate emission inventory effects due to a potential policy,
OMEGA uses as inputs a set of vehicle, refinery and electricity
generating unit (EGU) emission rates. In an iterative process, we first
generate emission inventories using very detailed emissions models that
estimate inventories from vehicles (EPA's MOVES model) and EGUs (EPA's
Power Sector Modeling Platform, v.6.21763 764).
The generation of those inventories is described in Chapters 8 and 5,
respectively, of the DRIA. However, upstream EGU inventories used a set
of bounding runs that looked at two possible futures--one with a low
level of fleet electrification and another with a higher level of
electrification. These bounding runs represented our best estimate of
these two possible futures--the continuation of the 2021 rule (lower)
and our proposal (upper)--at the time that those model runs were
conducted. With those bounded sets of inventories, and the associated
electricity demands within them, we can calculate emission rates for
the two ends of these bounds. Using those rates, we can interpolate,
using the given OMEGA policy scenario's fuel demands, to generate a
unique set of emission rates for that OMEGA policy scenario. Using
those unique rates, OMEGA then generates emission inventories for any
future OMEGA policy scenario depending on the liquid fuel and
electricity demands of that specific policy. This is explained in
greater detail in Chapter 9 of the DRIA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\763\ https://www.epa.gov/power-sector-modeling.
\764\ https://www.epa.gov/power-sector-modeling/epas-power-sector-modeling-platform-v6-using-ipm-summer-2021-reference-case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For vehicle criteria pollutant emissions (which are discussed
further in Preamble Section VII), CH4 and N2O
emissions, EPA used two sets of MOVES emission inventory runs--one
assuming no future use of gasoline particulate filters and one assuming
such use. Using the miles traveled (for tailpipe, tire wear, and brake
wear emissions) and liquid fuel consumed (for evaporative and fuel
spillage emissions), we can then generate sets of emission rates for
use in OMEGA. Using those rates, which are specific to fuel types and
vehicle types (car vs. truck, etc.), we can then generate unique
emission inventories for the given OMEGA policy scenario. This is
important given the changing nature of the transportation fleet (BEV vs
ICE, car vs CUV vs pickup) and the way those change for any possible
policy scenario and the many factors within OMEGA that impact the
future fleet composition and the very different vehicle emission rates
for BEVs vs ICE vehicles. This is especially true given the consumer
choice elements within OMEGA and the wide variety of input parameters
that can have significant impacts on the projected future fleet. This
is explained in greater detail in Chapter 9 of the DRIA. Note that
OMEGA estimates CO2 emissions based on the policy scenario.
Regarding refinery emissions, EPA did not have GHG refinery
emissions from which to generate GHG emission rates associated with
refineries. We did estimate refinery emissions in OMEGA for some
criteria air pollutants and describe that in Section VII.
B. Impact on GHG Emissions
Using OMEGA as described in Section VI.A, we estimated annual GHG
emissions impacts (accounting for vehicles and EGUs) associated with
the proposed program for the calendar years 2027 through 2055, as shown
in Table 135. The table shows that the proposed program would result in
significant net GHG reductions compared to the No Action scenario. The
cumulative CO2, CH4 and N2O emissions
reductions from the proposed program total 7,300 MMT, 0.12 MMT, and
0.13 MMT, respectively, through 2055. Table 136, Table 137 and Table
138 show the analogous results for alternatives 1, 2 and 3,
respectively.
[[Page 29348]]
Table 135--Estimated GHG Impacts of the Proposed Standards Relative to the No Action Scenario, Light-Duty and Medium-Duty *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission impacts relative to no action Percent change from no action
(million metric tons per year) --------------------------------------
Calendar year ------------------------------------------------
CO2 CH4 N2O CO2 CH4 N2O
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027............................................................. -5.8 -0.000025 -0.00013 -0.4 -0.1 -0.6
2028............................................................. -15 -0.000076 -0.00029 -1.2 -0.2 -1.3
2029............................................................. -27 -0.00017 -0.00052 -2.3 -0.4 -2.4
2030............................................................. -42 -0.00028 -0.00078 -3.6 -0.8 -3.8
2031............................................................. -60 -0.00043 -0.0011 -5.4 -1.2 -5.7
2032............................................................. -82 -0.00062 -0.0015 -7.6 -1.9 -7.9
2033............................................................. -110 -0.00087 -0.002 -10.1 -2.9 -10.4
2034............................................................. -130 -0.0012 -0.0024 -13 -4.1 -13
2035............................................................. -150 -0.0015 -0.0028 -16 -5.6 -16
2036............................................................. -170 -0.0018 -0.0032 -18 -7.1 -18
2037............................................................. -200 -0.0022 -0.0036 -21 -9.0 -20
2038............................................................. -220 -0.0027 -0.004 -24 -11 -23
2039............................................................. -240 -0.0031 -0.0044 -26 -14 -25
2040............................................................. -260 -0.0036 -0.0048 -29 -16 -27
2041............................................................. -280 -0.0041 -0.0052 -31 -19 -29
2042............................................................. -300 -0.0045 -0.0055 -34 -21 -31
2043............................................................. -320 -0.005 -0.0058 -36 -24 -33
2044............................................................. -330 -0.0054 -0.006 -38 -27 -34
2045............................................................. -350 -0.0059 -0.0063 -39 -30 -35
2046............................................................. -360 -0.0063 -0.0065 -41 -32 -37
2047............................................................. -370 -0.0067 -0.0067 -42 -35 -38
2048............................................................. -390 -0.0072 -0.0069 -44 -38 -39
2049............................................................. -400 -0.0076 -0.0071 -45 -40 -39
2050............................................................. -410 -0.008 -0.0073 -46 -43 -40
2051............................................................. -410 -0.0081 -0.0074 -46 -44 -40
2052............................................................. -420 -0.0082 -0.0075 -47 -44 -41
2053............................................................. -420 -0.0083 -0.0076 -47 -45 -41
2054............................................................. -420 -0.0084 -0.0077 -47 -45 -41
2055............................................................. -420 -0.0084 -0.0077 -47 -45 -41
Sum.............................................................. -7,300 -0.12 -0.13 -26 -17 -25
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* GHG emission rates were not available for calculating GHG inventories from refineries.
Table 136--Estimated GHG Impacts of Alternative 1 Relative to the No Action Scenario, Light-Duty and Medium-Duty *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission impacts relative to no action Percent change from no action
(million metric tons per year) --------------------------------------
Calendar year ------------------------------------------------
CO2 CH4 N2O CO2 CH4 N2O
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027............................................................. -6.1 -0.000027 -0.00014 -0.5 -0.1 -0.6
2028............................................................. -17 -0.000073 -0.00031 -1.3 -0.2 -1.4
2029............................................................. -31 -0.00015 -0.00053 -2.5 -0.4 -2.5
2030............................................................. -49 -0.00026 -0.00084 -4.2 -0.7 -4.1
2031............................................................. -69 -0.00042 -0.0012 -6.2 -1.2 -6.0
2032............................................................. -93 -0.00062 -0.0016 -8.6 -1.9 -8.3
2033............................................................. -120 -0.00089 -0.0021 -11.5 -2.9 -11.0
2034............................................................. -150 -0.0012 -0.0026 -14 -4.2 -14
2035............................................................. -170 -0.0016 -0.003 -17 -5.8 -17
2036............................................................. -200 -0.002 -0.0034 -20 -7.5 -19
2037............................................................. -220 -0.0024 -0.0039 -23 -9.6 -22
2038............................................................. -250 -0.0028 -0.0043 -26 -12 -24
2039............................................................. -270 -0.0033 -0.0048 -29 -14 -27
2040............................................................. -290 -0.0038 -0.0052 -32 -17 -29
2041............................................................. -320 -0.0043 -0.0056 -35 -20 -32
2042............................................................. -330 -0.0048 -0.0059 -37 -23 -33
2043............................................................. -360 -0.0054 -0.0062 -40 -26 -35
2044............................................................. -370 -0.0059 -0.0065 -42 -29 -37
2045............................................................. -390 -0.0064 -0.0068 -43 -32 -38
2046............................................................. -400 -0.0069 -0.0071 -45 -35 -40
2047............................................................. -410 -0.0073 -0.0073 -47 -38 -41
2048............................................................. -430 -0.0078 -0.0075 -48 -41 -42
2049............................................................. -440 -0.0083 -0.0077 -50 -44 -43
2050............................................................. -450 -0.0088 -0.0079 -51 -47 -43
2051............................................................. -450 -0.0089 -0.008 -51 -48 -44
2052............................................................. -460 -0.009 -0.0081 -51 -48 -44
2053............................................................. -460 -0.0091 -0.0082 -52 -49 -44
[[Page 29349]]
2054............................................................. -460 -0.0091 -0.0083 -52 -49 -44
2055............................................................. -460 -0.0092 -0.0083 -52 -49 -44
Sum.............................................................. -8,100 -0.13 -0.14 -29 -18 -27
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*GHG emission rates were not available for calculating GHG inventories from refineries.
Table 137--Estimated GHG Impacts of Alternative 2 Relative to the No Action Scenario, Light-Duty and Medium-Duty *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission impacts relative to no action Percent change from no action
(million metric tons per year) --------------------------------------
Calendar year ------------------------------------------------
CO2 CH4 N2O CO2 CH4 N2O
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027............................................................. -4.2 -0.000021 -0.0001 -0.3 0.0 -0.4
2028............................................................. -11 -0.000058 -0.00021 -0.9 -0.1 -1.0
2029............................................................. -22 -0.00014 -0.00042 -1.8 -0.4 -2.0
2030............................................................. -34 -0.00023 -0.00064 -2.9 -0.6 -3.1
2031............................................................. -49 -0.00036 -0.00094 -4.4 -1.0 -4.8
2032............................................................. -69 -0.00054 -0.0013 -6.4 -1.7 -6.8
2033............................................................. -92 -0.00077 -0.0017 -8.8 -2.5 -9.2
2034............................................................. -120 -0.0011 -0.0022 -11 -3.7 -12
2035............................................................. -140 -0.0014 -0.0026 -14 -5.0 -14
2036............................................................. -150 -0.0017 -0.0029 -16 -6.4 -16
2037............................................................. -180 -0.002 -0.0033 -19 -8.2 -19
2038............................................................. -200 -0.0024 -0.0037 -21 -10 -21
2039............................................................. -220 -0.0028 -0.0041 -24 -12 -23
2040............................................................. -240 -0.0033 -0.0044 -26 -15 -25
2041............................................................. -260 -0.0037 -0.0048 -28 -17 -27
2042............................................................. -270 -0.0041 -0.0051 -30 -20 -29
2043............................................................. -290 -0.0046 -0.0054 -32 -22 -31
2044............................................................. -300 -0.005 -0.0056 -34 -25 -32
2045............................................................. -310 -0.0054 -0.0058 -35 -27 -33
2046............................................................. -330 -0.0059 -0.0061 -37 -30 -34
2047............................................................. -340 -0.0063 -0.0063 -38 -32 -35
2048............................................................. -350 -0.0067 -0.0065 -40 -35 -36
2049............................................................. -360 -0.0071 -0.0066 -41 -38 -37
2050............................................................. -370 -0.0075 -0.0068 -42 -40 -37
2051............................................................. -370 -0.0076 -0.0069 -42 -40 -38
2052............................................................. -380 -0.0076 -0.007 -42 -41 -38
2053............................................................. -380 -0.0077 -0.0071 -42 -41 -38
2054............................................................. -380 -0.0077 -0.0071 -43 -41 -38
2055............................................................. -380 -0.0078 -0.0072 -43 -42 -38
Sum.............................................................. -6,600 -0.11 -0.12 -23 -15 -23
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*GHG emission rates were not available for calculating GHG inventories from refineries.
Table 138--Estimated GHG Impacts of Alternative 3 Relative to the No Action Scenario, Light-Duty and Medium-Duty *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission impacts relative to no action Percent change from no action
(million metric tons per year) --------------------------------------
Calendar year ------------------------------------------------
CO2 CH4 N2O CO2 CH4 N2O
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027............................................................. -3.4 -0.000023 -0.00009 -0.3 -0.1 -0.4
2028............................................................. -8.9 -0.000062 -0.00019 -0.7 -0.1 -0.9
2029............................................................. -16 -0.00012 -0.00033 -1.3 -0.3 -1.6
2030............................................................. -27 -0.0002 -0.00054 -2.3 -0.5 -2.6
2031............................................................. -44 -0.00033 -0.00088 -4.0 -1.0 -4.4
2032............................................................. -66 -0.00051 -0.0013 -6.2 -1.6 -6.7
2033............................................................. -91 -0.00075 -0.0017 -8.7 -2.5 -9.2
2034............................................................. -120 -0.001 -0.0022 -11 -3.7 -12
2035............................................................. -140 -0.0014 -0.0027 -14 -5.1 -15
2036............................................................. -160 -0.0017 -0.003 -17 -6.6 -17
2037............................................................. -190 -0.0021 -0.0035 -20 -8.5 -19
2038............................................................. -210 -0.0026 -0.0039 -22 -11 -22
2039............................................................. -230 -0.003 -0.0043 -25 -13 -24
[[Page 29350]]
2040............................................................. -250 -0.0035 -0.0047 -28 -15 -27
2041............................................................. -280 -0.0039 -0.0051 -31 -18 -29
2042............................................................. -290 -0.0044 -0.0054 -33 -21 -31
2043............................................................. -310 -0.0049 -0.0057 -35 -24 -32
2044............................................................. -330 -0.0053 -0.006 -37 -26 -34
2045............................................................. -340 -0.0058 -0.0062 -39 -29 -35
2046............................................................. -360 -0.0063 -0.0065 -41 -32 -37
2047............................................................. -370 -0.0067 -0.0067 -42 -35 -38
2048............................................................. -390 -0.0072 -0.0069 -43 -38 -39
2049............................................................. -400 -0.0076 -0.0071 -45 -40 -39
2050............................................................. -410 -0.0081 -0.0073 -46 -43 -40
2051............................................................. -410 -0.0082 -0.0074 -46 -44 -41
2052............................................................. -420 -0.0083 -0.0075 -47 -44 -41
2053............................................................. -420 -0.0083 -0.0076 -47 -45 -41
2054............................................................. -420 -0.0084 -0.0077 -47 -45 -41
2055............................................................. -420 -0.0084 -0.0077 -47 -45 -41
Sum.............................................................. -7,100 -0.12 -0.13 -25 -16 -24
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*GHG emission rates were not available for calculating GHG inventories from refineries.
C. Global Climate Impacts Associated With the Proposal's GHG Emissions
Reductions
The transportation sector is the largest U.S. source of GHG
emissions, representing 27.2 percent of total GHG emissions.\765\
Within the transportation sector, light-duty vehicles are the largest
contributor, at 57.1 percent, and thus comprise 15.5 percent of total
U.S. GHG emissions,\766\ even before considering the contribution of
medium-duty Class 2b and 3 vehicles which are also included under this
rule. Reducing GHG emissions, including the three GHGs (CO2,
CH4, and N2O) affected by this program, will
contribute toward the goal of holding the increase in the global
average temperature to well below 2 [deg]C above pre-industrial levels,
and subsequently reducing the probability of severe climate change
related impacts including heat waves, drought, sea level rise, extreme
climate and weather events, coastal flooding, and wildfires. While EPA
did not conduct modeling to specifically quantify changes in climate
impacts resulting from this rule in terms of avoided temperature change
or sea-level rise, we did quantify the climate benefits by monetizing
the emission reductions through the application of the social cost of
greenhouse gases (SC-GHGs), as described in Section VIII.D of this
preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\765\ Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks:
1990-2020 (EPA-430-R-22-003, published April 2022).
\766\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VII. How would the proposal impact criteria and air toxics emissions
and their associated effects?
As described in Section VI.A (and in more detail in Chapter 9 of
the DRIA), EPA has used OMEGA to estimate criteria air pollutant and
air toxic emission inventories associated with the proposed standards
and with Alternatives 1 and 2. These estimates are presented in Section
VII.A. OMEGA's emissions estimates include emissions from vehicles
(using MOVES), electricity generation (using IPM, as described in
Section IV.B.3), and refineries.\767\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\767\ Illustrative Air Quality Analysis for the Light and Medium
Duty Vehicle Multipollutant Proposed Rule Technical Support Document
(TSD) contained in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section VII.B discusses the air quality impacts of these emissions
changes.
A. Impact on Emissions of Criteria and Air Toxics Pollutants
Table 139 through Table 142 present changes in emissions of
criteria air pollutants from vehicles for the light-duty proposal and
each of the light-duty alternatives. Each of these tables also includes
changes in emissions of criteria air pollutants from vehicles due to
the medium-duty proposal.
Table 143 through Table 146 present changes in emissions from EGUs
and refineries for the light-duty proposal and each of the light-duty
alternatives. Each of these tables also includes changes in emissions
from EGUs and refineries due to the medium-duty proposal.
Table 147 through Table 150 present net changes in emissions of
criteria air pollutants from vehicles, EGUs and refineries due to the
light-duty proposal and each of the light-duty alternatives. Each of
these tables also include changes due to the medium-duty proposal.
Table 151 presents net changes in emissions of criteria air
pollutants from vehicles and EGUs without any impacts associated with
refinery emissions. This table shows results for the proposal and
includes changes due to the medium-duty proposal. We present these
results as a sensitivity given the uncertainty surrounding how changes
in domestic demand for liquid fuel may or may not impact domestic
refining of liquid fuel.
Table 152 through Table 155 present changes in emissions of air
toxic pollutants from vehicles due to the light-duty proposal and each
of the light-duty alternatives. Each of these tables also includes
changes in air toxic emissions from vehicles due to the medium-duty
proposal.
The vehicle reductions in PM2.5, NOX, NMOG,
and CO emissions shown in Table 139 through Table 142 are related to
the proposed standards for these pollutants and the technologies we
project that manufacturers will choose to use to comply with them,
including both BEV technologies and, for gasoline-powered vehicles,
gasoline particulate filters. Vehicle SOX emissions are a
function of the sulfur content of gasoline and diesel fuel. Therefore,
the reductions in SOX emissions from vehicles result from
the decrease in
[[Page 29351]]
gasoline and diesel fuel consumption associated with the GHG standards.
Table 139--OMEGA Estimated Vehicle Criteria Emission Impacts of the Proposed Standards Relative to the No Action
Scenario, Light-duty and Medium-Duty
[U.S. tons per year]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calendar year PM2.5 NOX NMOG SOX CO
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027............................ -68 -720 -1,100 -50 -24,000
2028............................ -170 -1,700 -3,400 -130 -61,000
2029............................ -310 -3,200 -7,200 -230 -110,000
2030............................ -790 -4,800 -12,000 -350 -180,000
2031............................ -1,300 -6,800 -18,000 -490 -250,000
2032............................ -1,800 -9,100 -25,000 -650 -330,000
2033............................ -2,300 -12,000 -33,000 -830 -430,000
2034............................ -2,900 -14,000 -42,000 -1,000 -530,000
2035............................ -3,400 -17,000 -52,000 -1,200 -640,000
2036............................ -4,000 -19,000 -62,000 -1,300 -720,000
2037............................ -4,500 -21,000 -73,000 -1,500 -820,000
2038............................ -5,100 -24,000 -85,000 -1,600 -930,000
2039............................ -5,600 -26,000 -96,000 -1,800 -1,000,000
2040............................ -6,100 -28,000 -110,000 -1,900 -1,100,000
2041............................ -6,600 -30,000 -120,000 -2,000 -1,200,000
2042............................ -7,000 -32,000 -130,000 -2,100 -1,300,000
2043............................ -7,500 -33,000 -140,000 -2,300 -1,400,000
2044............................ -7,900 -35,000 -150,000 -2,300 -1,400,000
2045............................ -8,200 -36,000 -160,000 -2,400 -1,500,000
2046............................ -8,500 -37,000 -170,000 -2,500 -1,600,000
2047............................ -8,800 -38,000 -180,000 -2,500 -1,600,000
2048............................ -9,000 -39,000 -180,000 -2,600 -1,700,000
2049............................ -9,200 -40,000 -190,000 -2,600 -1,700,000
2050............................ -9,400 -41,000 -190,000 -2,700 -1,700,000
2051............................ -9,500 -42,000 -200,000 -2,700 -1,800,000
2052............................ -9,600 -43,000 -200,000 -2,700 -1,800,000
2053............................ -9,700 -43,000 -200,000 -2,700 -1,800,000
2054............................ -9,800 -44,000 -200,000 -2,800 -1,800,000
2055............................ -9,800 -44,000 -200,000 -2,800 -1,800,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 140--OMEGA Estimated Vehicle Criteria Emission Impacts of the Proposed Standards Relative to the No Action
Scenario, Light-Duty and Medium-Duty
[U.S. tons per year]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calendar year PM2.5 NOX NMOG SOX CO
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027............................ -70 -750 -1,200 -53 -25,000
2028............................ -180 -1,800 -3,600 -140 -65,000
2029............................ -320 -3,100 -7,200 -250 -110,000
2030............................ -790 -4,900 -12,000 -400 -180,000
2031............................ -1,300 -6,900 -19,000 -550 -260,000
2032............................ -1,800 -9,300 -26,000 -730 -350,000
2033............................ -2,300 -12,000 -35,000 -940 -450,000
2034............................ -2,900 -15,000 -46,000 -1,100 -570,000
2035............................ -3,400 -18,000 -57,000 -1,300 -680,000
2036............................ -4,000 -20,000 -69,000 -1,500 -780,000
2037............................ -4,500 -23,000 -81,000 -1,700 -900,000
2038............................ -5,100 -25,000 -94,000 -1,800 -1,000,000
2039............................ -5,600 -27,000 -110,000 -2,000 -1,100,000
2040............................ -6,100 -30,000 -120,000 -2,100 -1,200,000
2041............................ -6,600 -32,000 -130,000 -2,300 -1,300,000
2042............................ -7,100 -34,000 -140,000 -2,400 -1,400,000
2043............................ -7,500 -36,000 -160,000 -2,500 -1,500,000
2044............................ -7,900 -37,000 -170,000 -2,600 -1,600,000
2045............................ -8,200 -39,000 -180,000 -2,700 -1,700,000
2046............................ -8,600 -40,000 -190,000 -2,800 -1,700,000
2047............................ -8,800 -41,000 -190,000 -2,800 -1,800,000
2048............................ -9,100 -42,000 -200,000 -2,900 -1,800,000
2049............................ -9,300 -43,000 -210,000 -2,900 -1,900,000
2050............................ -9,500 -44,000 -210,000 -3,000 -1,900,000
2051............................ -9,600 -45,000 -220,000 -3,000 -1,900,000
2052............................ -9,700 -46,000 -220,000 -3,000 -2,000,000
2053............................ -9,700 -46,000 -220,000 -3,000 -2,000,000
2054............................ -9,800 -47,000 -220,000 -3,000 -2,000,000
2055............................ -9,800 -47,000 -230,000 -3,000 -2,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 29352]]
Table 141--OMEGA Estimated Vehicle Criteria Emission Impacts of the Proposed Standards Relative to the No Action
Scenario, Light-Duty and Medium-Duty
[U.S. tons per year]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calendar year PM2.5 NOX NMOG SOX CO
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027............................ -49 -570 -810 -36 -17,000
2028............................ -120 -1,300 -2,400 -91 -42,000
2029............................ -250 -2,600 -5,600 -180 -88,000
2030............................ -730 -3,900 -9,400 -280 -140,000
2031............................ -1,200 -5,800 -14,000 -400 -200,000
2032............................ -1,700 -7,900 -20,000 -540 -270,000
2033............................ -2,300 -10,000 -28,000 -720 -360,000
2034............................ -2,800 -13,000 -36,000 -890 -460,000
2035............................ -3,400 -15,000 -45,000 -1,000 -560,000
2036............................ -3,900 -17,000 -54,000 -1,200 -640,000
2037............................ -4,500 -20,000 -64,000 -1,300 -730,000
2038............................ -5,000 -22,000 -74,000 -1,500 -830,000
2039............................ -5,500 -24,000 -85,000 -1,600 -920,000
2040............................ -6,100 -26,000 -96,000 -1,700 -1,000,000
2041............................ -6,500 -28,000 -110,000 -1,800 -1,100,000
2042............................ -7,000 -29,000 -120,000 -1,900 -1,200,000
2043............................ -7,400 -31,000 -130,000 -2,000 -1,300,000
2044............................ -7,800 -32,000 -130,000 -2,100 -1,300,000
2045............................ -8,200 -34,000 -140,000 -2,200 -1,400,000
2046............................ -8,500 -35,000 -150,000 -2,200 -1,400,000
2047............................ -8,800 -36,000 -160,000 -2,300 -1,500,000
2048............................ -9,000 -37,000 -160,000 -2,300 -1,500,000
2049............................ -9,200 -38,000 -170,000 -2,400 -1,600,000
2050............................ -9,400 -39,000 -170,000 -2,400 -1,600,000
2051............................ -9,500 -39,000 -180,000 -2,500 -1,600,000
2052............................ -9,600 -40,000 -180,000 -2,500 -1,600,000
2053............................ -9,700 -40,000 -180,000 -2,500 -1,600,000
2054............................ -9,700 -41,000 -180,000 -2,500 -1,600,000
2055............................ -9,800 -41,000 -190,000 -2,500 -1,600,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 142--OMEGA Estimated Vehicle Criteria Emission Impacts of the Proposed Standards Relative to the No Action
Scenario, Light-Duty and Medium-Duty
[U.S. tons per year]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calendar year PM2.5 NOX NMOG SOX CO
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027............................ -43 -550 -800 -30 -15,000
2028............................ -110 -1,200 -2,300 -75 -39,000
2029............................ -190 -2,100 -4,500 -130 -68,000
2030............................ -670 -3,400 -7,800 -220 -110,000
2031............................ -1,200 -5,400 -12,000 -360 -180,000
2032............................ -1,600 -7,700 -19,000 -530 -260,000
2033............................ -2,200 -10,000 -26,000 -710 -360,000
2034............................ -2,800 -13,000 -35,000 -910 -470,000
2035............................ -3,300 -16,000 -44,000 -1,100 -570,000
2036............................ -3,800 -18,000 -54,000 -1,200 -660,000
2037............................ -4,400 -20,000 -65,000 -1,400 -770,000
2038............................ -5,000 -23,000 -76,000 -1,600 -870,000
2039............................ -5,500 -25,000 -88,000 -1,700 -980,000
2040............................ -6,000 -27,000 -100,000 -1,900 -1,100,000
2041............................ -6,500 -29,000 -110,000 -2,000 -1,200,000
2042............................ -7,000 -31,000 -120,000 -2,100 -1,300,000
2043............................ -7,400 -33,000 -130,000 -2,200 -1,400,000
2044............................ -7,800 -34,000 -140,000 -2,300 -1,400,000
2045............................ -8,100 -36,000 -150,000 -2,400 -1,500,000
2046............................ -8,500 -37,000 -160,000 -2,500 -1,600,000
2047............................ -8,700 -38,000 -170,000 -2,500 -1,600,000
2048............................ -9,000 -39,000 -180,000 -2,600 -1,700,000
2049............................ -9,200 -40,000 -190,000 -2,600 -1,700,000
2050............................ -9,400 -41,000 -190,000 -2,700 -1,700,000
2051............................ -9,500 -42,000 -200,000 -2,700 -1,800,000
2052............................ -9,600 -43,000 -200,000 -2,700 -1,800,000
2053............................ -9,700 -43,000 -200,000 -2,700 -1,800,000
2054............................ -9,800 -44,000 -200,000 -2,800 -1,800,000
2055............................ -9,800 -44,000 -200,000 -2,800 -1,800,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 29353]]
Table 143 through Table 146 show the ``upstream'' emissions impacts
from EGUs and refineries. As explained in Section IV.B.3, our power
sector modeling predicts that EGU emissions will decrease between 2028
and 2055 due to increasing use of renewables. As a result, the increase
in EGU emissions associated with the proposal's increased electricity
generation would peak in the late 2030's/early 2040's (depending on the
pollutant) and then generally decrease or level off through 2055.
Section VI.A provides more detail on the estimation of refinery
emissions, which we predict would decrease as a result of the decreased
demand for liquid fuel associated with the proposed GHG standards.
Table 143--OMEGA Estimated Upstream Criteria Emission Impacts of the Proposed Standards Relative to the No Action Scenario, Light-Duty and Medium-Duty
[U.S. tons per year]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EGU Refinery
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5 NOX NMOG SOX PM2.5 NOX NMOG SOX
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027.................................................... 140 800 68 660 -130 -510 -440 -200
2028.................................................... 310 1,800 150 1,500 -330 -1,200 -1,100 -490
2029.................................................... 540 3,100 260 2,500 -590 -2,300 -1,900 -890
2030.................................................... 790 4,400 380 3,600 -900 -3,400 -2,900 -1,400
2031.................................................... 1,100 5,900 510 4,800 -1,300 -4,800 -4,100 -1,900
2032.................................................... 1,300 7,500 660 6,000 -1,700 -6,400 -5,500 -2,600
2033.................................................... 1,600 9,000 800 7,100 -2,100 -8,100 -7,000 -3,300
2034.................................................... 1,900 10,000 940 8,100 -2,600 -9,900 -8,500 -4,000
2035.................................................... 2,100 11,000 1,100 8,800 -3,100 -12,000 -9,900 -4,700
2036.................................................... 2,300 12,000 1,100 9,000 -3,400 -13,000 -11,000 -5,200
2037.................................................... 2,400 12,000 1,200 9,300 -3,800 -14,000 -12,000 -5,800
2038.................................................... 2,500 13,000 1,300 9,300 -4,200 -16,000 -13,000 -6,400
2039.................................................... 2,600 13,000 1,300 9,100 -4,500 -17,000 -14,000 -6,900
2040.................................................... 2,600 13,000 1,400 8,700 -4,900 -18,000 -16,000 -7,400
2041.................................................... 2,600 12,000 1,400 8,100 -5,200 -19,000 -16,000 -7,900
2042.................................................... 2,600 12,000 1,400 7,300 -5,500 -20,000 -17,000 -8,300
2043.................................................... 2,600 11,000 1,400 6,500 -5,700 -21,000 -18,000 -8,700
2044.................................................... 2,400 10,000 1,400 5,400 -5,900 -22,000 -19,000 -9,000
2045.................................................... 2,300 9,200 1,300 4,200 -6,100 -22,000 -19,000 -9,300
2046.................................................... 2,200 8,100 1,300 2,900 -6,300 -23,000 -20,000 -9,600
2047.................................................... 2,000 6,700 1,200 1,500 -6,400 -23,000 -20,000 -9,700
2048.................................................... 1,900 5,400 1,100 1,500 -6,500 -24,000 -20,000 -10,000
2049.................................................... 1,700 4,000 1,100 1,600 -6,600 -24,000 -21,000 -10,000
2050.................................................... 1,500 2,500 1,000 1,600 -6,700 -24,000 -21,000 -10,000
2051.................................................... 1,500 2,500 1,000 1,600 -6,800 -25,000 -21,000 -10,000
2052.................................................... 1,500 2,500 1,000 1,600 -6,800 -25,000 -21,000 -10,000
2053.................................................... 1,500 2,600 1,000 1,600 -6,900 -25,000 -21,000 -10,000
2054.................................................... 1,500 2,600 1,000 1,600 -6,900 -25,000 -21,000 -11,000
2055.................................................... 1,500 2,600 1,000 1,600 -6,900 -25,000 -21,000 -11,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* CO emission rates were not available for calculating CO inventories from EGUs or refineries.
Table 144--OMEGA Estimated Upstream Criteria Emission Impacts of the Proposed Standards Relative to the No Action Scenario, Light-Duty and Medium-Duty
[U.S. tons per year]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EGU Refinery
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5 NOX NMOG SOX PM2.5 NOX NMOG SOX
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027.................................................... 140 830 71 680 -140 -530 -450 -210
2028.................................................... 350 2,000 170 1,600 -370 -1,400 -1,200 -560
2029.................................................... 570 3,300 280 2,700 -660 -2,500 -2,200 -990
2030.................................................... 860 4,900 420 4,000 -1,000 -3,900 -3,400 -1,600
2031.................................................... 1,100 6,300 550 5,100 -1,400 -5,400 -4,700 -2,200
2032.................................................... 1,400 7,900 700 6,300 -1,900 -7,200 -6,200 -2,900
2033.................................................... 1,800 9,700 860 7,700 -2,400 -9,200 -7,900 -3,700
2034.................................................... 2,100 11,000 1,000 8,800 -2,900 -11,000 -9,500 -4,500
2035.................................................... 2,300 12,000 1,100 9,500 -3,400 -13,000 -11,000 -5,200
2036.................................................... 2,500 13,000 1,200 9,900 -3,800 -14,000 -12,000 -5,800
2037.................................................... 2,600 14,000 1,300 10,000 -4,300 -16,000 -14,000 -6,500
2038.................................................... 2,800 14,000 1,400 10,000 -4,700 -17,000 -15,000 -7,100
2039.................................................... 2,800 14,000 1,500 10,000 -5,100 -19,000 -16,000 -7,700
2040.................................................... 2,900 14,000 1,500 9,600 -5,400 -20,000 -17,000 -8,300
2041.................................................... 2,900 14,000 1,500 9,000 -5,800 -21,000 -18,000 -8,800
2042.................................................... 2,900 13,000 1,500 8,100 -6,100 -22,000 -19,000 -9,200
2043.................................................... 2,800 12,000 1,500 7,200 -6,400 -23,000 -20,000 -9,700
2044.................................................... 2,700 11,000 1,500 6,000 -6,600 -24,000 -21,000 -10,000
2045.................................................... 2,600 10,000 1,500 4,600 -6,700 -25,000 -21,000 -10,000
[[Page 29354]]
2046.................................................... 2,400 8,900 1,400 3,200 -7,000 -25,000 -22,000 -11,000
2047.................................................... 2,200 7,500 1,300 1,700 -7,100 -26,000 -22,000 -11,000
2048.................................................... 2,100 6,000 1,300 1,700 -7,200 -26,000 -22,000 -11,000
2049.................................................... 1,900 4,400 1,200 1,800 -7,300 -27,000 -23,000 -11,000
2050.................................................... 1,600 2,800 1,100 1,800 -7,400 -27,000 -23,000 -11,000
2051.................................................... 1,700 2,800 1,100 1,800 -7,500 -27,000 -23,000 -11,000
2052.................................................... 1,700 2,800 1,100 1,800 -7,500 -27,000 -23,000 -12,000
2053.................................................... 1,700 2,800 1,100 1,800 -7,500 -27,000 -23,000 -12,000
2054.................................................... 1,700 2,800 1,100 1,800 -7,600 -27,000 -23,000 -12,000
2055.................................................... 1,700 2,800 1,100 1,900 -7,600 -27,000 -23,000 -12,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* CO emission rates were not available for calculating CO inventories from EGUs or refineries.
Table 145--OMEGA Estimated Upstream Criteria Emission Impacts of the Proposed Standards Relative to the No Action Scenario, Light-Duty and Medium-Duty
[U.S. tons per year]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EGU Refinery
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5 NOX NMOG SOX PM2.5 NOX NMOG SOX
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027.................................................... 100 580 49 470 -96 -370 -320 -150
2028.................................................... 220 1,300 110 1,000 -240 -900 -780 -360
2029.................................................... 420 2,400 210 2,000 -470 -1,800 -1,500 -710
2030.................................................... 620 3,500 300 2,800 -710 -2,700 -2,300 -1,100
2031.................................................... 860 4,800 420 3,900 -1,000 -3,900 -3,400 -1,600
2032.................................................... 1,100 6,200 540 4,900 -1,400 -5,300 -4,600 -2,100
2033.................................................... 1,400 7,800 700 6,100 -1,900 -7,100 -6,100 -2,800
2034.................................................... 1,700 9,100 830 7,100 -2,300 -8,700 -7,500 -3,500
2035.................................................... 1,900 10,000 940 7,800 -2,700 -10,000 -8,700 -4,100
2036.................................................... 2,000 11,000 1,000 8,000 -3,000 -11,000 -9,700 -4,600
2037.................................................... 2,200 11,000 1,100 8,400 -3,400 -13,000 -11,000 -5,200
2038.................................................... 2,300 12,000 1,200 8,400 -3,800 -14,000 -12,000 -5,700
2039.................................................... 2,400 12,000 1,200 8,300 -4,100 -15,000 -13,000 -6,200
2040.................................................... 2,400 12,000 1,300 8,000 -4,400 -16,000 -14,000 -6,700
2041.................................................... 2,400 12,000 1,300 7,500 -4,700 -17,000 -15,000 -7,200
2042.................................................... 2,400 11,000 1,300 6,800 -4,900 -18,000 -16,000 -7,500
2043.................................................... 2,400 10,000 1,300 6,000 -5,200 -19,000 -16,000 -7,900
2044.................................................... 2,300 9,500 1,300 4,900 -5,300 -20,000 -17,000 -8,100
2045.................................................... 2,100 8,500 1,200 3,800 -5,500 -20,000 -17,000 -8,400
2046.................................................... 2,000 7,400 1,200 2,700 -5,700 -21,000 -18,000 -8,700
2047.................................................... 1,900 6,200 1,100 1,400 -5,800 -21,000 -18,000 -8,800
2048.................................................... 1,700 5,000 1,100 1,400 -5,900 -22,000 -18,000 -9,000
2049.................................................... 1,500 3,700 1,000 1,400 -6,000 -22,000 -19,000 -9,200
2050.................................................... 1,400 2,300 930 1,500 -6,100 -22,000 -19,000 -9,300
2051.................................................... 1,400 2,300 940 1,500 -6,200 -22,000 -19,000 -9,400
2052.................................................... 1,400 2,300 940 1,500 -6,200 -22,000 -19,000 -9,500
2053.................................................... 1,400 2,300 950 1,500 -6,200 -22,000 -19,000 -9,500
2054.................................................... 1,400 2,400 950 1,500 -6,200 -22,000 -19,000 -9,500
2055.................................................... 1,400 2,400 950 1,500 -6,200 -22,000 -19,000 -9,500
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* CO emission rates were not available for calculating CO inventories from EGUs or refineries.
Table 146--OMEGA Estimated Upstream Criteria Emission Impacts of the Proposed Standards Relative to the No Action Scenario, Light-Duty and Medium-Duty
[U.S. tons per year]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EGU Refinery
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5 NOX NMOG SOX PM2.5 NOX NMOG SOX
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027.................................................... 84 490 42 400 -78 -300 -260 -120
2028.................................................... 190 1,100 95 910 -200 -750 -650 -300
2029.................................................... 320 1,800 160 1,500 -350 -1,300 -1,100 -520
2030.................................................... 500 2,900 250 2,300 -570 -2,200 -1,900 -870
2031.................................................... 780 4,400 380 3,500 -930 -3,500 -3,000 -1,400
2032.................................................... 1,100 6,100 540 4,900 -1,400 -5,200 -4,500 -2,100
[[Page 29355]]
2033.................................................... 1,400 7,700 690 6,100 -1,800 -7,000 -6,000 -2,800
2034.................................................... 1,700 9,300 850 7,300 -2,400 -8,900 -7,600 -3,600
2035.................................................... 2,000 10,000 970 8,100 -2,800 -11,000 -9,100 -4,300
2036.................................................... 2,100 11,000 1,100 8,400 -3,200 -12,000 -10,000 -4,800
2037.................................................... 2,300 12,000 1,200 8,800 -3,600 -13,000 -12,000 -5,500
2038.................................................... 2,400 12,000 1,200 8,900 -4,000 -15,000 -13,000 -6,100
2039.................................................... 2,500 12,000 1,300 8,800 -4,400 -16,000 -14,000 -6,600
2040.................................................... 2,600 12,000 1,300 8,500 -4,700 -18,000 -15,000 -7,200
2041.................................................... 2,600 12,000 1,400 8,000 -5,100 -19,000 -16,000 -7,700
2042.................................................... 2,600 12,000 1,400 7,200 -5,300 -20,000 -17,000 -8,100
2043.................................................... 2,500 11,000 1,400 6,400 -5,600 -21,000 -18,000 -8,600
2044.................................................... 2,400 10,000 1,300 5,300 -5,800 -21,000 -18,000 -8,900
2045.................................................... 2,300 9,200 1,300 4,100 -6,000 -22,000 -19,000 -9,200
2046.................................................... 2,200 8,100 1,300 2,900 -6,200 -23,000 -19,000 -9,500
2047.................................................... 2,000 6,800 1,200 1,500 -6,300 -23,000 -20,000 -9,700
2048.................................................... 1,900 5,400 1,200 1,600 -6,500 -24,000 -20,000 -9,900
2049.................................................... 1,700 4,000 1,100 1,600 -6,600 -24,000 -20,000 -10,000
2050.................................................... 1,500 2,500 1,000 1,600 -6,700 -24,000 -21,000 -10,000
2051.................................................... 1,500 2,500 1,000 1,600 -6,800 -25,000 -21,000 -10,000
2052.................................................... 1,500 2,600 1,000 1,600 -6,800 -25,000 -21,000 -10,000
2053.................................................... 1,500 2,600 1,000 1,600 -6,900 -25,000 -21,000 -10,000
2054.................................................... 1,500 2,600 1,000 1,700 -6,900 -25,000 -21,000 -11,000
2055.................................................... 1,500 2,600 1,000 1,700 -6,900 -25,000 -21,000 -11,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* CO emission rates were not available for calculating CO inventories from EGUs or refineries.
Table 147 through Table 150 show the net impact of the proposed
standards and alternatives on emissions of criteria pollutants,
accounting for vehicle, EGU, and refinery emissions. In 2055, when the
fleet will be largely comprised of vehicle meeting the proposed
standards, there would be a net decrease in emissions of
PM2.5, NOX, and SOX (i.e., all of the
pollutants for which we have emissions estimates from all three source
sectors). The proposal would result in net reductions of
PM2.5, NOX, NMOG, and CO emissions for all years
between 2028 and 2055. Net SOX emissions would be reduced
beginning in 2040. Until then, the increased electricity generation
associated with the proposed standards would result in net increases in
SOX emissions, which would peak in the mid-2030's.
Table 147--OMEGA Estimated Net Criteria Emission Impacts of the Proposed Standards Relative to the No Action Scenario, Light-Duty and Medium-Duty
Vehicles, EGUs and Refineries
[U.S. tons per year]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission impacts relative to no action (thousand U.S. tons) Percent change from no action
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calendar year PM2.5 (%) NOX (%) SOX (%)
PM2.5 NOX NMOG SOX CO NMOG (%) CO (%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027............................. -62 -430 -1,500 410 -24,000 -0.11 -0.070 -0.13 0.89 -0.22
2028............................. -180 -1,100 -4,300 860 -61,000 -0.33 -0.21 -0.42 1.9 -0.60
2029............................. -360 -2,300 -8,900 1,400 -110,000 -0.68 -0.49 -0.91 3.1 -1.2
2030............................. -900 -3,700 -15,000 1,900 -180,000 -1.8 -0.9 -1.6 4.2 -2.0
2031............................. -1,500 -5,700 -21,000 2,400 -250,000 -3.0 -1.5 -2.5 5.3 -3.1
2032............................. -2,100 -8,100 -30,000 2,800 -330,000 -4.4 -2.4 -3.6 6.3 -4.5
2033............................. -2,800 -11,000 -39,000 3,000 -430,000 -6.0 -3.5 -5.1 7.0 -6.2
2034............................. -3,600 -14,000 -50,000 3,100 -530,000 -7.7 -4.9 -6.9 7.3 -8.3
2035............................. -4,400 -17,000 -61,000 3,000 -640,000 -9.5 -6.5 -8.9 7.2 -11
2036............................. -5,100 -20,000 -72,000 2,600 -720,000 -11 -8.2 -11 6.3 -13
2037............................. -5,900 -23,000 -84,000 2,000 -820,000 -13 -10 -14 5.1 -16
2038............................. -6,700 -26,000 -97,000 1,300 -930,000 -15 -13 -17 3.4 -19
2039............................. -7,500 -30,000 -110,000 400 -1,000,000 -17 -15 -20 1.1 -22
2040............................. -8,400 -33,000 -120,000 -650 -1,100,000 -19 -17 -23 -1.8 -25
2041............................. -9,200 -37,000 -130,000 -1,800 -1,200,000 -21 -20 -26 -5.2 -28
2042............................. -9,900 -40,000 -150,000 -3,100 -1,300,000 -23 -22 -29 -9 -31
2043............................. -11,000 -43,000 -160,000 -4,500 -1,400,000 -25 -25 -32 -14 -34
2044............................. -11,000 -46,000 -170,000 -6,000 -1,400,000 -26 -27 -35 -19 -37
2045............................. -12,000 -49,000 -180,000 -7,500 -1,500,000 -28 -29 -37 -25 -39
2046............................. -13,000 -52,000 -190,000 -9,200 -1,600,000 -30 -31 -40 -32 -41
2047............................. -13,000 -55,000 -190,000 -11,000 -1,600,000 -31 -34 -42 -39 -43
2048............................. -14,000 -58,000 -200,000 -11,000 -1,700,000 -32 -36 -44 -40 -44
2049............................. -14,000 -61,000 -210,000 -11,000 -1,700,000 -33 -38 -45 -40 -46
[[Page 29356]]
2050............................. -15,000 -63,000 -210,000 -11,000 -1,700,000 -34 -40 -46 -41 -47
2051............................. -15,000 -64,000 -220,000 -11,000 -1,800,000 -35 -40 -47 -41 -47
2052............................. -15,000 -65,000 -220,000 -12,000 -1,800,000 -35 -40 -48 -41 -48
2053............................. -15,000 -65,000 -220,000 -12,000 -1,800,000 -35 -41 -49 -42 -49
2054............................. -15,000 -66,000 -220,000 -12,000 -1,800,000 -35 -41 -49 -42 -49
2055............................. -15,000 -66,000 -220,000 -12,000 -1,800,000 -35 -41 -50 -42 -49
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* CO emission rates were not available for calculating CO inventories from EGUs or refineries.
Table 148--OMEGA Estimated Net Criteria Emission Impacts of the Alternative 1 Standards Relative to the No Action Scenario, Light-Duty and Medium-Duty
Vehicles, EGUs and Refineries
[U.S. tons per year]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission impacts relative to no action (thousand U.S. tons) Percent change from no action
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calendar year PM2.5 (%) NOX (%) SOX (%)
PM2.5 NOX NMOG SOX CO NMOG (%) CO (%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027............................. -65 -440 -1,500 420 -25,000 -0.11 -0.072 -0.14 0.92 -0.23
2028............................. -200 -1,200 -4,600 940 -65,000 -0.37 -0.22 -0.45 2.1 -0.65
2029............................. -400 -2,400 -9,000 1,400 -110,000 -0.76 -0.49 -0.93 3.1 -1.2
2030............................. -970 -3,900 -15,000 2,000 -180,000 -1.9 -0.9 -1.7 4.4 -2.1
2031............................. -1,600 -6,000 -23,000 2,400 -260,000 -3.2 -1.6 -2.6 5.3 -3.2
2032............................. -2,200 -8,600 -32,000 2,700 -350,000 -4.6 -2.5 -3.9 6.2 -4.7
2033............................. -3,000 -12,000 -42,000 3,100 -450,000 -6.2 -3.8 -5.5 7.0 -6.6
2034............................. -3,800 -15,000 -54,000 3,100 -570,000 -8.0 -5.3 -7.5 7.4 -8.8
2035............................. -4,500 -18,000 -67,000 3,000 -680,000 -9.9 -7.0 -9.8 7.2 -11
2036............................. -5,300 -21,000 -80,000 2,600 -780,000 -12 -8.9 -12 6.4 -14
2037............................. -6,100 -25,000 -93,000 2,100 -900,000 -14 -11 -15 5.2 -17
2038............................. -7,000 -29,000 -110,000 1,300 -1,000,000 -16 -14 -18 3.4 -20
2039............................. -7,800 -32,000 -120,000 340 -1,100,000 -18 -16 -22 0.9 -24
2040............................. -8,700 -36,000 -140,000 -780 -1,200,000 -20 -19 -25 -2.2 -27
2041............................. -9,500 -40,000 -150,000 -2,100 -1,300,000 -22 -21 -29 -5.9 -31
2042............................. -10,000 -43,000 -160,000 -3,500 -1,400,000 -24 -24 -32 -10 -34
2043............................. -11,000 -47,000 -180,000 -5,000 -1,500,000 -26 -27 -35 -15 -37
2044............................. -12,000 -50,000 -190,000 -6,600 -1,600,000 -27 -29 -38 -21 -40
2045............................. -12,000 -53,000 -200,000 -8,300 -1,700,000 -29 -32 -41 -28 -43
2046............................. -13,000 -57,000 -210,000 -10,000 -1,700,000 -31 -34 -44 -35 -45
2047............................. -14,000 -59,000 -210,000 -12,000 -1,800,000 -32 -36 -46 -43 -47
2048............................. -14,000 -63,000 -220,000 -12,000 -1,800,000 -33 -39 -48 -44 -49
2049............................. -15,000 -66,000 -230,000 -12,000 -1,900,000 -35 -41 -50 -45 -50
2050............................. -15,000 -69,000 -230,000 -13,000 -1,900,000 -36 -43 -51 -45 -52
2051............................. -15,000 -69,000 -240,000 -13,000 -1,900,000 -36 -43 -52 -45 -52
2052............................. -16,000 -70,000 -240,000 -13,000 -2,000,000 -36 -44 -53 -45 -53
2053............................. -16,000 -71,000 -240,000 -13,000 -2,000,000 -37 -44 -54 -46 -54
2054............................. -16,000 -71,000 -250,000 -13,000 -2,000,000 -37 -44 -54 -46 -54
2055............................. -16,000 -71,000 -250,000 -13,000 -2,000,000 -37 -44 -55 -46 -55
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* CO emission rates were not available for calculating CO inventories from EGUs or refineries.
Table 149--OMEGA Estimated Net Criteria Emission Impacts of the Alternative 2 Standards Relative to the No Action Scenario, Light-Duty and Medium-Duty
Vehicles, EGUs and Refineries
[U.S. tons per year]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission impacts relative to no action (thousand U.S. tons) Percent change from no action
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calendar year PM2.5 (%) NOX (%) SOX (%)
PM2.5 NOX NMOG SOX CO NMOG (%) CO (%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027............................. -45 -360 -1,100 290 -17,000 -0.08 -0.058 -0.10 0.64 -0.16
2028............................. -130 -910 -3,100 600 -42,000 -0.25 -0.17 -0.30 1.3 -0.42
2029............................. -290 -2,000 -6,900 1,100 -88,000 -0.55 -0.41 -0.71 2.4 -0.9
2030............................. -820 -3,100 -11,000 1,500 -140,000 -1.6 -0.7 -1.2 3.3 -1.6
2031............................. -1,400 -4,900 -17,000 1,900 -200,000 -2.8 -1.3 -2.0 4.2 -2.5
2032............................. -2,000 -7,000 -24,000 2,200 -270,000 -4.1 -2.1 -3.0 5.1 -3.7
2033............................. -2,700 -9,600 -33,000 2,600 -360,000 -5.7 -3.2 -4.3 5.9 -5.3
[[Page 29357]]
2034............................. -3,400 -12,000 -43,000 2,700 -460,000 -7.4 -4.5 -5.9 6.3 -7.2
2035............................. -4,200 -15,000 -53,000 2,600 -560,000 -9.1 -5.9 -7.7 6.3 -9
2036............................. -4,900 -18,000 -63,000 2,300 -640,000 -11 -7.5 -10 5.6 -11
2037............................. -5,700 -21,000 -74,000 1,900 -730,000 -13 -9 -12 4.8 -14
2038............................. -6,500 -24,000 -85,000 1,300 -830,000 -15 -11 -15 3.3 -17
2039............................. -7,300 -27,000 -97,000 500 -920,000 -17 -14 -17 1.3 -20
2040............................. -8,000 -31,000 -110,000 -430 -1,000,000 -18 -16 -20 -1.2 -23
2041............................. -8,800 -34,000 -120,000 -1,500 -1,100,000 -20 -18 -23 -4.3 -25
2042............................. -9,500 -37,000 -130,000 -2,700 -1,200,000 -22 -21 -26 -8 -28
2043............................. -10,000 -40,000 -140,000 -4,000 -1,300,000 -24 -23 -29 -12 -31
2044............................. -11,000 -43,000 -150,000 -5,300 -1,300,000 -25 -25 -31 -17 -33
2045............................. -12,000 -45,000 -160,000 -6,700 -1,400,000 -27 -27 -33 -22 -35
2046............................. -12,000 -48,000 -170,000 -8,300 -1,400,000 -28 -29 -36 -29 -37
2047............................. -13,000 -51,000 -170,000 -9,700 -1,500,000 -30 -31 -38 -35 -39
2048............................. -13,000 -54,000 -180,000 -10,000 -1,500,000 -31 -33 -39 -36 -40
2049............................. -14,000 -56,000 -190,000 -10,000 -1,600,000 -32 -35 -41 -37 -42
2050............................. -14,000 -59,000 -190,000 -10,000 -1,600,000 -33 -37 -42 -37 -43
2051............................. -14,000 -59,000 -200,000 -10,000 -1,600,000 -34 -37 -43 -37 -43
2052............................. -14,000 -60,000 -200,000 -10,000 -1,600,000 -34 -37 -44 -38 -44
2053............................. -15,000 -60,000 -200,000 -11,000 -1,600,000 -34 -38 -44 -38 -44
2054............................. -15,000 -61,000 -200,000 -11,000 -1,600,000 -34 -38 -45 -38 -45
2055............................. -15,000 -61,000 -200,000 -11,000 -1,600,000 -34 -38 -45 -38 -45
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* CO emission rates were not available for calculating CO inventories from EGUs or refineries.
Table 150--OMEGA Estimated Net Criteria Emission Impacts of the Alternative 3 Standards Relative to the No Action Scenario, Light-Duty and Medium-Duty
Vehicles, EGUs and Refineries
[U.S. tons per year]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission impacts relative to no action (thousand U.S. tons) Percent change from no action
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calendar year PM2.5 (%) NOX (%) SOX (%)
PM2.5 NOX NMOG SOX CO NMOG (%) CO (%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027............................. -37 -360 -1,000 250 -15,000 -0.07 -0.058 -0.09 0.55 -0.14
2028............................. -110 -870 -2,900 530 -39,000 -0.21 -0.16 -0.28 1.2 -0.39
2029............................. -220 -1,600 -5,500 830 -68,000 -0.42 -0.34 -0.56 1.8 -0.7
2030............................. -740 -2,700 -9,400 1,200 -110,000 -1.4 -0.6 -1.0 2.7 -1.3
2031............................. -1,300 -4,500 -15,000 1,700 -180,000 -2.6 -1.2 -1.7 3.9 -2.2
2032............................. -1,900 -6,800 -23,000 2,300 -260,000 -4.0 -2.0 -2.8 5.1 -3.6
2033............................. -2,600 -9,500 -31,000 2,600 -360,000 -5.5 -3.1 -4.1 6.0 -5.2
2034............................. -3,400 -13,000 -41,000 2,800 -470,000 -7.2 -4.5 -5.7 6.5 -7.3
2035............................. -4,200 -16,000 -52,000 2,700 -570,000 -9.0 -6.1 -7.7 6.5 -10
2036............................. -4,900 -19,000 -63,000 2,400 -660,000 -11 -7.8 -10 5.9 -12
2037............................. -5,700 -22,000 -75,000 1,900 -770,000 -13 -10 -12 4.9 -15
2038............................. -6,500 -25,000 -88,000 1,300 -870,000 -15 -12 -15 3.3 -18
2039............................. -7,300 -29,000 -100,000 440 -980,000 -17 -14 -18 1.2 -21
2040............................. -8,200 -32,000 -110,000 -550 -1,100,000 -19 -17 -21 -1.5 -24
2041............................. -9,000 -36,000 -130,000 -1,700 -1,200,000 -21 -19 -24 -4.9 -27
2042............................. -9,700 -39,000 -140,000 -3,000 -1,300,000 -23 -22 -27 -9 -30
2043............................. -11,000 -43,000 -150,000 -4,400 -1,400,000 -24 -24 -31 -13 -33
2044............................. -11,000 -46,000 -160,000 -5,800 -1,400,000 -26 -27 -33 -19 -36
2045............................. -12,000 -49,000 -170,000 -7,400 -1,500,000 -28 -29 -36 -25 -38
2046............................. -13,000 -52,000 -180,000 -9,100 -1,600,000 -29 -31 -39 -31 -41
2047............................. -13,000 -55,000 -190,000 -11,000 -1,600,000 -31 -33 -41 -39 -42
2048............................. -14,000 -58,000 -200,000 -11,000 -1,700,000 -32 -36 -43 -40 -44
2049............................. -14,000 -60,000 -210,000 -11,000 -1,700,000 -33 -38 -45 -40 -45
2050............................. -15,000 -63,000 -210,000 -11,000 -1,700,000 -34 -40 -46 -41 -47
2051............................. -15,000 -64,000 -210,000 -11,000 -1,800,000 -35 -40 -47 -41 -47
2052............................. -15,000 -65,000 -220,000 -12,000 -1,800,000 -35 -40 -48 -41 -48
2053............................. -15,000 -65,000 -220,000 -12,000 -1,800,000 -35 -41 -49 -42 -49
2054............................. -15,000 -66,000 -220,000 -12,000 -1,800,000 -35 -41 -49 -42 -49
2055............................. -15,000 -66,000 -220,000 -12,000 -1,800,000 -35 -41 -50 -42 -50
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* CO emission rates were not available for calculating CO inventories from EGUs or refineries.
[[Page 29358]]
The estimated refinery emission impacts include consideration of
the impact on reduced liquid fuel demand on domestic refining. Our
central analysis estimates that impact at 93 percent. In other words,
93 percent of the reduced liquid fuel demand results in reduced
domestic refining. There is the possibility that reduced domestic
demand for liquid fuel would have no impact on domestic refining. In
other words, excess domestic refined liquid fuel would be exported for
use elsewhere. In that event, there would be no decrease in domestic
refinery emissions and the net criteria air pollutant impacts for the
proposed standards would be as shown in Table 151. We request comment
on the correct portion of reduced liquid fuel demand that would result
in reduced domestic refining.
Table 151--OMEGA Estimated Net Criteria Emission Impacts of the Proposed Standards Relative to the No Action Scenario, Light-Duty and Medium-Duty
Vehicles and EGUs and No Impacts From Refineries
[U.S. tons per year]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission impacts relative to no action (thousand U.S. tons) Percent change from no action
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calendar year PM2.5 (%) NOX (%) SOX (%)
PM2.5 NOX NMOG SOX CO NMOG (%) CO (%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027............................. 70 79 -1,000 610 -24,000 0.20 0.015 -0.1 4.5 -0.22
2028............................. 150 100 -3,300 1,400 -61,000 0.43 0.02 -0.34 9.3 -0.6
2029............................. 230 -61 -6,900 2,300 -110,000 0.70 -0.02 -0.76 15 -1.2
2030............................. -8 -320 -12,000 3,300 -180,000 0.0 -0.1 -1.3 19 -2
2031............................. -230 -900 -17,000 4,300 -250,000 -0.7 -0.3 -2.1 24 -3.1
2032............................. -430 -1,700 -24,000 5,300 -330,000 -1.4 -0.6 -3.2 29 -4.5
2033............................. -680 -2,600 -32,000 6,300 -430,000 -2.2 -1.1 -4.5 34 -6.2
2034............................. -960 -3,800 -41,000 7,100 -530,000 -3.1 -1.7 -6.1 39 -8.3
2035............................. -1,300 -5,200 -51,000 7,600 -640,000 -4.2 -2.6 -8.1 42 -11
2036............................. -1,700 -6,900 -61,000 7,700 -720,000 -6 -3.8 -10 43 -13
2037............................. -2,100 -8,700 -72,000 7,800 -820,000 -7 -5 -13 45 -16
2038............................. -2,500 -11,000 -83,000 7,700 -930,000 -9 -7 -16 47 -19
2039............................. -3,000 -13,000 -95,000 7,300 -1,000,000 -10 -9 -19 47 -22
2040............................. -3,500 -15,000 -110,000 6,800 -1,100,000 -12 -11 -22 47 -25
2041............................. -4,000 -17,000 -120,000 6,100 -1,200,000 -13 -13 -25 45 -28
2042............................. -4,400 -20,000 -130,000 5,200 -1,300,000 -15 -15 -28 42 -31
2043............................. -4,900 -22,000 -140,000 4,200 -1,400,000 -17 -18 -31 37 -34
2044............................. -5,400 -24,000 -150,000 3,000 -1,400,000 -19 -20 -34 30 -37
2045............................. -5,900 -27,000 -160,000 1,800 -1,500,000 -20 -23 -37 19 -39
2046............................. -6,400 -29,000 -170,000 410 -1,600,000 -22 -25 -39 5 -41
2047............................. -6,800 -31,000 -170,000 -1,000 -1,600,000 -23 -28 -41 -16 -43
2048............................. -7,200 -34,000 -180,000 -1,000 -1,700,000 -25 -30 -43 -16 -44
2049............................. -7,600 -36,000 -190,000 -1,100 -1,700,000 -26 -33 -45 -16 -46
2050............................. -8,000 -39,000 -190,000 -1,100 -1,700,000 -28 -35 -46 -16 -47
2051............................. -8,000 -39,000 -200,000 -1,100 -1,800,000 -28 -36 -47 -16 -47
2052............................. -8,100 -40,000 -200,000 -1,100 -1,800,000 -28 -36 -48 -17 -48
2053............................. -8,200 -41,000 -200,000 -1,100 -1,800,000 -28 -37 -49 -17 -49
2054............................. -8,200 -41,000 -200,000 -1,100 -1,800,000 -29 -37 -49 -17 -49
2055............................. -8,300 -41,000 -200,000 -1,100 -1,800,000 -29 -37 -50 -17 -49
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 152 through Table 155 show reductions in vehicle emissions of
air toxics. We expect this proposal would reduce emissions of air
toxics from light- and medium-duty vehicles in three ways: The GPF
technology that we project manufacturers would choose to use in meeting
the proposed PM standards would decrease particle-phase pollutants, the
NMOG+NOX standards would decrease gas-phase toxics, and the
projected increase in BEVs we project manufacturers would choose to
produce in complying with the GHG standards would result in lower air
toxic emissions overall from the light- and medium-duty fleet.
For most air toxic emissions, we rely on estimates from EPA's MOVES
emissions model. In MOVES, emissions of most gaseous toxic compounds
are estimated as fractions of the emissions of VOC. Toxic species in
the particulate phase (e.g., polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs))
are estimated as fractions of total organic carbon smaller than 2.5
[mu]m (OC2.5). Thus, reductions in air toxic emissions are proportional
to modelled reductions in total VOCs and/or OC2.5.\768\ Emission
measurements of PAHs in EPA's recent GPF test program (see Section
III.C.2 and DRIA Chapter 3.2.2) suggest this is a conservative estimate
indicate reduction in emissions of particle-phase PAH compounds of over
99 percent, compared to about 95 percent for total PM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\768\ U.S. EPA (2020) Air Toxic Emissions from Onroad Vehicles
in MOVES3. Assessment and Standards Division, Office of
Transportation and Air Quality. Report No. EPA-420-R-20-022.
November 2020. https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P1010TJM.pdf.
[[Page 29359]]
Table 152--OMEGA Estimated Vehicle Air Toxic Emission Impacts of the Proposed Standards Relative to the No Action Scenario, Light-Duty and Medium-Duty
[U.S. tons per year]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calendar year Acetaldehyde Acrolein Benzene Ethylbenzene Formaldehyde Naphthalene 1,3 Butadiene 15 PAH
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027................................. -16 -1 -44 -17 -9.1 -1.9 -6.5 -0.044
2028................................. -38 -2.4 -110 -53 -22 -4.7 -16 -0.11
2029................................. -69 -4.4 -200 -110 -40 -8.5 -29 -0.21
2030................................. -100 -6.6 -310 -190 -60 -13 -43 -0.43
2031................................. -140 -9.2 -430 -290 -83 -18 -59 -0.66
2032................................. -190 -12 -570 -400 -110 -23 -78 -0.9
2033................................. -240 -15 -730 -530 -140 -29 -98 -1.2
2034................................. -290 -19 -900 -680 -170 -36 -120 -1.4
2035................................. -350 -22 -1100 -850 -200 -42 -140 -1.7
2036................................. -390 -25 -1200 -1000 -230 -47 -160 -1.9
2037................................. -430 -28 -1400 -1200 -250 -53 -180 -2.2
2038................................. -480 -31 -1500 -1400 -280 -59 -200 -2.5
2039................................. -520 -34 -1700 -1600 -310 -64 -210 -2.7
2040................................. -560 -37 -1800 -1800 -330 -69 -230 -2.9
2041................................. -610 -39 -2000 -2000 -360 -74 -250 -3.2
2042................................. -640 -41 -2100 -2200 -380 -78 -260 -3.4
2043................................. -670 -44 -2200 -2300 -400 -82 -270 -3.6
2044................................. -700 -45 -2300 -2500 -410 -85 -280 -3.7
2045................................. -720 -47 -2400 -2600 -430 -88 -290 -3.9
2046................................. -750 -48 -2500 -2800 -440 -91 -300 -4.1
2047................................. -760 -49 -2600 -2900 -450 -93 -310 -4.2
2048................................. -780 -51 -2600 -3000 -470 -96 -310 -4.3
2049................................. -800 -52 -2700 -3100 -480 -98 -320 -4.4
2050................................. -810 -53 -2800 -3200 -490 -100 -330 -4.5
2051................................. -820 -54 -2800 -3300 -490 -100 -330 -4.5
2052................................. -830 -54 -2800 -3300 -500 -100 -330 -4.6
2053................................. -840 -55 -2900 -3300 -500 -100 -330 -4.6
2054................................. -840 -55 -2900 -3400 -510 -100 -340 -4.7
2055................................. -840 -55 -2900 -3400 -510 -100 -340 -4.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 153--Estimated Vehicle Air Toxic Emission Impacts of the Alternative 1 Standards Relative to the No Action Scenario, Light-Duty and Medium-Duty
[U.S. tons per year]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calendar year Acetaldehyde Acrolein Benzene Ethylbenzene Formaldehyde Naphthalene 1,3 Butadiene 15 PAH
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027................................. -17 -1.1 -46 -18 -9.5 -2 -6.8 -0.046
2028................................. -41 -2.6 -120 -56 -23 -5 -17 -0.12
2029................................. -70 -4.5 -210 -110 -41 -8.6 -29 -0.21
2030................................. -110 -7 -330 -200 -63 -13 -45 -0.44
2031................................. -150 -9.7 -450 -300 -87 -18 -62 -0.67
2032................................. -200 -13 -600 -420 -110 -24 -81 -0.91
2033................................. -260 -16 -780 -570 -150 -31 -100 -1.2
2034................................. -310 -20 -970 -740 -180 -38 -130 -1.5
2035................................. -370 -24 -1100 -930 -210 -45 -150 -1.7
2036................................. -410 -27 -1300 -1100 -240 -51 -170 -2
2037................................. -470 -30 -1500 -1300 -270 -57 -190 -2.3
2038................................. -520 -34 -1700 -1500 -300 -64 -210 -2.5
2039................................. -570 -37 -1800 -1800 -330 -69 -230 -2.8
2040................................. -610 -40 -2000 -2000 -360 -75 -250 -3
2041................................. -660 -42 -2200 -2200 -390 -81 -270 -3.2
2042................................. -690 -45 -2300 -2400 -410 -85 -280 -3.5
2043................................. -730 -47 -2400 -2600 -430 -90 -300 -3.7
2044................................. -760 -49 -2500 -2800 -450 -93 -310 -3.8
2045................................. -790 -51 -2600 -2900 -470 -97 -320 -4
2046................................. -810 -53 -2800 -3100 -480 -100 -330 -4.2
2047................................. -830 -54 -2800 -3200 -490 -100 -340 -4.3
2048................................. -850 -56 -2900 -3300 -510 -110 -350 -4.4
2049................................. -870 -57 -3000 -3400 -520 -110 -350 -4.5
2050................................. -890 -58 -3000 -3500 -530 -110 -360 -4.6
2051................................. -900 -59 -3100 -3600 -540 -110 -360 -4.7
2052................................. -910 -59 -3100 -3600 -540 -110 -370 -4.7
2053................................. -910 -60 -3100 -3700 -550 -110 -370 -4.8
2054................................. -920 -60 -3100 -3700 -550 -110 -370 -4.8
2055................................. -920 -60 -3200 -3700 -550 -110 -370 -4.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 29360]]
Table 154--Estimated Vehicle Air Toxic Emission Impacts of the Alternative 2 Standards Relative to the No Action Scenario, Light-Duty and Medium-Duty
[U.S. tons per year]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calendar year Acetaldehyde Acrolein Benzene Ethylbenzene Formaldehyde Naphthalene 1,3 Butadiene 15 PAH
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027................................. -12 -0.76 -32 -12 -6.7 -1.4 -4.7 -0.032
2028................................. -27 -1.8 -78 -38 -16 -3.3 -11 -0.08
2029................................. -55 -3.5 -160 -88 -32 -6.7 -22 -0.16
2030................................. -82 -5.3 -240 -150 -48 -10 -34 -0.38
2031................................. -120 -7.6 -350 -230 -68 -14 -48 -0.6
2032................................. -160 -10 -480 -320 -93 -19 -64 -0.83
2033................................. -210 -14 -630 -440 -120 -25 -85 -1.1
2034................................. -260 -17 -790 -580 -150 -32 -110 -1.4
2035................................. -310 -20 -940 -730 -180 -37 -120 -1.6
2036................................. -340 -22 -1100 -880 -200 -42 -140 -1.9
2037................................. -390 -25 -1200 -1000 -230 -48 -160 -2.1
2038................................. -440 -28 -1400 -1200 -260 -53 -180 -2.4
2039................................. -480 -31 -1500 -1400 -280 -58 -190 -2.6
2040................................. -520 -34 -1700 -1600 -310 -63 -210 -2.9
2041................................. -550 -36 -1800 -1700 -330 -68 -220 -3.1
2042................................. -590 -38 -1900 -1900 -350 -72 -240 -3.3
2043................................. -620 -40 -2000 -2100 -370 -76 -250 -3.5
2044................................. -640 -42 -2100 -2200 -380 -79 -260 -3.7
2045................................. -660 -43 -2200 -2400 -400 -81 -270 -3.8
2046................................. -690 -45 -2300 -2500 -410 -84 -280 -4
2047................................. -700 -46 -2400 -2600 -420 -86 -280 -4.1
2048................................. -720 -47 -2400 -2700 -430 -88 -290 -4.2
2049................................. -740 -48 -2500 -2800 -440 -90 -300 -4.3
2050................................. -750 -49 -2500 -2900 -450 -92 -300 -4.4
2051................................. -760 -50 -2600 -2900 -460 -93 -300 -4.5
2052................................. -770 -50 -2600 -3000 -460 -94 -310 -4.5
2053................................. -770 -51 -2600 -3000 -460 -94 -310 -4.5
2054................................. -780 -51 -2600 -3100 -470 -95 -310 -4.6
2055................................. -780 -51 -2600 -3100 -470 -95 -310 -4.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 155--Estimated Vehicle Air Toxic Emission Impacts of the Alternative 3 Standards Relative to the No Action Scenario, Light-Duty and Medium-Duty
[U.S. tons per year]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calendar year Acetaldehyde Acrolein Benzene Ethylbenzene Formaldehyde Naphthalene 1,3 Butadiene 15 PAH
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027................................. -10 -0.67 -28 -12 -6 -1.2 -4.1 -0.028
2028................................. -25 -1.6 -71 -36 -14 -3 -10 -0.073
2029................................. -42 -2.7 -120 -71 -25 -5.2 -17 -0.13
2030................................. -68 -4.4 -200 -120 -40 -8.3 -28 -0.34
2031................................. -110 -6.9 -320 -200 -63 -13 -43 -0.57
2032................................. -150 -10 -460 -300 -90 -19 -63 -0.81
2033................................. -210 -13 -620 -410 -120 -25 -84 -1.1
2034................................. -260 -17 -800 -560 -150 -32 -110 -1.3
2035................................. -320 -20 -970 -710 -180 -39 -130 -1.6
2036................................. -360 -23 -1100 -880 -210 -44 -150 -1.9
2037................................. -410 -27 -1300 -1100 -240 -50 -170 -2.1
2038................................. -460 -30 -1400 -1200 -270 -56 -190 -2.4
2039................................. -510 -33 -1600 -1400 -300 -62 -210 -2.6
2040................................. -550 -36 -1800 -1600 -320 -67 -220 -2.9
2041................................. -590 -38 -1900 -1800 -350 -72 -240 -3.1
2042................................. -630 -41 -2000 -2000 -370 -77 -250 -3.3
2043................................. -660 -43 -2200 -2200 -390 -81 -270 -3.5
2044................................. -690 -45 -2300 -2400 -410 -84 -280 -3.7
2045................................. -710 -46 -2400 -2600 -420 -88 -290 -3.9
2046................................. -740 -48 -2500 -2700 -440 -91 -300 -4
2047................................. -760 -49 -2600 -2800 -450 -93 -310 -4.2
2048................................. -780 -51 -2600 -3000 -470 -96 -310 -4.3
2049................................. -800 -52 -2700 -3100 -480 -98 -320 -4.4
2050................................. -810 -53 -2800 -3200 -490 -100 -330 -4.5
2051................................. -820 -54 -2800 -3200 -490 -100 -330 -4.5
2052................................. -830 -54 -2800 -3300 -500 -100 -330 -4.6
2053................................. -840 -55 -2900 -3300 -500 -100 -340 -4.6
2054................................. -840 -55 -2900 -3400 -510 -100 -340 -4.7
2055................................. -850 -55 -2900 -3400 -510 -100 -340 -4.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 29361]]
B. How would the proposal affect air quality?
In the very localized area in close proximity to roadways (i.e.,
within 300-600 meters of the roadway), the decreases in vehicle
emissions resulting from the proposal would decrease ambient levels of
PM2.5, NO2, and other traffic-related pollutants
described in Section II.C.8.
The changes in emissions that are presented in Section VII.A would
also impact ambient levels of ozone, PM2.5, NO2,
SO2, CO, and air toxics over a larger geographic scale.
Photochemical air quality modeling is necessary to predict these air
quality impacts of the proposal's emissions changes, because many of
these pollutants form in the atmosphere and their concentrations depend
on many complex factors (including the spatial and temporal
distribution of the emissions changes, atmospheric chemistry, and
meteorology). EPA conducted an illustrative air quality modeling
analysis of a regulatory scenario involving light- and medium-duty
vehicle emission reductions and corresponding changes in ``upstream''
emission sources like EGU (electric generating unit) emissions and
refinery emissions. Decisions about the emissions and other elements
used in the air quality modeling were made early in the analytical
process for the proposed rulemaking. Accordingly, the air quality
analysis does not represent the proposal's regulatory scenario, nor
does it reflect the expected impacts of the Inflation Reduction Act
(IRA). Based on updated power sector modeling that incorporated
expected generation mix impacts of the IRA, we are projecting the IRA
will lead to a significantly cleaner power grid; nevertheless, the
analysis provides some insights into potential air quality impacts
associated with emissions increases and decreases from these multiple
sectors. Chapter 8 of the DRIA provides details on the methodology,
emissions inputs, and results of this illustrative air quality
modeling.
On the basis of the exploratory air quality modeling, we conclude
that in 2055 the proposal would result in widespread decreases in
ozone, PM2.5, NO2, CO, and some air toxics, even
when accounting for the impacts of increased electricity generation.
While the results of the illustrative analysis include some increases
in ambient pollutant concentrations, as the power sector becomes
cleaner over time as a result of the IRA and future policies, these
impacts would decrease. Although the specific locations of increased
air pollution are uncertain, we expect them to be in more limited
geographic areas, compared to the widespread decreases that we predict
to result from the reductions in vehicle emissions.
VIII. Estimated Costs and Benefits and Associated Considerations
This section presents a summary of costs, benefits, and net
benefits plus additional considerations associated with these costs and
benefits. We begin with a high-level summary in Section VIII.A. of this
preamble, followed by more detailed content and discussion in
subsequent subsections.
A. Summary of Costs and Benefits
This section presents a high-level summary of monetized costs,
benefits, and net benefits of the standards. Using the 3 percent
average SC-GHG value for climate benefits, the net benefits for the
proposal are $200 billion to $220 billion for calendar year (CY) 2055.
The present value (PV) of net benefits for calendar years 2027 through
2055, with discounting to 2027, is $1.6 trillion using a 3 percent
discount rate and $850 billion using a 7 percent discount rate. The
equivalent annualized values (EAV) of those present values are $85
billion and $60 billion, respectively.\769\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\769\ The equivalent annualized value (EAV) of benefits, costs,
and net benefits represent a flow of constant annual values that,
had they occurred in each year from 2027 to 2055, would yield an
equivalent present value to those in each of the summary tables
(using either a 3 percent or 7 percent discount rate).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs and benefits are categorized into non-emission costs, fueling
impacts, non-emissions benefits, climate benefits, and criteria air
pollutant benefits. Table 156 breaks down net benefits into costs and
benefits for CY 2055, as well as present values (PV) and equivalent
annualized values (EAV) using both 3 percent and 7 percent discount
rates for all costs and benefits except for climate benefits. Table 156
shows the climate benefits using the central SC-GHG values at 5, 3 and
2.5 percent discount rate, as well as the 95th percentile values at 3
percent discount rate, and the associated net benefits.\770\ The same
discount rate used to discount the value of SC-GHGs (at 5, 3, and 2.5
percent) is used to calculate the present and equivalent annualized
values of SC-GHGs for internal consistency, we discuss each of these
categories in more depth in the following sections. We seek comment on
the benefit-cost analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\770\ The 3 percent 95th percentile estimates are included to
provide information on potentially higher-than-expected economic
impacts from climate change, conditional on the 3 percent estimate
of the discount rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note that some non-emission costs are shown as negative values in
Table 156. Those entries represent savings but are included as costs
because, traditionally, things like repair and maintenance have been
viewed as costs of vehicle operation. Where negative values are shown,
we are estimating that those costs are lower in the proposal than in
the no-action case. Congestion and noise costs are attributable to
increased congestion and roadway noise resulting from our assumption
that drivers may choose to drive more under the proposal versus the no
action case. Those increased miles are known as rebound miles and are
discussed in Section VIII.F.1 and Chapter 4 of the DRIA.
Similarly, some of the traditional benefits of rulemakings that
result in lower fuel consumption by the transportation fleet, i.e., the
non-emission benefits, are shown as negative values. Our past GHG rules
have estimated that time spent refueling vehicles would be reduced due
to the lower fuel consumption of new vehicles; hence, a benefit.
However, in this analysis, we are estimating that refueling time would
increase somewhat due to our assumptions for mid-trip recharging events
for electric vehicles. Therefore, the increased refueling time
represents a disbenefit (a negative benefit) as shown. As noted in
Section VIII.B.2, we consider our refueling time estimate to be dated
considering the rapid changes taking place in electric vehicle charging
infrastructure driven in no small part by the Inflation Reduction Act,
and we request comment and data on how our estimates could be improved.
Table 157 through Table 159 show the same summary of benefits and
costs for each of the three alternatives.
[[Page 29362]]
Table 156--Summary of Costs, Fuel Savings and Benefits of the Proposal, Light-Duty and Medium-Duty
[Billions of 2020 dollars] \a\ \b\ \c\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CY 2055 PV, 3% PV, 7% EAV, 3% EAV, 7%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Emission Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vehicle Technology Costs....................... 10 280 180 15 15
Repair Costs................................... -24 -170 -79 -8.9 -6.5
Maintenance Costs.............................. -51 -410 -200 -21 -16
Congestion Costs............................... 0.16 2.3 1.3 0.12 0.11
Noise Costs.................................... 0.0025 0.037 0.021 0.0019 0.0017
Sum of Non-Emission Costs...................... -65 -290 -96 -15 -7.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fueling Impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-tax Fuel Savings........................... 93 890 450 46 37
EVSE Port Costs................................ 7.1 120 68 6.2 5.6
Sum of Fuel Savings less EVSE Port Costs....... 86 770 380 40 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Emission Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drive Value Benefits........................... 0.31 4.8 2.7 0.25 0.22
Refueling Time Benefits........................ -8.2 -85 -45 -4.4 -3.6
Energy Security Benefits....................... 4.4 41 21 2.2 1.7
Sum of Non-Emission Benefits................... -3.6 -39 -21 -2 -1.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Climate Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5% Average..................................... 15 82 82 5.4 5.4
3% Average..................................... 38 330 330 17 17
2.5% Average................................... 52 500 500 25 25
3% 95th Percentile............................. 110 1,000 1,000 52 52
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Criteria Air Pollutant Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5 Health Benefits--Wu et al., 2020......... 16-18 140 63 7.5 5.1
PM2.5 Health Benefits--Pope III et al., 2019... 31-34 280 130 15 10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With Climate 5% Average........................ 180-200 1,400 610 74 48
With Climate 3% Average........................ 200-220 1,600 850 85 60
With Climate 2.5% Average...................... 210-230 1,800 1,000 93 67
With Climate 3% 95th Percentile................ 280-290 2,300 1,500 120 95
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The same discount rate used to discount the value of damages from future emissions (SC-GHG at 5, 3, 2.5
percent) is used to calculate present and equivalent annualized values of SC-GHGs for internal consistency,
while all other costs and benefits are discounted at either 3 percent or 7 percent.
\b\ PM2.5-related health benefits are presented based on two different long-term exposure studies of mortality
risk: a Medicare study (Wu et al., 2020) and a National Health Interview Survey study (Pope III et al., 2019).
The criteria pollutant benefits associated with the standards presented here do not include the full
complement of health and environmental benefits that, if quantified and monetized, would increase the total
monetized benefits.
\c\ For net benefits, the range in 2055 uses the low end of the Wu et al. (2020) range and the high end of the
Pope III et al. (2019) range. The present and equivalent annualized value of net benefits for a 3 percent
discount rate reflect benefits based on the Pope III et al. (2019) study while the present and equivalent
annualized values of net benefits for a 7 percent discount rate reflect benefits based on the Wu et al. (2020)
study.
Table 157--Summary of Costs, Fuel Savings and Benefits of the Alternative 1, Light-Duty and Medium-Duty
[Billions of 2020 dollars] \a\ \b\ \c\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CY 2055 PV, 3% PV, 7% EAV, 3% EAV, 7%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Emission Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vehicle Technology Costs....................... 11 330 220 17 18
Repair Costs................................... -26 -180 -82 -9.3 -6.7
Maintenance Costs.............................. -57 -450 -220 -24 -18
Congestion Costs............................... 0.11 3.5 2.2 0.18 0.18
Noise Costs.................................... 0.0017 0.055 0.034 0.0028 0.0027
Sum of Non-Emission Costs...................... -71 -300 -82 -15 -6.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fueling Impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-tax Fuel Savings........................... 100 990 510 51 41
EVSE Port Costs................................ 7.1 120 68 6.2 5.6
Sum of Fuel Savings less EVSE Port Costs....... 95 870 440 45 36
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Emission Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drive Value Benefits........................... 0.22 6.5 3.9 0.34 0.32
Refueling Time Benefits........................ -8.8 -90 -47 -4.7 -3.8
Energy Security Benefits....................... 4.8 46 23 2.4 1.9
Sum of Non-Emission Benefits................... -3.8 -38 -20 -2 -1.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Climate Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5% Average..................................... 16 91 91 6 6
3% Average..................................... 41 360 360 19 19
[[Page 29363]]
2.5% Average................................... 57 560 560 27 27
3% 95th Percentile............................. 120 1,100 1,100 58 58
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Criteria Air Pollutant Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5 Health Benefits--Wu et al., 2020......... 16-18 150 66 7.7 5.3
PM2.5 Health Benefits--Pope III et al., 2019... 32-35 290 130 15 11
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With Climate 5% Average........................ 200-210 1,500 660 80 52
With Climate 3% Average........................ 220-240 1,800 930 93 65
With Climate 2.5% Average...................... 240-260 2,000 1,100 100 73
With Climate 3% 95th Percentile................ 300-320 2,500 1,700 130 100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The same discount rate used to discount the value of damages from future emissions (SC-GHG at 5, 3, 2.5
percent) is used to calculate present and equivalent annualized values of SC-GHGs for internal consistency,
while all other costs and benefits are discounted at either 3 percent or 7 percent.
\b\ PM2.5-related health benefits are presented based on two different long-term exposure studies of mortality
risk: a Medicare study (Wu et al., 2020) and a National Health Interview Survey study (Pope III et al., 2019).
The criteria pollutant benefits associated with the standards presented here do not include the full
complement of health and environmental benefits that, if quantified and monetized, would increase the total
monetized benefits.
\c\ For net benefits, the range in 2055 uses the low end of the Wu et al. (2020) range and the high end of the
Pope III et al. (2019) range. The present and equivalent annualized value of net benefits for a 3 percent
discount rate reflect benefits based on the Pope III et al. (2019) study while the present and equivalent
annualized values of net benefits for a 7 percent discount rate reflect benefits based on the Wu et al. (2020)
study.
Table 158--Summary of Costs, Fuel Savings and Benefits of the Alternative 2, Light-Duty and Medium-Duty
[Billions of 2020 dollars] \a\ \b\ \c\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CY 2055 PV, 3% PV, 7% EAV, 3% EAV, 7%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Emission Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vehicle Technology Costs....................... 8.8 230 140 12 12
Repair Costs................................... -22 -160 -74 -8.3 -6
Maintenance Costs.............................. -47 -370 -180 -19 -14
Congestion Costs............................... 0.064 0.74 0.48 0.039 0.039
Noise Costs.................................... 0.001 0.012 0.0078 0.00064 0.00064
Sum of Non-Emission Costs...................... -60 -300 -110 -16 -8.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fueling Impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-tax Fuel Savings........................... 84 790 400 41 33
EVSE Port Costs................................ 7.1 120 68 6.2 5.6
Sum of Fuel Savings less EVSE Port Costs....... 77 680 330 35 27
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Emission Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drive Value Benefits........................... 0.17 2.4 1.5 0.12 0.12
Refueling Time Benefits........................ -7.6 -79 -41 -4.1 -3.3
Energy Security Benefits....................... 3.9 37 19 1.9 1.5
Sum of Non-Emission Benefits................... -3.5 -39 -21 -2 -1.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Climate Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5% Average..................................... 13 74 74 4.9 4.9
3% Average..................................... 34 290 290 15 15
2.5% Average................................... 47 450 450 22 22
3% 95th Percentile............................. 100 900 900 47 47
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Criteria Air Pollutant Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5 Health Benefits--Wu et al., 2020......... 15-17 140 61 7.2 4.9
PM2.5 Health Benefits--Pope III et al., 2019... 30-33 270 120 14 10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With Climate 5% Average........................ 160-180 1,300 550 68 44
With Climate 3% Average........................ 180-200 1,500 780 78 54
With Climate 2.5% Average...................... 200-210 1,700 930 85 61
With Climate 3% 95th Percentile................ 250-270 2,100 1,400 110 86
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The same discount rate used to discount the value of damages from future emissions (SC-GHG at 5, 3, 2.5
percent) is used to calculate present and equivalent annualized values of SC-GHGs for internal consistency,
while all other costs and benefits are discounted at either 3 percent or 7 percent.
\b\ PM2.5-related health benefits are presented based on two different long-term exposure studies of mortality
risk: a Medicare study (Wu et al., 2020) and a National Health Interview Survey study (Pope III et al., 2019).
The criteria pollutant benefits associated with the standards presented here do not include the full
complement of health and environmental benefits that, if quantified and monetized, would increase the total
monetized benefits.
\c\ For net benefits, the range in 2055 uses the low end of the Wu et al. (2020) range and the high end of the
Pope III et al. (2019) range. The present and equivalent annualized value of net benefits for a 3 percent
discount rate reflect benefits based on the Pope III et al. (2019) study while the present and equivalent
annualized values of net benefits for a 7 percent discount rate reflect benefits based on the Wu et al. (2020)
study.
[[Page 29364]]
Table 159--Summary of Costs, Fuel Savings and Benefits of the Alternative 3, Light-Duty and Medium-Duty
[Billions of 2020 dollars] \a\ \b\ \c\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CY 2055 PV, 3% PV, 7% EAV, 3% EAV, 7%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Emission Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vehicle Technology Costs....................... 11 270 170 14 14
Repair Costs................................... -24 -170 -77 -8.6 -6.3
Maintenance Costs.............................. -51 -390 -190 -20 -15
Congestion Costs............................... 0.11 1.5 0.82 0.078 0.066
Noise Costs.................................... 0.0016 0.024 0.013 0.0012 0.0011
Sum of Non-Emission Costs...................... -64 -290 -95 -15 -7.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fueling Impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-tax Fuel Savings........................... 93 850 430 45 35
EVSE Port Costs................................ 7.1 120 68 6.2 5.6
Sum of Fuel Savings less EVSE Port Costs....... 86 740 360 38 29
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Emission Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drive Value Benefits........................... 0.21 3.2 1.8 0.17 0.15
Refueling Time Benefits........................ -8.2 -83 -43 -4.3 -3.5
Energy Security Benefits....................... 4.4 40 20 2.1 1.6
Sum of Non-Emission Benefits................... -3.6 -39 -21 -2.1 -1.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Climate Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5% Average..................................... 15 80 80 5.3 5.3
3% Average..................................... 38 320 320 17 17
2.5% Average................................... 52 490 490 24 24
3% 95th Percentile............................. 110 970 970 51 51
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Criteria Air Pollutant Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5 Health Benefits--Wu et al., 2020......... 16-18 140 62 7.3 5.0
PM2.5 Health Benefits--Pope III et al., 2019... 31-34 280 120 14 10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With Climate 5% Average........................ 180-190 1,300 580 71 46
With Climate 3% Average........................ 200-220 1,600 820 82 57
With Climate 2.5% Average...................... 210-230 1,800 990 90 64
With Climate 3% 95th Percentile................ 270-290 2,200 1,500 120 91
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The same discount rate used to discount the value of damages from future emissions (SC-GHG at 5, 3, 2.5
percent) is used to calculate present and equivalent annualized values of SC-GHGs for internal consistency,
while all other costs and benefits are discounted at either 3 percent or 7 percent.
\b\ PM2.5-related health benefits are presented based on two different long-term exposure studies of mortality
risk: a Medicare study (Wu et al., 2020) and a National Health Interview Survey study (Pope III et al., 2019).
The criteria pollutant benefits associated with the standards presented here do not include the full
complement of health and environmental benefits that, if quantified and monetized, would increase the total
monetized benefits.
\c\ For net benefits, the range in 2055 uses the low end of the Wu et al. (2020) range and the high end of the
Pope III et al. (2019) range. The present and equivalent annualized value of net benefits for a 3 percent
discount rate reflect benefits based on the Pope III et al. (2019) study while the present and equivalent
annualized values of net benefits for a 7 percent discount rate reflect benefits based on the Wu et al. (2020)
study.
B. Vehicle Cost and Fueling Impacts
1. Vehicle Technology and Purchase Price Impacts
Table 160 shows the estimated annual vehicle technology costs of
the program for the indicated calendar years (CY). The table also shows
the present-values (PV) of those costs and the equivalent annualized
values (EAV) for the calendar years 2027-2055 using both 3 percent and
7 percent discount rates.\771\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\771\ For the estimation of the stream of costs and benefits, we
assume that after implementation of the MY 2027 and later standards,
the MY 2032 standards apply to each year thereafter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We expect the technology costs of the program will result in a rise
in the average purchase price for consumers, for both new and used
vehicles. While we expect that vehicle manufacturers will strategically
price vehicles (e.g., subsidizing a lower price for some vehicles with
a higher price for others), we assume in our modeling that increased
vehicle technology costs will fully impact purchase prices paid by
consumers. These projected vehicle technology costs represent the
incremental costs to manufacturers. For consumers, projected vehicle
technology costs are offset by savings in reduced operating costs,
including fuel savings and reduced maintenance and repair costs, as
discussed in Section VIII.B.3 and in Chapter 4 of the DRIA.
Additionally, consumers may also benefit from IRA purchase incentives
for PEVs.
Table 160--Vehicle Technology Costs Associated With the Proposal and Each Alternative, Light-Duty and Medium-
Duty
[Billions of 2020 dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vehicle technology Vehicle technology Vehicle technology
Calendar year Vehicle technology costs, alternative costs, alternative costs, alternative
costs, proposal 1 2 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027........................ 7.5 7.9 5.5 2.6
[[Page 29365]]
2028........................ 6.8 10 5 2.3
2029........................ 6.6 14 5.8 1.8
2030........................ 8.7 17 6.1 4.9
2031........................ 13 20 11 12
2032........................ 17 23 15 18
2035........................ 22 24 17 24
2040........................ 19 20 15 18
2045........................ 13 13 10 13
2050........................ 12 13 10 12
2055........................ 10 11 8.8 11
PV3......................... 280 330 230 270
PV7......................... 180 220 140 170
EAV3........................ 15 17 12 14
EAV7........................ 15 18 12 14
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Fueling Impacts
i. Fuel Savings
The proposed standards are projected to reduce liquid fuel
consumption (gasoline and diesel) while simultaneously increasing
electricity consumption. The net effect of these changes in consumption
for consumers is decreased fuel expenditures or fuel savings. Electric
Vehicle Supply Equipment (EVSE) port costs, which reflect capital costs
for procuring and installing PEV charging infrastructure, are also
shown. For more information regarding fuel consumption, including other
considerations like rebound driving, see DRIA Chapter 4. See Section IV
of this Preamble and Chapter 5 of the DRIA for more detail on EVSE port
costs.
Fuel savings arise from reduced expenditures on liquid-fuel due to
reduced consumption of those fuels. Electricity consumption is expected
to increase, with a corresponding increase in expenditures, due to
electric vehicles replacing liquid-fueled vehicles. We describe how we
calculate reduced fuel consumption and increased electricity
consumption in Chapter 9 of the DRIA. Table 161 presents liquid-fuel
consumption impacts and Table 162 presents electricity consumption
impacts.
Table 161--Liquid-Fuel Consumption Impacts Associated With the Proposal and Each of the Alternatives, Light-Duty
and Medium-Duty
[Billions of gallons of liquid fuel]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Liquid-fuel Liquid-fuel Liquid-Fuel
Calendar year Liquid-fuel impacts, impacts, impacts,
impacts, proposal alternative 1 alternative 2 alternative 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027........................ -0.89 -0.93 -0.65 -0.53
2028........................ -2.2 -2.5 -1.6 -1.3
2029........................ -4 -4.4 -3.2 -2.3
2030........................ -6.1 -7 -4.9 -3.9
2031........................ -8.6 -9.8 -7 -6.3
2032........................ -12 -13 -9.6 -9.3
2035........................ -21 -23 -19 -19
2040........................ -34 -38 -31 -33
2045........................ -42 -47 -38 -42
2050........................ -48 -52 -43 -48
2055........................ -49 -54 -44 -49
sum......................... -900 -1,000 -810 -870
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 162--Electricity Consumption Impacts Associated With the Proposal and Each of the Alternatives, Light-Duty
and Medium-Duty
[Terawatt hours]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electricity Electricity Electricity
Calendar year Electricity impacts, impacts, impacts,
impacts, proposal alternative 1 alternative 2 alternative 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027........................ 8.9 9.3 6.4 5.4
2028........................ 21 23 15 13
2029........................ 38 39 29 22
2030........................ 56 61 44 36
2031........................ 78 84 64 58
2032........................ 100 110 86 85
2035........................ 190 200 170 170
[[Page 29366]]
2040........................ 300 330 280 290
2045........................ 380 420 350 380
2050........................ 430 470 390 430
2055........................ 440 490 400 440
sum......................... 8,100 8,900 7,400 7,900
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 163 presents the retail fuel savings, net of savings in
liquid fuel expenditures and increases in electricity expenditures.
These represent savings that consumers would realize. Table 164
presents the pretax fuel savings, net of savings in liquid fuel
expenditures and increases in electricity expenditures. These represent
the savings included in the net benefit calculation since fuel taxes do
not contribute to the value of the fuel. We present fuel tax impacts
along with other transfers in Section VIII.B.4. The net benefits
calculation also includes the EVSE costs presented in Table 165.
The estimated present value pre-tax fuel savings associated with
the proposed standards are $450 billion and $890 billion using 7 and 3
percent discount rates, respectively. Table 163 and Table 164 also show
the undiscounted annual monetized fuel savings and the present value
(PV) of those costs and equivalent annualized value (EAV) for the
calendar years 2027-2055 using both 3 percent and 7 percent discount
rates.
Table 163--Retail Fuel Savings Associated With the Proposal and Each Alternative, Light-Duty and Medium-Duty
[Billions of 2020 dollars] *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Retail fuel Retail fuel Retail fuel
Calendar year Retail fuel savings, savings, savings,
savings, proposal alternative 1 alternative 2 alternative 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027........................ 1.2 1.3 0.9 0.7
2028........................ 3.2 3.7 2.4 1.9
2029........................ 6 7 4.8 3.5
2030........................ 10 12 8.1 6.5
2031........................ 14 17 12 11
2032........................ 20 23 17 16
2035........................ 39 44 34 35
2040........................ 69 77 61 66
2045........................ 89 98 80 87
2050........................ 100 110 93 100
2055........................ 110 120 98 110
PV3......................... 1,100 1,200 950 1,000
PV7......................... 550 610 490 520
EAV3........................ 56 62 50 54
EAV7........................ 45 50 40 42
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Positive values represent monetary savings.
Table 164--Pretax Fuel Savings Associated With the Proposal and Each Alternative, Light-Duty and Medium-Duty
[Billions of 2020 dollars] *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pretax fuel Pretax fuel Pretax fuel
Calendar year Pretax fuel savings, savings, savings,
savings, proposal alternative 1 alternative 2 alternative 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027........................ 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.5
2028........................ 2.4 2.8 1.8 1.5
2029........................ 4.7 5.4 3.7 2.7
2030........................ 7.7 9.2 6.2 5
2031........................ 11 13 9.2 8.2
2032........................ 16 18 13 13
2035........................ 31 35 27 28
2040........................ 56 63 50 54
2045........................ 74 82 66 73
2050........................ 88 97 79 87
2055........................ 93 100 84 93
PV3......................... 890 990 790 850
PV7......................... 450 510 400 430
EAV3........................ 46 51 41 45
[[Page 29367]]
EAV7........................ 37 41 33 35
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Positive values represent monetary savings.
Table 165--EVSE Costs Associated With the Proposal and Each Alternative,
Light-Duty and Medium-Duty
[Billions of 2020 dollars] *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EVSE costs,
Calendar year proposal and each
alternative
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027................................................ 1.3
2028................................................ 0.66
2029................................................ 1.1
2030................................................ 1.1
2031................................................ 8.3
2032................................................ 8.3
2035................................................ 6.7
2040................................................ 7.1
2045................................................ 7.3
2050................................................ 7.1
2055................................................ 7.1
PV3................................................. 120
PV7................................................. 68
EAV3................................................ 6.2
EAV7................................................ 5.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Positive values represent costs.
ii. Refueling Time
In our analyses, we take into account refueling differences among
liquid fuel vehicles, BEVs, and PHEVs. Stringent GHG standards have
traditionally resulted in lower fuel consumption by liquid fueled
vehicles. Provided fuel tanks on liquid fueled vehicles retain their
capacity, lower fuel consumption is expected to reduce the frequency of
refueling events and therefore reduce the time spent refueling
resulting from less time spent seeking a refueling opportunity. OEMs
may also elect to package smaller fuel tanks, leveraging lower fuel
consumption to meet vehicle range, which would also lower the time
spent refueling resulting from less time spent at the fuel pump.
Consistent with past analyses, we have estimated the former of these
possibilities with respect to liquid fueled vehicles.
Electric vehicles are fueled via charging events. Many charging
events are expected to occur at an owner's residence via a personally
owned charge point or during work hours using an employer owned charge
point, both of which impose very little time burden on the driver.
However, charging events will also occur in public places where the
burden on the driver's time may be relatively long (e.g., when drivers
are in the midst of an extended road trip). Thus, liquid fueling events
and mid-trip charging events are the focus of our refueling time
analysis. See DRIA Chapter 4 for a more detailed discussion of this
analysis. We request comment on our approach, specifically regarding
the charging time for PEVs.
Note that the benefits associated with reduced refueling time are
shown in Table 166 as negative values. In other words, we have
estimated disbenefits associated with refueling time. The disbenefit
arises from the time associated with BEV mid-trip refueling, which is
estimated to result in more time spent refueling relative to our no-
action scenario. As noted, we request comment on our approach which, in
its current form is taken from the 2021 rule and given the pace of
change in the BEV charging infrastructure and the presence of the IRA,
can already be considered somewhat dated.
Table 166--Refueling Benefits From Time Saved Associated With the Proposal and Each Alternative, Light-Duty and Medium-Duty
[Billions of 2020 dollars] *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits associated Benefits associated Benefits associated Benefits associated
with reduced with reduced with reduced with reduced
Calendar year refueling time, refueling time, refueling time, refueling time,
proposal alternative 1 alternative 2 alternative 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027........................................................ -0.1 -0.2 -0.1 -0.1
2028........................................................ -0.36 -0.38 -0.27 -0.25
2029........................................................ -0.67 -0.67 -0.55 -0.47
2030........................................................ -1 -1.1 -0.88 -0.78
2031........................................................ -1.5 -1.5 -1.2 -1.2
2032........................................................ -1.9 -1.9 -1.6 -1.6
[[Page 29368]]
2035........................................................ -3.4 -3.5 -3.1 -3.2
2040........................................................ -5.5 -5.8 -5.1 -5.4
2045........................................................ -6.9 -7.4 -6.5 -6.9
2050........................................................ -7.9 -8.4 -7.3 -7.8
2055........................................................ -8.2 -8.8 -7.6 -8.2
PV3......................................................... -85 -90 -79 -83
PV7......................................................... -45 -47 -41 -43
EAV3........................................................ -4.4 -4.7 -4.1 -4.3
EAV7........................................................ -3.6 -3.8 -3.3 -3.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Negative values represent disbenefits.
3. Other Purchase Price and Fueling Considerations Affecting Consumers
The analysis monetizes vehicle technology costs and fueling impacts
and informs net benefits associated with the standards. It also
reflects impacts on consumers. In addition to the effects that we
monetize, we look more closely into, but do not monetize, the effects
of the standards on low-income households and on consumers of low-
priced new vehicles and used vehicles. These effects depend, in large
part, on two elements of vehicle ownership, namely (a) the purchase
prices of vehicles and (b) fueling expenditures. Typically, the
introduction of more stringent standards leads to higher purchase
prices and lower fuel expenditures. The net effect varies across
households. However, the reduction in fuel expenditures may be
especially relevant for low-income households and consumers in the used
and low-priced new vehicle markets. First, fuel expenditures are a
larger portion of expenses for low-income households compared to higher
income households. Second, lower-priced new vehicles have historically
been more fuel efficient. Third, fuel economy and therefore fuel
savings do not decline as vehicles age even though the price paid for
vehicles typically declines as vehicles age and are resold. Fourth,
low-income households are more likely to purchase lower-priced new
vehicles and used vehicles (Hutchens et al. 2021), capturing their
associated fuel savings.
Furthermore, for many vehicle consumers, access to credit for
vehicle purchases is essential and may be of particular concern for
low-income households. The effects of the standards on access to credit
is influenced by the potentially countervailing forces of vehicle
purchase costs and fuel costs. However, the degree of influence and the
net effect is not clear (see Chapter 8.4.3 of the 2021 rule). Increased
purchase prices and presumably higher loan principal may, in some
cases, discourage lending, while reduced fuel expenditures may, in some
cases, improve lenders' perceptions of borrowers' repayment
reliability.
Finally, while access to conventional fuels can be assumed for the
most part, the number and density of charging stations varies
considerably.\772\ Public and private charging infrastructure has been
expanding alongside PEV adoption and is generally expected to continue
to grow, particularly in light of public and private investments and
consistent with local level priorities.773 774 This includes
home charging events, which are likely to continue to grow with PEV
adoption but are also expected to represent a declining proportion of
charging events as PEV share increases and more drivers without easy
access to home charging adopt PEVs and therefore use public
charging.\775\ Thus, publicly accessible charging is an important
consideration, especially among renters and residents of multi-family
housing and persons who charge away from home.\776\ Households without
access to charging at home or the workplace may incur additional
charging costs, though there is ongoing interest in and development of
alternative charging solutions (e.g., curbside charging or use of
mobile charging units) and business models (e.g., providing charging as
an amenity or as a subscription service for multi-family housing).\777\
Though, especially among consumers who rely upon public charging, the
higher price of public charging is important, improvements in access
and availability to both public and private charging are expected,
bolstered by private and public investment in charging infrastructure,
including the recent Federal investments provided by the CHIPS Act, the
BIL and the IRA, which will allow for increased investment along the
vehicle supply chain, including charging infrastructure.\778\ Please
see Section IV.C.4 and Chapter 5 of the DRIA for a more detailed
discussion of public and private investments in charging
infrastructure, and our assessment of infrastructure needs and costs
under this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\772\ https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/electricity_locations.html,
accessed 3/8/2022.
\773\ Bui, Anh, Peter Slowik, and Nic Lutsey. 2020. Update on
electric vehicle adoption across U.S. cities. International Council
on Clean Transportation. https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/EV-cities-update-aug2020.pdf.
\774\ Greschak, Tressa, Matilda Kreider, and Nathan Legault.
2022. ``Consumer Adoption of Electric Vehicles: An Evaluation of
Local Programs in the United States.'' School for Environment and
Sustainability, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/handle/2027.42/172221.
\775\ Ge, Yanbo, Christina Simeone, Andrew Duvall, and Andrew
Wood. 2021. There's No Place Like Home: Residential Parking,
Electrical Access, and Implications for the Future of Electric
Vehicle Charging Infrastructure. NREL/TP-5400-81065, Golden, CO:
National Renewable Energy Laboratory. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy22osti/81065.pdf.
\776\ https://advocacy.consumerreports.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/EV-Demographic-Survey-English-final.pdf.
\777\ Matt Alexander, Noel Crisostomo, Wendell Krell, Jeffrey
Lu, Raja Ramesh, ``Assembly Bill 2127: Electric Vehicle Charging
Infrastructure Assessment,'' July 2021, California Energy
Commission. Accessed March 9, 2023, at https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and-topics/programs/electric-vehicle-charging-infrastructure-assessment-ab-2127.
\778\ More information on these three acts can be found in the
January, 2023 White House publication ``Building a Clean Energy
Economy: A Guidebook to the Inflation Reduction Act's Investments in
Clean Energy and Climate Action.'' found online at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Inflation-Reduction-Act-Guidebook.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 29369]]
4. Transfers
There are three types of transfers included in our analysis. Two of
these transfers come in the form of tax credits arising from the
Inflation Reduction Act to encourage investment in battery technology
and the purchase of electrified vehicles. These are transfers from the
government to producers of vehicles (the battery tax credit) or
purchasers of vehicles (the vehicle purchase tax credit). The third is
fuel taxes which are transfers from purchasers of fuel to the
government. The proposal results in less liquid-fuel consumed and,
therefore, less money transferred from purchasers of fuel to the
government.
Table 167--Battery Tax Credits Associated With the Proposal and Each Alternative, Light-Duty and Medium-Duty
[Billions of 2020 dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Battery tax Battery tax Battery tax Battery tax
Calendar year credits, credits, credits, credits,
proposal alternative 1 alternative 2 alternative 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027........................................ 6.8 7.1 4.8 4.1
2028........................................ 9.2 11 6.3 5.6
2029........................................ 13 13 11 6.9
2030........................................ 11 13 8.7 7.9
2031........................................ 9 9.3 7.6 8.4
2032........................................ 5.3 5.5 4.6 5.4
2035........................................ 0 0 0 0
2040........................................ 0 0 0 0
2045........................................ 0 0 0 0
2050........................................ 0 0 0 0
2055........................................ 0 0 0 0
PV3......................................... 49 52 39 34
PV7......................................... 43 46 34 30
EAV3........................................ 2.6 2.7 2 1.8
EAV7........................................ 3.5 3.8 2.8 2.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 168--Vehicle Purchase Tax Credits Associated With the Proposal and Each Alternative, Light-Duty and Medium-
Duty
[Billions of 2020 dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Purchase tax Purchase tax Purchase tax Purchase tax
Calendar year credits, credits, credits, credits,
proposal alternative 1 alternative 2 alternative 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027........................................ 6.7 7 4.8 4
2028........................................ 9.9 11 6.7 6.1
2029........................................ 14 14 13 7.7
2030........................................ 18 20 14 13
2031........................................ 22 23 19 21
2032........................................ 27 29 24 27
2035........................................ 0 0 0 0
2040........................................ 0 0 0 0
2045........................................ 0 0 0 0
2050........................................ 0 0 0 0
2055........................................ 0 0 0 0
PV3......................................... 86 92 71 68
PV7......................................... 74 79 60 58
EAV3........................................ 4.5 4.8 3.7 3.6
EAV7........................................ 6 6.4 4.9 4.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 169--Fuel Tax Transfers Associated With the Proposal and Each Alternative, Light-Duty and Medium-Duty
[Billions of 2020 dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuel taxes, Fuel taxes, Fuel taxes, Fuel taxes,
Calendar year proposal alternative 1 alternative 2 alternative 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027........................................ 0.31 0.32 0.22 0.18
2028........................................ 0.77 0.88 0.57 0.46
2029........................................ 1.4 1.6 1.1 0.81
2030........................................ 2.4 2.8 1.9 1.5
2031........................................ 3.3 3.9 2.7 2.4
2032........................................ 4.5 5.2 3.8 3.6
2035........................................ 8 9 7 7.3
2040........................................ 12 14 11 12
2045........................................ 15 16 13 14
2050........................................ 16 17 14 16
[[Page 29370]]
2055........................................ 15 17 14 15
PV3......................................... 180 200 160 170
PV7......................................... 97 110 85 91
EAV3........................................ 9.5 11 8.4 9
EAV7........................................ 7.9 8.8 7 7.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. U.S. Vehicle Sales Impacts
1. Light-Duty Vehicle Sales Impacts
As discussed in Section IV.A of this Preamble, EPA used the OMEGA
model to analyze impacts of this proposal, including impacts on vehicle
sales. The OMEGA model accounts for interactions in producer and
consumer decisions in total sales and in the share of ICE and BEV
vehicles in the market. As in previous rulemakings, the sales impacts
are based on a set of assumptions and inputs, including assumptions
about the role of fuel consumption in vehicle purchase decisions, and
assumptions on consumers' demand elasticity.\779\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\779\ The demand elasticity is the percent change in quantity
associated with percent increase in price. For price, we use net
price, where net price is the difference in technology costs less an
estimate of the change in fuel costs over the number of years we
assume fuel costs are taken into account. BEV purchase incentives
from the IRA are also accounted for in the net consumer prices used
in OMEGA. See DRIA Chapter 2.6.8 for more information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In OMEGA, the amount of fuel savings considered in the purchase
decisions is directly incorporated in the producer assumptions of how
many years of fuel savings consumers consider in their purchase
decision. In the 2021 rule, as well as in this proposed rule, EPA
assumed that LD vehicle buyers account for about 2.5 years of fuel
consumption in their purchase decision. However, as discussed in detail
in the 2021 rule,\780\ there is not a consensus around the role of fuel
consumption in vehicle purchase decisions. Greene et al. (2018)
provides a reference value of $1,150 for the value of reducing fuel
costs by $0.01/mile over the lifetime of an average vehicle; for
comparison, 2.5 years of fuel savings is only about 30 percent of that
value, or about $334. This $334 is within the large standard deviation
in Greene et al. (2018) for the willingness to pay to reduce fuel
costs, but it is far lower than both the mean of $1,880 (160 percent of
the reference value) and the median of $990 (85 percent of the
reference value) per one cent per mile in the paper. On the other hand,
the 2021 NAS report,\781\ citing the 2015 NAS report, observed that
automakers ``perceive that typical consumers would pay upfront for only
one to four years of fuel savings'' (pp. 9-10), which is within the
range of values identified in Greene et al. (2018) for consumer
response, but well below the median or mean. In other words, though
automakers seem to operate under a perception of consumer willingness
to pay for additional fuel economy that is not inconsistent with
estimates in the literature of how consumers actually behave, it does
appear possible that automakers do not fully account for how those
consumers actually behave. In comments on the 2021 rule, some
commenters suggested that new vehicle buyers care more about fuel
consumption than the use of 2.5 years suggests, and that EPA should
model automaker adoption of fuel-saving technologies based on
historical actions. As discussed in Section VIII.J and DRIA Chapter
4.4, we note that, historically, automakers did not provide fuel saving
technology to customers, even though it was proven to pay for itself in
short periods of time. However, EPA notes that the data, methods and
ideas discussed here are based on historical data and focus on ICE
vehicle sales. Automaker adoption of fuel-saving technologies and
consumer response to fuel savings, and the amount of fuel savings
considered in the purchase decision, may be different with electric
vehicles and in an era of high BEV sales. We request comment on data,
methods and perspectives on the role of fuel consumption in the vehicle
purchase decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\780\ 86 FR 74434, December 30, 2021, ``Revised 2023 and Later
Model Year Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards.''
\781\ National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
2021. Assessment of Technologies for Improving Light-Duty Vehicle
Fuel Economy--2025-2035. Washington, DC: The National Academies
Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/26092.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Continuing the approach used in the final 2021 rule, EPA will be
using a demand elasticity for new LD vehicles of -0.4 based on a 2021
EPA peer reviewed report, which included a literature review on and
estimates of the effects of new vehicle price changes on the new
vehicle market.\782\ However, as noted in EPA's report and by public
commenters on the proposed 2021 rule, -0.4 appears to be the largest
estimate (in absolute value) for a long-run new vehicle demand
elasticity in recent studies. Further, EPA's report examining the
relationship between new and used vehicle markets shows that, for
plausible values reflecting that interaction, the new vehicle demand
elasticity varies from -0.15 to -0.4. A smaller elasticity does not
change the direction of sales effects, but it does reduce the magnitude
of the effects. We chose the larger value of this range for our
analysis because it will lead to more conservative estimates that are
still within the range estimated within the report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\782\ U.S. EPA. 2021. The Effects of New-Vehicle Price Changes
on New- and Used-Vehicle Markets and Scrappage. EPA-420-R-21-019.
https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?dirEntryId=352754&Lab=OTAQ.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For this proposed rule, EPA is maintaining the previous assumptions
of 2.5 years of fuel savings and a new vehicle demand elasticity of -
0.4 for its modeling of LD sales impacts. These assumptions are applied
to the Proposal, as well as the more stringent (Alternative 1(-10)) and
less stringent (Alternative 2 (+10)) and Alternative 3 (linear phase-
in)) options as described in Section III.E.
Under the Proposed scenario, there is a small change projected in
total new LD vehicle sales compared to sales under the No Action
scenario.\783\ See Table 170 for total new vehicle sales impacts under
the Proposed scenario. The table shows that sales decrease for two
years, increase for the next two years, and then decrease again. Though
the increase in the middle years may seem unexpected at first, as
technology costs are increasing, the reduction in average per vehicle
cost due to the 2.5 years of fuel cost savings incorporated
[[Page 29371]]
into the sales impact estimates offset the increase in the LD vehicle
technology costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\783\ The No Action scenario consists of the 2021 rule standards
and IRA provisions as explained in Section IV.B.
Table 170--Total New LD Sales Impacts in the Proposed Scenario
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No action Proposed rule
--------------------------------------------------
Year Change from no
Total sales Total sales action (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027......................................................... 15,487,827 15,432,908 -54,919 (-
0.35%)
2028......................................................... 15,637,207 15,616,676 -20,531 (-
0.13%)
2029......................................................... 15,770,260 15,781,094 10,834 (0.07%)
2030......................................................... 15,807,049 15,814,296 7,247 (0.05%)
2031......................................................... 15,884,729 15,860,358 -24,370 (-
0.15%)
2032......................................................... 15,880,160 15,834,010 -46,150 (-
0.29%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 171 shows the total new vehicle sales impacts under the three
alternative scenarios. All three alternatives also show a very small
change in sales compared to the No Action scenario. The change is
largest in magnitude under the most stringent alternative (Alternative
1), with the largest results projected to be a decrease of less than
0.8 percent in 2032. Alternative 3 projects the smallest, in magnitude,
results in the first two years, with Alternative 2 projecting the
smallest, in magnitude, results in the last two years.
Table 171--Total New LD Sales Impacts in Alternative 1, Alternative 2 and Alternative 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternative 1 (-10) Alternative 2 (+10) Alternative 3 (linear)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Change from no Change from no Change from no
Total sales action (%) Total sales action (%) Total sales action (%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027.............................................. 15,429,939 -57,889 (-0.37%) 15,447,829 -39,998 (-0.26%) 15,476,391 -11,436 (-0.07%)
2028.............................................. 15,582,224 -54,983 (-0.35%) 15,624,158 -13,048 (-0.08%) 15,643,941 6,734 (0.04%)
2029.............................................. 15,690,100 -80,160 (-0.51%) 15,778,412 8,153 (0.05%) 15,795,393 25,133 (0.16%)
2030.............................................. 15,732,702 -74,347 (-0.47%) 15,821,919 14,871 (0.09%) 15,823,563 16,514 (0.10%)
2031.............................................. 15,774,869 -109,860 (-0.69%) 15,864,090 -20,639 (-0.13%) 15,857,727 -27,001 (-0.17%)
2032.............................................. 15,758,885 -121,275 (-0.76%) 15,834,633 -45,527 (-0.29%) 15,818,292 -61,868 (-0.39%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Medium-Duty Sales Impacts
The cited literature is focused on light-duty vehicles, which are
primarily purchased and used as personal vehicles by individuals and
households. The medium-duty vehicle market, in contrast, largely serves
commercial applications. The assumptions in our analysis of the LD
sales response are specific to that market, and do not necessarily
carry over to the MD vehicle market. Commercial vehicle owners purchase
vehicles based on the needs for their business, and we believe they are
less sensitive to changes in vehicle price than personal vehicle
owners.\784\ The elasticity of demand affects the sensitivity of
vehicle buyers to a change in the price of vehicles: The smaller the
elasticity, in absolute value, the smaller the estimated change in
sales due to a change in vehicle price. Therefore, as explained in
Chapter 4.4 of the DRIA, the estimates of a change in sales due to this
rule depend on the elasticity of demand assumptions. For this proposal,
we are assuming an elasticity of 0 for the MD vehicle sales impacts
estimates, and we are not projecting any differences in the number of
MD vehicles sold between the No Action and the Proposal. This
implicitly assumes that the buyers of MD vehicles are not going to
change purchase decisions if the price of the vehicle changes, all else
equal. In other words, as long as the characteristics of the vehicle do
not change, commercial buyers will still purchase the vehicle that fits
their needs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\784\ See DRIA Chapter 4.1.1 for more information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We seek comment on our assumptions for both LD and MD vehicle sales
impacts.
D. Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Benefits
EPA estimated the climate benefits for the final standards using
measures of the social cost of three GHGs: Carbon, methane, and nitrous
oxide. The social cost of each gas (i.e., the social cost of carbon
(SC-CO2), methane (SC-CH4), and nitrous oxide
(SC-N2O)) is the monetary value of the net harm to society
associated with a marginal increase in emissions in a given year, or
the benefit of avoiding that increase. Collectively, these values are
referenced as the ``social cost of greenhouse gases'' (SC-GHG). In
principle, SC-GHG includes the value of all climate change impacts,
including (but not limited to) changes in net agricultural
productivity, human health effects, property damage from increased
flood risk and natural disasters, disruption of energy systems, risk of
conflict, environmental migration, and the value of ecosystem services.
The SC-GHG therefore, reflects the societal value of reducing emissions
of the gas in question by one metric ton. EPA and other Federal
agencies began regularly incorporating SC-GHG estimates in their
benefit-cost analyses conducted under Executive Order (E.O.)
[[Page 29372]]
12866 \785\ since 2008, following a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
remand of a rule for failing to monetize the benefits of reducing
CO2 emissions in a rulemaking process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\785\ Benefit-cost analyses have been an integral part of
executive branch rulemaking for decades. Presidents since the 1970s
have issued executive orders requiring agencies to conduct analysis
of the economic consequences of regulations as part of the
rulemaking development process. E.O. 12866, released in 1993 and
still in effect today, requires that for all regulatory actions that
are significant under 3(f)(1), an agency provide an assessment of
the potential costs and benefits of the regulatory action, and that
this assessment include a quantification of benefits and costs to
the extent feasible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We estimate the global social benefits of CO2,
CH4, and N2O emission reductions expected from
the proposed rule using the SC-GHG estimates presented in the February
2021 Technical Support Document (TSD): Social Cost of Carbon, Methane,
and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates under E.O. 13990 (IWG 2021). These
SC-GHG estimates are interim values developed under E.O. 13990 for use
in benefit-cost analyses until updated estimates of the impacts of
climate change can be developed based on the best available climate
science and economics. We have evaluated the SC-GHG estimates in the
TSD and have determined that these estimates are appropriate for use in
estimating the global social benefits of CO2,
CH4, and N2O emission reductions expected from
this proposed rule. After considering the TSD, and the issues and
studies discussed therein, EPA finds that these estimates, while likely
an underestimate, are the best currently available SC-GHG estimates.
These SC-GHG estimates were developed over many years, using a
transparent process, peer-reviewed methodologies, the best science
available at the time of that process, and with input from the public.
As discussed in Chapter 10 of the DRIA, these interim SC-GHG estimates
have a number of limitations, including that the models used to produce
them do not include all of the important physical, ecological, and
economic impacts of climate change recognized in the climate-change
literature and that several modeling input assumptions are outdated. As
discussed in the February 2021 TSD, the Interagency Working Group on
the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases (IWG) finds that, taken together,
the limitations suggest that these SC-GHG estimates likely
underestimate the damages from GHG emissions. The IWG is currently
working on a comprehensive update of the SC-GHG estimates (under E.O.
13990) taking into consideration recommendations from the National
Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, recent scientific
literature, public comments received on the February 2021 TSD and other
input from experts and diverse stakeholder groups. EPA is participating
in the IWG's work. In addition, while that process continues, EPA is
continuously reviewing developments in the scientific literature on the
SC-GHG, including more robust methodologies for estimating damages from
emissions, and looking for opportunities to further improve SC-GHG
estimation going forward. Most recently, EPA has developed a draft
updated SC-GHG methodology within a sensitivity analysis in the
regulatory impact analysis of EPA's November 2022 supplemental proposal
for oil and gas standards that is currently undergoing external peer
review and a public comment process. See Chapter 10 of the DRIA for
more discussion of this effort.
We monetize benefits of the proposed standards and evaluate other
costs in part to enable a comparison of costs and benefits pursuant to
E.O. 12866, but we recognize there are benefits that we are currently
unable to fully quantify. EPA's practice has been to set standards to
achieve improved air quality consistent with CAA section 202, and not
to rely on cost-benefit calculations, with their uncertainties and
limitations, as identifying the appropriate standards. In setting
standards, we place weight on the emissions reductions the standards
are projected to achieve, and we present the monetized benefits here
and elsewhere as illustrative, taking into consideration their
substantial uncertainties and limitations.
Table 172 through Table 175 show the benefits of reduced
CO2, CH4, N2O and GHG emissions,
respectively, and consequently the annual quantified benefits (i.e.,
total GHG benefits), for each of the four interim social cost of GHG
(SC-GHG) values estimated by the interagency working group. Table 176
through Table 179 show the same information for Alternative 1. Table
180 through Table 183 show the same information for Alternative 2, and
Table 184 through Table 187 show this information for Alternative 3.
See Chapter 10.4 of the DRIA for more on the application of SC-GHG
estimates.
Table 172--Climate Benefits From Reductions in CO2 Emissions Associated With the Proposal, Light-Duty and Medium-
Duty
[Billions of 2020 dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discount rate and statistic
Calendar year ---------------------------------------------------------------
5% Average 3% Average 2.5% Average 3% 95th Percentile
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027............................................ 0.1 0.34 0.5 1
2028............................................ 0.27 0.88 1.3 2.6
2029............................................ 0.51 1.6 2.4 5
2030............................................ 0.81 2.6 3.8 7.8
2031............................................ 1.2 3.8 5.5 11
2032............................................ 1.7 5.2 7.5 16
2035............................................ 3.5 10 15 32
2040............................................ 6.6 19 27 59
2045............................................ 9.9 27 38 84
2050............................................ 13 35 48 110
2055............................................ 15 37 52 110
PV.............................................. 82 330 500 1000
[[Page 29373]]
EAV............................................. 5.4 17 24 52
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: The present value of reduced GHG emissions is calculated differently than other benefits. The same
discount rate used to discount the value of damages from future emissions (SC-GHGs at 5, 3, 2.5 percent) is
used to calculate the present value of SC-GHGs for internal consistency. The 95th percentile of estimates
based on a 3 percent discount rate are included to provide information on potentially higher-than-expected
economic impacts from climate change, conditional on the 3 percent estimate of the discount rate. Annual
benefits shown are undiscounted values.
Table 173--Climate Benefits From Reductions in CH4 Emissions Associated With the Proposal, Light-Duty and Medium-
Duty
[Billions of 2020 dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discount rate and statistic
Calendar year ---------------------------------------------------------------
5% Average 3% Average 2.5% Average 3% 95th Percentile
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027............................................ 0.000022 0.000046 0.000059 0.00012
2028............................................ 0.000068 0.00014 0.00018 0.00038
2029............................................ 0.00015 0.00032 0.00041 0.00085
2030............................................ 0.00026 0.00054 0.00069 0.0014
2031............................................ 0.00042 0.00086 0.0011 0.0023
2032............................................ 0.00063 0.0013 0.0016 0.0034
2035............................................ 0.0017 0.0034 0.0043 0.009
2040............................................ 0.0046 0.009 0.011 0.024
2045............................................ 0.0086 0.016 0.02 0.044
2050............................................ 0.013 0.025 0.03 0.066
2055............................................ 0.015 0.027 0.033 0.07
PV.............................................. 0.067 0.19 0.26 0.49
EAV............................................. 0.0044 0.0097 0.012 0.026
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: The present value of reduced GHG emissions is calculated differently than other benefits. The same
discount rate used to discount the value of damages from future emissions (SC-GHGs at 5, 3, 2.5 percent) is
used to calculate the present value of SC-GHGs for internal consistency. The 95th percentile of estimates
based on a 3 percent discount rate are included to provide information on potentially higher-than-expected
economic impacts from climate change, conditional on the 3 percent estimate of the discount rate. Annual
benefits shown are undiscounted values.
Table 174--Climate Benefits From Reductions in N2O Emissions Associated With the Proposal, Light-Duty and Medium-
Duty
[Billions of 2020 dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discount rate and statistic
Calendar year ---------------------------------------------------------------
5% Average 3% Average 2.5% Average 3% 95th Percentile
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027............................................ 0.00094 0.0028 0.0041 0.0074
2028............................................ 0.0021 0.0063 0.0091 0.017
2029............................................ 0.0039 0.012 0.017 0.03
2030............................................ 0.0061 0.018 0.026 0.047
2031............................................ 0.0091 0.026 0.038 0.07
2032............................................ 0.013 0.036 0.052 0.096
2035............................................ 0.026 0.072 0.1 0.19
2040............................................ 0.049 0.13 0.19 0.35
2045............................................ 0.073 0.19 0.26 0.51
2050............................................ 0.096 0.24 0.33 0.64
2055............................................ 0.11 0.27 0.37 0.73
PV.............................................. 0.61 2.3 3.5 6.1
EAV............................................. 0.04 0.12 0.17 0.32
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: The present value of reduced GHG emissions is calculated differently than other benefits. The same
discount rate used to discount the value of damages from future emissions (SC-GHGs at 5, 3, 2.5 percent) is
used to calculate the present value of SC-GHGs for internal consistency. The 95th percentile of estimates
based on a 3 percent discount rate are included to provide information on potentially higher-than-expected
economic impacts from climate change, conditional on the 3 percent estimate of the discount rate. Annual
benefits shown are undiscounted values.
[[Page 29374]]
Table 175--Climate Benefits From Reductions in GHG Emissions Associated With the Proposal, Light-Duty and Medium-
Duty
[Billions of 2020 dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discount rate and statistic
Calendar year ---------------------------------------------------------------
5% Average 3% Average 2.5% Average 3% 95th Percentile
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027............................................ 0.1 0.34 0.5 1
2028............................................ 0.27 0.88 1.3 2.7
2029............................................ 0.52 1.7 2.4 5
2030............................................ 0.82 2.6 3.8 7.9
2031............................................ 1.2 3.8 5.5 12
2032............................................ 1.7 5.3 7.6 16
2035............................................ 3.5 11 15 32
2040............................................ 6.7 19 27 60
2045............................................ 10 28 38 85
2050............................................ 13 35 48 110
2055............................................ 15 38 52 110
PV.............................................. 82 330 500 1000
EAV............................................. 5.4 17 25 52
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: The present value of reduced GHG emissions is calculated differently than other benefits. The same
discount rate used to discount the value of damages from future emissions (SC-GHGs at 5, 3, 2.5 percent) is
used to calculate the present value of SC-GHGs for internal consistency. The 95th percentile of estimates
based on a 3 percent discount rate are included to provide information on potentially higher-than-expected
economic impacts from climate change, conditional on the 3 percent estimate of the discount rate. Annual
benefits shown are undiscounted values.
Table 176--Climate Benefits From Reductions in CO2 Emissions Associated With Alternative 1, Light-Duty and
Medium-Duty
[Billions of 2020 dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discount rate and statistic
Calendar year ---------------------------------------------------------------
5% Average 3% Average 2.5% Average 3% 95th Percentile
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027............................................ 0.11 0.36 0.52 1.1
2028............................................ 0.31 1 1.5 3
2029............................................ 0.58 1.9 2.7 5.6
2030............................................ 0.95 3 4.4 9.2
2031............................................ 1.4 4.4 6.3 13
2032............................................ 1.9 5.9 8.6 18
2035............................................ 3.9 12 17 36
2040............................................ 7.4 21 30 66
2045............................................ 11 30 42 93
2050............................................ 14 38 53 120
2055............................................ 16 41 57 120
PV.............................................. 91 360 550 1100
EAV............................................. 6 19 27 58
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: The present value of reduced GHG emissions is calculated differently than other benefits. The same
discount rate used to discount the value of damages from future emissions (SC-GHGs at 5, 3, 2.5 percent) is
used to calculate the present value of SC-GHGs for internal consistency. The 95th percentile of estimates
based on a 3 percent discount rate are included to provide information on potentially higher-than-expected
economic impacts from climate change, conditional on the 3 percent estimate of the discount rate. Annual
benefits shown are undiscounted values.
Table 177--Climate Benefits From Reductions in CH4 Emissions Associated With Alternative 1, Light-Duty and
Medium-Duty
[Billions of 2020 dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discount rate and statistic
Calendar year ---------------------------------------------------------------
5% Average 3% Average 2.5% Average 3% 95th Percentile
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027............................................ 0.000023 0.000048 0.000062 0.00013
2028............................................ 0.000065 0.00014 0.00018 0.00036
2029............................................ 0.00014 0.00029 0.00037 0.00077
2030............................................ 0.00024 0.0005 0.00065 0.0013
2031............................................ 0.00041 0.00084 0.0011 0.0022
2032............................................ 0.00063 0.0013 0.0016 0.0034
2035............................................ 0.0018 0.0035 0.0045 0.0094
2040............................................ 0.0049 0.0096 0.012 0.026
2045............................................ 0.0094 0.018 0.022 0.047
2050............................................ 0.015 0.027 0.033 0.072
2055............................................ 0.016 0.03 0.036 0.077
PV.............................................. 0.072 0.2 0.28 0.53
[[Page 29375]]
EAV............................................. 0.0047 0.01 0.013 0.028
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: The present value of reduced GHG emissions is calculated differently than other benefits. The same
discount rate used to discount the value of damages from future emissions (SC-GHGs at 5, 3, 2.5 percent) is
used to calculate the present value of SC-GHGs for internal consistency. The 95th percentile of estimates
based on a 3 percent discount rate are included to provide information on potentially higher-than-expected
economic impacts from climate change, conditional on the 3 percent estimate of the discount rate. Annual
benefits shown are undiscounted values.
Table 178--Climate Benefits From Reductions in N2O Emissions Associated With Alternative 1, Light-Duty and
Medium-Duty
[Billions of 2020 dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discount rate and statistic
Calendar year ---------------------------------------------------------------
5% Average 3% Average 2.5% Average 3% 95th Percentile
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027............................................ 0.00097 0.0029 0.0042 0.0077
2028............................................ 0.0023 0.0068 0.0098 0.018
2029............................................ 0.004 0.012 0.017 0.031
2030............................................ 0.0065 0.019 0.027 0.05
2031............................................ 0.0096 0.028 0.04 0.073
2032............................................ 0.013 0.038 0.054 0.1
2035............................................ 0.027 0.076 0.11 0.2
2040............................................ 0.053 0.14 0.2 0.38
2045............................................ 0.08 0.21 0.29 0.55
2050............................................ 0.1 0.26 0.36 0.7
2055............................................ 0.12 0.3 0.4 0.79
PV.............................................. 0.66 2.5 3.7 6.5
EAV............................................. 0.044 0.13 0.18 0.34
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: The present value of reduced GHG emissions is calculated differently than other benefits. The same
discount rate used to discount the value of damages from future emissions (SC-GHGs at 5, 3, 2.5 percent) is
used to calculate the present value of SC-GHGs for internal consistency. The 95th percentile of estimates
based on a 3 percent discount rate are included to provide information on potentially higher-than-expected
economic impacts from climate change, conditional on the 3 percent estimate of the discount rate. Annual
benefits shown are undiscounted values.
Table 179--Climate Benefits From Reductions in GHG Emissions Associated With Alternative 1, Light-Duty and
Medium-Duty
[Billions of 2020 dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discount rate and statistic
Calendar year ---------------------------------------------------------------
5% Average 3% Average 2.5% Average 3% 95th Percentile
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027............................................ 0.11 0.36 0.52 1.1
2028............................................ 0.31 1 1.5 3
2029............................................ 0.58 1.9 2.7 5.6
2030............................................ 0.96 3.1 4.4 9.2
2031............................................ 1.4 4.4 6.3 13
2032............................................ 1.9 6 8.6 18
2035............................................ 3.9 12 17 36
2040............................................ 7.5 22 30 66
2045............................................ 11 31 43 94
2050............................................ 14 38 53 120
2055............................................ 16 41 57 120
PV.............................................. 91 360 560 1100
EAV............................................. 6 19 27 58
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: The present value of reduced GHG emissions is calculated differently than other benefits. The same
discount rate used to discount the value of damages from future emissions (SC-GHGs at 5, 3, 2.5 percent) is
used to calculate the present value of SC-GHGs for internal consistency. The 95th percentile of estimates
based on a 3 percent discount rate are included to provide information on potentially higher-than-expected
economic impacts from climate change, conditional on the 3 percent estimate of the discount rate. Annual
benefits shown are undiscounted values.
[[Page 29376]]
Table 180--Climate Benefits From Reductions in CO2 Emissions Associated With Alternative 2, Light-Duty and
Medium-Duty
[Billions of 2020 dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discount rate and statistic
Calendar year ---------------------------------------------------------------
5% Average 3% Average 2.5% Average 3% 95th Percentile
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027............................................ 0.076 0.25 0.36 0.74
2028............................................ 0.2 0.64 0.94 1.9
2029............................................ 0.41 1.3 1.9 4
2030............................................ 0.65 2.1 3 6.3
2031............................................ 0.99 3.1 4.5 9.4
2032............................................ 1.4 4.4 6.3 13
2035............................................ 3 9.2 13 28
2040............................................ 6 17 24 53
2045............................................ 8.9 25 35 76
2050............................................ 12 31 43 96
2055............................................ 13 34 47 100
PV.............................................. 73 290 450 890
EAV............................................. 4.8 15 22 47
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: The present value of reduced GHG emissions is calculated differently than other benefits. The same
discount rate used to discount the value of damages from future emissions (SC-GHGs at 5, 3, 2.5 percent) is
used to calculate the present value of SC-GHGs for internal consistency. The 95th percentile of estimates
based on a 3 percent discount rate are included to provide information on potentially higher-than-expected
economic impacts from climate change, conditional on the 3 percent estimate of the discount rate. Annual
benefits shown are undiscounted values.
Table 181--Climate Benefits From Reductions in CH4 Emissions Associated With Alternative 2, Light-Duty and
Medium-Duty
[Billions of 2020 dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discount rate and statistic
Calendar year ---------------------------------------------------------------
5% Average 3% Average 2.5% Average 3% 95th Percentile
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027............................................ 0.000018 0.000038 0.000049 0.0001
2028............................................ 0.000052 0.00011 0.00014 0.00029
2029............................................ 0.00013 0.00027 0.00035 0.00072
2030............................................ 0.00021 0.00044 0.00057 0.0012
2031............................................ 0.00035 0.00072 0.00092 0.0019
2032............................................ 0.00054 0.0011 0.0014 0.003
2035............................................ 0.0015 0.003 0.0038 0.0081
2040............................................ 0.0042 0.0082 0.01 0.022
2045............................................ 0.008 0.015 0.019 0.04
2050............................................ 0.012 0.023 0.028 0.061
2055............................................ 0.014 0.025 0.031 0.065
PV.............................................. 0.061 0.17 0.24 0.46
EAV............................................. 0.004 0.0089 0.011 0.024
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: The present value of reduced GHG emissions is calculated differently than other benefits. The same
discount rate used to discount the value of damages from future emissions (SC-GHGs at 5, 3, 2.5 percent) is
used to calculate the present value of SC-GHGs for internal consistency. The 95th percentile of estimates
based on a 3 percent discount rate are included to provide information on potentially higher-than-expected
economic impacts from climate change, conditional on the 3 percent estimate of the discount rate. Annual
benefits shown are undiscounted values.
Table 182--Climate Benefits From Reductions in N2O Emissions Associated With Alternative 2, Light-Duty and
Medium-Duty
[Billions of 2020 dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discount rate and statistic
Calendar year ---------------------------------------------------------------
5% Average 3% Average 2.5% Average 3% 95th Percentile
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027............................................ 0.00073 0.0022 0.0031 0.0057
2028............................................ 0.0016 0.0047 0.0068 0.012
2029............................................ 0.0032 0.0093 0.013 0.025
2030............................................ 0.005 0.015 0.021 0.038
2031............................................ 0.0076 0.022 0.031 0.058
2032............................................ 0.011 0.031 0.044 0.082
2035............................................ 0.023 0.065 0.092 0.17
2040............................................ 0.046 0.12 0.17 0.33
2045............................................ 0.068 0.18 0.25 0.47
2050............................................ 0.09 0.22 0.31 0.6
2055............................................ 0.11 0.26 0.35 0.68
PV.............................................. 0.56 2.1 3.2 5.6
[[Page 29377]]
EAV............................................. 0.037 0.11 0.16 0.29
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: The present value of reduced GHG emissions is calculated differently than other benefits. The same
discount rate used to discount the value of damages from future emissions (SC-GHGs at 5, 3, 2.5 percent) is
used to calculate the present value of SC-GHGs for internal consistency. The 95th percentile of estimates
based on a 3 percent discount rate are included to provide information on potentially higher-than-expected
economic impacts from climate change, conditional on the 3 percent estimate of the discount rate. Annual
benefits shown are undiscounted values.
Table 183--Climate Benefits From Reductions in GHG Emissions Associated With Alternative 2, Light-Duty and
Medium-Duty
[Billions of 2020 dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discount rate and statistic
Calendar year ---------------------------------------------------------------
5% Average 3% Average 2.5% Average 3% 95th Percentile
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027............................................ 0.076 0.25 0.36 0.75
2028............................................ 0.2 0.65 0.95 2
2029............................................ 0.41 1.3 1.9 4
2030............................................ 0.66 2.1 3 6.3
2031............................................ 0.99 3.1 4.5 9.5
2032............................................ 1.4 4.4 6.4 13
2035............................................ 3.1 9.3 13 28
2040............................................ 6 17 25 54
2045............................................ 9 25 35 77
2050............................................ 12 32 44 97
2055............................................ 13 34 47 100
PV.............................................. 74 290 450 900
EAV............................................. 4.9 15 22 47
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: The present value of reduced GHG emissions is calculated differently than other benefits. The same
discount rate used to discount the value of damages from future emissions (SC-GHGs at 5, 3, 2.5 percent) is
used to calculate the present value of SC-GHGs for internal consistency. The 95th percentile of estimates
based on a 3 percent discount rate are included to provide information on potentially higher-than-expected
economic impacts from climate change, conditional on the 3 percent estimate of the discount rate. Annual
benefits shown are undiscounted values.
Table 184--Climate Benefits From Reductions in CO2 Emissions Associated With Alternative 3, Light-Duty and
Medium-Duty
[Billions of 2020 dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discount rate and statistic
Calendar year ---------------------------------------------------------------
5% Average 3% Average 2.5% Average 3% 95th Percentile
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027............................................ 0.061 0.2 0.29 0.6
2028............................................ 0.16 0.53 0.77 1.6
2029............................................ 0.3 0.97 1.4 2.9
2030............................................ 0.52 1.7 2.4 5
2031............................................ 0.88 2.8 4 8.4
2032............................................ 1.4 4.3 6.1 13
2035............................................ 3.2 9.6 14 29
2040............................................ 6.4 19 26 57
2045............................................ 9.8 27 38 83
2050............................................ 13 35 48 110
2055............................................ 15 37 52 110
PV.............................................. 79 320 480 960
EAV............................................. 5.2 16 24 50
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: The present value of reduced GHG emissions is calculated differently than other benefits. The same
discount rate used to discount the value of damages from future emissions (SC-GHGs at 5, 3, 2.5 percent) is
used to calculate the present value of SC-GHGs for internal consistency. The 95th percentile of estimates
based on a 3 percent discount rate are included to provide information on potentially higher-than-expected
economic impacts from climate change, conditional on the 3 percent estimate of the discount rate. Annual
benefits shown are undiscounted values.
[[Page 29378]]
Table 185--Climate Benefits From Reductions in CH4 Emissions Associated With Alternative 3, Light-Duty and
Medium-Duty
[Billions of 2020 dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discount rate and statistic
Calendar year ---------------------------------------------------------------
5% Average 3% Average 2.5% Average 3% 95th Percentile
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027............................................ 0.00002 0.000042 0.000054 0.00011
2028............................................ 0.000055 0.00012 0.00015 0.00031
2029............................................ 0.00011 0.00023 0.0003 0.00061
2030............................................ 0.00019 0.00039 0.0005 0.001
2031............................................ 0.00032 0.00066 0.00085 0.0018
2032............................................ 0.00051 0.0011 0.0013 0.0028
2035............................................ 0.0015 0.0031 0.0039 0.0082
2040............................................ 0.0044 0.0087 0.011 0.023
2045............................................ 0.0085 0.016 0.02 0.043
2050............................................ 0.013 0.025 0.03 0.066
2055............................................ 0.015 0.027 0.033 0.07
PV.............................................. 0.065 0.18 0.25 0.49
EAV............................................. 0.0043 0.0095 0.012 0.025
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: The present value of reduced GHG emissions is calculated differently than other benefits. The same
discount rate used to discount the value of damages from future emissions (SC-GHGs at 5, 3, 2.5 percent) is
used to calculate the present value of SC-GHGs for internal consistency. The 95th percentile of estimates
based on a 3 percent discount rate are included to provide information on potentially higher-than-expected
economic impacts from climate change, conditional on the 3 percent estimate of the discount rate. Annual
benefits shown are undiscounted values.
Table 186--Climate Benefits From Reductions in N2O Emissions Associated With Alternative 3, Light-Duty and
Medium-Duty
[Billions of 2020 dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discount rate and statistic
Calendar year ---------------------------------------------------------------
5% Average 3% Average 2.5% Average 3% 95th Percentile
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027............................................ 0.00065 0.0019 0.0028 0.0051
2028............................................ 0.0014 0.0043 0.0062 0.011
2029............................................ 0.0025 0.0075 0.011 0.02
2030............................................ 0.0042 0.012 0.018 0.033
2031............................................ 0.0071 0.02 0.029 0.054
2032............................................ 0.011 0.031 0.044 0.081
2035............................................ 0.024 0.067 0.095 0.18
2040............................................ 0.048 0.13 0.18 0.35
2045............................................ 0.073 0.19 0.26 0.5
2050............................................ 0.097 0.24 0.33 0.65
2055............................................ 0.11 0.28 0.37 0.73
PV.............................................. 0.6 2.2 3.4 5.9
EAV............................................. 0.039 0.12 0.17 0.31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: The present value of reduced GHG emissions is calculated differently than other benefits. The same
discount rate used to discount the value of damages from future emissions (SC-GHGs at 5, 3, 2.5 percent) is
used to calculate the present value of SC-GHGs for internal consistency. The 95th percentile of estimates
based on a 3 percent discount rate are included to provide information on potentially higher-than-expected
economic impacts from climate change, conditional on the 3 percent estimate of the discount rate. Annual
benefits shown are undiscounted values.
Table 187--Climate Benefits From Reductions in GHG Emissions Associated With Alternative 3, Light-Duty and
Medium-Duty
[Billions of 2020 dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discount rate and statistic
Calendar year ---------------------------------------------------------------
5% Average 3% Average 2.5% Average 3% 95th Percentile
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027............................................ 0.062 0.2 0.3 0.61
2028............................................ 0.17 0.54 0.78 1.6
2029............................................ 0.3 0.98 1.4 2.9
2030............................................ 0.53 1.7 2.4 5.1
2031............................................ 0.89 2.8 4.1 8.5
2032............................................ 1.4 4.3 6.2 13
2035............................................ 3.2 9.7 14 29
2040............................................ 6.5 19 26 58
2045............................................ 9.9 27 38 84
2050............................................ 13 35 48 110
2055............................................ 15 38 52 110
PV.............................................. 80 320 490 970
[[Page 29379]]
EAV............................................. 5.3 17 24 51
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: The present value of reduced GHG emissions is calculated differently than other benefits. The same
discount rate used to discount the value of damages from future emissions (SC-GHGs at 5, 3, 2.5 percent) is
used to calculate the present value of SC-GHGs for internal consistency. The 95th percentile of estimates
based on a 3 percent discount rate are included to provide information on potentially higher-than-expected
economic impacts from climate change, conditional on the 3 percent estimate of the discount rate. Annual
benefits shown are undiscounted values.
E. Criteria Pollutant Health and Environmental Benefits
The light-duty passenger cars and light trucks and medium-duty
vehicles subject to the proposed standards are significant sources of
mobile source air pollution, including directly-emitted
PM2.5 as well as NOX and VOC emissions (both
precursors to ozone formation and secondarily-formed PM2.5).
The proposed program would reduce exhaust emissions of these pollutants
from the regulated vehicles, which would in turn reduce ambient
concentrations of ozone and PM2.5. Emissions from upstream
sources would likely increase in some cases (e.g., power plants) and
decrease in others (e.g., refineries). We project that in total, the
proposed standards would result in substantial net reductions of
emissions of pollutants like PM2.5, NOx and VOCs. Criteria
and toxic pollutant emissions changes attributable to the proposed
standards are presented in Section VII of this Preamble. Exposures to
ambient pollutants such as PM2.5 and ozone are linked to
adverse environmental and human health impacts, such as premature
deaths and non-fatal illnesses (as explained in Section II.C of this
Preamble). Reducing human exposure to these pollutants results in
significant and measurable health benefits.
This section discusses the economic benefits from reductions in
adverse health and environmental impacts resulting from criteria
pollutant emission reductions that can be expected to occur as a result
of the proposed emission standards. When feasible, EPA conducts full-
scale photochemical air quality modeling to demonstrate how its
national mobile source regulatory actions affect ambient concentrations
of regional pollutants throughout the United States. The estimation of
the human health impacts of a regulatory action requires national-scale
photochemical air quality modeling to conduct a full-scale assessment
of PM2.5 and ozone-related health benefits.
EPA conducted an illustrative air quality modeling analysis of a
regulatory scenario involving light- and medium-duty vehicle emission
reductions and corresponding changes in ``upstream'' emission sources
like EGU (electric generating unit) emissions and refinery emissions
(see DRIA Chapter 8). Decisions about the emissions and other elements
used in the air quality modeling were made early in the analytical
process for the proposed rulemaking. Accordingly, the air quality
analysis does not represent the proposal's regulatory scenario, nor
does it reflect the expected impacts of the Inflation Reduction Act
(IRA). Based on updated power sector modeling that incorporated
expected generation mix impacts of the IRA, we are projecting the IRA
will lead to a significantly cleaner power grid. Because the air
quality analysis does not account for these impacts on EGU emissions,
we instead used the OMEGA-based emissions analysis (see Preamble
Section VII.A) and benefit-per-ton (BPT) values to estimate the
criteria pollutant (PM2.5) health benefits of the proposed
standards.
The BPT approach estimates the monetized economic value of
PM2.5-related emission reductions or increases (such as
direct PM, NOX, and SO2) due to implementation of
the proposed program. Similar to the SC-GHG approach for monetizing
reductions in GHGs, the BPT approach monetizes the health benefits of
avoiding one ton of PM2.5-related emissions from a
particular onroad mobile or upstream source. The value of health
benefits from reductions (or increases) in PM2.5 emissions
associated with this proposal were estimated by multiplying
PM2.5-related BPT values by the corresponding annual
reduction (or increase) in tons of directly-emitted PM2.5
and PM2.5 precursor emissions (NOx and SO2). As
explained in Chapter 7.4 in the DRIA, the PM2.5 BPT values
represent the monetized value of human health benefits, including
reductions in both premature mortality and morbidity.
The mobile sector BPT estimates used in this proposal were
published in 2019, but were recently updated using the suite of
premature mortality and morbidity studies in use by EPA for the 2023
p.m. NAAQS Reconsideration Proposal.786 787 The upstream BPT
estimates used in this proposal were also recently updated.\788\ The
health benefits Technical Support Document (Benefits TSD) that
accompanied the 2023 p.m. NAAQS Proposal details the approach used to
estimate the PM2.5-related benefits reflected in these
BPTs.\789\ For more detailed information about the benefits analysis
conducted for this proposal, including the BPT unit values used in this
analysis, please refer to Chapter 7.4 of the DRIA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\786\ Wolfe, P.; Davidson, K.; Fulcher, C.; Fann, N.; Zawacki,
M.; Baker, K. R. 2019. Monetized Health Benefits Attributable to
Mobile Source Emission Reductions across the United States in 2025.
Sci. Total Environ. 650, 2490-2498. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2018.09.273.
\787\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2022. PM
NAAQS Reconsideration Proposal RIA. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0587. December.
\788\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2023.
Technical Support Document: Estimating the Benefit per Ton of
Reducing Directly-Emitted PM2.5, PM2.5
Precursors and Ozone Precursors from 21 Sectors. January.
\789\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2023.
Estimating PM2.5- and Ozone-Attributable Health Benefits.
Technical Support Document (TSD) for the PM NAAQS Reconsideration
Proposal RIA. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0587. January.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A chief limitation to using PM2.5-related BPT values is
that they do not reflect benefits associated with reducing ambient
concentrations of ozone. The PM2.5-related BPT values also
do not capture the benefits associated with reductions in direct
exposure to NO2 and mobile source air toxics, nor do they
account for improved ecosystem effects or visibility. The estimated
benefits of this proposal would be larger if we were able to monetize
these unquantified benefits at this time.
Table 188 presents the annual, undiscounted PM2.5-
related health
[[Page 29380]]
benefits estimated for the stream of years beginning with the first
year of rule implementation, 2027, through 2055 for the proposed
standards. Benefits are presented by source (onroad and upstream) and
are estimated using either a 3 percent or 7 percent discount rate to
account for avoided health outcomes that are expected to accrue over
more than a single year (the ``cessation'' lag between the change in PM
exposures and the total realization of changes in health effects).
Because premature mortality typically constitutes the vast majority of
monetized benefits in a PM2.5 benefits assessment, we
present benefits based on risk estimates reported from two different
long-term exposure studies using different cohorts to account for
uncertainty in the benefits associated with avoiding PM-related
premature deaths.790 ,791
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\790\ Wu, X, Braun, D, Schwartz, J, Kioumourtzoglou, M and
Dominici, F (2020). Evaluating the impact of long-term exposure to
fine particulate matter on mortality among the elderly. Science
advances 6(29): eaba5692.
\791\ Pope III, CA, Lefler, JS, Ezzati, M, Higbee, JD, Marshall,
JD, Kim, S-Y, Bechle, M, Gilliat, KS, Vernon, SE and Robinson, AL
(2019). Mortality risk and fine particulate air pollution in a
large, representative cohort of US adults. Environmental health
perspectives 127(7): 077007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The total present value of PM2.5-related benefits for
the proposed program between 2027 and 2055 (discounted back to 2027) is
$140 to $280 billion at a 3 percent discount rate and $63 to $130
billion at a 7 percent discount rate (2020 dollars).
Table 188--Monetized PM2.5 Health Benefits of Onroad and Upstream Emissions Reductions Associated With the
Proposal, Light-Duty and Medium-Duty
[Billions of 2020 dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Onroad Upstream Total benefits
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3% Discount 7% Discount 3% Discount 7% Discount 3% Discount 7% Discount
rate rate rate rate rate rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027........................ 0.053-0.11 0.048-0.1 0.011-0.026 0.01-0.023 0.064-0.14 0.058-0.13
2028........................ 0.13-0.28 0.12-0.25 0.039-0.088 0.035-0.08 0.17-0.37 0.15-0.33
2029........................ 0.24-0.52 0.22-0.47 0.083-0.19 0.075-0.17 0.33-0.71 0.29-0.63
2030........................ 0.65-1.3 0.58-1.2 0.15-0.33 0.14-0.29 0.8-1.7 0.72-1.5
2031........................ 1-2.1 0.93-1.9 0.24-0.52 0.22-0.47 1.3-2.7 1.2-2.4
2032........................ 1.4-3 1.3-2.7 0.36-0.77 0.33-0.69 1.8-3.7 1.6-3.4
2033........................ 1.9-3.9 1.7-3.5 0.51-1.1 0.45-0.96 2.4-4.9 2.1-4.4
2034........................ 2.3-4.8 2.1-4.3 0.67-1.4 0.6-1.3 3-6.2 2.7-5.6
2035........................ 3.2-6.4 2.9-5.8 0.98-2 0.88-1.8 4.2-8.4 3.7-7.6
2036........................ 3.7-7.4 3.3-6.6 1.2-2.4 1-2.2 4.8-9.8 4.3-8.8
2037........................ 4.2-8.4 3.7-7.5 1.4-2.8 1.2-2.6 5.6-11 5-10
2038........................ 4.7-9.4 4.2-8.5 1.6-3.3 1.5-3 6.3-13 5.6-11
2039........................ 5.1-10 4.6-9.3 1.9-3.8 1.7-3.4 7-14 6.3-13
2040........................ 6.3-13 5.7-11 2.4-4.8 2.1-4.3 8.7-17 7.8-16
2041........................ 6.8-14 6.1-12 2.7-5.3 2.4-4.8 9.5-19 8.5-17
2042........................ 7.3-14 6.6-13 2.9-5.8 2.6-5.2 10-20 9.2-18
2043........................ 7.8-15 7-14 3.2-6.4 2.9-5.8 11-22 9.8-20
2044........................ 8.1-16 7.3-14 3.4-6.9 3.1-6.2 12-23 10-21
2045........................ 9.3-18 8.4-16 3.7-7.4 3.3-6.6 13-26 12-23
2046........................ 9.7-19 8.7-17 4-7.9 3.6-7.1 14-27 12-24
2047........................ 10-20 9-18 4.2-8.3 3.8-7.5 14-28 13-25
2048........................ 10-20 9.2-18 4.3-8.6 3.9-7.7 15-29 13-26
2049........................ 11-21 9.4-18 4.4-8.9 4-8 15-29 13-26
2050........................ 12-22 10-20 4.6-9.1 4.1-8.2 16-31 14-28
2051........................ 12-23 11-20 4.6-9.2 4.1-8.2 16-32 15-29
2052........................ 12-23 11-21 4.6-9.2 4.1-8.3 16-32 15-29
2053........................ 12-23 11-21 4.6-9.3 4.2-8.3 17-32 15-29
2054........................ 12-23 11-21 4.6-9.3 4.2-8.3 17-32 15-29
2055........................ 13-25 12-22 4.6-9.3 4.2-8.3 18-34 16-31
Present Value............... 100-200 46-91 39-79 17-35 140-280 63-130
Equivalent Annualized Value. 5.4-11 3.7-7.4 2.1-4.1 1.4-2.8 7.5-15 5.1-10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: The range of benefits in this table reflect the range of premature mortality estimates derived from the
Medicare study (Wu et al., 2020) and the NHIS study (Pope III et al., 2019). All benefits estimates are
rounded to two significant figures. Annual benefit values presented here are not discounted. The present value
of benefits is the total aggregated value of the series of discounted annual benefits that occur between 2027-
2055 (in 2020 dollars) using either a 3 percent or 7 percent discount rate. The benefits associated with the
standards presented here do not include the full complement of health and environmental benefits that, if
quantified and monetized, would increase the total monetized benefits.
Table 189--Monetized PM2.5 Health Benefits of Onroad and Upstream Emissions Reductions Associated With
Alternative 1, Light-Duty and Medium-Duty
[Billions of 2020 dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Onroad Upstream Total benefits
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3% Discount 7% Discount 3% Discount 7% Discount 3% Discount 7% Discount
rate rate rate rate rate rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027........................ 0.055-0.12 0.05-0.11 0.012-0.027 0.011-0.025 0.067-0.15 0.06-0.13
2028........................ 0.14-0.3 0.13-0.27 0.048-0.11 0.044-0.098 0.19-0.41 0.17-0.37
2029........................ 0.25-0.53 0.22-0.48 0.11-0.23 0.095-0.21 0.35-0.76 0.32-0.69
[[Page 29381]]
2030........................ 0.66-1.4 0.59-1.2 0.2-0.42 0.18-0.38 0.85-1.8 0.77-1.6
2031........................ 1-2.2 0.93-1.9 0.31-0.65 0.28-0.59 1.3-2.8 1.2-2.5
2032........................ 1.4-3 1.3-2.7 0.44-0.94 0.4-0.84 1.9-3.9 1.7-3.5
2033........................ 1.9-3.9 1.7-3.5 0.61-1.3 0.55-1.2 2.5-5.2 2.2-4.6
2034........................ 2.3-4.8 2.1-4.3 0.78-1.7 0.71-1.5 3.1-6.5 2.8-5.8
2035........................ 3.2-6.5 2.9-5.8 1.1-2.3 1-2.1 4.3-8.8 3.9-7.9
2036........................ 3.7-7.4 3.3-6.7 1.3-2.7 1.2-2.5 5-10 4.5-9.1
2037........................ 4.2-8.5 3.8-7.6 1.6-3.2 1.4-2.9 5.8-12 5.2-11
2038........................ 4.7-9.5 4.2-8.6 1.8-3.7 1.6-3.4 6.5-13 5.9-12
2039........................ 5.2-10 4.7-9.4 2.1-4.2 1.9-3.8 7.3-15 6.5-13
2040........................ 6.4-13 5.7-11 2.7-5.3 2.4-4.8 9.1-18 8.1-16
2041........................ 6.9-14 6.2-12 3-5.9 2.7-5.3 9.9-20 8.9-18
2042........................ 7.4-15 6.6-13 3.2-6.5 2.9-5.8 11-21 9.5-19
2043........................ 7.8-15 7-14 3.5-7.1 3.2-6.4 11-23 10-20
2044........................ 8.2-16 7.4-15 3.8-7.6 3.4-6.8 12-24 11-21
2045........................ 9.4-18 8.5-17 4.1-8.2 3.7-7.3 14-27 12-24
2046........................ 9.8-19 8.8-17 4.4-8.8 3.9-7.9 14-28 13-25
2047........................ 10-20 9.1-18 4.6-9.2 4.1-8.3 15-29 13-26
2048........................ 10-20 9.3-18 4.8-9.5 4.3-8.6 15-30 14-27
2049........................ 11-21 9.5-19 4.9-9.8 4.4-8.8 16-31 14-27
2050........................ 12-23 11-20 5-10 4.5-9 17-33 15-29
2051........................ 12-23 11-21 5-10 4.5-9.1 17-33 15-30
2052........................ 12-23 11-21 5.1-10 4.6-9.1 17-33 15-30
2053........................ 12-23 11-21 5.1-10 4.6-9.1 17-33 15-30
2054........................ 12-23 11-21 5.1-10 4.6-9.1 17-34 15-30
2055........................ 13-25 12-23 5.1-10 4.6-9.1 18-35 16-32
Present Value............... 100-210 46-92 44-88 19-39 150-290 66-130
Equivalent Annualized Value. 5.4-11 3.8-7.5 2.3-4.6 1.6-3.2 7.7-15 5.3-11
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: The range of benefits in this table reflect the range of premature mortality estimates derived from the
Medicare study (Wu et al., 2020) and the NHIS study (Pope III et al., 2019). All benefits estimates are
rounded to two significant figures. Annual benefit values presented here are not discounted. The present value
of benefits is the total aggregated value of the series of discounted annual benefits that occur between 2027-
2055 (in 2020 dollars) using either a 3 percent or 7 percent discount rate. The benefits associated with the
standards presented here do not include the full complement of health and environmental benefits that, if
quantified and monetized, would increase the total monetized benefits.
Table 190--Monetized PM2.5 Health Benefits of Onroad and Upstream Emissions Reductions Associated With
Alternative 2, Light-Duty and Medium-Duty
[Billions of 2020 dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Onroad Upstream Total benefits
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3% Discount 7% Discount 3% Discount 7% Discount 3% Discount 7% Discount
rate rate rate rate rate rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027........................ 0.039-0.083 0.035-0.075 0.0083-0.019 0.0075-0.017 0.047-0.1 0.042-0.092
2028........................ 0.094-0.2 0.084-0.18 0.031-0.07 0.028-0.063 0.13-0.27 0.11-0.24
2029........................ 0.19-0.41 0.17-0.37 0.069-0.15 0.062-0.14 0.26-0.56 0.23-0.51
2030........................ 0.59-1.2 0.53-1.1 0.12-0.27 0.11-0.24 0.71-1.5 0.64-1.3
2031........................ 0.97-2 0.87-1.8 0.2-0.43 0.18-0.39 1.2-2.4 1.1-2.2
2032........................ 1.4-2.8 1.2-2.5 0.31-0.65 0.28-0.59 1.7-3.5 1.5-3.1
2033........................ 1.8-3.7 1.6-3.3 0.44-0.94 0.4-0.85 2.2-4.6 2-4.2
2034........................ 2.2-4.6 2-4.2 0.59-1.2 0.53-1.1 2.8-5.9 2.5-5.3
2035........................ 3.1-6.2 2.8-5.6 0.87-1.8 0.78-1.6 4-8 3.6-7.2
2036........................ 3.6-7.2 3.2-6.5 1-2.1 0.92-1.9 4.6-9.3 4.1-8.4
2037........................ 4.1-8.2 3.7-7.4 1.2-2.5 1.1-2.3 5.3-11 4.8-9.6
2038........................ 4.6-9.2 4.1-8.3 1.4-2.9 1.3-2.6 6-12 5.4-11
2039........................ 5.1-10 4.5-9.2 1.6-3.4 1.5-3 6.7-14 6-12
2040........................ 6.2-12 5.6-11 2.1-4.3 1.9-3.8 8.4-17 7.5-15
2041........................ 6.7-13 6.1-12 2.4-4.8 2.1-4.3 9.1-18 8.2-16
2042........................ 7.2-14 6.5-13 2.6-5.2 2.4-4.7 9.8-19 8.8-18
2043........................ 7.7-15 6.9-14 2.9-5.8 2.6-5.2 11-21 9.5-19
2044........................ 8-16 7.2-14 3.1-6.2 2.8-5.6 11-22 10-20
2045........................ 9.2-18 8.3-16 3.3-6.6 3-6 13-25 11-22
2046........................ 9.6-19 8.6-17 3.6-7.1 3.2-6.4 13-26 12-23
2047........................ 9.9-19 8.9-17 3.8-7.5 3.4-6.8 14-27 12-24
2048........................ 10-20 9.1-18 3.9-7.8 3.5-7 14-28 13-25
2049........................ 10-20 9.4-18 4-8 3.6-7.2 14-28 13-26
[[Page 29382]]
2050........................ 11-22 10-20 4.1-8.3 3.7-7.4 16-30 14-27
2051........................ 12-22 10-20 4.2-8.3 3.7-7.5 16-31 14-28
2052........................ 12-23 11-20 4.2-8.3 3.8-7.5 16-31 14-28
2053........................ 12-23 11-20 4.2-8.4 3.8-7.5 16-31 14-28
2054........................ 12-23 11-21 4.2-8.4 3.8-7.5 16-31 14-28
2055........................ 13-25 12-22 4.2-8.4 3.8-7.5 17-33 15-30
Present Value............... 100-200 45-89 35-71 15-31 140-270 61-120
Equivalent Annualized Value. 5.3-10 3.7-7.3 1.8-3.7 1.3-2.5 7.2-14 4.9-9.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: The range of benefits in this table reflect the range of premature mortality estimates derived from the
Medicare study (Wu et al., 2020) and the NHIS study (Pope III et al., 2019). All benefits estimates are
rounded to two significant figures. Annual benefit values presented here are not discounted. The present value
of benefits is the total aggregated value of the series of discounted annual benefits that occur between 2027-
2055 (in 2020 dollars) using either a 3 percent or 7 percent discount rate. The benefits associated with the
standards presented here do not include the full complement of health and environmental benefits that, if
quantified and monetized, would increase the total monetized benefits.
Table 191--Monetized PM2.5 Health Benefits of Onroad and Upstream Emissions Reductions Associated With
Alternative 3, Light-Duty and Medium-Duty
[Billions of 2020 dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Onroad Upstream Total Benefits
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3% Discount 7% Discount 3% Discount 7% Discount 3% Discount 7% Discount
rate rate rate rate rate rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027........................ 0.034-0.073 0.031-0.066 0.0057-0.013 0.0051-0.012 0.04-0.086 0.036-0.078
2028........................ 0.085-0.18 0.076-0.16 0.023-0.052 0.021-0.047 0.11-0.23 0.097-0.21
2029........................ 0.15-0.32 0.14-0.29 0.049-0.11 0.044-0.098 0.2-0.43 0.18-0.39
2030........................ 0.54-1.1 0.48-1 0.098-0.21 0.088-0.19 0.63-1.3 0.57-1.2
2031........................ 0.92-1.9 0.83-1.7 0.18-0.38 0.16-0.34 1.1-2.3 0.99-2.1
2032........................ 1.3-2.7 1.2-2.4 0.29-0.62 0.26-0.56 1.6-3.3 1.4-3
2033........................ 1.7-3.6 1.6-3.3 0.43-0.92 0.39-0.83 2.2-4.5 2-4.1
2034........................ 2.2-4.6 2-4.1 0.6-1.3 0.54-1.1 2.8-5.8 2.5-5.2
2035........................ 3-6.1 2.7-5.5 0.9-1.8 0.81-1.7 3.9-8 3.5-7.2
2036........................ 3.5-7.1 3.2-6.4 1.1-2.2 0.97-2 4.6-9.3 4.1-8.4
2037........................ 4-8.1 3.6-7.3 1.3-2.7 1.2-2.4 5.3-11 4.8-9.7
2038........................ 4.6-9.2 4.1-8.3 1.5-3.1 1.4-2.8 6.1-12 5.5-11
2039........................ 5-10 4.5-9.1 1.8-3.6 1.6-3.3 6.8-14 6.1-12
2040........................ 6.2-12 5.6-11 2.3-4.6 2.1-4.1 8.5-17 7.7-15
2041........................ 6.7-13 6-12 2.6-5.2 2.3-4.6 9.3-18 8.4-17
2042........................ 7.2-14 6.5-13 2.8-5.7 2.6-5.1 10-20 9-18
2043........................ 7.7-15 6.9-14 3.1-6.3 2.8-5.6 11-21 9.7-19
2044........................ 8-16 7.2-14 3.4-6.8 3-6.1 11-23 10-20
2045........................ 9.3-18 8.3-16 3.6-7.3 3.3-6.5 13-25 12-23
2046........................ 9.7-19 8.7-17 3.9-7.8 3.5-7 14-27 12-24
2047........................ 9.9-19 8.9-17 4.1-8.3 3.7-7.4 14-28 13-25
2048........................ 10-20 9.2-18 4.3-8.6 3.9-7.7 15-29 13-26
2049........................ 10-20 9.4-18 4.4-8.9 4-8 15-29 13-26
2050........................ 12-22 10-20 4.6-9.1 4.1-8.2 16-31 14-28
2051........................ 12-23 10-20 4.6-9.2 4.1-8.2 16-32 15-29
2052........................ 12-23 11-21 4.6-9.2 4.1-8.3 16-32 15-29
2053........................ 12-23 11-21 4.6-9.2 4.2-8.3 16-32 15-29
2054........................ 12-23 11-21 4.6-9.3 4.2-8.3 17-32 15-29
2055........................ 13-25 12-22 4.6-9.3 4.2-8.3 18-34 16-31
Present Value............... 100-200 45-89 38-77 17-33 140-280 62-120
Equivalent Annualized Value. 5.3-10 3.7-7.3 2-4 1.4-2.7 7.3-14 5-10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: The range of benefits in this table reflect the range of premature mortality estimates derived from the
Medicare study (Wu et al., 2020) and the NHIS study (Pope III et al., 2019). All benefits estimates are
rounded to two significant figures. Annual benefit values presented here are not discounted. The present value
of benefits is the total aggregated value of the series of discounted annual benefits that occur between 2027-
2055 (in 2020 dollars) using either a 3 percent or 7 percent discount rate. The benefits associated with the
standards presented here do not include the full complement of health and environmental benefits that, if
quantified and monetized, would increase the total monetized benefits.
This analysis includes many data sources that are each subject to
uncertainty, including projected emission inventories, air quality data
from models, population data, population estimates, health effect
estimates from epidemiology studies, economic data, and assumptions
regarding the future state of the world (i.e., regulations, technology,
and human behavior). When compounded, even small uncertainties can
greatly
[[Page 29383]]
influence the size of the total quantified benefits. There are also
inherent limitations associated with using the BPT approach. Despite
these uncertainties, we believe the criteria pollutant benefits
presented here are our best estimate of benefits absent air quality
modeling and we have confidence in the BPT approach and the
appropriateness of relying on BPT health estimates for this rulemaking.
Please refer to DRIA Chapter 7 for more information on the uncertainty
associated with the benefits presented here.
F. Other Impacts Including Maintenance and Repair
We present here the estimated impacts associated with rebound
driving (drive value, congestion, noise) and the impacts on maintenance
and repair costs. Lastly, we briefly discuss the safety-related
impacts. More information on each of these topics is presented in
Chapter 4 and Chapter 9 of the DRIA.
1. Impacts Associated With Rebound Driving
The rebound effect might occur when an increase in vehicle fuel
efficiency makes it possible for people to choose to drive more without
spending more because of the lower cost per mile of driving. Additional
driving can lead to costs and benefits that can be monetized. Note that
we do not estimate or further discuss the size of the rebound effect in
this Preamble. See DRIA Chapter 4 for that discussion. We request
comment on the assumptions described there. In this section, we take
the size of the rebound effect determined in the DRIA and highlight the
costs and benefits associated with additional driving.
i. Drive Value
The increase in travel associated with the rebound effect produces
social and economic opportunities that become accessible with
additional travel. We estimate the economic benefits from increased
rebound-effect driving as the sum of the fuel costs paid to drive those
miles and the owner/operator surplus from the additional accessibility
that driving provides. These benefits are known as the drive value and
appear in Table 192.
The fuel costs of the rebound miles driven are simply the number of
rebound miles multiplied by the cost per mile of driving them. The
economic value of the increased owner/operator surplus provided by
added driving is estimated as one half of the product of the fuel
savings per mile and rebound miles. Because fuel savings differ among
vehicles in response to standards, the value of benefits from increased
vehicle use differs by model year and varies across alternative
standards.
Table 192--Drive Value Benefits Associated With the Proposal and Each Alternative, Light-Duty and Medium-Duty
[Billions of 2020 dollars] *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drive value benefits, Drive value benefits, Drive value benefits, Drive value benefits,
Calendar year proposal alternative 1 alternative 2 alternative 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027................................................ 0.0011 0.0019 0.0026 -0.0036
2028................................................ 0.024 0.045 0.028 0.0068
2029................................................ 0.049 0.12 0.049 0.02
2030................................................ 0.086 0.2 0.077 0.041
2031................................................ 0.12 0.28 0.11 0.063
2032................................................ 0.16 0.37 0.16 0.1
2035................................................ 0.26 0.5 0.22 0.21
2040................................................ 0.37 0.51 0.15 0.26
2045................................................ 0.34 0.37 0.087 0.22
2050................................................ 0.34 0.29 0.11 0.21
2055................................................ 0.31 0.22 0.17 0.21
PV3................................................. 4.8 6.5 2.4 3.2
PV7................................................. 2.7 3.9 1.5 1.8
EAV3................................................ 0.25 0.34 0.12 0.17
EAV7................................................ 0.22 0.32 0.12 0.15
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Positive values represent benefits.
ii. Congestion and Noise
In contrast to the benefits of additional driving are the costs
associated with that driving. Increased vehicle use associated with a
positive rebound effect also contributes to increased traffic
congestion and highway noise. Delays associated with congestion impose
higher costs on road users in the form of increased travel time and
operating expenses. Likewise, vehicles driving more miles on roadways
leads to more road noise from tires, wind, engines, and motors.
As in past rulemakings (i.e., GHG 2010, 2012, and 2021), EPA relies
on estimates of congestion and noise costs developed by the Federal
Highway Administration's (FHWA's), specifically the ``Middle''
estimates for marginal congestion and noise costs, to estimate the
increased external costs caused by added driving due to the rebound
effect. FHWA's congestion and noise cost estimates focus on freeways.
EPA, however, applies the congestion cost to all vehicle miles, freeway
and non-freeway and including rebound miles to ensure that these costs
are not underestimated. Table 193 shows the values used as inputs to
OMEGA and adjusted within the model to the dollar basis used in the
analysis.
Table 194 presents the congestion costs associated with the
proposal and each of the alternatives, while Table 195 shows the same
information for noise costs.
[[Page 29384]]
Table 193--Costs Associated With Congestion and Noise
[2018 Dollars per vehicle mile]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sedans/wagons CUVs/SUVs/vans Pickups
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congestion....................................................... 0.0634 0.0634 0.0566
Noise............................................................ 0.0009 0.0009 0.0009
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 194--Congestion Costs Associated With the Proposal and Each Alternative, Light-Duty and Medium-Duty
[Billions of 2020 dollars] *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congestion costs, Congestion costs, Congestion costs, Congestion costs,
Calendar year proposal alternative 1 alternative 2 alternative 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027................................................ -0.00023 0.00063 0.00072 -0.0039
2028................................................ 0.01 0.025 0.012 -0.00089
2029................................................ 0.022 0.071 0.02 0.0042
2030................................................ 0.038 0.11 0.03 0.012
2031................................................ 0.055 0.17 0.046 0.023
2032................................................ 0.074 0.21 0.065 0.039
2035................................................ 0.12 0.28 0.082 0.088
2040................................................ 0.19 0.27 0.037 0.12
2045................................................ 0.17 0.2 0.0096 0.11
2050................................................ 0.17 0.14 0.028 0.11
2055................................................ 0.16 0.11 0.064 0.11
PV3................................................. 2.3 3.5 0.74 1.5
PV7................................................. 1.3 2.2 0.48 0.82
EAV3................................................ 0.12 0.18 0.039 0.078
EAV7................................................ 0.11 0.18 0.039 0.066
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Positive values represent costs.
Table 195--Noise Costs Associated With the Proposal and Each Alternative, Light-Duty and Medium-Duty
[Billions of 2020 dollars] *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noise costs, Noise costs, Noise costs,
Calendar year Noise costs, proposal alternative 1 alternative 2 alternative 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027................................................ -0.000014 -0.0000017 0.0000041 -0.000059
2028................................................ 0.00014 0.00037 0.00018 -0.000006
2029................................................ 0.00033 0.0011 0.00031 0.000076
2030................................................ 0.00059 0.0018 0.00047 0.0002
2031................................................ 0.00087 0.0026 0.00073 0.00038
2032................................................ 0.0012 0.0033 0.001 0.00064
2035................................................ 0.0019 0.0043 0.0013 0.0015
2040................................................ 0.0029 0.0043 0.00064 0.002
2045................................................ 0.0027 0.0031 0.00021 0.0017
2050................................................ 0.0027 0.0022 0.00048 0.0017
2055................................................ 0.0025 0.0017 0.001 0.0016
PV3................................................. 0.037 0.055 0.012 0.024
PV7................................................. 0.021 0.034 0.0078 0.013
EAV3................................................ 0.0019 0.0028 0.00064 0.0012
EAV7................................................ 0.0017 0.0027 0.00064 0.0011
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Positive values represent costs.
2. Maintenance and Repair Costs
Maintenance and repair (M&R) are large components of vehicle cost
of ownership for any vehicle. According to Edmunds, maintenance costs
consist of two types of maintenance: Scheduled and unscheduled.
Scheduled maintenance is the performance of factory-recommended items
at periodic mileage or calendar intervals. Unscheduled maintenance
includes wheel alignment and the replacement of items such as the
battery, brakes, headlights, hoses, exhaust system parts, taillight/
turn signal bulbs, tires, and wiper blades/inserts.\792\ Repairs, in
contrast, are done to fix malfunctioning parts that inhibit the use of
the vehicle. The differentiation between the items that are included in
unscheduled maintenance versus repairs is likely arbitrary, but the
items considered repairs seem to follow the systems that are covered in
vehicle comprehensive (i.e., ``bumper-to-bumper'') warranties offered
by automakers, which exclude common ``wear'' items like tires, brakes,
and starter batteries.\793\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\792\ Edmunds, ``Edmunds.com/tco.html,'' Edmunds, [Online].
Available: Edmunds.com/tco.html. [Accessed 24 February 2022].
\793\ D. Muller, ``Warranties Defined: The Truth behind the
Promises,'' Car and Driver, 29 May 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To estimate maintenance and repair costs, we have used the data
gathered and summarized by Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) in their
evaluation of the total cost of ownership for vehicles of various sizes
and powertrains.\794\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\794\ ``Comprehensive Total Cost of Ownership Quantification for
Vehicles with Different Size Classes and Powertrains, ANL/ESD-21/
4,'' Argonne National Laboratory, Energy Systems Division, April
2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 29385]]
i. Maintenance Costs
Maintenance costs are an important consideration in the full
accounting of social benefits and costs and in a consumer's purchase
decision process. In their study, ANL developed a generic maintenance
service schedule for various powertrain types using owner's manuals
from various vehicle makes and models, assuming that drivers would
follow the recommended service intervals. After developing the
maintenance schedules, the authors collected national average costs for
each of the preventative and unscheduled services, noting several
instances where differences in consumer characteristics and in vehicle
attributes were likely important but not quantified/quantifiable.
Using the schedules and costs developed by the authors and
presented in the DRIA, OMEGA calculates the cumulative maintenance
costs from mile zero through mile 225,000. Because maintenance costs
typically increase over the life of the vehicle, we estimate
maintenance and repair costs per mile at a constant slope with an
intercept set to $0 per mile such that the cumulative costs per the
maintenance schedule are reached at 225,000 miles. Following this
approach, the maintenance cost per mile curves calculated within OMEGA
are as shown in Figure 38.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05MY23.042
Using these maintenance cost per mile curves, OMEGA then calculates
the estimated maintenance costs in any given year of a vehicle's life
based on the miles traveled in that year. Table 196 presents the
maintenance costs (savings) associated with the proposal and each
alternative. For a more detailed discussion of maintenance costs, see
DRIA Chapter 4.
Table 196--Maintenance Costs Associated With the Proposal and Each of the Alternatives, Light-Duty and Medium-Duty
[Billions of 2020 dollars] *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maintenance costs, Maintenance costs, Maintenance costs, Maintenance costs,
Calendar year proposal alternative 1 alternative 2 alternative 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027................................................ -0.048 -0.048 -0.032 -0.044
2028................................................ -0.34 -0.32 -0.24 -0.22
2029................................................ -0.91 -0.8 -0.68 -0.54
2030................................................ -1.7 -1.6 -1.3 -1
2031................................................ -2.7 -2.7 -2.1 -1.7
2032................................................ -4 -4.1 -3.2 -2.7
2035................................................ -9.7 -10 -8.2 -7.7
2040................................................ -23 -26 -21 -21
2045................................................ -37 -42 -34 -36
2050................................................ -47 -52 -43 -47
[[Page 29386]]
2055................................................ -51 -57 -47 -51
PV3................................................. -410 -450 -370 -390
PV7................................................. -200 -220 -180 -190
EAV3................................................ -21 -24 -19 -20
EAV7................................................ -16 -18 -14 -15
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Negative values denote negative costs, i.e., savings.
ii. Repair Costs
Repairs are done to fix malfunctioning parts that inhibit the use
of the vehicle and are generally considered to address problems
associated with parts or systems that are covered under typical
manufacturer bumper-to-bumper type warranties. In the ANL study, the
authors were able to develop a repair cost curve for a gasoline car and
a series of scalers that could be applied to that curve to estimate
repair costs for other powertrains and vehicle types.
OMEGA makes use of ANL's cost curve and multipliers to estimate
repair costs per mile at any age in a vehicle's life. Figure 39
provides repair cost per mile for a $35,000 car, van/SUV, and pickup.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05MY23.043
Table 197 presents the repair costs associated with the proposal
and each of the alternatives. A more detailed discussion of repair
costs appears in DRIA Chapter 4.
Table 197--Repair Costs Associated With the Proposal and Each of the Alternatives, Light-Duty and Medium-Duty
[Billions of 2020 dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Repair costs, Repair costs, Repair costs,
Calendar year Repair costs, proposal alternative 1 alternative 2 alternative 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027................................................ 0.057 0.06 0.043 0.016
2028................................................ 0.078 0.11 0.058 0.012
2029................................................ 0.017 0.13 0.0065 -0.049
2030................................................ -0.15 0.032 -0.13 -0.19
2031................................................ -0.43 -0.17 -0.36 -0.39
2032................................................ -0.84 -0.51 -0.7 -0.66
2035................................................ -2.8 -2.4 -2.5 -2.3
2040................................................ -9 -9 -8.4 -8.5
2045................................................ -16 -17 -15 -16
2050................................................ -21 -23 -20 -21
2055................................................ -24 -26 -22 -24
PV3................................................. -170 -180 -160 -170
PV7................................................. -79 -82 -74 -77
EAV3................................................ -8.9 -9.3 -8.3 -8.6
[[Page 29387]]
EAV7................................................ -6.5 -6.7 -6 -6.3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Negative values denote negative costs, i.e., savings.
3. Safety Impacts
EPA has long considered the safety implications of its emission
standards. Section 202(a)(4) of the CAA specifically prohibits the use
of an emission control device, system or element of design that will
cause or contribute to an unreasonable risk to public health, welfare,
or safety. With respect to its light-duty greenhouse gas emission
regulations, EPA has historically considered the potential impacts of
GHG standards on safety in its light-duty GHG rulemakings.
The potential relationship between GHG emissions standards and
safety is multi-faceted, and can be influenced not only by control
technologies, but also by consumer decisions about vehicle ownership
and use. EPA has estimated the impacts of this rule on safety by
accounting for changes in new vehicle purchase, fleet turnover and VMT,
and changes in vehicle weight that occur either as an emissions control
strategy or as a result of the adoption of emissions control
technologies such as vehicle electrification. Safety impacts related to
changes in the use of vehicles in the fleet, relative mass changes, and
the turnover of fleet to newer and safer vehicles have been estimated
and considered in the standard setting process.
The GHG emissions standards are attribute-based standards, using
vehicle footprint as the attribute. Footprint is defined as a vehicle's
wheelbase multiplied by its average track width--in other words, the
area enclosed by the points at which the wheels meet the ground. The
standards are therefore generally based on a vehicle's size: Larger
vehicles have numerically higher GHG emissions targets and smaller
vehicles have numerically lower GHG emissions targets. Footprint-based
standards help to distribute the burden of compliance across all
vehicle footprints and across all manufacturers. Manufacturers are not
compelled to build vehicles of any particular size or type, and each
manufacturer has its own fleetwide standard for its car and truck
fleets in each year that reflects the light-duty vehicles it chooses to
produce. EPA has evaluated the relationship between vehicle footprint
and GHG emissions targets and is proposing GHG standards that are
intended to minimize incentives to change footprint as a compliance
strategy. EPA is not projecting any changes in vehicle safety due to
changes in footprint as a result of this proposed rule.
While EPA has not conducted new studies on the safety implications
of electrified vehicles, there is strong reason to believe that BEVs
are at least as safe as conventional vehicles,\795\ if not more so. For
example, the BEV architecture often lends itself to the addition of a
``frunk'' or front trunk. The frunk can provide additional crush space
and occupant protection in frontal or front offset impacts. In
addition, high voltage, large capacity batteries are often packaged
under the vehicle and are integral to the vehicle construction. The
increase in mass low in the vehicle provides additional vehicle
stability and could reduce the propensity for vehicle rollover,
especially in vehicles with a higher ride height, such as SUVs. In
addition, the battery is typically an integral part of the body design
and can provide additional side impact protection. For each of these
reasons EPA believes that applying the historical relationship between
mass and safety is appropriate for this rulemaking and may be
conservative given the potential safety improvements provided by
vehicle electrification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\795\ https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/with-more-electric-vehicles-comes-more-proof-of-safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consistent with previous light-duty GHG analyses, EPA conducted a
quantitative assessment of the potential of the proposed standards to
affect vehicle safety. EPA applied the same historical relationships
between mass, size, and fatality risk that were established and
documented in the 2021 rulemaking. These relationships are based on the
statistical analysis of historical crash data, which included an
analysis performed by using the most recently available crash studies
based on data for model years 2007 to 2011. EPA used these findings to
estimate safety impacts of the modeled adoption of mass reduction as
technology to reduce emissions, and the adoption of BEVs that result in
some vehicle weights that are higher than comparable ICE vehicles due
to the addition of the battery. Based on the findings of our safety
analysis, we concluded there are no changes to the vehicles themselves,
nor the combined effects of fleet composition and vehicle design, that
will have a statistically significant impact on safety.\796\ The only
fatality projections presented here that are statistically significant
are due to changes in use (VMT) rather than changes to the vehicles
themselves. When including non-significant effects, EPA estimates that
the proposed standards would result in an average 0.2 percent increase
in the annual fatalities per billion miles driven in the 27-year period
from 2027 through 2055 (increasing from 5.053 fatalities per billion
miles under the proposal compared to 5.040 fatalities per billion miles
under the no-action case.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\796\ None of the mass-safety coefficients that were developed
for the 2020 and 2021 Rulemakings are statistically significant at
the 95th percentile confidence level. EPA is including the
presentation of non-significant changes in fatality rate here for
the purpose of comparison with previous rulemaking assessments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA has also estimated, over the same 27-year period, that total
fatalities will increase by 1,595, with 330 deaths attributed to
increased driving and 1,265 deaths attributed to the non-statistically
significant increase in fatality risk. Our analysis projects that there
will be an increase in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) under the revised
standards of 65 billion miles compared to the No Action case in 2027
through 2055 (an increase of about 0.06 percent). As noted, the only
statistically significant changes in the fatalities projected are the
result from the projected increased driving--i.e., people choosing to
drive more due to the lower operating costs of more efficient vehicles.
Our cost-benefit analysis accounts for the value of this additional
driving, which we assume is an important consideration in the decision
to drive.
On the whole, EPA considers safety impacts in the context of all
projected health impacts from the rule including public health benefits
from the
[[Page 29388]]
projected reductions in air pollution. Considering these estimates in
the context of public health benefits anticipated from the proposed
standards, EPA notes that the estimated present value of monetized
benefits of reduced PM2.5 through 2055 is between $63
billion and $280 billion (depending on study and discount rate), and
that the illustrative air quality modeling which, as discussed further
in Chapter 8 of the DRIA, assesses a regulatory scenario with lower
rates of PEV penetration than EPA is projecting for the proposal,
estimates that in 2055 such a scenario would prevent between 730 and
1,400 premature deaths associated with exposure to PM2.5 and
prevent between 15 and 330 premature deaths associated with exposure to
ozone. We expect that the cumulative number of premature deaths avoided
that would occur during the entire period from 2027 to 2055 would be
much larger than the estimate of deaths avoided projected to occur in
2055.
G. Energy Security Impacts
In this section, we evaluate the energy security impacts of the
proposed standards. Energy security is broadly defined as the
uninterrupted availability of energy sources at affordable prices.\797\
Energy independence and energy security are distinct but related
concepts, and an analysis of energy independence informs our assessment
of energy security. The goal of U.S. energy independence is the
elimination of all U.S. imports of petroleum and other foreign sources
of energy, but more broadly, it is the elimination of U.S. sensitivity
to variations in the price and supply of foreign sources of
energy.\798\ See Chapter 11 of the DRIA for a more detailed assessment
of energy security and energy independence impacts of this proposed
rule. See Preamble Section IV.C.6 and Chapter 3.1.3 of the DRIA for a
discussion of critical materials and PEV supply chains.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\797\ IEA, Energy Security: ensuring the uninterrupted
availability of energy sources at an affordable price. 2019.
December.
\798\ Greene, D. 2010. Measuring energy security: Can the United
States achieve oil independence? Energy Policy. 38. pp. 1614-1621.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S.'s oil consumption had been gradually increasing in recent
years (2015-2019) before the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 dramatically
decreased U.S. and global oil consumption.\799\ By July 2021, U.S. oil
consumption had returned to pre-pandemic levels and has remained fairly
stable since then.\800\ The U.S. has increased its production of oil,
particularly ``tight'' (i.e., shale) oil, over the last decade.\801\ As
a result of the recent increase in U.S. oil production, the U.S. became
a net exporter of crude oil and refined petroleum products in 2020 and
is projected to be a net exporter of crude oil and refined petroleum
products for the foreseeable future.\802\ This is a significant
reversal of the U.S.'s net export position since the U.S. has been a
substantial net importer of crude oil and refined petroleum products
starting in the early 1950s.\803\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\799\ EIA. Monthly Energy Review. Table 3.1. Petroleum Overview.
December 2022.
\800\ Ibid.
\801\ Ibid.
\802\ EIA. Annual Energy Outlook 2022. Table A11: Petroleum and
Other Liquid Supply and Disposition (Reference Case). 2022.
\803\ U.S. EIA. Oil and Petroleum Products Explained. November
2nd, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oil is a commodity that is globally traded and, as a result, an oil
price shock is transmitted globally. Given that the U.S. is projected
to be a modest net exporter of crude oil and refined petroleum products
for the time frame of this analysis (2027-2055), one could reason that
the U.S. no longer has a significant energy security problem. However,
U.S. refineries still rely on significant imports of heavy crude oil
which could be subject to supply disruptions. Also, oil exporters with
a large share of global production have the ability to raise or lower
the price of oil by exerting the market power associated with the
Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) to alter oil
supply relative to demand. These factors contribute to the
vulnerability of the U.S. economy to episodic oil supply shocks and
price spikes, even when the U.S. is projected to be an overall net
exporter of crude oil and refined products.
We anticipate that U.S. consumption and net imports of petroleum
will be reduced as a result of this proposed rule, both from an
increase in fuel efficiency of LMDVs using petroleum-based fuels and
from the greater use of PEVs which are fueled with electricity. A
reduction of U.S. net petroleum imports reduces both financial and
strategic risks caused by potential sudden disruptions in the supply of
petroleum to the U.S. and global market, thus increasing U.S. energy
security. Table 198 presents the impacts on imported oil.
TABLE 198--Oil Import Impacts Associated With the Proposal and Each of the Alternatives, Light-Duty and Medium-Duty
[Million barrels of imported oil per day in the given year]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oil import impacts, Oil import impacts, Oil import impacts, Oil import impacts,
Calendar year proposal alternative 1 alternative 2 alternative 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027................................................ -0.042 -0.044 -0.031 -0.025
2028................................................ -0.1 -0.12 -0.076 -0.063
2029................................................ -0.19 -0.21 -0.15 -0.11
2030................................................ -0.29 -0.33 -0.23 -0.18
2031................................................ -0.41 -0.46 -0.33 -0.3
2032................................................ -0.54 -0.61 -0.45 -0.44
2035................................................ -0.99 -1.1 -0.88 -0.91
2040................................................ -1.6 -1.8 -1.4 -1.6
2045................................................ -2 -2.2 -1.8 -2
2050................................................ -2.3 -2.5 -2 -2.2
2055................................................ -2.3 -2.5 -2.1 -2.3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is anticipated that manufacturers will choose to comply with the
proposed standards with an increased penetration of PEVs. Compared to
the use of petroleum-based fuels to power vehicles, electricity used in
PEVs is anticipated to be generally more affordable and more stable in
its price, i.e., have less price volatility. See
[[Page 29389]]
Chapter 11.3 of the DRIA for an analysis of PEV affordability and
electricity price stability compared to gasoline prices. Thus, the
greater use of electricity for PEVs is anticipated to improve the
U.S.'s overall energy security position. Also, since the electricity to
power PEVs will likely be almost exclusively produced in the U.S., this
proposal will move the U.S. towards the goal of energy independence.
See Chapter 11.3 of the DRIA for more discussion of how the proposed
rule moves the U.S. to the goal of energy independence.
In order to understand the energy security implications of reducing
U.S. oil imports, EPA has worked with Oak Ridge National Laboratory
(ORNL), which has developed approaches for evaluating the social costs
and energy security implications of oil use. When conducting this
analysis, ORNL estimates the risk of reductions in U.S. economic output
and disruption to the U.S. economy caused by sudden disruptions in
world oil supply and associated price shocks (i.e., labeled the avoided
macroeconomic disruption/adjustment costs). These risks are quantified
as ``macroeconomic oil security premiums'', i.e., the extra costs of
using oil besides its market price, associated with oil use.
For this proposed rule, EPA is using macroeconomic oil security
premiums estimated using ORNL's methodology, which incorporates updated
oil price projections and energy market and economic trends from the
U.S. Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration's (EIA)
Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) 2021. EPA and ORNL have worked together to
revise the macroeconomic oil security premiums based upon recent energy
security literature. We do not consider military cost impacts as a
result of reductions in U.S. oil imports from this proposed rule due to
methodological issues in quantifying these impacts. If military cost
impacts could be quantified and monetized, the estimated benefits of
this proposed rule would be larger.
To calculate the oil security benefits of this proposed rule, EPA
is using the ORNL macroeconomic oil security premium methodology with:
(1) Estimated oil savings calculated by EPA, and (2) an oil import
reduction factor of 90.7 percent, which reflects our estimate of how
much U.S. oil imports are reduced from changes in U.S. oil consumption.
Below EPA presents the macroeconomic oil security premiums used for the
proposed standards for selected years from 2027-2055 in Table 199. The
energy security benefits of this proposed rule are presented in Table
200.
Table 199--Macroeconomic Oil Security Premiums for Selected Years From
2027-2055
[2020$/Barrel] *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Macroeconomic oil
Calendar year security premiums
(range)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027........................................... $3.41 ($0.74-$6.36)
2030........................................... 3.55 (0.65-6.68)
2032........................................... 3.70 (0.68-6.94)
2035........................................... 3.91 (0.73-7.34)
2040........................................... 4.39 (1.08-8.09)
2050........................................... 5.15 (1.52-9.28)
2055........................................... 5.15 (1.52-9.28)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Top values in each cell are the mid-points, the values in parentheses
are the 90 percent confidence intervals.
Table 200--Energy Security Benefits Associated With the Proposal and Each of the Alternatives, Light-Duty and Medium-Duty
[In billions of 2020 dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Energy security Energy security Energy security Energy security
Calendar year benefits, proposal benefits, alternative 1 benefits, alternative 2 benefits, alternative 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027............................................. 0.052 0.055 0.038 0.031
2028............................................. 0.13 0.15 0.095 0.08
2029............................................. 0.24 0.27 0.19 0.14
2030............................................. 0.37 0.43 0.3 0.24
2031............................................. 0.54 0.61 0.44 0.4
2032............................................. 0.73 0.82 0.61 0.6
2035............................................. 1.4 1.6 1.3 1.3
2040............................................. 2.6 2.9 2.3 2.5
2045............................................. 3.5 3.8 3.1 3.4
2050............................................. 4.2 4.7 3.8 4.2
2055............................................. 4.4 4.8 3.9 4.4
PV3.............................................. 41 46 37 40
PV7.............................................. 21 23 19 20
EAV3............................................. 2.2 2.4 1.9 2.1
EAV7............................................. 1.7 1.9 1.5 1.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Employment Impacts
If the U.S. economy is at full employment, even a large-scale
environmental regulation is unlikely to have a noticeable impact on
aggregate net employment. Instead, labor would primarily be reallocated
from one productive use to another, and net national employment effects
from environmental regulation would be small and transitory (e.g., as
workers move from one job to another). Affected sectors may
nevertheless experience transitory effects as workers change jobs. Some
workers may retrain or
[[Page 29390]]
relocate in anticipation of new requirements or require time to search
for new jobs, while shortages in some sectors or regions could bid up
wages to attract workers. These adjustment costs can lead to local
labor disruptions. Even if the net change in the national workforce is
small, localized reductions in employment may adversely impact
individuals and communities just as localized increases may have
positive impacts. If the economy is operating at less than full
employment, economic theory does not clearly indicate the direction or
magnitude of the net impact of environmental regulation on employment;
it could cause either a short-run net increase or short-run net
decrease.
Economic theory of labor demand indicates that employers affected
by environmental regulation may change their demand for different types
of labor in different ways. They may increase their demand for some
types, decrease demand for other types, or maintain demand for still
other types. The uncertain direction of labor impacts is due to the
different channels by which regulations affect labor demand. A variety
of conditions can affect employment impacts of environmental
regulation, including baseline labor market conditions, employer and
worker characteristics, industry, and region. In general, the
employment effects of environmental regulation are difficult to
disentangle from other economic changes (especially the state of the
macroeconomy) and business decisions that affect employment, both over
time and across regions and industries. In light of these difficulties,
we look to economic theory to provide a constructive framework for
approaching these assessments and for better understanding the inherent
complexities in such assessments.
1. Background on Employment Effects
In addition to the employment effects, we have discussed in
previous rules (for example the 2021 rule), where we estimated a
partial employment effect on LD ICE vehicle manufacturing due to the
increase in technical costs of the rule, the increasing penetration of
electric vehicles in the market is likely to affect both the number and
the nature of employment in the auto and parts sectors and related
sectors, such as providers of charging infrastructure. Over time, as
BEVs become a greater portion of the new vehicle fleet, the kinds of
jobs in auto manufacturing are expected to change. For instance, there
will be no need for engine and exhaust system assembly for BEVs, while
many assembly tasks will involve electrical rather than mechanical
fitting. In addition, batteries represent a significant portion of the
manufacturing content of an electrified vehicle, and some automakers
are likely to purchase the cells, if not pre-assembled modules or
packs, from suppliers. Employment in building and maintaining charging
infrastructure needed to support the ever-increasing number of BEVs on
the road is also expected to affect the nature of employment in
automotive and related sectors. For much of these effects, there is
considerable uncertainty in the data to quantitatively assess how
employment might change as a function of the increased electrification
expected to result under the proposed standards.
Results from California's ACC II program analysis suggest that
there may be a small decrease, not exceeding 0.3 percent of baseline
California employment in any year, in total employment across all
industries in CA through 2040.\804\ A report by the Economic Policy
Institute suggests that U.S. employment in the auto sector could
increase if the share of vehicles, or powertrains, sold in the United
States that are produced in the United States increases.\805\ The
BlueGreen Alliance also states that though BEVs have fewer parts than
their ICE counterparts, there is potential for job growth in electric
vehicle component manufacturing, including batteries, electric motors,
regenerative braking systems and semiconductors, and manufacturing
those components in the United States can lead to an increase in
jobs.\806\ They go on to state that if the United States does not
become a major producer for these components, there is risk of job
loss.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\804\ https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2022/accii/isor.pdf.
\805\ https://www.epi.org/publication/ev-policy-workers/.
\806\ https://www.bluegreenalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Backgrounder-EVs-Are-Coming.-Will-They-Be-Made-in-the-USA-vFINAL.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The UAW states that re-training programs will be needed to support
auto workers in a market with an increasing share of electric vehicles
in order to prepare workers that might be displaced by the shift to the
new technology.\807\ Volkswagen states that labor requirements for ICE
vehicles are about 70 percent higher than their electric counterpart,
but these changes in employment intensities in the manufacturing of the
vehicles can be offset by shifting to the production of new components,
for example batteries or battery cells.\808\ Research from the Seattle
Jobs Initiative indicates that employment in a collection of sectors
related to both BEV and ICE vehicle manufacturing is expected to grow
slightly through 2029.\809\ Climate Nexus also indicates that the
increasing penetration of electric vehicles will lead to a net increase
in jobs, a claim that is partially supported by the rising investment
in batteries, vehicle manufacturing and charging stations.\810\ This
expected private investment is also supported by recent Federal
investment which will encourage increased investment along the vehicle
supply chain, including domestic battery manufacturing, charging
infrastructure, and vehicle manufacturing. The BIL was signed in
November 2021 and provides over $24 billion in investment in electric
vehicle chargers, critical minerals, and components needed by domestic
manufacturers of EV batteries and for clean transit and school
buses.\811\ The CHIPS and Science Act, signed in August, 2022, invests
in expanding America's manufacturing capacity for the semiconductors
used in electric vehicles and chargers. \812\ The IRA provides
incentives for producers to expand domestic manufacturing of BEVs and
domestic sourcing of components and critical minerals needed to produce
them. The act also provides incentives for consumers to purchase both
new and used BEVs. These pieces of legislation are expected to create
domestic employment opportunities along the full automotive sector
supply chain, from components and equipment manufacturing and
processing to final assembly, as well as incentivize the development of
reliable EV battery supply chains.\813\ The BlueGreen Alliance and the
Political
[[Page 29391]]
Economy Research Institute estimate that IRA will create over 9 million
jobs over the next decade, with about 400,000 of those jobs being
attributed directly to the battery and fuel cell vehicle provisions in
the act.\814\ In addition, the IRA is expected to lead to increased
demand for BEVs through tax credits for purchasers of BEVs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\807\ https://uaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/190416-EV-White-Paper-REVISED-January-2020-Final.pdf.
\808\ https://www.volkswagenag.com/presence/stories/2020/12/frauenhofer-studie/6095_EMDI_VW_Summary_um.pdf.
\809\ https://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/OSE/ClimateDocs/TE/EV%20Field%20in%20OR%20and%20WA_February20.pdf.
\810\ https://climatenexus.org/climate-issues/energy/ev-job-impacts/.
\811\ The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law is officially titled the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. More information can be
found at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bipartisan-infrastructure-law/.
\812\ The CHIPS and Science Act was signed by President Biden in
August, 2022 to boost investment in, and manufacturing of,
semiconductors in the U.S. The fact sheet can be found at https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/08/09/fact-sheet-chips-and-science-act-will-lower-costs-create-jobs-strengthen-supply-chains-and-counter-china/.
\813\ ``Building a Clean Energy Economy: A Guidebook to the
Inflation Reduction Act's Investments in Clean Energy and Climate
Action.'' January 2023. Whitehouse.gov. https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Inflation-Reduction-Act-Guidebook.pdf.
\814\ Political Economy Research Institute. (2022). Job Creation
Estimates Through Proposed Inflation Reduction Act. University of
Massachusetts Amherst. Retrieved from https://www.bluegreenalliance.org/site/9-million-good-jobs-from-climate-action-the-inflation-reduction-act/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Demand, Cost and Factor Shift Effect on Employment
In DRIA Chapter 4.96, we describe three ways employment at the firm
level might be affected by changes in a firm's production costs due to
environmental regulation: A demand effect, caused by higher production
costs increasing market prices and decreasing demand; a cost effect,
caused by additional environmental protection costs leading regulated
firms to increase their use of inputs; and a factor- shift effect, in
which post-regulation production technologies may have different labor
intensities than their pre-regulation counterparts.815 816
Due to data limitations, EPA is not quantifying the impacts of the
final regulation on firm-level employment for affected companies,
although we acknowledge these potential impacts. Instead, we discuss
factor- shift, demand, and cost employment effects for the regulated
sector at the industry level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\815\ Morgenstern, Richard D., William A. Pizer, and Jhih-Shyang
Shih (2002). ``Jobs Versus the Environment: An Industry-Level
Perspective.'' Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 43:
412-436.
\816\ Berman and Bui have a similar framework in which they
consider output and substitution effects that are similar to
Morgenstern et al.'s three effect (Berman, E. and L. T. M. Bui
(2001). ``Environmental Regulation and Labor Demand: Evidence from
the South Coast Air Basin.'' Journal of Public Economics 79(2): 265-
295).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Factor- shift effects are due to changes in labor intensity of
production due to the standards. We do not have data on how the
regulation might affect labor intensity of production within ICE
vehicle production. There is ongoing research on the different labor
intensity of production between BEV and ICE vehicle production, with
inconsistent results. Some research indicates that the labor hours
needed to produce a BEV are fewer than those needed to produce an ICE
vehicle, while other research indicates there are no real differences.
EPA worked with a research group to produce a peer-reviewed tear-down
study of a BEV to its comparable ICE vehicle counterpart.\817\ Study
results were delivered in January 2023, and a peer review of the study
is planned. Included in this study are estimates of labor intensity
needed to produce each vehicle. We hope to use this information in
additional analytical discussions in the final rule. Given the current
lack of data and inconsistency in the existing literature, we are
unable to estimate a factor-shift effect of increasing relative BEV
production as a function of this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\817\ See DRIA Chapter 2.5.2.2.3 for more information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The factor shift effect would occur where a BEV is replacing an ICE
vehicle and does not account for a change in the total number of
vehicles sold. Demand effects on employment are due to changes in labor
due to changes in demand. In general, if the regulation causes total
sales of new vehicles to increase, as we are estimating due to this
proposed rule, more workers will be needed to assemble vehicles and
manufacture their components. If BEVs and ICE vehicles have different
labor intensities of production, the relative change in BEV and ICE
vehicles sales will impact the demand effect on employment. Assume that
sales of both BEV and ICE vehicles increase. This would mean that the
change in employment due to an increase demand will depend on the labor
intensity of BEV production and the increase in BEV sales, as well as
in the labor intensity of ICE vehicle production and the increase in
ICE sales. Now assume that BEV sales increased while ICE vehicle sales
decreased. If total sales increased, that would indicate that BEVs
replaced ICE vehicles, but there was new sales demand as well. The
change in employment under this scenario would depend on the factor
shift effect (the relative BEV and ICE vehicle labor intensity) for the
replaced ICE vehicles, and the demand effect (labor intensity of BEVs)
for the new sales demand. For the same reason we cannot estimate a
factor- shift effect, namely that we do not know the labor intensity of
BEV vs ICE vehicle production, we are not currently able to estimate a
demand-shift effect on employment. However, because we are estimating
increased new vehicle sales due to this rule, we would expect to see an
increase in employment due to the demand effect.
The cost effects on employment are due to changes in labor
associated with increases in costs of production.
BEVs and ICE vehicles require different inputs and have different
costs of production, though there are interchangeable, common, parts as
well. In previous LD and HD rules, we have estimated a partial
employment effect due to the change in costs of production. We
estimated the cost effect using the historic share of labor in the cost
of production to extrapolate future estimates of impacts on labor due
to new compliance activities in response to the regulations.
Specifically, we multiplied the share of labor in production costs by
the production cost increase estimated as an impact of the rule. This
provided a sense of the magnitude of potential impacts on employment.
As described in Chapter 4.6 of the DRIA, we used historical data on
the number of employees per $1 million in expenditures from the
Employment Requirements Matrix (ERM) provided by the U.S. Bureau of
Labor Statistics (BLS) to examine labor needs of five manufacturing
sectors related to ICE and BEV vehicle production to determine trends
over time. Two of these sectors (electrical equipment and manufacturing
and other electrical equipment and component manufacturing) are more
closely related to BEV production, while the other three (motor vehicle
manufacturing, motor vehicle body and trailer manufacturing, and motor
vehicle parts manufacturing) are sectors that are more generally
related to both BEV and ICE vehicle production.
Over time, the amount of labor needed in the motor vehicle industry
has changed: Automation and improved methods have led to significant
productivity increases, which is reflected in the estimates from the
BLS ERM. For example, in 1997 about 1.2 workers in the Motor Vehicle
Manufacturing sector were needed per $1 million, but only 0.5 workers
by 2021 (in 2020$).\818\ Though the two sectors mainly associated with
BEV manufacturing, electrical equipment manufacturing, and other
electrical equipment and component manufacturing, show an increase in
recent years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\818\ http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_data_emp_requirements.htm; this
analysis used data for sectors electrical equipment and
manufacturing, other electrical equipment and component
manufacturing, motor vehicle manufacturing, motor vehicle body and
trailer manufacturing, and motor vehicle parts manufacturing from
``Chain-weighted (2012 dollars) real domestic employment
requirements tables;'' see ``Cost Effect Employment Impacts
calculation'' in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Partial Employment Effect
We attempt to estimate partial employment effects of this proposed
rule by separating out costs for BEVs and ICE vehicles, as well as the
costs that are common between them,
[[Page 29392]]
applying the BEV cost changes to data from sectors primarily focused on
BEV production, ICE vehicle costs to sectors primarily focused on ICE
vehicle production, and costs common for BEV and ICE vehicles to
sectors that are common to BEV and ICE vehicle production.\819\ For
more information on how we estimated this partial employment effect,
see DRIA Chapter 4.5.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\819\ A recent report from the Seattle Jobs Initiative examined
how electrification in the automotive industry might advance
workforce development in Oregon and Washington. As part of that
study, the authors identified the sectors classified by the North
American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes most strongly
associated with automotive production in general, those exclusive to
ICE vehicles, and those primarily associated with BEV production.
The report can be found at: https://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/OSE/ClimateDocs/TE/EV%20Field%20in%20OR%20and%20WA_February20.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In previous rules, we have estimated the cost effect, which is done
while keeping sales constant. However, OMEGA estimates costs and
changes in sales concurrently. Therefore, the partial employment effect
we are estimating here is not a straight cost effect, nor is it a
demand effect, as the demand effect is due to a change in sales,
keeping costs and factor intensities constant. This estimate we provide
here is a combined cost and demand effect, and is meant to give a sense
of possible partial employment effects, including directionality and
relative magnitude. These estimates include effects due to both LD and
MD cost changes, as the costs used in the analysis were the combined
estimated costs for the light- and medium-duty sectors, as well as the
change in new vehicle sales in the LD market.\820\ It does not include
economy-wide labor effects, possible factor intensity effects, or
effects from possible changes to domestic production.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\820\ We do not estimate a change in new MD vehicle sales. See
Section VIII.C above, or DRIA Chapter 4.4.2 for more information on
the change in sales estimated due to this proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Results are provided in job-years, where a job-year is, for
example, one year of full-time work for one person, or one year of
half-time work for two people. Table 201 shows our partial employment
results for the Proposal scenario. See Chapter 4.5.4 of the DRIA for
more information on the employment analysis, as well as the partial
employment effects for the three alternative scenarios.
Table 201--Estimated Partial Employment Effects in Job-Years for BEV and ICE Vehicle Sectors, Sectors Common to BEV and ICE, and the Net Minimum and
Maximum Across All Sectors
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Common BEV ICE vehicle Net
Year ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027......................................................... 7,620 54,000 -9,800 -11,700 -10,200 -11,500 -12,380 30,800
2028......................................................... 8,600 61,600 -9,100 -11,600 -13,900 -15,700 -14,400 34,300
2029......................................................... 10,300 75,200 -9,000 -12,100 -19,200 -21,600 -17,900 41,500
2030......................................................... 11,700 86,900 -9,100 -12,800 -21,600 -24,300 -19,000 49,800
2031......................................................... 14,600 109,900 -10,100 -15,100 -26,100 -29,300 -21,600 65,500
2032......................................................... 17,500 133,300 -11,100 -17,500 -30,500 -34,300 -24,100 81,500
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These results show negative employment effects in the ICE and BEV
focused sectors, while there are positive effects in the common
sectors. These results also suggest that there could be either an
increase or decrease in net employment in the automotive manufacturing
industries examined as part of this analysis.
EPA contracted with FEV to perform a detailed tear-down study
comparing two similar vehicles, one a BEV (the 2021 Volkswagen ID.4)
and the other an ICE vehicle (the 2021 Volkswagen Tiguan (see DRIA
Chapter 2.5.2.2.3 for more details on this study). In the process of
compiling the detailed information, FEV estimated the number of labor
hours it takes to build each of the two vehicles. Under a realistic
scenario of assembly based on what OEMs are currently doing, their
results suggest that the labor hours needed to assemble the BEV and ICE
vehicles are very similar.\821\ This indicates that changes in
employment in the auto manufacturing sectors from increasing
electrification will not come from the assembling of the vehicles at
the auto manufacturer, but from changing sales.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\821\ In the realistic scenario, FEV assumes that the automakers
purchase EV battery modules and assembles the pack. Under
assumptions that the auto manufacturers provide the least amount of
added value in assemble, the Tiguan (ICE vehicle) is estimated to
more man hours to assemble than the ID.4 (BEV). Under assumptions
that the auto manufacturers perform most of the sub system
manufacturing and assembly, including the engine, transmission and
battery pack modules, the ID.4 (BEV) takes more man hours per
vehicle than the Tiguan (ICE vehicle).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Employment in Related Sectors
With respect to possible employment effects in other sectors,
economy-wide impacts on employment are generally driven by broad
macroeconomic effects. However, employment impacts, both positive and
negative, in sectors upstream and downstream from the regulated sector,
or in sectors producing substitute or complementary products, may also
occur as a result of this rule. For example, changes in electricity
generation may have consequences for labor demand in those upstream
industries. Lower per-mile fuel costs could lead to labor effects in
ride-sharing or ride-hailing services through an increase in demand for
those services. Reduced demand for gasoline may lead to impacts on
demand for labor in the gas station sector, although the fact that many
gas stations provide other goods, such as food and car washes, will
moderate possible losses in this sector. There may also be an increase
in demand for labor in sectors that build and maintain charging
stations. The magnitude of all of these impacts depends on a variety of
factors including the labor intensities of the related sectors, as well
as the nature of the linkages (which can be reflected in measures of
elasticity) between them and the regulated firms.
Electrification of the vehicle fleet is likely to affect both the
number and the nature of employment in the auto and parts sectors and
related sectors, such as providers of charging infrastructure. In
addition, the type and number of jobs related to vehicle maintenance
are expected to change as well, though we expect this to happen over a
longer time span due to the nature of fleet turnover. Given the
timeline, we expect opportunities for workers to retrain from ICE
vehicle maintenance to other positions, for example within BEV
maintenance, charging station infrastructure, or elsewhere in the
economy.
Reduced consumption of petroleum fuel represents fuel savings for
[[Page 29393]]
purchasers of fuel, as well as a potential loss in value of output for
the petroleum refining industry, fuel distributors, and gasoline
stations, which may result in reduced employment in these sectors.
However, because the fuel production sector is material-intensive, the
employment effect is not expected to be large. In addition, it may be
difficult to distinguish these effects from other trends, such as
increases in petroleum sector labor productivity that may also lower
labor demand.
As discussed in Preamble Section I, there have been several
legislative and administrative efforts enacted since 2021 aimed at
improving the domestic supply chain for electric vehicles, including
electric vehicle chargers, critical minerals, and components needed by
domestic manufacturers of EV batteries. These actions are also expected
to provide opportunities for domestic employment in these associated
sectors.
The standards may affect employment for auto dealers through a
change in vehicles sold, with increasing sales being associated with an
increase in labor demand. However, vehicle sales are also affected by
macroeconomic effects, and it is difficult to separate out the effects
of the standards on sales from effects due to macroeconomic conditions.
In addition, auto dealers may also be affected by changes in
maintenance and service costs, as well as through changes in the
maintenance needs of the vehicles sold. For example, reduced
maintenance needs of BEVs would lead to reduced demand for maintenance
labor.
I. Environmental Justice
1. Overview
People of color and people of low socioeconomic status face
cumulative impacts associated with environmental exposures of multiple
types, as well as non-chemical stressors. Numerous studies have found
that environmental hazards such as air pollution are more prevalent in
areas where people of color and low-income populations represent a
higher fraction of the population compared with the general
population.822 823 In addition, compared to non-Hispanic
Whites, some other racial groups experience greater levels of health
problems during some life stages. For example, in 2018-2020, about 12
percent of non-Hispanic Black; 9 percent of non-Hispanic American
Indian/Alaska Native; and 7 percent of Hispanic children were estimated
to currently have asthma, compared with 6 percent of non-Hispanic White
children.\824\ Nationally, on average, non-Hispanic Black and Non-
Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Native people also have lower than
average life expectancy based on 2019 data, the latest year for which
CDC estimates are available.\825\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\822\ Rowangould, G.M. (2013) A census of the near-roadway
population: public health and environmental justice considerations.
Trans Res D 25: 59-67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2013.08.003.
\823\ Marshall, J.D. (2000) Environmental inequality: Air
pollution exposures in California's South Coast Air Basin. Atmos
Environ 21: 5499- 5503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2008.02.005.
\824\ Current Asthma Prevalence by Race and Ethnicity (2018-
2020). [Online at https://www.cdc.gov/asthma/most_recent_national_asthma_data.htm.]
\825\ Arias, E. Xu, J. (2022) United States Life Tables, 2019.
National Vital Statistics Report, Volume 70, Number 19. [Online at
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr70/nvsr70-19.pdf.]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's 2016 ``Technical Guidance for Assessing Environmental Justice
in Regulatory Analysis'' provides recommendations on conducting the
highest quality analysis feasible, though not prescriptive, recognizing
that data limitations, time and resource constraints, and analytic
challenges will vary by media and regulatory context.\826\ Where
applicable and practicable, the Agency endeavors to conduct such an
analysis. There is evidence that communities with EJ concerns are
disproportionately impacted by vehicle emissions associated with this
proposed rule.\827\ EPA did not consider any potential disproportionate
impacts of vehicle emissions in selecting the proposed standards, but
we view mitigation of disproportionate impacts of vehicle emissions as
one element of protecting public health consistent with CAA section
202. In general, we expect reduced tailpipe emissions of GHGs, criteria
pollutants, and air toxics as described in Sections VI and VII of this
Preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\826\ ``Technical Guidance for Assessing Environmental Justice
in Regulatory Analysis.'' Epa.gov, Environmental Protection Agency,
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-06/documents/ejtg_5_6_16_v5.1.pdf. (June 2016).
\827\ Mohai, P.; Pellow, D.; Roberts Timmons, J. (2009)
Environmental justice. Annual Reviews 34: 405-430. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ082508-094348.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A key consideration in EPA's Technical Guidance is consistency with
the assumptions underlying other parts of the regulatory analysis when
evaluating the baseline and regulatory options. When assessing the
potential for disproportionately high and adverse health or
environmental impacts of regulatory actions on populations with
potential EJ concerns, EPA strives to answer three broad questions: (1)
Is there evidence of potential EJ concerns in the baseline (the state
of the world absent the regulatory action)? Assessing the baseline will
allow EPA to determine whether pre-existing disparities are associated
with the pollutant(s) under consideration (e.g., if the effects of the
pollutant(s) are more concentrated in some population groups). (2) Is
there evidence of potential EJ concerns for the regulatory option(s)
under consideration? Specifically, how are the pollutant(s) and its
effects distributed for the regulatory options under consideration?
And, (3) do the regulatory option(s) under consideration exacerbate or
mitigate EJ concerns relative to the baseline?
In this section, we discuss the environmental justice impacts of
this proposal from the reduction of GHGs, criteria pollutants and air
toxics tailpipe emissions. This section also discusses EJ impacts from
upstream sources and the underlying uncertainty in our EJ analysis.
2. GHG Impacts
In 2009, under the Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings
for Greenhouse Gases Under section 202(a) of the CAA (``Endangerment
Finding''), the Administrator considered how climate change threatens
the health and welfare of the U.S. population. As part of that
consideration, she also considered risks to people of color and low-
income individuals and communities, finding that certain parts of the
U.S. population may be especially vulnerable based on their
characteristics or circumstances. These groups include economically and
socially vulnerable communities; individuals at vulnerable life stages,
such as the elderly, the very young, and pregnant or nursing women;
those already in poor health or with comorbidities; the disabled; those
experiencing homelessness, mental illness, or substance abuse; and/or
Indigenous or minority populations dependent on one or limited
resources for subsistence due to factors including but not limited to
geography, access, and mobility.
Scientific assessment reports produced over the past decade by the
U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP),828 829 the
Intergovernmental
[[Page 29394]]
Panel on Climate Change IPCC),830 831 832 833 and the
National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine
834 835 add more evidence that the impacts of climate change
raise potential environmental justice concerns. These reports conclude
that poorer or predominantly non-White communities can be especially
vulnerable to climate change impacts because they tend to have limited
adaptive capacities and are more dependent on climate-sensitive
resources such as local water and food supplies or have less access to
social and information resources. Some communities of color,
specifically populations defined jointly by ethnic/racial
characteristics and geographic location, may be uniquely vulnerable to
climate change health impacts in the U.S. In particular, the 2016
scientific assessment on the Impacts of Climate Change on Human Health
\836\ found with high confidence that vulnerabilities are place- and
time-specific, life stages and ages are linked to immediate and future
health impacts, and social determinants of health are linked to a
greater extent and severity of climate change-related health impacts.
The GHG emission reductions from this proposal would contribute to
efforts to reduce the probability of severe impacts related to climate
change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\828\ USGCRP, 2018: Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United
States: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume II [Reidmiller,
D.R., C.W. Avery, D.R. Easterling, K.E. Kunkel, K.L.M. Lewis, T.K.
Maycock, and B.C. Stewart (eds.)]. U.S. Global Change Research
Program, Washington, DC, USA, 1515 pp. doi: 10.7930/NCA4.2018.
\829\ USGCRP, 2016: The Impacts of Climate Change on Human
Health in the United States: A Scientific Assessment. Crimmins, A.,
J. Balbus, J.L. Gamble, C.B. Beard, J.E. Bell, D. Dodgen, R.J.
Eisen, N. Fann, M.D. Hawkins, S.C. Herring, L. Jantarasami, D.M.
Mills, S. Saha, M.C. Sarofim, J. Trtanj, and L. Ziska, Eds. U.S.
Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, 312 pp. http://dx.doi.org/10.7930/J0R49NQX.
\830\ Oppenheimer, M., M. Campos, R.Warren, J. Birkmann, G.
Luber, B. O'Neill, and K. Takahashi, 2014: Emergent risks and key
vulnerabilities. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and
Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of
Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros,
D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee,
K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N.
Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L.White (eds.)].
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York,
NY, USA, pp. 1039-1099.
\831\ Porter, J.R., L. Xie, A.J. Challinor, K. Cochrane, S.M.
Howden, M.M. Iqbal, D.B. Lobell, and M.I. Travasso, 2014: Food
security and food production systems. In: Climate Change 2014:
Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral
Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field,
C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E.
Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma,
E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and
L.L.White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United
Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 485-533.
\832\ Smith, K.R., A.Woodward, D. Campbell-Lendrum, D.D. Chadee,
Y. Honda, Q. Liu, J.M. Olwoch, B. Revich, and R. Sauerborn, 2014:
Human health: impacts, adaptation, and co-benefits. In: Climate
Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global
and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
[Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea,
T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B.
Girma, E.S. Kissel,A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and
L.L.White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United
Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 709-754.
\833\ IPCC, 2018: Global Warming of 1.5 [deg]C.An IPCC Special
Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5 [deg]C above pre-
industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission
pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the
threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to
eradicate poverty [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, H.-O. P[ouml]rtner,
D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C.
P[eacute]an, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J.B.R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X.
Zhou, M.I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor, and T.
Waterfield (eds.)]. In Press.
\834\ National Research Council. 2011. America's Climate
Choices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/12781.
\835\ National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
2017. Communities in Action: Pathways to Health Equity. Washington,
DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/24624.
\836\ USGCRP, 2016: The Impacts of Climate Change on Human
Health in the United States: A Scientific Assessment
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
i. Effects on Specific Populations of Concern
Individuals living in socially and economically vulnerable
communities, such as those living at or below the poverty line or who
are experiencing homelessness or social isolation, are at greater risk
of health effects from climate change. This is also true with respect
to people at vulnerable life stages, specifically women who are pre-
and perinatal, or are nursing; in utero fetuses; children at all stages
of development; and the elderly. Per the Fourth National Climate
Assessment (NCA4), ``Climate change affects human health by altering
exposures to heat waves, floods, droughts, and other extreme events;
vector-, food- and waterborne infectious diseases; changes in the
quality and safety of air, food, and water; and stresses to mental
health and well-being.'' \837\ Many health conditions such as
cardiopulmonary or respiratory illness and other health impacts are
associated with and exacerbated by an increase in GHGs and climate
change outcomes, which is problematic as these diseases occur at higher
rates within vulnerable communities. Importantly, negative public
health outcomes include those that are physical in nature, as well as
mental, emotional, social, and economic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\837\ Ebi, K.L., J.M. Balbus, G. Luber, A. Bole, A. Crimmins, G.
Glass, S. Saha, M.M. Shimamoto, J. Trtanj, and J.L. White-Newsome,
2018: Human Health. In Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United
States: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume II [Reidmiller,
D.R., C.W. Avery, D.R. Easterling, K.E. Kunkel, K.L.M. Lewis, T.K.
Maycock, and B.C. Stewart (eds.)]. U.S. Global Change Research
Program, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 539-571. doi: 10.7930/
NCA4.2018.CH14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To this end, the scientific assessment literature, including the
aforementioned reports, demonstrates that there are myriad ways in
which these populations may be affected at the individual and community
levels. Individuals face differential exposure to criteria pollutants,
in part due to the proximities of highways, trains, factories, and
other major sources of pollutant-emitting sources to less-affluent
residential areas. Outdoor workers, such as construction or utility
crews and agricultural laborers, who frequently are comprised of
already at-risk groups, are exposed to poor air quality and extreme
temperatures without relief. Furthermore, individuals within EJ
populations of concern face greater housing, clean water, and food
insecurity and bear disproportionate economic impacts and health
burdens associated with climate change effects. They have less or
limited access to healthcare and affordable, adequate health or
homeowner insurance. Finally, resiliency and adaptation are more
difficult for economically vulnerable communities: They have less
liquidity, individually and collectively, to move or to make the types
of infrastructure or policy changes to limit or reduce the hazards they
face. They frequently are less able to self-advocate for resources that
would otherwise aid in building resilience and hazard reduction and
mitigation.
The assessment literature cited in EPA's 2009 and 2016 Endangerment
and Cause or Contribute Findings, as well as Impacts of Climate Change
on Human Health, also concluded that certain populations and life
stages, including children, are most vulnerable to climate-related
health effects.\838\ The assessment literature produced from 2016 to
the present strengthens these conclusions by providing more detailed
findings regarding related vulnerabilities and the projected impacts
youth may experience. These assessments--including the NCA4 and The
Impacts of Climate Change on Human Health in the United States (2016)--
describe how children's unique physiological and developmental factors
contribute to making them particularly vulnerable to climate change.
Impacts to children are expected from heat waves, air pollution,
infectious and waterborne illnesses, and mental health effects
resulting from extreme weather events. In addition, children are among
those especially
[[Page 29395]]
susceptible to allergens, as well as health effects associated with
heat waves, storms, and floods. Additional health concerns may arise in
low-income households, especially those with children, if climate
change reduces food availability and increases prices, leading to food
insecurity within households.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\838\ 74 FR 66496, December 15, 2009; 81 FR 54422, August 15,
2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Impacts of Climate Change on Human Health \837\ also found that
some communities of color, low-income groups, people with limited
English proficiency, and certain immigrant groups (especially those who
are undocumented) live with many of the factors that contribute to
their vulnerability to the health impacts of climate change. While
difficult to isolate from related socioeconomic factors, race appears
to be an important factor in vulnerability to climate-related stress,
with elevated risks for mortality from high temperatures reported for
Black or African American individuals compared to White individuals
after controlling for factors such as air conditioning use. Moreover,
people of color are disproportionately exposed to air pollution based
on where they live, and disproportionately vulnerable due to higher
baseline prevalence of underlying diseases such as asthma, so climate
exacerbations of air pollution are expected to have disproportionate
effects on these communities.
Native American Tribal communities possess unique vulnerabilities
to climate change, particularly those impacted by degradation of
natural and cultural resources within established reservation
boundaries and threats to traditional subsistence lifestyles. Tribal
communities whose health, economic well-being, and cultural traditions
depend upon the natural environment will likely be affected by the
degradation of ecosystem goods and services associated with climate
change. The IPCC indicates that losses of customs and historical
knowledge may cause communities to be less resilient or adaptable.\839\
The NCA4 noted that while Indigenous peoples are diverse and will be
impacted by the climate changes universal to all Americans, there are
several ways in which climate change uniquely threatens Indigenous
peoples' livelihoods and economies.\840\ In addition, there can
institutional barriers to their management of water, land, and other
natural resources that could impede adaptive measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\839\ Porter et al., 2014: Food security and food production
systems.
\840\ Jantarasami, L.C., R. Novak, R. Delgado, E. Marino, S.
McNeeley, C. Narducci, J. Raymond-Yakoubian, L. Singletary, and K.
Powys Whyte, 2018: Tribes and Indigenous Peoples. In Impacts, Risks,
and Adaptation in the United States: Fourth National Climate
Assessment, Volume II [Reidmiller, D.R., C.W. Avery, D.R.
Easterling, K.E. Kunkel, K.L.M. Lewis, T.K. Maycock, and B.C.
Stewart (eds.)]. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington,
DC, USA, pp. 572-603. doi: 10.7930/NCA4.2018.CH15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For example, Indigenous agriculture in the Southwest is already
being adversely affected by changing patterns of flooding, drought,
dust storms, and rising temperatures leading to increased soil erosion,
irrigation water demand, and decreased crop quality and herd sizes. The
Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation in the Northwest
have identified climate risks to salmon, elk, deer, roots, and
huckleberry habitat. Housing and sanitary water supply infrastructure
are vulnerable to disruption from extreme precipitation events.
NCA4 noted that Indigenous peoples often have disproportionately
higher rates of asthma, cardiovascular disease, Alzheimer's, diabetes,
and obesity, which can all contribute to increased vulnerability to
climate-driven extreme heat and air pollution events. These factors
also may be exacerbated by stressful situations, such as extreme
weather events, wildfires, and other circumstances.
NCA4 and IPCC Fifth Assessment Report also highlighted several
impacts specific to Alaskan Indigenous Peoples. Coastal erosion and
permafrost thaw will lead to more coastal erosion, exacerbated risks of
winter travel, and damage to buildings, roads, and other
infrastructure--these impacts on archaeological sites, structures, and
objects that will lead to a loss of cultural heritage for Alaska's
Indigenous people. In terms of food security, the NCA4 discussed
reductions in suitable ice conditions for hunting, warmer temperatures
impairing the use of traditional ice cellars for food storage, and
declining shellfish populations due to warming and acidification. While
the NCA also noted that climate change provided more opportunity to
hunt from boats later in the fall season or earlier in the spring, the
assessment found that the net impact was an overall decrease in food
security.
In addition, the U.S. Pacific Islands and the indigenous
communities that live there are also uniquely vulnerable to the effects
of climate change due to their remote location and geographic
isolation. They rely on the land, ocean, and natural resources for
their livelihoods, but face challenges in obtaining energy and food
supplies that need to be shipped in at high costs. As a result, they
face higher energy costs than the rest of the nation and depend on
imported fossil fuels for electricity generation and diesel. These
challenges exacerbate the climate impacts that the Pacific Islands are
experiencing. NCA4 notes that Indigenous peoples of the Pacific are
threatened by rising sea levels, diminishing freshwater availability,
and negative effects to ecosystem services that threaten these
individuals' health and well-being.
3. Criteria Pollutant and Air Toxics Impacts
In addition to climate change benefits, this proposed rule would
also impact emissions of criteria and air toxic pollutants from
vehicles and from upstream sources (e.g., EGUs and refineries), as
described in Section VII.A. We discuss near-roadway issues in Section
VIII.I.3.i and upstream sources in Section VIII.I.3.ii.
i. Near-Roadway Analysis
In this section, we review existing scholarly literature examining
the potential for disproportionate exposure among people of color and
people with low socioeconomic status (SES) living near or attending
school near major roads. In addition, we provide three analyses: People
living near roadways using the U.S. Census Bureau's American Housing
Survey for calendar year 2009, children attending school near roadways
using the U.S. Department of Education's database of school locations,
and the analysis of people who live in close proximity to major truck
routes which also carry light- and medium-duty vehicles, using data
from the 2010 Decennial Census, the 2012 five-year American Community
Survey, EPA's population analysis, and U.S. Department of
Transportation Freight Analysis Framework, version 4.
[[Page 29396]]
As discussed in Section II.C.7 of this document, concentrations of
many air pollutants are elevated near high-traffic roadways. Several
publications report nationwide analyses that compare the
sociodemographic patterns of people who do or do not live near major
roadways. Three of these studies found that people living near major
roadways are more likely to be minorities or low in
SES.841 842 843 They also found that the outcomes of their
analyses varied between regions within the U.S. However, only one such
study looked at whether such conclusions were confounded by living in a
location with higher population density and how demographics differ
between locations nationwide.\843\ In general, it found that higher
density areas have higher proportions of low-income residents and
people of color. In other publications based on a city, county, or
state, the results are similar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\841\ Tian, N.; Xue, J.; Barzyk. T.M. (2013) Evaluating
socioeconomic and racial differences in traffic-related metrics in
the United States using a GIS approach. J Exposure Sci Environ
Epidemiol 23: 215-222.
\842\ Rowangould, G.M. (2013) A census of the U.S. near-roadway
population: public health and environmental justice considerations.
Transportation Research Part D; 59-67.
\843\ CDC (2013) Residential proximity to major highways--United
States, 2010. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 62(3): 46-50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Locations in these studies include Los Angeles, CA; Seattle, WA;
Wayne County, MI; Orange County, FL; and the State of
California.844 845 846 847 848 849 850 Such disparities may
be due to multiple factors.851 852 853 854 855
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\844\ Marshall, J.D. (2008) Environmental inequality: air
pollution exposures in California's South Coast Air Basin.
\845\ Su, J.G.; Larson, T.; Gould, T.; Cohen, M.; Buzzelli, M.
(2010) Transboundary air pollution and environmental justice:
Vancouver and Seattle compared. GeoJournal 57: 595-608. doi:10.1007/
s10708-009-9269-6.
\846\ Chakraborty, J.; Zandbergen, P.A. (2007) Children at risk:
measuring racial/ethnic disparities in potential exposure to air
pollution at school and home. J Epidemiol Community Health 61: 1074-
1079. doi:10.1136/jech.2006.054130.
\847\ Green, R.S.; Smorodinsky, S.; Kim, J.J.; McLaughlin, R.;
Ostro, B. (2004) Proximity of California public schools to busy
roads. Environ Health Perspect 112: 61-66. Doi:10.1289/ehp.6566.
\848\ Wu, Y.; Batterman, S.A. (2006) Proximity of schools in
Detroit, Michigan to automobile and truck traffic. J Exposure Sci &
Environ Epidemiol. doi:10.1038/sj.jes.7500484.
\849\ Su, J.G.; Jerrett, M.; de Nazelle, A.; Wolch, J. (2011)
Does exposure to air pollution in urban parks have socioeconomic,
racial, or ethnic gradients? Environ Res 111: 319-328.
\850\ Jones, M.R.; Diez-Roux, A.; Hajat, A.; et al. (2014) Race/
ethnicity, residential segregation, and exposure to ambient air
pollution: The Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA). Am J
Public Health 104: 2130-2137. [Online at: https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2014.302135].
\851\ Depro, B.; Timmins, C. (2008) Mobility and environmental
equity: do housing choices determine exposure to air pollution? Duke
University Working Paper.
\852\ Rothstein, R. The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How
Our Government Segregated America. New York: Liveright, 2018.
\853\ Lane, H.J.; Morello-Frosch, R.; Marshall, J.D.; Apte, J.S.
(2022) Historical redlining is associated with present-day air
pollution disparities in US Cities. Environ Sci & Technol Letters 9:
345-350. DOI: [Online at: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.1c01012].
\854\ Ware, L. (2021) Plessy's legacy: the government's role in
the development and perpetuation of segregated neighborhoods. RSF:
The Russel Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 7:92-109.
DOI: DOI: 10.7758/RSF.2021.7.1.06.
\855\ Archer, D.N. (2020) ``White Men's Roads through Black
Men's Homes'': advancing racial equity through highway
reconstruction. Vanderbilt Law Rev 73: 1259.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
People with low SES often live in neighborhoods with multiple
stressors and health risk factors, including reduced health insurance
coverage rates, higher smoking and drug use rates, limited access to
fresh food, visible neighborhood violence, and elevated rates of
obesity and some diseases such as asthma, diabetes, and ischemic heart
disease. Although questions remain, several studies find stronger
associations between traffic-related air pollution and health in
locations with such chronic neighborhood stress, suggesting that
populations in these areas may be more susceptible to the effects of
air pollution.856 857 858 859
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\856\ Clougherty, J.E.; Kubzansky, L.D. (2009) A framework for
examining social stress and susceptibility to air pollution in
respiratory health. Environ Health Perspect 117: 1351-1358.
Doi:10.1289/ehp.0900612.
\857\ Clougherty, J.E.; Levy, J.I.; Kubzansky, L.D.; Ryan, P.B.;
Franco Suglia, S.; Jacobson Canner, M.; Wright, R.J. (2007)
Synergistic effects of traffic-related air pollution and exposure to
violence on urban asthma etiology. Environ Health Perspect 115:
1140-1146. doi:10.1289/ehp.9863.
\858\ Finkelstein, M.M.; Jerrett, M.; DeLuca, P.; Finkelstein,
N.; Verma, D.K.; Chapman, K.; Sears, M.R. (2003) Relation between
income, air pollution and mortality: a cohort study. Canadian Med
Assn J 169: 397-402.
\859\ Shankardass, K.; McConnell, R.; Jerrett, M.; Milam, J.;
Richardson, J.; Berhane, K. (2009) Parental stress increases the
effect of traffic-related air pollution on childhood asthma
incidence. Proc Natl Acad Sci 106: 12406-12411. doi:10.1073/
pnas.0812910106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We analyzed several national databases that allowed us to evaluate
whether homes and schools were located near a major road and whether
disparities in exposure may be occurring in these environments. The
American Housing Survey (AHS) includes descriptive statistics of over
70,000 housing units across the nation. The survey is conducted every
two years by the U.S. Census Bureau with road locations from the U.S.
Census Bureau's TIGER database. The second database we analyzed was the
U.S. Department of Education's Common Core of Data, which includes
school location, enrollment by race, and the number of students
eligible for free- and reduced-price school lunch for all public
elementary and secondary schools and school districts nationwide. The
third analysis uses data from USDOT's Freight Analysis Framework 4
(FAF4), in addition to the 2010 Decennial Census and EPA's population
analysis for the conterminous United States (CONUS).
In analyzing the 2009 AHS, we focused on whether a housing unit was
located within 300 feet, the distance provided in the AHS data, of a
``4-or-more lane highway, railroad, or airport.'' We analyzed whether
there were differences between households in such locations compared
with those in locations farther from these transportation facilities.
We included other variables, such as land use category, region of
country, and housing type. We found that homes with a non-White
householder were 22-34 percent more likely to be located within 300
feet of these large transportation facilities than homes with White
householders. Homes with a Hispanic householder were 17-33 percent more
likely to be located within 300 feet of these large transportation
facilities than homes with non-Hispanic householders. Households near
large transportation facilities were, on average, lower in income and
educational attainment and more likely to be a rental property and
located in an urban area compared with households more distant from
transportation facilities.
We examined the Common Core of Data from the U.S. Department of
Education, to evaluate whether children who attend school in proximity
to major roads are disproportionately represented by students of color
or low SES students. To determine school proximities to major roadways,
we used a geographic information system (GIS) to map each school and
roadways based on the U.S. Census's TIGER roadway file. We found that
students of color were overrepresented at schools within 200 meters of
the largest roadways, and schools within 200 meters of the largest
roadways had higher than expected numbers of students eligible for free
or reduced-price lunches. For example, Black students represent 22
percent of students at schools located within 200 meters of a primary
road, compared to 17 percent of students in all U.S. schools. Hispanic
students represent 30 percent of students at schools located within 200
meters of a primary road, compared to 22 percent of students in all
U.S. schools. In extended analyses of this data set, we found that
students of
[[Page 29397]]
color from nearly every race are more likely to attend school within
200 meters of the largest roads as compared with White students.\860\
For example, American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian/Pacific Islander,
Black, Hispanic, and multiracial students are at least 75 percent more
likely than White students to attend school near primary roads, such as
limited-access highways.\861\ Students eligible for free or reduced-
price lunches are also more likely to attend schools near major roads.
The schools where we observed disparities of race and SES were mostly
found in cities and large suburbs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\860\ U.S. EPA (2023) Extended Analyses of Students Attending
Schools within 200 Meters of U.S. Primary and Secondary Roads.
Memorandum to docket.
\861\ These racial groups are those reported in reference 860.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As described in Section II.C.8 of this Preamble, we recently
conducted an analysis of the populations within the CONUS living in
close proximity to FAF4 roads, which include many large highways and
other routes where light- and medium-duty vehicles operate. Relative to
the rest of the population, people living near these FAF4 roads are
more likely to be people of color and have lower incomes than the
general population. People living near FAF4 roads are also more likely
to live in metropolitan areas. Even controlling for region of the
country, county characteristics, population density, and household
structure, race, ethnicity, and income are significant determinants of
whether someone lives near a FAF4 road. Overall, there is substantial
evidence that people who live or attend school near major roadways are
more likely to be of a non-White race, Hispanic, and/or have a low SES.
We expect communities near roads will benefit from the reduced tailpipe
emissions of PM, NOX, SO2, NMOG, CO, and mobile
source air toxics from light- and medium-duty vehicles in this
proposal. EPA is considering how to better estimate the near-roadway
air quality impacts of its regulatory actions and how those impacts are
distributed across populations. EPA requests comment on the EJ analysis
presented in this proposal.
ii. Upstream Source Impacts
In general, we expect that increases in emissions from EGUs and
decreases in petroleum-sector emissions would lead to changes in
exposure to criteria pollutants for people living in the communities
near these facilities. Analyses of communities in close proximity to
EGUs have found that a higher percentage of communities of color and
low-income communities live near these sources when compared to
national averages.\862\ Analysis of populations near refineries also
indicates there may be potential disparities in pollution-related
health risk from that source.\863\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\862\ See 80 FR 64662, 64915-64916 (October 23, 2015).
\863\ U.S. EPA (2014). Risk and Technology Review--Analysis of
Socio-Economic Factors for Populations Living Near Petroleum
Refineries. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina. January.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
J. Additional Non-Monetized Considerations Associated With Benefits and
Costs: Energy Efficiency Gap
The topic of the ``energy paradox'' or ``energy efficiency gap''
has been extensively discussed in many previous vehicle GHG standards'
analyses.\864\ The idea of the energy efficiency gap is that existing
technologies that reduce fuel consumption enough to pay for themselves
in short periods were not widely adopted, even though conventional
economic principles suggest that because the benefits to vehicle buyers
would outweigh the costs to those buyers of the new technologies,
automakers would provide them and people would buy them. However, as
described in previous EPA GHG vehicle rules (most recently in the 2021
rule) engineering analyses identified technologies, such as downsized-
turbocharged engines, gasoline direct injection, and improved
aerodynamics, where the additional cost of the technology is quickly
covered by the fuel savings it provides, but they were not widely
adopted until after the issuance of EPA vehicle standards. As explained
in detail in previous rulemakings, research suggests the presence of
fuel-saving technologies does not lead to adverse effects on other
vehicle attributes, such as performance and noise. Additionally,
research shows that there are technologies that exist that provide
improvements in both performance and fuel economy, or at least in
improved fuel economy without hindering performance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\864\ For two of the most recent examples, see 86 FR 74434,
December 30, 2021, ``Revised 2023 and Later Model Year Light-Duty
Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards'' and 85 FR 24174, April
30, 2020, ``The Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule
for Model Years 2021-2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are a number of hypotheses in the literature that attempt to
explain the existence of the energy efficiency gap, including both
consumer and producer side reasons.\865\ For example, some researchers
posit that consumers take up-front costs into account in purchase
decisions more than future fuel savings, consumers may not fully
understand potential cost savings, or they may not prioritize fuel
consumption in their set of important attributes when starting the
vehicle purchase process. On the producer side, explanations include
the reasons related to large, fixed costs in switching to new
technologies, or the uncertainty involved in technological innovation
and adoption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\865\ Note that the literature surrounding the energy efficiency
gap in LD vehicles is based on historical data, which is focused on
ICE vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part of the uncertainty surrounding the existence or reason behind
the energy efficiency gap is that most of the technology applied to
existing ICE vehicles that may have created possible unaccounted for
effects was ``invisible.'' This is for a few reasons, including that
the technology itself was not something the mainstream consumer would
know about, or because it was applied to a vehicle at the same time as
multiple other changes, therefore making it unclear to the consumer
what changes in vehicle attributes, if any, could be attributed to a
specific technology. Though there may still exist a slight gap in ICE
vehicle purchases due to this uncertainty, it becomes less and less of
an issue with the growing share of electric vehicles in the market, and
changes in vehicle attributes due to the new technology are clearer.
For more information, see DRIA Chapter 4.4.
IX. Consideration of Potential Fuels Controls for a Future Rulemaking
The emissions standards for new vehicles (MY 2027 and later)
proposed in this rule would achieve significant air quality benefits.
However, there is an opportunity to further address PM emissions from
the existing vehicle fleet, the millions of vehicles produced during
the phase-in period, as well as nonroad engines, through changes in
market fuel composition. Given the current population of vehicles and
nonroad equipment, we expect that tens of millions of gasoline-powered
sources will remain in use well into the 2030s.866 867
Although EPA has not undertaken sufficient analysis to propose changes
to fuel requirements under CAA section 211(c) in this rulemaking, and
considers such changes beyond the scope of this rulemaking, EPA has
begun to consider the possibility of such changes and in this section,
EPA requests comments on aspects of a possible future rulemaking aimed
at further PM emission
[[Page 29398]]
reductions from these sources via gasoline fuel property standards.
Such future fuel standards could be an important complement to EPA's
proposed vehicle PM standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\866\ USEPA, ``Population and Activity of Onroad Vehicles,''
November 2020. Document EPA-420-R-20-023.
\867\ USEPA, ``Nonroad Engine Population Growth Estimated in
MOVES2014b,'' July 2018. Document EPA-420-R-18-010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Impacts of High-Boiling Components on Emissions
Numerous emission studies have associated high-boiling compounds in
gasoline with increased tailpipe PM emissions.868 869 In
addition, analysis of a large number of market fuel samples has shown
that the high-boiling tail of gasoline contains a high proportion of
aromatics, and that the heaviest few percent of this material has very
high leverage on PM emissions.870 871 872 873 The
combination of these facts underlies the rest of our discussion,
specifically the ability to use high boiling point as a surrogate for
heavy aromatic content and the high leverage such compounds have on PM
emissions from gasoline vehicles and equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\868\ Coordinating Research Council, ``Evaluation and
Investigation of Fuel Effects on Gaseous and Particulate Emissions
on SIDI In-Use Vehicles,'' Report No. E-94-2, March 2016.
\869\ USEPA ``Assessing the Effect of Five Gasoline Properties
on Exhaust Emissions from Light-Duty Vehicles Certified to Tier 2
Standards: Analysis of Data from EPAct Phase 3 (EPAct/V2/E-89),''
April 2013. Document EPA-420-R-13-002.
\870\ Chapman E., Winston-Galant M., Geng P., Latigo R., Boehman
A., ``Alternative Fuel Property Correlations to the Honda
Particulate Matter Index (PMI),'' SAE Technical Paper 2016-01-2550,
2016.
\871\ Ben Amara A., Tahtouh T., Ubrich E., Starck L., Moriya H.,
Iida J., Koji N., ``Critical Analysis of PM Index and Other Fuel
Indices: Impact of Gasoline Fuel Volatility and Chemical
Composition,'' SAE Technical Paper 2018-01-1741, 2018.
\872\ Sobotowski R.A., Butler A.D., Guerra Z., ``A Pilot Study
of Fuel Impacts on PM Emissions from Light-duty Gasoline Vehicles,''
SAE Int. J. Fuels Lubr. 8(1):2015.
\873\ Aikawa, K., Sakurai K., Jetter J.J., ``Development of a
Predictive Model for Gasoline Vehicle Particulate Matter
Emissions,'' SAE Technical Paper 2010-01-2115, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Predictive Fuel Parameters
Historically, PM emission predictors have been focused on total
aromatics (e.g., from ASTM method D1319) and heavy-end distillation
parameters from ASTM D86, such as T90.874 875 The T90
parameter refers to the temperature at which 90 volume percent of the
gasoline sample has been distilled. It has been used for decades as a
simple measure of the boiling range of the heaviest 10 percent of the
fuel, or essentially how much high-boiling material is present. For
example, in the EPAct study results published by EPA in 2013, aromatics
content and T90 were found to be statistically significant predictors
of PM emissions across a large set of fuels and vehicles.\876\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\874\ Reference to ASTM D86, D1319, etc.
\875\ Coordinating Research Council, ``An Improved Index for
Particulate Matter Emissions (PME),'' Report No. RW-107-2, March
2021.
\876\ USEPA ``Assessing the Effect of Five Gasoline Properties
on Exhaust Emissions from Light-Duty Vehicles Certified to Tier 2
Standards: Analysis of Data from EPAct Phase 3 (EPAct/V2/E-89),''
April 2013. Document EPA-420-R-13-002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The PM Index (PMI) parameter, first described in a 2010
publication, combines detailed fuel composition data (from ASTM D6730)
with volatility and structural characteristics for all compounds
identified in the fuel to predict its relative propensity to form
PM.\877\ The PMI and its variants have been shown to be the most robust
type of fuel-based PM predictor to date, and illustrate that a small
proportion of low-volatility aromatics in gasoline are responsible for
a large share of PM emissions.\878\ PMI has been used in several
emission studies and modeling analyses correlating fuel parameters to
PM,879 880 and our assessment of potential impacts of fuel
formulation changes on PM emission inventories, presented in Section
IX.7, rely heavily on PMI. However, the detailed fuel hydrocarbon
analysis required to calculate PMI is costly and time-consuming.
Therefore, it would be impractical to set PMI standards for market
gasoline. We discuss alternative fuel parameters that could serve as an
effective surrogate for PMI in Section IX.E.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\877\ Aikawa, K., Sakurai K., Jetter J.J., ``Development of a
Predictive Model for Gasoline Vehicle Particulate Matter
Emissions,'' SAE Technical Paper 2010-01-2115, 2010.
\878\ Coordinating Research Council, ``An Improved Index for
Particulate Matter Emissions (PME),'' Report No. RW-107-2, March
2021.
\879\ Butler A.D., Sobotowski R.A., Hoffman G.J., and Machiele,
P., ``Influence of Fuel PM Index and Ethanol Content on Particulate
Emissions from Light-Duty Gasoline Vehicles,'' SAE Technical Paper
2015-01-1072, 2015.
\880\ Coordinating Research Council, ``Alternative Oxygenate
Effects on Emissions,'' Report No. E-129-2, October 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Onroad Emissions Impacts
We considered three large studies spanning a range of vehicle
technologies to provide a quantitative estimate of the impact of PMI on
PM emissions. The first is the EPAct/V2/E-89 study designed by EPA,
CRC, and DOE/NREL and published in 2013, where 27 gasoline blends were
tested in 15 vehicles from the 2008 model year.\881\ These results
reflect the performance of port-fuel-injected vehicles meeting the
light duty Tier 2 emissions standards. While PMI was not originally a
design parameter of the study, ASTM D6729 data was generated after test
fuel production, which allowed the PMI analysis to be done later.
During test fuel development, the distribution of C7/C8/C9/C10+
aromatics was controlled across the test fuels to uniform ratios
approximating what is found in market fuel surveys. The test fuels
spanned a PMI range of 0.7 to 2.2, and the study results indicate a
change in PMI of 1 percent produces a PM emissions change of
approximately 1 percent. PMI ranges for market fuels are shown in
Section IX.B.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\881\ USEPA ``Assessing the Effect of Five Gasoline Properties
on Exhaust Emissions from Light-Duty Vehicles Certified to Tier 2
Standards: Analysis of Data from EPAct Phase 3 (EPAct/V2/E-89),''
April 2013. Document EPA-420-R-13-002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A second study providing relevant PM vs PMI data is CRC E-94-2,
published in 2018.\882\ Researchers tested 16 light duty vehicles
spanning model years 2013-2017 and a range of engine technologies using
eight fuels varying in PMI, ethanol, and anti-knock index (AKI, also
called octane) level. These results showed a change in PM emissions of
approximately 2 percent per 1 percent PMI over the range of 1.4 to 2.4
PMI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\882\ Coordinating Research Council, ``Evaluation and
Investigation of Fuel Effects on Gaseous and Particulate Emissions
on SIDI In-Use Vehicles,'' Report No. E-94-2, March 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A third and more recent study was jointly conducted by EPA,
Environment and Climate Change Canada, and several automakers.\883\ Ten
high-sales vehicles of model years 2015-2022 were tested in the
participants' labs using five test fuels spanning a PMI range of 1.5 to
2.4. This study was designed to assess the emissions impact of
replacing a small portion of heavy aromatics in a high-PMI gasoline
with alternative high-octane blendstocks (light aromatics,
isoparaffins, and ethanol), which are the types of changes we would
expect to occur if fuel producers need to comply with a new PMI limit.
Aromatics profiles and other key parameters were carefully designed to
represent market fuels. Results showed a change in PM emissions of
approximately 1.5 percent for each 1 percent change in PMI over the
full span of the study fuels, which falls between the results of the
two earlier studies described here. Taken together these three studies
suggest a range of 1-2 percent PM emissions increase for each percent
PMI increase.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\883\ USEPA, ``Exhaust Emission Impacts of Replacing Heavy
Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Gasoline with Alternate Octane Sources,''
April 2023. Document EPA-420-R-23-008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Nonroad Emissions Impacts
A literature review for fuel impacts on nonroad gasoline engine
(NRGE) emissions finds relatively few studies, and we are not aware of
any that have specifically assessed effects of heavy
[[Page 29399]]
aromatics or high-boiling compounds on PM emissions. Work published in
2005 and 2006 examined small NRGE emissions on two fuels, one being a
gasoline with T90, aromatics, and oxygen content typical of market fuel
at that time, and the other an alkylate test fuel with no aromatics and
significantly lower T90.884, 885 For a 4-stroke engine, the
results showed the alkylate fuel reduced PM by 28 percent to 59
percent, depending on the output power level. This type of engine is
commonly found in larger portable equipment like lawnmowers, gensets,
and plate compactors. The study also tested a 2-stroke engine, a design
that has historically powered handheld devices like chainsaws and
string trimmers. These are fueled by gasoline mixed with a small amount
of lubricating oil, and as a result, have much higher emissions of PM
and unburned hydrocarbons than 4-stroke engines (where oil is not
involved in combustion). In the 2-stroke engine, the alkylate fuel
reduced PM by 10 percent at a single, high-load test point. Overall,
this engine had PM emissions roughly 100 times higher than the 4-
stroke.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\884\ Timo [Aring]lander, Eero Antikainen, Taisto Raunemaa, Esa
Elonen, Aimo Rautiola & Keijo Torkkell (2005) Particle Emissions
from a Small Two-Stroke Engine: Effects of Fuel, Lubricating Oil,
and Exhaust Aftertreatment on Particle Characteristics, Aerosol
Science and Technology, 39:2, 151-161.
\885\ Timo [Aring]lander. Carbon Composition and Volatility
Characteristics of the Aerosol Particles Formed in Internal
Combustion Engines. Kuopio Univ. Publ. C. Nat. and Environ. Sci.
192: 1-54 (2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sensitivity of PM emissions in NRGEs to fuel properties like
aromatics content and T90 suggests that the fundamental mechanisms of
particle formation described in the literature (e.g., nucleation and
growth arising from diffusion flames) is universal to gasoline
combustion.886 887 Thus, we expect the effects of PMI
observed in onroad vehicle studies to be broadly applicable to 4-stroke
NRGEs. In addition, most nonroad engines rely on carburetors for fuel
metering and in the absence of air-fuel-ratio feedback control tend to
be calibrated to run with slightly over-fueled combustion to optimize
power output and limit exhaust temperatures. This type of operation
produces higher emissions related to incomplete combustion, including
PM, and thus we might expect a significant impact of PMI. It is less
clear how a reduction in PMI will affect emissions from 2-stroke
gasoline engines, given their use of a fuel-oil mixture. We will be
collecting additional data on the effects of PMI on NRGEs, and request
comment on other data sources that may be relevant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\886\ Das D.D., St. John P.C., McEnally C.S., Kim S., Pfefferle
L.D., ``Measuring and Predicting Sooting Tendencies of Oxygenates,
Alkanes, Alkenes, Cycloalkenes, and Aromatics on a Unified Scale,''
Combustion and Flame 190 (2018) 349-364.
\887\ Calcote, H.F., Manos D.M., ``Effect of Molecular Structure
on Incipient Soot Formation,'' Combust. Flame 49: 289-304 (1983).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Survey of High-Boiling Materials in Market Gasoline
Data on high-boiling materials (e.g., in compliance data and other
surveys) has historically been reported in terms of T90 from ASTM D86.
This section discusses our assessment of the trends of T90 data over
the past two decades, followed by a summary of available data for PMI.
1. T90 Levels
Figure 40 shows T90 trends by season over the past two decades. On
an annual-average basis, the T90 of U.S. gasoline declined from around
325 [deg]F prior to 2010 to around 315 [deg]F after 2010.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05MY23.044
In any given year, there is significant variation in T90 levels
across refineries, as well as between batches within each refinery.
Thus, while the volume-weighted average T90 of U.S. gasoline was 313
[deg]F in 2019, Figure 41 shows that the ranges for individual
refineries ranged from 280 [deg]F to 340 [deg]F in 2019, and that
individual gasoline batches could have much higher T90.
[[Page 29400]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05MY23.045
A common thread across the market shifts in T90 has been a
decreasing gasoline-to-distillate ratio (GDR) in the product slates
produced by refineries. Changes in demand for gasoline relative to
distillate products changes how refiners blend up their refinery
streams. To accommodate a downward shift in GDR, the simplest process
adjustment refiners can make is to undercut some heavy material from
the gasoline blendstocks into diesel products. This has the effect of
reducing the T90 of gasoline, consistent with the historical trends
over the past two decades. Perhaps the most important factor affecting
GDR was the influx of ethanol into gasoline. The increasing ethanol
volume displaced a portion of petroleum, which caused refiners to move
more of the midrange gasoline cut into the distillate pool. Ethanol's
octane also allowed refiners to back out aromatic content. A second
factor causing lower T90 values was the Tier 2 program, which reduced
gasoline sulfur levels. Because some of the heavy gasoline blendstocks
are high in sulfur, moving them into the distillate pool helped
refiners comply with the gasoline sulfur standards and reduced T90
values at the same time. A third factor may have been the changes in
U.S. crude slates as fracked oil came online after 2010. Fracked crudes
tend to have lower density and less heavy material, which results in a
lighter gasoline.
Figure 40 also shows seasonal variation, with winter T90 values
around 8 degrees lower on average than summer. GDR is lower in the
winter due to lower demand for gasoline and an increase in heating oil
product demand. Another factor is higher gasoline volatility limits
(i.e., RVP) in the winter allowing refiners to blend more butanes and
pentanes into gasoline, which displaces heavier blendstocks
proportionally.
Any potential future gasoline standard that might place limits on
high-boiling and/or heavy aromatic content of gasoline should then be
placed in the context of future changes in gasoline production and the
GDR. Looking at domestic petroleum consumption projections in EIA's
2022 Annual Energy Outlook, we would expect the GDR to decline by
roughly 10 percent over the next two decades. This is not surprising,
given that the decline in gasoline demand with electrification of
light-duty and medium-duty vehicles and consumer nonroad equipment is
expected to be faster than the decline in diesel demand for heavy duty
trucks and equipment.\888\ To the extent that U.S. refinery production
shifts along with U.S. market demand, then the T90 level of gasoline
would be expected to continue to decline in the future as well.
However, fuel production is also significantly affected by imports and
exports. We can assume refiners will continue to try to maintain or
expand export markets as much as possible. For these reasons, we would
not expect significant reductions below the current production GDR of
1.4 for a decade or more, and thus despite significant reductions in
T90 levels over the last decade, the GDR would be expected to remain
fairly constant in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\888\ Root, T. (2021, June 30). ``Lawn care is going electric.
And the revolution is here to stay.'' The Washington Post. Retrieved
from https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-solutions/2021/06/30/electric-lawn-care/ on 12/15/2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. PMI Profile of Market Gasoline
Figure 42 shows the distribution of PMI now and roughly a decade
ago. Given our assessment of T90 levels over time, it is not surprising
to see a reduction in the median PMI of market gasoline. Regardless of
this downward shift, the median PMI of market gasoline is nearly 1.6,
and roughly 10 percent of gasoline remains above a PMI of 2.0. Thus,
there remains considerable opportunity to reduce PM emissions by
bringing PMI levels down, particularly in areas with the highest PMIs.
[[Page 29401]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05MY23.046
The specification for Tier 3 certification test gasoline includes a
range for heavy (C10+) aromatics, which, along with the other
specifications, results in a PMI value in the range of 1.6-1.7. This
mirrors the median level in recent market surveys, though market fuels
contain a wider range of compounds. Depending on the level of a
potential limit on heavy material or PMI, the specifications for
certification gasoline may nor may not need to be adjusted.
C. Sources of High-Boiling Compounds in Gasoline Production and How
Reductions Might Occur
1. Refinery Units and Processes
There are primarily three refinery units that contribute high-
boiling material to gasoline: The fluidized catalytic cracker (FCC),
reformer, and coker. The FCC unit breaks down heavy crude fractions
into lighter material spanning a wide boiling range, after which it is
separated by distillation into the gasoline, diesel, and fuel oil
product pools. The FCC produces the largest share of gasoline volume in
most refineries, and for those processing highly aromatic crudes, the
FCC can be a significant source of heavy aromatics. Lowering the
boiling range of FCC output going into gasoline is likely to be the
simplest way to reduce high-boiling material. Refiners commonly shift
mid-boiling FCC output between gasoline and diesel seasonally to match
product volume demands (see Section IX.C).
The reformer is typically the primary source of aromatics in a
refinery's gasoline, including high-boiling aromatic material. This
unit's purpose is to increase the octane of naphtha streams by
converting paraffinic material into aromatics. The reformer output
(reformate) may contain several percent of high-boiling alkylbenzenes
and bi-cyclic compounds, depending on its operating conditions and the
boiling range of the feed naphtha. Except for possible removal of light
reformate to control gasoline benzene levels, all reformer output is
typically routed to the gasoline pool. Thus, the simplest ways to
reduce heavy aromatics in reformate are likely to be lowering the
boiling range of the feed naphtha and/or reducing the severity (i.e.,
target octane) of the output.
Refineries that process heavy crudes often have coker units, which
are a type of cracking unit used to break down very heavy distillation
residues. The coker output is typically hydrotreated to produce a
stable naphtha. Depending on its boiling range and octane level, this
material may be blended into gasoline, diesel, or sent to the reformer.
Thus, the aromatic content and boiling range of the coker naphtha may
also be a consideration for a refiner trying to reduce heavy aromatics
in gasoline.
We reviewed gasoline aromatics and T90 values from refinery batch
data, as well as public information on which types of chemical
processing units are present in those refineries. This analysis
suggested two refinery configurations that are likely to result in more
heavy aromatics in gasoline. Refineries with coker units tend to have
higher T90 levels, and because the coker cracks heavy aromatic material
into the gasoline boiling range, we expect these refineries to produce
higher-PMI gasoline. Second, are refineries with aromatic extraction
units, which are used to produce benzene, toluene, and xylenes for sale
as petrochemicals. These refineries are expected to run their reformers
at increased severity to produce more aromatics overall. After
extraction of the valuable light aromatics, we expect a higher
proportion of heavy aromatics will remain to meet octane requirements
of their gasoline output.
2. Value of Aromatics for Octane Requirements
Reducing the content of high-boiling compounds in gasoline is made
more complicated by the need to meet market octane requirements since
these are generally aromatic-rich streams. Because of their high octane
(>110 AKI), aromatics are among the most valuable compounds produced in
refineries. If heavy aromatics were to be removed from gasoline, then
not only their volume, but their octane would have to be replaced. One
source for additional octane is via increased reformer severity or
throughput to generate additional light aromatics. This action may
require other adjustments to maintain compliance with gasoline benzene
standards or rebalance naphtha streams. A refinery may also be able to
increase high-octane isoparaffin production through additional
alkylation and/or isomerization operations. Finally, a
[[Page 29402]]
refinery may opt to further increase reliance on ethanol as a source of
octane. We seek comment and data on how refinery operations might
change with a limit on heavy aromatics and/or other high boiling
gasoline components.
D. Methods of Compliance Determination
Distillation by ASTM D86 has been part of EPA's gasoline compliance
methods since the 1990s. As such, the equipment and expertise to run
the method are widespread. An assessment of the correlation between PMI
and four D86 distillation parameters (T70-T95) shows that T90 has the
best correlation with PMI, but with only a modest correlation
coefficient.\889\ The results also indicate that a T90 limit of 330
[deg]F, for example, would permit fuels with PMI over 2.3 in the market
while prohibiting some others with PMI less than 2. A comparison of D86
results with those of DHA (such as ASTM D6730) illustrate that ASTM D86
does a relatively poor job of separating compounds by volatility and
underestimates the final boiling point of the heavy tail.\890\ These
analyses indicate that ASTM D86 may lack the needed precision for PMI
control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\889\ See Docket Memo from Aron Butler, ``Supplemental
Information Related to Potential Fuels Controls for Gasoline PM'',
docket ID #EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0829.
\890\ Sobotowski, R., Butler, A., Loftis, K., and Wyborny, L.,
``A Method of Assessing and Reducing the Impact of Heavy Gasoline
Fractions on Particulate Matter Emissions from Light-Duty
Vehicles,'' SAE Int. J. Fuels Lubr. 15(3):2022. See Figure 4b.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Setting a standard for PMI itself would be ideal but quantifying
the PMI of a fuel requires results from a DHA method such as ASTM
D6730. This method runs for 2-3 hours and produces a chromatograph that
must be interpreted by an experienced analyst, making it difficult to
standardize and automate. There are a few alternative ASTM
chromatography methods that are simpler and faster to run than DHA,
which we believe may be better candidates for a PMI surrogate. ASTM
D8071 uses a vacuum-UV (VUV) light source detector to produce results
by molecular type and carbon number in about 35 minutes. It doesn't
quantify individual species but is still useful for producing a good
estimate of PMI without requiring the same analytical experience from
the operator as ASTM D6730. However, it is relatively new and
unfamiliar to many petroleum labs, and there isn't much VUV data on
market fuels for use in correlating to PMI. Another method is ASTM
D5769, which gives results for a range of aromatics species, but does
not quantify other heavy material in the tail.
The most promising alternative is simulated distillation (SimDis)
by ASTM D7096. Unlike ASTM D6730 or D8071, this method does not
separate the constituents by molecular type but produces a profile of
mass by boiling point that is sufficiently precise to quantify the
heavy tail of a fuel sample. Given the data showing that the heavy tail
of market gasoline is highly aromatic, this method can act as a
promising surrogate for PMI. SimDis was developed in the 1980s to
quickly assess the boiling point range of petroleum samples and has
been in use in refinery process control for many years. In a lab
setting, ASTM D7096 runs in about 15 minutes and can easily be
incorporated into an automated workflow. Collaborative work between
EPA, national lab, and auto industry partners over the past year has
produced data evaluating the reproducibility ASTM D7096.\891\ We
believe those results support the potential use of this method for
demonstrating compliance with a limit on high-boiling point compounds.
We request comment on the suitability of these methods for compliance
determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\891\ USEPA, ``Assessment and Optimization of ASTM D7096
Simulated Distillation for Quantifying Heavy Hydrocarbons in
Gasoline,'' April 2023. Document EPA-420-R-23-009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Structure and Costs of Standards
1. Statutory Authority
Section 211(c)(1)(A) of the CAA provides EPA broad authority to
issue or revise regulations controlling fuel or fuel additives that
cause or contribute to air pollution. This authority could be used to
limit high-boiling aromatics on the basis that they contribute to PM
emissions that endanger public health. It is worth noting that CAA
section 211(c)(1)(A) requires the Administrator to consider other
technologically or economically feasible means of achieving emissions
standards under section 202. While the vehicle standards proposed in
this notice under CAA section 202 authority would be very effective at
controlling particular emissions from new vehicles, they would not
address or be capable of addressing the in-use fleet. Other than
potential controls on the heavy aromatic content of gasoline, EPA is
not aware of any other practical means of significantly reducing PM
emissions from the existing fleet. Past gasoline and diesel sulfur
standards were put in place in part using CAA 211(c)(1)(A) authority to
address the in-use fleet.892 893 We request comment on the
appropriateness of EPA exercising these authorities to set limits on
heavy aromatics and other high-boiling material in gasoline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\892\ 72 FR 8428 (Feb. 26, 2007), ``Final Rule for Control of
Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources''.
\893\ The gasoline and diesel standards were also put in place
using 211(c)(1)(B) authority to enable vehicle emission control
systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Structure and Level of the Standard
We believe significant air quality improvements would be achieved
through a fuel standard that would eliminate market gasoline with high
PMI levels (e.g., >2) and reduce the amount of heavy aromatics in
gasoline overall. Such a regulatory program could be structured in a
number of ways. Options include a per-gallon cap, a national annual
average standard implemented along with an averaging, banking, and
trading program (ABT), a facility maximum annual average standard, or
some combination of these. A per-gallon cap would be the simplest form
of control and the easiest to enforce. It would also guarantee that the
benefits of the program are achieved in all areas of the country at all
times and that gasoline is more uniform in quality. However, a per-
gallon cap could also reduce flexibility for issues that arise in the
course of gasoline production and thus carries greater potential for
causing supply disruptions.
A national annual average standard would provide maximum
flexibility for refiners, avoiding compliance issues during facility
start-up/shutdown and maintenance periods that might disrupt gasoline
supply. However, a national average standard could also increase
regulatory burden associated with testing, recordkeeping, and
reporting, because compliance determination requires tracking
historical fuel batch data as well as credit balances. It may also fail
to provide benefits in high-PMI areas where ongoing credit use is a
long-term compliance strategy.
The gasoline benzene standard is an example of a hybrid
approach.\894\ It has a national average standard (0.62 volume percent)
with ABT plus a maximum annual average for each production facility
(1.3 volume percent without use of credits). It resulted in large
reductions in average benzene levels across the country, while limiting
the potential for locally-elevated exposures of people living in areas
where high-benzene gasoline from a particular production facility would
[[Page 29403]]
regularly be sold. Some type of a per-gallon cap or maximum facility
average in addition to a national average may be similarly appropriate
for PMI control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\894\ 72 FR 8428 (Feb. 26, 2007), ``Final Rule for Control of
Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another reason to consider a more stringent upper limit on PMI is
related to low-speed pre-ignition (LSPI), a type of abnormal combustion
that causes a spike in cylinder pressure (known as knock) that can
damage the engine over time. As vehicle manufacturers have moved toward
turbocharged, downsized engines for increased fuel economy and reduced
GHG emissions, LSPI has become a significant design limitation and
there is evidence that higher-PMI fuels increase the likelihood of LSPI
events.\895\ We request comment on the impact of PMI on engine design
and efficiency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\895\ Swarts, A., and Kalaskar, V., ``Market Fuel Effects on Low
Speed Preignition,'' SAE Int J Adv & Curr Prac in Mobility
3(5):2473-2483, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course, we understand that it may be difficult to comment on the
various structures for a standard without having some idea of what the
stringency of the standard might be. Their viability is in large part a
function of the level of the standard. We do not have specific
proposals at this time for the level of stringency associated with the
various structures, but we offer the following as an example to help
elucidate EPA's early thinking, which we hope will facilitate public
comment. Were we to establish a facility maximum annual average SimDis
T99 limit, 450 [deg]F might be appropriate for preventing locally
elevated PMI, while a national annual average T99 limit of 425 [deg]F
would provide PMI reductions in many areas and protection from
potential PMI increases if crude or product slates change in the
future. These T99 standards would allow 1 volume percent of a gasoline
sample to exceed the specified temperature. We discuss this analysis in
more detail in the cost and PM impacts discussion in the following
section. A standard could also be set in terms of T98 or T97, which
would allow 2 or 3 volume percent above the specified temperature,
though reducing the T-number of the standard would introduce more
uncertainty about how much high-PMI material remains in a complying
batch.
In addition, we may consider setting seasonal standards for a
couple of reasons. One is that gasoline has lower T90 and PMI in
winter, so a refiner may produce relatively high PMI gasoline in summer
but still comply with an annual average standard via a large shift in
winter to undercutting heavy material into distillate products. Another
reason is that PM emissions from gasoline vehicles are higher at cold
temperatures.\896\ We are collecting additional data on the effect of
PMI on emissions at cold temperatures to assess the potential
effectiveness of reducing wintertime PM emissions through a fuel
control. We seek comment on the most appropriate structure and level of
the standard, including annual averaging, caps, and the need for
seasonal limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\896\ Edward Nam, Sandeep Kishan, Richard W. Baldauf, Carl R.
Fulper, Michael Sabisch, and James Warila. ``Temperature Effects on
Particulate Matter Emissions from Light-Duty, Gasoline-Powered Motor
Vehicles.'' Environmental Science & Technology 2010 44 (12), 4672-
4677.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Cost and Impacts on Refining
Much of the material that comprises the heavy tail of gasoline,
including aromatics that increase PMI, comes from a midrange ``swing
cut'' of FCC naphtha that can be blended either into the heavy part of
gasoline or the light part of diesel or other distillate products.
Refiners routinely move this swing cut between products to balance
their GDR to match market demands. If, however, refiners are required
to limit the heavy aromatic content of their gasoline, we expect more
swing cut material to move out of gasoline and into the distillate
pool. Such a change requires refiners to make up for the loss of volume
and octane-rich aromatics.
As outlined in Section IX.E, we believe the most efficient way to
assess and potentially control PMI and/or heavy aromatics is via a
chromatography method like SimDis. However, the refinery modeling tools
that are available to assess costs and broad impacts of changes to
gasoline specifications are built around D86 volatility parameters.
Thus, our current cost assessment uses T90 as a proxy for a SimDis
standard.
We used the Haverly LP refinery model to reduce the average T90 of
U.S. gasoline by 15 [deg]F in 5 [deg]F steps.\897\ Using a T90 versus
PMI correlation developed from market fuel data, this T90 reduction
span of 15 [deg]F would correspond to a PMI change of about 0.5. To
accomplish this, the model moved heavy gasoline blendstocks from the
gasoline pool to the distillate pool. To make up for the lost gasoline
volume and octane, the model increased the reformer severity, purchased
and isomerized natural gas liquids, and produced more alkylate. The
estimated costs for the 5 [deg]F, 10 [deg]F, and 15 [deg]F reductions
in T90 were 0.5, 2.2, and 3.0 cents per gallon, respectively. This
includes the refining cost as well as fuel economy and distribution
costs associated with a slight reduction in energy density of gasoline.
We request comment on the suitability of the Haverly model for this
work as well as the cost estimates themselves.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\897\ See Docket Memo from Aron Butler, ``Supplemental
Information Related to Potential Fuels Controls for Gasoline PM'',
docket ID #EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0829.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. Estimated Emissions and Air Quality Impacts
Changes in fuel composition resulting from new limits on PMI or
other high-boiling components are expected to reduce tailpipe PM and
may also impact secondary pollutants formed in the atmosphere. We can
assess the magnitude of tailpipe PM reductions by applying the emission
impacts observed in the vehicle studies discussed in Section VIII.A.2
to the PMI changes associated with the new standards. If a new standard
achieved the 0.5 PMI reduction described in the refinery modeling
scenarios, the vehicle studies indicate we would expect a per-vehicle
tailpipe PM reduction of about 30 percent for typical in-use vehicles.
We think a similar reduction may also occur for 4-stroke nonroad
gasoline engines, as described in Section VIII.A.3. The impacts may be
smaller for ``high-emitter'' vehicles (those with failing or
malfunctioning emission controls) and 2-stroke nonroad engines, which
would reduce the overall inventory impact. We request comment on
potential emissions impacts for onroad and nonroad sources.
Mobile sources are an important contributor to secondary aerosols
formed from nitrate, sulfate, and organic precursors.898 899
Studies have shown that secondary organic aerosol (SOA) formation from
gasoline vehicle exhaust can exceed directly-emitted (tailpipe) PM
emissions, and that changes to gasoline formulation can have impacts on
SOA that are larger than the associated shifts in direct PM
emissions.900 901 902 903 An analysis of
[[Page 29404]]
SOA yields for a range of hydrocarbon types and molecular weights
indicates that the compounds with the highest potential for SOA
formation in the exhaust, share components with the heavy tail in
gasoline.\904\ Changes to aromatic content may also affect
NOX emissions, which can affect nitrate particle formation.
EPA is conducting research to understand potential changes in emissions
that may influence the formation of secondary PM. We request comment on
the most appropriate data sources and methods to assess impacts on SOA
and other secondary pollutants of gasoline PMI changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\898\ Davidson, K., Fann, N., Zawacki, M., Fulcher, C., Baker,
K. ``The recent and future health burden of the U.S. mobile sector
apportioned by source,'' Environ. Res. Lett. 15. 2020.
\899\ Zawacki, M., Baker, K., Phillips, S., Davidson, K., Wolfe,
P. ``Mobile source contributions to ambient ozone and particulate
matter in 2025'', Atmospheric Environment, Volume 188, 2018, Pages
129-141.
\900\ Zhao Y., Lambe A.T., Saleh R., Saliba G., Robinson A.L.,
``Secondary Organic Aerosol Production from Gasoline Vehicle
Exhaust: Effects of Engine Technology, Cold Start, and Emission
Certification Standard,'' Environ. Sci. Technol. 2018, 52, 1253-
1261.
\901\ Gentner D.R., Jathar S.H., Gordon T.D., Bahraini R., Day
D.A., El Haddad I., Hayes P.L., Pieber S.M., Platt S.M., de Gouw J.,
Goldstein A.H., Harley R.A., Jimenez J.L., Prevot A.S.H., Robinson
A.L., ``Review of Urban Secondary Aerosol Formation from Gasoline
and Diesel Motor Vehicle Emissions,'' Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017,
51, 1074-1093.
\902\ Gordon, T.D., Presto, A.A., May, A.A., Nguyen, N.T.,
Lipsky, E.M., Donahue, N.M., Gutierrez, A., Zhang, M., Maddox, C.,
Rieger, P., Chattopadhyay, S., Maldonado, H., Maricq, M.M., and
Robinson, A.L., ``Secondary organic aerosol formation exceeds
primary particulate matter emissions for light-duty gasoline
vehicles,'' Atmos. Chem. Phys., 14, 4661-4678.
\903\ Peng J., Hu M., Du Z., Wang Y., Zheng J., Zhang W., Yang
Y., Qin Y., Zheng R., Xiao Y., Wu Y., Lu S., Wu Z., Guo S., Mao H.,
Shuai S., ``Gasoline Aromatics: A Critical Determinant of Urban
Secondary Organic Aerosol Formation,'' Atmos. Chem. Phys., 17,
10743-10752, 2017.
\904\ Gentner D.R., et al., ``Elucidating secondary organic
aerosol from diesel and gasoline vehicles through detailed
characterization of organic carbon emissions,'' PNAS 109 (2018)
18318-18323.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A reduction in gasoline PMI would be expected to reduce exposure to
directly-emitted PM for those exposed to vehicle exhaust in close
proximity to roadways. As described in Section II.C.8 of this Preamble,
there is substantial evidence that people who live or attend school
near major roadways are more likely to be people of color, and/or have
a low socioeconomic status (SES). In addition, lower-SES neighborhoods
are likely to have higher populations of vehicles with higher emissions
than those in higher-SES neighborhoods.905 906
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\905\ Park, S.S.; Bijayan, A.; Mara, S.L.; Herner, J.D. (2016)
``Investigating the real-world emission characteristics of light-
duty gasoline vehicles and their relationship to local socioeconomic
conditions in three communities in Los Angeles, California.'' J Air
& Waste Management Assoc 66: 1031-1044.
\906\ Est, S. (2005) ``Equity implications of vehicle emission
taxes.'' J Transport Econ & Policy 39: 1-24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: ``Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review''
This action is a significant regulatory action within the scope of
section 3(f)(1) of E.O. 12866 that was submitted to OMB for review. Any
changes made in response to Executive Order 12866 review have been
documented in the docket. EPA prepared an analysis of the potential
costs and benefits associated with this action. This analysis is in the
Regulatory Impact Analysis, which can be found in the docket for this
rule and is briefly summarized in Section VIII of this Preamble.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection activities in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the PRA. The Information Collection Request (ICR) document
that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 2750.01. You can
find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly
summarized here.
The Agency is proposing requirements for manufacturers to submit
information to ensure compliance with the provisions in this proposed
rule. This includes a variety of requirements for vehicle
manufacturers. Section 208(a) of the CAA requires that vehicle
manufacturers provide information the Administrator may reasonably
require to determine compliance with the regulations; submission of the
information is therefore mandatory. We will consider confidential all
information meeting the requirements of section 208(c) of the CAA.
Many of the information activities associated with the proposed
rule are covered by existing emission certification and reporting
requirements for EPA's light-duty and medium-duty vehicle emission
control program. Therefore, this ICR only covers the incremental burden
associated with the updated regulatory requirements as described in
this proposal.
The total annual reporting burden associated with this rule is
about 44,947 hours and $26.240 million, based on a projection of 35
respondents. The estimated burden for vehicle manufacturers is a total
estimate for new reporting requirements incremental to the current
program. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; modify existing technology and systems
for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying newly
required information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
Respondents/affected entities: Light and medium-duty vehicle
manufacturers, alternative fuel converters, and independent commercial
importers.
Respondent's obligation to respond: Manufacturers must respond as
part of their annual model year vehicle certification under section
208(a) of the CAA which is required prior to enter vehicles into
commerce. Participation in some programs is voluntary; but once a
manufacturer has elected to participate, it must submit the required
information.
Estimated number of respondents: 35.
Frequency of response: Annually or on occasion, depending on the
type of response.
Total estimated burden: 44,947 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
Total estimated cost: $26,239,629 per year, includes an estimated
$25,611,681 annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the
accuracy of the provided burden estimates and any suggested methods for
minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified at
the beginning of this rule. You may also send your ICR-related comments
to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs using the
interface at www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular
information collection by selecting ``Currently under Review--Open''.
Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30
and 60 days after receipt, OMB must receive comments no later than July
5, 2023. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related comments in the final
rule.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA.
EPA has focused its assessment of potential small business impacts
on three key aspects of the proposed standards, including GHG emissions
standards, criteria pollutant standards (including NMOG+NOX
fleet-average standards and PM emissions standards),
[[Page 29405]]
and EV battery warranty and durability. Details of EPA's No SISNOSE
assessment are included in DRIA Chapter 12.
There are three types of small entities that could potentially be
impacted by the proposed GHG standards: (1) Small entity vehicle
manufacturers; (2) alternative fuel converters, which are companies
that take a vehicle for which an OEM has already accounted for GHG
compliance and convert it to operate on a cleaner fuel such as natural
gas or propone; and (3) independent commercial importers (ICIs), which
are firms that import vehicles from other countries for individual
vehicle purchasers.
Under the current light-duty GHG program, small entities are exempt
from the GHG standards. EPA is proposing to continue the current
exemption for all three types of small entities, including small entity
manufacturers, alternate fuel convertors, and ICIs. However, EPA is
proposing to add some environmental protections for imported vehicles.
EPA is also proposing to continue the current provision allowing small
entity manufacturers to opt into the GHG program to earn credits to
sell in the credit market. The small entity vehicle manufacturers in
the market at this time produce only electric vehicles. EPA is
requesting comment on the potential need for small entity light-duty
and medium-duty manufacturers to have an annual production cap (e.g.,
200-500 vehicles per year) on vehicles eligible for the exemption. EPA
believes that capping the number of vehicles exempted could be an
appropriate protection for GHG emissions, while still allowing small
entities to produce vehicles consistent with typical past annual sales.
Under existing EPA regulations, each ICI is currently limited to
importing 50 vehicles per year. EPA is proposing to reduce the limit to
25 non-ZEV vehicles per year, which is well above historical sales, as
a means of limiting the potential environmental impact of importing
vehicles with potentially high GHG emissions. Importing of ZEVs would
not count against the 25 vehicles limit. EPA believes this lower
vehicle limit is important for capping the potential for high-emitting
imported vehicles, because, unlike with criteria pollutant emissions,
there are very limited add-on emissions control options for reducing
the GHG emissions of an imported vehicle. EPA is proposing to ease the
burden required for ICIs to certify EVs by removing the requirement to
have a fuel economy label. Production EVs don't normally have their
high voltage wiring accessible so it is not practical for ICIs to
measure the energy in and out of the battery which is necessary when
measuring energy for the fuel economy label.
EPA also has evaluated the potential impacts on small businesses
for the proposed criteria pollutant emissions standards, including both
the NMOG+ NOX standard and the PM standard. EPA's proposed
NMOG+NOX standards should have no impact on the existing
small entity manufacturers, which currently produce only electric
vehicles. The proposed standards are expected to have minimal impact on
both the alternate fuel converters and ICIs, as discussed in DRIA
Chapter 12. EPA estimates that the proposed PM standard will have no
significant financial impact on any of the three types of small
entities. Existing small entity manufacturers all produce only EVs,
which have no tailpipe emissions and therefore would be able to comply
with the PM standard without any additional burden. Alternative fuel
vehicles are exempted from doing any cold temperature testing under
existing EPA regulations, and EPA is proposing to continue this
exemption such that there would be no impact on alternative fuel
converters. To minimize the testing burden on ICIs, EPA is proposing to
exempt ICI from measuring PM during cold testing; ICIs would only need
to comply with the new PM levels on the FTP75 and US06 tests.
The final aspect of the NPRM that could have potential impacts on
small entities is battery durability (Section III.F.2). The current
small entity manufacturers all have warranties that meet or exceed our
proposed requirements for battery durability. EPA is proposing to
exempt small entities from meeting the proposed battery durability
requirements since the testing and reporting requirements would be an
added financial burden that is not necessary given their current
warranties.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This action contains no unfunded Federal mandate for State, local,
or Tribal governments as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and
does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This
action imposes no enforceable duty on any State, local or Tribal
government. This action contains Federal mandates under UMRA that may
result in expenditures of $100 million or more for state, local, and
Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one
year. Accordingly, the EPA has prepared a written statement of the
costs and benefits associated with action as required under section 202
of UMRA. This is discussed Section VIII of this Preamble and Chapter 10
of the DRIA. This action is not subject to the requirement of section
203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
E. Executive Order 13132: ``Federalism''
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not 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.
F. Executive Order 13175: ``Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments''
This action does not have Tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to
this action. However, EPA has engaged with our Tribal stakeholders in
the development of this rulemaking by offering a Tribal workshop and
offering government-to-government consultation upon request.
G. Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks''
This action is subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is a
significant regulatory action under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order
12866, and EPA believes that the environmental health risks or safety
risks of the pollutants addressed by this action may have a
disproportionate effect on children. The 2021 Policy on Children's
Health also applies to this action.\907\ Accordingly, we have evaluated
the environmental health or safety effects of air pollutants affected
by this program on children. The results of this evaluation are
described in Section II. The protection offered by these standards may
be especially important for children because childhood represents a
life stage associated with increased susceptibility to air pollutant-
related health effects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\907\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2021). 2021 Policy
on Children's Health. Washington, DC. https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-10/2021-policy-on-childrens-health.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Children make up a substantial fraction of the U.S. population, and
often have unique factors that contribute to their increased risk of
experiencing a health effect from exposures to ambient air pollutants
because of their continuous growth and development. Children are more
susceptible than adults to many air pollutants because they have (1) a
developing respiratory
[[Page 29406]]
system, (2) increased ventilation rates relative to body mass compared
with adults, (3) an increased proportion of oral breathing,
particularly in boys, relative to adults, and (4) behaviors that
increase chances for exposure. Even before birth, the developing fetus
may be exposed to air pollutants through the mother that affect
development and permanently harm the individual when the mother is
exposed.
Certain motor vehicle emissions present greater risks to children
as well. Early lifestages (e.g., children) are thought to be more
susceptible to tumor development than adults when exposed to
carcinogenic chemicals that act through a mutagenic mode of
action.\908\ Exposure at a young age to these carcinogens could lead to
a higher risk of developing cancer later in life. Section II.C.8
describes a systematic review and meta-analysis conducted by the U.S.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that reported a positive
association between proximity to traffic and the risk of leukemia in
children.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\908\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2005). Supplemental
guidance for assessing susceptibility from early-life exposure to
carcinogens. Washington, DC: Risk Assessment Forum. EPA/630/R-03/
003F. https://www3.epa.gov/airtoxics/childrens_supplement_final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The adverse effects of individual air pollutants may be more severe
for children, particularly the youngest age groups, than adults. As
described in Section II, the Integrated Science Assessments for a
number of pollutants affected by this rule, including those for
SO2, NO2, PM, ozone and CO, describe children as
a group with greater susceptibility. Section II.C.8 discusses a number
of childhood health outcomes associated with proximity to roadways,
including evidence for exacerbation of asthma symptoms and suggestive
evidence for new onset asthma.
There is substantial evidence that people who live or attend school
near major roadways are more likely to be people of color, Hispanic
ethnicity, and/or low socioeconomic status. Within these highly exposed
groups, children's exposure and susceptibility to health effects is
greater than adults due to school-related and seasonal activities,
behavior, and physiological factors.
Section VII of this Preamble presents the estimated emission
reductions from this proposed rule, including substantial reductions in
criteria air pollutants and mobile source air toxics which would reduce
exposures for children, significantly reducing air pollution in close
proximity to major roadways where ten million children attend school.
GHG emissions contribute to climate change and the GHG emissions
reductions described in Section VI resulting from implementation of
this proposed rule would further improve children's health. The
assessment literature cited in EPA's 2009 and 2016 Endangerment
Findings concluded that certain populations and life stages, including
children, the elderly, and the poor, are most vulnerable to climate-
related health effects. The assessment literature since 2016
strengthens these conclusions by providing more detailed findings
regarding these groups' vulnerabilities and the projected impacts they
may experience. These assessments describe how children's unique
physiological and developmental factors contribute to making them
particularly vulnerable to climate change. Impacts to children are
expected from heat waves, air pollution, infectious and waterborne
illnesses, and mental health effects resulting from extreme weather
events. In addition, children are among those especially susceptible to
most allergic diseases, as well as health effects associated with heat
waves, storms, and floods. Additional health concerns may arise in low-
income households, especially those with children, if climate change
reduces food availability and increases prices, leading to food
insecurity within households. More detailed information on the impacts
of climate change to human health and welfare is provided in Section II
of this Preamble.
Children are not expected to experience greater ambient
concentrations of air pollutants than the general population. However,
because of their greater susceptibility to air pollution, including the
impacts of a changing climate, and their increased time spent outdoors,
it is likely that these standards will have particular benefits for
children's health.
H. Executive Order 13211: ``Energy Effects''
This action is not a ``significant energy action'' because it is
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. EPA has outlined the energy effects in
Table 9-7 of the Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis (DRIA), which is
available in the docket for this action and is briefly summarized here.
This action reduces CO2 for light-duty and medium-duty
vehicles under revised GHG standards, which will result in significant
reductions of the consumption of petroleum, will achieve energy
security benefits, and have no adverse energy effects. Because the GHG
emission standards result in significant fuel savings, this rule
encourages more efficient use of fuels. Table 9-7 in the DRIA shows
over 950 billion gallons of retail gasoline (about 18 billion barrels
of oil) reduced through 2055.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR
Part 51
This rulemaking involves technical standards. Except for the
standards discussed in this section, the standards included in the
regulatory text as incorporated by reference were all previously
approved for IBR and no change is included in this action.
In accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are proposing
to incorporate by reference the use of standards and test methods from
the California Air Resources Board (CARB). The referenced standards and
test methods may be obtained through the CARB website (www.arb.ca.gov)
or by calling (916) 322-2884. We are incorporating by reference the
following CARB documents:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard or test method Regulation Summary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CARB's 2022 OBD regulation--13 40 CFR 86.1 and The CARB standards
CCR 1968.2, Malfunction and 86.1806-27. establish updated
Diagnostic System Requirements-- requirements for
2004 and Subsequent Model-Year manufacturers to
Passenger Cars, Light-Duty design their
Trucks, and Medium-Duty light-duty and
Vehicles and Engines; operative medium-duty
November 22, 2022. vehicles with
onboard
diagnostic
systems that
detect
malfunctions in
emission
controls. These
are newly
referenced
standards.
[[Page 29407]]
California 2026 and Subsequent 40 CFR 1066.801 The CARB
Model Year Criteria Pollutant and 1066.1010. regulation
Exhaust Emission Standards and establishes test
Test Procedures for Passenger procedures for
Cars, Light-Duty Trucks, And measuring
Medium-Duty Vehicles (``CARB's emissions from
LMDV Test Procedures''); light-duty and
adopted August 25, 2022. medium-duty
vehicles that are
not plug-in
hybrid electric
vehicles. These
are newly
referenced
standards.
California Test Procedures for 40 CFR 1066.801 The CARB
2026 and Subsequent Model Year and 1066.1010. regulation
Zero-Emission Vehicles and Plug- establishes test
In Hybrid Electric Vehicles, in procedures for
the Passenger Car, Light-Duty measuring
Truck and Medium-Duty Vehicle emissions from
Classes (``CARB's PHEV Test plug-in hybrid
Procedures''); adopted August electric
25, 2022. vehicles. These
are newly
referenced
standards.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are proposing
to incorporate by reference the use of standards and test methods from
the United Nations. The referenced standards and test methods may be
obtained from the UN Economic Commission for Europe, Information
Service at Palais des Nations, CH-1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland;
[email protected]; www.unece.org. We are incorporating by reference the
following UN Economic Commission for Europe document:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard or test method Regulation Summary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Addendum 22: United Nations 40 CFR 86.1 and GTR 22 establishes
Global Technical Regulation No. 86.1815. design protocols
22, United Nations Global and procedures
Technical Regulation on In- for measuring
vehicle Battery Durability for durability and
Electrified Vehicles, Adopted performance for
April 14, 2022. batteries used
with electric
vehicles and plug-
in hybrid-
electric
vehicles.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
J. Executive Order 12898: ``Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations''
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) directs
Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by
law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying
and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and
activities on minority populations (people of color and/or indigenous
peoples) and low-income populations.
EPA believes that the human health or environmental conditions that
exist prior to this action result in or have the potential to result in
disproportionate and adverse human health or environmental effects on
people of color, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples. EPA
provides a summary of the evidence for potentially disproportionate and
adverse effects among people of color and low-income populations in
Sections II.C.8 and VIII.I of the Preamble for this rule.
EPA believes that this action is likely to reduce existing
disproportionate and adverse effects on people of color, low-income
populations and/or indigenous peoples. The air pollutant emission
reductions proposed in this rule would improve air quality for the
people who reside in close proximity to major roadways and who are
disproportionately represented by people of color and people with low
income, as described in Section II.C.8 and Section VIII.I of this
Preamble. We expect that increases in criteria and toxic pollutant
emissions from EGUs and reductions in petroleum-sector emissions could
lead to changes in exposure to these pollutants for people living in
the communities near these facilities. Analyses of communities in close
proximity to these sources (such as EGUs and refineries) have found
that a higher percentage of communities of color and low-income
communities live near these sources when compared to national averages.
Section VIII.I.2 discusses the environmental justice issues
associated with climate change. People of color, low-income populations
and/or indigenous peoples may be especially vulnerable to the impacts
of climate change. The GHG emission reductions from this proposal would
contribute to efforts to reduce the probability of severe impacts
related to climate change.
EPA is additionally identifying and addressing environmental
justice concerns by providing fair treatment and meaningful involvement
with Environment Justice groups in developing this proposed action and
soliciting input for this notice of proposed rulemaking.
The information supporting this Executive Order review is contained
in Sections II.C.8 and VIII.I of the Preamble for this rule, and all
supporting documents have been placed in the public docket for this
action.
XI. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority
Statutory authority for this proposed rule is found at 42 U.S.C.
7401-7675 and 49 U.S.C. 32901-23919q.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 85
Environmental protection, Confidential business information,
Greenhouse gases, Imports, Labeling, Motor vehicle pollution, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Research, Warranties.
40 CFR Part 86
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Confidential business information, Incorporation by reference,
Labeling, Motor vehicle pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
40 CFR Part 600
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Electric power, Fuel economy, Labeling, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
40 CFR Part 1036
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Confidential
[[Page 29408]]
business information, Greenhouse gases, Labeling, Motor vehicle
pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Warranties.
40 CFR Part 1037
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Confidential business information, Labeling,
Motor vehicle pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Warranties.
40 CFR Part 1066
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, we are proposing to amend
title 40, chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth
below.
PART 85--CONTROL OF AIR POLLUTION FROM MOBILE SOURCES
0
1. The authority citation for part 85 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
0
2. Amend Sec. 85.505 by revising paragraph (f) to read as follows:
Sec. 85.505 Overview.
* * * * *
(f) If you have previously used small volume conversion
manufacturer or qualified small volume test group/engine family
procedures and you may exceed the volume thresholds using the sum
described in Sec. 85.535(f) to determine small volume status in 40 CFR
86.1838-01 or 1036.150(d), as appropriate, you must satisfy the
requirements for conversion manufacturers who do not qualify for small
volume exemptions or your exemption from tampering is no longer valid.
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec. 85.510 by revising paragraphs (b)(2)(i)(A) and (B),
(b)(2)(ii), and (b)(6) through (11) to read as follows:
Sec. 85.510 Exemption provisions for new and relatively new
vehicles/engines.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) If criteria for small volume manufacturer or qualified small
volume engine families are met as defined in 40 CFR 1036.150(d), you
may combine heavy-duty engines using good engineering judgment into
conversion engine families if the following criteria are satisfied
instead of those specified in 40 CFR 1036.230.
(1) Same OEM.
(2) Same OBD group after MY 2013.
(3) Same service class (e.g., light heavy-duty diesel engines,
medium heavy-duty diesel engines, heavy heavy-duty diesel engines).
(4) Engine displacement is within 15% of largest displacement or 50
CID, whichever is larger.
(5) Same number of cylinders.
(6) Same arrangement of cylinders.
(7) Same combustion cycle.
(8) Same method of air aspiration.
(9) Same fuel type (e.g., diesel/gasoline).
(10) Same fuel metering system (e.g., mechanical direct or
electronic direct injection).
(11) Same catalyst/filter construction (e.g., metal vs. ceramic
substrate).
(12) All converted engines are subject to the most stringent
emission standards. For example, 2005 and 2007 heavy-duty diesel
engines may be in the same family if they meet the most stringent
(2007) standards.
(13) Same emission control technology (e.g., internal or external
EGR).
(B) EPA-established scaled assigned deterioration factors for both
exhaust and evaporative emissions may be used for engines with over
10,000 miles if the criteria for small volume manufacturer or qualified
small volume engine families are met as defined in 40 CFR 1036.150(d).
This deterioration factor will be adjusted according to vehicle or
engine miles of operation. The deterioration factor is intended to
predict the engine's emission levels at the end of the useful life. EPA
may adjust these scaled assigned deterioration factors if we find the
rate of deterioration non-constant or if the rate differs by fuel type.
* * * * *
(ii) Conversion evaporative/refueling families are identical to the
OEM evaporative/refueling families unless the OEM evaporative emission
system is no longer functionally necessary. You must create any new
evaporative families according to 40 CFR 86.1821.
* * * * *
(6) Durability testing is required unless the criteria for small
volume manufacturer or qualified small volume test groups/engine
families are met as defined in 40 CFR 86.1838-01 or 1036.150(d), as
applicable.
(7) Conversion test groups/engine families for conversions to dual-
fuel or mixed-fuel vehicles/engines cannot include vehicles/engines
subject to different emission standards unless applicable exhaust and
OBD demonstrations are also conducted for the original fuel(s)
demonstrating compliance with the most stringent standard represented
in the test group. However, for small volume conversion manufacturers
and qualified small volume test groups/engine families the data
generated from exhaust emission testing on the new fuel for dual-fuel
or mixed-fuel test vehicles/engines may be carried over to vehicles/
engines which otherwise meet the test group/engine family criteria and
for which the test vehicle/engine data demonstrate compliance with the
application vehicle/engine standard. Clean alternative fuel conversion
evaporative families for dual-fuel or mixed-fuel vehicles may not
include vehicles/engines which were originally certified to different
evaporative emissions standards unless evaporative/refueling
demonstrations are also conducted for the original fuel(s)
demonstrating compliance with the most stringent standard represented
in the evaporative/refueling family.
(8) The vehicle/engine selected for testing must qualify as a
worst-case vehicle/engine under 40 CFR 86.1828-01 or 1036.235(a)(2), as
applicable.
(9) The following requirements apply for OBD systems:
(i) The OBD system must properly detect and identify malfunctions
in all monitored emission-related powertrain systems or components
including any new monitoring capability necessary to identify potential
emission problems associated with the new fuel.
(ii) Conduct OBD testing as needed to demonstrate that the vehicle/
engine continues to comply with emission thresholds and other
requirements that apply based on the original certification.
(iii) Submit the applicable OBD reporting information for vehicles
as set forth in 40 CFR 86.1806-17. Submit the applicable OBD reporting
information for engines as set forth in 40 CFR 86.010-18 or 1036.110,
as appropriate. Submit the following statement of compliance if the OEM
vehicles/engines were required to be OBD-equipped:
The test group/engine family converted to an alternative fuel has
fully functional OBD systems and therefore meets the OBD requirements
specified in [40 CFR part 86 or part 1036, as applicable] when
operating on the alternative fuel.
(10) In lieu of specific certification test data, you may submit
the following attestations for the appropriate statements of
compliance, if you have
[[Page 29409]]
sufficient basis to prove the statement is valid.
(i) The test group/engine family converted to an alternative fuel
has properly exercised the optional and applicable statements of
compliance or waivers in the certification regulations. Attest to each
statement or waiver in your application for certification.
(ii) The test group/engine family converted to dual-fuel or mixed-
fuel operation retains all the OEM fuel system, engine calibration, and
emission control system functionality when operating on the fuel with
which the vehicle/engine was originally certified.
(iii) The test group/engine family converted to dual fuel or mixed-
fuel operation retains all the functionality of the OEM OBD system (if
so equipped) when operating on the fuel with which the vehicle/engine
was originally certified.
(iv) The test group/engine family converted to dual-fuel or mixed-
fuel operation properly purges hydrocarbon vapor from the evaporative
emission canister when the vehicle/engine is operating on the
alternative fuel.
(11) Certification fees apply as described in 40 CFR part 1027.
* * * * *
0
4. Amend Sec. 85.515 by revising paragraphs (b)(4), (6), and (8),
(b)(9)(iii), (b)(10)(i), and (b)(10)(iii)(A) to read as follows:
Sec. 85.515 Exemption provisions for intermediate age vehicles/
engines.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(4) EPA-established scaled assigned deterioration factors for both
exhaust and evaporative emissions may be used for vehicles/engines with
over 10,000 miles if the criteria for small volume manufacturer or
qualified small volume test groups/engine families are met as defined
in 40 CFR 86.1838-01 or 40 CFR 1036.150(d), as appropriate. This
deterioration factor will be adjusted according to vehicle/engine miles
or hours of operation. The deterioration factor is intended to predict
the vehicle/engine's emission level at the end of the useful life. EPA
may adjust these scaled assigned deterioration factors if we find the
rate of deterioration non-constant or if the rate differs by fuel type.
* * * * *
(6) Durability testing is required unless the criteria for small
volume manufacturer or qualified small volume test groups/engine
families are met as defined in 40 CFR 86.1838-01 or 40 CFR 1036.150(d),
as applicable. Durability procedures for large volume conversion
manufacturers of intermediate age light-duty and heavy-duty chassis
certified vehicles that follow provisions in 40 CFR 86.1820-01 may
eliminate precious metal composition and catalyst grouping statistic
when creating clean alternative fuel conversion durability groupings.
* * * * *
(8) You must conduct all exhaust and all evaporative and refueling
emissions testing with a worst-case vehicle/engine to show that the
conversion test group/engine family complies with exhaust and
evaporative/refueling emission standards, based on the certification
procedures.
(9) * * *
(iii) In addition to conducting OBD testing described in this
paragraph (b)(9), you must submit to EPA the following statement of
compliance if the OEM vehicles/engines were required to be OBD-
equipped:
The test group/engine family converted to an alternative fuel has
fully functional OBD systems and therefore meets the OBD requirements
specified in [40 CFR part 86 or part 1036, as applicable] when
operating on the alternative fuel.
(10) * * *
(i) You must describe how your conversion system qualifies as a
clean alternative fuel conversion. You must include emission test
results from the required exhaust, evaporative emissions, and OBD
testing, applicable exhaust and evaporative emissions standards and
deterioration factors. You must also include a description of how the
test vehicle/engine selected qualifies as a worst-case vehicle/engine
under 40 CFR 86.1828-01 or 1036.235(a)(2), as applicable.
* * * * *
(iii) * * *
(A) The test group/engine family converted to an alternative fuel
has properly exercised the optional and applicable statements of
compliance or waivers in the certification regulations. Attest to each
statement or waiver in your notification.
* * * * *
0
5. Amend Sec. 85.520 by revising paragraphs (b)(4), (b)(6)(i), and
(b)(6)(iii)(A) to read as follows:
Sec. 85.520 Exemption provisions for outside useful life vehicles/
engines.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(4) The following requirements apply for OBD systems:
(i) The OBD system must properly detect and identify malfunctions
in all monitored emission-related powertrain systems or components,
including any new monitoring capability necessary to identify potential
emission problems associated with the new fuel. These include but are
not limited to: Fuel trim lean and rich monitors, catalyst
deterioration monitors, engine misfire monitors, oxygen sensor
deterioration monitors, EGR system monitors, if applicable, and
evaporative system leak monitors, if applicable. No original OBD system
monitor that is still applicable to the vehicle/engine may be aliased,
removed, bypassed, or turned-off. No MILs shall be illuminated after
the conversion. Readiness flags must be properly set for all monitors
that identify any malfunction for all monitored components.
(ii) Subsequent to the vehicle/engine fuel conversion, you must
clear all OBD codes and reset all OBD monitors to not-ready status
using an OBD scan tool appropriate for the OBD system in the vehicle/
engine in question. You must operate the vehicle/engine with the new
fuel on representative road operation or chassis dynamometer/engine
dynamometer testing cycles to satisfy the monitors' enabling criteria.
When all monitors have reset to a ready status, you must submit an OBD
scan tool report showing that with the vehicle/engine operating in the
key-on/engine-on mode, all supported monitors have reset to a ready
status and no emission related ``pending'' (or potential) or
``confirmed'' (or MIL-on) diagnostic trouble codes (DTCs) have been
stored. The MIL must not be commanded ``On'' or be illuminated. A MIL
check must also be conducted in a key-on/engine-off mode to verify that
the MIL is functioning properly. You must include the VIN/EIN of the
test vehicle/engine. If necessary, the OEM evaporative emission
readiness monitor may remain unset for dedicated gaseous fuel
conversion systems.
(iii) In addition to conducting OBD testing described in this
paragraph (b)(4), you must submit to EPA the following statement of
compliance if the OEM vehicles/engines were required to be OBD-
equipped:
The test group/engine family converted to an alternative fuel has
fully functional OBD systems and therefore meets the OBD requirements
specified in [40 CFR part 86 or 40 CFR part 1036, as applicable] when
operating on the alternative fuel.
* * * * *
(6) * * *
(i) You must describe how your conversion system complies with the
good engineering judgment criteria in paragraph (b)(3) of this section
and/or other requirements under this subpart or other applicable
subparts such that the
[[Page 29410]]
conversion system qualifies as a clean alternative fuel conversion. The
submission must provide a level of technical detail sufficient for EPA
to confirm the conversion system's ability to maintain or improve on
emission levels in a worst-case vehicle/engine. The submission of
technical information must include a complete characterization of
exhaust and evaporative emissions control strategies, the fuel delivery
system, durability, and specifications related to OBD system
functionality. You must present detailed information to confirm the
durability of all relevant new and existing components and to explain
why the conversion system will not harm the emission control system or
degrade the emissions. EPA may ask you to supply additional
information, including test data, to support the claim that the
conversion system does not increase emissions and involves good
engineering judgment that is being applied for purposes of conversion
to a clean alternative fuel.
* * * * *
(iii) * * *
(A) The test group/engine family converted to an alternative fuel
has properly exercised the optional and applicable statements of
compliance or waivers in the certification regulations. Attest to each
statement or waiver in your notification.
* * * * *
Sec. 85.524 [Removed]
0
6. Remove Sec. 85.524.
0
7. Amend Sec. 85.535 by revising paragraph (f) to read as follows:
Sec. 85.535 Liability, recordkeeping, and end of year reporting.
* * * * *
(f) Clean alternative fuel conversion manufacturers must submit an
end of the year sales report to EPA describing the number of clean
alternative fuel conversions by fuel type(s) and vehicle test group/
engine family by January 31 of the following year. The number of
conversions is the sum of the calendar year intermediate age
conversions, outside useful life conversions, and the same conversion
model year certified clean alternative fuel conversions. The number of
conversions will be added to any other vehicle and engine sales
accounted for using 40 CFR 86.1838-01 or 1036.150(d), as appropriate to
determine small volume manufacturer or qualified small volume test
group/engine family status.
* * * * *
0
8. Amend Sec. 85.1503 by revising paragraphs (a) and (c) to read as
follows:
Sec. 85.1503 General requirements for importation of nonconforming
vehicles and engines.
(a) A nonconforming vehicle or engine offered for importation into
the United States must be imported by an ICI who is a current holder of
a valid certificate of conformity unless an exemption or exclusion is
granted by the Administrator under Sec. 85.1511 or the vehicle is
eligible for entry under Sec. 85.1512.
* * * * *
(c) In any one certificate year (e.g., the current model year), an
ICI may finally admit no more than the following numbers of
nonconforming vehicles into the United States under the provisions of
Sec. Sec. 85.1505 and 85.1509, except as allowed by paragraph (e) of
this section:
(1) [Reserved]
(2) A total of 25 light-duty vehicles, light-duty trucks, and
medium-duty passenger vehicles. This limit does not apply for electric
vehicles.
(3) 50 highway motorcycles.
* * * * *
0
9. Amend Sec. 85.1509 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text.
0
b. Removing and reserving paragraphs (b) through (f).
0
c. Removing the paragraph heading from paragraphs (j), (k) introductory
text, and (l).
The revision reads as follows:
Sec. 85.1509 Final admission of modification and test vehicles.
(a) A motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine may be imported under
this section by a certificate holder possessing a currently valid
certificate of conformity only if--
* * * * *
0
10. Amend Sec. 85.1510 by revising paragraphs (d)(1) and (f) to read
as follows:
Sec. 85.1510 Maintenance instructions, warranties, emission labeling
and fuel economy requirements.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) The certificate holder shall affix a fuel economy label that
complies with the requirements of 40 CFR part 600, subpart D. The
requirement for fuel economy labels does not apply for electric
vehicles.
* * * * *
(f) Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE). Certificate holders
shall comply with any applicable CAFE requirements of the Energy Policy
and Conservation Act, 15 U.S.C. 2001 et seq., and 40 CFR part 600, for
all vehicles imported under Sec. Sec. 85.1505 and 85.1509.
0
11. Amend Sec. 85.1515 by revising paragraphs (a)(2)(i)(A) and (B),
(c)(2)(ix) and (x), and (c)(3), (5), (6), and (8) to read as follows:
Sec. 85.1515 Emission standards and test procedures applicable to
imported nonconforming motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines.
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) Cold temperature CO, NMHC, NMOG+NOx, and PM emission
standards specified in 40 CFR 86.1811.
(B) SFTP emission standards specified in 40 CFR 86.1811 and 86.1816
for all pollutants, and separate emission standards that apply for US06
and SC03 duty cycles.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) * * *
(ix) Nonconforming vehicles subject to the provisions of 40 CFR
part 86, subpart S, originally manufactured in OP years 2022 through
2029 must meet the Tier 3 exhaust emission standards in 40 CFR 86.1811-
17 and 86.1816-18, the Tier 3 evaporative emission standards in 40 CFR
86.1813-17, and the refueling emission standards in 40 CFR 86.1813-
17(b).
(x) Nonconforming vehicles subject to the provisions of 40 CFR part
86, subpart S, originally manufactured in OP years 2030 and later must
meet the Tier 4 exhaust emission standards in 40 CFR 86.1811-27, the
Tier 3 evaporative emission standards in 86.1813-17, and the refueling
emission standards in 40 CFR 86.1813-17(b).
(3) The following provisions apply for Tier 2 vehicles certified to
standards under 40 CFR 86.1811-04:
(i) As an option to the requirements of paragraph (c)(2) of this
section, independent commercial importers may elect to meet lower bins
in Tables S04-1 and S04-2 of 40 CFR 86.1811-04 than specified in
paragraph (c)(2) of this section and bank or sell NOx credits as
permitted in 40 CFR 86.1860-04 and 40 CFR 86.1861-04. An ICI may not
meet higher bins in Tables S04-1 and S04-2 of 40 CFR 86.1811-04 than
specified in paragraph (c)(2) of this section unless it demonstrates to
the Administrator at the time of certification that it has obtained
appropriate and sufficient NOx credits from another
manufacturer, or has generated them in a previous model year or in the
current model year and not transferred them to another manufacturer or
used them to address other vehicles as permitted in 40 CFR 86.1860-04
and 40 CFR 86.1861-04.
(ii) Where an ICI desires to obtain a certificate of conformity
using a bin higher than specified in paragraph (c)(2) of this section
but does not have
[[Page 29411]]
sufficient credits to cover vehicles produced under such certificate,
the Administrator may issue such certificate if the ICI has also
obtained a certificate of conformity for vehicles certified using a bin
lower than that required under paragraph (c)(2) of this section. The
ICI may then produce vehicles to the higher bin only to the extent that
it has generated sufficient credits from vehicles certified to the
lower bin during the same model year.
* * * * *
(5) Except for the situation where an ICI desires to bank, sell or
use NOx credits as described in paragraph (c)(3) of this
section, the requirements of 40 CFR 86.1811 related to fleet average
standards and requirements to comply with such standards do not apply
to vehicles modified under this subpart.
(6) ICIs using Tier 2 bins higher than those specified in paragraph
(c)(2) of this section must monitor their production so that they do
not produce more vehicles certified to the standards of such bins than
their available credits can cover. ICIs must not have a credit deficit
at the end of a model year and are not permitted to use the deficit
carryforward provisions provided in 40 CFR 86.1860-04(e).
* * * * *
(8) The following provisions apply for cold temperature emission
standards:
(i) Nonconforming LDV/LLDTs originally manufactured in OP years
2010 and later must meet the cold temperature emission standards in 40
CFR 86.1811. ICIs may comply with the cold temperature PM standard
based on an engineering evaluation.
(ii) Nonconforming HLDTs and MDPVs originally manufactured in OP
years 2012 and later must meet the cold temperature emission standards
in 40 CFR 86.1811. ICIs may comply with the cold temperature PM
standard based on an engineering evaluation.
(iii) ICIs, which qualify as small-volume manufacturers, are exempt
from the cold temperature NMHC phase-in intermediate percentage
requirements described in 40 CFR 86.1811-10(g)(3). See 40 CFR 86.1811-
04(k)(5)(vi) and (vii).
(iv) The provisions of this paragraph (c)(8)(iv) apply for Tier 2
vehicles. As an alternative to the requirements of paragraphs (c)(8)(i)
and (ii) of this section, ICIs may elect to meet a cold temperature
NMHC family emission level below the cold temperature NMHC fleet
average standards specified in Table S10-1 of 40 CFR 86.1811-10 and
bank or sell credits as permitted in 40 CFR 86.1864-10. An ICI may not
meet a higher cold temperature NMHC family emission level than the
fleet average standards in Table S10-1 of 40 CFR 86.1811-10 as
specified in paragraphs (c)(8)(i) and (ii) of this section, unless it
demonstrates to the Administrator at the time of certification that it
has obtained appropriate and sufficient NMHC credits from another
manufacturer, or has generated them in a previous model year or in the
current model year and not traded them to another manufacturer or used
them to address other vehicles as permitted in 40 CFR 86.1864-10.
* * * * *
0
12. Amend Sec. 85.1702 by revising paragraph (a)(3), adding paragraph
(a)(6), and adding a reserved paragraph (b).
The revision and addition read as follows:
Sec. 85.1702 Definitions.
(a) * * *
(3) Pre-certification vehicle means an uncertified vehicle that a
certificate holder employs in fleets from year to year in the ordinary
course of business for product development, production method
assessment, and market promotion, but not involving lease or sale.
* * * * *
(6) Certificate holder has the meaning given in 40 CFR 1068.30.
* * * * *
0
13. Revise Sec. 85.2101 to read as follows:
Sec. 85.2101 General applicability.
(a) Sections 85.2101 through 85.2111 are applicable to all 1981 and
later model year vehicles subject to standards under 40 CFR part 86,
subpart S.
(b) References in this subpart to engine families and emission
control systems shall be deemed to apply to durability groups and test
groups as applicable.
0
14. Amend Sec. 85.2102 by revising paragraph (a) introductory text and
paragraphs (a)(10) and (11) to read as follows:
Sec. 85.2102 Definitions.
(a) As used in Sec. Sec. 85.2101 through 85.2111 all terms not
defined herein shall have the meaning given them in the Act. All terms
additionally not defined in the Act shall have the meaning given in 40
CFR 86.1803, 1065.1001, or 1068.30:
* * * * *
(10) Useful life means that period established under 40 CFR
86.1805.
(11) Vehicle means any vehicle subject to standards under 40 CFR
part 86, subpart S.
* * * * *
0
15. Revise Sec. 85.2103 to read as follows:
Sec. 85.2103 Emission performance warranty.
(a) The manufacturer of each vehicle to which this subpart applies
must provide a written commitment to meet warranty requirements as
described in this section.
(b) The manufacturer must remedy a nonconformity identified in
paragraph (c) of this section throughout the warranty period specified
in Sec. 85.2108 at no cost to the owner if such nonconformity results
or will result in the vehicle owner having to bear any penalty or other
sanction (including the denial of the right to use the vehicle) under
local, State, or Federal law.
(c) The following failures qualify as a nonconformity for purposes
of the warranty requirements of this subpart:
(1) A vehicle fails to conform at any time during its useful life
to the applicable emission standards or family emission limits as
determined by an EPA-approved emission test.
(2) An electric vehicle or a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle fails
to meet the Minimum Performance Requirement for useable battery energy
under 40 CFR 86.1815 for the specified period as determined by the
vehicle's State of Health Monitor, if applicable.
(d) The warranty periods under this section apply based on the
vehicle's age in years and on the vehicle's odometer reading. The
warranty period expires based on the specified age or mileage,
whichever comes first. The warranty period for a particular vehicle
begins on the date the vehicle is delivered to its ultimate purchaser
or, if the vehicle is first placed in service as a ``demonstrator'' or
``company'' car prior to delivery, on the date it is first placed in
service.
(e) The following warranty periods apply for light-duty vehicles,
light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles:
(1) The following specified major emission control components have
a warranty period of eight years or 80,000 miles:
(i) Catalytic converters and SCR catalysts, and related components.
(ii) Particulate filters and particulate traps, used with both
spark-ignition and compression-ignition engines.
(iii) Components related to exhaust gas recirculation with
compression-ignition engines.
(iv) Emission control module.
(v) Batteries serving as a Renewable Energy Storage System for
electric vehicles and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, along with
related powertrain components.
[[Page 29412]]
(2) Nonconformities other than those identified in paragraph (e)(1)
of this section have a warranty period of two years or 24,000 miles.
(f) The following warranty periods apply for medium-duty vehicles:
(1) The specific major emission control components identified in
paragraph (e)(1) of this section have a warranty period of eight years
or 80,000 miles.
(2) Nonconformities other than those identified in paragraph (f)(1)
of this section have a warranty period of five years or 50,000 miles.
0
16. Amend Sec. 85.2104 by revising paragraphs (d), (e), (f), (g)
introductory text, (g)(1) and (g)(2) introductory text to read as
follows:
Sec. 85.2104 Owners' compliance with instructions for proper
maintenance and use.
* * * * *
(d) the time/mileage interval for scheduled maintenance services
shall be the service interval specified for the part in the written
instructions for proper maintenance and use. However, in the case of
certified parts having a maintenance or replacement interval different
from that specified in the written instructions for proper maintenance
and use, the time/mileage interval shall be the service interval for
which the part was certified.
(e) The owner may perform maintenance or have maintenance performed
more frequently than required in the maintenance instructions.
(f) Written instruction for proper use of electric vehicles and
plug-in hybrid electric vehicles may identify certain behaviors or
vehicle operating modes expected to unreasonably or artificially
shorten battery durability. For example, exceeding a vehicle's towing
capacity might be considered improper use. However, the manufacturer
should not consider actions to be improper use if the vehicle can be
designed to prevent the targeted behaviors or operating modes. Evidence
of compliance with the requirement to properly use vehicles under this
paragraph (f) is generally limited to onboard data logging, though
manufacturers may also request vehicle owners to make a statement
regarding specific behaviors or vehicle operating modes.
(g) Except as provided in paragraph (h) of this section, a
manufacturer may deny an emission performance warranty claim on the
basis of noncompliance with the written instructions for proper
maintenance and use if and only if:
(1) An owner is not able to comply with a request by a manufacturer
for evidence pursuant to paragraph (c) or (f) of this section; or
(2) Notwithstanding the evidence presented pursuant to paragraph
(c) of this section, the manufacturer is able to prove that the vehicle
failed because:
* * * * *
0
17. Amend Sec. 85.2105 by revising paragraph (b)(3) to read as
follows:
Sec. 85.2105 Aftermarket parts.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) List all objective evidence as defined in Sec. 85.2102 that
was used in the determination to deny warranty. This evidence must be
made available to the vehicle owner or EPA upon request.
* * * * *
0
18. Amend Sec. 85.2109 by revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as
follows:
Sec. 85.2109 Inclusion of warranty provisions in owners' manuals and
warranty booklets.
(a) * * *
(2) A list of all items which are covered by the emission
performance warranty for the full useful life of the vehicle. This list
shall contain all specified major emission control components. All
items listed pursuant to this subsection shall be described in the same
manner as they are likely to be described on a service facility work
receipt for that vehicle; and
* * * * *
0
19. Revise Sec. 85.2110 to read as follows:
Sec. 85.2110 Submission of owners' manuals and warranty statements to
EPA.
(a) The manufacturer of each vehicle to which this subpart applies
must send to EPA an owner's manual and warranty booklet (if applicable)
in electronic format for each model vehicle that completely and
accurately represent the warranty terms for that vehicle.
(1) The owner's manuals and warranty booklets should be received by
EPA 60 days prior to the introduction of the vehicle for sale.
(2) If the manuals and warranty booklets are not in their final
format 60 days prior to the introduction of the vehicle for sale, a
manufacturer may submit the most recent draft at that time, provided
that the manufacturer promptly submits final versions when they are
complete.
(b) All materials described in paragraph (a) of this section shall
be sent to the Designated Compliance Officer as specified at 40 CFR
1068.30 (Attention: Warranty Booklet).
PART 86--CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM NEW AND IN-USE HIGHWAY VEHICLES
AND ENGINES
0
20. The authority citation for part 86 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
0
21. Amend Sec. 86.1 by:
0
a. Adding introductory text.
0
b. Revising paragraphs (a) and (d)(2).
0
c. Removing and reserving paragraphs (d)(3) and (4).
0
d. Revising paragraph (e)(2).
0
e. Removing and reserving paragraph (g)(4).
0
f. Revising paragraph (g)(8).
0
g. Removing and reserving paragraphs (g)(10), (11), (13), and (14).
0
h. Revising paragraphs (g)(15) through (19), (21), (22), and (25).
The addition and revisions read as follows:
Sec. 86.1 Incorporation by reference.
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, EPA must publish a document in the Federal
Register and the material must be available to the public. All approved
incorporation by reference (IBR) material is available for inspection
at EPA and at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
Contact EPA at: U.S. EPA, Air and Radiation Docket Center, WJC West
Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20004;
www.epa.gov/dockets; (202) 202-1744. For information on inspecting this
material at NARA, visit www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html or email [email protected]. The material may be
obtained from the following sources:
(a) UN Economic Commission for Europe, Information Service, Palais
des Nations, CH-1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland; [email protected];
www.unece.org:
(1) Addendum 22: United Nations Global Technical Regulation, No.
22, United Nations Global Technical Regulation on In-vehicle Battery
Durability for Electrified Vehicles, Adopted April 14, 2022, (``GTR No.
22''); IBR approved for Sec. 86.1815.
(2) [Reserved]
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(2) California Regulatory Requirements known as Onboard Diagnostics
II (OBD-II), Title 13, Motor Vehicles, Division 3, Air Resources
[[Page 29413]]
Board, Chapter 1, Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Devices, Article 2,
Approval of Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Devices (New Vehicles),
Sec. 1968.2 Malfunction and Diagnostic System Requirements--2004 and
Subsequent Model-Year Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks, and Medium-
Duty Vehicles and Engines; operative November 22, 2022; IBR approved
for Sec. 86.1806-27(a).
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(2) ISO 15765-4:2005(E), Road Vehicles--Diagnostics on Controller
Area Networks (CAN)--Part 4: Requirements for emissions-related
systems, January 15, 2005, IBR approved for Sec. 86.010-18(k).
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(8) SAE J1930, Electrical/Electronic Systems Diagnostic Terms,
Definitions, Abbreviations, and Acronyms--Equivalent to ISO/TR 15031-2:
April 30, 2002, Revised April 2002, IBR approved for Sec. 86.010-
18(k).
* * * * *
(15) SAE J1939-71, Vehicle Application Layer (Through February
2007), Revised January 2008, IBR approved for Sec. 86.010-38(j).
(16) SAE J1939-73, Application Layer--Diagnostics, Revised
September 2006, IBR approved for Sec. Sec. 86.010-18(k); 86.010-38(j).
(17) SAE J1939-81, Network Management, Revised May 2003, IBR
approved for Sec. 86.010-38(j).
(18) SAE J1962, Diagnostic Connector Equivalent to ISO/DIS 15031-3;
December 14, 2001, Revised April 2002, IBR approved for Sec. 86.010-
18(k).
(19) SAE J1978, OBD II Scan Tool--Equivalent to ISO/DIS 15031-4;
December 14, 2001, Revised April 2002, IBR approved for Sec. 86.010-
18(k).
* * * * *
(21) SAE J1979, (R) E/E Diagnostic Test Modes, Revised May 2007,
IBR approved for Sec. 86.010-18(k).
(22) SAE J2012, (R) Diagnostic Trouble Code Definitions Equivalent
to ISO/DIS 15031-6: April 30, 2002, Revised April 2002, IBR approved
for Sec. 86.010-18(k).
* * * * *
(25) SAE J2403, Medium/Heavy-Duty E/E Systems Diagnosis
Nomenclature--Truck and Bus, Revised August 2007, IBR approved for
Sec. Sec. 86.010-18(k); 86.010-38(j).
* * * * *
Sec. 86.113-04 [Amended]
0
22. Amend Sec. 86.113-04 by removing and reserving paragraph
(a)(2)(i).
0
23. Add Sec. 86.113-27 to read as follows:
Sec. 86.113-27 Fuel specifications.
Use the fuels specified in 40 CFR part 1065 to perform valid tests,
as follows:
(a) For service accumulation, use the test fuel or any commercially
available fuel that is representative of the fuel that in-use vehicles
will use.
(b) For diesel-fueled engines, use the ultra low-sulfur diesel fuel
specified in 40 CFR part 1065.703 for emission testing.
(c) The following fuel requirements apply for gasoline-fueled
engines:
(1) Use the appropriate E10 fuel specified in 40 CFR part
1065.710(b) to demonstrate compliance with all exhaust, evaporative,
and refueling emission standards under subpart S of this part.
(2) For vehicles certified for 50-state sale, you may instead use
California Phase 3 gasoline (E10) as adopted in California's LEV III
program as follows:
(i) You may use California Phase 3 gasoline (E10) as adopted in
California's LEV III program for exhaust emission testing.
(ii) If you certify vehicles to LEV III evaporative emission
standards with California Phase 3 gasoline (E10), you may use that
collection of data to certify to evaporative emission standards. For
evaporative emission testing with California test fuels, perform tests
based on the test temperatures specified by the California Air
Resources Board. Note that this paragraph (c)(2)(ii) does not apply for
refueling, spitback, high-altitude, or leak testing.
(iii) If you certify using fuel meeting California's
specifications, we may perform testing with E10 test fuel meeting
either California or EPA specifications.
(d) Interim test fuel specifications apply for model years 2027
through 2029 as described in 40 CFR 600.117.
(e) Additional test fuel specifications apply as specified in
subpart S of this part.
0
24. Amend Sec. 86.132-96 by revising paragraphs (a), (b), (f), (g),
(h) introductory text, and (j) introductory text to read as follows:
Sec. 86.132-96 Vehicle preconditioning.
(a) Prepare the vehicle for testing as described in this section.
Store the vehicle before testing in a way that prevents fuel
contamination and preserves the integrity of the fuel system. The
vehicle shall be moved into the test area and the following operations
performed.
(b)(1) Gasoline- and Methanol-Fueled Vehicles. Drain the fuel
tank(s) and fill with test fuel, as specified in Sec. 86.113, to the
``tank fuel volume'' defined in Sec. 86.082-2. Install the fuel cap(s)
within one minute after refueling.
(2) Gaseous-Fueled Vehicles. Fill fuel tanks with fuel that meets
the specifications in Sec. 86.113. Fill the fuel tanks to a minimum of
85 percent of service pressure for natural gas-fueled vehicles or a
minimum of 85 percent of available fill volume for liquefied petroleum
gas-fueled vehicles. Prior draining of the fuel tanks is not required
if the fuel in the tanks already meets the specifications in Sec.
86.113.
* * * * *
(f) Drain and then fill the vehicle's fuel tank(s) with test fuel,
as specified in Sec. 86.113, to the ``tank fuel volume'' defined in
Sec. 86.082-2. Refuel the vehicle within 1 hour after completing the
preconditioning drive. Install fuel cap(s) within 1 minute after
refueling. Park the vehicle within five minutes after refueling.
However, for the following vehicles omit this refueling event and
instead drive the vehicle off the dynamometer and park it within five
minutes after the preconditioning drive:
(1) Diesel-fueled vehicles.
(2) Gaseous-fueled vehicles.
(3) Fuel economy data vehicles.
(4) In-use vehicles subject to testing under Sec. 86.1845.
(g) The vehicle shall be soaked for not less than 12 hours nor more
than 36 hours before the cold start exhaust emission test. The soak
period starts at the end of the refueling event, or at the end of the
previous drive if there is no refueling.
(h) During the soak period for the three-diurnal test sequence
described in Sec. 86.130-96, precondition any evaporative canisters as
described in this paragraph (h); however, canister preconditioning is
not required for fuel economy data vehicles. For vehicles with multiple
canisters in a series configuration, the set of canisters must be
preconditioned as a unit. For vehicles with multiple canisters in a
parallel configuration, each canister must be preconditioned
separately. If production evaporative canisters are equipped with a
functional service port designed for vapor load or purge steps, the
service port shall be used during testing to precondition the canister.
In addition, for model year 1998 and later vehicles equipped with
refueling canisters, these canisters shall be preconditioned for the
three-diurnal test sequence according to the procedure in paragraph
(j)(1) of this section. If a vehicle is designed to actively control
evaporative or refueling emissions without a canister, the manufacturer
[[Page 29414]]
shall devise an appropriate preconditioning procedure, subject to the
approval of the Administrator.
* * * * *
(j) During the soak period for the supplemental two-diurnal test
sequence described in Sec. 86.130-96, precondition any evaporative
canisters using one of the methods described in this paragraph (j);
however, canister preconditioning is not required for fuel economy data
vehicles. For vehicles with multiple canisters in a series
configuration, the set of canisters must be preconditioned as a unit.
For vehicles with multiple canisters in a parallel configuration, each
canister must be preconditioned separately. In addition, for model year
1998 and later vehicles equipped with refueling canisters, these
canisters shall be preconditioned for the supplemental two-diurnal test
sequence according to the procedure in paragraph (j)(1) of this
section. Canister emissions are measured to determine breakthrough.
Breakthrough is here defined as the point at which the cumulative
quantity of hydrocarbons emitted is equal to 2 grams.
* * * * *
Sec. Sec. 86.165-12 and 86.1801-01 [Removed]
0
25. Remove Sec. Sec. 86.165-12 and 86.1801-01.
0
26. Amend Sec. 86.1801-12 by revising paragraphs (a)(2)(ii), (a)(3)(i)
and (ii), (h), (i), (j)(1) introductory text, and (k) and adding
paragraph (l) to read as follows:
Sec. 86.1801-12 Applicability.
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) Starting in model year 2030, the provisions of this subpart do
not apply for vehicles above 22,000 pounds GCWR. The provisions of this
subpart are optional for those vehicles in model years 2027 through
2029 as described in paragraph (l) of this section.
* * * * *
(3) * * *
(i) Heavy duty vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR may be optionally
certified to the exhaust emission standards in this subpart, including
the greenhouse gas emission standards, if they are properly included in
a test group with similar vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR.
Emission standards apply to these vehicles as if they were Class 3
heavy-duty vehicles. The work factor for these vehicles may not be
greater than the largest work factor that applies for vehicles in the
test group that are at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR (see Sec. 86.1819-
14). Starting in model year 2030, this option no longer applies for
vehicles above 22,000 pounds GCWR.
(ii) Incomplete heavy-duty vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR
may be optionally certified to the exhaust emission standards in this
subpart that apply for heavy-duty vehicles. Starting in model year
2030, this option no longer applies for vehicles above 22,000 pounds
GCWR.
* * * * *
(h) Applicability of provisions of this subpart to light-duty
vehicles, light-duty trucks, medium-duty passenger vehicles, and heavy-
duty vehicles. Numerous sections in this subpart provide requirements
or procedures applicable to a ``vehicle'' or ``vehicles.'' Unless
otherwise specified or otherwise determined by the Administrator, the
term ``vehicle'' or ``vehicles'' in those provisions apply equally to
light-duty vehicles (LDVs), light-duty trucks (LDTs), medium-duty
passenger vehicles (MDPVs), and heavy-duty vehicles (HDVs), as those
terms are defined in Sec. 86.1803-01. Note that this subpart also
identifies heavy-duty vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR that are
not medium-duty passenger vehicles as medium-duty vehicles.
(i) Types of pollutants. Emission standards and related
requirements apply for different types of pollutants as follows:
(1) Criteria pollutants. Criteria pollutant standards apply for
NOX, HC, PM, and CO, including exhaust, evaporative, and
refueling emission standards. These pollutants are sometimes described
collectively as ``criteria pollutants'' because they are either
criteria pollutants under the Clean Air Act or precursors to the
criteria pollutants ozone and PM.
(2) Greenhouse gas emissions. This subpart contains standards and
other regulations applicable to the emission of the air pollutant
defined as the aggregate group of six greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide,
nitrous oxide, methane, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and
sulfur hexafluoride.
(3) Nomenclature. Numerous sections in this subpart refer to
requirements relating to ``exhaust emissions.'' Unless otherwise
specified or otherwise determined by the Administrator, the term
``exhaust emissions'' refers at a minimum to emissions of all
pollutants described by emission standards in this subpart, including
carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), and
methane (CH4).
(j) * * *
(1) Manufacturers that qualify as a small business under the Small
Business Administration regulations in 13 CFR part 121 are exempt from
certain standards and associated provisions as specified in Sec. Sec.
86.1815, 86.1818, and 86.1819 and in 40 CFR part 600. This exemption
applies to both U.S.-based and non-U.S.-based businesses. The following
categories of businesses (with their associated NAICS codes) may be
eligible for exemption based on the Small Business Administration size
standards in 13 CFR 121.201:
* * * * *
(k) Conditional exemption from greenhouse gas emission standards.
Manufacturers may request a conditional exemption from compliance with
the emission standards described in Sec. 86.1818-12(c) through (e) and
associated provisions in this part and in part 600 of this chapter for
model years 2012 through 2016. For the purpose of determining
eligibility the sales of related companies shall be aggregated
according to the provisions of Sec. 86.1838-01(b)(3) or, if a
manufacturer has been granted operational independence status under
Sec. 86.1838-01(d), eligibility shall be based on that manufacturer's
vehicle production.
(1) [Reserved]
(2) Maintaining eligibility for exemption from greenhouse gas
emission standards. To remain eligible for exemption under this
paragraph (k) the manufacturer's average sales for the three most
recent consecutive model years must remain below 5,000. If a
manufacturer's average sales for the three most recent consecutive
model years exceeds 4,999, the manufacturer will no longer be eligible
for exemption and must meet applicable emission standards according to
the provisions in this paragraph (k)(2).
(i) If a manufacturer's average sales for three consecutive model
years exceeds 4,999, and if the increase in sales is the result of
corporate acquisitions, mergers, or purchase by another manufacturer,
the manufacturer shall comply with the emission standards described in
Sec. 86.1818-12(c) through (e), as applicable, beginning with the
first model year after the last year of the three consecutive model
years.
(ii) If a manufacturer's average sales for three consecutive model
years exceeds 4,999 and is less than 50,000, and if the increase in
sales is solely the result of the manufacturer's expansion in vehicle
production, the manufacturer shall comply with the emission standards
described in Sec. 86.1818-12(c) through (e), as applicable, beginning
with the second model year after the last year of the three consecutive
model years.
(iii) If a manufacturer's average sales for three consecutive model
years
[[Page 29415]]
exceeds 49,999, the manufacturer shall comply with the emission
standards described in Sec. 86.1818-12 (c) through (e), as applicable,
beginning with the first model year after the last year of the three
consecutive model years.
(l) Transition to GHG standards for high-GCWR vehicles. If
manufacturers certify all their engines installed in model year 2027
vehicles with GCWR above 22,000 pounds under 40 CFR part 1036, instead
of waiting until model year 2030, the vehicles in which those engines
are installed may demonstrate compliance with the appropriate
CO2 target values specified for model year 2026 in Sec.
86.1819-14(k)(4)(i). See 40 CFR 1036.635.
0
27. Amend Sec. 86.1803-01 by:
0
a. Revising the definition of ``Banking''.
0
b. Removing the definitions of ``Durability useful life'', ``Fleet
average cold temperature NMHC standard'', and ``Fleet average
NOX standard''.
0
c. Adding definitions of ``Incomplete vehicle'' and ``Light-duty
program vehicle'' in alphabetical order.
0
d. Revising the definitions of ``Light-duty truck'' and ``Medium-duty
passenger vehicle (MDPV)''.
0
e. Adding definitions of ``Normal operation'' and ``Rechargeable Energy
Storage System (RESS)'', and ``Revoke'' in alphabetical order.
0
f. Revising the definition of ``Supplemental FTP (SFTP)''.
0
g. Adding definitions of ``Suspend'', ``Tier 4'', and ``United States''
in alphabetical order.
0
h. Removing the definition of ``Useful life''.
0
i. Adding a definition of ``void'' in alphabetical order.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 86.1803-01 Definitions.
* * * * *
Banking means the retention of emission credits by the manufacturer
generating the emission credits, for use in future model year
certification programs as permitted by regulation.
* * * * *
Incomplete vehicle has the meaning given in 40 CFR 1037.801.
* * * * *
Light-duty program vehicle means any medium-duty passenger vehicle
and any vehicle subject to standards under this subpart that is not a
heavy-duty vehicle. This definition generally applies only for model
year 2027 and later vehicles.
Light-duty truck has one of the following meanings:
(1) Except as specified in paragraph (2) of this definition, Light-
duty truck means any motor vehicle that is not a heavy-duty vehicle,
but is:
(i) Designed primarily for purposes of transportation of property
or is a derivation of such a vehicle; or
(ii) Designed primarily for transportation of persons and has a
capacity of more than 12 persons; or
(iii) Available with special features enabling off-street or off-
highway operation and use.
(2) For vehicles subject to Tier 4 standards, Light-duty truck has
the meaning given for ``Light truck'' in 40 CFR 600.002.
* * * * *
Medium-duty passenger vehicle (MDPV) has one of the following
meanings:
(1) Except as specified in paragraph (2) of this definition,
Medium-duty passenger vehicle means any heavy-duty vehicle (as defined
in this subpart) with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of less than
10,000 pounds that is designed primarily for the transportation of
persons. The MDPV definition does not include any vehicle which:
(i) Is an ``incomplete truck'' as defined in this subpart; or
(ii) Has a seating capacity of more than 12 persons; or
(iii) Is designed for more than 9 persons in seating rearward of
the driver's seat; or
(iv) Is equipped with an open cargo area (for example, a pick-up
truck box or bed) of 72.0 inches in interior length or more. A covered
box not readily accessible from the passenger compartment will be
considered an open cargo area for purposes of this definition.
(2) Starting with model year 2027, or earlier at the manufacturer's
discretion, Medium-duty passenger vehicle means any heavy-duty vehicle
subject to standards under this subpart that is designed primarily for
the transportation of persons, with seating rearward of the driver,
except that the MDPV definition does not include any vehicle that
(i) Is an ``incomplete truck'' as defined in this subpart; or
(ii) Has a seating capacity of more than 12 persons; or
(iii) Is designed for more than 9 persons in seating rearward of
the driver's seat; or
(iv) Is equipped with an open cargo area (for example, a pick-up
truck box or bed) with an interior length of 72.0 inches or more for
vehicles above 9,899 pounds GVWR with a work factor above 5,000 pounds.
A covered box not readily accessible from the passenger compartment
will be considered an open cargo area for purposes of this definition.
(v) Is equipped with an open cargo area of 94.0 inches in interior
length or more for vehicles at or below 9,899 pounds GVWR and for
vehicles with a work factor at or below 5,000 pounds.
Medium-duty vehicle means any heavy-duty vehicle subject to
standards under this subpart, excluding medium-duty passenger vehicles.
This definition generally applies only for model year 2027 and later
vehicles.
* * * * *
Normal operation means any vehicle operating modes meeting all the
following conditions:
(1) Any engine and vehicle settings that are within the physically
adjustable range for any adjustable parameters.
(2) Any operator demand that is allowable for engine and vehicle
calibrations that are available to the operator for vehicle operation
within the manufacturer's specifications fuel and load (GVWR and GCWR).
(3) Any ambient conditions during any season for operation on
public roads in the United States.
* * * * *
Rechargeable Energy Storage System (RESS) has the meaning given in
40 CFR 1065.1001. For electric vehicles and hybrid electric vehicles,
this may also be referred to as a Rechargeable Electrical Energy
Storage System.
* * * * *
Revoke has the meaning given in 40 CFR 1068.30.
* * * * *
Supplemental FTP (SFTP) means the test procedures designed to
measure emissions during aggressive and microtransient driving over the
US06 cycle and during driving while the vehicle's air conditioning
system is operating over the SC03 cycle as described in Sec. 86.1811-
17.
Suspend has the meaning given in 40 CFR 1068.30.
* * * * *
Tier 4 means relating to the Tier 4 emission standards described in
Sec. Sec. 86.1811-27. Note that a Tier 4 vehicle continues to be
subject to Tier 3 evaporative emission standards.
* * * * *
United States has the meaning given in 40 CFR 1068.30.
* * * * *
Void has the meaning given in 40 CFR 1068.30.
* * * * *
Sec. Sec. 86.1805-04 and 86.1805-12 [Removed]
0
28. Remove Sec. Sec. 86.1805-04 and 86.1805-12.
[[Page 29416]]
0
29. Amend Sec. 86.1805-17 by revising paragraphs (c) and (d) and
removing paragraph (f). The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 86.1805-17 Useful life.
* * * * *
(c) Cold temperature emission standards. The cold temperature NMHC
emission standards in Sec. 86.1811-17 apply for a useful life of 10
years or 120,000 miles for LDV and LLDT, and 11 years or 120,000 miles
for HLDT and HDV. The cold temperature CO emission standards in Sec.
86.1811 apply for a useful life of 5 years or 50,000 miles.
(d) Criteria pollutants. The useful life provisions of this
paragraph (d) apply for all emission standards not covered by paragraph
(b) or (c) of this section. This paragraph (d) applies for the cold
temperature emission standards in Sec. 86.1811-27(c). Except as
specified in paragraph (f) of this section and in Sec. Sec. 86.1811,
86.1813, and 86.1816, the useful life for LDT2, HLDT, MDPV, and HDV is
15 years or 150,000 miles. The useful life for LDV and LDT1 is 10 years
or 120,000 miles. Manufacturers may optionally certify LDV and LDT1 to
a useful life of 15 years or 150,000 miles, in which case the longer
useful life would apply for all the standards and requirements covered
by this paragraph (d).
* * * * *
Sec. 86.1806-05 [Removed]
0
30. Remove Sec. 86.1806-05.
0
31. Amend Sec. 86.1806-17 by revising paragraphs (b)(4)(ii) and (e) to
read as follows:
Sec. 86.1806-17 Onboard diagnostics.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(4) * * *
(ii) Design your vehicles to display information related to engine
derating and other inducements in the cab as specified in 40 CFR
1036.110(c)(1).
* * * * *
(e) Onboard diagnostic requirements apply for alternative-fuel
conversions as described in 40 CFR part 85, subpart F.
* * * * *
0
32. Add Sec. 86.1806-27 to read as follows:
Sec. 86.1806-27 Onboard diagnostics.
Model year 2027 and later vehicles must have onboard diagnostic
(OBD) systems as described in this section. OBD systems must generally
detect malfunctions in the emission control system, store trouble codes
corresponding to detected malfunctions, and alert operators
appropriately. Vehicles may optionally comply with the requirements of
this section instead of the requirements of Sec. 86.1806-17 before
model year 2027.
(a) Vehicles must comply with the 2022 OBD requirements adopted for
California as described in this paragraph (a). California's 2022 OBD-II
requirements are part of Title 13, section 1968.2 of the California
Code of Regulations, approved on November 22, 2022 (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 86.1). We may approve your request to certify an
OBD system meeting a later version of California's OBD requirements if
you demonstrate that it complies with the intent of this section. The
following clarifications and exceptions apply for vehicles certified
under this subpart:
(1) For vehicles not certified in California, references to
vehicles meeting certain California Air Resources Board emission
standards are understood to refer to the corresponding EPA emission
standards for a given family, where applicable. Use good engineering
judgment to correlate the specified standards with the bin standards
that apply under this subpart.
(2) Vehicles must comply with OBD requirements throughout the
useful life as specified in Sec. 86.1805. If the specified useful life
is different for evaporative and exhaust emissions, the useful life
specified for evaporative emissions applies for monitoring related to
fuel-system leaks and the useful life specified for exhaust emissions
applies for all other parameters.
(3) The purpose and applicability statements in 13 CCR 1968.2(a)
and (b) do not apply.
(4) The anti-tampering provisions in 13 CCR 1968.2(d)(1.4) do not
apply.
(5) The requirement to verify proper alignment between the camshaft
and crankshaft described in 13 CCR 1968.2(e)(15.2.1)(C) applies only
for vehicles equipped with variable valve timing.
(6) The deficiency provisions described in paragraph (c) of this
section apply instead of 13 CCR 1968.2(k).
(7) [Reserved]
(8) Apply thresholds for exhaust emission malfunctions from Tier 4
vehicles based on the thresholds calculated for the corresponding bin
standards in the California LEV III program as prescribed for the
latest model year in 13 CCR 1968.2(d). For example, for Tier 4 Bin 10
standards, apply the threshold that applies for the LEV standards. For
cases involving Tier 4 standards that have no corresponding bin
standards from the California LEV III program, use the next highest LEV
III bin. For example, for Tier 4 Bin 50 standards, apply the threshold
that applies for the ULEV standards. You may apply thresholds that are
more stringent than we require under this paragraph (a)(8).
(9) Apply thresholds as specified in 40 CFR 1036.110(b)(5) for
engines certified to emission standards under 40 CFR part 1036.
(b) For vehicles with installed compression-ignition engines that
are subject to standards and related requirements under 40 CFR 1036.104
and 1036.111, you must comply with the following additional
requirements:
(1) Make parameters related to engine derating and other
inducements available for reading with a generic scan tool as specified
in 40 CFR 110(b)(9)(vi).
(2) Design your vehicles to display information related to engine
derating and other inducements in the cab as specified in 40 CFR
1036.110(c)(1).
(c) You may ask us to accept as compliant a vehicle that does not
fully meet specific requirements under this section. Such deficiencies
are intended to allow for minor deviations from OBD standards under
limited conditions. We expect vehicles to have functioning OBD systems
that meet the objectives stated in this section. The following
provisions apply regarding OBD system deficiencies:
(1) Except as specified in paragraph (d) of this section, we will
not approve a deficiency that involves the complete lack of a major
diagnostic monitor, such as monitors related to exhaust aftertreatment
devices, oxygen sensors, air-fuel ratio sensors, NOX
sensors, engine misfire, evaporative leaks, and diesel EGR (if
applicable).
(2) We will approve a deficiency only if you show us that full
compliance is infeasible or unreasonable considering any relevant
factors, such as the technical feasibility of a given monitor, or the
lead time and production cycles of vehicle designs and programmed
computing upgrades.
(3) Our approval for a given deficiency applies only for a single
model year, though you may continue to ask us to extend a deficiency
approval in renewable one-year increments. We may approve an extension
if you demonstrate an acceptable level of effort toward compliance and
show that the necessary hardware or software modifications would pose
an unreasonable burden.
(d) For alternative-fuel vehicles, manufacturers may request a
waiver from specific requirements for which monitoring may not be
reliable for operation with the alternative fuel. However, we will not
waive
[[Page 29417]]
requirements that we judge to be feasible for a particular manufacturer
or vehicle model.
(e) OBD-related requirements for alternative-fuel conversions apply
as described in 40 CFR part 85, subpart F.
(f) You may ask us to waive certain requirements in this section
for emergency vehicles. We will approve your request for an appropriate
duration if we determine that the OBD requirement in question could
harm system performance in a way that would impair a vehicle's ability
to perform its emergency functions.
(g) The following interim provisions describe an alternate
implementation schedule for the requirements of this section in certain
circumstances:
(1) Manufacturers may delay complying with all the requirements of
this section, and instead meet all the requirements that apply under
Sec. 86.1806-17 for any vehicles above 6,000 pounds GVWR that are not
yet subject to all the Tier 4 standards in Sec. 86.1811.
(2) Except as specified in this paragraph (g)(2), small-volume
manufacturers may delay complying with all the requirements of this
section until model year 2030, and instead meet all the requirements
that apply under Sec. 86.1806-17 during those years.
(3) Manufacturers may disregard the requirements of this section
that apply above 8,500 pounds GVWR before model year 2019 and instead
meet all the requirements that apply under Sec. 86.1806-05. This also
applies for model year 2019 vehicles from a test group with vehicles
that have a Job 1 date on or before March 3, 2018 (see 40 CFR 85.2304).
(h) Manufacturers must meet the following requirements to monitor
PM filters installed on vehicles with spark-ignition engines:
(1) For vehicles that have hardware dedicated to active
regeneration strategies, such as secondary air or fuel injection or
burners in the exhaust stream, monitor those systems for proper
performance. Meet requirements for comprehensive monitoring in 13 CCR
1968.2(e)(15) for injectors, valves, sensors, pumps, and other
individual components associated with such active regeneration systems.
(2) Systems must detect malfunctions as follows:
(i) The system must detect a malfunction before filtering decreases
to the point that PM emissions exceed 10 mg/mile over the FTP. If there
is no failure or deterioration of the PM filter that could cause a
vehicle to exceed the specified PM emission level, the system must
detect a malfunction if the PM filter allows free flow of exhaust
through the PM filter assembly where 30 percent or less of the normal
filtration is occurring; this may occur if someone tampers with the PM
filter assembly by damaging it or replacing it with a straight pipe or
if the PM filter substrate degrades to allow exhaust gases to bypass
the filter.
(ii) The system must detect a malfunction before PM filter
regeneration frequency increases to the point that HC, CO, or
NOX emissions exceed 1.5 times the applicable FTP standard.
If there is no failure or deterioration that could cause a vehicle to
exceed the specified emission level, the system must detect a
malfunction when PM filter regeneration frequency exceeds the
manufacturer's specified design limits for allowable regeneration
frequency.
(iii) The system must detect a malfunction if regeneration does not
properly restore the PM filter when regeneration is designed to occur
based on the manufacturer's specified conditions.
(3) Manufacturers must define monitoring conditions for
malfunctions under paragraph (h)(2) of this section in accordance with
13 CCR 1968.2(d)(3.1) and (d)(3.2), except that monitoring of
malfunctions under paragraph (h)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section must
occur every time the monitoring conditions are met during the driving
cycle. The required minimum ratio for gasoline particulate filters is
0.150. Manufacturers must track and report the in-use performance of PM
filter monitors in accordance with 13 CCR 1968.2(d)(3.2.2). Separately
track all monitors detecting malfunctions and report malfunctions as a
single set of values as specified in 13 CCR 1968.2(d)(5.2.1)(B), except
that manufacturers may need to report malfunctions separately for
vehicles using SAE J1979-2 as specified in 13 CCR 1968.2(d)(5.1.3) and
(5.2.2).
(4) Manufacturers must meet general requirements for MIL
illumination and fault code storage for all the malfunctions in
paragraph (h)(2) of this section in accordance with 13 CCR
1968.2(d)(2).
Sec. 86.1807-01 [Amended]
0
33. Amend Sec. 86.1807-01 by removing and reserving paragraph (d).
Sec. 86.1808-01 [Amended]
0
34. Amend Sec. 86.1808-01 by removing and reserving paragraph (e).
Sec. 86.1809-01 and 86.1809-10 [Removed]
0
35. Remove Sec. Sec. 86.1809-01 and 86.1809-10.
0
36. Revise Sec. 86.1809-12 to read as follows:
Sec. 86.1809-12 Prohibition of defeat devices.
(a) No new vehicle shall be equipped with a defeat device.
(b) EPA may test or require testing on any vehicle at a designated
location, using driving cycles and conditions that may reasonably be
expected to be encountered in normal operation and use, for the
purposes of investigating a potential defeat device.
(c) For cold temperature CO, NMHC, and NMOG+NOX emission
control, EPA will use a guideline to determine the appropriateness of
the CO emission control and the NMHC or NMOG+NOX emission
control at ambient temperatures between 25 [deg]F (the upper bound of
the range for cold temperature testing) and 68 [deg]F (the lower bound
of the FTP test temperature range). The guideline for CO and
NMOG+NOX emission congruity across the intermediate
temperature range is the linear interpolation between the CO or
NMOG+NOX standard applicable at 25 [deg]F and the
corresponding standard applicable at 68 [deg]F. The guideline for NMHC
emission congruity across the intermediate temperature range is the
linear interpolation between the NMHC FEL pass limit (e.g., 0.3499 g/mi
for a 0.3 g/mi FEL) applicable at 20 [deg]F and the Tier 2 NMOG
standard or the Tier 3 or Tier 4 NMOG+NOX bin standard to
which the vehicle was certified at 68 [deg]F, where the intermediate
temperature NMHC level is rounded to the nearest 0.01 g/mile for
comparison to the interpolated line. The following provisions apply for
vehicles that exceed the specified emission guideline during
intermediate temperature testing:
(1) If the CO emission level is greater than the 20 [deg]F emission
standard, the vehicle will automatically be considered to be equipped
with a defeat device without further investigation. If the intermediate
temperature NMHC or NMOG+NOX emission level, rounded to the
nearest 0.01 g/mile or the nearest 10 mg/mile, is greater than the 20
[deg]F FEL pass limit, the vehicle will be presumed to have a defeat
device unless the manufacturer provides evidence to EPA's satisfaction
that the cause of the test result in question is not due to a defeat
device.
(2) If the conditions in paragraph (c)(1) of this section do not
apply, EPA may investigate the vehicle design for the presence of a
defeat device under paragraph (d) of this section.
(d) The following provisions apply for vehicle designs EPA
designates for investigation as possible defeat devices:
(1) The manufacturer must show to EPA's satisfaction that the
vehicle design does not incorporate strategies that unnecessarily
reduce emission
[[Page 29418]]
control effectiveness exhibited during the certification test
procedures specified in this subpart, the fuel economy test procedures
in 40 CFR part 600, or the air conditioning efficiency test in 40 CFR
1066.845, when the vehicle is operated under conditions that may
reasonably be expected to be encountered in normal operation and use.
(2) EPA has determined that it is not necessary for spark-ignition
engines that control air-fuel ratios at or near stoichiometry to use
commanded enrichment to maintain power or to protect the engine or its
aftertreatment components from damage. This determination is effective
for all vehicles certified to Tier 4 standards. This paragraph (d)(2)
does not apply for the following examples of commanded enrichment:
(i) Engine starting.
(ii) Catalyst rewetting after deceleration fuel cutoff.
(iii) Limp-home operation when the check engine light is on.
(iv) Intrusive OBD monitoring.
(3) The following information requirements apply:
(i) Upon request by EPA, the manufacturer must provide an
explanation containing detailed information regarding test programs,
engineering evaluations, design specifications, calibrations, on-board
computer algorithms, and design strategies incorporated for operation
both during and outside of the Federal emission test procedures.
(ii) For purposes of investigation of possible cold temperature CO,
NMHC, or NMOG+NOX defeat devices under this paragraph (d),
the manufacturer must provide an explanation to show to EPA's
satisfaction that CO emissions and NMHC or NMOG+NOX
emissions are reasonably controlled in reference to the linear
guideline across the intermediate temperature range.
(e) For each test group the manufacturer must submit an engineering
evaluation with the Part II certification application demonstrating to
EPA's satisfaction that a discontinuity in emissions of non-methane
organic gases, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide,
oxides of nitrogen, nitrous oxide, methane, and formaldehyde measured
on the Federal Test Procedure (40 CFR 1066.801(c)(1)) and on the
Highway Fuel Economy Test Procedure (40 CFR 1066.801(c)(5)) does not
occur in the temperature range of 20 to 86 [deg]F.
0
37. Amend Sec. 86.1810-17 by revising paragraphs (g) and (h)(1) to
read as follows:
Sec. 86.1810-17 General requirements.
* * * * *
(g) The cold temperature standards in this subpart refer to test
procedures set forth in subpart C of this part and 40 CFR part 1066,
subpart H. All other emission standards in this subpart rely on test
procedures set forth in subpart B of this part and 40 CFR part 1066,
subpart H. These procedures rely on the test specifications in 40 CFR
parts 1065 and 1066 as described in subparts B and C of this part.
(h) * * *
(1) For criteria exhaust emissions, we may identify the worst-case
fuel blend for testing in addition to what is required for gasoline-
fueled vehicles. The worst-case fuel blend may be the fuel specified in
40 CFR 1065.725, or it may consist of a combination of the fuels
specified in 40 CFR 1065.710(b) and 1065.725. We may waive testing with
the worst-case blended fuel for US06 and/or SC03 duty cycles; if we
waive only SC03 testing for Tier 3 vehicles, substitute the SC03
emission result using the standard test fuel for gasoline-fueled
vehicles to calculate composite SFTP emissions.
* * * * *
0
38. Amend Sec. 86.1811-17 by revising paragraphs (b)(8)(iii)(B), (d)
introductory text, and (g)(2)(ii) to read as follows:
Sec. 86.1811-17 Exhaust emission standards for light-duty vehicles,
light-duty trucks and medium-duty passenger vehicles.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(8) * * *
(iii) * * *
(B) You may continue to use the E0 test fuel specified in Sec.
86.113 as described in 40 CFR 600.117.
* * * * *
(d) Special provisions for Otto-cycle engines. The following
special provisions apply for vehicles with Otto-cycle engines:
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) The manufacturer must calculate its fleet average cold
temperature NMHC emission level(s) as described in Sec. 86.1864-10(b).
* * * * *
0
39. Add Sec. 86.1811-27 to read as follows:
Sec. 86.1811-27 Criteria exhaust emission standards.
(a) Applicability and general provisions. This section describes
criteria exhaust emission standards that apply for model year 2027 and
later vehicles.
(1) A vehicle meeting all the requirements of this section is
considered a Tier 4 vehicle meeting the Tier 4 standards.
(2) See Sec. 86.1813 for evaporative and refueling emission
standards.
(3) See Sec. 86.1818 for greenhouse gas emission standards.
(b) Exhaust emission standards over bin driving cycles. Exhaust
emissions may not exceed standards over bin driving cycles, as follows:
(1) Measure emissions using the chassis dynamometer procedures of
40 CFR part 1066, as follows:
(i) Establish appropriate load settings based on loaded vehicle
weight for light-duty program vehicles and adjusted loaded vehicle
weight for medium-duty vehicles (see Sec. 86.1803).
(ii) Emission standards under this paragraph (b) apply for all the
following driving cycles unless otherwise specified:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The driving cycle . . . is identified in . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A) FTP................................ 40 CFR 1066.801(c)(1).
(B) US06............................... 40 CFR 1066.801(c)(2).
(C) SC03............................... 40 CFR 1066.801(c)(3).
(D) HFET............................... 40 CFR 1066.801(c)(5).
(E) ACC II--Mid-temperature 40 CFR 1066.801(c)(8).
intermediate soak.
(F) ACC II--Early driveaway............ 40 CFR 1066.801(c)(9).
(G) ACC II High-load PHEV engine starts 40 CFR 1066.801(c)(10).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(iii) Hydrocarbon emission standards are expressed as NMOG;
however, for certain vehicles you may measure exhaust emissions based
on nonmethane hydrocarbon instead of NMOG as described in 40 CFR
1066.635.
[[Page 29419]]
(iv) Measure emissions from hybrid electric vehicles (including
plug-in hybrid electric vehicles) as described in 40 CFR part 1066,
subpart F, except that these procedures do not apply for plug-in hybrid
electric vehicles during charge-depleting operation.
(2) Fully phased-in standards apply as specified in the following
table:
Table 1 to Paragraph (b)(2)--Fully Phased-In Tier 4 Criteria Exhaust Emission Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NMOG+NOX (mg/ PM (mg/mile) CO (g/mile) Formaldehyde
mile) \a\ \b\ \c\ (mg/mile) \d\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Light-duty program vehicles..................... 12 0.5 1.7 4
Medium-duty vehicles............................ 60 0.5 3.2 6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The NMOG+NOX standards apply on a fleet-average basis using discrete bin standards as described in
paragraphs (b)(4) and (6) of this section. The specified fleet-average standards apply for model year 2032 and
later vehicles; see paragraph (b)(6) of this section for fleet-average NMOG+NOX standards that apply for model
years 2027 through 2031.
\b\ PM standards under this paragraph (b) apply only for the FTP and US06 driving cycles.
\c\ CO standards do not apply for the ACC II driving cycles specified in paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(E) through (G) of
this section.
\d\ Formaldehyde standards apply only for the FTP driving cycle.
(3) The FTP standards specified in this paragraph (b) apply equally
for testing at low-altitude conditions and high-altitude conditions.
The US06, SC03, and HFET standards apply only for testing at low-
altitude conditions.
(4) The NMOG + NOX emission standard is based on a fleet
average for a given model year.
(i) You must specify a family emission limit (FEL) for each test
group based on the FTP emission standard corresponding to each named
bin. The FEL serves as the emission standard for the test group with
respect to all specified driving cycles. Calculate your fleet-average
emission level as described in Sec. 86.1860 to show that you meet the
specified fleet-average standard. For multi-fueled vehicles, calculate
fleet-average emission levels based only on emission levels for testing
with gasoline or diesel fuel. You may generate emission credits for
banking and trading, and you may use banked or traded credits as
described in Sec. 86.1861 for demonstrating compliance with the NMOG +
NOX fleet-average emission standard. You comply with the
fleet-average emission standard for a given model year if you have
enough credits to show that your fleet-average emission level is at or
below the applicable standard.
(ii) Select one of the identified values from table 2 of this
section for demonstrating that your fleet-average emission level
complies with the NMOG+NOX fleet-average emission standard.
These FEL values define emission bins that also determine corresponding
emission standards for NMOG+NOX emission standards for ACC
II driving cycles, as follows:
Table 2 to Paragraph (b)(4)(ii)--Tier 4 NMOG+NOX Bin Standards
[mg/mile]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACC II--Mid- ACC II--Mid- ACC II--Mid-
temperature temperature temperature ACC II--High-
FEL name FTP, US06, intermediate intermediate intermediate ACC II--Early power PHEV
SC03, HFET soak (3-12 soak (40 soak (10 driveaway \b\ engine starts
hours) minutes) \a\ minutes) \b\ \c\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bin 160 \d\............................................. 160 .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
Bin 125 \d\............................................. 125 .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
Bin 70.................................................. 70 70 54 35 82 200
Bin 60.................................................. 60 60 46 30 72 175
Bin 50.................................................. 50 50 38 25 62 150
Bin 40.................................................. 40 40 31 20 52 125
Bin 30.................................................. 30 30 23 15 42 100
Bin 20.................................................. 20 20 15 10 32 67
Bin 10.................................................. 10 10 8 5 22 34
Bin 0................................................... 0 0 0 0 0 ..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Calculate the bin standard for a soak time between 10 and 40 minutes based on a linear interpolation between the corresponding bin values for a 10-
minute soak and a 40-minute soak. Similarly, calculate the bin standard for a soak time between 40 minutes and 3 hours based on a linear interpolation
between the corresponding bin values for a 40-minute soak and a 3-hour soak.
\b\ Qualifying vehicles are exempt from standards for early driveaway and high-power PHEV engine starts as described in paragraph (b)(5) of this
section.
\c\ Alternative standards apply for high-power PHEV engine starts for model years 2027 and 2028 as described in paragraph (b)(6)(v) of this section.
\d\ Bin 160 and Bin 125 apply only for medium-duty vehicles.
(5) Qualifying vehicles are exempt from certain ACC II bin
standards as follows:
(i) Vehicles are exempt from the ACC II bin standards for early
driveaway if the vehicle prevents engine starting during the first 20
seconds of a cold-start FTP test interval and the vehicle does not use
an electrically heated catalyst or other technology to precondition the
engine or emission controls such that NMOG+NOX emissions
would be higher during the first 505 seconds of the early driveaway
driving cycle compared to the first 505 seconds of the conventional FTP
driving cycle.
(ii) Vehicles are exempt from the ACC II bin standards for high-
power PHEV engine starts if their all-electric range on the cold-start
US06 driving cycles is at or above 10 miles for model years 2027
[[Page 29420]]
and 2028, and at or above 40 miles for model year 2029 and later.
(6) The Tier 4 standards phase in over several years, as follows:
(i) NMOG+NOX fleet average standards for light-duty program
vehicles. Include all light-duty program vehicles at or below 6,000
pounds GVWR in the calculation to comply with the Tier 4 fleet average
NMOG+NOX standard. You must meet all the other Tier 4
requirements with 40 and 80 percent of your projected nationwide sales
in model years 2027 and 2028, respectively. A vehicle counts toward
meeting the phase-in percentage only if it meets all the requirements
of this section. NMOG+NOX fleet average standards apply as
follows for model year 2027 through 2031 light-duty program vehicles:
Table 3 to Paragraph (b)(6)(i)--Declining Fleet Average NMOG+NOX
Standards for Light-Duty Program Vehicles
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fleet average
NMOG+NOX
Model year standard (mg/
mile)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027.................................................... 22
2028.................................................... 20
2029.................................................... 18
2030.................................................... 16
2031.................................................... 14
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(ii) Default phase-in for vehicles above 6,000 pounds GVWR. The
default approach for phasing in the Tier 4 standards for vehicle above
6,000 pounds GVWR is for all those vehicles to meet the Tier 4
standards of this section starting in model year 2030. Manufacturers
using this default phase-in for medium-duty vehicles may not use
credits generated from Tier 3 medium-duty vehicles for demonstrating
compliance with the Tier 4 NMOG+NOX standards under this
paragraph (b).
(iii) Alternative early phase-in for vehicles above 6,000 pounds
GVWR. Manufacturers may use the following alternative early phase-in
provisions to transition to the Tier 4 exhaust emission standards on an
earlier schedule for vehicles above 6,000 pounds GVWR.
(A) If you select the alternative early phase-in for light-duty
program vehicles above 6,000 pounds GVWR, you must demonstrate that you
meet the phase-in requirements in paragraph (b)(6)(i) of this section
based on all your light-duty program vehicles.
(B) If you select the alternative early phase-in for medium-duty
vehicles, include all medium-duty vehicles at or below 22,000 pounds
GCWR in the calculation to comply with the Tier 4 fleet average
NMOG+NOX standard. You must meet all the other Tier 4
requirements with 40 and 80 percent of a manufacturer's projected
nationwide sales in model years 2027 and 2028, respectively. A vehicle
counts toward meeting the phase-in percentage only if it meets all the
requirements of this section. Medium-duty vehicles complying with the
alternative early phase-in are subject to the following
NMOG+NOX fleet-average standards for model years 2027
through 2031:
Table 4 to Paragraph (b)(6)(iii)(B)--Declining Fleet Average NMOG+NOX
Standards for Medium-Duty Vehicles
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fleet average
NMOG+NOX
Model year standard (mg/
mile)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027.................................................... 160
2028.................................................... 140
2029.................................................... 120
2030.................................................... 100
2031.................................................... 80
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(iv) Interim Tier 4 vehicles. Vehicles not meeting all the
requirements of this section during the phase-in are considered
``interim Tier 4 vehicles''. Interim Tier 4 vehicles are subject to all
the requirements of this subpart that apply for Tier 3 vehicles except
for the fleet average NMOG+NOX standards in Sec. Sec.
86.1811-17 and 86.1816-18. Interim Tier 4 vehicles may certify using
all available NMOG+NOX bins under Sec. Sec. 86.1811-17 and
86.1816-18. Note that manufacturers complying with the default phase-in
specified in paragraph (b)(6)(ii) of this section for vehicles above
6,000 pounds GVWR will need to meet a Tier 3 fleet average
NMOG+NOX standard in model years 2027 through 2029, in
addition to the Tier 4 fleet average for vehicles at or below 6,000
pounds GVWR in those same years.
(v) Phase-in for high-power PHEV engine starts. The following bin
standards apply for high-power PHEV engine starts in model years 2027
and 2028 instead of the analogous standards specified in paragraph
(b)(4)(ii) of this section:
Table 5 to Paragraph (b)(6)(v)--Model Year 2027 and 2028 Bin Standards
for High-Power PHEV Engine Starts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACC II-- High-
power PHEV
FEL name engine starts
(mg/mile)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bin 70.................................................. 320
Bin 60.................................................. 280
Bin 50.................................................. 240
Bin 40.................................................. 200
Bin 30.................................................. 150
Bin 20.................................................. 100
Bin 10.................................................. 50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(vi) MDPV. Any vehicle that becomes an MDPV as a result of the
revised definition in Sec. 86.1803 starting in model 2027 remains
subject to the heavy-duty Tier 3 standards in Sec. 86.1816-18 under
the default phase-in specified in paragraph (b)(6)(ii) of this section
for model years 2027 through 2029.
(vii) Keep records as needed to show that you meet the requirements
specified in this paragraph (b) for phasing in standards and for
complying with declining fleet-average average standards.
(c) Exhaust emission standards for cold temperature testing.
Exhaust emissions may not exceed standards for cold temperature
testing, as follows:
(1) Measure emissions as described in paragraph (b)(1) of this
section, but use the driving cycle identified in 40 CFR 1066.801(c)(5).
(2) The standards apply to gasoline-fueled and diesel-fueled
vehicles, except as specified. Multi-fuel, bi-fuel or dual-fuel
vehicles must comply with requirements using only gasoline and diesel
fuel, as applicable. Testing with other fuels such as a high-level
ethanol-gasoline blend is not required.
(3) Vehicles must meet the following standards:
(i) The NMOG+NOX fleet-average standard is a 300 mg/
mile. Calculate fleet-average emission levels as described in Sec.
86.1864.
(ii) The PM standard is 0.5 mg/mile.
(iii) The CO standard is 10.0 g/mile.
(4) The CO standard applies at both low-altitude and high-altitude
conditions. The NMOG+NOX and PM standards apply only at low-
altitude conditions. However, manufacturers must submit an engineering
evaluation indicating that common calibration approaches are utilized
at high altitudes. Any deviation from low altitude emission control
practices must be included in the auxiliary emission control device
(AECD) descriptions submitted at certification. Any AECD
[[Page 29421]]
specific to high altitude must require engineering emission data for
EPA evaluation to quantify any emission impact and validity of the
AECD.
(d) Special provisions for spark-ignition engines. The following A/
C-on specific calibration provisions apply for vehicles with spark-
ignition engines:
(1) A/C-on specific calibrations (e.g., air-fuel ratio, spark
timing, and exhaust gas recirculation) that differ from A/C-off
calibrations may be used for a given set of engine operating conditions
(e.g., engine speed, manifold pressure, coolant temperature, air charge
temperature, and any other parameters). Such calibrations must not
unnecessarily reduce emission control effectiveness during A/C-on
operation when the vehicle is operated under conditions that may
reasonably be expected during normal operation and use. If emission
control effectiveness decreases as a result of such calibrations, the
manufacturer must describe in the Application for Certification the
circumstances under which this occurs and the reason for using these
calibrations.
(2) For AECDs involving commanded enrichment, these AECDs must not
operate differently for A/C-on operation than for A/C-off operation.
This includes both the sensor inputs for triggering enrichment and the
degree of enrichment employed.
0
40. Amend Sec. 86.1813-17 by revising paragraphs (a)(2)(i)
introductory text, (b)(1)(i), and (g)(2)(ii)(B) to read as follows:
Sec. 86.1813-17 Evaporative and refueling emission standards.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) The emission standard for the sum of diurnal and hot soak
measurements from the two-diurnal test sequence and the three-diurnal
test sequence is based on a fleet average in a given model year. You
must specify a family emission limit (FEL) for each evaporative family.
The FEL serves as the emission standard for the evaporative family with
respect to all required diurnal and hot soak testing. Calculate your
fleet-average emission level as described in Sec. 86.1860 based on the
FEL that applies for low-altitude testing to show that you meet the
specified standard. For multi-fueled vehicles, calculate fleet-average
emission levels based only on emission levels for testing with
gasoline. You may generate emission credits for banking and trading,
and you may use banked or traded credits for demonstrating compliance
with the diurnal plus hot soak emission standard for vehicles required
to meet the Tier 3 standards, other than gaseous-fueled or electric
vehicles, as described in Sec. 86.1861 starting in model year 2017.
You comply with the emission standard for a given model year if you
have enough credits to show that your fleet-average emission level is
at or below the applicable standard. You may exchange credits between
or among evaporative families within an averaging set as described in
Sec. 86.1861. Separate diurnal plus hot soak emission standards apply
for each evaporative/refueling emission family as shown for high-
altitude conditions. The sum of diurnal and hot soak measurements may
not exceed the following Tier 3 standards:
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) Refueling standards apply starting with model year 2027 for
incomplete vehicles certified under 40 CFR part 1037 and in model year
2030 for incomplete vehicles certified under this subpart, unless the
manufacturer complies with the alternate phase-in specified in
paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this section. If you do not meet the
alternative phase-in requirement for model year 2026, you must certify
all your incomplete heavy-duty vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR to the
refueling standard in model year 2027.
(ii) Refueling standards are optional for incomplete heavy-duty
vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR through model year 2029, unless
the manufacturer uses the alternate phase-in specified in paragraph
(b)(1)(iii) of this section to meet standards together for heavy-duty
vehicles above and below 14,000 pounds GVWR.
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) * * *
(B) All the vehicles meeting the leak standard must also meet the
Tier 3 evaporative emission standards. Through model year 2026, all
vehicles meeting the leak standard must also meet the OBD requirements
in Sec. 86.1806-17(b)(1).
* * * * *
0
41. Add Sec. 86.1815 to read as follows:
Sec. 86.1815 Battery-related requirements for electric vehicles and
plug-in hybrid electric vehicles.
Electric vehicles and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles must meet
requirements related to batteries serving as a Rechargeable Energy
Storage System from GTR No. 22 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
86.1). The requirements of this section apply starting in model year
2027 for vehicles at or below 6,000 pounds GVWR. These requirements
apply vehicles above 6,000 pounds GVWR if they are certified to Tier 4
NMOG+NOX standards under Sec. 86.1811-27, not later than
model year 2030. The following clarifications and adjustments to GTR
No. 22 apply for vehicles subject to this section:
(a) Manufacturers must install a customer-accessible display that
monitors, estimates, and communicates the vehicle's State of Certified
Energy (SOCE) and include information in the application for
certification as described in Sec. 86.1844. Manufacturers that qualify
as small businesses under Sec. 86.1801-12(j)(1) must meet the
requirements of this paragraph (a) but are not subject to the
requirements in paragraphs (c) through (g) of this section; however,
small businesses may trade credits they generate from electric vehicles
and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles for a given model year only if
they meet requirements in paragraphs (c) through (g) of this section.
(b) Requirements in GTR No. 22 related to State of Certified Range
do not apply.
(c) Evaluate SOCE for electric vehicles based on measured Useable
Battery Energy (UBE) values over the Multi-Cycle Range and Energy
Consumption Test described in 40 CFR 600.116-12(a). For medium-duty
vehicles, perform testing with test weight set to Adjusted Loaded
Vehicle Weight. Use good engineering judgment to evaluate SOCE for
plug-in hybrid electric vehicles using the procedures specified in 40
CFR 600.116-12.
(d) In-use vehicles must display SOCE values that are accurate
within 5 percent of measured values as calculated in GTR No. 22.
(e) Batteries installed in light-duty program vehicles must meet a
Minimum Performance Requirement such that measured usable battery
energy is at least 80 percent of the vehicle's certified usable battery
energy after 5 years or 62,000 miles, and at least 70 percent of
certified usable battery energy at 8 years or 100,000 miles.
(f) Manufacturers must perform testing and submit reports as
follows:
(1) Perform Part A testing to verify that SOCE monitors meet
accuracy requirements as described in Sec. 86.1845. Test the number of
vehicles and determine a pass or fail result as specified in Section
6.3 of GTR No. 22.
(2) Perform Part B verification for each battery durability family
included in a monitor family subject to Part A testing to verify that
batteries have SOCE meeting the Minimum Performance Requirement.
Determine
[[Page 29422]]
performance by reading SOCE monitors with a physical inspection, remote
inspection using wireless technology, or any other appropriate means.
(i) Randomly select test vehicles from at least 10 different U.S.
states or territories, with no more than 20 percent of selected
vehicles coming from any one state or territory. Select vehicles to
represent a wide range of climate conditions and operating
characteristics.
(ii) Select at least 500 test vehicles per year from each battery
durability family, except that we may approve your request to select
fewer vehicles for a given battery durability family based on limited
production volumes. If you test fewer than 500 vehicles, you may
exclude up to 5 percent of the tested vehicles to account for the
limited sample size. Test vehicles may be included from year to year,
or test vehicles may change over the course of testing for the battery
durability family.
(iii) A battery durability family passes if 90 percent or more of
sampled vehicles have reported values above the Minimum Performance
Requirement.
(iv) Continue testing for eight years after the end of production
for vehicles included in the battery durability family. Note that
testing will typically require separate testing from multiple model
years in a given calendar year.
(3) You may request our approval to group monitors and batteries
differently, or to adjust testing specifications. Submit your request
with your proposed alternative specifications, along with technical
justification. In the case of broadening the scope of a monitor family,
include data demonstrating that differences within the proposed monitor
family do not cause error in estimating SOCE.
(4) Submit electronic reports to document the results of testing as
described in Sec. 86.1847.
(g) If vehicles do not comply with monitor accuracy requirements
under this section, the recall provisions in 40 CFR part 85, subpart S,
apply for each affected monitor family. If vehicles do not comply with
battery durability requirements under this section, the manufacturer
must adjust all credit balances to account for the nonconformity (see
Sec. 86.1850-01).
0
42. Amend Sec. 86.1818-18 by revising paragraph (a) introductory text
to read as follows:
Sec. 86.1816-18 Emission standards for heavy-duty vehicles.
(a) Applicability and general provisions. This section describes
Tier 3 exhaust emission standards for complete heavy-duty vehicles.
These standards are optional for incomplete heavy-duty vehicles and for
heavy-duty vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR as described in Sec.
86.1801. Greenhouse gas emission standards are specified in Sec.
86.1818 for MDPV and in Sec. 86.1819 for other HDV. See Sec. 86.1813
for evaporative and refueling emission standards. This section starts
to apply in model year 2018, except that the provisions may apply to
vehicles before model year 2018 as specified in paragraph (b)(11) of
this section. This section applies for model year 2027 and later
vehicles only as specified in Sec. 86.1811-27. Separate requirements
apply for MDPV as specified in Sec. 86.1811. See subpart A of this
part for requirements that apply for incomplete heavy-duty vehicles and
for heavy-duty engines certified independent of the chassis. The
following general provisions apply:
* * * * *
Sec. Sec. 86.1817-05 and 86.1817-08 [Removed]
0
43. Remove Sec. Sec. 86.1817-05 and 86.1817-08.
0
44. Amend Sec. 86.1818-12 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a)(1), (b) introductory text, and (c).
0
b. Removing and reserving paragraph (e).
0
c. Revising paragraphs (f) introductory text, (g) introductory text,
(g)(1) introductory text, (g)(2) introductory text, (g)(4)(i)(B),
(g)(4)(iv)(B), (g)(5) and (6), and (h).
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 86.1818-12 Greenhouse gas emission standards for light-duty
vehicles, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles.
(a) * * *
(1) The greenhouse gas standards and related requirements in this
section apply to 2012 and later model year LDV, LDT, and MDPV,
including multi-fuel vehicles, vehicles fueled with alternative fuels,
hybrid electric vehicles, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, electric
vehicles, and fuel cell vehicles. Unless otherwise specified, multi-
fuel vehicles must comply with all requirements established for each
consumed fuel. Manufacturers that qualify as a small business according
to the requirements of Sec. 86.1801-12(j) are exempt from the emission
standards in this section.
* * * * *
(b) Definitions. The following definitions apply for this section:
* * * * *
(c) Fleet average CO2 standards. Fleet average CO2
standards apply as follows for passenger automobiles and light trucks:
(1) Each manufacturer must comply with separate fleet average
CO2 standards for passenger automobiles and light trucks. To
calculate the fleet average CO2 standards for passenger
automobiles for a given model year, multiply each CO2 target
value by the production volume of passenger automobiles for the
corresponding model type-footprint combination, then sum those products
and divide the sum by the total production volume of passenger
automobiles in that model year. Repeat this calculation using
production volumes of light trucks to determine the separate fleet
average CO2 standards for light trucks. Round the resulting
fleet average CO2 emission standards to the nearest whole
gram per mile. Averaging calculations and other compliance provisions
apply as described in Sec. 86.1865.
(2) A CO2 target value applies for each unique
combination of model type and footprint. The CO2 target
serves as the emission standard that applies throughout the useful life
for each vehicle. Determine the CO2 target values from the
following table, or from paragraph (h) of this section for model year
2031 and earlier vehicles:
Table 1 to Paragraph (c)(2)--Footprint-Based CO2 Target Values
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footprint cutpoints CO2 target value (g/mile)
(ft\2\) --------------------------------------------------
Vehicle type -------------------------- Below low Between cutpoints Above high
Low High cutpoint \a\ cutpoint
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Passenger automobile............... 45 56 71.8 0.35 x f + 56.2 75.6
Light truck........................ 45 70.0 75.7 1.38 x f + 13.8 110.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Calculate the CO2 target value for vehicles between the footprint cutpoints as shown, using vehicle
footprint, f, and rounding the result to the nearest 0.1 g/mile.
[[Page 29423]]
* * * * *
(f) Nitrous oxide (N2O) and methane (CH4) exhaust
emission standards for passenger automobiles and light trucks. Each
manufacturer's fleet of combined passenger automobiles and light trucks
must comply with N2O and CH4 standards using
either the provisions of paragraph (f)(1), (2), or (3) of this section.
Except with prior EPA approval, a manufacturer may not use the
provisions of both paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section in a model
year. For example, a manufacturer may not use the provisions of
paragraph (f)(1) of this section for their passenger automobile fleet
and the provisions of paragraph (f)(2) for their light truck fleet in
the same model year. The manufacturer may use the provisions of both
paragraphs (f)(1) and (3) of this section in a model year. For example,
a manufacturer may meet the N2O standard in paragraph
(f)(1)(i) of this section and an alternative CH4 standard
determined under paragraph (f)(3) of this section.
* * * * *
(g) Alternative fleet average standards for manufacturers with
limited sales. Manufacturers meeting the criteria in this paragraph (g)
may request alternative fleet average CO2 standards for
model year 2031 and earlier vehicles.
(1) Eligibility for alternative standards. Eligibility as
determined in this paragraph (g) shall be based on the total nationwide
sales of combined passenger automobiles and light trucks. The terms
``sales'' and ``sold'' as used in this paragraph (g) shall mean
vehicles produced for sale in the states and territories of the United
States. For the purpose of determining eligibility the sales of related
companies shall be aggregated according to the provisions of Sec.
86.1838-01(b)(3), or, if a manufacturer has been granted operational
independence status under Sec. 86.1838-01(d), eligibility shall be
based on that manufacturer's vehicle sales. To be eligible for
alternative standards established under this paragraph (g), the
manufacturer's average sales for the three most recent consecutive
model years must remain below 5,000. If a manufacturer's average sales
for the three most recent consecutive model years exceeds 4999, the
manufacturer will no longer be eligible for exemption and must meet
applicable emission standards starting with the model year according to
the provisions in this paragraph (g)(1).
* * * * *
(2) Requirements for new entrants into the U.S. market. New
entrants are those manufacturers without a prior record of automobile
sales in the United States and without prior certification to
greenhouse gas emission standards in Sec. 86.1818-12. In addition to
the eligibility requirements stated in paragraph (g)(1) of this
section, new entrants must meet the following requirements:
* * * * *
(4) * * *
(i) * * *
(B) Vehicle models and projections of sales volumes for each model
year.
* * * * *
(iv) * * *
(B) Information regarding ownership relationships with other
manufacturers, including details regarding the application of the
provisions of Sec. 86.1838-01(b)(3) regarding the aggregation of sales
of related companies.
(5) Alternative standards. Alternative standards apply as follows:
(i) Where EPA has exercised its regulatory authority to
administratively specify alternative standards, those alternative
standards approved for model year 2021 continue to apply through model
year 2024. Starting in model year 2025, manufacturers must certify to
the standards in paragraph (h) of this section on a delayed schedule,
as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturers
must certify to
the standards
In model year . . . that would
otherwise apply
in . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A) 2025............................................. 2023
(B) 2026............................................. 2023
(C) 2027............................................. 2025
(D) 2028............................................. 2025
(E) 2029............................................. 2027
(F) 2030............................................. 2028
(G) 2031............................................. 2030
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(ii) EPA may approve a request from other manufacturers for
alternative fleet average CO2 standards under this paragraph
(g). The alternative standards for those manufacturers will apply by
model year as specified in paragraph (g)(5)(i) of this section.
(6) Restrictions on credit trading. Manufacturers subject to
alternative standards approved by the Administrator under this
paragraph (g) may not trade credits to another manufacturer. Transfers
between car and truck fleets within the manufacturer are allowed, and
the carry-forward provisions for credits and deficits apply.
Manufacturers may generate credits in a given model year for trading to
another manufacturer by certifying to the standards in paragraph (h) of
this section for the current model year across the manufacturer's full
product line. A manufacturer certifying to the standards in paragraph
(h) of this section will no longer be eligible to certify to the
alternative standards under this paragraph (g) in later model years.
(7) Starting in model year 2032, all manufacturers must certify to
the standards in paragraph (c) of this section.
(h) Historical and interim standards. The following CO2
target values apply for model year 2031 and earlier vehicles:
(1) CO2 target values apply as follows for passenger
automobiles:
Table 2 to Paragraph (h)(1)--Historical and Interim CO2 Target Values for Passenger Automobiles
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footprint cutpoints CO2 target value (g/mile)
(ft\2\) --------------------------------------------------
Model year -------------------------- Below low Between cutpoints Above high
Low High cutpoint \a\ cutpoint
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012............................... 41 56 244.0 4.72 x f + 50.5 315.0
2013............................... 41 56 237.0 4.72 x f + 43.3 307.0
2014............................... 41 56 228.0 4.72 x f + 34.8 299.0
2015............................... 41 56 217.0 4.72 x f + 23.4 288.0
2016............................... 41 56 206.0 4.72 x f + 12.7 277.0
2017............................... 41 56 195.0 4.53 x f + 8.9 263.0
2018............................... 41 56 185.0 4.35 x f + 6.5 250.0
2019............................... 41 56 175.0 4.17 x f + 4.2 238.0
2020............................... 41 56 166.0 4.01 x f + 1.9 226.0
2021............................... 41 56 161.8 3.94 x f + 0.2 220.9
[[Page 29424]]
2022............................... 41 56 159.0 3.88 x f-0.1 217.3
2023............................... 41 56 145.6 3.56 x f-0.4 199.1
2024............................... 41 56 138.6 3.39 x f-0.4 189.5
2025............................... 41 56 130.5 3.26 x f-3.2 179.4
2026............................... 41 56 114.3 3.11 x f-13.1 160.9
2027............................... 42 56 130.9 0.64 x f + 104.0 139.8
2028............................... 43 56 114.1 0.56 x f + 90.2 121.3
2029............................... 44 56 96.9 0.47 x f + 76.3 102.5
2030............................... 45 56 89.5 0.43 x f + 70.1 94.2
2031............................... 45 56 81.2 0.39 x f + 63.6 85.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Calculate the CO2 target value for vehicles between the footprint cutpoints as shown, using vehicle
footprint, f, and rounding the result to the nearest 0.1 g/mile.
(2) CO2 target values apply as follows for light trucks:
Table 3 to Paragraph (h)(2)--Historical and Interim CO2 Target Values for Light Trucks
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footprint cutpoints CO2 target value (g/mile)
(ft\2\) --------------------------------------------------
Model year -------------------------- Below low Between cutpoints Above high
Low High cutpoint \a\ cutpoint
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012............................... 41 66.0 294.0 4.04 x f + 128.6 395.0
2013............................... 41 66.0 284.0 4.04 x f + 118.7 385.0
2014............................... 41 66.0 275.0 4.04 x f + 109.4 376.0
2015............................... 41 66.0 261.0 4.04 x f + 95.1 362.0
2016............................... 41 66.0 247.0 4.04 x f + 81.1 348.0
2017............................... 41 50.7 238.0 4.87 x f + 38.3 ..............
2017............................... 50.8 66.0 .............. 4.04 x f + 80.5 347.0
2018............................... 41 60.2 227.0 4.76 x f + 31.6 ..............
2018............................... 60.3 66.0 .............. 4.04 x f + 75.0 342.0
2019............................... 41 66.4 220.0 4.68 x f + 27.7 339.0
2020............................... 41 68.3 212.0 4.57 x f + 24.6 337.0
2021............................... 41 68.3 206.5 4.51 x f + 21.5 329.4
2022............................... 41 68.3 203.0 4.44 x f + 20.6 324.1
2023............................... 41 74.0 181.1 3.97 x f + 18.4 312.1
2024............................... 41 74.0 172.1 3.77 x f + 17.4 296.5
2025............................... 41 74.0 159.3 3.58 x f + 12.5 277.4
2026............................... 41 74.0 141.8 3.41 x f + 1.9 254.4
2027............................... 42 73.0 133.0 2.56 x f + 25.6 212.3
2028............................... 43 72.0 117.5 2.22 x f + 22.2 181.7
2029............................... 44 71.0 101.0 1.87 x f + 18.7 151.5
2030............................... 45 70.0 94.4 1.72 x f + 17.2 137.3
2031............................... 45 70.0 85.6 1.56 x f + 15.6 124.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Calculate the CO2 target value for vehicles between the footprint cutpoints as shown, using vehicle
footprint, f, and rounding the result to the nearest 0.1 g/mile.
0
45. Amend Sec. 86.1819-14 by:
0
a. Revising the introductory text and paragraphs (a)(1) and (2),
(d)(10)(i), (d)(13), (d)(15)(viii), (d)(17) introductory text,
(d)(17)(i), (h), (j) introductory text, and (j)(1).
0
b. Adding paragraph (j)(4).
0
c. Removing and reserving paragraphs (k)(1) through (3).
0
d. Revising paragraphs (k)(4), (5), and (7).
0
e. Removing paragraph (k)(10).
The revisions and addition read as follows:
Sec. 86.1819-14 Greenhouse gas emission standards for heavy-duty
vehicles.
This section describes exhaust emission standards for
CO2, CH4, and N2O for medium-duty
vehicles. The standards of this section apply for model year 2014 and
later vehicles that are chassis-certified with respect to criteria
pollutants under this subpart S. Additional heavy-duty vehicles may be
subject to the standards of this section as specified in paragraph (j)
of this section. Any heavy-duty vehicles not subject to standards under
this section are instead subject to greenhouse gas standards under 40
CFR part 1037, and engines installed in these vehicles are subject to
standards under 40 CFR part 1036. If you are not the engine
manufacturer, you must notify the engine manufacturer that its engines
are subject to 40 CFR part 1036 if you intend to use their engines in
vehicles that are not subject to standards under this section. Vehicles
produced by small businesses may be exempted from the standards of this
section as described in paragraph (k)(5) of this section.
[[Page 29425]]
(a) * * *
(1) Calculate a work factor, WF, for each vehicle subconfiguration
(or group of subconfigurations as allowed under paragraph (a)(4) of
this section), rounded to the nearest pound, using the following
equation:
WF = 0.75 x (GVWR--Curb Weight + xwd) + 0.25 x (GCWR--GVWR)
Where:
xwd = 500 pounds if the vehicle has four-wheel drive or all-wheel
drive; xwd = 0 pounds for all other vehicles.
GCWR = the gross combination weight rating as declared by the
manufacturer. Starting in model year 2030, set GCWR to 22,000 for
any vehicle with GCWR above 22,000 pounds.
(2) Using the appropriate work factor, calculate a target value for
each vehicle subconfiguration (or group of subconfigurations as allowed
under paragraph (a)(4) of this section) you produce using the following
equation, or the phase-in provisions in paragraph (k)(4) of this
section for model year 2031 and earlier vehicles, rounding to the
nearest whole g/mile:
CO2 Target = 0.0221 x WF + 170
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(10) * * *
(i) Use either the conventional-fueled CO2 emission rate
or a weighted average of your emission results as specified in 40 CFR
600.510-12(k) for light-duty trucks.
* * * * *
(13) This paragraph (d)(13) applies for CO2 reductions
resulting from technologies that were not in common use before 2010
that are not reflected in the specified test procedures. While you are
not required to prove that such technologies were not in common use
with heavy-duty vehicles before model year 2010, we will not approve
your request if we determine they do not qualify. These may be
described as off-cycle or innovative technologies. Through model year
2026 we may allow you to generate emission credits consistent with the
provisions of Sec. 86.1869-12(c) and (d). The 5-cycle methodology is
not presumed to be preferred over alternative methodologies described
in Sec. 86.1869-12(d).
* * * * *
(15) * * *
(viii) Total and percent leakage rates under paragraph (h) of this
section (through model year 2026 only).
* * * * *
(17) You may calculate emission rates for weight increments less
than the 500-pound increment specified for test weight. This does not
change the applicable test weights.
(i) Use the ADC equation in paragraph (g) of this section to adjust
your emission rates for vehicles in increments of 50, 100, or 250
pounds instead of the 500 pound test-weight increments. Adjust
emissions to the midpoint of each increment. This is the equivalent
emission weight. For example, vehicles with a test weight basis of
11,751 to 12,250 pounds (which have an equivalent test weight of 12,000
pounds) could be regrouped into 100-pound increments as follows:
Table 1 to Paragraph (k)(17)(i)--Example of Test-Weight Groupings
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equivalent
Test weight basis emission Equivalent
weight test weight
------------------------------------------------------------------------
11,751-11,850........................... 11,800 12,000
11,851-11,950........................... 11,900 12,000
11,951-12,050........................... 12,000 12,000
12,051-12,150........................... 12,100 12,000
12,151-12,250........................... 12,200 12,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
(h) Air conditioning leakage. Loss of refrigerant from your air
conditioning systems may not exceed a total leakage rate of 11.0 grams
per year or a percent leakage rate of 1.50 percent per year, whichever
is greater. This applies for all refrigerants. Calculate the total
leakage rate in g/year as specified in Sec. 86.1867-12(a). Calculate
the percent leakage rate as: [total leakage rate (g/yr)] / [total
refrigerant capacity (g)] x 100. Round your percent leakage rate to the
nearest one-hundredth of a percent. For purpose of this requirement,
``refrigerant capacity'' is the total mass of refrigerant recommended
by the vehicle manufacturer as representing a full charge. Where full
charge is specified as a pressure, use good engineering judgment to
convert the pressure and system volume to a mass. The leakage standard
in this paragraph (h) no longer applies starting with model year 2027.
* * * * *
(j) GHG certification of additional vehicles under this subpart.
You may certify certain complete or cab-complete vehicles to the GHG
standards of this section. Starting in model year 2027, certain high-
GCWR vehicles may also be subject to the GHG standards of this section.
All vehicles optionally certified under this paragraph (j) are deemed
to be subject to the GHG standards of this section. Note that for
vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR and at or below 26,000 pounds GVWR,
GHG certification under this paragraph (j) does not affect how you may
or may not certify with respect to criteria pollutants.
(1) For GHG compliance, you may certify any complete or cab-
complete spark-ignition vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR and at or
below 26,000 pounds GVWR to the GHG standards of this section even
though this section otherwise specifies that you may certify vehicles
to the GHG standards of this section only if they are chassis-certified
for criteria pollutants. Starting in model year 2027, this paragraph
(j)(1) also applies for vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR with
GCWR above 22,000 pounds with installed engines that have been
certified under 40 CFR part 1036 as described in 40 CFR 1036.635.
* * * * *
(4) Vehicles above 22,000 pounds GCWR may be subject to the GHG
standards of this section as described in 40 CFR 1036.635.
(k) * * *
(4) Historical and interim standards. The following CO2
target values apply for model year 2031 and earlier vehicles:
(i) CO2 target values apply as follows for model years
2014 through 2026, except as specified in paragraph (k)(4)(ii) of this
section:
[[Page 29426]]
Table 2 to Paragraph (k)(4)(i)--CO2 Target Values for Model Years 2014 Through 2026
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 target (g/mile)
Model year -------------------------------------------------
Spark-ignition Compression- ignition
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014.......................................................... 0.0482 x WF + 371 0.0478 x WF + 368
2015.......................................................... 0.0479 x WF + 369 0.0474 x WF + 366
2016.......................................................... 0.0469 x WF + 362 0.0460 x WF + 354
2017.......................................................... 0.0460 x WF + 354 0.0445 x WF + 343
2018-2020..................................................... 0.0440 x WF + 339 0.0416 x WF + 320
2021.......................................................... 0.0429 x WF + 331 0.0406 x WF + 312
2022.......................................................... 0.0418 x WF + 322 0.0395 x WF + 304
2023.......................................................... 0.0408 x WF + 314 0.0386 x WF + 297
2024.......................................................... 0.0398 x WF + 306 0.0376 x WF + 289
2025.......................................................... 0.0388 x WF + 299 0.0367 x WF + 282
2026.......................................................... 0.0378 x WF + 291 0.0357 x WF + 275
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(ii) The following optional alternative CO2 target
values apply for model years 2014 through 2020:
Table 3 to Paragraph (k)(4)(ii)--Alternative CO2 Target Values for Model Years 2014 Through 2020
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 target (g/mile)
Model year -------------------------------------------------
Spark-ignition Compression-ignition
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014.......................................................... 0.0482 x WF + 371 0.0478 x WF + 368
2015.......................................................... 0.0479 x WF + 369 0.0474 x WF + 366
2016-2018..................................................... 0.0456 x WF + 352 0.0440 x WF + 339
2019-2020..................................................... 0.0440 x WF + 339 0.0416 x WF + 320
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(iii) CO2 target values apply as follows for all engine
types for model years 2027 through 2031:
Table 4 to Paragraph (k)(4)(iii)--CO2 Target Values for Model Years 2027
Through 2031
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model year CO2 target (g/mile)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027.............................. 0.0348 x WF + 268
2028.............................. 0.0339 x WF + 261
2029.............................. 0.0310 x WF + 239
2030.............................. 0.0280 x WF + 216
2031.............................. 0.0251 x WF + 193
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(5) Provisions for small manufacturers. Standards apply on a
delayed schedule for manufacturers meeting the small business criteria
specified in 13 CFR 121.201 (NAICS code 336111); the employee and
revenue limits apply to the total number employees and total revenue
together for affiliated companies. Qualifying small manufacturers are
not subject to the greenhouse gas standards of this section for
vehicles with a date of manufacture before January 1, 2022, as
specified in 40 CFR 1037.150(c). In addition, small manufacturers
producing vehicles that run on any fuel other than gasoline, E85, or
diesel fuel may delay complying with every later standard under this
part by one model year through model year 2026. For model year 2027 and
later, qualifying small manufacturers remain subject to the model year
2026 greenhouse gas standards; however, small manufacturers may trade
emission credits generated in a given model year only by certifying to
standards that apply for that model year.
* * * * *
(7) Advanced-technology credits. Provisions for advanced-technology
credits apply as described in 40 CFR 1037.615. If you generate credits
from Phase 1 vehicles certified with advanced technology (in model
years 2014 through 2020), you may multiply these credits by 1.50. If
you generate credits from model year 2021 through 2026 vehicles
certified with advanced technology, you may multiply these credits by
3.5 for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, 4.5 for electric vehicles,
and 5.5 for fuel cell vehicles. Advanced-technology credits from Phase
1 vehicles may be used to show compliance with any standards of this
part or 40 CFR part 1036 or part 1037, subject to the restrictions in
40 CFR 1037.740. Similarly, you may use up to 60,000 Mg per year of
advanced-technology credits generated under 40 CFR 1036.615 or 1037.615
(from Phase 1 vehicles) to demonstrate compliance with the
CO2 standards in this section. Include vehicles generating
credits in separate fleet-average calculations (and exclude them from
your conventional fleet-average calculation). You must first apply
these advanced-technology vehicle credits to any deficits for other
[[Page 29427]]
vehicles in the averaging set before applying them to other averaging
sets.
* * * * *
0
46. Amend Sec. 86.1820-01 by revising paragraphs (b) introductory text
and (b)(7) and adding paragraph (b)(8) to read as follows:
Sec. 86.1820-01 Durability group determination.
* * * * *
(b) To be included in the same durability group, vehicles must be
identical in all the respects listed in paragraphs (b)(1) through (7)
of this section and meet one of the criteria specified in paragraph
(b)(8) of this section:
* * * * *
(7) Type of particulate filter (none, catalyzed, noncatalyzed).
(8) The manufacturer must choose one of the following two criteria:
(i) Grouping statistic:
(A) Vehicles are grouped based upon the value of the grouping
statistic determined using the following equation:
GS = [(Cat Vol)/(Disp)] x Loading Rate
Where:
GS = Grouping Statistic used to evaluate the range of precious metal
loading rates and relative sizing of the catalysts compared to the
engine displacement that are allowable within a durability group.
The grouping statistic shall be rounded to a tenth of a gram/liter.
Cat Vol = Total volume of the catalyst(s) in liters. Include the
volume of any catalyzed particulate filters.
Disp = Displacement of the engine in liters.
Loading rate = The mass of total precious metal(s) in the catalyst
(or the total mass of all precious metal(s) of all the catalysts if
the vehicle is equipped with multiple catalysts) in grams divided by
the total volume of the catalyst(s) in liters. Include the mass of
precious metals in any catalyzed particulate filters.
(B) Engine-emission control system combinations which have a
grouping statistic which is either less than 25 percent of the largest
grouping statistic value, or less than 0.2 g/liter (whichever allows
the greater coverage of the durability group) shall be grouped into the
same durability group.
(ii) The manufacturer may elect to use another procedure which
results in at least as many durability groups as required using
criteria in paragraph (b)(8)(i) of this section providing that only
vehicles with similar emission deterioration or durability are combined
into a single durability group.
* * * * *
Sec. 86.1823-01 [Removed]
0
47. Remove Sec. 86.1823-01.
0
48. Amend Sec. 86.1823-08 by revising paragraph (f)(1)(iii), adding
paragraph (f)(1)(iv), and revising paragraph (n) to read as follows:
Sec. 86.1823-08 Durability demonstration procedures for exhaust
emissions.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) For Tier 3 vehicles, the DF calculated by these procedures
will be used for determining full and intermediate useful life
compliance with FTP exhaust emission standards, SFTP exhaust emission
standards, and cold CO emission standards. At the manufacturer's option
and using procedures approved by the Administrator, a separate DF may
be calculated exclusively using cold CO test data to determine
compliance with cold CO emission standards. Also, at the manufacturer's
option and using procedures approved by the Administrator, a separate
DF may be calculated exclusively using US06 and/or air conditioning
(SC03) test data to determine compliance with the SFTP emission
standards.
(iv) For Tier 4 vehicles, the DF calculated by these procedures may
be used for determining compliance with all the standards identified in
Sec. 86.1811-27. At the manufacturer's option and using procedures
approved by the Administrator, manufacturers may calculate a separate
DF for the following standards and driving schedules:
(A) Testing to determine compliance with cold temperature emission
standards.
(B) US06 testing.
(C) SC03 testing.
(D) HFET.
(E) Mid-temperature intermediate soak testing.
(F) Early driveaway testing.
(G) High-power PHEV engine starts.
* * * * *
(n) Emission component durability. The manufacturer shall use good
engineering judgment to determine that all emission-related components
are designed to operate properly for the full useful life of the
vehicles in actual use.
Sec. Sec. 86.1824-01 and 86.1824-07 [Removed]
0
49. Remove Sec. Sec. 86.1824-01 and 86.1824-07.
0
50. Amend Sec. 86.1824-08 by revising paragraphs (c)(1) and (k) to
read as follows:
Sec. 86.1824-08 Durability demonstration procedures for evaporative
emissions.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) Mileage accumulation must be conducted using the SRC or any
road cycle approved under the provisions of Sec. 86.1823-08(e)(1).
* * * * *
(k) Emission component durability. The manufacturer shall use good
engineering judgment to determine that all emission-related components
are designed to operate properly for the full useful life of the
vehicles in actual use.
Sec. 86.1825-01 [Removed]
0
51. Remove Sec. 86.1825-01.
0
52. Amend Sec. 86.1825-08 by revising the introductory text and
paragraphs (c)(1) and (h) to read as follows:
Sec. 86.1825-08 Durability demonstration procedures for refueling
emissions.
The durability-related requirements of this section apply for
vehicles subject to refueling standards under this subpart. Refer to
the provisions of Sec. Sec. 86.1801 and 86.1813 to determine
applicability of the refueling standards to different classes of
vehicles. Diesel-fueled vehicles be exempt from the requirements of
this section under Sec. 86.1829.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) Mileage accumulation must be conducted using the SRC or a road
cycle approved under the provisions of Sec. 86.1823-08(e)(1).
* * * * *
(h) Emission component durability. The manufacturer shall use good
engineering judgment to determine that all emission-related components
are designed to operate properly for the full useful life of the
vehicles in actual use.
* * * * *
0
53. Amend Sec. 86.1827-01 by revising paragraph (a)(5) to read as
follows:
Sec. 86.1827-01 Test group determination.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(5) Subject to the same emission standards (except for
CO2), or FEL in the case of cold temperature NMHC or
NMOG+NOx standards, except that a manufacturer may request to group
vehicles into the same test group as vehicles subject to more stringent
standards, so long as all the vehicles within the test group are
certified to the most stringent standards applicable to any vehicle
within that test group. Light-duty trucks and light-duty vehicles may
be included in the same test group if all vehicles in the test group
are subject to the same emission standards, with the exception of the
CO2 standard.
* * * * *
[[Page 29428]]
0
54. Amend Sec. 86.1828-01 by revising paragraphs (a), (b)(1), (c),
(e), and (f) and removing paragraph (g).
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 86.1828-01 Emission data vehicle selection.
(a) Criteria exhaust testing. Within each test group, the vehicle
configuration shall be selected which is expected to be worst-case for
exhaust emission compliance on candidate in-use vehicles, considering
all criteria exhaust emission constituents, all exhaust test
procedures, and the potential impact of air conditioning on test
results. Starting with Tier 4 vehicles, include consideration of cold
temperature testing. See paragraph (c) of this section for cold
temperature testing with vehicles subject to Tier 3 standards. The
selected vehicle will include an air conditioning engine code unless
the worst-case vehicle configuration selected is not available with air
conditioning. This vehicle configuration will be used as the EDV
calibration.
(b) * * *
(1) The vehicle configuration expected to exhibit the highest
evaporative and/or refueling emission on candidate in-use vehicles
shall be selected for each evaporative/refueling family and evaporative
refueling emission system combination from among the corresponding
vehicles selected for testing under paragraph (a) of this section.
Separate vehicles may be selected to be tested for evaporative and
refueling testing.
* * * * *
(c) Cold temperature testing--Tier 3. For vehicles subject to Tier
3 standards, select test vehicles for cold temperature testing as
follows:
(1) For cold temperature CO exhaust emission compliance for each
durability group, the vehicle expected to emit the highest CO emissions
at 20 degrees F on candidate in-use vehicles shall be selected from the
test vehicles selected in accordance with paragraph (a) of this
section.
(2) For cold temperature NMHC exhaust emission compliance for each
durability group, the manufacturer must select the vehicle expected to
emit the highest NMHC emissions at 20 [deg]F on candidate in-use
vehicles from the test vehicles specified in paragraph (a) of this
section. When the expected worst-case cold temperature NMHC vehicle is
also the expected worst-case cold temperature CO vehicle as selected in
paragraph (c)(1) of this section, then cold temperature testing is
required only for that vehicle; otherwise, testing is required for both
the worst-case cold temperature CO vehicle and the worst-case cold
temperature NMHC vehicle.
* * * * *
(e) Alternative configurations. The manufacturer may use good
engineering judgment to select an equivalent or worst-case
configuration in lieu of testing the vehicle selected in paragraphs (a)
through (c) of this section. Carryover data satisfying the provisions
of Sec. 86.1839 may also be used in lieu of testing the configuration
selected in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section.
(f) Good engineering judgment. The manufacturer shall use good
engineering judgment in making selections of vehicles under this
section.
Sec. 86.1829-01 [Removed]
0
55. Remove Sec. 86.1829-01.
0
56. Amend Sec. 86.1829-15 by revising paragraphs (a), (b), (d)(1)
introductory text, (d)(6), and (f) to read as follows:
Sec. 86.1829-15 Durability and emission testing requirements;
waivers.
* * * * *
(a) Durability requirements apply as follows:
(1) One durability demonstration is required for each durability
group. The configuration of the DDV is determined according to Sec.
86.1822. The DDV shall be tested and accumulate service mileage
according to the provisions of Sec. Sec. 86.1823, 86.1824, 86.1825,
and 86.1831. Small-volume manufacturers and small-volume test groups
may optionally use the alternative durability provisions of Sec.
86.1838.
(2) The following durability testing requirements apply for
electric vehicles and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles:
(i) Manufacturers must perform monitor accuracy testing on in-use
vehicles as described in Sec. 86.1845-04(g) for each monitor family.
Carryover provisions apply as described in Sec. 86.1839-01(c).
(ii) Manufacturers must perform battery durability testing as
described in Sec. 86.1815(f)(2).
(b) The manufacturer must test EDVs as follows to demonstrate
compliance with emission standards:
(1) Except as specified in this section, test one EDV in each test
group using the test procedures specified in this subpart to
demonstrate compliance with other exhaust emission standards.
(2) Test one EDV in each durability group using the test procedures
in 40 CFR part 1066 to demonstrate compliance with cold temperature
exhaust emission standards.
(3) Test one EDV in each test group to each of the three discrete
mid-temperature intermediate soak standards identified in Sec.
86.1811-27.
(4) Test one EDV in each evaporative/refueling family and
evaporative/refueling emission control system combination using the
test procedures in subpart B of this part to demonstrate compliance
with evaporative and refueling emission standards.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) For vehicles subject to the Tier 3 p.m. standards in Sec.
86.1811-17 (not the Tier 4 p.m. standards in Sec. 86.1811-27), a
manufacturer may provide a statement in the application for
certification that vehicles comply with applicable PM standards instead
of submitting PM test data for a certain number of vehicles. However,
each manufacturer must test vehicles from a minimum number of
durability groups as follows:
* * * * *
(6) Manufacturers may provide a statement in the application for
certification that vehicles comply with the mid-temperature
intermediate soak standards for soak times not covered by testing.
* * * * *
(f) For electric vehicles and fuel cell vehicles, manufacturers may
provide a statement in the application for certification that vehicles
comply with all the emission standards and related requirements of this
subpart instead of submitting test data. Tailpipe emissions of
regulated pollutants from vehicles powered solely by electricity are
deemed to be zero.
0
57. Amend Sec. 86.1834-01 by revising paragraph (h) to read as
follows:
Sec. 86.1834-01 Allowable maintenance.
* * * * *
(h) When air conditioning exhaust emission tests are required, the
manufacturer must document that the vehicle's air conditioning system
is operating properly and in a representative condition. Required air
conditioning system maintenance is performed as unscheduled maintenance
and does not require the Administrator's approval.
0
58. Amend Sec. 86.1835-01 by revising paragraphs (a)(1)(i), (a)(4),
(b)(1), and (d) introductory text to read as follows:
Sec. 86.1835-01 Confirmatory certification testing.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) The Administrator may adjust or cause to be adjusted any
adjustable parameter of an emission-data vehicle which the
Administrator has determined to be subject to adjustment for
certification testing in accordance with Sec. 86.1833-01(a)(1), to any
setting within the physically adjustable range
[[Page 29429]]
of that parameter, as determined by the Administrator in accordance
with Sec. 86.1833-01(a)(3), prior to the performance of any tests to
determine whether such vehicle or engine conforms to applicable
emission standards, including tests performed by the manufacturer.
However, if the idle speed parameter is one which the Administrator has
determined to be subject to adjustment, the Administrator shall not
adjust it to a setting which causes a higher engine idle speed than
would have been possible within the physically adjustable range of the
idle speed parameter on the engine before it accumulated any
dynamometer service, all other parameters being identically adjusted
for the purpose of the comparison. The Administrator, in making or
specifying such adjustments, will consider the effect of the deviation
from the manufacturer's recommended setting on emissions performance
characteristics as well as the likelihood that similar settings will
occur on in-use light-duty vehicles, light-duty trucks, or complete
heavy-duty vehicles. In determining likelihood, the Administrator will
consider factors such as, but not limited to, the effect of the
adjustment on vehicle performance characteristics and surveillance
information from similar in-use vehicles.
* * * * *
(4) Retesting for fuel economy reasons or for compliance with
greenhouse gas exhaust emission standards in Sec. 86.1818-12 may be
conducted under the provisions of 40 CFR 600.008-08.
(b) * * *
(1) If the Administrator determines not to conduct a confirmatory
test under the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section,
manufacturers will conduct a confirmatory test at their facility after
submitting the original test data to the Administrator under either of
the following circumstances:
(i) The vehicle configuration has previously failed an emission
standard.
(ii) The test exhibits high emission levels determined by exceeding
a percentage of the standards specified by the Administrator for that
model year.
* * * * *
(d) Conditional certification. Upon request of the manufacturer,
the Administrator may issue a conditional certificate of conformity for
a test group which has not completed the Administrator testing required
under paragraph (a) of this section. Such a certificate will be issued
based upon the condition that the confirmatory testing be completed in
an expedited manner and that the results of the testing be in
compliance with all standards and procedures.
* * * * *
0
59. Amend Sec. 86.1838-01 by revising paragraph (b)(1)(i), the
paragraph (b)(2)heading, and paragraph (b)(2)(i) to read as follows:
Sec. 86.1838-01 Small-volume manufacturer certification procedures.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) Optional small-volume manufacturer certification procedures
apply for vehicles produced by manufacturers with the following number
of combined sales of vehicles subject to standards under this subpart
in all states and territories of the United States in the model year
for which certification is sought, including all vehicles and engines
imported under the provisions of 40 CFR 85.1505 and 85.1509:
(A) At or below 5,000 units for the Tier 3 standards described in
Sec. Sec. 86.1811-17, 86.1813-17, and 86.1816-18 and the Tier 4
standards described in Sec. 86.1811-27. This volume threshold applies
for phasing in the Tier 3 and Tier 4 standards and for determining the
corresponding deterioration factors.
(B) No small-volume sales threshold applies for the heavy-duty
greenhouse gas standards; alternative small-volume criteria apply as
described in Sec. 86.1819-14(k)(5).
(C) At or below 15,000 units for all other requirements. See Sec.
86.1845 for separate provisions that apply for in-use testing.
* * * * *
(2) Small-volume test groups and small-volume monitor families. (i)
If the aggregated sales in all states and territories of the United
States, as determined in paragraph (b)(3) of this section are equal to
or greater than 15,000 units, then the manufacturer (or each
manufacturer in the case of manufacturers in an aggregated
relationship) will be allowed to certify a number of units under the
small-volume test group certification procedures in accordance with the
criteria identified in paragraphs (b)(2)(ii) through (iv) of this
section. Similarly, the manufacturer will be exempt from Part A testing
for monitor accuracy as described in Sec. 86.1845-04(g) in accordance
with the criteria identified in paragraphs (b)(2)(ii) through (iv) of
this section for individual monitor families with aggregated sales up
to 5,000 units in the current model year.
* * * * *
0
60. Amend Sec. 86.1839-01 by revising paragraph (a) and adding
paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 86.1839-01 Carryover of certification and battery monitoring
data.
(a) In lieu of testing an emission-data or durability vehicle
selected under Sec. 86.1822, Sec. 86.1828, or Sec. 86.1829, and
submitting data therefrom, a manufacturer may submit exhaust emission
data, evaporative emission data and/or refueling emission data, as
applicable, on a similar vehicle for which certification has been
obtained or for which all applicable data required under Sec. 86.1845
has previously been submitted. To be eligible for this provision, the
manufacturer must use good engineering judgment and meet the following
criteria:
(1) In the case of durability data, the manufacturer must determine
that the previously generated durability data represent a worst case or
equivalent rate of deterioration for all applicable emission
constituents compared to the configuration selected for durability
demonstration. Prior to certification, the Administrator may require
the manufacturer to provide data showing that the distribution of
catalyst temperatures of the selected durability configuration is
effectively equivalent or lower than the distribution of catalyst
temperatures of the vehicle configuration which is the source of the
previously generated data.
(2) In the case of emission data, the manufacturer must determine
that the previously generated emissions data represent a worst case or
equivalent level of emissions for all applicable emission constituents
compared to the configuration selected for emission compliance
demonstration.
* * * * *
(c) In lieu of testing electric vehicles or plug-in hybrid electric
vehicles for monitor accuracy under Sec. 86.1822-01(a) and submitting
the test data, a manufacturer may rely on previously conducted testing
on a similar vehicle for which such test data have previously been
submitted to demonstrate compliance with monitor accuracy requirements.
For vehicles to be eligible for this provision, they must have designs
for battery monitoring that are identical in all material respects to
the vehicles tested under Sec. 86.1845-04(g). If a monitor family
fails to meet accuracy requirements, repeat the testing under Sec.
86.1845-04(g) as soon as practicable.
0
61. Revise Sec. 86.1840-01 to read as follows:
[[Page 29430]]
Sec. 86.1840-01 Special test procedures.
Provisions for special test procedures apply as described in 40 CFR
1065.10 and 1066.10. For example, manufacturers must propose a
procedure for EPA's review and advance approval for testing and
certifying vehicles equipped with periodically regenerating
aftertreatment devices, including sufficient documentation and data for
EPA to fully evaluate the request.
0
62. Amend Sec. 86.1841-01 by revising paragraphs (a)(1)(iii), (a)(3),
and (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 86.1841-01 Compliance with emission standards for the purpose
of certification.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) For a composite standard of NMHC + NOX, the
measured results of NMHC and NOX must each be adjusted by
their corresponding deterioration factors before the composite NMHC +
NOX certification level is calculated. Where the applicable
FTP exhaust hydrocarbon emission standard is an NMOG standard, the
applicable NMOG deterioration factor must be used in place of the NMHC
deterioration factor, unless otherwise approved by the Administrator.
* * * * *
(3) Compliance with full useful life CO2 exhaust
emission standards shall be demonstrated at certification by the
certification levels on the duty cycles specified for carbon-related
exhaust emissions according to Sec. 600.113 of this chapter.
* * * * *
(e) Unless otherwise approved by the Administrator, manufacturers
must not use Reactivity Adjustment Factors (RAFs) in their calculation
of the certification level of any pollutant for any vehicle.
0
63. Amend Sec. 86.1844-01 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (d)(7)(i) and (ii), (d)(11)(iv), and (d)(15).
0
b. Adding paragraphs (d)(18) through (20).
0
c. Revising paragraphs (e)(1), (3), and (5), (g)(11), and (h).
0
d. Removing paragraph (i).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 86.1844-01 Information requirements: Application for
certification and submittal of information upon request.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(7) * * *
(i) For vehicles certified to any Tier 3 or Tier 4 emission
standards, include a comparison of drive-cycle metrics as specified in
40 CFR 1066.425(j) for each drive cycle or test phase, as appropriate.
(ii) For gasoline-fueled vehicles subject to Tier 3 evaporative
emission standards, identify the method of accounting for ethanol in
determining evaporative emissions, as described in Sec. 86.1813.
* * * * *
(11) * * *
(iv) For Tier 4 vehicles with spark-ignition engines, describe how
AECDs comply with the requirements of Sec. Sec. 86.1809-12(d)(2) and
86.1811-27(d).
* * * * *
(15) For vehicles with fuel-fired heaters, describe the control
system logic of the fuel-fired heater, including an evaluation of the
conditions under which it can be operated and an evaluation of the
possible operational modes and conditions under which evaporative
emissions can exist. Use good engineering judgment to establish an
estimated exhaust emission rate from the fuel-fired heater in grams per
mile for each pollutant subject to a fleet-average standard. Adjust
fleet-average compliance calculations in Sec. Sec. 86.1861, 86.1864,
and 86.1865 as appropriate to account for emissions from fuel-fired
heaters. Describe the testing used to establish the exhaust emission
rate.
* * * * *
(18) For vehicles equipped with RESS, the recharging procedures and
methods for determining battery performance, such as state of charge
and charging capacity.
(19) The following information for each monitor family for electric
vehicles and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, as applicable:
(1) The monitor, battery, and other specifications that are
relevant to establishing monitor families and battery durability
families to comply with the requirements of this section.
(2) The certified usable battery energy for each battery durability
family.
(3) A statement attesting that the SOCE monitor meets the 5 percent
accuracy requirement.
(4) For light-duty program vehicles, a statement that each battery
durability family meets the Minimum Performance Requirement.
(20) Acknowledgement, if applicable, that you are including
vehicles with engines certified under 40 CFR part 1036 in your
calculation to demonstrate compliance with the fleet average
CO2 standard in this subpart as described in Sec. 86.1819-
14(j).
(e) * * *
(1) Identify all emission-related components, including those that
can affect GHG emissions. Also identify software, AECDs, and other
elements of design that are used to control criteria, GHG, or
evaporative/refueling emissions. Identify the emission-related
components by part number. Identify software by part number or other
convention, as appropriate. Organize part numbers by engine code or
other similar classification scheme.
* * * * *
(3) Identification and description of all vehicles covered by each
certificate of conformity to be produced and sold within the U.S. The
description must be sufficient to identify whether any given in-use
vehicle is, or is not, covered by a given certificate of conformity,
the test group and the evaporative/refueling family to which it belongs
and the standards that are applicable to it, by matching readily
observable vehicle characteristics and information given in the
emission control information label (and other permanently attached
labels) to indicators in the Part 1 Application. For example, the
description must include any components or features that contribute to
measured or demonstrated control of emissions for meeting criteria,
GHG, or evaporative/refueling standards under this subpart. In
addition, the description must be sufficient to determine for each
vehicle covered by the certificate, all appropriate test parameters and
any special test procedures necessary to conduct an official
certification exhaust or evaporative emission test as was required by
this subpart to demonstrate compliance with applicable emission
standards. The description shall include, but is not limited to,
information such as model name, vehicle classification (light-duty
vehicle, light-duty truck, or complete heavy-duty vehicle), sales area,
engine displacement, engine code, transmission type, tire size and
parameters necessary to conduct exhaust emission tests such as
equivalent test weight, curb and gross vehicle weight, test horsepower
(with and without air conditioning adjustment), coast down time, shift
schedules, cooling fan configuration, etc. and evaporative tests such
as canister working capacity, canister bed volume, and fuel temperature
profile. Actual values must be provided for all parameters.
* * * * *
(5) Copies of all service manuals, service bulletins and
instructions regarding the use, repair, adjustment, maintenance, or
testing of such vehicles relevant to the control of crankcase, exhaust
or evaporative emissions, as applicable, issued by the manufacturer for
use by other manufacturers, assembly plants, distributors, dealers, and
ultimate purchasers. These shall be
[[Page 29431]]
submitted in electronic form to the Agency when they are made available
to the public and must be updated as appropriate throughout the useful
life of the corresponding vehicles.
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(11) A description of all procedures, including any special
procedures, used to comply with applicable test requirements of this
subpart. Any special procedures used to establish durability data or
emission deterioration factors required to be determined under
Sec. Sec. 86.1823, 86.1824 and 86.1825 and to conduct emission tests
required to be performed on applicable emission data vehicles under
Sec. 86.1829 according to test procedures contained within this Title
must also be included.
* * * * *
(h) Manufacturers must submit the in-use testing information
required in Sec. 86.1847.
0
64. Amend Sec. 86.1845-04 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a)(3)(i).
0
b. Adding paragraph (a)(4).
0
c. Revising paragraphs (b)(5) through (7), (c)(5), (d), and (e)(2).
0
d. Adding paragraph (f) introductory text.
0
e. Revising paragraph (f)(1).
0
f. Adding paragraph (g).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 86.1845-04 Manufacturer in-use verification testing
requirements.
(a) * * *
(3) * * *
(i) Vehicles certified under Sec. 86.1811 must always measure
emissions over the FTP, then over the HFET (if applicable), then over
the US06. If a vehicle meets all the applicable emission standards
except the FTP or HFET emission standard for NMOG + NOX, and
a fuel sample from the tested vehicle (representing the as-received
condition) has a measured fuel sulfur level exceeding 15 ppm when
measured as described in 40 CFR 1065.710, the manufacturer may repeat
the FTP and HFET measurements and use the new emission values as the
official results for that vehicle. For all other cases, measured
emission levels from the first test will be considered the official
results for the test vehicle, regardless of any test results from
additional test runs. Where repeat testing is allowed, the vehicle may
operate for up to two US06 cycles (with or without measurement) before
repeating the FTP and HFET measurements. The repeat measurements must
include both FTP and HFET, even if the vehicle failed only one of those
tests, unless the HFET is not required for a particular vehicle.
Vehicles may not undergo any other vehicle preconditioning to eliminate
fuel sulfur effects on the emission control system, unless we approve
it in advance. This paragraph (a)(3)(i) does not apply for Tier 2
vehicles.
* * * * *
(4) Battery-related in-use testing requirements apply for electric
vehicles and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles as described in paragraph
(g) of this section.
(b) * * *
(5) Testing. (i) Each test vehicle of a test group shall be tested
in accordance with the FTP and the US06 as described in subpart B of
this part, when such test vehicle is tested for compliance with
applicable exhaust emission standards under this subpart. Test vehicles
subject to applicable exhaust CO2 emission standards under
this subpart shall also be tested in accordance with the HFET as
described in 40 CFR 1066.840.
(ii) For vehicles subject to Tier 3 p.m. standards, manufacturers
must measure PM emissions over the FTP and US06 driving schedules for
at least 50 percent of the vehicles tested under paragraph (b)(5)(i) of
this section. For vehicles subject to Tier 4 p.m. standards, this test
rate increases to 100 percent.
(iii) Starting with model year 2018 vehicles, manufacturers must
demonstrate compliance with the Tier 3 leak standard specified in Sec.
86.1813, if applicable, as described in this paragraph (b)(5)(iii).
Manufacturers must evaluate each vehicle tested under paragraph
(b)(5)(i) of this section, except that leak testing is not required for
vehicles tested under paragraph (b)(5)(iv) of this section for diurnal
emissions. In addition, manufacturers must evaluate at least one
vehicle from each leak family for a given model year. Manufacturers may
rely on OBD monitoring instead of testing as follows:
(A) A vehicle is considered to pass the leak test if the OBD system
completed a leak check within the previous 750 miles of driving without
showing a leak fault code.
(B) Whether or not a vehicle's OBD system has completed a leak
check within the previous 750 miles of driving, the manufacturer may
operate the vehicle as needed to force the OBD system to perform a leak
check. If the OBD leak check does not show a leak fault, the vehicle is
considered to pass the leak test.
(C) If the most recent OBD leak check from paragraph (b)(5)(iii)(A)
or (B) of this section shows a leak-related fault code, the vehicle is
presumed to have failed the leak test. Manufacturers may perform the
leak measurement procedure described in 40 CFR 1066.985 for an official
result to replace the finding from the OBD leak check.
(D) Manufacturers may not perform repeat OBD checks or leak
measurements to over-ride a failure under paragraph (b)(5)(iii)(C) of
this section.
(iv) For vehicles other than gaseous-fueled vehicles and electric
vehicles, one test vehicle of each evaporative/refueling family shall
be tested in accordance with the supplemental 2-diurnal-plus-hot-soak
evaporative emission and refueling emission procedures described in
subpart B of this part, when such test vehicle is tested for compliance
with applicable evaporative emission and refueling standards under this
subpart. For gaseous-fueled vehicles, one test vehicle of each
evaporative/refueling family shall be tested in accordance with the 3-
diurnal-plus-hot-soak evaporative emission and refueling emission
procedures described in subpart B of this part, when such test vehicle
is tested for compliance with applicable evaporative emission and
refueling standards under this subpart. The test vehicles tested to
fulfill the evaporative/refueling testing requirement of this paragraph
(b)(5)(iv) will be counted when determining compliance with the minimum
number of vehicles as specified in Table S04-06 and Table S04-07 in
paragraph (b)(3) of this section for testing under paragraph (b)(5)(i)
of this section only if the vehicle is also tested for exhaust
emissions under the requirements of paragraph (b)(5)(i) of this
section.
(6) Test condition. Each test vehicle not rejected based on the
criteria specified in appendix II to this subpart shall be tested in
as-received condition.
(7) Diagnostic maintenance. A manufacturer may conduct subsequent
diagnostic maintenance and/or testing of any vehicle. Any such
maintenance and/or testing shall be reported to the Agency as specified
in Sec. 86.1847.
(c) * * *
(5) Testing. (i) Each test vehicle shall be tested in accordance
with the FTP and the US06 as described in subpart B of this part when
such test vehicle is tested for compliance with applicable exhaust
emission standards under this subpart. Test vehicles subject to
applicable exhaust CO2 emission standards under this subpart
shall also be tested in accordance with the HFET as described in 40 CFR
1066.840. One test vehicle from each test group shall be tested over
the FTP at high altitude. The test vehicle tested at high altitude is
not required to be one of the same test vehicles tested at low
altitude. The test
[[Page 29432]]
vehicle tested at high altitude is counted when determining the
compliance with the requirements shown in Table S04-06 and Table S04-07
in paragraph (b)(3) of this section or the expanded sample size as
provided for in this paragraph (c).
(ii) For vehicles subject to Tier 3 p.m. standards, manufacturers
must measure PM emissions over the FTP and US06 driving schedules for
at least 50 percent of the vehicles tested under paragraph (c)(5)(i) of
this section. For vehicles subject to Tier 4 p.m. standards, this test
rate increases to 100 percent.
(iii) Starting with model year 2018 vehicles, manufacturers must
evaluate each vehicle tested under paragraph (c)(5)(i) of this section
to demonstrate compliance with the Tier 3 leak standard specified in
Sec. 86.1813, except that leak testing is not required for vehicles
tested under paragraph (c)(5)(iv) of this section for diurnal
emissions. In addition, manufacturers must evaluate at least one
vehicle from each leak family for a given model year. Manufacturers may
rely on OBD monitoring instead of testing as described in paragraph
(b)(5)(iii) of this section.
(iv) For vehicles other than gaseous-fueled vehicles and electric
vehicles, one test vehicle of each evaporative/refueling family shall
be tested in accordance with the supplemental 2-diurnal-plus-hot-soak
evaporative emission procedures described in subpart B of this part,
when such test vehicle is tested for compliance with applicable
evaporative emission and refueling standards under this subpart. For
gaseous-fueled vehicles, one test vehicle of each evaporative/refueling
family shall be tested in accordance with the 3-diurnal-plus-hot-soak
evaporative emission procedures described in subpart B of this part,
when such test vehicle is tested for compliance with applicable
evaporative emission and refueling standards under this subpart. The
vehicles tested to fulfill the evaporative/refueling testing
requirement of this paragraph (c)(5)(iv) will be counted when
determining compliance with the minimum number of vehicles as specified
in Table S04-06 and table S04-07 in paragraph (b)(3) of this section
for testing under paragraph (c)(5)(i) of this section only if the
vehicle is also tested for exhaust emissions under the requirements of
paragraph (c)(5)(i) of this section.
* * * * *
(d) Test vehicle procurement. Vehicles tested under this section
shall be procured as follows:
(1) Vehicle ownership. Vehicles shall be procured from the group of
persons who own or lease vehicles registered in the procurement area.
Vehicles shall be procured from persons which own or lease the vehicle,
excluding commercial owners/lessees owned or controlled by the vehicle
manufacturer, using the procedures described in appendix I to this
subpart. See Sec. 86.1838-01(c)(2)(i) for small volume manufacturer
requirements.
(2) Geographical limitations. (i) Test groups certified to 50-state
standards: For low altitude testing no more than fifty percent of the
test vehicles may be procured from California. The test vehicles
procured from the 49-state area must be procured from a location with a
heating degree day 30-year annual average equal to or greater than
4,000.
(ii) Test groups certified to 49-state standards: The test vehicles
procured from the 49-state area must be procured from a location with a
heating degree day 30-year annual average equal to or greater than
4,000.
(iii) Vehicles procured for high altitude testing may be procured
from any area located above 4,000 feet.
(3) Rejecting candidate vehicles. Vehicles may be rejected for
procurement or testing under this section if they meet one or more of
the rejection criteria in appendix II to this subpart. Vehicles may
also be rejected after testing under this section if they meet one or
more of the rejection criteria in appendix II to this subpart. Any
vehicle rejected after testing must be replaced in order that the
number of test vehicles in the sample comply with the sample size
requirements of this section. Any post-test vehicle rejection and
replacement procurement and testing must take place within the testing
completion requirements of this section.
(e) * * *
(2) Notification of test facility. The manufacturer shall notify
the Agency of the name and location of the testing laboratory(s) to be
used to conduct testing of vehicles of each model year conducted
pursuant to this section. Such notification shall occur at least thirty
working days prior to the initiation of testing of the vehicles of that
model year.
* * * * *
(f) NMOG and formaldehyde. The following provisions apply for
measuring NMOG and formaldehyde:
(1) A manufacturer must conduct in-use testing on a test group by
determining NMOG exhaust emissions using the same methodology used for
certification, as described in 40 CFR 1066.635.
* * * * *
(g) Battery testing. Manufacturers of electric vehicles and plug-in
hybrid electric vehicles must perform in-use testing related to battery
monitor accuracy and battery durability for those vehicles as described
in Sec. 86.1815. Perform Part A testing for each monitor family as
follows to verify that SOCE monitors meet accuracy requirements:
(1) Determine accuracy by measuring SOCE from in-use vehicles using
the procedures specified in Sec. 86.1815(c) and comparing the measured
values to the SOCE value displayed on the monitor at the start of
testing.
(2) Perform low-mileage testing of the vehicles in a monitor family
within 12 months of the end of production of that monitor family for
that model year. All test vehicles must have a minimum odometer mileage
of 10,000 miles.
(3) Perform intermediate-mileage testing of the vehicles in a
monitor family within 3 years of the end of production of that monitor
family for that model year. All test vehicles must have a minimum
odometer mileage of 30,000 miles.
(4) Perform high-mileage testing of the vehicles in a monitor
family by starting the test program within 4 years of the end of
production of the monitor family and completing the test program within
5 years of the end of production of the monitor family. All test
vehicles must have a minimum odometer mileage of 50,000 miles.
(5) Select test vehicles from the United States as described in
paragraphs (b)(6), (c)(6), and (d)(1) and (3) of this section. Send
notification regarding test location as described in paragraph (e)(2)
of this section.
(6) You may perform diagnostic maintenance as specified in
paragraph (b)(7) and (c)(7) of this section.
(7) See Sec. 86.1838-01(b)(2) for a testing exemption that applies
for small-volume monitor families.
0
65. Amend Sec. 86.1846-01 by revising paragraphs (a)(1), (b), (e), and
(j) to read as follows:
Sec. 86.1846-01 Manufacturer in-use confirmatory testing
requirements.
(a) * * *
(1) Manufacturers must test, or cause testing to be conducted,
under this section when the emission levels shown by a test group
sample from testing under Sec. 86.1845 exceeds the criteria specified
in paragraph (b) of this section. The testing required under this
section applies separately to each test group and at each test point
(low and high mileage) that meets the specified criteria. The testing
requirements apply separately for each model year. These
[[Page 29433]]
provisions do not apply to emissions of CH4 or
N2O.
* * * * *
(b) Criteria for additional testing. (1) A manufacturer shall test
a test group, or a subset of a test group, as described in paragraph
(j) of this section when the results from testing conducted under Sec.
86.1845 show mean exhaust emissions of any criteria pollutant for that
test group to be at or above 1.30 times the applicable in-use standard
for at least 50 percent of vehicles tested from the test group.
(2) A manufacturer shall test a test group, or a subset of a test
group, as described in paragraph (j) of this section when the results
from testing conducted under Sec. 86.1845 show mean exhaust emissions
of CO2 (City-highway combined CREE) for that test group to
be at or above the applicable in-use standard for at least 50 percent
of vehicles tested from the test group.
(3) Additional testing is not required under this paragraph (b)
based on evaporative/refueling testing or based on low-mileage US06
testing conducted under Sec. 86.1845-04(b)(5)(i). Testing conducted at
high altitude under the requirements of Sec. 86.1845-04(c) will be
included in determining if a test group meets the criteria triggering
the testing required under this section.
(4) The vehicle designated for testing under the requirements of
Sec. 86.1845-04(c)(2) with a minimum odometer reading of 105,000 miles
or 75% of useful life, whichever is less, will not be included in
determining if a test group meets the triggering criteria.
(5) The SFTP composite emission levels for Tier 3 vehicles shall
include the IUVP FTP emissions, the IUVP US06 emissions, and the values
from the SC03 Air Conditioning EDV certification test (without DFs
applied). The calculations shall be made using the equations prescribed
in Sec. 86.164. If more than one set of certification SC03 data exists
(due to running change testing or other reasons), the manufacturer
shall choose the SC03 result to use in the calculation from among those
data sets using good engineering judgment.
(6) If fewer than 50 percent of the vehicles from a leak family
pass either the leak test or the diurnal test under Sec. 86.1845, EPA
may require further leak testing under this paragraph (b)(6). Testing
under this section must include five vehicles from the family. If all
five of these vehicles fail the test, the manufacturer must test five
additional vehicles.
EPA will determine whether to require further leak testing under
this section after providing the manufacturer an opportunity to discuss
the results, including consideration of any of the following
information, or other items that may be relevant:
(i) Detailed system design, calibration, and operating information,
technical explanations as to why the individual vehicles tested failed
the leak standard.
(ii) Comparison of the subject vehicles to other similar models
from the same manufacturer.
(iii) Data or other information on owner complaints, technical
service bulletins, service campaigns, special policy warranty programs,
warranty repair data, state I/M data, and data available from other
manufacturer-specific programs or initiatives.
(iv) Evaporative emission test data on any individual vehicles that
did not pass leak testing during IUVP.
* * * * *
(e) Emission testing. Each test vehicle of a test group or Agency-
designated subset shall be tested in accordance with the driving cycles
performed under Sec. 86.1845 corresponding to emission levels
requiring testing under this section) as described in subpart B of this
part, when such test vehicle is tested for compliance with applicable
exhaust emission standards under this subpart.
* * * * *
(j) Testing a subset. EPA may designate a subset of the test group
for testing under this section in lieu of testing the entire test group
when the results for the entire test group from testing conducted under
Sec. 86.1845 show mean emissions and a failure rate which meet these
criteria for additional testing.
0
66. Amend Sec. 86.1847-01 by adding paragraph (g) to read as follows:
Sec. 86.1847-01 Manufacturer in-use verification and in-use
confirmatory testing; submittal of information and maintenance of
records.
* * * * *
(g) Manufacturers of electric vehicles and plug-in hybrid electric
vehicles certified under this subpart must meet the following reporting
and recordkeeping requirements related to testing under Sec. 86.1815:
(1) Submit the following records organized by battery durability
family and monitor family related to Part A testing to verify accuracy
of SOCE monitors within 30 days after completing low-mileage,
intermediate-mileage, or high-mileage testing:
(i) A complete record of all tests performed, the dates and
location of testing, measured SOCE values for each vehicle, along with
the corresponding displayed SOCE values at the start of testing.
(ii) Test vehicle information, including model year, make, model,
and odometer reading.
(iii) A summary of statistical information showing whether the
testing shows a pass or fail result.
(2) Keep the following records related to testing under paragraph
(g)(1) of this section:
(i) Test reports submitted under paragraph (g)(1) of this section.
(ii) Test facility information.
(iii) Routine testing records, such as dynamometer trace, and
temperature and humidity during testing.
(3) Submit an annual report related to Part B testing to verify
compliance with the Minimum Performance Requirement for SOCE. Submit
the report by October 1 for testing you perform over the preceding year
or ask us to approve a different annual reporting period based on your
practice for starting a new model year. Include the following
information in your annual reports, organized by battery durability
family and monitor family:
(i) Displayed values of SOCE for each sampled vehicle, along with a
description of each vehicle to identify its model year, make, model,
odometer reading, and state of registration. Also include the date for
assessing each selected vehicle.
(ii) A summary of results to show whether 90 percent of sampled
vehicles from each battery durability family meet the Minimum
Performance Requirement.
(iii) A description of any selected vehicles excluded from the test
results and the justification for excluding them.
(iv) Information regarding warranty claims and statistics on
repairs for batteries and for other components or systems for each
battery durability family that might influence a vehicle's electric
energy consumption.
(4) Keep the following records related to testing under paragraph
(g)(3) of this section:
(i) Test reports submitted under paragraph (g)(3) of this section.
(ii) Documentation related to the method of selecting vehicles.
(5) Keep records required under this paragraph (g) for eight years
after submitting reports to EPA.
Sec. 86.1848-01 [Removed]
0
67. Remove Sec. 86.1848-01.
0
68. Revise Sec. 86.1848-10 to read as follows:
Sec. 86.1848-10 Compliance with emission standards for the purpose
of certification.
(a)(1) If, after a review of the manufacturer's submitted Part I
application, information obtained from
[[Page 29434]]
any inspection, such other information as the Administrator may
require, and any other pertinent data or information, the Administrator
determines that the application is complete and that all vehicles
within a test group or monitor family as described in the application
meet the requirements of this part and the Clean Air Act, the
Administrator shall issue a certificate of conformity.
(2) If, after review of the manufacturer's application, request for
certification, information obtained from any inspection, such other
information as the Administrator may require, and any other pertinent
data or information, the Administrator determines that the application
is not complete or the vehicles within a test group or monitor family
as described in the application, do not meet applicable requirements or
standards of the Act or of this part, the Administrator may deny the
issuance of, suspend, or revoke a previously issued certificate of
conformity. The Administrator will notify the manufacturer in writing,
setting forth the basis for the determination. The manufacturer may
request a hearing on the Administrator's determination.
(b) A certificate of conformity will be issued by the Administrator
for a period not to exceed one model year and upon such terms as deemed
necessary or appropriate to assure that any new motor vehicle covered
by the certificate will meet the requirements of the Act and of this
part.
(c) Failure to meet any of the following conditions will be
considered a failure to satisfy a condition upon which a certificate
was issued, and any affected vehicles are not covered by the
certificate:
(1) The manufacturer must supply all required information according
to the provisions of Sec. Sec. 86.1843 and 86.1844.
(2) The manufacturer must comply with all certification and in-use
emission standards contained in subpart S of this part both during and
after model year production. This includes the monitor accuracy and
battery durability requirements for electric vehicles and plug-in
hybrid electric vehicles as described in Sec. 86.1815.
(3) The manufacturer must comply with all implementation schedules
sales percentages as required in this subpart.
(4) New incomplete vehicles must, when completed by having the
primary load-carrying device or container attached, conform to the
maximum curb weight and frontal area limitations described in the
application for certification as required in Sec. 86.1844.
(5) The manufacturer must meet the in-use testing and reporting
requirements contained in Sec. Sec. 86.1815, 86.1845, 86.1846, and
86.1847, as applicable.
(6) Vehicles must in all material respects be as described in the
manufacturer's application for certification (Part I and Part II).
(7) Manufacturers must meet all the provisions of Sec. Sec.
86.1811, 86.1813, 86.1816, and 86.1860 through 86.1862 both during and
after model year production, including compliance with the applicable
fleet average standard and phase-in requirements. The manufacturer
bears the burden of establishing to the satisfaction of the
Administrator that the terms and conditions upon which each certificate
was issued were satisfied. For recall and warranty purposes, vehicles
not covered by a certificate of conformity will continue to be held to
the standards stated or referenced in the certificate that otherwise
would have applied to the vehicles. A manufacturer may not sell credits
it has not generated.
(8) Manufacturers must meet all provisions related to cold
temperature standards in Sec. Sec. 86.1811 and 86.1864 both during and
after model year production, including compliance with the applicable
fleet average standard and phase-in requirements. The manufacturer
bears the burden of establishing to the satisfaction of the
Administrator that the terms and conditions upon which each certificate
was issued were satisfied. For recall and warranty purposes, vehicles
not covered by a certificate of conformity will continue to be held to
the standards stated or referenced in the certificate that otherwise
would have applied to the vehicles. A manufacturer may not sell credits
it has not generated.
(9) Manufacturers must meet all the provisions of Sec. Sec.
86.1818, 86.1819, and 86.1865 both during and after model year
production, including compliance with the applicable fleet average
standard. The manufacturer bears the burden of establishing to the
satisfaction of the Administrator that the terms and conditions upon
which the certificate(s) was (were) issued were satisfied. For recall
and warranty purposes, vehicles not covered by a certificate of
conformity will continue to be held to the standards stated or
referenced in the certificate that otherwise would have applied to the
vehicles. A manufacturer may not sell credits it has not generated.
(i) Manufacturers that are determined to be operationally
independent under Sec. 86.1838-01(d) must report a material change in
their status within 60 days as required by Sec. 86.1838-01(d)(2).
(ii) Manufacturers subject to an alternative fleet average
greenhouse gas emission standard approved under Sec. 86.1818-12(g)
must comply with the annual sales thresholds that are required to
maintain use of those standards, including the thresholds required for
new entrants into the U.S. market.
(10) Manufacturers must meet all the provisions of Sec. 86.1815
both during and after model year production. The manufacturer bears the
burden of establishing to the satisfaction of the Administrator that
the terms and conditions related to issued certificates were satisfied.
(d) One certificate will be issued for each test group and
evaporative/refueling family combination. For plug-in hybrid electric
vehicles, one certificate will be issued for each test group,
evaporative/refueling family, and monitor family combination. For
electric vehicles, one certificate will be issued for each monitor
family. For diesel fueled vehicles, one certificate will be issued for
each test group. A certificate of conformity is deemed to cover the
vehicles named in such certificate and produced during the model year.
(e) A manufacturer of new light-duty vehicles, light-duty trucks,
and complete heavy-duty vehicles must obtain a certificate of
conformity covering such vehicles from the Administrator prior to
selling, offering for sale, introducing into commerce, delivering for
introduction into commerce, or importing into the United States the new
vehicle. Vehicles produced prior to the effective date of a certificate
of conformity may also be covered by the certificate, once it is
effective, if the following conditions are met:
(1) The vehicles conform in all respects to the vehicles described
in the application for the certificate of conformity.
(2) The vehicles are not sold, offered for sale, introduced into
commerce, or delivered for introduction into commerce prior to the
effective date of the certificate of conformity.
(3) EPA is notified prior to the beginning of production when such
production will start, and EPA is provided a full opportunity to
inspect and/or test the vehicles during and after their production. EPA
must have the opportunity to conduct SEA production line testing as if
the vehicles had been produced after the effective date of the
certificate.
(f) Vehicles imported by an original equipment manufacturer after
December 31 of the calendar year for which the model year is named are
still covered by the certificate of conformity as long as the
production of the vehicle was
[[Page 29435]]
completed before December 31 of that year.
(g) For test groups required to have an emission control diagnostic
system, certification will not be granted if, for any emission data
vehicle or other test vehicle approved by the Administrator in
consultation with the manufacturer, the malfunction indicator light
does not illuminate as required under Sec. 86.1806.
(h) Vehicles equipped with aftertreatment technologies such as
catalysts, otherwise covered by a certificate, which are driven outside
the United States, Canada, and Mexico will be presumed to have been
operated on leaded gasoline resulting in deactivation of such
components as catalysts and oxygen sensors. If these vehicles are
imported or offered for importation without retrofit of the catalyst or
other aftertreatment technology, they will be considered not to be
within the coverage of the certificate unless included in a catalyst or
other aftertreatment technology control program operated by a
manufacturer or a United States Government agency and approved by the
Administrator.
0
69. Amend Sec. 86.1850-01 by revising the section heading and
paragraphs (b) introductory text and (d) and removing paragraph (f).
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 86.1850-01 EPA decisions regarding a certificate of conformity.
* * * * *
(b) Notwithstanding the fact that the vehicles described in the
application may comply with all other requirements of this subpart, the
Administrator may deny issuance of, suspend, revoke, or void a
previously issued certificate of conformity if the Administrator finds
any one of the following infractions:
* * * * *
(d) If a manufacturer commits any fraudulent act that results in
the issuance of a certificate of conformity, or fails to comply with
the conditions specified in Sec. 86.1843, the Administrator may deem
such certificate void ab initio.
* * * * *
Sec. 86.1860-04 [Removed]
0
70. Remove Sec. 86.1860-04.
0
71. Amend Sec. 86.1860-17 by revising the section heading and
paragraphs (a) and (b) and removing paragraph (c)(4).
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 86.1860-17 How to comply with the Tier 3 and Tier 4 fleet-
average standards.
(a) You must show that you meet the applicable Tier 3 fleet-average
NMOG + NOX standards from Sec. Sec. 86.1811-17 and 86.1816-
18, the Tier 3 fleet-average evaporative emission standards from Sec.
86.1813-17, and the Tier 4 fleet-average NMOG + NOX
standards from Sec. 86.1811-27 as described in this section. Note that
separate fleet-average calculations are required for Tier 3 FTP and
SFTP exhaust emission standards under Sec. 86.1811-17.
(b) Calculate your fleet-average value for each model year for all
vehicle models subject to a separate fleet-average standard using the
following equation, rounded to the nearest 0.001 g/mile for NMOG +
NOX emissions and the nearest 0.001 g/test for evaporative
emissions:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05MY23.047
Where:
I = A counter associated with each separate test group or
evaporative family.
B = The number of separate test groups or evaporative families from
a given averaging set to which you certify your vehicles.
Ni = The actual nationwide sales for the model year for
test group or evaporative family i. Include allowances for
evaporative emissions as described in Sec. 86.1813.
FELi = The FEL selected for test group or evaporative
family i. Disregard any separate standards that apply for in-use
testing or for testing under high-altitude conditions.
Ntotal = The actual nationwide sales for the model year
for all vehicles from the averaging set, except as described in
paragraph (c) of this section. The pool of vehicle models included
in Ntotal may vary by model year, and it may be different
for evaporative standards, FTP exhaust standards, and SFTP exhaust
standards in a given model year.
* * * * *
Sec. 86.1861-04 [Removed]
0
72. Remove Sec. 86.1861-04.
0
73. Amend Sec. 86.1861-17 by revising paragraphs (b) and (c) to read
as follows:
Sec. 86.1861-17 How do the NMOG + NOX and evaporative emission credit
programs work?
* * * * *
(b) The following restrictions apply instead of those specified in
40 CFR 1037.740:
(1) Except as specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section,
emission credits may be exchanged only within an averaging set, as
follows:
(i) HDV represent a separate averaging set with respect to all
emission standards.
(ii) Except as specified in paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this section,
LDV and LDT represent a single averaging set with respect to all
emission standards. Note that FTP and SFTP credits for Tier 3 vehicles
are not interchangeable.
(iii) LDV and LDT1 certified to standards based on a useful life of
120,000 miles and 10 years together represent a single averaging set
with respect to NMOG + NOX emission standards. Note that FTP
and SFTP credits for Tier 3 vehicles are not interchangeable.
(iv) The following separate averaging sets apply for evaporative
emission standards:
(A) LDV and LDT1 together represent a single averaging set.
(B) LDT2 represents a single averaging set.
(C) HLDT represents a single averaging set.
(D) HDV represents a single averaging set.
(2) You may exchange evaporative emission credits across averaging
sets as follows if you need additional credits to offset a deficit
after the final year of maintaining deficit credits as allowed under
paragraph (c) of this section:
(i) You may exchange LDV/LDT1 and LDT2 emission credits.
(ii) You may exchange HLDT and HDV emission credits.
(3) Except as specified in paragraph (b)(4) of this section,
credits expire after five years.
For example, credits you generate in model year 2018 may be used
only through model year 2023.
(4) For the Tier 3 declining fleet-average FTP and SFTP emission
standards for NMOG + NOX described in Sec. 86.1811-
17(b)(8), credits generated in model years 2017 through 2024 expire
after eight years, or after model year 2030, whichever comes first;
however, these credits may not be
[[Page 29436]]
traded after five years. This extended credit life also applies for
small-volume manufacturers generating credits under Sec. 86.1811-
17(h)(1) in model years 2022 through 2024. Note that the longer credit
life does not apply for heavy-duty vehicles, for vehicles certified
under the alternate phase-in described in Sec. 86.1811-17(b)(9), or
for vehicles generating early Tier 3 credits under Sec. 86.1811-
17(b)(11) in model year 2017.
(5) Tier 3 credits for NMOG+NOX may be used to
demonstrate compliance with Tier 4 standards without adjustment, except
as specified in Sec. 86.1811-27.
(c) The credit-deficit provisions 40 CFR 1037.745 apply to the NMOG
+ NOX and evaporative emission standards for Tier 3 and Tier
4 vehicles.
* * * * *
0
74. Amend Sec. 86.1862-04 by revising paragraphs (a), (c)(2), and (d)
to read as follows:
Sec. 86.1862-04 Maintenance of records and submittal of information
relevant to compliance with fleet-average standards.
(a) Overview. This section describes reporting and recordkeeping
requirements for vehicles subject to the following standards:
(1) Tier 4 criteria exhaust emission standards, including cold
temperature NMOG+NOX standards, in Sec. 86.1811-27.
(2) Tier 3 evaporative emission standards in Sec. 86.1813-17.
(3) Tier 3 FTP emission standard for NMOG + NOX for LDV
and LDT in Sec. 86.1811-17.
(4) Tier 3 SFTP emission standard for NMOG + NOX for LDV
and LDT (including MDPV) in Sec. 86.1811-17.
(5) Tier 3 FTP emission standard for NMOG + NOX for HDV
(other than MDPV) in Sec. 86.1816-18.
(6) Cold temperature NMHC standards in Sec. 86.1811-17 for
vehicles subject to Tier 3 NMOG+NOX standards.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) When a manufacturer calculates compliance with the fleet-
average standard using the provisions in Sec. 86.1860-17(f), the
annual report must state that the manufacturer has elected to use such
provision and must contain the fleet-average standard as the fleet-
average value for that model year.
* * * * *
(d) Notice of opportunity for hearing. Any voiding of the
certificate under this section will be made only after EPA has offered
the manufacturer concerned an opportunity for a hearing conducted in
accordance with 40 CFR part 1068, subpart G, and, if a manufacturer
requests such a hearing, will be made only after an initial decision by
the Presiding Officer.
Sec. 86.1863-07 [Removed]
0
75. Remove Sec. 86.1863-07.
0
76. Revise Sec. 86.1864-10 to read as follows:
Sec. 86.1864-10 How to comply with cold temperature fleet-average
standards.
(a) Applicability. Cold temperature fleet-average standards apply
for NMHC or NMOG+NOX emissions as described in Sec.
86.1811. Certification testing provisions described in this subpart
apply equally for meeting cold temperature exhaust emission standards
except as specified.
(b) Calculating the cold temperature fleet-average standard.
Manufacturers must compute separate sales-weighted cold temperature
fleet-average emissions at the end of the model year using actual sales
and certifying test groups to FELs, as defined in Sec. 86.1803-01. The
FEL becomes the standard for each test group, and every test group can
have a different FEL. The certification resolution for the FEL is 0.1
grams/mile. Determine fleet-average emissions separately for each set
of vehicles subject to different fleet-average emission standards. Do
not include electric vehicles or fuel cell vehicles when calculating
fleet-average emissions. Starting with Tier 4 vehicles, determine
fleet-average emissions based on separate averaging sets for light-duty
program vehicles and medium-duty vehicles. Calculate the sales-weighted
cold temperature fleet averages using the following equation, rounded
to the nearest 0.1 grams/mile:
Cold temperature fleet-average exhaust emissions (grams/mile) = [Sigma]
(N x FEL) / Total number of vehicles sold from the applicable cold
temperature averaging set
Where:
N = The number of vehicles subject to a given fleet-average emission
standard based on vehicles counted at the point of first sale.
FEL = Family Emission Limit (grams/mile).
(c) Certification compliance and enforcement requirements for cold
temperature fleet-average standards. Each manufacturer must comply on
an annual basis with fleet-average standards as follows:
(1) Manufacturers must report in their annual reports to the Agency
that they met the relevant fleet-average standard by showing that their
sales-weighted cold temperature fleet-average emissions are at or below
the applicable fleet-average standard for each averaging set.
(2) If the sales-weighted average is above the applicable fleet-
average standard, manufacturers must obtain and apply sufficient
credits as permitted under paragraph (d)(8) of this section. A
manufacturer must show via the use of credits that they have offset any
exceedance of the cold temperature fleet-average standard.
Manufacturers must also include their credit balances or deficits.
(3) If a manufacturer fails to meet the cold temperature fleet-
average standard for two consecutive years, the vehicles causing the
exceedance will be considered not covered by the certificate of
conformity (see paragraph (d)(8) of this section). A manufacturer will
be subject to penalties on an individual-vehicle basis for sale of
vehicles not covered by a certificate.
(4) EPA will review each manufacturer's sales to designate the
vehicles that caused the exceedance of the fleet-average standard. EPA
will designate as nonconforming those vehicles in test groups with the
highest certification emission values first, continuing until reaching
a number of vehicles equal to the calculated number of noncomplying
vehicles as determined above. In a group where only a portion of
vehicles would be deemed nonconforming, EPA will determine the actual
nonconforming vehicles by counting backwards from the last vehicle
produced in that test group. Manufacturers will be liable for penalties
for each vehicle sold that is not covered by a certificate.
(d) Requirements for the cold temperature averaging, banking, and
trading (ABT) program. (1) Manufacturers must average the cold
temperature fleet average emissions of their vehicles and comply with
the cold temperature fleet average standard. A manufacturer whose cold
temperature fleet average emissions exceed the applicable standard must
complete the calculation in paragraph (d)(4) of this section to
determine the size of its credit deficit. A manufacturer whose cold
temperature fleet average emissions are less than the applicable
standard must complete the calculation in paragraph (d)(4) of this
section to generate credits.
(2) There are no property rights associated with cold temperature
credits generated under this subpart. Credits are a limited
authorization to emit the designated amount of emissions. Nothing in
this part or any other provision of law should be construed to limit
EPA's authority to terminate or limit this authorization through
rulemaking.
(3) Cold temperature NMHC credits may be used to demonstrate
compliance with the cold temperature NMOG+NOX emission
standards for Tier 4 vehicles.
[[Page 29437]]
The value of a cold temperature NMHC credit is deemed to be equal to
the value of a cold temperature NMOG+NOX credit.
(4) Credits are earned on the last day of the model year.
Manufacturers must calculate, for a given model year, the number of
credits or debits it has generated according to the following equation,
rounded to the nearest 0.1 grams/mile:
Fleet average Credits or Debits = (Cold Temperature NMHC or
NMOG+NOX Standard--Manufacturer's Sales-Weighted Cold
Temperature Fleet Average Emissions) x (Total Number of Vehicles Sold)
Where:
Manufacturer's Sales-Weighted Cold Temperature Fleet Average
Emissions = average calculated according to paragraph (b) of this
section.
Total Number of Vehicles Sold = Total 50-State sales based on the
point of first sale.
(5) [Reserved]
(6) NMHC credits are not subject to any discount or expiration date
except as required under the deficit carryforward provisions of
paragraph (d)(8) of this section. There is no discounting of unused
credits. NMHC credits have unlimited lives, subject to the limitations
of paragraph (d)(2) of this section. Tier 3 to Tier 4.
(7) Credits may be used as follows:
(i) Credits generated and calculated according to the method in
paragraph (d)(4) of this section may be used only to offset deficits
accrued with respect to the standard in Sec. 86.1811-10(g)(2). Credits
may be banked and used in a future model year in which a manufacturer's
average cold temperature fleet-average level exceeds the applicable
standard. Credits may be exchanged only within averaging sets. Credits
may also be traded to another manufacturer according to the provisions
in paragraph (d)(9) of this section. Before trading or carrying over
credits to the next model year, a manufacturer must apply available
credits to offset any credit deficit, where the deadline to offset that
credit deficit has not yet passed.
(ii) The use of credits shall not be permitted to address Selective
Enforcement Auditing or in-use testing failures. The enforcement of the
averaging standard occurs through the vehicle's certificate of
conformity. A manufacturer's certificate of conformity is conditioned
upon compliance with the averaging provisions. The certificate will be
void ab initio if a manufacturer fails to meet the corporate average
standard and does not obtain appropriate credits to cover its
shortfalls in that model year or in the subsequent model year (see
deficit carryforward provision in paragraph (d)(8) of this section).
Manufacturers must track their certification levels and sales unless
they produce only vehicles certified with FELs at or below the
applicable to cold temperature fleet-average levels below the standard
and have chosen to forgo credit banking.
(8) The following provisions apply if debits are accrued:
(i) If a manufacturer calculates that it has negative credits (also
called ``debits'' or a ``credit deficit'') for a given model year, it
may carry that deficit forward into the next model year. Such a carry-
forward may only occur after the manufacturer exhausts any supply of
banked credits. At the end of that next model year, the deficit must be
covered with an appropriate number of credits that the manufacturer
generates or purchases. Any remaining deficit is subject to an
enforcement action, as described in this paragraph (d)(8).
Manufacturers are not permitted to have a credit deficit for two
consecutive years.
(ii) If debits are not offset within the specified time period, the
number of vehicles not meeting the cold temperature fleet average
standards (and therefore not covered by the certificate) must be
calculated by dividing the total amount of debits for the model year by
the cold temperature fleet average standard applicable for the model
year in which the debits were first incurred.
(iii) EPA will determine the number of vehicles for which the
condition on the certificate was not satisfied by designating vehicles
in those test groups with the highest certification cold temperature
NMHC or NMOG+NOX emission values first and continuing until
reaching a number of vehicles equal to the calculated number of
noncomplying vehicles as determined above. If this calculation
determines that only a portion of vehicles in a test group contribute
to the debit, EPA will designate actual vehicles in that test group as
not covered by the certificate, starting with the last vehicle produced
and counting backwards.
(iv)(A) If a manufacturer ceases production of vehicles affected by
a debit balance, the manufacturer continues to be responsible for
offsetting any debits outstanding within the required time period. Any
failure to offset the debits will be considered a violation of
paragraph (d)(8)(i) of this section and may subject the manufacturer to
an enforcement action for sale of vehicles not covered by a
certificate, pursuant to paragraphs (d)(8)(ii) and (iii) of this
section.
(B) If a manufacturer is purchased by, merges with, or otherwise
combines with another manufacturer, the controlling entity is
responsible for offsetting any debits outstanding within the required
time period. Any failure to offset the debits will be considered a
violation of paragraph (d)(8)(i) of this section and may subject the
manufacturer to an enforcement action for sale of vehicles not covered
by a certificate, pursuant to paragraphs (d)(8)(ii) and (iii) of this
section.
(v) For purposes of calculating the statute of limitations, a
violation of the requirements of paragraph (d)(8)(i) of this section, a
failure to satisfy the conditions upon which a certificate(s) was
issued and hence a sale of vehicles not covered by the certificate, all
occur upon the expiration of the deadline for offsetting debits
specified in paragraph (d)(8)(i) of this section.
(9) The following provisions apply for trading cold temperature
credits:
(i) EPA may reject credit trades if the involved manufacturers fail
to submit the credit trade notification in the annual report. A
manufacturer may not sell credits that are not available for sale
pursuant to the provisions in paragraphs (d)(7)(i) of this section.
(ii) In the event of a negative credit balance resulting from a
transaction that a manufacturer could not cover by the reporting
deadline for the model year in which the trade occurred, both the buyer
and seller are liable, except in cases involving fraud by either the
buyer or seller. EPA may void ab initio the certificates of conformity
of all engine families participating in such a trade.
(iii) A manufacturer may only trade credits that it has generated
pursuant to paragraph (d)(4) of this section or acquired from another
party.
0
77. Amend Sec. 86.1865-12 by revising paragraphs (i)(1), (i)(2)
introductory text, and (j) and removing paragraph (k)(7)(iii).
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 86.1865-12 How to comply with the fleet average CO2 standards.
* * * * *
(i) * * *
(1) Through model year 2026, manufacturers must compute separate
production-weighted fleet average carbon-related exhaust emissions at
the end of the model year for passenger automobiles and light trucks,
using actual production, where production means vehicles produced and
delivered for sale, and certifying model types to standards as defined
in Sec. 86.1818-12.
[[Page 29438]]
The model type carbon-related exhaust emission results determined
according to 40 CFR part 600, subpart F (in units of grams per mile
rounded to the nearest whole number) become the certification standard
for each model type.
(2) Through model year 2026, manufacturers must separately
calculate production-weighted fleet average carbon-related exhaust
emissions levels for the following averaging sets according to the
provisions of 40 CFR part 600, subpart F:
* * * * *
(j) Certification compliance and enforcement requirements for CO2
exhaust emission standards. (1) Compliance and enforcement requirements
are provided in this section and Sec. 86.1848-10(c)(9).
(2) The certificate issued for each test group requires all model
types within that test group to meet the in-use emission standards to
which each model type is certified. The in-use standards for passenger
automobiles and light duty trucks (including MDPV) are described in
Sec. 86.1818-12(d). The in-use standards for non-MDPV heavy-duty
vehicles are described in Sec. 86.1819-14(b).
(3) EPA will issue a recall order as described in 40 CFR part 85,
subpart S, if EPA or the manufacturer determines that a substantial
number of a class or category of vehicles produced by that
manufacturer, although properly maintained and used, do not conform to
in-use CO2 emission standards, or do not conform to the
monitor accuracy requirements in Sec. 86.1815. The recall would be
intended to remedy repairable problems to bring the vehicle into
compliance; however, if there is no demonstrable, repairable problem
that could be remedied to bring the vehicles into compliance, the
manufacturer must submit an alternative plan for to address the
noncompliance. For example, manufacturers may need to calculate a
correction to its emission credit balance based on the GHG emissions of
the actual number of vehicles produced. EPA may void credits originally
calculated from noncompliant vehicles, unless traded, and will adjust
debits. In the case of traded credits, EPA will adjust the selling
manufacturer's credit balance to reflect the sale of such credits and
any resulting credit deficit. Manufacturers may voluntarily recall
vehicles to remedy such a noncompliance and submit a voluntary recall
report as described in 40 CFR part 85, subpart T.
(4) The manufacturer may request a hearing under 40 CFR part 1068,
subpart G, regarding any voiding of credits or adjustment of debits
under paragraph (j)(3) of this section. Manufacturers must submit such
a request in writing describing the objection and any supporting data
within 30 days after we make a decision.
(5) Each manufacturer must comply with the applicable
CO2 fleet average standard on a production-weighted average
basis, at the end of each model year. Use the procedure described in
paragraph (i) of this section for passenger automobiles and light
trucks (including MDPV). Use the procedure described in Sec. 86.1819-
14(d)(9)(iv) for non-MDPV heavy-duty vehicles.
(6) Each manufacturer must comply on an annual basis with the fleet
average standards as follows:
(i) Manufacturers must report in their annual reports to the Agency
that they met the relevant corporate average standard by showing that
the applicable production-weighted average CO2 emission
levels are at or below the applicable fleet average standards; or
(ii) If the production-weighted average is above the applicable
fleet average standard, manufacturers must obtain and apply sufficient
CO2 credits as authorized under paragraph (k)(8) of this
section. A manufacturer must show that they have offset any exceedance
of the corporate average standard via the use of credits. Manufacturers
must also include their credit balances or deficits in their annual
report to the Agency.
(iii) If a manufacturer fails to meet the corporate average
CO2 standard for four consecutive years, the vehicles
causing the corporate average exceedance will be considered not covered
by the certificate of conformity (see paragraph (k)(8) of this
section). A manufacturer will be subject to penalties on an individual-
vehicle basis for sale of vehicles not covered by a certificate.
(iv) EPA will review each manufacturer's production to designate
the vehicles that caused the exceedance of the corporate average
standard. EPA will designate as nonconforming those vehicles in test
groups with the highest certification emission values first, continuing
until reaching a number of vehicles equal to the calculated number of
noncomplying vehicles as determined in paragraph (k)(8) of this
section. In a group where only a portion of vehicles would be deemed
nonconforming, EPA will determine the actual nonconforming vehicles by
counting backwards from the last vehicle produced in that test group.
Manufacturers will be liable for penalties for each vehicle sold that
is not covered by a certificate.
* * * * *
0
78. Amend Sec. 86.1866-12 by revising paragraphs (a) and (c)(3) to
read as follows:
Sec. 86.1866-12 CO2 credits for advanced technology vehicles.
* * * * *
(a) Electric vehicles, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, and fuel
cell vehicles that are certified and produced for sale in the states
and territories of the United States may use a value of zero grams
CO2 per mile to represent the proportion of electric
operation of a vehicle that is derived from electricity generated from
sources that are not onboard the vehicle.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(3) Multiplier-based credits for model years 2022 through 2024 may
not exceed credit caps, as follows:
(i) Calculate a nominal annual credit cap in Mg using the following
equation, rounded to the nearest whole number:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05MY23.048
Where:
Pauto = total number of certified passenger automobiles the
manufacturer produced in a given model year for sale in any state or
territory of the United States.
Ptruck = total number of certified light trucks (including MDPV) the
manufacturer produced in a given model year for sale in any state or
territory of the United States.
(ii) Calculate an annual g/mile equivalent value for the
multiplier-based credits using the following equation, rounded to the
nearest 0.1 g/mile:
[[Page 29439]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05MY23.049
Where:
annual credits = a manufacturer's total multiplier-based credits in
a given model year from all passenger automobiles and light trucks
as calculated under this paragraph (c).
(iii) Calculate a cumulative g/mile equivalent value for the
multiplier-based credits in each year by adding the annual g/mile
equivalent values calculated under paragraph (c)(3)(ii) of this
section.
(iv) The cumulative g/mile equivalent value may not exceed 10.0 in
any year.
(v) For every year of certifying with multiplier-based credits, the
annual credit report must include the calculated values for the nominal
annual credit cap in Mg and the cumulative g/mile equivalent value.
0
79. Amend Sec. 86.1867-12 by revising the introductory text to read as
follows:
Sec. 86.1867-12 CO2 credits for reducing leakage of air conditioning
refrigerant.
Through model year 2026, manufacturers may generate credits
applicable to the CO2 fleet average program described in
Sec. 86.1865-12 by implementing specific air conditioning system
technologies designed to reduce air conditioning refrigerant leakage
over the useful life of their passenger automobiles and/or light trucks
(including MDPV); only the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section
apply for non-MDPV heavy-duty vehicles. Credits shall be calculated
according to this section for each air conditioning system that the
manufacturer is using to generate CO2 credits. Manufacturers
may no longer generate credits under this section starting in model
year 2027.
* * * * *
0
80. Amend Sec. 86.1868-12 by:
0
a. Revising the introductory text.
0
b. Removing paragraph (a)(1).
0
c. Redesignating paragraph (a)(2) as paragraph (a).
0
d. Revising the redesignated paragraph (a).
0
e. Adding a heading to the table in newly redesignated paragraph (a).
0
f. Revising paragraph (b).
0
g. Removing and reserving paragraphs (e) and (f).
0
h. Revising paragraph (g) introductory text.
The revisions and addition read as follows:
Sec. 86.1868-12 CO2 credits for improving the efficiency of air
conditioning systems.
Manufacturers may generate credits applicable to the CO2
fleet average program described in Sec. 86.1865-12 by implementing
specific air conditioning system technologies designed to reduce air
conditioning-related CO2 emissions over the useful life of
their passenger automobiles and light trucks (including MDPV). The
provisions of this section do not apply for non-MDPV heavy-duty
vehicles. Credits shall be calculated according to this section for
each air conditioning system that the manufacturer is using to generate
CO2 credits. Manufacturers must validate credits under this
section based on testing as described in paragraph (g) of this section.
Starting in model year 2027, manufacturers may generate credits under
this section only for vehicles propelled by internal combustion
engines.
(a) Air conditioning efficiency credits are available for the
following technologies in the gram per mile amounts indicated for each
vehicle category in the following table:
Table 1 to Paragraph (a)
* * * * *
(b) Air conditioning efficiency credits are determined on an air
conditioning system basis. For each air conditioning system that is
eligible for a credit based on the use of one or more of the items
listed in paragraph (a) of this section, the total credit value is the
sum of the gram per mile values for the appropriate model year listed
in paragraph (a) for each item that applies to the air conditioning
system. The total credit value for an air conditioning system may not
be greater than 5.0 grams per mile for any passenger automobile or 7.2
grams per mile for any light truck.
* * * * *
(g) AC17 validation testing and reporting requirements.
Manufacturers must validate air conditioning credits by using the AC17
Test Procedure in 40 CFR 1066.845 as follows:
* * * * *
0
81. Amend Sec. 86.1869-12 by revising the introductory text and
paragraph (b)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 86.1869-12 CO2 credits for off-cycle CO2 reducing technologies.
This section describes how manufacturers may generate credits for
off-cycle CO2-reducing technologies through model year 2030.
The provisions of this section do not apply for non-MDPV heavy-duty
vehicles, except that Sec. 86.1819-14(d)(13) describes how to apply
paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section for those vehicles.
Manufacturers may no longer generate credits under this section
starting in model year 2027 for vehicles deemed to have zero tailpipe
emissions and in model year 2031 for all other vehicles. Manufacturers
may no longer generate credits under paragraphs (c) and (d) of this
section for any type of vehicle starting in model year 2027.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) The maximum allowable decrease in the manufacturer's combined
passenger automobile and light truck fleet average CO2
emissions attributable to use of the default credit values in paragraph
(b)(1) of this section is specified in paragraph (b)(2)(v) of this
section. If the total of the CO2 g/mi credit values from
paragraph (b)(1) of this section does not exceed the specified off-
cycle credit cap for any passenger automobile or light truck in a
manufacturer's fleet, then the total off-cycle credits may be
calculated according to paragraph (f) of this section. If the total of
the CO2 g/mi credit values from paragraph (b)(1) of this
section exceeds the specified off-cycle credit cap for any passenger
automobile or light truck in a manufacturer's fleet, then the gram per
mile decrease for the combined passenger automobile and light truck
fleet must be determined according to paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this
section to determine whether the applicable limitation has been
exceeded.
(i) Determine the gram per mile decrease for the combined passenger
automobile and light truck fleet using the following formula:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05MY23.050
[[Page 29440]]
Where:
Credits = The total of passenger automobile and light truck credits,
in Megagrams, determined according to paragraph (f) of this section
and limited to those credits accrued by using the default gram per
mile values in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
ProdC = The number of passenger automobiles produced by
the manufacturer and delivered for sale in the U.S.
ProdT = The number of light trucks produced by the
manufacturer and delivered for sale in the U.S.
(ii) If the value determined in paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section
is greater than the off-cycle credit cap specified in paragraph
(b)(2)(v) of this section, the total credits, in Megagrams, that may be
accrued by a manufacturer using the default gram per mile values in
paragraph (b)(1) of this section shall be determined using the
following formula:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05MY23.051
Where:
cap = the off-cycle credit cap specified in paragraph (b)(2)(v) of
this section.
ProdC = The number of passenger automobiles produced by
the manufacturer and delivered for sale in the U.S.
ProdT = The number of light trucks produced by the
manufacturer and delivered for sale in the U.S.
(iii) If the value determined in paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this
section is not greater than the off-cycle credit cap specified in
paragraph (b)(2)(v) of this section, then the credits that may be
accrued by a manufacturer using the default gram per mile values in
paragraph (b)(1) of this section do not exceed the allowable limit, and
total credits may be determined for each category of vehicles according
to paragraph (f) of this section.
(iv) If the value determined in paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section
is greater than the off-cycle credit cap specified in paragraph
(b)(2)(v) of this section, then the combined passenger automobile and
light truck credits, in Megagrams, that may be accrued using the
calculations in paragraph (f) of this section must not exceed the value
determined in paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section. This limitation
should generally be done by reducing the amount of credits attributable
to the vehicle category that caused the limit to be exceeded such that
the total value does not exceed the value determined in paragraph
(b)(2)(ii) of this section.
(v) The manufacturer's combined passenger automobile and light
truck fleet average CO2 emissions attributable to use of the
default credit values in paragraph (b)(1) of this section may not
exceed the specific values as described in this paragraph (b)(2)(v).
Starting in model year 2027, adjust the credit contribution from PHEVs
in the fleet-average calculation by dividing the PHEV off-cycle credit
value by the utility factor established under 40 CFR 600.116-12(c)(1)
or (c)(10)(iii) (weighted 55 percent city, 45 percent highway). For
example, if a PHEV has utility factor of 0.3 and an off-cycle credit of
3.0, count it as having a credit value of 10 (3/0.3) for calculating
the fleet average value. The following maximum values apply for off-
cycle credits:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Off-cycle
Model year credit cap (g/
mile)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A) 2023-2026........................................... 15
(B) 2027................................................ 10
(C) 2028................................................ 8.0
(D) 2029................................................ 6.0
(E) 2030................................................ 3.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Sec. 86.1871-12 [Removed]
0
82. Remove Sec. 86.1871-12.
PART 600--FUEL ECONOMY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EXHAUST EMISSIONS OF
MOTOR VEHICLES
0
83. The authority citation for part 1036 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 32901--23919q, Pub. L. 109-58.
0
84. Amend Sec. 600.007 by revising paragraph (b)(4) introductory text
to read as follows:
Sec. 600.007 Vehicle acceptability.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(4) Each fuel economy data vehicle must meet the same exhaust
emission standards as certification vehicles of the respective engine-
system combination during the test in which the fuel economy test
results are generated. This may be demonstrated using one of the
following methods:
* * * * *
0
85. Amend Sec. 600.113-12 by revising the introductory text and
paragraph (n) to read as follows:
Sec. 600.113-12 Fuel economy, CO2 emissions, and carbon-related
exhaust emission calculations for FTP, HFET, US06, SC03 and cold
temperature FTP tests.
The Administrator will use the calculation procedure set forth in
this section for all official EPA testing of vehicles fueled with
gasoline, diesel, alcohol-based or natural gas fuel. The calculations
of the weighted fuel economy and carbon-related exhaust emission values
require input of the weighted grams/mile values for total hydrocarbons
(HC), carbon monoxide (CO), and carbon dioxide (CO2); and,
additionally for methanol-fueled automobiles, methanol
(CH3OH) and formaldehyde (HCHO); and, additionally for
ethanol-fueled automobiles, methanol (CH3OH), ethanol
(C2H5OH), acetaldehyde
(C2H4O), and formaldehyde (HCHO); and
additionally for natural gas-fueled vehicles, non-methane hydrocarbons
(NMHC) and methane (CH4). For manufacturers selecting the
fleet averaging option for N2O and CH4 as allowed
under Sec. 86.1818 of this chapter the calculations of the carbon-
related exhaust emissions require the input of grams/mile values for
nitrous oxide (N2O) and methane (CH4). Emissions
shall be determined for the FTP, HFET, US06, SC03, and cold temperature
FTP tests. Additionally, the specific gravity, carbon weight fraction
and net heating value of the test fuel must be determined. The FTP,
HFET, US06, SC03, and cold temperature FTP fuel economy and carbon-
related exhaust emission values shall be calculated as specified in
this section. An example fuel economy calculation appears in Appendix
II of this part.
* * * * *
(n) Manufacturers may use a value of 0 grams CO2 and
CREE per mile to represent the emissions of fuel cell vehicles and the
proportion of electric operation of a electric vehicles and plug-in
hybrid electric vehicles that is derived from electricity that is
generated from sources that are not onboard the vehicle.
* * * * *
0
86. Amend Sec. 600.116-12 by revising paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2)(i) and
(iii), and (c)(5) and (10) and adding paragraph (c)(11) to read as
follows:
[[Page 29441]]
Sec. 600.116-12 Special procedures related to electric vehicles and
hybrid electric vehicles.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) To determine CREE values to demonstrate compliance with GHG
standards, calculate composite values representing combined operation
during charge-depleting and charge-sustaining operation using the
following utility factors, except as otherwise specified in this
paragraph (c):
Table 1 to Paragraph (c)(1)--Fleet Utility Factors for Urban ``City'' Driving
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model year 2026 and earlier Model year 2027 and later
Schedule range for UDDS phases, ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
miles Cumulative UF Sequential UF Cumulative UF Sequential UF
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.59................................ 0.125 0.125 0.062 0.062
7.45................................ 0.243 0.117 0.125 0.062
11.04............................... 0.338 0.095 0.178 0.054
14.90............................... 0.426 0.088 0.232 0.053
18.49............................... 0.497 0.071 0.278 0.046
22.35............................... 0.563 0.066 0.324 0.046
25.94............................... 0.616 0.053 0.363 0.040
29.80............................... 0.666 0.049 0.403 0.040
33.39............................... 0.705 0.040 0.437 0.034
37.25............................... 0.742 0.037 0.471 0.034
40.84............................... 0.772 0.030 0.500 0.029
44.70............................... 0.800 0.028 0.530 0.029
48.29............................... 0.822 0.022 0.555 0.025
52.15............................... 0.843 0.021 0.580 0.025
55.74............................... 0.859 0.017 0.602 0.022
59.60............................... 0.875 0.016 0.624 0.022
63.19............................... 0.888 0.013 0.643 0.019
67.05............................... 0.900 0.012 0.662 0.019
70.64............................... 0.909 0.010 0.679 0.017
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2 to Paragraph (c)(1)--Fleet Utility Factors for Highway Driving
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model year 2026 and earlier Model year 2027 and later
Schedule range for HFET, miles ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cumulative UF Sequential UF Cumulative UF Sequential UF
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10.3................................ 0.123 0.123 0.168 0.168
20.6................................ 0.240 0.117 0.303 0.136
30.9................................ 0.345 0.105 0.414 0.110
41.2................................ 0.437 0.092 0.503 0.090
51.5................................ 0.516 0.079 0.576 0.073
61.8................................ 0.583 0.067 0.636 0.060
72.1................................ 0.639 0.056 0.685 0.049
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) * * *
(i) For vehicles that are not dual fueled automobiles, determine
fuel economy using the utility factors specified in paragraph (c)(1) of
this section for model year 2026 and earlier vehicles. Do not use the
petroleum-equivalence factors described in 10 CFR 474.3.
* * * * *
(iii) For 2016 and later model year dual fueled automobiles, you
may determine fuel economy based on the following equation, separately
for city and highway driving:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05MY23.052
Where:
UF = The appropriate utility factor for city or highway driving
specified in paragraph (c)(1) of this section for model year 2026
and earlier vehicles.
* * * * *
(5) Instead of the utility factors specified in paragraphs (c)(1)
through (3) of this section, calculate utility factors using the
following equation for vehicles whose maximum speed is less than the
maximum speed specified in the driving schedule, where the vehicle's
maximum speed is determined, to the nearest 0.1 mph, from observing the
highest speed over the first duty cycle (FTP, HFET, etc.):
[[Page 29442]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05MY23.053
Where:
UFi = the utility factor for phase i. Let UF0 = 0.
J = a counter to identify the appropriate term in the summation
(with terms numbered consecutively).
K = the number of terms in the equation (see Table 5 of this
section).
di = the distance driven in phase i.
ND = the normalized distance. Use 399 for both FTP and HFET
operation for fleet values CAFE, and for GHG through model year
2026. Use 583 for both FTP and HFET operation for GHG fleet values
starting in model year 2027. Use 399 for both FTP and HFET operation
for multi-day individual value for labeling.
Cj = the coefficient for term j from the following table:
Table 5 to Paragraph (c)(5)--City/Highway Specific Utility Factor Coefficients
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fleet values for I, and for Fleet values Multi-day
GHG through MY 2026 for GHG individual
-------------------------------- starting in MY value for
Coefficient 2027 labeling
-------------------------------
City Highway City or City or
highway highway
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................................... 14.86 4.8 10.52 13.1
2............................................... 2.965 13 -7.282 -18.7
3............................................... -84.05 -65 -26.37 5.22
4............................................... 153.7 120 79.08 8.15
5............................................... -43.59 -100.00 -77.36 3.53
6............................................... -96.94 31.00 26.07 -1.34
7............................................... 14.47 .............. .............. -4.01
8............................................... 91.70 .............. .............. -3.90
9............................................... -46.36 .............. .............. -1.15
10.............................................. .............. .............. .............. 3.88
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
n = the number of test phases (or bag measurements) before the vehicle reaches the end-of-test criterion.
* * * * *
(10) The utility factors described in this paragraph (c) and in
Sec. 600.510 are derived from equations in SAE J2841. You may
alternatively calculate utility factors from the corresponding
equations in SAE J2841 as follows:
(i) Calculate utility factors for labeling directly from the
equation in SAE J2841 Section 6.2 using the Table 2 MDIUF Fit
Coefficients (C1 through C10) and a normalized distance (norm_dist) of
399 miles.
(ii) Calculate utility factors for fuel economy standards from the
equation in SAE J2841 Section 6.2 using the Table 5 Fit Coefficients
for city/Hwy Specific FUF curves weighted 55 percent city, 45 percent
highway and a normalized distance (norm_dist) of 399 miles.
(iii) Starting in model year 2027, calculate utility factors for
GHG compliance with emission standards from the equation in SAE J2841
Section 6.2 using the Table 2 FUF Fit Coefficients (C1 through C6) and
a normalized distance (norm_dist) of 583 miles. For model year 2026 and
earlier, calculate utility factors for compliance with GHG emission
standards as described in paragraph (c)(10)(ii) of this section.
(11) The following methodology is used to determine the useable
battery energy (UBE) for a PHEV using data obtained during either the
UDDS Full Charge Test (FCT) or the HFET Full Charge Test as described
in SAE J1711:
(i) Perform the measurements described in SAE J1711 Section
4.3.2.3.d. Record initial and final SOC of the RESS for each cycle in
the FCT.
(ii) Calculate utility factors for fuel economy standards from the
equation in SAE J2841 Section 6.2 using the Table 5 Fit Coefficients
for city/Hwy Specific FUF curves (weighted 55 percent city, 45 percent
highway) and a normalized distance (norm_dist) of 399 miles.
(iii) Determine average RESS voltage during each cycle of the FCT
by averaging the results of either the continuous voltage measurement
or by averaging the initial and final voltage measurement.
(iv) Determine the DC discharge energy for each cycle of the FCT by
multiplying the change in SOC of each cycle by the average voltage for
the cycle. You may instead use a DC wideband power analyzer meeting the
requirements of SAE J1711 Section 4.2.a. to directly measure the DC
discharge energy of the RESS during each cycle of the FCT.
(v) After completing the FCT, determine the cycles comprising the
Charge-Depleting Cycle Range (Rcdc) as described in SAE J1711 Section
3.1.13. Rcdc includes the transitional cycle or cycles where the
vehicle may have operated in both charge-depleting and charge-
sustaining modes. Do not include charge-sustaining cycles in Rcdc.
(vi) Determine the UBE of the PHEV by summing the measured DC
discharge energy for each cycle comprising Rcdc. Following the charge-
depleting cycles and during the transition to charge-sustaining
operation, one or more of the transition cycles may involve vehicle
charging without discharging the RESS. Include these negative discharge
results in the summation.
* * * * *
0
87. Revise Sec. 600.117 to read as follows:
Sec. 600.117 Interim provisions.
(a) The following provisions apply instead of other provisions
specified in this part through model year 2026:
(1) Except as specified in paragraphs (a)(5) and (6) of this
section, manufacturers must demonstrate compliance with greenhouse gas
emission standards and determine fuel economy values using E0 gasoline
test fuel as specified in 40 CFR 86.113-04(a)(1), regardless of any
testing with E10 test fuel specified in 40 CFR 1065.710(b) under
paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
[[Page 29443]]
(2) Manufacturers may demonstrate that vehicles comply with
emission standards for criteria pollutants as specified in 40 CFR part
86, subpart S, during fuel economy measurements using the E0 gasoline
test fuel specified in 40 CFR 86.113-04(a)(1), as long as this test
fuel is used in fuel economy testing for all applicable duty cycles
specified in 40 CFR part 86, subpart S. If a vehicle fails to meet an
emission standard for a criteria pollutant using the E0 gasoline test
fuel specified in 40 CFR 86.113-04(a)(1), the manufacturer must retest
the vehicle using the E10 test fuel specified in 40 CFR 1065.710(b) (or
the equivalent LEV III test fuel for California) to demonstrate
compliance with all applicable emission standards over that test cycle.
(3) If a manufacturer demonstrates compliance with emission
standards for criteria pollutants over all five test cycles using the
E10 test fuel specified in 40 CFR 1065.710(b) (or the equivalent LEV
III test fuel for California), the manufacturer may use test data with
the same test fuel to determine whether a test group meets the criteria
described in Sec. 600.115 for derived 5-cycle testing for fuel economy
labeling. Such vehicles may be tested over the FTP and HFET cycles with
the E0 gasoline test fuel specified in 40 CFR 86.113-04(a)(1) under
this paragraph (a)(3); the vehicles must meet the emission standards
for criteria pollutants over those test cycles as described in
paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(4) Manufacturers may perform testing with the appropriate gasoline
test fuels specified in 40 CFR 86.113-04(a)(1), 86.213(a)(2), and
1065.710(b) to evaluate whether their vehicles meet the criteria for
derived 5-cycle testing under Sec. 600.115. All five tests must use
test fuel with the same nominal ethanol concentration.
(5) For IUVP testing under 40 CFR 86.1845, manufacturers may
demonstrate compliance with greenhouse gas emission standards using a
test fuel meeting specifications for demonstrating compliance with
emission standards for criteria pollutants.
(6) Manufacturers may alternatively demonstrate compliance with
greenhouse gas emission standards and determine fuel economy values
using E10 gasoline test fuel as specified in 40 CFR 1065.710(b).
However, manufacturers must then multiply measured CO2
results by 1.0166 and round to the nearest 0.01 g/mile and calculate
fuel economy using the equations appropriate equation for testing with
E10 test fuel.
(7) If a vehicle uses an E10 test fuel for evaporative emission
testing and E0 is the applicable test fuel for exhaust emission
testing, exhaust measurement and reporting requirements apply over the
course of the evaporative emission test, but the vehicle need not meet
the exhaust emission standards during the evaporative emission test
run.
(b) Manufacturers may certify model year 2027 through 2029 vehicles
to greenhouse gas emission standards using data with E0 test fuel from
testing for earlier model years, subject to the carryover provisions of
40 CFR 86.1839. In the case of the fleet average CO2
standard, manufacturers must divide the measured CO2 results
by 1.0166 and round to the nearest 0.01 g/mile.
PART 1036--CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM NEW AND IN-USE HEAVY-DUTY
HIGHWAY ENGINES
0
88. The authority citation for part 1036 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
0
89. Add Sec. 1036.635 to read as follows:
Sec. 1036.635 Certification requirements for high-GCWR medium-duty
vehicles.
This section describes provisions that apply for engines certified
under this part for installation in vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds
GVWR that have GCWR above 22,000 pounds.
(a) Engines that will be installed in complete vehicles must meet
the criteria pollutant emission standards specified in Sec. 1036.104.
Those engines are exempt from the greenhouse gas emission standards in
Sec. 1036.108, but engine certification under this part 1036 depends
on the following conditions:
(1) The vehicles in which the engines are installed must meet the
following vehicle-based standards under 40 CFR part 86, subpart S:
(i) Evaporative and refueling emission standards as specified in 40
CFR 86.1813-17.
(ii) Greenhouse gas emission standards as specified in 40 CFR
86.1819-14.
(iii) For electric vehicles, battery durability standards in 40 CFR
86.1815.
(2) Additional provisions related to greenhouse gas emission
standards from 40 CFR part 86, subpart S, apply for certifying engines
under this part, as illustrated in the following examples:
(i) The engine's emission control information label must state that
the vehicle meets evaporative and refueling emission standards under 40
CFR 86.1813-17 and greenhouse gas emission standards under 40 CFR
86.1819-14.
(ii) The application for certification must include the information
related to complying with evaporative, refueling, and greenhouse gas
emission standards.
(iii) We may require you to perform testing on in-use vehicles as
specified in 40 CFR 86.1845-04 and 86.1846-01.
(iv) Demonstrate compliance with the fleet average CO2
standard as described in 40 CFR 86.1865-12 by including vehicles
certified under this section in the compliance calculations as part of
the averaging set for medium-duty vehicles certified under 40 CFR part
86, subpart S.
(3) State in the application for certification that you are using
the provisions of this section to meet the fleet average CO2
standard in 40 CFR 86.1819-14 instead of meeting the standards of Sec.
1036.108 and instead of certifying the vehicle to standards under 40
CFR part 1037.
(b) The provisions of this section are optional for engines
installed in incomplete vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR that
have GCWR above 22,000 pounds.
PART 1037--CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM NEW HEAVY-DUTY MOTOR VEHICLES
0
90. The authority citation for part 1037 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
0
91. Amend Sec. 1037.150 by revising paragraph (l) to read as follows:
Sec. 1037.150 Interim provisions.
* * * * *
(l) Optional certification to GHG standards under 40 CFR part 86.
The greenhouse gas standards in 40 CFR part 86, subpart S, may apply
instead of the standards of Sec. 1037.105 as follows:
(1) Complete or cab-complete vehicles may optionally meet
alternative standards as described in 40 CFR 86.1819-14(j).
(2) Complete high-GCWR vehicles must meet the greenhouse gas
standards of 40 CFR part 86, subpart S, as described in 40 CFR
1036.635.
(3) Incomplete high-GCWR vehicles may meet the greenhouse gas
standards of 40 CFR part 86, subpart S, as described in 40 CFR
1036.635.
* * * * *
PART 1066--VEHICLE-TESTING PROCEDURES
0
92. The authority citation for part 1066 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
0
93. Amend Sec. 1066.801 by revising the introductory text and
paragraphs (c) and (e) to read as follows:
[[Page 29444]]
Sec. 1066.801 Applicability and general provisions.
This subpart I specifies how to apply the test procedures of this
part for light-duty vehicles, light-duty trucks, and heavy-duty
vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR that are subject to chassis
testing for exhaust emissions under 40 CFR part 86, subpart S. For
these vehicles, references in this part 1066 to the standard-setting
part include this subpart I.
* * * * *
(c) This subpart covers the following test procedures:
(1) The Federal Test Procedure (FTP), which includes the general
driving cycle. This procedure is also used for measuring evaporative
emissions. This may be called the conventional test since it was
adopted with the earliest emission standards.
(i) The FTP consists of one Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule
(UDDS) as specified in paragraph (a) of appendix I of 40 CFR part 86,
followed by a 10-minute soak with the engine off and repeat driving
through the first 505 seconds of the UDDS. Note that the UDDS
represents about 7.5 miles of driving in an urban area. Engine startup
(with all accessories turned off), operation over the initial UDDS, and
engine shutdown make a complete cold-start test. The hot-start test
consists of the first 505 seconds of the UDDS following the 10-minute
soak and a hot-running portion of the UDDS after the first 505 seconds.
The first 505 seconds of the UDDS is considered the transient portion;
the remainder of the UDDS is considered the stabilized (or hot-
stabilized) portion. The hot-stabilized portion for the hot-start test
is generally measured during the cold-start test; however, in certain
cases, the hot-start test may involve a second full UDDS following the
10-minute soak, rather than repeating only the first 505 seconds. See
Sec. Sec. 1066.815 and 1066.820.
(ii) Evaporative emission testing includes a preconditioning drive
with the UDDS and a full FTP cycle, including exhaust measurement,
followed by evaporative emission measurements. In the three-day diurnal
test sequence, the exhaust test is followed by a running loss test
consisting of a UDDS, then two New York City Cycles as specified in
paragraph (e) of appendix I of 40 CFR part 86, followed by another
UDDS; see 40 CFR 86.134. Note that the New York City Cycle represents
about 1.18 miles of driving in a city center. The running loss test is
followed by a high-temperature hot soak test as described in 40 CFR
86.138 and a three-day diurnal emission test as described in 40 CFR
86.133. In the two-day diurnal test sequence, the exhaust test is
followed by a low-temperature hot soak test as described in 40 CFR
86.138-96(k) and a two-day diurnal emission test as described in 40 CFR
86.133-96(p).
(iii) Refueling emission tests for vehicles that rely on integrated
control of diurnal and refueling emissions includes vehicle operation
over the full FTP test cycle corresponding to the three-day diurnal
test sequence to precondition and purge the evaporative canister. For
non-integrated systems, there is a preconditioning drive over the UDDS
and a refueling event, followed by repeated UDDS driving to purge the
evaporative canister. The refueling emission test procedures are
described in 40 CFR 86.150 through 86.157.
(2) The US06 driving cycle is specified in paragraph (g) of
appendix I of 40 CFR part 86. Note that the US06 driving cycle
represents about 8.0 miles of relatively aggressive driving.
(3) The SC03 driving cycle is specified in paragraph (h) of
appendix I of 40 CFR part 86. Note that the SC03 driving schedule
represents about 3.6 miles of urban driving with the air conditioner
operating.
(4) The hot portion of the LA-92 driving cycle is specified in
paragraph (c) of appendix I of 40 CFR part 86. Note that the hot
portion of the LA-92 driving cycle represents about 9.8 miles of
relatively aggressive driving for commercial trucks. This driving cycle
applies for heavy-duty vehicles above 10,000 pounds GVWR and at or
below 14,000 pounds GVWR only for vehicles subject to Tier 3 standards.
(5) The Highway Fuel Economy Test (HFET) is specified in appendix I
of 40 CFR part 600. Note that the HFET represents about 10.2 miles of
rural and freeway driving with an average speed of 48.6 mi/hr and a
maximum speed of 60.0 mi/hr. See Sec. 1066.840.
(6) Cold temperature standards apply for CO and NMHC emissions when
vehicles operate over the FTP at a nominal temperature of -7 [deg]C.
See 40 CFR part 86, subpart C, and subpart H of this part.
(7) Emission measurement to determine air conditioning credits for
greenhouse gas standards. In this optional procedure, manufacturers
operate vehicles over repeat runs of the AC17 test sequence to allow
for calculating credits as part of demonstrating compliance with
CO2 emission standards. The AC17 test sequence consists of a
UDDS preconditioning drive, followed by emission measurements over the
SC03 and HFET driving cycles. See Sec. 1066.845.
(8) The mid-temperature intermediate soak FTP is specified as the
procedure for Partial Soak Emission Testing in Section E4.4 of CARB's
PHEV Test Procedures for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, in Part II
Section I.7 of CARB's LMDV Test Procedures for other hybrid electric
vehicles, and in Part II, Section B.9.1 and B.9.3 of CARB's LMDV Test
Procedures for other vehicles (both incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 1066.1010).
(9) The early driveaway FTP is specified as the procedure for Quick
Drive-Away Emission Testing in Section E4.5 of CARB's PHEV Test
Procedures for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, in Part II Section I.8
of CARB's LMDV Test Procedures for other hybrid electric vehicles, and
in Part II, Section B.9.2 and B.9.4 of CARB's LMDV Test Procedures for
other vehicles (both incorporated by reference, see Sec. 1066.1010).
(10) The high-load PHEV engine starts US06 is specified in Section
E7.2 of CARB's PHEV Test Procedures using the cold-start US06 Charge-
Depleting Emission Test (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
1066.1010).
* * * * *
(e) The following figure illustrates the FTP test sequence for
measuring exhaust and evaporative emissions:
Figure 1 to Paragraph (e)
[[Page 29445]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05MY23.054
0
94. Amend Sec. 1066.805 by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 1066.805 Road-load power, test weight, and inertia weight class
determination.
* * * * *
(c) For FTP, US06, SC03, New York City Cycle, HFET, and LA-92
testing, determine road-load forces for each test vehicle at speeds
between 9.3 and 71.5 miles per hour. The road-load force must represent
vehicle operation on a smooth, level road with no wind or calm winds,
no precipitation, an ambient temperature of approximately 20 [deg]C,
and atmospheric pressure of 98.21 kPa. You may extrapolate road-load
force for speeds below 9.3 mi/hr.
0
95. Revise Sec. 1066.830 to read as follows:
Sec. 1066.830 Supplemental Federal Test Procedures; overview.
Sections 1066.831 and 1066.835 describe the detailed procedures for
the Supplemental Federal Test Procedure (SFTP). This testing applies
for Tier 3 vehicles subject to the SFTP standards in 40 CFR 86.1811-17
or 86.1816-18. The SFTP test procedure consists of FTP testing and two
additional test elements--a sequence of vehicle operation with more
aggressive driving and a sequence of vehicle operation that accounts
for the impact of the vehicle's air conditioner. Tier 4 vehicles
subject to 40 CFR 86.1811-27 must meet standards for each individual
driving cycle.
(a) The SFTP standard applies as a composite representing the three
test elements. The emission results from the aggressive driving test
element (Sec. 1066.831), the air conditioning test element (Sec.
1066.835), and the FTP test element (Sec. 1066.820) are analyzed
according to the calculation methodology and compared to the applicable
SFTP emission standards as described in 40 CFR part 86, subpart S.
(b) The test elements of the SFTP may be run in any sequence that
includes the specified preconditioning steps.
0
96. Amend Sec. 1066.831 by revising paragraph (e)(2) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1066.831 Exhaust emission test procedures for aggressive
driving.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(2) Operate the vehicle over the full US06 driving schedule, with
the following exceptions that apply only for Tier 3 vehicles:
(i) For heavy-duty vehicles above 10,000 pounds GVWR, operate the
vehicle over the Hot LA-92 driving schedule.
(ii) Heavy-duty vehicles at or below 10,000 pounds GVWR with a
power-to-weight ratio at or below 0.024 hp/pound may be certified using
only the highway portion of the US06 driving schedule as described in
40 CFR 86.1816.
* * * * *
0
97. Amend Sec. 1066.1001 by removing the definition of ``SFTP'' and
adding a definition of ``Supplemental FTP (SFTP)'' in alphabetical
order.
The addition reads as follows:
Sec. 1066.1001 Definitions.
* * * * *
Supplemental FTP (SFTP) means the collection of test cycles as
given in 1066.830.
* * * * *
0
98. Amend Sec. 1066.1010 by adding paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 1066.1010 Incorporation by reference.
* * * * *
(c) California Air Resources Board. The following documents are
available from the California Air Resources Board, 1001 I Street,
Sacramento, CA 95812, (916) 322-2884, or http://www.arb.ca.gov:
[[Page 29446]]
(1) California 2026 and Subsequent Model Year Criteria Pollutant
Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures for Passenger Cars,
Light-Duty Trucks, And Medium-Duty Vehicles (``CARB's LMDV Test
Procedures''); adopted August 25, 2022; IBR approved for Sec.
1066.801(c).
(2) California Test Procedures for 2026 and Subsequent Model Year
Zero-Emission Vehicles and Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles, in the
Passenger Car, Light-Duty Truck and Medium-Duty Vehicle Classes
(``CARB's PHEV Test Procedures''); adopted August 25, 2022; IBR
approved for Sec. 1066.801(c).
[FR Doc. 2023-07974 Filed 5-4-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P