[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 179 (Thursday, September 15, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 57106-57513]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20740]
[[Page 57105]]
Vol. 76
Thursday,
No. 179
September 15, 2011
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Parts 85, 86, 600, et al.
Department of Transportation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
49 CFR Parts 523, 534, and 535
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for
Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 57106]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 85, 86, 600, 1033, 1036, 1037, 1039, 1065, 1066, and
1068
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Parts 523, 534, and 535
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162; NHTSA-2010-0079; FRL-9455-1]
RIN 2060-AP61; 2127-AK74
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards
for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Final Rules.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA and NHTSA, on behalf of the Department of Transportation,
are each finalizing rules to establish a comprehensive Heavy-Duty
National Program that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and fuel
consumption for on-road heavy-duty vehicles, responding to the
President's directive on May 21, 2010, to take coordinated steps to
produce a new generation of clean vehicles. NHTSA's final fuel
consumption standards and EPA's final carbon dioxide (CO2)
emissions standards are tailored to each of three regulatory categories
of heavy-duty vehicles: Combination Tractors; Heavy-duty Pickup Trucks
and Vans; and Vocational Vehicles. The rules include separate standards
for the engines that power combination tractors and vocational
vehicles. Certain rules are exclusive to the EPA program. These include
EPA's final hydrofluorocarbon standards to control leakage from air
conditioning systems in combination tractors, and pickup trucks and
vans. These also include EPA's final nitrous oxide (N2O) and
methane (CH4) emissions standards that apply to all heavy-
duty engines, pickup trucks and vans.
EPA's final greenhouse gas emission standards under the Clean Air
Act will begin with model year 2014. NHTSA's final fuel consumption
standards under the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 will
be voluntary in model years 2014 and 2015, becoming mandatory with
model year 2016 for most regulatory categories. Commercial trailers are
not regulated in this phase of the Heavy-Duty National Program.
The agencies estimate that the combined standards will reduce
CO2 emissions by approximately 270 million metric tons and
save 530 million barrels of oil over the life of vehicles sold during
the 2014 through 2018 model years, providing over $7 billion in net
societal benefits, and $49 billion in net societal benefits when
private fuel savings are considered.
EPA is also finalizing provisions allowing light-duty vehicle
manufacturers to use CO2 credits to meet the light-duty
vehicle N2O and CH4 standards, technical
amendments to the fuel economy provisions for light-duty vehicles, and
a technical amendment to the criteria pollutant emissions requirements
for certain switch locomotives.
DATES: These final rules are effective on November 14, 2011. The
incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this
regulation is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of
November 14, 2011.
ADDRESSES: EPA and NHTSA have established dockets for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162 and NHTSA-2010-0079, respectively.
All documents in the docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business
information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not
placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the following locations: EPA: EPA Docket Center, EPA/DC, EPA West
Building, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Room 3334, Washington, DC. The
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air
Docket is (202) 566-1742. NHTSA: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S.
Department of Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. The Docket
Management Facility is open between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: NHTSA: Lily Smith, Office of Chief
Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-2992.
EPA: Lauren Steele, Office of Transportation and Air Quality,
Assessment and Standards Division (ASD), Environmental Protection
Agency, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48105; telephone number:
(734) 214-4788; fax number: (734) 214-4816; e-mail address:
[email protected], or contact the Office of Transportation and Air
Quality at [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Does this action apply to me?
This action affects companies that manufacture, sell, or import
into the United States new heavy-duty engines and new Class 2b through
8 trucks, including combination tractors, school and transit buses,
vocational vehicles such as utility service trucks, as well as \3/4\-
ton and 1-ton pickup trucks and vans. The heavy-duty category
incorporates all motor vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of
8,500 pounds or greater, and the engines that power them, except for
medium-duty passenger vehicles already covered by the greenhouse gas
emissions standards and corporate average fuel economy standards issued
for light-duty model year 2012-2016 vehicles. Regulated categories and
entities include the following:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of
Category NAICS Code \a\ potentially affected
entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry...................... 336111 Motor Vehicle
336112 Manufacturers, Engine
and Truck
Manufacturers.
336120
Industry...................... 541514 Commercial Importers
811112 of Vehicles and
Vehicle Components.
811198
Industry...................... 336111 Alternative Fuel
Vehicle Converters.
336112
[[Page 57107]]
422720
454312
541514
541690
811198
Industry...................... 333618 Manufacturers,
336510 remanufacturers and
importers of
locomotives and
locomotive engines.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:
\a\ North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely covered by these rules.
This table lists the types of entities that the agencies are aware may
be regulated by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the
table could also be regulated. To determine whether your activities are
regulated by this action, you should carefully examine the
applicability criteria in the referenced regulations. You may direct
questions regarding the applicability of this action to the persons
listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
Table of Contents
A. Does this action apply to me?
I. Overview
A. Introduction
B. Building Blocks of the Heavy-Duty National Program
C. Summary of the Final EPA and NHTSA HD National Program
D. Summary of Costs and Benefits of the HD National Program
E. Program Flexibilities
F. EPA and NHTSA Statutory Authorities
G. Future HD GHG and Fuel Consumption Rulemakings
II. Final GHG and Fuel Consumption Standards for Heavy-Duty Engines
and Vehicles
A. What vehicles will be affected?
B. Class 7 and 8 Combination Tractors
C. Heavy-Duty Pickup Trucks and Vans
D. Class 2b-8 Vocational Vehicles
E. Other Standards
III. Feasibility Assessments and Conclusions
A. Class 7-8 Combination Tractor
B. Heavy-Duty Pickup Trucks and Vans
C. Class 2b-8 Vocational Vehicles
IV. Final Regulatory Flexibility Provisions
A. Averaging, Banking, and Trading Program
B. Additional Flexibility Provisions
V. NHTSA and EPA Compliance, Certification, and Enforcement
Provisions
A. Overview
B. Heavy-Duty Pickup Trucks and Vans
C. Heavy-Duty Engines
D. Class 7 and 8 Combination Tractors
E. Class 2b-8 Vocational Vehicles
F. General Regulatory Provisions
G. Penalties
VI. How will this program impact fuel consumption, GHG emissions,
and climate change?
A. What methodologies did the agencies use to project GHG
emissions and fuel consumption impacts?
B. MOVES Analysis
C. What are the projected reductions in fuel consumption and GHG
emissions?
D. Overview of Climate Change Impacts From GHG Emissions
E. Changes in Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations, Global
Mean Temperature, Sea Level Rise, and Ocean pH Associated With the
Program's GHG Emissions Reductions
VII. How will this final action impact non-ghg emissions and their
associated effects?
A. Emissions Inventory Impacts
B. Health Effects of Non-GHG Pollutants
C. Environmental Effects of Non-GHG Pollutants
D. Air Quality Impacts of Non-GHG Pollutants
VIII. What are the agencies' estimated cost, economic, and other
impacts of the final program?
A. Conceptual Framework for Evaluating Impacts
B. Costs Associated With the Final Program
C. Indirect Cost Multipliers
D. Cost per Ton of Emissions Reductions
E. Impacts of Reduction in Fuel Consumption
F. Class Shifting and Fleet Turnover Impacts
G. Benefits of Reducing CO2 Emissions
H. Non-GHG Health and Environmental Impacts
I. Energy Security Impacts
J. Other Impacts
K. The Effect of Safety Standards and Voluntary Safety
Improvements on Vehicle Weight
L. Summary of Costs and Benefits
M. Employment Impacts
IX. Analysis of the Alternatives
A. What are the alternatives that the agencies considered?
B. How do these alternatives compare in overall GHG emissions
reductions and fuel efficiency and cost?
C. What is the agencies' decision regarding trailer standards?
X. Public Participation
XI. NHTSA's Record of Decision
A. The Agency's Decision
B. Alternatives Considered by NHTSA in Reaching Its Decision,
Including the Environmentally Preferable Alternative
C. Factors Balanced by NHTSA in Making Its Decision
D. How the Factors and Considerations Balanced by NHTSA Entered
Into Its Decision
E. The Agency's Preferences Among Alternatives Based on Relevant
Factors, Including Economic and Technical Considerations and Agency
Statutory Missions
F. Mitigation
XII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
XIII. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority
A. EPA
B. NHTSA
I. Overview
A. Introduction
EPA and NHTSA (``the agencies'') are announcing a first-ever
program to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and fuel consumption
in the heavy-duty highway vehicle sector. This broad sector--ranging
from large pickups to sleeper-cab tractors--together represent the
second largest contributor to oil consumption and GHG emissions from
the mobile source sector, after light-duty passenger cars and trucks.
These are the second joint rules issued by the agencies, following on
the April 1, 2010 standards to sharply reduce GHG emissions and fuel
consumption from MY 2012-2016 passenger cars and light trucks
(published on May 7, 2010 at 75 FR 25324).
In a May 21, 2010 memorandum to the Administrators of EPA and NHTSA
(and the Secretaries of Transportation and Energy), the President
stated that ``America has the opportunity to lead the world in the
development of a new generation of clean cars and trucks through
innovative technologies and manufacturing that will spur economic
growth and create high-quality domestic jobs, enhance our energy
security, and improve our environment.'' 1 2 In the
[[Page 57108]]
May 2010 memorandum, the President specifically requested the
Administrators of EPA and NHTSA to ``immediately begin work on a joint
rulemaking under the Clean Air Act (CAA) and the Energy Independence
and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) to establish fuel efficiency and
greenhouse gas emissions standards for commercial medium-and heavy-duty
on-highway vehicles and work trucks beginning with the 2014 model year
(MY).'' In this final rulemaking, each agency is addressing this
Memorandum by adopting rules under its respective authority that
together comprise a coordinated and comprehensive HD National Program
designed to address the urgent and closely intertwined challenges of
reduction of dependence on oil, achievement of energy security, and
amelioration of global climate change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Improving Energy Security, American Competitiveness and Job
Creation, and Environmental Protection Through a Transformation of
Our Nation's Fleet of Cars And Trucks,'' Issued May 21, 2010,
published at 75 FR 29399, May 26, 2010.
\2\ The May 2010 Presidential Memorandum also directed EPA and
NHTSA, in close coordination with the California Air Resources
Board, to build on the National Program for 2012-2016 MY light-duty
vehicles by developing and proposing coordinated light-duty vehicle
standards for MY 2017-2025. The agencies have taken an initial step
in this process, releasing a Joint Notice of Intent and Initial
Joint Technical Assessment Report in September 2010 (75 FR 62739),
and a Supplemental Notice of Intent (75 FR 76337). The agencies plan
to issue a full light-duty vehicle proposal to extend the National
Program to MY 2017-2025 in September 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the same time, the final program will enhance American
competitiveness and job creation, benefit consumers and businesses by
reducing costs for transporting goods, and spur growth in the clean
energy sector.
The HD National Program the agencies are finalizing today reflects
a collaborative effort between the agencies, a range of public interest
nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), the state of California and the
regulated industry. At the time of the President's announcement, a
number of major HD truck and engine manufacturers representing the vast
majority of this industry, and the California Air Resources Board
(California ARB), sent letters to EPA and NHTSA supporting the creation
of a HD National Program based on a common set of principles. In the
letters, the stakeholders committed to working with the agencies and
with other stakeholders toward a program consistent with common
principles, including:
Increased use of existing technologies to achieve significant GHG
emissions and fuel consumption reductions;
A program that starts in 2014 and is fully phased in by 2018;
A program that works towards harmonization of methods for
determining a vehicle's GHG and fuel efficiency, recognizing the global
nature of the issues and the industry;
Standards that recognize the commercial needs of the trucking
industry; and
Incentives leading to the early introduction of advanced
technologies.
The final rules adopted today reflect these principles. The final
HD National Program also builds on many years of heavy-duty engine and
vehicle technology development to achieve what the agencies believe is
the greatest degree of fuel consumption and GHG emission reduction
appropriate, technologically and economically feasible, and cost-
effective for model years 2014-2018. In addition to taking aggressive
steps that are reasonably possible now, based on the technological
opportunities and pathways that present themselves during these model
years, the agencies and industry will also continue learning about
emerging opportunities for this complex sector to further reduce fuel
consumption and GHG emission through future regulatory steps.
Similarly, the agencies will participate in efforts to improve our
ability to accurately characterize the actual in-use fuel consumption
and emissions of this complex sector. As technologies progress in the
coming years and as the agencies improve the regulatory tools to
evaluate real world vehicle performance, we expect that we will develop
a second phase of regulations to reinforce these initial rules and
achieve further reductions in GHG emissions and fuel consumption
reduction for the mid- and longer-term time frame (beyond 2018). The
agencies are committed to working with all interested stakeholders in
this effort and to the extent possible working towards alignment with
similar programs being developed in Canada, Mexico, Europe, China, and
Japan. In doing so, we will continue to evaluate many of the structural
and technical decisions we are making in today's final action in the
context of new technologies and the new regulatory tools that we expect
to realize in the future.
The regulatory program we are finalizing today is largely unchanged
from the proposal the agencies made on November 30, 2010 (See 75 FR
741512). The structure of the program and the stringency of the
standards are essentially the same as proposed. We have made a number
of changes to the testing requirements and reporting requirements to
provide greater regulatory certainty and better align the NHTSA and EPA
portions of the program. In response to comments, we have also made
some changes to the averaging, banking and trading (ABT) provisions of
the program that will make implementation of this final program more
flexible for manufacturers. We have added provisions to further
encourage the development of advanced technologies and to provide a
more straightforward mechanism to certify engines and vehicles using
innovative technologies. Finally in response to comments, we have made
some technical changes to our emissions compliance model that results
in different numeric standards for both combination tractors and
vocational vehicles to more accurately characterize emissions while
maintaining the same overall stringency and therefore expected costs
and benefits of the program.
Heavy-duty vehicles move much of the nation's freight and carry out
numerous other tasks, including utility work, concrete delivery, fire
response, refuse collection, and many more. Heavy-duty vehicles are
primarily powered by diesel engines, although about 37 percent of these
vehicles are powered by gasoline engines.\3\ Heavy-duty trucks \4\ have
long been an important part of the goods movement infrastructure in
this country and have experienced significant growth over the last
decade related to increased imports and exports of finished goods and
increased shipping of finished goods to homes through Internet
purchases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ References in this preamble to ``gasoline'' engines (and the
vehicles powered by them) generally include other Otto-cycle engines
as well, such as those fueled by ethanol and natural gas, except in
contexts that are clearly gasoline-specific.
\4\ In this rulemaking, EPA and NHTSA use the term ``truck'' in
a general way, referring to all categories of regulated heavy-duty
highway vehicles (including buses). As such, the term is generally
interchangeable with ``heavy-duty vehicle.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The heavy-duty sector is extremely diverse in several respects,
including types of manufacturing companies involved, the range of sizes
of trucks and engines they produce, the types of work the trucks are
designed to perform, and the regulatory history of different
subcategories of vehicles and engines. The current heavy-duty fleet
encompasses vehicles from the ``18-wheeler'' combination tractors one
sees on the highway to school and transit buses, to vocational vehicles
such as utility service trucks, as well as the largest pickup trucks
and vans.
For purposes of this preamble, the term ``heavy-duty'' or ``HD'' is
used to apply to all highway vehicles and engines that are not within
the range of light-duty vehicles, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty
passenger vehicles (MDPV) covered by the GHG and Corporate Average Fuel
Economy (CAFE) standards issued for MY 2012-2016.\5\ It also does not
include
[[Page 57109]]
motorcycles. Thus, in this rulemaking, unless specified otherwise, the
heavy-duty category incorporates all vehicles with a gross vehicle
weight rating above 8,500 pounds, and the engines that power them,
except for MDPVs.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and
Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards; Final Rule 75 FR 25323,
May 7, 2010.
\6\ The CAA defines heavy-duty as a truck, bus or other motor
vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating exceeding 6,000 pounds
(CAA section 202(b)(3)). The term HD as used in this action refers
to a subset of these vehicles and engines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agencies proposed to cover all segments of the heavy-duty
category above, except with respect to recreational vehicles (RVs or
motor homes). We note that the Energy Independence and Security Act of
2007 requires NHTSA to set standards for ``commercial medium- and
heavy-duty on-highway vehicles and work trucks.'' \7\ The standards
that EPA is finalizing today cover recreational on-highway vehicles,
while NHTSA proposed not to include recreational vehicles based on an
interpretation of the term ``commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-
highway commercial'' vehicles. NHTSA stated in the NPRM that
recreational vehicles are non-commercial, and therefore outside of the
term and the scope of its rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(2). ``Commercial medium- and heavy-duty
on-highway vehicles'' are defined as on-highway vehicles with a
gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or more, while ``work
trucks'' are defined as vehicles rated between 8,500 and 10,000
pounds gross vehicle weight that are not MDPVs. See 49 U.S.C.
32901(a)(7) and (a)(19).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oshkosh Corporation commented that this interpretation did not
match the statutory definition of the term in EISA, which defines
``commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicle'' by weight
only,\8\ and that therefore the agency's interpretation of the term
should be explicitly broadened to include all vehicles, and more than
only vehicles that are not engaged in interstate commerce as defined by
the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration in 49 CFR part 202.
Alternatively, Oshkosh suggested that if NHTSA followed the definition
provided in EISA, which makes no direct reference to the concept of
``commercial,'' there would be no logical reason to exclude RVs based
on that definition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(2), Note 7 above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA has considered Oshkosh's comment and reconsidered its
interpretation that effectively read words into the statutory
definition. Given the very wide variety of vehicles contained in the HD
fleet, reading those words into the definition and thereby excluding
certain types of vehicles could create illogical results, i.e.,
treating similar vehicles differently. Therefore, NHTSA will adhere to
the statutory definition contained in EISA for this rulemaking.
However, as RVs were not included by NHTSA in the proposed regulation
in the NPRM, they are not within the scope and must be excluded in
NHTSA's portion of the final program. Accordingly, NHTSA will address
this issue in the next rulemaking. However, as noted, RVs are subject
to the CO2 standards for vocational vehicles.
Setting fuel consumption standards for the heavy-duty sector,
pursuant to NHTSA's EISA authority, will also improve our energy and
national security by reducing our dependence on foreign oil, which has
been a national objective since the first oil price shocks in the
1970s. Net petroleum imports now account for approximately 49-51
percent of U.S. petroleum consumption. World crude oil production is
highly concentrated, exacerbating the risks of supply disruptions and
price shocks as the recent unrest in North Africa and the Persian Gulf
highlights. Recently, oil prices have been over $100 per barrel,
gasoline and diesel fuel prices in excess of $4 per gallon, causing
financial hardship for many families and businesses. The export of U.S.
assets in exchange for oil imports continues to be an important
component of the historically unprecedented U.S. trade deficits.
Transportation accounts for about 72 percent of U.S. petroleum
consumption. Heavy-duty vehicles account for about 17 percent of
transportation oil use, which means that they alone account for about
12 percent of all U.S. oil consumption.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ In 2009 Source: EIA Annual Energy Outlook 2010 released May
11, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Setting GHG emissions standards for the heavy-duty sector will help
to ameliorate climate change. The EPA Administrator found after a
thorough examination of the scientific evidence on the causes and
impact of current and future climate change, and careful review of
public comments, that the science compellingly supports a positive
finding that atmospheric concentrations of six greenhouse gases taken
in combination result in air pollution which may reasonably be
anticipated to endanger both public health and welfare and that the
combined emissions of these greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles
and engines contributes to the greenhouse gas air pollution that
endangers public health and welfare. In her finding, the Administrator
carefully studied and relied heavily upon the major findings and
conclusions from the recent assessments of the U.S. Climate Change
Science Program and the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
74 FR 66496, December 15, 2009. As summarized in the Technical Support
Document for EPA's Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings under
section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act, anthropogenic emissions of GHGs
are very likely (a 90 to 99 percent probability) the cause of most of
the observed global warming over the last 50 years.\10\ Primary GHGs of
concern are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4),
nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs),
perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6).
Mobile sources emitted 31 percent of all U.S. GHGs in 2007
(transportation sources, which do not include certain off-highway
sources, account for 28 percent) and have been the fastest-growing
source of U.S. GHGs since 1990.\11\ Mobile sources addressed in EPA's
endangerment and contribution findings under CAA section 202(a)--light-
duty vehicles, heavy-duty trucks, buses, and motorcycles--accounted for
23 percent of all U.S. GHG emissions in 2007.\12\ Heavy-duty vehicles
emit CO2, CH4, N2O, and HFCs and are
responsible for nearly 19 percent of all mobile source GHGs (nearly 6
percent of all U.S. GHGs) and about 25 percent of section 202(a) mobile
source GHGs. For heavy-duty vehicles in 2007, CO2 emissions
represented more than 99 percent of all GHG emissions (including
HFCs).\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ U.S. EPA. (2009). ``Technical Support Document for
Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases
Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act'' Washington, DC,
available at Docket: EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171-11645, and at http://epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment.html.
\11\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2009. Inventory of
U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2007. EPA 430-R-09-
004. Available at http://epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads09/GHG2007entire_report-508.pdf.
\12\ See Endangerment TSD, Note 10, above, at pp. 180-194.
\13\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2009. Inventory of
U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: See Note 11, above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In developing this HD National program, the agencies have worked
with a large and diverse group of stakeholders representing truck and
engine manufacturers, trucking fleets, environmental organizations, and
states including the State of California.\14\ Further, it is our
expectation based on our ongoing work with the State of California that
the California ARB will
[[Page 57110]]
be able to adopt regulations equivalent in practice to those of this HD
National Program, just as it has done for past EPA regulation of heavy-
duty trucks and engines. NHTSA and EPA have been working with
California ARB to enable that outcome.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Pursuant to DOT Order 2100.2, NHTSA has docketed a
memorandum recording those meetings that it attended and documents
submitted by stakeholders which formed a basis for this action and
which can be made publicly available in its docket for this
rulemaking. DOT Order 2100.2 is available at http://www.reg-group.com/library/DOT2100-2.PDF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In light of the industry's diversity, and consistent with the
recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) as discussed
further below, the agencies are adopting a HD National Program that
recognizes the different sizes and work requirements of this wide range
of heavy-duty vehicles and their engines. NHTSA's final fuel
consumption standards and EPA's final GHG standards apply to
manufacturers of the following types of heavy-duty vehicles and their
engines; the final provisions for each of these are described in more
detail below in this section:
Heavy-duty Pickup Trucks and Vans.
Combination Tractors.
Vocational Vehicles.
As in the light-duty 2012-2016 MY vehicle rule, EPA's and NHTSA's
final standards for the heavy-duty sector are largely harmonized with
one another due to the close and direct relationship between improving
the fuel efficiency of these vehicles and reducing their CO2
tailpipe emissions. For all vehicles that consume carbon-based fuels,
the amount of CO2 exhaust emissions is essentially constant
per gallon for a given type of fuel that is consumed. The more
efficient a heavy-duty truck is in completing its work, the lower its
environmental impact will be, because the less fuel consumed to move
cargo a given distance, the less CO2 that truck emits
directly into the air. The technologies available for improving fuel
efficiency, and therefore for reducing both CO2 emissions
and fuel consumption, are one and the same.\15\ Because of this close
technical relationship, NHTSA and EPA have been able to rely on
jointly-developed assumptions, analyses, and analytical conclusions to
support the standards and other provisions that NHTSA and EPA are
adopting under our separate legal authorities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ However, as discussed below, in addition to addressing
CO2, the EPA's final standards also include provisions to
address other GHGs (nitrous oxide, methane, and air conditioning
refrigerant emissions). See Section II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This program is based on standards for direct exhaust emissions
from engines and vehicles. In characterizing the overall emissions
impacts, benefits and costs of the program, analyses of air pollutant
emissions from upstream sources have been conducted. In this action,
the agencies use the term upstream to include emissions from the
production and distribution of fuel. A summary of the analysis of
upstream emissions can be found in Section VI.C of this preamble, and
further details are available in Chapter 5 of the RIA.
The timelines for the implementation of the final NHTSA and EPA
standards are also closely coordinated. EPA's final GHG emission
standards will begin in model year 2014. In order to provide for the
four full model years of regulatory lead time required by EISA, as
discussed in Section 0 below, NHTSA's final fuel consumption standards
will be voluntary in model years 2014 and 2015, becoming mandatory in
model year 2016, except for diesel engine standards which will be
voluntary in model years 2014, 2015 and 2016, becoming mandatory in
model year 2017. Both agencies are also allowing for early compliance
in model year 2013. A detailed discussion of how the final standards
are consistent with each agency's respective statutory requirements and
authorities is found later in this preamble.
Allison Transmission stated that sufficient time must be taken
before issuing the final rules in order to ensure that the standards
are supportable. As explained in Sections II and III below, as well as
in the RIA, the agencies believe there is sufficient lead time to meet
all of the standards adopted in today's rules. For those areas for
which the agencies have determined that insufficient time is available
to develop appropriate standards, such as for trailers, the agencies
are not including regulations as part of this initial program.
NHTSA received several comments related to the timing of the
implementation of its fuel consumption standards. The Engine
Manufacturers Association (EMA), the National Automobile Dealers
Association (NADA), The Volvo Group (Volvo), and Navistar argued that
the timing of NHTSA's standards violated the lead time requirement of
49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(3)(A), which states that standards under the new
medium- and heavy-duty program shall have ``not less than 4 full model
years of regulatory lead-time.'' The commenters seemed to interpret the
voluntary program as the imposition of regulation upon industry. NADA
described NHTSA's standards during the voluntary period as
``mandates.''
NHTSA has reviewed this issue and believes that the regulatory
schedule is consistent with the lead time requirement of Section
32902(k)(3). To clarify, NHTSA will not be imposing a mandatory
regulatory program until 2016, and none of the voluntary standards will
be ``mandates.'' As described in later sections, the voluntary
standards would only apply to a manufacturer if it makes the voluntary
and affirmative choice to opt-in to the program. \16\ Mandatory NHTSA
standards will first come into effect in 2016, giving industry four
full years of lead time with the NHTSA fuel consumption standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Prior to or at the same time that a manufacturer submits
its first application for a certificate of conformity; See Section V
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EMA, NADA, and Navistar also argued that the proposed standards
would violate the stability requirement of 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(3)(B),
which states that they shall have ``not less than 3 full model years of
regulatory stability.'' EMA stated that since there are HD emission
standards taking effect in 2013, the 2014 implementation date for this
rule would violate the stability requirements. NADA argued that the MY
2014-2017/2018 phase-in period was inadequate to fulfill the stability
requirement.
Congress has not spoken directly to the meaning of the words
``regulatory stability.'' NHTSA believes that the ``regulatory
stability'' requirement exists to ensure that manufacturers will not be
subject to new standards in repeated rulemakings too rapidly, given
that Congress did not include a minimum duration period for the MD/HD
standards.\17\ NHTSA further believes that standards, which as set
provide for increasing stringency during the period that the standards
are applicable under this rule to be the maximum feasible during the
regulatory period, are within the meaning of the statute. In this
statutory context, NHTSA interprets the phrase ``regulatory stability''
in Section 32902(k)(3)(B) as requiring that the standards remain in
effect for three years before they may be increased by amendment. It
does not prohibit standards which contain pre-determined stringency
increases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ In contrast, light-duty standards must remain in place for
``at least 1, but not more than 5, model years.'' 23902(b)(3)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As laid out in Section II below, NHTSA's final standards follow
different phase-in schedules based on differences between the
regulatory categories. Consistent with NHTSA's statutory obligation to
implement a program designed to achieve the maximum feasible fuel
efficiency improvement, the standards increase in stringency based upon
increasing fleet penetration rates for the available technologies. The
NPRM proposed phase-in schedules aligned with EPA's,
[[Page 57111]]
some of which followed pre-determined stringency increases. The NPRM
also noted that NHTSA was considering alternate standards that would
not change in stringency during the time frame when the regulations are
effective for those standards that increased throughout the mandatory
program. As described in Section II below, the final rule includes the
proposed alternate standards for those standards that follow such a
stringency phase-in path. Therefore, NHTSA believes that the final rule
provides ample stability for each standard.
Each standard, associated phase-in schedule, and alternative
standard implemented by this final rule was noticed in the NPRM. Those
fuel consumption standards that become mandatory in 2017 will remain in
effect through at least 2019. This further ensures that the fuel
consumption standards in this rule will remain in effect for at least
three years, providing the statutorily-mandated three full years of
regulatory stability, and ensuring that manufacturers will not be
subject to new or amended standards too rapidly. (The greenhouse gas
emission standards remain in effect unless and until amended in all
later model years in any case.) Therefore, NHTSA believes the
commenters' concern about regulatory stability is addressed in the
structure of the rule.
Neither EPA nor NHTSA is adopting standards at this time for GHG
emissions or fuel consumption, respectively, for heavy-duty commercial
trailers or for vehicles or engines manufactured by small businesses.
The agencies recognize that aerodynamic and tire rolling resistance
improvements to trailers represent a significant opportunity to reduce
fuel consumption and GHGs as evidenced, among other things, by the work
of the EPA SmartWay program. While we are deferring action today on
setting trailer standards, the agencies are committed to moving forward
to create a regulatory program for trailers that would complement the
current vehicle program. See Section IX for more details on the
agencies' decisions regarding trailers, and Sections II and XII for
more details on the agencies' decisions regarding small businesses.
The agencies have analyzed in detail the projected costs, fuel
savings, and benefits of the final GHG and fuel consumption standards.
Table I-1 shows estimated lifetime discounted program costs (including
technological outlays), fuel savings, and benefits for all heavy-duty
vehicles projected to be sold in model years 2014-2018 over these
vehicles' lives. Section I.D includes additional information about this
analysis.
Table I-1--Estimated Lifetime Discounted Costs, Fuel Savings, Benefits,
and Net Benefits for 2014-2018 Model Year Heavy-Duty Vehicles a b
[Billions, 2009$]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lifetime Present Value \c\--3% Discount Rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program Costs.................................................. $8.1
Fuel Savings................................................... 50
Benefits....................................................... 7.3
Net Benefits\d\................................................ 49
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized Value \e\--3% Discount Rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized Costs............................................... 0.4
Fuel Savings................................................... 2.2
Annualized Benefits............................................ 0.4
Net Benefits \d\............................................... 2.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lifetime Present Value \c\--7% Discount Rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program Costs.................................................. 8.1
Fuel Savings................................................... 34
Benefits....................................................... 6.7
Net Benefits \d\............................................... 33
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized Value \e\--7% Discount Rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized Costs............................................... 0.6
Fuel Savings................................................... 2.6
Annualized Benefits............................................ 0.5
Net Benefits \d\............................................... 2.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
a The agencies estimated the benefits associated with four different
values of a one ton CO2 reduction (model average at 2.5% discount
rate, 3%, and 5%; 95th percentile at 3%), which each increase over
time. For the purposes of this overview presentation of estimated
costs and benefits, however, we are showing the benefits associated
with the marginal value deemed to be central by the interagency
working group on this topic: the model average at 3% discount rate, in
2009 dollars. Section VIII.F provides a complete list of values for
the 4 estimates.
b Note that net 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 (SCC at 5, 3, and
2.5 percent) is used to calculate net present value of SCC for
internal consistency. Refer to Section VIII.F for more detail.
c Present value is the total, aggregated amount that a series of
monetized costs or benefits that occur over time is worth now (in year
2009 dollar terms), discounting future values to the present.
d Net benefits reflect the fuel savings plus benefits minus costs.
e The annualized value is the constant annual value through a given time
period (2012 through 2050 in this analysis) whose summed present value
equals the present value from which it was derived.
B. Building Blocks of the Heavy-Duty National Program
The standards that are being adopted in this notice represent the
first time that NHTSA and EPA are regulating the heavy-duty sector for
fuel consumption and GHG emissions, respectively. The HD National
Program is rooted in EPA's prior regulatory history, the SmartWay[reg]
Transport Partnership program, and extensive technical and engineering
analyses done at the federal level. This section summarizes some of the
most important of these precursors and foundations for this HD National
Program.
(1) EPA's Traditional Heavy-Duty Regulatory Program
Since the 1980s, EPA has acted several times to address tailpipe
emissions of criteria pollutants and air toxics from heavy-duty
vehicles and engines. During the last 18 years, these programs have
primarily addressed emissions of particulate matter (PM) and the
primary ozone precursors, hydrocarbons (HC) and oxides of nitrogen
(NOX). These programs have successfully achieved significant
and cost-effective reductions in emissions and associated health and
welfare benefits to the nation. They have been structured in ways that
account for the varying circumstances of the engine and truck
industries. As required by the CAA, the emission standards implemented
by these programs include standards that apply at the time that the
vehicle or engine is sold as well as standards that apply in actual
use. As a result of these programs, new vehicles meeting current
emission standards will emit 98 percent less NOX and 99
percent less PM than new trucks 20 years ago. The resulting emission
reductions provide significant public health and welfare benefits. The
most recent EPA regulations which were fully phased-in in 2010, the
monetized health and welfare benefits alone are projected to be greater
than $70 billion in 2030--benefits far exceeding compliance costs and
not including the unmonetized benefits resulting from reductions in air
toxics and ozone precursors (66 FR 5002, January 18, 2001).
EPA's overall program goal has always been to achieve emissions
reductions from the complete vehicles that operate on our roads. The
agency has often accomplished this goal for many heavy-duty truck
categories through the regulation of heavy-duty engine emissions. A key
part of this success has been the development over many years of a
well-established, representative, and robust set of engine
[[Page 57112]]
test procedures that industry and EPA now routinely use to measure
emissions and determine compliance with emission standards. These test
procedures in turn serve the overall compliance program that EPA
implements to help ensure that emissions reductions are being achieved.
By isolating the engine from the many variables involved when the
engine is installed and operated in a HD vehicle, EPA has been able to
accurately address the contribution of the engine alone to overall
emissions. The agencies discuss below how the final program
incorporates the existing engine-based approach used for criteria
pollutant regulations, as well as new vehicle-based approaches.
(2) NHTSA's Responsibilities To Regulate Heavy-Duty Fuel Efficiency
under EISA
With the passage of the EISA in December 2007, Congress laid out a
framework developing the first fuel efficiency regulations for HD
vehicles. As codified at 49 U.S.C. 32902(k), EISA requires NHTSA to
develop a regulatory system for the fuel efficiency of commercial
medium-duty and heavy-duty on-highway vehicles and work trucks in three
steps: a study by NAS, a study by NHTSA,\18\ and a rulemaking to
develop the regulations themselves.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Factors and Considerations for Establishing a Fuel
Efficiency Regulatory Program for Commercial Medium- and Heavy-Duty
Vehicles, October 2010, available at http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/rulemaking/pdf/cafe/NHTSA_Study_Trucks.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specifically, section 102 of EISA, codified at 49 U.S.C.
32902(k)(2), states that not later than two years after completion of
the NHTSA study, DOT (by delegation, NHTSA), in consultation with the
Department of Energy (DOE) and EPA, shall develop a regulation to
implement a ``commercial medium-duty and heavy-duty on-highway vehicle
and work truck fuel efficiency improvement program designed to achieve
the maximum feasible improvement.'' NHTSA interprets the timing
requirements as permitting a regulation to be developed earlier, rather
than as requiring the agency to wait a specified period of time.
Congress specified that as part of the ``HD fuel efficiency
improvement program designed to achieve the maximum feasible
improvement,'' NHTSA must adopt and implement:
Appropriate test methods;
Measurement metrics;
Fuel economy standards; \19\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ In the context of 49 U.S.C. 32902(k), NHTSA interprets
``fuel economy standards'' as referring not specifically to miles
per gallon, as in the light-duty vehicle context, but instead more
broadly to account as accurately as possible for MD/HD fuel
efficiency. While it is a metric that NHTSA considered for setting
MD/HD fuel efficiency standards, the agency recognizes that miles
per gallon may not be an appropriate metric given the work that MD/
HD vehicles are manufactured to do. NHTSA is thus finalizing
alternative metrics as discussed further below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compliance and enforcement protocols.
Congress emphasized that the test methods, measurement metrics,
standards, and compliance and enforcement protocols must all be
appropriate, cost-effective, and technologically feasible for
commercial medium-duty and heavy-duty on-highway vehicles and work
trucks. NHTSA notes that these criteria are different from the ``four
factors'' of 49 U.S.C. 32902(f) \20\ that have long governed NHTSA's
setting of fuel economy standards for passenger cars and light trucks,
although many of the same issues are considered under each of these
provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ 49 U.S.C. 32902(f) states that ``When deciding maximum
feasible average fuel economy under this section, [NHTSA] shall
consider technological feasibility, economic practicability, the
effect of other motor vehicle standards of the Government on fuel
economy, and the need of the United States to conserve energy.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress also stated that NHTSA may set separate standards for
different classes of HD vehicles, which the agency interprets broadly
to allow regulation of HD engines in addition to HD vehicles, and
provided requirements new to 49 U.S.C. 32902 in terms of timing of
regulations, stating that the standards adopted as a result of the
agency's rulemaking shall provide not less than four full model years
of regulatory lead time, and three full model years of regulatory
stability.
(3) National Academy of Sciences Report on Heavy-Duty Technology
In April 2010 as mandated by Congress in EISA, the National
Research Council (NRC) under NAS issued a report to NHTSA and to
Congress evaluating medium-duty and heavy-duty truck fuel efficiency
improvement opportunities, titled ``Technologies and Approaches to
Reducing the Fuel Consumption of Medium- and Heavy-duty Vehicles.''
\21\ This study covers the same universe of heavy-duty vehicles that is
the focus of this final rulemaking--all highway vehicles that are not
light-duty, MDPVs, or motorcycles. The agencies have carefully
evaluated the research supporting this report and its recommendations
and have incorporated them to the extent practicable in the development
of this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Committee to Assess Fuel Economy Technologies for Medium-
and Heavy-Duty Vehicles; National Research Council; Transportation
Research Board (2010). ``Technologies and Approaches to Reducing the
Fuel Consumption of Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles,'' (hereafter,
``NAS Report''). Washington, DC, The National Academies Press.
Available electronically from the National Academies Press Website
at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12845 (last accessed
September 10, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NAS report is far reaching in its review of the technologies
that are available and which may become available in the future to
reduce fuel consumption from medium and heavy-duty vehicles. In
presenting the full range of technical opportunities the report
includes technologies which may not be available until 2020 or even
further into the future. As such, the report provides not only a
valuable list of off the shelf technologies from which the agencies
have drawn in developing this near-term 2014-2018 program consistent
with statutory authorities and with the set of principles set forth by
the President, but the report also provides a road map the agencies can
use as we look to develop future regulations for this sector. A review
of the technologies in the NAS report makes clear that there are not
only many technologies readily available today to achieve important
reductions in fuel consumption, like the ones we used in developing the
2014-2018 program, but there are also great opportunities for even
larger reductions in the future through the development of advanced
hybrid drive systems and sophisticated engine technologies such as
Rankine waste heat recovery. The agencies will again make extensive use
of this report when we move forward to develop the next phase of
regulations for medium and heavy-duty vehicles.
Allison Transmission commented that NHTSA (implicitly, both
agencies) had improperly relied on the NAS report and failed to do
sufficient independent analysis, which Allison claimed did not meet the
statutory obligation to provide an adequate basis for the rule. First,
an agency does not improperly delegate its authority or judgment merely
by using work performed by outside parties as the factual basis for its
decision making. See U.S. Telecom Ass'n v. FCC, 359 F.3d 554, 568 (DC
Cir. 2004); United Steelworkers of Am. v. Marshall, 647 F.2d 1189,
1216-17 (DC Cir. 1980). Here, although EPA and NHTSA carefully
considered the NAS report, the agencies' consideration and use of the
report was not uncritical and the agencies exercised reasonable
independent judgment in developing the proposed and final rules.
Consistent with EISA's direction, NAS submitted a report evaluating MD/
HD fuel economy standards to NHTSA in March of 2010.
[[Page 57113]]
Indeed, many commenters argued that the agencies should have adopted
more of the NAS report recommendations. The agencies reviewed the
findings and recommendations of the NAS report when developing the
proposed rules, as was clearly intended by Congress, but also conducted
an independent study, as described throughout the record to the
proposal and summarized in Section X of the NPRM, 75 FR at 74351-56. In
conducting its analysis of the NAS report, the agencies found that
several key recommendations, such as the use of fuel efficiency
metrics, were the best approach to implementing the new program.
However, the agencies rejected other recommendations of the NAS report,
for example, by proposing separate regulation of engines and vehicles
and the regulation of large manufacturers.
(4) The NHTSA and EPA Light-Duty National GHG and Fuel Economy Program
On May 7, 2010, EPA and NHTSA finalized the first-ever National
Program for light-duty cars and trucks, which set GHG emissions and
fuel economy standards for model years 2012-2016 (See 75 FR 25324). The
agencies have used the light-duty National Program as a model for this
final HD National Program in many respects. This is most apparent in
the case of heavy-duty pickups and vans, which are very similar to the
light-duty trucks addressed in the light-duty National Program both
technologically as well as in terms of how they are manufactured (i.e.,
the same company often makes both the vehicle and the engine). For
these vehicles, there are close parallels to the light-duty program in
how the agencies have developed our respective final standards and
compliance structures, although, as discussed below, the technologies
applied to light-duty trucks are not invariably applicable to heavy-
duty pickups and vans at the same penetration rates in the lead time
afforded in this heavy-duty action. Another difference is that each
agency adopts standards based on attributes other than vehicle
footprint, as discussed below.
Due to the diversity of the remaining HD vehicles, there are fewer
parallels with the structure of the light-duty program. However, the
agencies have maintained the same collaboration and coordination that
characterized the development of the light-duty program. Most notably,
as with the light-duty program, manufacturers will be able to design
and build vehicles to meet a closely coordinated, harmonized national
program, and avoid unnecessarily duplicative testing and compliance
burdens.
(5) EPA's SmartWay Program
EPA's voluntary SmartWay Transport Partnership program encourages
shipping and trucking companies to take actions that reduce fuel
consumption and CO2 by working with the shipping community
and the freight sector to identify low carbon strategies and
technologies, and by providing technical information, financial
incentives, and partner recognition to accelerate the adoption of these
strategies. Through the SmartWay program, EPA has worked closely with
truck manufacturers and truck fleets to develop test procedures to
evaluate vehicle and component performance in reducing fuel consumption
and has conducted testing and has established test programs to verify
technologies that can achieve these reductions. Over the last six
years, EPA has developed hands-on experience testing the largest heavy-
duty trucks and evaluating improvements in tire and vehicle aerodynamic
performance. In 2010, according to vehicle manufacturers, approximately
five percent of new combination heavy-duty trucks will meet the
SmartWay performance criteria demonstrating that they represent the
pinnacle of current heavy-duty truck reductions in fuel consumption.
In developing this HD National Program, the agencies have drawn
from the SmartWay experience, as discussed in detail both in Sections
II and III below (e.g., developing test procedures to evaluate trucks
and truck components) but also in the RIA (estimating performance
levels from the application of the best available technologies
identified in the SmartWay program). These technologies provide part of
the basis for the GHG emission and fuel consumption standards in this
rulemaking for certain types of new heavy-duty Class 7 and 8
combination tractors.
In addition to identifying technologies, the SmartWay program
includes operational approaches that truck fleet owners as well as
individual drivers and their freight customers can incorporate, that
the NHTSA and EPA believe will complement the final standards. These
include such approaches as improved logistics and driver training, as
discussed in the RIA. This approach is consistent with the one of the
three alternative approaches that the NAS recommended be considered.
The three approaches were raising fuel taxes, relaxing truck size and
weight restrictions, and encouraging incentives to disseminate
information to inform truck drivers about the relationship between
driving behavior and fuel savings. Taxes and truck size and weight
limits are mandated by public law; as such, these options are outside
EPA's and NHTSA's authority to implement. However, complementary
operational measures like driver training, which SmartWay does promote,
can complement the final standards and also provide benefits for the
existing truck fleet, furthering the public policy objectives of
addressing energy security and climate change.
(6) Environment Canada
The Government of Canada's Department of the Environment
(Environment Canada) assisted EPA's development of this rulemaking by
conducting emissions testing of heavy-duty vehicles at their test
facilities to gather data on a range of possible test cycles, and to
evaluate the impact of certain emissions reduction technologies.
Environment Canada also facilitated the evaluation of heavy-duty
vehicle aerodynamic properties at Canada's National Research Council
wind tunnel, and during coastdown testing.
We expect the technical collaboration with Environment Canada to
continue as we implement testing and compliance verification procedures
for this rulemaking. We may also begin to develop a knowledge base
enabling improvement upon this regulatory framework for model years
beyond 2018 (for example, improvements to the means of demonstrating
compliance). We also expect to continue our collaboration with
Environment Canada on compliance issues.
Collaboration with Environment Canada is taking place under the
Canada-U.S. Air Quality Committee.
C. Summary of the Final EPA and NHTSA HD National Program
When EPA first addressed emissions from heavy-duty trucks in the
1980s, it established standards for engines, based on the amount of
work performed (grams of pollutant per unit of work, expressed as grams
per brake horsepower-hour or g/bhp-hr).\22\ This
[[Page 57114]]
approach recognized the fact that engine characteristics are the
dominant determinant of the types of emissions generated, and engine-
based technologies (including exhaust aftertreatment systems) need to
be the focus for addressing those emissions. Vehicle-based
technologies, in contrast, have less influence on overall truck
emissions of the pollutants that EPA has regulated in the past. The
engine testing approach also recognized the relatively small number of
distinct heavy-duty engine designs, as compared to the extremely wide
range of truck designs. EPA concluded at that time that any incremental
gain in conventional emission control that could be achieved through
regulation of the complete vehicle would be small in comparison to the
cost of addressing the many variants of complete trucks that make up
the heavy-duty sector--smaller and larger vocational vehicles for
dozens of purposes, various designs of combination tractors, and many
others.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ The term ``brake power'' refers to engine torque and power
as measured at the interface between the engine's output shaft and
the dynamometer. This contrasts with ``indicated power'', which is a
calculated value based on the pressure dynamics in the combustion
chamber, not including internal losses that occur due to friction
and pumping work. Since the measurement procedure inherently
measures brake torque and power, the final regulations refer simply
to g/hp-hr. This is consistent with EPA's other emission control
programs, which generally include standards in g/kW-hr.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Addressing GHG emissions and fuel consumption from heavy-duty
trucks, however, requires a different approach. Reducing GHG emissions
and fuel consumption requires increasing the inherent efficiency of the
engine as well as making changes to the vehicles to reduce the amount
of work demanded from the engine in order to move the truck down the
road. A focus on the entire vehicle is thus required. For example, in
addition to the basic emissions and fuel consumption levels of the
engine, the aerodynamics of the vehicle can have a major impact on the
amount of work that must be performed to transport freight at common
highway speeds. For this first rulemaking, the agencies proposed a
complementary engine and vehicle approach in order to achieve the
maximum feasible near-term reductions.
NHTSA received comments on the proposal to create complementary
engine and vehicle standards. Volvo and Daimler argued that EISA
limited NHTSA's authority to the regulation of completed vehicles and
did not give NHTSA authority to regulate engines. 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(2)
grants NHTSA broad authority to regulate this sector, stating simply
that the Secretary ``shall determine in a rulemaking proceeding how to
implement a commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicle and
work truck fuel efficiency improvement program designed to achieve the
maximum feasible improvement,'' considering appropriateness, cost-
effectiveness, and technological feasibility. NHTSA does not believe
that this language precludes the regulation of engines, but rather
explicitly leaves the regulatory approach to the agency's expertise and
discretion. See 75 FR at 74173 n. 36. Considering the factors described
in the NPRM and in Sections III and IV below, NHTSA continues to
believe that the separate regulation of engines and vehicles is both
consistent with the agency's statutory mandate to determine how to
implement a regulatory program designed to achieve the maximum feasible
improvement and facilitates coordination with EPA's efforts to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions. The Clean Air act, of course, mandates
standards for both ``new motor vehicles'' and ``new motor vehicle
engines'', so there is no issue of authority for separate engine
standards under the EPA GHG program. CAA section 202(a)(1).
As described elsewhere in this preamble, the final standards under
the HD National Program address the complete vehicle, to the extent
practicable and appropriate under the agencies' respective statutory
authorities, through complementary engine and vehicle standards. The
agencies continue to believe that this complementary engine and vehicle
approach is the best way to achieve near term reductions from the
heavy-duty sector. However, we also recognize as did the NAS committee
and a wide range of industry and environmental commenters, that in
order to fully capture the multi-faceted synergistic aspects of engine
and vehicle design a more comprehensive complete vehicle standard may
be appropriate in the future. The agencies are committed to fully
exploring such a possibility and to developing the testing and modeling
tools necessary to enable such a regulatory approach. We intend to work
with all interested stakeholders as we move forward.
(1) Brief Overview of the Heavy-Duty Truck Industry
The heavy-duty truck sector spans a wide range of vehicles with
often unique form and function. A primary indicator of the extreme
diversity among heavy-duty trucks is the range of load-carrying
capability across the industry. The heavy-duty truck sector is often
subdivided by vehicle weight classifications, as defined by the
vehicle's gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR), which is a measure of the
combined curb (empty) weight and cargo carrying capacity of the
truck.\23\ Table I-2 below outlines the vehicle weight classifications
commonly used for many years for a variety of purposes by businesses
and by several federal agencies, including the Department of
Transportation, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of
Commerce, and the Internal Revenue Service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ GVWR describes the maximum load that can be carried by a
vehicle, including the weight of the vehicle itself. Heavy-duty
vehicles also have a gross combined weight rating (GCWR), which
describes the maximum load that the vehicle can haul, including the
weight of a loaded trailer and the vehicle itself.
Table I-2--Vehicle Weight Classification
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class 2b 3 4 5 6 7 8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GVWR (lb)........................ 8,501-10,000 10,001-14,000 14,001-16,000 16,001-19,500 19,501-26,000 26,001-33,000 > 33,001
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the framework of these vehicle weight classifications, the
heavy-duty truck sector refers to Class 2b through Class 8 vehicles and
the engines that power those vehicles.\24\ Unlike light-duty vehicles,
which are primarily used for transporting passengers for personal
travel, heavy-duty vehicles fill much more diverse operator needs.
Heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans (Classes 2b and 3) are used chiefly
as work truck and vans, and as shuttle vans, as well as for personal
transportation, with an average annual mileage in the range of 15,000
miles. The rest of the heavy-duty sector is used for carrying cargo
and/or performing specialized tasks. ``Vocational'' vehicles, which may
span Classes 2b through 8, vary widely in size, including smaller and
larger van trucks, utility ``bucket'' trucks, tank
[[Page 57115]]
trucks, refuse trucks, urban and over-the-road buses, fire trucks,
flat-bed trucks, and dump trucks, among others. The annual mileage of
these trucks is as varied as their uses, but for the most part tends to
fall in between heavy-duty pickups/vans and the large combination
tractors, typically from 15,000 to 150,000 miles per year, although
some travel more and some less. Class 7 and 8 combination tractor-
trailers--some equipped with sleeper cabs and some not--are primarily
used for freight transportation. They are sold as tractors and
sometimes run without a trailer in between loads, but most of the time
they run with one or more trailers that can carry up to 50,000 pounds
or more of payload, consuming significant quantities of fuel and
producing significant amounts of GHG emissions. The combination
tractor-trailers used in combination applications can travel more than
150,000 miles per year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Class 2b vehicles designed as passenger vehicles (Medium
Duty Passenger Vehicles, MDPVs) are covered by the light-duty GHG
and fuel economy standards and not addressed in this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA and NHTSA have designed our respective standards in careful
consideration of the diversity and complexity of the heavy-duty truck
industry, as discussed next.
(2) Summary of Final EPA GHG Emission Standards and NHTSA Fuel
Consumption Standards
As described above, NHTSA and EPA recognize the importance of
addressing the entire vehicle in reducing fuel consumption and GHG
emissions. At the same time, the agencies understand that the
complexity of the industry means that we will need to use different
approaches to achieve this goal, depending on the characteristics of
each general type of truck. We are therefore dividing the industry into
three discrete regulatory categories for purposes of setting our
respective standards--combination tractors, heavy-duty pickups and
vans, and vocational vehicles--based on the relative degree of
homogeneity among trucks within each category. For each regulatory
category, the agencies are adopting related but distinct program
approaches reflecting the specific challenges that we see in these
segments. In the following paragraphs, we discuss EPA's final GHG
emission standards and NHTSA's final fuel consumption standards for the
three regulatory categories of heavy-duty vehicles and their engines.
The agencies are adopting test metrics that express fuel
consumption and GHG emissions relative to the most important measures
of heavy-duty truck utility for each segment, consistent with the
recommendation of the 2010 NAS Report that metrics should reflect and
account for the work performed by various types of HD vehicles. This
approach differs from NHTSA's light-duty program that uses fuel economy
as the basis. The NAS committee discussed the difference between fuel
economy (a measure of how far a vehicle will go on a gallon of fuel)
and fuel consumption (the inverse measure, of how much fuel is consumed
in driving a given distance) as potential metrics for MD/HD
regulations. The committee concluded that fuel economy would not be a
good metric for judging the fuel efficiency of a heavy-duty vehicle,
and stated that NHTSA should instead consider fuel consumption as the
metric for its standards. As a result, for heavy-duty pickup trucks and
vans, EPA and NHTSA are finalizing standards on a per-mile basis (g/
mile for the EPA standards, gallons/100 miles for the NHTSA standards),
as explained in Section 0 below. For heavy-duty trucks, both
combination and vocational, the agencies are adopting standards
expressed in terms of the key measure of freight movement, tons of
payload miles or, more simply, ton-miles. Hence, for EPA the final
standards are in the form of the mass of emissions from carrying a ton
of cargo over a distance of one mile (g/ton-mi). Similarly, the final
NHTSA standards are in terms of gallons of fuel consumed over a set
distance (one thousand miles), or gal/1,000 ton-mile. Finally, for
engines, EPA is adopting standards in the form of grams of emissions
per unit of work (g/bhp-hr), the same metric used for the heavy-duty
highway engine standards for criteria pollutants today. Similarly,
NHTSA is finalizing standards for heavy-duty engines in the form of
gallons of fuel consumption per 100 units of work (gal/100 bhp-hr).
Section II below discusses the final EPA and NHTSA standards in
greater detail.
(a) Class 7 and 8 Combination Tractors
Class 7 and 8 combination tractors and their engines contribute the
largest portion of the total GHG emissions and fuel consumption of the
heavy-duty sector, approximately 65 percent, due to their large
payloads, their high annual miles traveled, and their major role in
national freight transport.\25\ These vehicles consist of a cab and
engine (tractor or combination tractor) and a detachable trailer. In
general, reducing GHG emissions and fuel consumption for these vehicles
will involve improvements in aerodynamics and tires and reduction in
idle operation, as well as engine-based efficiency improvements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ The on-highway Class 7 and 8 combination tractors
constitute the vast majority of this regulatory category, and form
the backbone of this HD National Program. A small fraction of
combination tractors are used in off-road applications and are
regulated differently, as described in Section II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In general, the heavy-duty combination tractor industry consists of
tractor manufacturers (which manufacture the tractor and purchase and
install the engine) and trailer manufacturers. These manufacturers are
usually not the same entity. We are not aware of any manufacturer that
typically assembles both the finished truck and the trailer and
introduces the combination into commerce for sale to a buyer. The
owners of trucks and trailers are often distinct as well. A typical
truck buyer will purchase only the tractor. The trailers are usually
purchased and owned by fleets and shippers. This occurs in part because
trucking fleets on average maintain 3 trailers per tractor and in some
cases as many as 6 or more trailers per tractor. There are also large
differences in the kinds of manufacturers involved with producing
tractors and trailers. For HD highway tractors and their engines, a
relatively limited number of manufacturers produce the vast majority of
these products. The trailer manufacturing industry is quite different,
and includes a large number of companies, many of which are relatively
small in size and production volume. Setting standards for the products
involved--tractors and trailers--requires recognition of the large
differences between these manufacturing industries, which can then
warrant consideration of different regulatory approaches.
Based on these industry characteristics, EPA and NHTSA believe that
the most straightforward regulatory approach for combination tractors
and trailers is to establish standards for tractors separately from
trailers. As discussed below in Section IX, the agencies are adopting
standards for the tractors and their engines in this rulemaking, but
did not propose and are not adopting standards for trailers.
As with the other regulatory categories of heavy-duty vehicles, EPA
and NHTSA have concluded that achieving reductions in GHG emissions and
fuel consumption from combination tractors requires addressing both the
cab and the engine, and EPA and NHTSA each are adopting standards that
reflect this conclusion. The importance of the cab is that its design
determines the amount of power that the engine must produce in moving
the truck down the road. As illustrated in Figure I-1, the loads that
require additional power from the engine include air resistance
(aerodynamics), tire rolling resistance,
[[Page 57116]]
and parasitic losses (including accessory loads and friction in the
drivetrain). The importance of the engine design is that it determines
the basic GHG emissions and fuel consumption performance of the engine
for the variety of demands placed on the engine, regardless of the
characteristics of the cab in which it is installed. The agencies
intend for the final standards to result in the application of improved
technologies for lower GHG emissions and fuel consumption for both the
cab and the engine.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Adapted from Figure 4.1. Class 8 Truck Energy Audit,
Technology Roadmap for the 21st Century Truck Program: A Government-
Industry Research Partnership, 21CT-001, December 2000.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15SE11.000
Accordingly, for Class 7 and 8 combination tractors, the agencies
are each finalizing two sets of standards. For vehicle-related
emissions and fuel consumption, tractor manufacturers are required to
meet vehicle-based standards. Compliance with the vehicle standard will
typically be determined based on a customized vehicle simulation model,
called the Greenhouse gas Emissions Model (GEM), which is consistent
with the NAS Report recommendations to require compliance testing for
combination tractors using vehicle simulation rather than chassis
dynamometer testing. This compliance model was developed by EPA
specifically for this final action. It is an accurate and cost-
effective alternative to measuring emissions and fuel consumption while
operating the vehicle on a chassis dynamometer. Instead of using a
chassis dynamometer as an indirect way to evaluate real-world operation
and performance, various characteristics of the vehicle are measured
and these measurements are used as inputs to the model. These
characteristics relate to key technologies appropriate for this
subcategory of truck--including aerodynamic features, weight
reductions, tire rolling resistance, the presence of idle-reducing
technology, and vehicle speed limiters. The model also assumes the use
of a representative typical engine, rather than a vehicle-specific
engine, because engines are regulated separately. Using these inputs,
the model will be used to quantify the overall performance of the
vehicle in terms of CO2 emissions and fuel consumption. The
model's development and design, as well as the sources for inputs, are
discussed in detail in Section II below and in Chapter 4 of the RIA.
(i) Final Standards for Class 7 and 8 Combination Tractors and Their
Engines
The vehicle standards that EPA and NHTSA are adopting for Class 7
and 8 combination tractor manufacturers are based on several key
attributes related to GHG emissions and fuel consumption that we
believe reasonably represent the many differences in utility and
performance among these vehicles. The final standards differ depending
on GVWR (i.e., whether the truck is Class 7 or Class 8), the height of
the roof of the cab, and whether it is a ``day cab'' or a ``sleeper
cab.'' These later two attributes are important because the height of
the roof, designed to correspond to the height of the trailer,
significantly affects air resistance, and a sleeper cab generally
corresponds to the opportunity for extended duration idle emission and
fuel consumption improvements. We received a number of comments
supporting this approach and no comments that provided a compelling
reason to change our approach in this final action.
Thus, the agencies have created nine subcategories within the Class
7 and 8 combination tractor category based on the differences in
expected emissions and fuel consumption associated with the key
attributes of GVWR, cab type, and roof height. The agencies are setting
standards beginning in 2014 model year with more stringent standards
following in 2017 model year. Table I-3 presents the agencies'
respective standards for combination tractor manufacturers for the 2017
model year. The standards represent an overall fuel consumption and
CO2 emissions reduction up to 23 percent from the tractors
and the engines installed in them when compared to a baseline 2010
model year tractor and engine without idle shutdown technology. The
standard values shown below differ somewhat from the proposal,
reflecting refinements made to the GEM in response to comments. These
changes did not impact our estimates of the relative effectiveness of
the various control technologies modeled in this final action nor the
overall cost or benefits or cost effectiveness estimated for these
final vehicle standards.
As proposed, the agencies are exempting certain types of tractors
which operate off-road to be exempt
[[Page 57117]]
from the combination tractor vehicle standards (although standards
would still apply to the engines installed in these vehicles). The
criteria for tractors to be considered off-road have been amended
slightly from those proposed, in response to public comment. The
agencies have also recognized, again in response to public comment,
that some combination tractors operate in a manner essentially the same
as vocational vehicles and have created a subcategory of ``vocational
tractors'' as a result. Vocational tractors will be subject to the
standards for vocational vehicles rather than the combination tractor
standards. See Section II.B of this preamble.
Table I-3--Heavy-Duty Combination Tractor EPA Emissions Standards (G CO2/Ton-Mile) and NHTSA Fuel Consumption
Standards (GAL/1,000 Ton-Mile)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day cab Sleeper cab
--------------------------------------------------------
Class 7 Class 8 Class 8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017 Model Year CO2 Grams per Ton-Mile
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low Roof............................................... 104 80 66
Mid Roof............................................... 115 86 73
High Roof.............................................. 120 89 72
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017 Model Year Gallons of Fuel per 1,000 Ton-Mile
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low Roof............................................... 10.2 7.8 6.5
Mid Roof............................................... 11.3 8.4 7.2
High Roof.............................................. 11.8 8.7 7.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the agencies are finalizing separate performance
standards for the engines manufactured for use in these trucks. EPA's
engine-based CO2 standards and NHTSA's engine-based fuel
consumption standards are implemented using EPA's existing test
procedures and regulatory structure for criteria pollutant emissions
from medium- and heavy-duty engines. As at proposal, the final engine
standards vary depending on engine size linked to intended vehicle
service class. Consistent with our proposal, the agencies are
finalizing an interim alternative compression ignition engine standard
for model years 2014-2016. This alternative standard is designed to
provide a glide path for legacy diesel engine products that may not be
able to comply with the final engine standards for model years 2014-16
given the short (approximately 2-year) lead time of this program. We
believe this alternative standard is appropriate for a first-ever
program when the overall baseline performance of the industry is quite
varied and where the short lead time means that not every product can
be brought into compliance by 2014. The alternative standard only
applies through and including model year 2016.
Separately, EPA is adopting standards for combination tractors that
apply in use. EPA is also finalizing engine-based N2O and
CH4 standards for manufacturers of the engines used in these
combination tractors. EPA is finalizing separate engine-based standards
for N2O and CH4 because the agency believes that
emissions of these GHGs are technologically related solely to the
engine, fuel, and emissions aftertreatment systems, and the agency is
not aware of any influence of vehicle-based technologies on these
emissions. NHTSA is not incorporating standards for N2O and
CH4 because these emissions do not impact fuel consumption
in a significant way. The standards that EPA is finalizing for
N2O and CH4 are less stringent than those we
proposed, reflecting new data provided to EPA in comments on the
proposal showing that the current baseline level of N2O and
CH4 emissions varies more than EPA had expected. EPA expects
that manufacturers of current engine technologies will be able to
comply with the final N2O and CH4 ``cap''
standards with little or no technological improvements; the value of
the standards will be to prevent significant increases in these
emissions as alternative technologies are developed and introduced in
the future. Compliance with the final EPA engine-based CO2
standards and the final NHTSA engine-based fuel consumption standards,
as well as the final EPA N2O and CH4 standards,
will be determined using the appropriate EPA engine test procedure, as
discussed in Sections II.B, II.D, and II.E below.
As with the other categories of heavy-duty vehicles, EPA and NHTSA
are finalizing respective standards that will apply to Class 7 and 8
tractors at the time of production (as in Table I-3, above). In
addition, EPA is finalizing separate standards that will apply for a
specified period of time in use. All of the standards for these
vehicles, as well as details about the provisions for certification and
implementation of these standards, are discussed in more detail in
Sections II, III, IV, and V below and in the RIA.
(ii) EPA's Final Air Conditioning Leakage Standard for Class 7 and 8
Combination Tractors
In addition to the final EPA tractor- and engine-based standards
for CO2 and engine-based standards for N2O, and
CH4 emissions, EPA is finalizing a separate standard to
reduce leakage of HFC refrigerant from cabin air conditioning (A/C)
systems from combination tractors, to apply to the tractor
manufacturer. This standard is independent of the CO2
tractor standard, as discussed below in Section II.E.5. Because the
current refrigerant used widely in all these systems has a very high
global warming potential, EPA is concerned about leakage of
refrigerant.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ The global warming potential for HFC-134a refrigerant of
1430 used in this program is consistent with the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the interior volume to be cooled for most tractor cabins is
similar to that of light-duty vehicles, the size and design of current
tractor A/C systems is also very similar. The compliance approach for
Class 7 and 8 tractors is therefore similar to that in the light-duty
rule in that these standards are design-based. Manufacturers will
choose technologies from a menu of leak-reducing technologies
sufficient to comply with the standard, as opposed to using a test to
measure performance.
However, the final heavy-duty A/C provisions differ in two
important ways from those established in the light-duty rule. First,
the light-duty provisions were established as voluntary ways to
[[Page 57118]]
generate credits towards the CO2 g/mi standard, and EPA took
into account the expected use of such credits in determining the
stringency of the CO2 emissions standards. In the HD
National Program, EPA is requiring that manufacturers actually meet a
standard--as opposed to having the opportunity to earn a credit--for A/
C refrigerant leakage. Thus, refrigerant leakage control is not
separately accounted for in the final heavy-duty CO2
standards. We are taking this approach here recognizing that while the
benefits of leakage control are almost identical between light-duty and
heavy-duty vehicles on a per vehicle basis, these benefits on a per
mile basis expressed as a percentage of overall GHG emissions are much
smaller for heavy-duty vehicles due to their much higher CO2
emissions rates and higher annual mileage when compared to light-duty
vehicles. Hence a credit-based approach as done for light-duty vehicles
would provide less motivation for manufacturers to install low leakage
systems even though such systems represent a highly cost effective
means to control GHG emissions. The second difference relates to the
expression of the leakage rate. The light-duty A/C leakage standard is
expressed in terms of grams per year. For EPA's heavy-duty program,
however, because of the wide variety of system designs and
arrangements, a one-size-fits-all gram per year standard would not be
appropriate, so EPA is adopting a standard in terms of annual mass
leakage rate for A/C systems with refrigerant capacities less than or
equal to 733 grams and percent of total refrigerant leakage per year
for A/C systems with refrigerant capacities greater than 733 grams. The
percent of total refrigerant leakage per year requires the total
refrigerant capacity of the A/C system to be taken into account in
determining compliance. EPA believes that this approach--a standard
instead of a credit, and basing the standard on percent or mass of
leakage over time--is more appropriate for heavy-duty tractors than the
light-duty vehicle approach and that it will achieve the desired
reductions in refrigerant leakage. Compliance with the standard will be
determined through a showing by the tractor manufacturer that its A/C
system incorporates a combination of low-leak technologies sufficient
to meet the leakage rate of the applicable standard. The ``menu'' of
technologies is very similar to that established in the light-duty
2012-2016 MY vehicle rule.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ EPA has approved an alternative refrigerant, HFO-1234yf,
which has a very low GWP, for use in light-duty vehicle mobile A/C
systems. The final heavy-duty vehicle A/C leakage standard is
designed to account for use of an alternative, low-GWP refrigerant.
If in the future this refrigerant is approved for heavy-duty
applications and if it becomes widespread as a substitute for HFC-
134a in heavy-duty vehicle mobile A/C systems, EPA may propose to
revise or eliminate the leakage standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the agencies did not propose and are not adopting an A/C
system efficiency standard in this heavy-duty rulemaking, although an
efficiency credit was a part of the light-duty rule. The much larger
emissions of CO2 from a heavy-duty tractor as compared to
those from a light-duty vehicle mean that the relative amount of
CO2 that could be reduced through A/C efficiency
improvements is very small.
A more detailed discussion of A/C related issues is found in
Section II.E.5 of this preamble.
(b) Heavy-Duty Pickup Trucks and Vans (Class 2b and 3)
Heavy-duty vehicles with GVWR between 8,501 and 10,000 lb are
classified in the industry as Class 2b motor vehicles per the Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Administration definition. As discussed above,
Class 2b includes MDPVs that are regulated by the agencies under the
light-duty vehicle rule, and the agencies are not adopting additional
requirements for MDPVs in this rulemaking. Heavy-duty vehicles with
GVWR between 10,001 and 14,000 lb are classified as Class 3 motor
vehicles. Class 2b and Class 3 heavy-duty vehicles (referred to in
these rules as ``HD pickups and vans'') together emit about 15 percent
of today's GHG emissions from the heavy-duty vehicle sector.
About 90 percent of HD pickups and vans are \3/4\-ton and 1-ton
pickup trucks, 12- and 15-passenger vans, and large work vans that are
sold by vehicle manufacturers as complete vehicles, with no secondary
manufacturer making substantial modifications prior to registration and
use. These vehicle manufacturers are companies with major light-duty
markets in the United States, primarily Ford, General Motors, and
Chrysler. Furthermore, the technologies available to reduce fuel
consumption and GHG emissions from this segment are similar to the
technologies used on light-duty pickup trucks, including both engine
efficiency improvements (for gasoline and diesel engines) and vehicle
efficiency improvements.
For these reasons, EPA believes it is appropriate to adopt GHG
standards for HD pickups and vans based on the whole vehicle (including
the engine), expressed as grams per mile, consistent with the way these
vehicles are regulated by EPA today for criteria pollutants. NHTSA
believes it is appropriate to adopt corresponding gallons per 100 mile
fuel consumption standards that are likewise based on the whole
vehicle. This complete vehicle approach being adopted by both agencies
for HD pickups and vans is consistent with the recommendations of the
NAS Committee in their 2010 Report. EPA and NHTSA also believe that the
structure and many of the detailed provisions of the recently finalized
light-duty GHG and fuel economy program, which also involves vehicle-
based standards, are appropriate for the HD pickup and van GHG and fuel
consumption standards as well, and this is reflected in the standards
each agency is finalizing, as detailed in Section II.C. These
commonalities include a new vehicle fleet average standard for each
manufacturer in each model year and the determination of these fleet
average standards based on production volume-weighted targets for each
model, with the targets varying based on a defined vehicle attribute.
Vehicle testing will be conducted on chassis dynamometers using the
drive cycles from the EPA Federal Test Procedure (Light-duty FTP or
``city'' test) and Highway Fuel Economy Test (HFET or ``highway''
test).\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ The Light-duty FTP is a vehicle driving cycle that was
originally developed for certifying light-duty vehicles and
subsequently applied to HD chassis testing for criteria pollutants.
This contrasts with the Heavy-duty FTP, which refers to the
transient engine test cycles used for certifying heavy-duty engines
(with separate cycles specified for diesel and spark-ignition
engines).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the light-duty GHG and fuel economy standards, the agencies
factored in vehicle size by basing the emissions and fuel economy
targets on vehicle footprint (the wheelbase times the average track
width).\30\ For those standards, passenger cars and light trucks with
larger footprints are assigned higher GHG and lower fuel economy target
levels in acknowledgement of their inherent tendency to consume more
fuel and emit more GHGs per mile. For HD pickups and vans, the agencies
believe that setting standards based on vehicle attributes is
appropriate, but feel that a work-based metric serves as a better
attribute than the footprint attribute utilized in the light-duty
vehicle
[[Page 57119]]
rulemaking. Work-based measures such as payload and towing capability
are key among the parameters that characterize differences in the
design of these vehicles, as well as differences in how the vehicles
will be utilized. Buyers consider these utility-based attributes when
purchasing a heavy-duty pickup or van. EPA and NHTSA are therefore
finalizing standards for HD pickups and vans based on a ``work factor''
attribute that combines their payload and towing capabilities, with an
added adjustment for 4-wheel drive vehicles. The agencies received a
number of comments supporting this approach arguing, as the agencies
had, that this approach was an effective way to encourage technology
development and to appropriately reflect the utility of work vehicles
while setting a consistent metric measure of vehicle performance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ EISA requires CAFE standards for passenger cars and light
trucks to be attribute-based; See 49 U.S.C. 32902(b)(3)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As proposed, the agencies are adopting provisions such that each
manufacturer's fleet average standard will be based on production
volume-weighting of target standards for all vehicles that in turn are
based on each vehicle's work factor. These target standards are taken
from a set of curves (mathematical functions), presented in Section
II.C below and in Sec. 1037.104. EPA is also phasing in the
CO2 standards gradually starting in the 2014 model year, at
15-20-40-60-100 percent of the model year 2018 standards stringency
level in model years 2014-2015-2016-2017-2018, respectively. The phase-
in takes the form of a set of target standard curves, with increasing
stringency in each model year, as detailed in Section II.C. The final
EPA standards for 2018 (including a separate standard to control air
conditioning system leakage) represent an average per-vehicle reduction
in GHGs of 17 percent for diesel vehicles and 12 percent for gasoline
vehicles, compared to a common baseline, as described in Sections II.C
and III.B of this preamble. The rule contains separate standards for
diesel and gasoline heavy duty pickups and vans for reasons described
in Section II.C below. EPA is also finalizing a compliance alternative
whereby manufacturers can phase in different percentages: 15-20-67-67-
67-100 percent of the model year 2019 standards stringency level in
model years 2014-2015-2016-2017-2018-2019, respectively. This
compliance alternative parallels and is equivalent to NHTSA's first
alternative described below.
NHTSA is allowing manufacturers to select one of two fuel
consumption standard alternatives for model years 2016 and later. The
first alternative defines individual gasoline vehicle and diesel
vehicle fuel consumption target curves that will not change for model
years 2016-2018, and are equivalent to EPA's 67-67-67-100 percent
target curves in model years 2016-2017-2018-2019, respectively. The
target curves for this alternative are presented in Section II.C. The
second alternative uses target curves that are equivalent to the EPA's
40-60-100 percent target curves in model years 2016-2017-2018,
respectively. Stringency for the alternatives has been selected to
allow a manufacturer, through the use of the credit and deficit carry-
forward provisions that the agencies are also finalizing, to rely on
the same product plans to satisfy either of these two alternatives, and
also EPA requirements. If a manufacturer cannot meet an applicable
standard in a given model year, it may make up its shortfall by
overcomplying in a subsequent year, called reconciling a credit
deficit. NHTSA is also allowing manufacturers to voluntarily opt into
the NHTSA HD pickup and van program in model years 2014 or 2015. For
these model years, NHTSA's fuel consumption target curves are
equivalent to EPA's target curves.
The agencies received a number of comments including from the
Senate authors and supporters of the Ten-in-Ten Fuel Economy Act
suggesting that the standards for heavy-duty pickups and vans should be
made more stringent for gasoline vehicles and that the phase-in timing
of the standards should be accelerated to the 2016 model year (from
2018). We also received comments arguing that the proposed standards
were aggressive and could only be met given the phase-in schedules
proposed by the agencies. In response to these comments, we reviewed
again the technology assessments from the 2010 NAS report, our own
joint light-duty 2012-2016 rulemaking, and information provided by the
commenters relevant to the stringency of these standards. After
reviewing all of the information, we continue to conclude that the
proposed standards and associated phase-in schedules represent
technically stringent but reasonable standards considering the
available lead time and costs to bring the necessary technologies to
market and our own assessments of the efficacy of the technologies when
applied to heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans. Further detail on the
feasibility of the standards and the agencies' choices among
alternative standards is found in Section III.C below.
The Senate authors and supporters of the Ten-in-Ten Fuel Economy
Act sent a letter to the agencies encouraging the agencies to finalize
a fuel economy labeling requirement for heavy-duty pickups and
vans.\31\ The agencies recognize that consumer information in the form
of a fuel efficiency label can be a valuable tool to help achieve our
goals, and we note that the agencies have just recently finalized a new
fuel economy label for passenger cars and light trucks. See 76 FR at
39478. That rulemaking effort focused solely on modifying an existing
label and was a multi-year process with significant public input. As we
did not propose a consumer label for heavy-duty pickups and vans in
this action and have not appropriately engaged the public in developing
such a label, we are not prepared to finalize a consumer-based label in
this action. However, we do intend to consider this issue as we begin
work on the next phase of regulations, as we recognize that a consumer
label can play an important role in reducing fuel consumption and GHG
emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ See Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The form and stringency of the EPA and NHTSA standards curves are
based on a set of vehicle, engine, and transmission technologies
expected to be used to meet the recently established GHG emissions and
fuel economy standards for model year 2012-2016 light-duty vehicles,
with full consideration of how these technologies are likely to perform
in heavy-duty vehicle testing and use. All of these technologies are
already in use or have been announced for upcoming model years in some
light-duty vehicle models, and some are in use in a portion of HD
pickups and vans as well. The technologies include:
Advanced 8-speed automatic transmissions.
Aerodynamic improvements.
Electro-hydraulic power steering.
Engine friction reductions.
Improved accessories.
Low friction lubricants in powertrain components.
Lower rolling resistance tires.
Lightweighting.
Gasoline direct injection.
Diesel aftertreatment optimization.
Air conditioning system leakage reduction (for EPA program
only).
See Section III.B for a detailed analysis of these and other
potential technologies, including their feasibility, costs, and
effectiveness when employed for reducing fuel consumption and
CO2 emissions in HD pickups and vans.
A relatively small number of HD pickups and vans are sold by
vehicle manufacturers as incomplete vehicles, without the primary load-
carrying
[[Page 57120]]
device or container attached. We are generally regulating these
vehicles as Class 2b through 8 vocational vehicles but are also
allowing manufacturers the option to choose to comply with heavy-duty
pickup or van standards, as described in Section I.C.(2)(c). Although,
as with vocational vehicles generally, we have little information on
baseline aerodynamic performance and opportunities for improvement, a
sizeable subset of these incomplete vehicles, often called cab-chassis
vehicles, are sold by the vehicle manufacturers in configurations with
many of the components that affect GHG emissions and fuel consumption
identical to those on complete pickup truck or van counterparts--
including engines, cabs, frames, transmissions, axles, and wheels. We
are including provisions that will allow manufacturers to include these
vehicles, as well as some Class 4 and 5 vehicles, to be regulated under
the chassis-based HD pickup and van program (i.e. subject to the
standards for HD pickups and vans), rather than the vocational vehicle
program. These provisions are described in Section V.B(1)(e).
In addition to the EPA CO2 emission standards and the
NHTSA fuel consumption standards for HD pickups and vans, EPA is also
finalizing standards for two additional GHGs, N2O and
CH4, as well as standards for air conditioning-related HFC
emissions. These standards are discussed in more detail in Section
II.E. Finally, EPA is finalizing standards that will apply to HD
pickups and vans in use. All of the standards for these HD pickups and
vans, as well as details about the provisions for certification and
implementation of these standards, are discussed in Section II.C.
(c) Class 2b-8 Vocational Vehicles
Class 2b-8 vocational vehicles consist of a wide variety of vehicle
types. Some of the primary applications for vehicles in this segment
include delivery, refuse, utility, dump, and cement trucks; transit,
shuttle, and school buses; emergency vehicles, motor homes,\32\ tow
trucks, among others. These vehicles and their engines contribute
approximately 20 percent of today's heavy-duty truck sector GHG
emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ NHTSA's final fuel consumption standards will not apply to
recreational vehicles, as discussed in earlier in this preamble
section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturing of vehicles in this segment of the industry is
organized in a more complex way than that of the other heavy-duty
categories. Class 2b-8 vocational vehicles are often built as a chassis
with an installed engine and an installed transmission. Both the engine
and transmissions are typically manufactured by other manufacturers and
the chassis manufacturer purchases and installs them. Many of the same
companies that build Class 7 and 8 tractors are also in the Class 2b-8
chassis manufacturing market. The chassis is typically then sent to a
body manufacturer, which completes the vehicle by installing the
appropriate feature--such as dump bed, delivery box, or utility
bucket--onto the chassis. Vehicle body manufacturers tend to be small
businesses that specialize in specific types of bodies or specialized
features.
EPA and NHTSA proposed that in this vocational vehicle category the
proposed GHG and fuel consumption standards apply to chassis
manufacturers. Chassis manufacturers play a central role in the
manufacturing process. The product they produce--the chassis with
engine and transmission--includes the primary technologies that affect
GHG emissions and fuel consumption. They also constitute a much more
limited group of manufacturers for purposes of developing and
implementing a regulatory program. The agencies believe that a focus on
the body manufacturers would be much less practical, since they
represent a much more diverse set of manufacturers, many of whom are
small businesses. Further, the part of the vehicle that they add
affords very few opportunities to reduce GHG emissions and fuel
consumption (given the limited role that aerodynamics plays in many
types of lower speed and stop-and-go operation typically found with
vocational vehicles.) Therefore, the agencies proposed that the
standards in this vocational vehicle category would apply to the
chassis manufacturers of all heavy-duty vehicles not otherwise covered
by the HD pickup and van standards or Class 7 and 8 combination tractor
standards discussed above. The agencies requested comment on the
proposed focus on chassis manufacturers.
Volvo and Daimler commented that the EISA does not speak to the
regulation of subsystems, such as engines or incomplete vehicles, and
argued that on the other hand, Section 32902(k)(2) prescribes the
regulation of vehicles. Volvo further stated that precedent for the
regulation of complete vehicles exists in the light-duty fuel economy
rule. As noted above, NHTSA does not believe that EISA mandates a
particular regulatory approach, but rather gives the agency wide
latitude and explicitly leaves that determination to the agency. NHTSA
also notes that its heavy-duty rule creates a new fuel efficiency
program for which the light-duty program does not necessarily serve as
a useful precedent for considerations of its structure. Unlike the
light-duty fuel economy program, MD/HD vehicles are produced in widely
diverse stages. Further, given the MD/HD market structure, where the
complete vehicle manufacturers are numerous, diverse, and often small
businesses, the regulation of complete vehicles would create unique
difficulties for the application of appropriate and feasible
technologies. These same considerations justify EPA's determination,
pursuant to CAA section 202 (a), to regulate only chassis manufacturers
in this first stage of GHG rules for the heavy-duty sector. NHTSA also
notes that this rule does not represent the first time that the agency
has regulated incomplete vehicles. Rather, incomplete vehicles have a
history of regulation under the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards.\33\ For this first phase of the HD National Program, NHTSA
and EPA believe that given the complexity of the manufacturing process
for vocational vehicles, and given the wide range of entities that
participate in that process, vehicle fuel consumption standards would
be most appropriately applied to chassis manufacturers and not to body
builders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ See 49 U.S.C. 567.5 and 568.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agencies continue to believe that regulation of the chassis
manufacturers for this vocational vehicle category will achieve the
maximum feasible improvement in fuel efficiency for purposes of EISA
and appropriate emissions reductions for purposes of the CAA.
Therefore, consistent with our proposal the final standards in this
vocational vehicle category apply to the chassis manufacturers of all
heavy-duty vehicles not otherwise covered by the HD pickup and van
standards or Class 7 and 8 combination tractor standards discussed
above. As discussed above, EPA and NHTSA have concluded that reductions
in GHG emissions and fuel consumption require addressing both the
vehicle and the engine. As discussed above for Class 7 and 8
combination tractors, the agencies are each finalizing two sets of
standards for Class 2b-8 vocational vehicles. For vehicle-related
emissions and fuel consumption, the agencies are adopting standards for
chassis manufacturers: EPA CO2 (g/ton-mile) standards and
NHTSA fuel consumption (gal/1,000 ton-mile) standards). While the
agencies believe that a freight-based metric is broadly appropriate for
vocational vehicles
[[Page 57121]]
because the vocational vehicle population is dominated by freight
trucks and maintain that it is appropriate for the first phase of the
program, the agencies may consider other metrics for future phases of a
HD program. Manufacturers will use GEM, the same customized vehicle
simulation model used for Class 7 and 8 tractors, to determine
compliance with the vocational vehicle standards finalized in this
action. The primary manufacturer-generated input into the GEM for this
category of trucks will be a measure of tire rolling resistance, as
discussed further below, because tire improvements are the primary
means of vehicle improvement available at this time for vocational
vehicles. The model also assumes the use of a typical representative,
compliant engine in the simulation, resulting in an overall value for
CO2 emissions and one for fuel consumption. This is done for
the same reason as for combination tractors. As is the case for
combination tractors, the manufacturers of the engines intended for
vocational vehicles will be subject to separate engine-based standards.
(i) Final Standards for Class 2b-8 Vocational Vehicles and Their
Engines
Based on our analysis and research, the agencies believe that the
primary opportunity for reductions in vocational vehicle GHG emissions
and fuel consumption will be through improved engine technologies and
improved tire rolling resistance. For engines, EPA and NHTSA are
adopting separate standards for the manufacturers of engines used in
Class 2b-8 vocational vehicles (the same approach as for combination
tractors and engines intended for use in those tractors). EPA's final
engine-based CO2 standards and NHTSA's final engine-based
fuel consumption standards vary based on the expected weight class and
usage of the truck into which the engine will be installed. Tire
rolling resistance is closely related to the weight of the vehicle.
Therefore, we are adopting vehicle-based standards for these trucks
which vary according to one key attribute, GVWR. For this initial HD
rulemaking, we are adopting standards based on the same groupings of
truck weight classes used for the engine standards--light heavy-duty,
medium heavy-duty, and heavy heavy-duty. These groupings are
appropriate for the final vehicle-based standards because they parallel
the general divisions among key engine characteristics, as discussed in
Section II.
The agencies are also finalizing an interim alternative compression
ignition (diesel) engine standard for model years 2014-2016, again
analogous to the alternative standards for compression ignition engines
use in combination tractors. The need for this provision and our
considerations in adopting it are the same for the engines used in
vocational vehicles as for the engines used in combination tractors. As
we proposed, these alternative standards will only be available through
model year 2016. In addition, manufacturers that use the interim
alternative diesel engine standards for model years 2014-2016 under the
EPA program must use equivalent fuel consumption standards under the
NHTSA program.
For the 2014 to 2016 model years, manufacturers may also choose to
meet alternative engine standards that are phased-in over the model
years to coincide with new EPA On-Board Diagnostic (OBD) requirements
applicable for these same model years. See Sections II.B and II.D
below.
The agencies received a significant number of comments including
from the Senate authors and supporters of the Ten-in-Ten Fuel Economy
Act arguing that our proposed standards for vocational vehicles did not
reflect all of the technologies identified in the 2010 NAS report. The
commenters encouraged the agencies to expand the program to bring in
additional reductions through the use of new transmission technologies,
vehicle weight reductions and hybrid drivetrains. In general, the
agencies agree with the commenters' central contention that there are
additional technologies to improve the fuel efficiency of vocational
vehicles. As discussed later, we are finalizing provisions to allow new
technologies to be brought into the program through the innovative
technology credit program. More specifically, we are including
provisions to account for and credit the use of hybrid technology as a
technology that can reduce emissions and fuel consumption. Hybrid
technology can currently be a cost-effective technology in certain
specific vocational applications, and the agencies want to recognize
and promote the use of this technology. (See Sections I.E and IV
below.) However, we are not finalizing standards that are premised on
the use of these additional technologies because we have not been able
to develop the test procedures, regulatory mechanisms and baseline
performance data necessary to adopt a more comprehensive approach to
controlling fuel efficiency and GHG emissions from vocational vehicles.
In concept, the agencies would need to know the baseline weight,
aerodynamic performance, and transmission configuration for the wide
range of vocational vehicles produced today. We do not have this
information even for relatively small portions of this market (e.g.
concrete mixers) nor are we well informed regarding the potential
tradeoffs to changes to vehicle utility that might exist for changes to
concrete mixer designs in response to a regulation. Nor did the
commenters provide any such information. Absent this information and
the necessary regulatory tools, we believe the standards we are
finalizing for vocational vehicles represent the most appropriate
standards for this segment during the model years of the first phase of
the program. We intend to address fuel consumption and GHG emissions
from these vehicles in a more comprehensive manner through future
regulation and look forward to working with all stakeholders on this
important segment in the future.
The agencies are setting standards beginning in the 2014 model year
and establishing more stringent standards in the 2017 model year. Table
I-4 presents EPA's final CO2 standards and NHTSA's final
fuel consumption standards for chassis manufacturers of Class 2b
through Class 8 vocational vehicles for the 2017 model year. The 2017
model year standards represent a 6 to 9 percent reduction in
CO2 emissions and fuel consumption over a 2010 model year
vehicle.
Table I-4--Final 2017 Class 2b-8 Vocational Vehicle EPA CO2 Standards and NHTSA Fuel Consumption Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Light heavy-duty Medium heavy-duty Heavy heavy-duty
Class 2b-5 Class 6-7 Class 8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA CO2 (gram/ton-mile) Standard Effective 2017 Model Year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 Emissions.......................................... 373 225 222
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 57122]]
NHTSA Fuel Consumption (gallon per 1,000 ton-mile) Standard Effective 2017 Model Year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuel Consumption....................................... 36.7 22.1 21.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As mentioned above for Class 7 and 8 combination tractors, EPA
believes that N2O and CH4 emissions are
technologically related solely to the engine, fuel, and emissions
aftertreatment systems, and the agency is not aware of any influence of
vehicle-based technologies on these emissions. Therefore, for Class 2b-
8 vocational vehicles, EPA's final N2O and CH4
standards cover manufacturers of the engines to be used in vocational
vehicles. EPA did not propose, nor are we adopting separate vehicle-
based standards for these GHGs. As for the engines used in Class 7 and
8 tractors, we are finalizing a somewhat higher N2O and
CH4 emission standards reflecting new data submitted to the
agencies during the public comment period. EPA expects that
manufacturers of current engine technologies will be able to comply
with the final ``cap'' standards with little or no technological
improvements; the value of the standards is that they will prevent
significant increases in these emissions as alternative technologies
are developed and introduced in the future. Compliance with the final
EPA engine-based CO2 standards and the final NHTSA fuel
consumption standards, as well as the final EPA N2O and
CH4 standards, will be determined using the appropriate EPA
engine test procedure, as discussed in Section II below.
As with the other regulatory categories of heavy-duty vehicles, EPA
and NHTSA are adopting standards that apply to Class 2b-8 vocational
vehicles at the time of production, and EPA is adopting standards for a
specified period of time in use. All of the standards for these trucks,
as well as details about the final provisions for certification and
implementation of these standards, are discussed in more detail later
in this notice and in the RIA.
EPA did not propose, nor is it adopting A/C refrigerant leakage
standards for Class 2b-8 vocational vehicles, primarily because of the
number of entities involved in their manufacture and thus the potential
for different entities besides the chassis manufacturer to be involved
in the A/C system production and installation.
(d) What manufacturers are not covered by the final standards?
The NPRM proposed to defer temporarily greenhouse gas emissions and
fuel consumption standards for any manufacturers of heavy-duty engines,
manufacturers of combination tractors, and chassis manufacturers for
vocational vehicles that meet the ``small business'' size criteria set
by the Small Business Administration (SBA). 13 CFR 121.201 defines a
small business by the maximum number of employees; for example, this is
currently 1,000 for heavy-duty vehicle manufacturing and 750 for engine
manufacturing.\34\ The agencies stated that they would instead consider
appropriate GHG and fuel consumption standards for these entities as
part of a future regulatory action. This includes both U.S.-based and
foreign small-volume heavy-duty manufacturers. To ensure that the
agencies are aware of which companies would be exempt, the agencies
proposed to require that such entities submit a declaration describing
how it qualifies as a small entity under the provisions of 13 CFR
121.201 to EPA and NHTSA as prescribed in Section V below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ See Sec. 1036.150 and Sec. 1037.150
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA and NHTSA were not aware of any manufacturers of HD pickups and
vans that meet these criteria. For each of the other categories and for
engines, the agencies identified a small number of manufacturers that
would appear to qualify as small businesses under the SBA size
criterion, which were estimated to comprise a negligible percentage of
the U.S. market.\35\ Therefore, the agencies believed that deferring
the standards for these companies at this time would have a negligible
impact on the GHG emission reductions and fuel consumption reductions
that the program would otherwise achieve. The agencies proposed to
consider appropriate GHG emissions and fuel consumption standards for
these entities as part of a future regulatory action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Two heavy-duty combination tractor and ten chassis
manufacturers each comprising less than 0.5 percent of the total
tractor and vocational market based on Polk Registration Data from
2003 through 2007, and three engine manufacturing entities based on
company information included in Hoover's, comprising less than 0.1
percent of the total heavy-duty engine sales in the United States
based on 2009 and 2010 EPA certification information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Institute for Policy Integrity (IPI) commented that the small
business exemption proposed in the NPRM was based on the improper
framework of whether the exemption would have a negligible impact, and
did not adequately explain why the regulation of small businesses would
face special compliance and administrative burdens. IPI argued that the
only proper basis for this exemption would be if the agencies could
explain how these burdens create costs that exceeded the benefits of
regulation.
NHTSA believes that developing standards that are ``appropriate,
cost-effective, and technologically feasible'' under 49 U.S.C.
32902(k)(2) includes the authority to exclude certain manufacturers if
their inclusion would work against these statutory factors. Similarly,
under section 202(a) of the CAA, EPA may reasonably choose to defer
regulation of industry segments based on considerations of cost, cost-
effectiveness and available lead time for standards. As noted above,
small businesses make up a very small percentage of the market and are
estimated to have a negligible impact on the emissions and fuel
consumption goals of this program. The short lead time before the
CO2 standards take effect, the extremely small fuel savings
and emissions contribution of these entities, and the potential need to
develop a program that would be structured differently for them (which
would require more time to determine and adopt), all led to the
decision that the inclusion of small businesses would not be
appropriate at this time. Therefore, the final rule exempts small
businesses as proposed.
Volvo and EMA stated that by exempting small businesses based on
the definition from SBA, the rules would create a competitive advantage
for small businesses over larger entities. EMA commented that the
exemption should not apply to market segments where a small business
has a significant share of a particular HD market. Volvo argued that
the exempted businesses could expand their product offerings or
[[Page 57123]]
sell vehicles on behalf of larger entities, thereby inappropriately
increasing the scope of the exclusion. The agencies anticipate that the
gain a manufacturer might achieve by restructuring its practices and
products to circumvent the standard (which for vocational vehicles
simply means installing low rolling resistance tires) in the first few
years of this program will be outweighed by the costs, particularly as
small businesses anticipate their potential inclusion in the next
rulemaking.
Volvo also commented that the agencies should elaborate on the
requirements for the exemption in greater detail. The agencies agree
that this may help to clarify the process. As suggested by Volvo, the
agencies will consider affiliations to other companies and evidence of
spin-offs for the purpose of circumventing the standards in determining
whether a business qualifies as a small entity for this exclusion. Each
declaration must be submitted in writing to EPA and NHTSA as prescribed
in Section V below. As the agencies gain more experience with this
exemption, these clarifications may be codified in the regulatory text
of a future rulemaking.
Volvo further commented that the agencies were adopting an
exemption of ``small businesses'' in order to avoid doing a Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) and Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA) analysis. The agencies would like to reiterate
that they have decided not to include small businesses at this time due
to the factors described above. The discussion on an RFA analysis is
laid out in Section XII(4).
The agencies continue to believe that deferring the standards for
these companies at this time will have a negligible impact on the GHG
emission reductions and fuel consumption reductions that the program
would otherwise achieve. Therefore, the final rules include the small
business exemption as proposed. The specific deferral provisions are
discussed in more detail in Section II.
The agencies will consider appropriate GHG emissions and fuel
consumption standards for these entities as part of a future regulatory
action.
(e) Light-Duty Vehicle CH4 and N2O Standards
Flexibility
After finalization of the N2O and CH4
standards for light-duty vehicles as part of the 2012-2016 MY program,
some manufacturers raised concerns that they may have difficulty
meeting those standards across their light-duty vehicle fleets. In
response to these concerns, as part of the same Federal Register notice
as the heavy-duty proposal, EPA requested comments on additional
options for manufacturers to comply with light-duty vehicle
N2O and CH4 standards to provide additional near-
term flexibility. Commenters providing comment on this issue supported
additional flexibility for manufacturers. EPA is finalizing provisions
allowing manufacturers to use CO2 credits, on a
CO2-equivalent basis, to meet the N2O and
CH4 standards, which is consistent with many commenters'
preferred approach. Manufacturers will have the option of using
CO2 credits to meet N2O and CH4
standards on a test group basis as needed for MYs 2012-2016.
(f) Alternative Fuel Engines and Vehicles
The agencies believe that it is also appropriate to take steps to
recognize the benefits of flexible-fueled vehicles (FFVs) and dedicated
alternative-fueled vehicles. In the NPRM, EPA proposed to determine the
emissions performance of dedicated alternative fuel engines and pickup
trucks and vans by measuring tailpipe CO2 emissions. NHTSA
proposed to determine fuel consumption performance of non-electric
dedicated alternative fuel engines and pickup trucks and vans by
measuring fuel consumption with the alternative fuel and then
calculating a petroleum equivalent fuel consumption using a Petroleum
Equivalency Factor (PEF) that is determined by the Department of
Energy. NHTSA proposed to treat electric vehicles as having zero fuel
consumption, comparable to the EPA proposal. Both agencies proposed to
determine FFV performance in the same way as for GHG emissions for
light-duty vehicles, with a 50-50 weighting of alternative and
conventional fuel test results through MY 2015, and a weighting based
on demonstrated fuel use in the real world after MY 2015 (defaulting to
an assumption of 100 percent conventional fuel use). This approach was
considered to be a reasonable and logical way to properly credit
alternative fuel use in FFVs in the real world without imposing a
difficult burden of proof on manufacturers. However, unlike in the
light-duty rule, the agencies do not believe it is appropriate to
create a provision for additional incentives similar to the 2012-2015
light-duty incentive program (See 49 U.S.C. 32904) because the HD
sector does not have the incentives mandated in EISA for light-duty
FFVs, and so has not relied on the existence of such credits in
devising compliance strategies for the early model years of this
program. See 74 FR at 49531. In fact, manufacturers have not in the
past produced FFV heavy-duty vehicles. On the other hand, the agencies
sought comment on how to properly recognize the impact of the use of
alternative fuels, and E85 in particular, in HD pickups and vans,
including the proper accounting for alternative fuel use in FFVs in the
real world.\36\ See 75 FR at 74198.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ E85 is a blended fuel consisting of nominally 15 percent
gasoline and 85 percent ethanol.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agencies received several comments from natural gas vehicle
(NGV) interests arguing for greater crediting of NGVs than the proposed
approach would have provided. Clean Energy, Hayday Farms, Border
Valley, AGA, Ryder, Encana, and a group of NGV interests commented that
the NPRM ignored Congress' intent to incentivize the use of NGVs by not
including the conversion factor that exists in the light-duty statutory
language. The commenters argued that Congress' intent to incentivize
NGVs is evident in the formula contained in 49 U.S.C. 32905, which
deems a gallon equivalent of gaseous fuel to have a fuel content of
0.15 gallon of fuel. The commenters also argued that Congress
implicitly intended NGVs to be incentivized in this rulemaking, as
evidenced by the incentives in the light-duty statutory text. AGA and
Hayday suggested that the agencies were not including the NGV incentive
from light-duty because Congress did not explicitly include it in 49
U.S.C. 32902(k), and argued that this would contradict the agencies'
inclusion of other incentives similar to the light-duty rule.
The American Trucking Association expressed support for estimating
natural gas fuel efficiency by using carbon emissions from natural gas
rather than energy content to estimate fuel consumption. ATA explained
that two vehicles can achieve the same fuel efficiency, yet one
operated on natural gas would have a lower carbon dioxide emissions
rate. A natural gas conversion factor that uses carbon content versus
energy content is a more appropriate method for calculating fuel
consumption, in the commenter's view. A number of other groups
commented on the appropriate method to use in establishing fuel
consumption from alternative fueled vehicles. A group of NGV interests,
Ryder, Border Valley Trading, Waste Management, Robert Bosch and the
Blue Green Alliance encouraged the agencies to adopt the 0.15
conversion factor in estimating fuel consumption for FFVs and
alternative fuel vehicles finalized in the light-duty
[[Page 57124]]
2012-2016 MY vehicle standards. The suggested incentive would
effectively reduce the calculated fuel consumption for FFVs and
alternative fuel vehicles by a factor of 85 percent. The commenters
argued that the incentive is needed for heavy-duty vehicles to
encourage the use of natural gas and to reduce the nation's dependence
on petroleum.
The agencies reassessed the options for evaluating the
CO2 and fuel consumption performance of alternative fuel
vehicles in response to comments and because the agencies recognized
that the treatment of alternate fuel vehicles was one of the few
provisions in the proposal where the EPA and NHTSA programs were not
aligned. The agencies conducted an analysis comparing fuel consumption
calculated based on CO2 emissions \37\ to fuel consumption
calculated based on gasoline or diesel energy equivalency to evaluate
impacts of a consistent consumption measurement for all vehicle classes
covered by this program and to further understand how alternative fuels
would be impacted by this measurement methodology. In particular the
agencies evaluated how measuring consumption via CO2
emissions would hinder or benefit the application of alternative fuels
versus following similar alternative fuel incentivizing programs
provided via statute for the Agency's light-duty programs. The analysis
showed measuring a vehicle's CO2 output converted to fuel
consumption provided a fuel consumption measurement benefit to those
vehicles operating on fuels other than gasoline or diesel. For CNG, LNG
and LPG the benefit is approximately 19 percent to 24 percent, for
biodiesel and ethanol blends the benefit is approximately 1 percent to
3 percent, and for electricity and hydrogen fuels the benefit is 100
percent benefit, as fuel consumption is zero. The agencies also
considered that the EPA Renewable Fuel Standard,\38\ a separate
program, requires an increase in the volume of renewable fuels used in
the U.S. transportation sector. For the fuels covered by the Renewable
Fuels Standard additional incentives are not needed in this regulation
given the large volume increases required under the Renewable Fuel
Standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ Fuel consumption calculated from measured CO2
using conversion factors of 8,887 g CO2/gallon for
gasoline (for alternative fuel engines that are derived from
gasoline engines), and 10,180 g CO2/gallon for diesel
fuel (for alternative fuel engines that are derived from diesel
engines).
\38\ EPA is responsible for developing and implementing
regulations to ensure that transportation fuel sold in the United
States contains a minimum volume of renewable fuel. The RFS program
was created under the Energy Policy Act (EPAct) of 2005, and
expanded under the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of
2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agencies continue to believe that alternative-fueled vehicles,
including NGVs, provide fuel consumption benefits that should be, and
are, accounted for in this program. However, the agencies do not agree
with the commenters' claim that the NGV incentive contained in EISA,
and reflected in the light-duty program, is an explicit Congressional
directive that must also be applied to the heavy-duty program, nor that
the light-duty incentive for NGVs should be interpreted as an implicit
Congressional directive for NGVs to be comparably incentivized in the
heavy-duty program. Further, the agencies believe that the fuel
consumption benefits that alternative fuel vehicles would obtain
through measuring CO2 emissions for the EPA program and
converting CO2 emissions to fuel consumption for the NHTSA
program accurately reflects their energy benefits. This accurate
accounting, in conjunction with the volumetric increases required by
the Renewable Fuels Standard, provides sufficient incentives for these
vehicles. The agencies continue to believe that the light-duty
conversion factor is not appropriate for this program. Instead, the
agencies are finalizing measuring the performance of alternative fueled
vehicles by measuring CO2 emissions for the EPA program and
converting CO2 emissions to fuel consumption for the NHTSA
program. The agencies are also finalizing measuring FFV performance
with a 50-50 weighting of alternative and conventional fuel test
results through MY 2015, and an agency- or manufacturer-determined
weighting based on demonstrated fuel use in the real world after MY
2015 (defaulting to an assumption of 100 percent conventional fuel
use).
The agencies believe this structure accurately reflects the fuel
consumption of the vehicles while at the same time providing an
incentive for the alternative fuel use. (For example, natural gas heavy
duty engines perform 20 to 30 percent better than their diesel and
gasoline counterparts from a CO2 perspective, and so meet
the standards adopted in these rules without cost, and indeed will be
credit generators without cost.) We believe this is a substantial
enough advantage to spur the market for these vehicles. The calculation
at the same time does not overestimate the benefit from these
technologies, which could reduce the effectiveness of the regulation.
Therefore, the final rules do not include the light-duty 0.15
conversion factor for NGVs. The agencies would like to clarify that the
decision not to include an NGV incentive was based on this policy
determination, not on a belief that incentives present in the light-
duty rule could not be developed for the heavy-duty sector because they
were not explicitly included in Section 32902(k).
NHTSA recognizes that EPCA/EISA promotes incentives for alternative
fueled vehicles for different purposes than does the CAA, and that
there may be additional energy and national security benefits that
could be achieved through increasing fleet percentages of natural gas
and other alternative-fueled vehicles. More alternative-fueled vehicles
on road would arguably displace petroleum-fueled vehicles, and thereby
increase both U.S. energy and national security by reducing the
nation's dependence on foreign oil.
However, a rule that adopts identical incentive provisions reduces
industry reporting burdens and NHTSA's monitoring burden. In addition,
the agencies are concerned that providing greater incentives under
EPCA/EISA might lead to little increased production of alternative
fueled vehicles. If this were the case, then the benefits of
harmonization could outweigh any potential gains from providing greater
incentives. It is also consistent with Executive Order 13563.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ EO 13563 states that an agency shall ``tailor its
regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with
obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into account, among other
things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of cumulative
regulations,'' and ``promote such coordination, simplification, and
harmonization'' as will reduce redundancy, inconsistency, and costs
of multiple regulatory requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adopting the same incentive provisions could also have benefits for
the public, the regulated industries, and the agencies. This approach
allows manufacturers to project clear benefits for the application of
GHG-reduction and fuel efficiency technologies, thus spurring their
adoption.
This combined rulemaking by EPA and NHTSA is designed to regulate
two separate characteristics of heavy duty vehicles: Greenhouse gas
emissions (GHG) and fuel consumption. In the case of diesel or gasoline
powered vehicles, there is a one-to-one relationship between these two
characteristics. Each gallon of gasoline combusted by a truck engine
generates approximately 8,887 grams of CO2; and each gallon
of diesel fuel burned generates about 10,180 grams of CO2.
Because no available technologies reduce tailpipe CO2
emissions per gallon of fuel combusted, any rule that limits tailpipe
CO2 emissions is
[[Page 57125]]
effectively identical to a rule that limits fuel consumption.
Compliance by a truck manufacturer with the NHTSA fuel economy rule
assures compliance with the EPA rule, and vice versa.
For alternatively fueled vehicles, which use no petroleum, the
situation is different. For example, a natural gas vehicle that
achieves approximately the same fuel economy as a diesel powered
vehicle would emit 20 percent less CO2; and a natural gas
vehicle with the same fuel economy as a gasoline vehicle would emit 30
percent less CO2. Yet natural gas vehicles consume no
petroleum. To the extent that the goal of the NHTSA fuel economy
portion of this rulemaking is to curb petroleum use, crediting natural
gas vehicles with zero fuel consumption per mile could contribute to
achieving that goal. Similar differences between oil consumption and
greenhouse gas emissions would apply to electric vehicles, hybrid
electric vehicles, and biofuel-powered vehicles.
NHTSA notes that the purpose of EPCA/EISA is not merely to curb
petroleum use--it is more generally to secure energy independence,
which can be achieved by reducing petroleum use. The value of
incentivizing natural gas, electric vehicles, biofuels, hydrogen, or
other alt fuel vehicles for energy independence is limited to the
extent that the alternative fuels may be imported.
In the recent rulemaking for light-duty vehicles, EPA and NHTSA
have followed the light duty specific statutory provision that treats
one gallon of alternative fuel as equivalent to 0.15 gallons of
gasoline until MY 2016, when performance on the EPA CO2
standards is measured based on actual emissions. 75 FR at 25433.
Following that MY 2012-2015 approach in this heavy duty program would
mean that, for example, a natural gas powered truck would have
attributed to it 20 percent less CO2 emissions than a
comparable diesel powered truck, but 85 percent less fuel consumption.
Engine manufacturers with a relatively large share of alternative-fuel
products would likely have an easier time complying with NHTSA's
average fuel economy standard than with EPA's GHG standard. Similarly,
engine manufacturers with a relatively small share of alternative-fuel
products would have a relatively easier time complying with EPA's
CO2 standard than with NHTSA's fuel economy standard. In
that way, the rule would not differ from the light duty vehicle rules.
Instead, in this program, EPA and NHTSA are establishing identical
rules. Fuel consumption for alternatively-powered vehicles will be
calculated according to their tailpipe CO2 emissions. In
that way, there will be a one-to-one relationship between fuel economy
and tailpipe CO2 emissions for all vehicles. However, this
might not result in a one-to-one relationship between petroleum
consumption and GHG emissions for all vehicles. On the other hand, it
could have the disadvantage of not doing more to encourage some cost-
effective means of reducing petroleum consumption by trucks, and the
accompanying energy security costs. By attributing to natural gas
engines only 20 percent less fuel consumption than comparable diesel
engines, because they emit 20 percent less CO2, rather than
attributing to them a much larger percentage reduction in fuel
consumption, because they use no petroleum, this uniform approach to
rulemaking provides less of an incentive for technologies that reduce
consumption of petroleum-based fuels.
In the future, the Agencies will consider the possibility of
proposing standards in a way that more fully reflects differences in
fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. Under such standards,
any given vehicle might ``over-comply'' with the fuel economy standard,
but might ``under-comply'' with the greenhouse gas standard. Therefore,
in meeting the fleet-wide requirements, a manufacturer would need to
meet both standards using all available options, such as credit trading
and technology mix. Allowing for two distinct standards might enable
manufacturers to achieve the twin goals of reducing greenhouse gas
emissions and decreasing consumption of petroleum-based fuels in a more
cost-effective manner.
D. Summary of Costs and Benefits of the HD National Program
This section summarizes the projected costs and benefits of the
final NHTSA fuel consumption and EPA GHG emissions standards. These
projections helped to inform the agencies' choices among the
alternatives considered and provide further confirmation that the final
standards are an appropriate choice within the spectrum of choices
allowable under the agencies' respective statutory criteria. NHTSA and
EPA have used common projected costs and benefits as the bases for our
respective standards.
The agencies have analyzed in detail the projected costs, fuel
savings, and benefits of the final GHG and fuel consumption standards.
Table I-5 shows estimated lifetime discounted program costs (including
technological outlays), fuel savings, and benefits for all heavy-duty
vehicles projected to be sold in model years 2014-2018 over these
vehicles' lives. The benefits include impacts such as climate-related
economic benefits from reducing emissions of CO2 (but not
other GHGs) and reductions in energy security externalities caused by
U.S. petroleum consumption and imports. The analysis also includes
economic impacts stemming from additional heavy-duty vehicle use
attributable to fuel savings, such as the economic damages caused by
accidents, congestion and noise. Note that benefits reflect on
estimated values for the social cost of carbon (SCC), as described in
Section VIII.G.
The costs, fuel savings, and benefits summarized here are slightly
higher than at proposal, reflecting the use of 2009 (versus 2008)
dollars, some minor changes to our cost estimates in response to
comments, and a change to the 2011 Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) estimate
of economic growth and future fuel prices. In aggregate, these changes
lead to an increased estimate of the net benefits of the final action
compared to the proposal.
Table I-5--Estimated Lifetime Discounted Costs, Fuel Savings, Benefits,
and Net Benefits for 2014-2018 Model Year Heavy-Duty Vehiclesa b
[Billions, 2009$]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lifetime Present Value\c\--3% Discount Rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program Costs........................................... $8.1
Fuel Savings............................................ $50
Benefits................................................ $7.3
Net Benefits\d\......................................... $49
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized Value\e\--3% Discount Rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized Costs........................................ $0.4
Fuel Savings............................................ $2.2
Annualized Benefits..................................... $0.4
Net Benefits\d\......................................... $2.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lifetime Present Value\c\--7% Discount Rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program Costs........................................... $8.1
Fuel Savings............................................ $34
Benefits................................................ $6.7
Net Benefits\d\......................................... $33
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized Value\e\--7% Discount Rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized Costs........................................ $0.6
Fuel Savings............................................ $2.6
Annualized Benefits..................................... $0.5
Net Benefits\d\......................................... $2.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
[[Page 57126]]
\a\ The agencies estimated the benefits associated with four different
values of a one ton CO2 reduction (model average at 2.5% discount
rate, 3%, and 5%; 95th percentile at 3%), which each increase over
time. For the purposes of this overview presentation of estimated
costs and benefits, however, we are showing the benefits associated
with the marginal value deemed to be central by the interagency
working group on this topic: the model average at 3% discount rate, in
2009 dollars. Section VIII.F provides a complete list of values for
the 4 estimates.
\b\ Note that net 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 (SCC at 5, 3, and
2.5 percent) is used to calculate net present value of SCC for
internal consistency. Refer to Section VIII.F for more detail.
\c\ Present value is the total, aggregated amount that a series of
monetized costs or benefits that occur over time is worth now (in year
2009 dollar terms), discounting future values to the present.
\d\ Net benefits reflect the fuel savings plus benefits minus costs.
\e\ The annualized value is the constant annual value through a given
time period (2012 through 2050 in this analysis) whose summed present
value equals the present value from which it was derived.
Table I-6 shows the estimated lifetime reductions in CO2
emissions (in million metric tons (MMT)) and fuel consumption for all
heavy-duty vehicles sold in the model years 2014-2018. The values in
Table I-6 are projected lifetime totals for each model year and are not
discounted. The two agencies' standards together comprise the HD
National Program, and the agencies' respective GHG emissions and fuel
consumption standards, jointly, are the source of the benefits and
costs of the HD National Program.
Table I-6--Estimated Lifetime Reductions in Fuel Consumption and CO2 Emissions for 2014-2018 Model Year HD Vehicles
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All heavy-duty vehicles 2014 MY 2015 MY 2016 MY 2017 MY 2018 MY Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuel (billion gallons).................................. 4.0 3.6 3.6 5.1 5.8 22.1
Fuel (billion barrels).................................. 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.12 0.14 0.53
CO2 (MMT)a.............................................. 50.2 44.8 44.0 62.8 71.7 273
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:
\a\ Includes upstream and downstream CO2 reductions.
Table I-7 shows the estimated lifetime discounted benefits for all
heavy-duty vehicles sold in model years 2014-2018. Although the
agencies estimated the benefits associated with four different values
of a one ton CO2 reduction ($5, $22, $36, $66), for the
purposes of this overview presentation of estimated benefits the
agencies are showing the benefits associated with one of these marginal
values, $22 per ton of CO2, in 2009 dollars and 2010
emissions. Table I-7 presents benefits based on the $22 per ton of
CO2 value. Section VIII.F presents the four marginal values
used to estimate monetized benefits of CO2 reductions and
Section VIII presents the program benefits using each of the four
marginal values, which represent only a partial accounting of total
benefits due to omitted climate change impacts and other factors that
are not readily monetized. The values in the table are discounted
values for each model year of vehicles throughout their projected
lifetimes. The analysis includes other economic impacts such as energy
security, and other externalities such as impacts on accidents,
congestion and noise. However, the model year lifetime analysis
supporting the program omits other impacts such as benefits related to
non-GHG emission reductions.\40\ The lifetime discounted benefits are
shown for one of four different SCC values considered by EPA and NHTSA.
The values in Table I-7 do not include costs associated with new
technology required to meet the GHG and fuel consumption standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ Non-GHG emissions and health-related impacts were estimated
for the calendar year analysis. See Section VII for more information
about non-GHG emission impacts and Section VIII for more information
about non-GHG-related health impacts.
Table I-7--Estimated Lifetime Discounted Benefits for 2014-2018 Model Year HD Vehicles Assuming the Model Average, 3% Discount Rate SCC Valuea b c
[billions of 2009 dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model year
Discount rate (percent) -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3....................................................... $10.7 $9.4 $9.2 $13.2 $14.9 $57
7....................................................... 8.3 6.9 6.6 9.2 10.1 41
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
\a\ The analysis includes impacts such as the economic value of reduced fuel consumption and accompanying climate-related economic benefits from
reducing emissions of CO2 (but not other GHGs), and reductions in energy security externalities caused by U.S. petroleum consumption and imports. The
analysis also includes economic impacts stemming from additional heavy-duty vehicle use, such as the economic damages caused by accidents, congestion
and noise.
\b\ Note that net present value of reduced CO2 emissions is calculated differently than other benefits. The same discount rate used to discount the
value of damages from future emissions (SCC at 5, 3, and 2.5 percent) is used to calculate net present value of SCC for internal consistency. Refer to
Section VIII.F for more detail, including a list of all four SCC values, which increase over time.
\c\ Benefits in this table include fuel savings.
Table I-8 shows the agencies' estimated lifetime fuel savings,
lifetime CO2 emission reductions, and the monetized net
present values of those fuel savings and CO2 emission
reductions. The gallons of fuel and CO2 emission reductions
are projected lifetime values for all vehicles sold in the model years
2014-2018. The
[[Page 57127]]
estimated fuel savings in billions of barrels and the GHG reductions in
million metric tons of CO2 shown in Table I-8 are totals for
the five model years throughout their projected lifetime and are not
discounted. The monetized values shown in Table I-8 are the summed
values of the discounted monetized-fuel consumption and monetized-
CO2 reductions for the five model years 2014-2018 throughout
their lifetimes. The monetized values in Table I-8 reflect both a 3
percent and a 7 percent discount rate as noted.
Table I-8--Estimated Lifetime Reductions and Associated Discounted
Monetized Benefits for 2014-2018 Model Year HD Vehicles
[Monetized values in 2009 dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount $ Value (billions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuel Consumption Reductions..... 0.53 billion $50.1, 3% discount
barrels. rate $34.4, 7%
discount rate.
CO2 Emission Reductions \a\ 273 MMT CO2....... $5.8 \b\.
Valued assuming $22/ton CO2 in
2010.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
\a\ Includes both upstream and downstream CO2 emission reductions.
\b\ Note that net present value of reduced CO2 emissions is calculated
differently than other benefits. The same discount rate used to
discount the value of damages from future emissions (SCC at 5, 3, and
2.5 percent) is used to calculate net present value of SCC for
internal consistency. Refer to Section VIII.F for more detail.
Table I-9 shows the estimated incremental and total technology
outlays for all heavy-duty vehicles for each of the model years 2014-
2018. The technology outlays shown in Table I-9 are for the industry as
a whole and do not account for fuel savings associated with the
program.
Table I-9--Estimated Incremental Technology Outlays for 2014-2018 Model Year HD Vehicles
[Billions of 2009 dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014 MY 2015 MY 2016 MY 2017 MY 2018 MY Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Heavy-Duty Vehicles................................... $1.6 $1.4 $1.5 $1.6 $2.0 $8.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table I-10 shows the agencies' estimated incremental cost increase
of the average new heavy-duty vehicle for each model year 2014-2018.
The values shown are incremental to a baseline vehicle and are not
cumulative.
Table I-10--Estimated Incremental Increase in Average Cost for 2014-2018 Model Year HD Vehicles
[2009 Dollars per unit]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014 MY 2015 MY 2016 MY 2017 MY 2018 MY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Combination Tractors..................................... $6,019 $5,871 $5,677 $6,413 $6,215
HD Pickups & Vans........................................ 165 215 422 631 1,048
Vocational Vehicles...................................... 329 320 397 387 378
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Both costs and benefits presented in this section are in comparison
to a reference case with no improvements in fuel consumption or
greenhouse gas emissions in model years 2014 to 2018.
E. Program Flexibilities
For each of the heavy-duty vehicle and heavy-duty engine categories
for which we are adopting respective standards, EPA and NHTSA are also
finalizing provisions designed to give manufacturers a degree of
flexibility in complying with the standards. These final provisions
have enabled the agencies to consider overall standards that are more
stringent and that will become effective sooner than we could consider
with a more rigid program, one in which all of a manufacturer's similar
vehicles or engines would be required to achieve the same emissions or
fuel consumption levels, and at the same time.\41\ We believe that
incorporating carefully structured regulatory flexibility provisions
into the overall program is an important way to achieve each agency's
goals for the program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ NHTSA notes that it has greater flexibility in the HD
program to include consideration of credits and other flexibilities
in determining appropriate and feasible levels of stringency than it
does in the light-duty CAFE program. Cf. 49 U.S.C. 32902(h), which
applies to light-duty CAFE but not heavy-duty fuel efficiency under
49 U.S.C. 32902(k).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA's and EPA's flexibility provisions are essentially identical
in structure and function. Within combination tractor and vocational
vehicle categories and within heavy-duty engines, we are finalizing
four primary types of flexibility: Averaging, banking, and trading
(ABT) provisions; early credits; advanced technology credits (including
hybrid powertrains); and innovative technology credit provisions. The
final ABT provisions are patterned on existing EPA and NHTSA ABT
programs and will allow a vehicle manufacturer to reduce CO2
emission and fuel consumption levels further than the level of the
standard for one or more vehicles to generate ABT credits. The
manufacturer can use those credits to offset higher emission or fuel
consumption levels in the same averaging set, ``bank'' the credits for
later use, or ``trade'' the credits to another manufacturer. For HD
pickups and vans, we are finalizing a fleet
[[Page 57128]]
averaging system very similar to the light-duty GHG and CAFE fleet
averaging system.
At proposal, we restricted the use of the ABT provisions of the
program to vehicles or engines within the same regulatory subcategory.
This meant that credit exchanges could only happen between similar
vehicles meeting the same standards. We proposed this approach for two
reasons. First, we were concerned about a level playing field between
different manufacturers who may not participate equally in the various
truck and engine markets covered in the regulation. Second, we were
concerned about the uncertainties inherent in credit calculations that
are based on projections of lifetime emissions for different vehicles
in wholly different vehicle markets. In response to comments, we have
revised our ABT provisions to provide greater flexibility while
continuing to provide assurance that the projected reductions in fuel
consumption and GHG emissions will be achieved. We are relaxing the
restriction on averaging, banking, and trading of credits between the
various regulatory subcategories, by defining three HD vehicle
averaging sets: Light Heavy-Duty (Classes 2b-5); Medium Heavy-Duty
(Class 6-7); and Heavy Heavy-Duty (Class 8). This allows the use of
credits between vehicles within the same weight class. This means that
a Class 8 day cab tractor can exchange credits with a Class 8 high roof
sleeper tractor but not with a smaller Class 7 tractor. Also, a Class 8
vocational vehicle can exchange credits with a Class 8 tractor. We are
adopting these revisions based on comments from the regulated industry
that convinced us these changes would allow the broadest trading
possible while maintaining a level playing field among the various
market segments. However, we are restricting trading between engines
and chassis, even within the same vehicle class.
The agencies believe that restricting trading to within the same
eight classes as EPA's existing criteria pollutant program (i.e. Heavy-
Heavy Duty, Light Heavy-Duty, Medium Heavy-Duty), but not restricting
trading between vehicle or engine type (such as combination tractors),
and restricting between engines and chassis for the same vehicle type,
is appropriate and reasonable. We do not expect emissions from engines
and vehicles--when restricted by weight class--to be dissimilar. We
therefore expect that the lifetime vehicle performance and emissions
levels will be very similar across these defined categories, and the
estimated credit calculations will fairly ensure the expected fuel
consumption and GHG reductions.
The agencies considered even broader averaging, banking, and
trading provisions but decided that in this first phase of regulation,
it would be prudent to start with the program described here, which
will regulate greenhouse gas emissions and fuel consumption from this
sector for the first time and provide considerable early reductions as
well as opportunities to learn about technical and other issues that
can inform future rulemakings. In the future we intend to consider
whether additional cost savings could be realized through broader
trading provisions and whether such provisions could be designed so as
to address any other relevant concerns.
Reducing the cost of regulation through broader use of market tools
is a high priority for the Administration. See Executive Order 13563
and in particular section 1(b)(5) and section 4. Consistent with this
principle, we intend to seek public comment through a Notice of Data
Availability after credit trading begins in 2013, the first year we
expect manufacturers to begin certifying 2014 model year vehicles, on
whether broader credit trading is more appropriate in developing the
next phase of heavy-duty regulations. We believe that input will be
better informed by the work the agencies and the regulated industry
will have put into implementing this first phase of heavy-duty
regulations.
Through this public process, emphasizing the Administration's
strong preference for flexible approaches and maximizing the use of
market tools, the agencies intend to fully consider whether broader
credit trading is more appropriate in developing the next phase of
heavy-duty regulations.
This program thus does not allow credits to be exchanged between
heavy-duty vehicles and light-duty vehicles, nor can credits be traded
from heavy-duty vehicle fleets to light-duty vehicle fleets and vice
versa.
The engine ABT provisions are also changed from the proposal and
now are the same as in EPA's existing criteria pollutant emission
rules. The agencies have broadened the averaging sets to include both
FTP-certified and SET-certified engines in the same averaging set. For
example, a SET-certified engine intended for a Class 8 tractor can
exchange credits with a FTP-certified engine intended for a Class 8
vocational vehicle.
The agencies are finalizing three year deficit carry-forward
provisions for heavy-duty engines and vehicles within a limited time
frame. This flexibility is expected to provide an opportunity for
manufacturers to make necessary technological improvements and reduce
the overall cost of the program without compromising overall
environmental and fuel economy objectives. This flexibility, similar to
the flexibility the agencies have offered under the light-duty vehicle
program, is intended to assist the broad goal of harmonizing the two
agencies' standards while preserving the flexibility of manufacturers
of vehicles and engines in meeting the standards, to the extent
appropriate and required by law. During the MYs 2014-2018 manufacturers
are expected to go through the normal business cycle of redesigning and
upgrading their heavy-duty engine and vehicle products, and in some
cases introducing entirely new vehicles and engines not on the market
today. As explained in the following paragraph, the carry-forward
provision will allow manufacturers the time needed to incorporate
technology to achieve GHG reductions and improve fuel economy during
the vehicle redesign process.
We received comments from Center for Biological Diversity against
the need to offer the deficit carry-forward flexibility. CBD has stated
that allowing manufacturers to carry-forward deficits for up to three
years would incentivize delays in investment and technological
innovation and allow for the generation of additional tons of GHG
emissions that may be prevented today. However, the deficit carry-
forward flexibility (as well as ABT generally) has enabled the agencies
to consider overall standards that are more stringent and that will
become effective at an earlier period than we could consider with a
more rigid program. The agencies also believe this flexibility is an
important aspect of the program, as it avoids the much higher costs
that would occur if manufacturers needed to add or change technology at
times other than their scheduled redesigns, i.e. the cost of adopting a
new engine or vehicle platform mid-production or mid-design. This time
period would also provide manufacturers the opportunity to plan for
compliance using a multi-year time frame, again consistent with normal
business practice. Over these four model years, there would be an
opportunity for manufacturers to evaluate practically all of their
vehicle and engine model platforms and add technology in a cost
effective way to control GHG emissions and improve fuel economy.
As noted above, in addition to ABT, the other primary flexibility
provisions in this program involve opportunities to generate early
credits, advanced technology credits (including for use of
[[Page 57129]]
hybrid powertrains), and innovative technology credits. For the early
credits and advanced technology credits, the agencies sought comment on
the appropriateness of providing a 1.5x multiplier as an incentive for
their use. We received a number of comments supporting the idea of a
credit multiplier, arguing it was an appropriate means to incentivize
the early compliance and advanced technologies the agencies sought. We
received other comments suggesting a multiplier was unnecessary. After
considering the comments, the agencies have decided to finalize a 1.5x
multiplier consistent with our request for comments. We believe that
given the very short lead time of the program and the nascent nature of
the advanced technologies identified in the proposal, that a 1.5x
multiplier is an effective means to bring technology forward into the
heavy-duty sector sooner than would otherwise occur. In addition,
advanced technology credits could be used anywhere within the heavy
duty sector (including both vehicles and engines), but early credits
would be restricted to use within the same defined averaging set
generating the credit.
For other technologies which can reduce CO2 and fuel
consumption, but for which there do not yet exist established methods
for quantifying reductions, the agencies still wish to encourage the
development of such innovative technologies, and are therefore adopting
special ``innovative technology'' credits. These innovative technology
credits will apply to technologies that are shown to produce emission
and fuel consumption reductions that are not adequately recognized on
the current test procedures and that are not yet in widespread use in
the heavy-duty sector. Manufacturers will need to quantify the
reductions in fuel consumption and CO2 emissions that the
technology is expected to achieve, above and beyond those achieved on
the existing test procedures. As with ABT, the use of innovative
technology credits will only be allowed for use among vehicles and
engines of the same defined averaging set generating the credit, as
described above. The credit multiplier will not be used for innovative
technology credits.
CBD argued that including any opportunities for manufacturers to
earn credits in the final rule would violate NHTSA's statutory mandate
to implement a program designed to achieve the maximum feasible
improvement.
NHTSA strongly believes that creating credit flexibilities for
manufacturers for this first phase of the HD National Program is fully
consistent with the agency's obligation to develop a fuel efficiency
improvement program designed to achieve the maximum feasible
improvement. EISA gives NHTSA broad authority to develop ``compliance
and enforcement protocols'' that are ``appropriate, cost-effective, and
technologically feasible,'' and the agency believes that compliance
flexibilities such as the opportunity to earn and use credits to meet
the standards are a reasonable and appropriate interpretation of that
authority, along with the other compliance and enforcement provisions
developed for this final rule. Unlike in NHTSA's light-duty program,
where the agency is restricted from considering the availability of
credits in determining the maximum feasible level of stringency for the
fuel economy standards,\42\ in this HD National Program, NHTSA and EPA
have based the levels of stringency in part on our assumptions of the
use of available flexibilities that have been built into the program to
incentivize over-compliance in some respects, to balance out potential
under-compliance in others.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ See 49 U.S.C. 32902(h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By assuming the use of credits for compliance, the agencies were
able to set the fuel consumption/GHG standards at more stringent levels
than would otherwise have been feasible. Greater improvements in fuel
efficiency will occur under more stringent standards; manufacturers
will simply have greater flexibility to determine where and how to make
those improvements than they would have without credit options.
Further, this is consistent with EOs 12866 and 13563, which encourage
agencies to design regulations that promote innovation and flexibility
where possible.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ EO 12866 states that an agency must ``design its
regulations in the most cost-effective manner to achieve the
regulatory objective * * * consider[ing] incentives for innovation *
* * [and] flexibility,'' among other factors; EO 13563 directs
agencies to ``seek to identify, as appropriate, means to achieve
regulatory goals that are designed to promote innovation,'' and
``identify and consider regulatory approaches that * * * maintain
flexibility.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A detailed discussion of each agency's ABT, early credit, advanced
technology, and innovative technology provisions for each regulatory
category of heavy-duty vehicles and engines is found in Section IV
below.
F. EPA and NHTSA Statutory Authorities
(1) EPA Authority
Title II of the CAA provides for comprehensive regulation of mobile
sources, authorizing EPA to regulate emissions of air pollutants from
all mobile source categories. When acting under Title II of the CAA,
EPA considers such issues as technology effectiveness, its cost (both
per vehicle, per manufacturer, and per consumer), the lead time
necessary to implement the technology, and based on this the
feasibility and practicability of potential standards; the impacts of
potential standards on emissions reductions of both GHGs and non-GHGs;
the impacts of standards on oil conservation and energy security; the
impacts of standards on fuel savings by customers; the impacts of
standards on the truck industry; other energy impacts; as well as other
relevant factors such as impacts on safety.
This final action implements a specific provision from Title II,
section 202(a).\44\ 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.'' With EPA's December
2009 final findings that certain greenhouse gases may reasonably be
anticipated to endanger public health and welfare and that emissions of
GHGs from section 202 (a) sources cause or contribute to that
endangerment, section 202(a) requires EPA to issue standards applicable
to emissions of those pollutants from new motor vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ See 42 U.S.C. 7521 (a). A number of commenters believed
that the GHG program was being adopted pursuant to section 202
(a)(3)(A) and that the lead time requirements of section 202
(a)(3)(C) therefore apply. This is mistaken. Section 202 (a)(3)(A)
applies to standards for emissions of hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide,
oxides of nitrogen, and particulate matter from heavy-duty vehicles
and engines. This does not include the GHGs regulated under the
standards in today's action. This comment is addressed further in
the Response to Comment document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any standards under CAA section 202(a)(1) ``shall be applicable to
such vehicles * * * for their useful life.'' Emission standards set by
the EPA under CAA section 202(a)(1) 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 providing 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'' (section 202(a)(2);
[[Page 57130]]
see also NRDC v. EPA, 655 F. 2d 318, 322 (DC Cir. 1981)). 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 (DC Cir. 1973).
However, ``EPA is not obliged to provide detailed solutions to every
engineering problem posed in the perfection of the trap-oxidizer. 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. The 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).
Although standards under CAA section 202(a)(1) are technology-
based, they are not based exclusively on technological capability. EPA
has the discretion to consider and weigh various factors along with
technological feasibility, such as the cost of compliance (See section
202(a) (2)), lead time necessary for compliance (section 202(a)(2)),
safety (See NRDC, 655 F. 2d at 336 n. 31) and other impacts on
consumers, and energy impacts associated with use of the technology.
See George E. Warren Corp. v. EPA, 159 F.3d 616, 623-624 (DC Cir. 1998)
(ordinarily permissible for EPA to consider factors not specifically
enumerated in the CAA). See also Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper, Inc.,
129 S.Ct. 1498, 1508-09 (2009) (congressional silence did not bar EPA
from employing cost-benefit analysis under Clean Water Act absent some
other clear indication that such analysis was prohibited; rather,
silence indicated discretion to use or not use such an approach as the
agency deems appropriate).
In addition, EPA has clear authority to set standards under CAA
section 202(a) that are technology forcing when EPA considers that to
be appropriate, but is not required to do so (as compared to standards
set under provisions such as section 202(a)(3) and section
213(a)(3)).\45\ EPA has interpreted a similar statutory provision, CAA
section 231, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ One commenter mistakenly stated that section 202 (a)
standards must be technology-forcing, but the provision plainly does
not require EPA to adopt technology-forcing standards. See further
discussion in Section III.A below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the statutory language of section 231 is not identical to
other provisions in title II of the CAA that direct EPA to establish
technology-based standards for various types of engines, EPA interprets
its authority under section 231 to be somewhat similar to those
provisions that require us to identify a reasonable balance of
specified emissions reduction, cost, safety, noise, and other factors.
See, e.g., Husqvarna AB v. EPA, 254 F.3d 195 (DC Cir. 2001) (upholding
EPA's promulgation of technology-based standards for small non-road
engines under section 213(a)(3) of the CAA). However, EPA is not
compelled under section 231 to obtain the ``greatest degree of emission
reduction achievable'' as per sections 213 and 202 of the CAA, and so
EPA does not interpret the Act as requiring the agency to give
subordinate status to factors such as cost, safety, and noise in
determining what standards are reasonable for aircraft engines. Rather,
EPA has greater flexibility under section 231 in determining what
standard is most reasonable for aircraft engines, and is not required
to achieve a ``technology forcing'' result (70 FR 69664 and 69676,
November 17, 2005).
This interpretation was upheld as reasonable in NACAA v. EPA, 489
F.3d 1221, 1230 (DC Cir. 2007). 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 (DC 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' ''). See also
Husqvarna AB v. EPA, 254 F. 3d 195, 200 (DC 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); see also Hercules
Inc. v. EPA, 598 F. 2d 91, 106 (DC Cir. 1978) (``In reviewing a
numerical standard the agencies must ask whether the agency's numbers
are within a zone of reasonableness, not whether its numbers are
precisely right''); 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. FERC, 297 F. 3d
1071, 1084 (DC Cir. 2002) (same).
(a) EPA Testing Authority
Under section 203 of the CAA, sales of vehicles are prohibited
unless the vehicle is covered by a certificate of conformity. EPA
issues certificates of conformity pursuant to section 206 of the Act,
based on (necessarily) pre-sale testing conducted either by EPA or by
the manufacturer. The Heavy-duty Federal Test Procedure (Heavy-duty
FTP) and the Supplemental Engine Test (SET) 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. Useful life standards may apply an
adjustment factor to account for vehicle emission control deterioration
or variability in use (section 206(a)).
EPA established the Light-duty FTP for emissions measurement in the
early 1970s. In 1976, in response to the Energy Policy and Conservation
Act, EPA extended the use of the Light-duty FTP to fuel economy
measurement (See 49 U.S.C. 32904(c)). EPA can determine fuel efficiency
of a vehicle by measuring the amount of CO2 and all other
carbon compounds (e.g., total hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide (CO)),
and then, by mass balance, calculating the amount of fuel consumed.
(b) EPA Enforcement Authority
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, section 205
of the CAA authorizes EPA to assess penalties of up to $37,500 per
vehicle for violations of various prohibited acts specified in the CAA.
In determining the appropriate penalty, EPA must consider a variety of
factors such as the gravity of the violation, the economic impact of
the violation, the violator's history of compliance, and ``such other
matters as justice may require.''
(2) NHTSA Authority
In 1975, Congress enacted the Energy Policy and Conservation Act
(EPCA), mandating a regulatory program for motor vehicle fuel economy
to meet the various facets of the need to conserve energy. In December
2007, Congress
[[Page 57131]]
enacted the Energy Independence and Securities Act (EISA), amending
EPCA to require, among other things, the creation of a medium- and
heavy-duty fuel efficiency program for the first time. This mandate in
EISA represents a major step forward in promoting EPCA's goals of
energy independence and security, and environmental and national
security.
NHTSA has primary responsibility for fuel economy and consumption
standards, and assures compliance with EISA through rulemaking,
including standard-setting; technical reviews, audits and studies;
investigations; and enforcement of implementing regulations including
penalty actions. This final action implements Section 32902(k)(2) of
EISA, which instructs NHTSA to create a fuel efficiency improvement
program for ``commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicles and
work trucks'' \46\ by rulemaking, which is to include standards, test
methods, measurement metrics, and enforcement protocols. See 49 U.S.C.
32902(k)(2). Congress directed that the standards, test methods,
measurement metrics, and compliance and enforcement protocols be
``appropriate, cost-effective, and technologically feasible'' for the
vehicles to be regulated, while achieving the ``maximum feasible
improvement'' in fuel efficiency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ ``Commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicles''
are defined at 49 U.S.C. 32901(a)(7), and ``work trucks'' are
defined at (a)(19).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA has clear authority to design and implement a fuel efficiency
program for vehicles and work trucks under EISA, and was given broad
discretion to balance the statutory factors in Section 32902(k)(2) in
developing fuel consumption standards to achieve the maximum feasible
improvement. Since this is the first rulemaking that NHTSA has
conducted under 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(2), the agency interpreted these
elements and factors in the context of setting standards, choosing
metrics, and determining test methods and compliance/enforcement
mechanisms. Discussion of the application of these factors can be found
in Section III below. Congress also gave NHTSA the authority to set
separate standards for different classes of these vehicles, but
required that all standards adopted provide not less than four full
model years of regulatory lead-time and three full model years of
regulatory stability.
In EISA, Congress required NHTSA to prescribe separate average fuel
economy standards for passenger cars and light trucks in accordance
with the provisions in 49 U.S.C. Section 32902(b), and to prescribe
standards for work trucks and commercial medium- and heavy-duty
vehicles in accordance with the provisions in 49 U.S.C. 32902(k). See
49 U.S.C. Section 32902(b)(1). Congress also added in EISA a
requirement that NHTSA shall issue regulations prescribing fuel economy
standards for at least 1, but not more than 5, model years. See 49
U.S.C. 32902(b)(3)(B). For purposes of the fuel efficiency standards
that the agency proposed for HD vehicles and engines, the NPRM stated
an interpretation of the statute that the 5-year maximum limit did not
apply to standards promulgated in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 32902(k),
given the language in Section 32902(b)(1). Based on this
interpretation, NHTSA proposed that the standards ultimately finalized
for HD vehicles and engines would remain in effect indefinitely at
their 2018 or 2019 model year levels until amended by a future
rulemaking action. In any future rulemaking action to amend the
standards, NHTSA would ensure not less than four full model years of
regulatory lead-time and three full model years of regulatory
stability. NHTSA sought comment on its interpretation of EISA.
Robert Bosch LLC (Bosch) commented that the absence of an
expiration date for the standards proposed in the NPRM could violate 49
U.S.C. 32902, which it interpreted as requiring the MD/HD program to
have standards that expire in five years. Section 32902(k)(3), which
lays out the requirements for the MD/HD program, specifies the minimum
regulatory lead and stability times, as described above, but does not
specify a maximum duration period. In contrast, Section 32902(b)(3)(B)
lays out the minimum and maximum durations of standards to be
established in a rulemaking for the light-duty program, but prescribes
no minimum lead or stability time. Bosch argued that as 49 U.S.C.
Section 32902(k)(3) does not require a maximum duration period,
Congress intended that NHTSA take the maximum duration period specified
for the light-duty program in Section 32902(b)(3)(B), five years, and
apply it to Section 32902(k)(3). Bosch also argued, however, that the
minimum duration period should not be carried over from the light-duty
to the heavy-duty section, as a minimum duration period for HD was
specified in Section 32902(k)(3).
NHTSA has revisited this issue and continues to believe that it is
reasonable to assume that if Congress intended for the HD/MD regulatory
program to be limited by the timeline prescribed in Subsection
(b)(3)(B), it would have either mentioned HD/MD vehicles in that
subsection or included the same timeline in Subsection (k).\47\ In
addition, in order for Subsection (b)(3)(B) to be interpreted to apply
to Subsection (k), the agency would need to give less than full weight
to the earlier phrase in the statute directing the Secretary to
prescribe standards for ``work trucks and commercial medium-duty or
heavy-duty on-highway vehicles in accordance with Subsection (k).'' 49
U.S.C. 32902(b)(1)(C). Instead, this direction would need to be read to
mean ``in accordance with Subsection (k) and the remainder of
Subsection (b).'' NHTSA believes this interpretation would be
inappropriate. Interpreting ``in accordance with Subsection (k)'' to
mean something indistinct from ``in accordance with this Subsection''
goes against the canon that statutes should not be interpreted in a way
that ``render[s] language superfluous.'' Dobrova v. Holder, 607 F.3d
297, 302 (2d Cir. 2010), quoting Mendez v. Holder, 566 F. 3d 316, 321-
22 (2d Cir. 2009). Based on this reasoning, NHTSA believes the more
reasonable and appropriate approach is reflected in the proposal, and
the final rules therefore follow this approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ ``[W]here Congress includes particular language in one
section of a statute but omits it in another section of the same
Act, it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally and
purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion.'' Russello v.
United States, 464 U.S. 16, 23 (1983), quoting U.S. v. Wong Kim Bo,
472 F.2d 720, 722 (5th Cir 1972)., See also Mayo v. Questech, Inc.,
727 F.Supp. 1007, 1014 (E.D.Va. 1989) (conspicuous absence of
provision from section where inclusion would be most logical signals
Congress did not intend for it to be implied).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another commenter, CBD, expressed concern that lack of an
expiration date meant that the standards would remain indefinitely,
thus forgoing the possibility of increased stringency in the future.
CBD argued that this violated NHTSA's statutory duty to set maximum
feasible standards. NHTSA disagrees that the indefinite duration of the
standards in this rule would prevent the agency from setting future
standards at the maximum feasible level in future rulemakings. The
absence of an expiration date for these standards should not be
interpreted to mean that there will be no future rulemakings to
establish new MD/HD fuel efficiency standards for MYs 2019 and beyond--
the agencies have already previewed the possibility of such a
rulemaking in other parts of this final rule preamble. Therefore, NHTSA
believes this concern is unnecessary.
[[Page 57132]]
(a) NHTSA Testing Authority
49 U.S.C. Section 32902(k)(2) states that NHTSA must adopt and
implement appropriate, cost-effective, and technologically feasible
test methods and measurement metrics as part of the fuel efficiency
improvement program. For this program, manufacturers will test and
conduct modeling to determine GHG emissions and fuel consumption
performance, and EPA and NHTSA will perform validation testing. The
results of the validation tests will be used by EPA to create a
finalized reporting that confirms the manufacturer's final model year
GHG emissions and fuel consumption results, which each agency will use
to enforce compliance with its standards.
(v) NHTSA Enforcement Authority
(i) Overview
The NPRM proposed a compliance and enforcement program that
included civil penalties for violations of the fuel efficiency
standards. 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(2) states that NHTSA must adopt and
implement appropriate, cost-effective, and technologically feasible
compliance and enforcement protocols for the fuel efficiency
improvement program. Congress gave DOT broad discretion to fashion its
fuel efficiency improvement program and thus necessarily did not speak
directly or specifically as to the nature of the compliance and
enforcement protocols that would be best suited for effectively
supporting the yet-to-be-designed-and-established program. Instead, it
left the matter generally to the Secretary. Congress' approach is
unlike CAFE enforcement for passenger cars and light trucks, where
Congress specified the precise details of a program and provided that a
manufacturer either complies with standards or pays civil penalties.
The statute is silent with respect to how ``protocol'' should be
interpreted. The term ``protocol'' is imprecise and thus Congress'
choice of that term affords the agency substantial breadth of
discretion. For example, in a case interpreting Section 301(c)(2) of
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA), the DC Circuit noted that the word ``protocols'' has many
definitions that are not much help. Kennecott Utah Copper Corp., Inc.
v. U.S. Dept. of Interior, 88 F.3d. 1191, 1216 (DC Cir. 1996). Section
301(c)(2) of CERCLA prescribed the creation of two types of procedures
for conducting natural resources damages assessments. The regulations
were to specify (a) ``standard procedures for simplified assessments
requiring minimal field observation'' (the ``Type A'' rules), and (b)
``alternative protocols for conducting assessments in individual
cases'' (the ``Type B'' rules).\48\ The court upheld the challenged
provisions, which were a part of a set of rules establishing a step-by-
step procedure to evaluate options based on certain criteria, and to
make a decision and document the results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ State of Ohio v. U.S. Dept. of Interior, 880 F.2d 432, 439
(DC Cir. 1989).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Taking the considerations above into account, including Congress'
instructions to adopt and implement compliance and enforcement
protocols, and the Secretary's authority to formulate policy and make
rules to fill gaps left, implicitly or explicitly, by Congress, the
agency interpreted ``protocol'' in the context of EISA as authorizing
the agency to determine both whether manufacturers have complied with
the standards, and to establish suitable and reasonable enforcement
mechanisms and decision criteria for non-compliance. Therefore, NHTSA
interpreted its authority to develop an enforcement program to include
the authority to determine and assess civil penalties for non-
compliance.
Several commenters disagreed with this interpretation. Volvo and
EMA commented that the penalties proposed by NHTSA exceeded the
authority granted to the agency by Congress, and Volvo commented that
the fact that Congress did not adopt an entirely new statute for the HD
program should be interpreted to mean that provisions adopted for the
light-duty program should apply to the HD program as well. Daimler
argued that it was likely that EISA did not give NHTSA the authority to
assess civil penalties, and Navistar and EMA argued that NHTSA could
not have the authority as Congress did not expressly grant it.
NHTSA continues to believe that it is reasonable to interpret
``compliance and enforcement protocols'' to include authority to impose
civil penalties. Where a statute does not specify an approach, the
discretion to do so is left to the agency. When Congress has
``explicitly left a gap for an agency to fill, there is an express
delegation of authority to the agency to elucidate a specific provision
of the statute by regulation.'' United States. v. Mead, 533 U.S. 218,
227 (2001), quoting Chevron v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837, 843-44 (1984). The
delegation of authority may be implicit rather than express. Id. at
229. NHTSA believes it would be unreasonable to assume that Congress
intended to create a hollow regulatory program without a mechanism for
effective enforcement. Further, interpreting ``enforcement protocols''
to mean not more than ``compliance protocols'' would go against the
canon noted above that statutes should not be interpreted in a way that
``render[s] language superfluous.'' Dobrova v. Holder, 607 F.3d 297,
302 (2d Cir. 2010), quoting Mendez v. Holder 566 F. 3d 316, 321-22 (2d
Cir. 2009). The interpretation urged by the commenters would render an
entire program superfluous.
Further, NHTSA believes that Congress would have anticipated that
compliance and enforcement protocols would include civil penalties for
the HD sector, given that penalties are an integral part of a product
standards program and given the long precedent of civil penalties for
the light-duty sector. The agency disagrees with the argument that the
HD program would have appeared in a wholly separate statute if Congress
had not intended the penalty program for light-duty to apply to it. The
inclusion of the MD/HD program in Title 329 does not mean that Congress
intended for the boundaries and differences between the separate
sections to be ignored. Rather, this argument leads to the opposite
conclusion that the fact that Congress created a new section for the HD
program, instead of simply amending the existing light-duty program to
include ``work trucks and other vehicles'' in addition to automobiles,
means the agency should assume that Congress acted intentionally when
it created two wholly separate programs and respect their distinctions.
Therefore, consistent with the statutory interpretation proposed in the
NPRM, the final rule includes penalties for non-compliance with the
fuel efficiency standards.
(ii) Penalty Levels
NHTSA proposed to adopt penalty levels equal to those in EPA's
existing heavy-duty program, in order to provide adequate deterrence as
well as consistency with the GHG regulation. The proposed maximum
penalty levels were $37,500.00 per vehicle or engine.
Several manufacturers commented that the penalty levels should be
limited to those mandated in the light-duty program. Volvo and Daimler
argued that Congress intended lower penalties for the HD program than
were proposed in the NPRM, because they believed that Congress had
expressly or implicitly intended for the HD program to be included in
the penalty calculation of Section 32912(b). That section prescribes
penalty levels for violators under Section 32902 of ``$5 multiplied
[[Page 57133]]
by each tenth (0.1) of a mile a gallon by which the applicable average
fuel economy standard under that section exceeds the average fuel
economy,'' \49\ calculated and applied to automobiles. Volvo further
argued that NHTSA was relying upon the CAA as the statutory basis for
the penalty levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ This fine was increased by 49 CFR 578.6, which provides
that ``Except as provided in 49 U.S.C. 32912(c), a manufacturer that
violates a standard prescribed for a model year under 49 U.S.C.
32902 is liable to the United States Government for a civil penalty
of $5.50 multiplied by each 0.1 of a mile a gallon by which the
applicable average fuel economy standard under that section exceeds
the average fuel economy.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA recognizes that Section 329 contains a detailed penalty
scheme, for light-duty vehicle CAFE standards. However, Section
32902(k)(2) explicitly directs NHTSA to ``adopt and implement
appropriate test methods, measurement metrics, fuel economy standards,
and compliance and enforcement protocols,'' in the creation of the new
HD program. NHTSA continues to believe that this broad Congressional
mandate should be interpreted based on a plain text reading, which
includes the authority to determine compliance and enforcement
protocols that will be effective and appropriate for this new sector of
regulation. NHTSA also believes that reading Section 32912 to apply to
the new HD program would contradict Congress' broad mandate for the
agency to establish new measurement metrics and a compliance and
enforcement program. Further, interpreting the requirement to create
``enforcement protocols'' for HD vehicles to mean that NHTSA should
rely on the enforcement provisions for light-duty vehicles would go
against the canon noted above that statutes should not be interpreted
in a way that ``render[s] language superfluous.'' Dobrova v. Holder,
607 F.3d 297, 302 (2d Cir. 2010), quoting Mendez v. Holder 566 F. 3d
316, 321-22 (2d Cir. 2009).
NHTSA believes that Section 32912 does not apply to the new HD
program for several other reasons. First, this section uses a fuel
economy metric, miles/gallon, while the HD program is built around a
fuel consumption metric, per the requirement to develop a ``fuel
efficiency improvement program'' and the agencies' conclusion,
supported by NAS, that a fuel consumption metric is a much more
reasonable choice than a fuel economy metric for HD vehicles given
their usage as work vehicles. Second, this section specifies a
calculation for automobiles, a vehicle class which is confined to the
light-duty rule. In addition, the HD program prescribes fuel
consumption standards, not average fuel economy standards.
Finally, NHTSA believes that if Congress had intended for a pre-
determined penalty scheme to apply to the new HD program, it would have
been specific. Instead, Congress explicitly directed the agency to
develop a new measurement, compliance, and enforcement scheme.
Consistent with the statutory interpretation of the duration of the
standards, NHTSA believes that if Congress intended for particular
penalty levels to be used in Section 32902(k)(3), it would have either
included a reference to those levels or included a reference in 32912
to the vehicles and metrics regulated by 32902(k)(3). See Russello v.
United States, 464 U.S. 16, 23 (1983), quoting United States v. Wong
Kim Bo, 472 F.2d 720, 722 (5th Cir 1972) (``[W]here Congress includes
particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another
section of the same Act, it is generally presumed that Congress acts
intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion.'')
Instead, the absence of such language could mean either that Congress
did not contemplate the specific penalty levels to be used, or that
Congress left the choice of specific penalty levels to the agency. See
Alliance for Community Media v. F.C.C. 529 F. 3d 763, 779 (6th Cir.
2008) (absence of a statutory deadline in one section but not others
meant that Congress authorized but did not require it in that section).
NHTSA believes that, based on EPA's experience regulating this
sector for criteria pollutants, the proposed maximum penalty is at an
appropriate level to create deterrence for non-compliance, while at the
same time, not so high as to create undue hardship for manufacturers.
Therefore, the final rule retains the maximum penalty level proposed in
the NPRM.
G. Future HD GHG and Fuel Consumption Rulemakings
This final action represents a first regulatory step by NHTSA and
EPA to address the multi-faceted challenges of reducing fuel use and
greenhouse gas emissions from these vehicles. By focusing on existing
technologies and well-developed regulatory tools, the agencies are able
to adopt rules that we believe will produce real and important
reductions in GHG emissions and fuel consumption within only a few
years. Within the context of this regulatory time frame, our program is
very aggressive--with limited lead time compared to historic heavy-duty
regulations--but pragmatic in the context of technologies that are
available and that can be reasonably implemented during the regulatory
time frame.
While we are now only finalizing this first step, it is worthwhile
to consider how the next regulatory step may be designed. Technologies
such as hybrid drivetrains, advanced bottoming cycle engines, and full
electric vehicles are promoted in this first step through incentive
concepts as discussed in Section IV, but we believe that these advanced
technologies will not be necessary to meet the final standards. Today's
standards are premised on the use of existing technologies given the
short lead time, as discussed in Section III, below. When we begin work
to develop a possible next set of regulatory standards, the agencies
expect these advanced technologies to be an important part of the
regulatory program and will consider them in setting the stringency of
any standards beyond the 2018 model year.
We will not only consider the progress of technology in our future
regulatory efforts, but the agencies are also committed to fully
considering a range of regulatory approaches. To more completely
capture the complex interactions of the total vehicle and the potential
to reduce fuel consumption and GHG emissions through the optimization
of those interactions may require a more sophisticated approach to
vehicle testing than we are adopting today for the largest heavy-duty
vehicles. In future regulations, the agencies expect to fully evaluate
the potential to expand the use of vehicle compliance models to reflect
engine and drivetrain performance. Similarly, we intend to consider the
potential for complete vehicle testing using a chassis dynamometer, not
only as a means for compliance, but also as a complementary tool for
the development of more complex vehicle modeling approaches. In
considering these more comprehensive regulatory approaches, the
agencies will also reevaluate whether separate regulation of trucks and
engines remains necessary.
In addition to technology and test procedures, vehicle and engine
drive cycles are an important part of the overall approach to
evaluating and improving vehicle performance. EPA, working through the
WP.29 Global Technical Regulation process, has actively participated in
the development of a new World Harmonized Duty Cycle for heavy-duty
engines. EPA is committed to bringing forward these new procedures as
part of our overall comprehensive approach for controlling
[[Page 57134]]
criteria pollutant and GHG emissions. However, we believe the important
issues and technical work related to setting new criteria pollutant
emissions standards appropriate for the World Harmonized Duty Cycle are
significant and beyond the scope of this rulemaking. Therefore, the
agencies are not adopting these test procedures in this action, but we
are ready to work with interested stakeholders to adopt these
procedures in a future action.
As noted above, the agencies also intend to further investigate
possibilities of expanded credit trading across the heavy-duty sector.
As part of this effort, the agencies will investigate the degree to
which the issue of credit trading is connected with complete vehicle
testing procedures.
As with this program, our future efforts will be based on
collaborative outreach with the stakeholder community and will be
focused on a program that delivers on our energy security and
environmental goals without restricting the industry's ability to
produce a very diverse range of vehicles serving a wide range of needs.
II. Final GHG and Fuel Consumption Standards for Heavy-Duty Engines and
Vehicles
This section describes the standards and implementation dates that
the agencies are finalizing for the three categories of heavy-duty
vehicles and engines. The agencies have performed a technology analysis
to determine the level of standards that we believe will be cost-
effective, feasible, and appropriate in the lead time provided. This
analysis, described in Section III and in more detail in the RIA
Chapter 2, considered for each of the regulatory categories:
The level of technology that is incorporated in current
new engines and trucks,
Forecasts of manufacturers' product redesign schedules,
The available data on corresponding CO2
emissions and fuel consumption for these engines and vehicles,
Technologies that would reduce CO2 emissions
and fuel consumption and that are judged to be feasible and appropriate
for these vehicles and engines through the 2018 model year,
The effectiveness and cost of these technologies, and
Projections of future U.S. sales for trucks and engines.
A. What vehicles will be affected?
EPA and NHTSA are finalizing standards for heavy-duty engines and
also for what we refer to generally as ``heavy-duty vehicles.'' In
general, these standards will apply for the model year 2014 and later
engines and vehicles, although some standards do not apply until 2016
or 2017. The EPA standards will apply throughout the useful life of the
engine or vehicle, just as existing criteria emission standards apply
throughout the useful life. As noted in Section I, for purposes of this
preamble and rules, the term ``heavy-duty or ``HD'' applies to all
highway vehicles and engines that are not regulated by the light-duty
vehicle, light-duty truck and medium-duty passenger vehicle greenhouse
gas and CAFE standards issued for MYs 2012-2016. Thus, in this notice,
unless specified otherwise, the heavy-duty category incorporates all
vehicles rated with GVWR greater than 8,500 pounds, and the engines
that power these vehicles, except for MDPVs. The CAA defines heavy-duty
vehicles as trucks, buses or other motor vehicles with GVWR exceeding
6,000 pounds. See CAA section 202(b)(3). In the context of the CAA, the
term HD as used in these final rules thus refers to a subset of these
vehicles and engines. EISA section 103(a)(3) defines a `commercial
medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicle' as an on-highway vehicle
with GVWR of 10,000 pounds or more.\50\ EISA section 103(a)(6) defines
a `work truck' as a vehicle that is rated at between 8,500 and 10,000
pounds gross vehicle weight and is not a medium-duty passenger
vehicle.\51\ Therefore, the term ``heavy-duty vehicles'' in this
rulemaking refers to both work trucks and commercial medium- and heavy-
duty on-highway vehicles as defined by EISA. Heavy-duty engines
affected by the standards are those that are installed in commercial
medium- and heavy-duty vehicles, except for the engines installed in
vehicles certified to a complete vehicle emissions standard based on a
chassis test, which would be addressed as a part of those complete
vehicles, and except for engines used exclusively for stationary power
when the vehicle is parked. The agencies' scope is the same with the
exception of recreational vehicles (or motor homes), as discussed
above. The standards that EPA is finalizing today cover recreational
on-highway vehicles, while NHTSA limited its scope in the proposal to
not include these vehicles. See Section I.A above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ Codified at 49 U.S.C. 32901(a)(7).
\51\ EISA Section 103(a)(6) is codified at 49 U.S.C.
32901(a)(19). EPA defines medium-duty passenger vehicles as any
complete vehicle between 8,500 and 10,000 pounds GVWR designed
primarily for the transportation of persons which meet the criteria
outlined in 40 CFR 86.1803-01. The definition specifically excludes
any vehicle that (1) has a capacity of more than 12 persons total
or, (2) is designed to accommodate more than 9 persons in seating
rearward of the driver's seat or, (3) has a cargo box (e.g., pickup
box or bed) of six feet or more in interior length. (See the Tier 2
final rulemaking, 65 FR 6698, February 10, 2000.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NPRM did not include an export exclusion in NHTSA's fuel
consumption standards. Oshkosh Corporation commented that NHTSA should
add an export exclusion in order to accommodate the testing and
delivery needs of manufacturers of vehicles intended for export. NHTSA
agrees with this comment and Section 535.3 of the final rule specifies
such an exclusion.
EPA and NHTSA are finalizing standards for each of the following
categories, which together comprise all heavy-duty vehicles and all
engines used in such vehicles. In order to most appropriately regulate
the broad range of heavy-duty vehicles and engines, the agencies are
setting separate engine and vehicle standards for the combination
tractors and Class 2b through 8 vocational vehicles. The engine
standards and test procedures for engines installed in the tractors and
vocational vehicles are discussed within the preamble sections for
combination tractors and vocational vehicles, respectively. The
agencies are establishing standards for heavy-duty pickups and vans
that apply to the entire vehicle;--there are no separate engine
standards.
As discussed in Section IX, the agencies are not adopting GHG
emission and fuel consumption standards for trailers at this time. In
addition, the agencies are not adopting standards at this time for
engine, chassis, and vehicle manufacturers which are small businesses
(as defined by the Small Business Administration). More detailed
discussion of each regulatory category is included in the subsequent
sections below.
B. Class 7 and 8 Combination Tractors
EPA is finalizing CO2 standards and NHTSA is finalizing
fuel consumption standards for new Class 7 and 8 combination tractors.
The standards are for the tractor cab, with a separate standard for the
engine that is installed in the tractor. Together these standards would
achieve reductions of up to 23 percent compared to the model 2010
baseline level. As discussed below, EPA is finalizing its proposal to
adopt the existing useful life definitions for Class 7 and 8 tractors
and the heavy-duty engines installed in them. NHTSA and EPA are
finalizing revised fuel consumption and GHG emissions standards for
tractors, and finalizing as proposed engine standards for heavy-duty
engines in Class 7 and 8 tractors. The agencies' analyses, as discussed
[[Page 57135]]
briefly below and in more detail later in this preamble and in the RIA
Chapter 2, show that these standards are feasible and appropriate under
each agency's respective statutory authorities.
EPA is also finalizing standards to control N2O,
CH4, and HFC emissions from Class 7 and 8 combination
tractors. The final heavy-duty engine standards for both N2O
and CH4 and details of the standard are included in the
discussion in Section II.E.1.b and II.E.2.b, respectively. The final
air conditioning leakage standards applying to tractor manufacturers to
address HFC emissions are discussed in Section II.E.5.
The agencies are finalizing CO2 emissions and fuel
consumption standards for the combination tractors that reflect
reductions that can be achieved through improvements in the tractor
(such as aerodynamics), tires, and other vehicle systems. The agencies
are also finalizing heavy-duty engine standards for CO2
emissions and fuel consumption that reflect technological improvements
in combustion and overall engine efficiency.
The agencies have analyzed the feasibility of achieving the
CO2 and fuel consumption standards, and have identified
means of achieving the standards that are technically feasible in the
lead time afforded, economically practicable and cost-effective. EPA
and NHTSA present the estimated costs and benefits of the standards in
Section III. In developing the final rules, the agencies have evaluated
the kinds of technologies that could be utilized by engine and tractor
manufacturers, as well as the associated costs for the industry and
fuel savings for the consumer and the magnitude of the national
CO2 and fuel savings that may be achieved.
The agencies received comments from multiple stakeholders regarding
the definition and classification of ``combination tractors.'' The
commenters raised three key issues. First, EMA/TMA, Navistar and DTNA
requested that both agencies use the same definition for ``tractor'' or
``truck tractor'' in the final rules. EPA proposed a definition for
``tractor'' in Sec. 1037.801 (see the proposed rule published November
30, 2010, 75 FR 74402) which stated that ``tractor'' means a vehicle
capable of pulling trailers that is not intended to carry significant
cargo other than cargo in the trailer, or any other vehicle intended
for the primary purpose of pulling a trailer. For purposes of this
definition, the term ''cargo'' includes permanently attached equipment
such as fire-fighting equipment. The following vehicles are tractors:
any vehicle sold to an ultimate purchaser with a fifth wheel coupling
installed; any vehicle sold to an ultimate purchaser with the rear
portion of the frame exposed where the length of the exposed portion is
5.0 meters or less. See Sec. 1037.620 for special provisions related
to vehicles sold to secondary vehicle manufacturers in this condition.
The following vehicles are not tractors: Any vehicle sold to an
ultimate purchaser with an installed cargo carrying feature (for
example, this would include dump trucks and cement trucks); any vehicle
lacking a fifth wheel coupling sold to an ultimate purchaser with the
rear portion of the frame exposed where the length of the exposed
portion is more than 5.0 meters.
NHTSA proposed to use the 49 CFR 571.3 definition of ``truck
tractor'' in 49 CFR 535.4 (see the proposed rule published November 30,
2010, 75 FR 74440) which stated that ``truck tractor'' means a truck
designed primarily for drawing other motor vehicles and not so
constructed as to carry a load other than a part of the weight of the
vehicle and the load so drawn.
Second, EMA/TMA, NTEA and Navistar expressed concerns over, and
requested the removal of, the proposed language that all vehicles with
sleeper cabs would be classified as tractors. The commenters argued
that because there are vocational vehicles manufactured with sleeper
cabs that operate as vocational vehicles and not as tractors, those
vehicles should be treated the same as all other vocational vehicles.
Third, eleven different commenters requested that the agencies
subdivide tractors into line-haul tractors and vocational tractors and
treat each based upon their operational characteristics: vocational
tractors, which operate at lower speeds offroad or in stop-and-go city
driving as vocational vehicles; and line-haul tractors, which operate
at highway speeds on interstate roadways over long distances, as line-
haul tractors.
In response to the first comment, the agencies have decided to
standardize the definition of tractor by using the long-standing NHTSA
definition of ``truck tractor'' established in 49 CFR 571.3. 49 CFR
571.3(b) states that a ``truck tractor means a truck designed primarily
for drawing other motor vehicles and not so constructed as to carry a
load other than a part of the weight of the vehicle and the load so
drawn.'' EPA's proposed definition for ``tractor'' in the NPRM was
similar to the NHTSA definition, but included some additional language
to require a fifth wheel coupling and an exposed frame in the rear of
the vehicle where the length of the exposed portion is 5.0 meters or
less. EMA and Navistar argued that these two different definitions
could lead to confusion if the agencies applied their requirements for
truck tractors differently from each other. The commenters suggested
that the EPA definition was more complicated than necessary, and that
the simpler NHTSA definition should be used by both agencies as the
base definition of truck tractor.
The agencies agree that the definitions should be standardized and
that the NHTSA definition is sufficient and includes the essential
requirement that a truck tractor is a truck designed ``primarily for
drawing other motor vehicles and not so constructed as to carry a load
other than a part of the weight of the vehicle and the load so drawn.''
EPA's proposed tractor definition was intended to be functionally
equivalent to NHTSA's definition based on design, but to be more
objective by including the criteria related to ``fifth wheels'' and
exposed rear frame. However, EPA no longer believes that such
additional criteria are needed for implementation. NHTSA established
the definition for truck tractor in 49 CFR 571.3(b) years ago,\52\ and
has not encountered any notable problems with its application.
Nevertheless, because the NHTSA definition relies more on design intent
than EPA's proposed definition, we recognize that there may be some
questions regarding how the agencies would apply the NHTSA definition
being finalized to certain unique vehicles. For example, many of the
common automobile and boat transport trucks may look similar to
tractors, but the agencies would not consider them to meet the
definition, because they have the capability to carry one or several
vehicles as cargo with or without a trailer attached, and therefore are
not ``constructed as to carry a load other than a part of the weight of
the vehicle and the load so drawn.'' Similarly, a ``dromedary'' style
truck that has the capability to carry a large load of cargo with or
without drawing a trailer would also not qualify as a tractor.\53\ Even
though these particular vehicles identified could potentially draw
other motor vehicles like a trailer, they have also been designed to
carry cargo with or without the trailer attached. NHTSA has previously
interpreted its definition for ``truck tractor'' as excluding these
specific vehicles like the dromedary and
[[Page 57136]]
automobile/boat transport vehicles. Tow trucks have also been excluded
from the category of truck tractor. On the other hand, it is worth
clarifying that designs that allow cargo to be carried in the passenger
compartment, the sleeper compartment, or external toolboxes would not
exclude a vehicle from the tractor category. The agencies plan to
continue with this approach for the HD fuel efficiency and GHG
standards, which means that these particular vehicles will be subject
to the vocational vehicle standards and not the tractor standards, but
vehicles that did meet the definition above for ``tractor'' will be
subject to the combination tractor standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ 33 FR 19703, December 25, 1968.
\53\ A dromedary is a box, deck or plate mounted behind the cab
to carry freight or cargo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the second comment, the agencies have decided not to
classify vocational vehicles with sleeper cabs as tractors. In the
NPRM, the agencies proposed that vocational vehicles with sleeper cabs
be classified as tractors out of concern that a vehicle could initially
be manufactured as a straight truck vocational vehicle with a sleeper
cab and, soon after introduction into commerce, be converted to a
combination tractor as a means to circumvent the Class 8 sleeper cab
regulations. Commenters who addressed this issue generally disagreed
with the agencies' concern. EMA/TMA, for example, argued that it is
expensive and difficult for a manufacturer to change a vehicle from a
straight truck to a tractor, because of modifications required to the
vehicle, such as to the vehicle's air brake system, and also because of
the manufacturers ultimate responsibility for recertification to
NHTSA's safety standards. EMA/TMA also argued that straight trucks are
often built with sleeper cabs to perform the functions of a vocational
type vehicle and not the functions of a line-haul tractor. NTEA also
provided an example of a straight truck (Expediter Cab) that can be
built with a sleeper cab and a cargo-carrying body, which it argued
should be classified as a vocational vehicle and not a tractor.
Upon further consideration, the agencies agree that vocational
vehicles with sleeper cabs are more appropriately classified as
vocational vehicles than as tractors. The comments discussed above help
to illustrate the reasons for building a vocational vehicle with a
sleeper cab and the difficulties of converting a straight truck to a
tractor. Moreover, 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 requires any service
organization making such modifications to be responsible for
recertification to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety
standards, which should act as a further deterrent to anyone
contemplating making such a conversion. Together these two items
address the agencies' primary reason for proposing the requirement that
all vehicles with sleeper cabs be treated as tractors--the concern of
circumvention of the tractor standards. However, the agencies will
continue to monitor whether it appears that the definitions are
creating unintended consequences, and may consider revising the
definitions in a future rulemaking to address such issues should any
arise. NHTSA and EPA have concluded that the engine and tire
improvements required in the vocational category are appropriate for
this set of vehicles based on the typical operation of these vehicles.
The agencies did not intend to include vocational vehicles with sleeper
cabs, such as an Expediter vehicle, into the tractor category in either
the NPRM or in this final action, and the agencies' analyses at
proposal reflected this intention. Therefore the agencies did not make
any adjustments to the program costs and benefits due to this
classification change.
In response to the third comment, the agencies have decided to
allow manufacturers to exclude certain vocational-type of tractors from
the combination tractor standards and instead be subject to the
vocational vehicle standards. We discuss below the reasoning underlying
this decision, the criteria manufacturers would use in asserting a
claim that a vocational tractor should be reclassified as a vocational
vehicle, and the procedures the agencies will use to accept or reject
manufacturers' claims.
Multiple commenters (Allison Transmission, ATA, CALSTART, Eaton,
EMA/TMA, National Solid Waste Management Association, MEMA, Navistar,
NADA, RMA, and Volvo) argued that the agencies' proposed classification
failed to recognize genuine differences between vocational tractors,
which typically operate at lower speeds in stop-and-go city driving,
and line-haul tractors, which typically operate at highway speeds on
interstate roadways over long distances. Commenters argued that the
proposed tractor standards and associated tractor GEM test cycles were
derived based primarily upon the operational characteristics of the
line-haul tractors, and that technologies that apply to these line-haul
tractors, such as improved aerodynamics, vehicle speed limiters and
automatic engine shutdown, as well as engine performance for improving
emissions and fuel consumption, do not have the same positive impact on
fuel consumption when used on tractors. In today's market, as mentioned
by Volvo and ATA, we understand that approximately 15 percent, or
approximately 15,000 to 20,000, of the Class 7 and 8 tractors could be
classified as vocational tractors based upon the work they perform.
The agencies agree that the overall operation of these vocational-
types of tractors resembles other vocational vehicles' operation: lower
average speed and more stop and go activity than line-haul tractors.
Due to their operation style, a FTP certified engine is a better match
for these tractors than a SET certified engine, because the FTP cycle
uses a lower average speed and more stop and go activity than the SET
cycle. In addition, the limited high speed operation leads to minimal
opportunities for fuel consumption and CO2 emissions
reductions due to aerodynamic improvements. Conversely, the additional
weight of the aerodynamic components could cause an unintended
consequence of increasing gram per ton-mile emissions by reducing the
amount of payload the vehicle can carry in those applications which are
weight-limited. Similarly, the vocational tractors typically do not
hotel overnight and therefore will have little to no benefit through
the installation of an idle reduction technology.
The agencies received several other comments that described
criteria that could be used to distinguish between vocational and non-
vocational tractors. Volvo suggested that a tractor could be a
vocational tractor if it meets three of five specified features:
(1) A frame Resisting Bending Moment (RBM) greater than or equal to
2,000,000 in-lbs per rail, or rail and liner combination;
(2) An approach angle greater than or equal to 20 degrees nominal
design specification, to exclude extended front rails/bumpers for
additional equipment (e.g.--pumps, winch, front engine PTO);
(3) Ground clearance greater than or equal to 14 inches as measured
unladen from the lowest point of any frame rail or body mounted
components, excluding axles and suspension (for HHD and MHD vehicles
this is usually considered as the lowest point of the fuel tank/
mounting or chassis aerodynamic devices);
(4) A total reduction in high gear greater than or equal to 3.00:1;
and
(5) A total reduction in low gear greater than or equal to 57:1.
The approach proposed by Volvo is somewhat similar to the approach
NHTSA has for determining if a vehicle is a light truck under the light
vehicle CAFE program, in which a vehicle must either have a GVWR
greater than 6,000 pounds or have 4-wheel drive, and meet
[[Page 57137]]
four of the five specified suspension characteristics (approach angle,
break-over angle, axle clearance, etc.) to be classified as a light
truck. Although we do not believe that the criteria suggested by Volvo
are workable for all manufacturers and all applications, we agree that
these criteria would reflect a reasonable basis for allowing
manufacturers to reclassify their vehicles as vocational tractors.
Two other commenters, EMA/TMA and Navistar, suggested simply that
the manufacturer should have the burden of establishing that a tractor
is a vocational tractor to the agencies' reasonable satisfaction. The
commenters also suggested some factors that could be used to establish
that a tractor is actually a ``vocational tractor'', including:
(1) A vehicle speed limiter set at 55 mph or less;
(2) Power take-off (PTO) controls;
(3) Extended front frame;
(4) Ground clearance greater than 14 in.;
(5) An approach angle greater than 20 degrees;
(6) Frame RBM greater than 2,000,000 in-lbs.; and
(7) A total gear reduction in low gear greater than 57 and a total
gear reduction in top gear greater than 3.
The agencies believe that both suggested approaches have some
merit. A rule based on specific criteria as suggested by Volvo could
help to minimize the burden on both the manufacturers and the agencies,
as manufacturer-written requests for approval and agency approvals of
those requests would not be required for each vocational tractor
determination whereas the EMA/TMA and Navistar approach requires the
opposite namely that each manufacturer would have to justify the
determination of each vocational tractor based upon its related design
features in a separate petition to the agencies. Neither of the two
approaches, which are based on specific criteria, could be used to
identify all the tractors that should be classified as vocational
tractors. An urban beverage delivery tractor, for example, may not be
designed with any of the features mentioned but is used in a vocational
vehicle manner. Also, the agencies were concerned about the possibility
of manufacturers circumventing the system by incorporating design
changes to their line-haul tractors in order to classify them as
vocational tractors required to meet less stringent emission and fuel
consumption standards. However, at this time the agencies do not
believe that circumventing the system is likely, as most of these
vocational tractors are built to order and will incorporate the design
features required by the customer. Manufacturer vehicle offerings are
designed or tailored to suit the particular task of the consumer. The
vehicle transport mission including vehicle type, gross vehicle weight,
gross combination weight, body style and load handling characteristics,
must be considered in the design process. Further, how the vehicle will
be utilized, including operating cycles, operating environment and road
conditions, is another important consideration in designing a vehicle
to accomplish a particular task. The agencies agree that these criteria
could also be used as part of a basis for classification. We also note
that many of these vehicles have front axle weight ratings greater than
14,600 pounds.
Although the agencies agree that these vocational tractors are
operated differently than line-haul tractors and therefore fit more
appropriately into the vocational vehicle category, we need to ensure
that only tractors that are truly vocational tractors are classified as
such. Upon further consideration of the comments received the agencies
have decided to allow manufacturers to exclude certain vocational-type
tractors from the combination tractor standards, and instead be subject
to the standards for vocational vehicles. A vehicle determined by the
manufacturer to be a HHD vocational tractor would fall into the HHD
vocational vehicle subcategory and be regulated as a vocational
vehicle. Similarly, MHD which the manufacturer chooses to reclassify as
vocational tractors will be regulated as a MHD vocational vehicle.
Specifically, under the provision being finalized at 40 CFR 1037.630
and NHTSA's regulation at 49 CFR 523.2 of today's rules only the
following three types of vocational tractors are eligible for
reclassification by the manufacturer:
(1) Low-roof tractors intended for intra-city pickup and delivery,
such as those that deliver bottled beverages to retail stores.
(2) Tractors intended for off-road operation (including mixed
service operation), such as those with reinforced frames and increased
ground clearance.
(3) Tractors with a GCWR over 120,000 pounds.
As adopted in 40 CFR 1037.230(a)(1)(xiii), manufacturers will be
required to group vocational tractors into a unique family, separate
from other combination tractors and vocational vehicles. The provision
being adopted in 40 CFR 1037.630 and 49 CFR 535.8 requires the
manufacturers to summarize in their applications their basis for
believing that the vehicles are eligible for manufacturer
reclassification as vocational tractors. EPA and NHTSA could ask for a
more detailed description of the basis and EPA would deny an
application for certification where it determines the manufacturer
lacks an adequate basis for reclassification. The manufacturer would
then have to resubmit a modified application to certify the vehicles in
question to the tractor standards. Where we determine that a
manufacturer is not applying this allowance in good faith, we may
require that manufacturer to obtain preliminary approval before using
this allowance. This would mean that a manufacturer would need to
submit its detailed records to EPA and receive formal approval before
submitting its application for certification. The agencies plan to
monitor how manufacturers classify their tractor fleets and would
reconsider the issue of vocational tractor classification in a future
rulemaking if necessary.
Because the difference between some vocational tractors and line-
haul tractors is potentially somewhat subjective, we are also including
an annual sales limit of 7,000 vocational tractors per manufacturer
(based on a three year rolling average) consistent with past production
volumes of such vehicles. It is important to note, however, that we do
not expect it to be common for manufacturers to be able to justify
classifying 7,000 vehicles as vocational tractors in a given model
year.
Under the regulations being promulgated in 40 CFR 1037.630 and 49
CFR 523.2, manufacturers will be required to keep records of how they
determined that such vehicles qualify as vocational. These records
would be more detailed than the description submitted in the
applications. Typically, this would be a combination of records of the
design features and/or purchasers of the vehicles. The agencies have
analyzed the design features that reflect the special needs of these
vocational tractors in the three areas noted above--mixed service,
heavy haul, and urban delivery. Mixed service applications, such as
construction trucks, typically require higher ground clearance and
approach angle to accommodate non-paved roads. In addition, they often
require frame rails with greater resisting bending moment (RBM) because
of the terrain where they operate.\54\ The mixed service
[[Page 57138]]
applications also sometimes require higher front axle weight ratings to
accommodate extra loads and/or power take off systems for additional
capability. Heavy haul tractors are typically designed with frame rails
with extra strength (greater RBM) and higher front axle weight ratings
to accommodate the heavy payloads. Often the heavy haul tractors will
also have higher ground clearance and greater approach angle for
similar reasons as the mixed service applications. Lastly, heavy haul
vehicles require a total gear reduction of 57:1 or greater to provide
the torque necessary to start the vehicle moving. Urban delivery
tractors, such as beverage haulers, have less defined design features
that reflect their operational needs. These vehicles offer options
which include high RBM rails and front axle weight ratings, but not all
beverage trucks are specified with these options. The primary
differentiation of these urban delivery tractors is their operation.
For this final rulemaking, the agencies projected the costs and
benefits of the program considering this provision. As detailed in RIA
Section 5.3.2.2.1, the agencies assumed that approximately 20 percent
of short-haul tractors sold in 2014 model year and beyond will be
vocational tractors. As such, these vehicles will experience benefits
reflective of a FTP-certified engine and tire rolling resistance
improvement at the technology costs projected in the rules for
vocational vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ The agencies have found based on standard truck
specifications, that vehicles designed for significant off-road
applications, such as concrete pumper and logging trucks have
resisting bending moment greater than 2,100,000 lb-in. (ranging up
to 3,580,000 lb-in.). The typical on highway tractors have resisting
bending moment of 1,390,000 lb-in. An example line haul truck is the
Mack Pinnacle which has a RBM of 1,390,000 lb-in, as shown at http://www.macktrucks.com/assets/MackMarketing/Specifications/CXU6124x2PinAxleBack.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) What is the form of the Class 7 and 8 tractor CO2
emissions and fuel consumption standards?
As proposed, EPA and NHTSA are finalizing different standards for
different subcategories of these tractors with the basis for
subcategorization being particular tractor attributes. Attribute-based
standards in general recognize the variety of functions performed by
vehicles and engines, which in turn can affect the kind of technology
that is available to control emissions and reduce fuel consumption, or
its effectiveness. Attributes that characterize differences in the
design of vehicles, as well as differences in how the vehicles will be
employed in-use, can be key factors in evaluating technological
improvements for reducing CO2 emissions and fuel
consumption. Developing an appropriate attribute-based standard can
also avoid interfering with the ability of the market to offer a
variety of products to meet consumer demand. There are several examples
of where the agencies have utilized an attribute-based standard. In
addition to the example of the light-duty 2012-16 MY vehicle rule, in
which the standards are based on the attribute of vehicle
``footprint,'' the existing heavy-duty highway engine standards for
criteria pollutants have for many years been based on a vehicle weight
attribute (Light Heavy, Medium Heavy, Heavy Heavy) with different
useful life periods, which is a similar approach finalized for the
engine GHG and fuel consumption standards discussed below.
Heavy-duty combination tractors are built to move freight. The
ability of a vehicle to meet a customer's freight transportation
requirements depends on three major characteristics of the tractor: the
gross vehicle weight rating (which along with gross combination weight
rating (GCWR) establishes the maximum carrying capacity of the tractor
and trailer), cab type (sleeper cabs provide overnight accommodations
for drivers), and the tractor roof height (to mate tractors to trailers
for the most fuel-efficient configuration). Each of these attributes
impacts the baseline fuel consumption and GHG emissions, as well as the
effectiveness of possible technologies, like aerodynamics, and is
discussed in more detail below.
The first tractor characteristic to consider is payload which is
determined by a tractor's GVWR and GCWR relative to the weight of the
tractor, trailer, fuel, driver, and equipment. Class 7 trucks, which
have a GVWR of 26,001-33,000 pounds and a typical GCWR of 65,000
pounds, have a lesser payload capacity than Class 8 trucks. Class 8
trucks have a GVWR of greater than 33,000 pounds and a typical GCWR of
greater than 80,000 pounds, the effective weight limit on the federal
highway system except in states with preexisting higher weight limits.
Consistent with the recommendation in the National Academy of Sciences
2010 Report to NHTSA,\55\ the agencies are finalizing a load-specific
fuel consumption metric (g/ton-mile and gal/1,000 ton-mile) where the
``ton'' represents the amount of payload. Generally, higher payload
capacity vehicles have better specific fuel consumption and GHG
emissions than lower payload capacity vehicles. Therefore, since the
amount of payload that a Class 7 vehicle can carry is less than the
Class 8 vehicle's payload capacity, the baseline fuel consumption and
GHG emissions performance per ton-mile differs between the categories.
It is consequently reasonable to distinguish between these two vehicle
categories, so that the agencies are finalizing separate standards for
Class 7 and Class 8 tractors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ See 2010 NAS Report, Note 21, Recommendation 2-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agencies are not finalizing a single standard for both Class 7
and 8 tractors based on the payload carrying capabilities and assumed
typical payload levels of Class 8 tractors alone, as that would quite
likely have the perverse impact of increasing fuel consumption and
greenhouse gas emissions. Such a single standard would penalize Class 7
vehicles in favor of Class 8 vehicles. However, the greater
capabilities of Class 8 tractors and their related greater efficiency
when measured on a per ton-mile basis are only relevant in the context
of operations where that greater capacity is needed. For many
applications such as regional distribution, the trailer payloads
dictated by the goods being carried are lower than the average Class 8
tractor payload. In those situations, Class 7 tractors are more
efficient than Class 8 tractors when measured by ton-mile of actual
freight carried. This is because the extra capabilities of Class 8
tractors add additional weight to vehicles that is only beneficial in
the context of its higher capabilities. The existing market already
selects for vehicle performance based on the projected payloads. By
setting separate standards the agencies do not advantage or
disadvantage Class 7 or 8 tractors relative to one another and continue
to allow trucking fleets to purchase the vehicle most appropriate to
their business practices.
The second characteristic that affects fuel consumption and GHG
emissions is the relationship between the tractor cab roof height and
the type of trailer used to carry the freight. The primary trailer
types are box, flat bed, tanker, bulk carrier, chassis, and low boys.
Tractor manufacturers sell tractors in three roof heights--low, mid,
and high. The manufacturers do this to obtain the best aerodynamic
performance of a tractor-trailer combination, resulting in reductions
of GHG emissions and fuel consumption, because it allows the frontal
area of the tractor to be similar in size to the frontal area of the
trailer. In other words, high roof tractors are designed to be paired
with a (relatively tall) box trailer while a low roof tractor is
designed to pull a (relatively low) flat bed trailer. The baseline
performance of
[[Page 57139]]
a high roof, mid roof, and low roof tractor differs due to the
variation in frontal area which determines the aerodynamic drag. For
example, the frontal area of a low roof tractor is approximately 6
square meters, while a high roof tractor has a frontal area of
approximately 9.8 square meters. Therefore, as explained below, the
agencies are using the roof height of the tractor to determine the
trailer type required to be used to demonstrate compliance of a vehicle
with the fuel consumption and CO2 emissions standards. As
with vehicle weight classes, setting separate standards for each
tractor roof height helps ensure that all tractors are regulated to
achieve appropriate improvements, without inadvertently leading to
increased emissions and fuel consumption by shifting the mix of vehicle
roof heights offered in the market away from a level determined by
market foces linked to the actual trailers vehicles will haul in-use.
Tractor cabs typically can be divided into two configurations--day
cabs and sleeper cabs. Line haul operations typically require overnight
accommodations due to Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration hours
of operation requirements.\56\ Therefore, some truck buyers purchase
tractor cabs with sleeping accommodations, also known as sleeper cabs,
because they do not return to their home base nightly. Sleeper cabs
tend to have a greater empty curb weight than day cabs due to the
larger cab volume and accommodations, which lead to a higher baseline
fuel consumption for sleeper cabs when compared to day cabs. In
addition, there are specific technologies, such as extended idle
reduction technologies, which are appropriate only for tractors which
hotel--such as sleeper cabs. To respect these differences, the agencies
are finalizing separate standards for sleeper cabs and day cabs.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration's Hours-of-
Service regulations put limits in place for when and how long
commercial motor vehicle drivers may drive. They are based on an
exhaustive scientific review and are designed to ensure truck
drivers get the necessary rest to perform safe operations. See 49
CFR part 395, and see also http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regulations/topics/hos/index.htm (last accessed August 8, 2010).
\57\ The agencies note, as discussed in the previous section,
that some day cabs and sleeper cabs will be reclassified as
vocational tractors and if so will not be subject to the combination
tractor standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agencies received comments from industry stakeholders (EMA,
Allison Transmission, Bosch, and the Heavy-Duty Fuel Efficiency
Leadership Group) and ICCT supporting the nine tractor regulatory
subcategories proposed and did not receive any comments which supported
an alternate classification. Thus, to account for the relevant
combinations of these attributes, the agencies are adopting the
classification scheme proposed, segmenting combination tractors into
the following nine regulatory subcategories:
Class 7 Day Cab With Low Roof
Class 7 Day Cab With Mid Roof
Class 7 Day Cab With High Roof
Class 8 Day Cab With Low Roof
Class 8 Day Cab With Mid Roof
Class 8 Day Cab With High Roof
Class 8 Sleeper Cab With Low Roof
Class 8 Sleeper Cab With Mid Roof
Class 8 Sleeper Cab With High Roof
Adjustable roof fairings are used today on what the agencies
consider to be low roof tractors. The adjustable fairings allow the
operator to change the fairing height to better match the type of
trailer that is being pulled which can reduce fuel consumption and GHG
emissions during operation. As proposed, the agencies are treating
tractors with adjustable roof fairings as low roof tractors that will
tested with the fairing in its lowest position.
(2) What are the Final Class 7 and 8 Tractor and Engine CO2
Emissions and Fuel Consumption Standards and Their Timing?
In developing the final standards for Class 7 and 8 tractors and
for the engines used in these tractors, the agencies have evaluated the
current levels of emissions and fuel consumption, the kinds of
technologies that could be utilized by truck and engine manufacturers
to reduce emissions and fuel consumption from tractors and associated
engines, the necessary lead time, the associated costs for the
industry, fuel savings for the consumer, and the magnitude of the
CO2 and fuel savings that may be achieved. The technologies
on whose performance the final tractor standards are predicated are
improvements in aerodynamic design, lower rolling resistance tires,
extended idle reduction technologies, and lightweighting of the
tractor. The technologies on whose performance the final tractor
standards are predicated are engine friction reduction, aftertreatment
optimization, and turbocompounding, among others, as described in RIA
Chapter 2.4. The agencies' evaluation showed that these technologies
are available today, but have very low application rates on current
vehicles and engines. EPA and NHTSA also present the estimated costs
and benefits of the Class 7 and 8 combination tractor and engine
standards in Section III and in RIA Chapter 2, explaining as well the
basis for the agencies' conclusion not to adopt standards which are
less stringent or more stringent.
(a) Tractor Standards
The agencies are finalizing the following standards for Class 7 and
8 combination tractors in Table 0-1, using the subcategorization
approach that was proposed. As explained below in Section III, EPA has
determined that there is sufficient lead time to introduce various
tractor and engine technologies into the fleet starting in the 2014
model year, and is finalizing standards starting for that model year
predicated on performance of those technologies. EPA is finalizing more
stringent tractor standards for the 2017 model year which reflect the
CO2 emissions reductions required for 2017 model year
engines. (As explained in Section II.B(3)(h)(v) below, engine
performance is one of the inputs into the compliance model, and that
input will change in 2017 to reflect the 2017 MY engine standards.) The
2017 MY vehicle standards are not premised on tractor manufacturers
installing additional vehicle technologies. EPA's final standards apply
throughout the useful life period as described in Section V. As
proposed, and as discussed further in Section IV below, manufacturers
may generate and use credits from Class 7 and 8 combination tractors to
show compliance with the standards.
NHTSA is finalizing Class 7 and 8 tractor fuel consumption
standards that are voluntary standards in the 2014 and 2015 model years
and become mandatory beginning in the 2016 model year, as required by
the lead time within EISA. The 2014 and 2015 model year standards are
voluntary in that manufacturers are not subject to them unless they
opt-in to the standards.\58\ Manufacturers that opt in become subject
to NHTSA standards for all regulatory categories. NHTSA is also
adopting new tractor standards for the 2017 model year which reflect
additional improvements in only the heavy-duty engines. As proposed,
NHTSA is not implementing an in-use compliance program for fuel
consumption because it does not anticipate that there will be notable
deterioration of fuel consumption over the useful life of the vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ Once a manufacturer opts into the NHTSA program it must
stay in the program for all the optional MYs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As explained more fully in Section III and Chapter 2 of the RIA,
EPA and NHTSA are not adopting more stringent tractor standards for
2014-2017 MY. The final tractor standards are based on
[[Page 57140]]
the maximum application rates of available technologies considering the
available lead time, and we explain in Section III and Chapter 2 of the
RIA that use of additional technologies, or further application of the
technologies already mentioned would be either infeasible in the lead
time afforded, or uneconomic.
Table II-1--Heavy-Duty Combination Tractor Emissions and Fuel Consumption Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day cab Sleeper cab
-----------------------------------------------------------
Class 7 Class 8 Class 8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014 Model Year CO2 Grams per Ton-Mile
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low Roof............................................ 107 81 68
Mid Roof............................................ 119 88 76
High Roof........................................... 124 92 75
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014-2016 Model Year Gallons of Fuel per 1,000 Ton-Mile \59\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low Roof............................................ 10.5 8.0 6.7
Mid Roof............................................ 11.7 8.7 7.4
High Roof........................................... 12.2 9.0 7.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017 Model Year CO2 Grams per Ton-Mile
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low Roof............................................ 104 80 66
Mid Roof............................................ 115 86 73
High Roof........................................... 120 89 72
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017 Model Year and Later Gallons of Fuel per 1,000 Ton-Mile
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low Roof............................................ 10.2 7.8 6.5
Mid Roof............................................ 11.3 8.4 7.2
High Roof........................................... 11.8 8.7 7.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The standard values shown above differ somewhat from the proposal,
reflecting refinements made to the GEM in response to comments. For
example, the agencies received comments from stakeholders concerned
that the 2017 MY tractor standards appeared to be backsliding because
the reductions were not in line with the reductions expected from the
2017 MY engine standards. The agencies reviewed the issue and found
that the engine maps we created in the GEM for the 2017 model year for
the proposal did not appropriately reflect the engine improvements.
Therefore, the agencies developed new fuel maps for the GEM v2.0 which
fully reflect the engine improvements due to the 2017 MY standards.\60\
These changes to the GEM did not impact our estimates of the relative
effectiveness of the greenhouse gas emissions and fuel consumption
improving technologies modeled in this final action nor the overall
cost or benefits estimated for these final vehicle standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ As noted above, manufacturers may voluntarily opt-in to the
NHTSA fuel consumption program in 2014 or 2015. Once a manufacturer
opts into the NHTSA program it must stay in the program for all the
optional MYs.
\60\ See RIA Chapter 4 for the engine fuel maps used in GEM
v2.0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on our analysis, the 2017 model year standards for
combination tractors and engines represent up to a 23 percent reduction
in CO2 emissions and fuel consumption over a 2010 model year
baseline tractor (the baseline sleeper cab does not include idle
shutdown technology), as detailed in Section III.A.2. In considering
the feasibility of vehicles to comply with the standards, EPA also
considered the potential for CO2 emissions to increase
during the regulatory useful life of the product. As we discuss
separately in the context of deterioration factor (DF) testing, we have
concluded that CO2 emissions are likely to stay the same or
actually decrease in-use compared to new certified configurations. In
general, engine and vehicle friction decreases as products wear in
leading to reduced parasitic losses and lower CO2 emissions.
Similarly, tire rolling resistance falls as tires wear due to the
reduction in tread height. In the case of aerodynamic components, we
project no change in performance through the regulatory life of the
vehicle since there is essentially no change in their physical form as
vehicles age. Similarly, weight reduction elements such as aluminum
wheels are not projected to increase in mass through time, and hence,
we can conclude will not deteriorate with regard to CO2
performance in-use. Given all of these considerations, EPA is confident
in projecting that the standards finalized today will be technical
feasible throughout the regulatory useful life of the program.
(b) Standards for Engines Installed in Combination Tractors
EPA is adopting GHG standards and NHTSA is adopting fuel
consumption standards for new heavy-duty engines. This section
discusses the standards for engines used in Class 7 and 8 combination
tractors and also provides some overall background information. We also
note that the agencies are adopting standards for heavy-duty engines
used in vocational vehicles. However, as explained further below,
compliance with the standards would be measured using different test
procedures, corresponding with actual vehicle use, depending on whether
the vehicle in which the engine is installed is a Class 7 and 8
combination tractor or a vocational vehicle.
The heavy-duty engine standards vary depending on the type of
vehicle in which they are installed, as well as whether the engines are
compression ignition or spark ignition. The agencies are adopting
separate engine fuel consumption and GHG emissions standards for
engines installed in combination tractors versus engines installed in
vocational vehicles. Also, for the purposes of the GHG engine emissions
and engine fuel consumption standards, the agencies are adopting engine
subcategories that match EPA's
[[Page 57141]]
existing criteria pollutant emissions regulations for heavy-duty
highway engines which established four regulatory service classes that
represent the engine's intended and primary vehicle application.\61\
The Light Heavy-Duty (LHD) diesel engines are intended for application
in Class 2b through Class 5 trucks (8,501 through 19,500 pounds GVWR).
The Medium Heavy-Duty (MHD) diesel engines are intended for Class 6 and
Class 7 trucks (19,501 through 33,000 pounds GVWR). The Heavy Heavy-
Duty (HDD) diesel engines are primarily used in Class 8 trucks (33,001
pounds and greater GVWR). Lastly, spark ignition engines (primarily
gasoline-powered engines) installed in incomplete vehicles less than
14,000 pounds GVWR and spark ignition engines that are installed in all
vehicles (complete or incomplete) greater than 14,000 pounds GVWR are
grouped into a single engine service class. The engines in these four
regulatory service classes range in size between approximately five
liters and sixteen liters. This subcategory structure enables the
agencies to set standards that appropriately reflect the technology
available for engines installed in each type of vehicle, and that are
therefore technologically feasible for these engines. This is the same
engine classification scheme the agencies proposed, and there were no
adverse comments in response to the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ See 40 CFR 86.90-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heavy heavy-duty diesel and medium heavy-duty diesel engines are
used today in combination tractors. The following section refers to the
engine standards for these types of engines. This section does not
cover gasoline or light heavy-duty diesel engines because they are not
used in combination tractors.
In the NPRM, the agencies proposed CO2 and fuel
consumption standards for HD diesel engines to be installed in Class 7
and 8 combination tractors as shown in Table II-2.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ The agencies note that the CO2 and fuel
consumption standards for Class 7 and 8 combination tractors do not
cover gasoline or LHDD engines, as those are not used in Class 7 and
8 combination tractors.
Table II-2--Proposed Heavy-duty Diesel Engine Standards for Engines Installed in Tractors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effective 2014 model year Effective 2017 Model Year
---------------------------------------------------------------
Voluntary fuel Fuel
CO2 standard consumption CO2 standard consumption
(g/bhp-hr) standard (gal/ (g/bhp-hr) standard (gal/
100 bhp-hr) 100 bhp-hr)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MHD diesel engine............................... 502 4.93 487 4.78
HHD diesel engine............................... 475 4.67 460 4.52
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agencies proposed to require diesel engine manufacturers to
achieve, on average, a three percent reduction in fuel consumption and
CO2 emissions for the 2014 standards over the baseline MY
2010 performance for the engines.\63\ The agencies' preliminary
assessment of the findings of the 2010 NAS Report and other literature
sources indicated that there are technologies available to reduce fuel
consumption by this amount in the time frame in the lead time provided
by the rules. These technologies include improved turbochargers,
aftertreatment optimization, and low temperature exhaust gas
recirculation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ The baseline HHD diesel engine performance in MY 2010 on
the SET is 490 g CO2/bhp-hr (4.81 gal/100 bhp-hr), as
determined from confidential data provided by manufacturers and data
submitted for the non-GHG emissions certification process. The
baseline MHD diesel engine performance on the SET cycle is 518 g
CO2/bhp-hr (5.09 gallon/100-bhp-hr) in MY 2010. Further
discussion of the derivation of the baseline can be found in Section
III.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agencies also proposed to require diesel engine manufacturers
to achieve, on average, a six percent reduction in fuel consumption and
CO2 emissions for the 2017 MY standards over the baseline MY
2010 performance for MHD and HHD diesel engines required to use the
SET-based standard. The agencies stated that additional reductions
could likely be achieved through the increased refinement of the
technologies projected to be implemented for 2014, plus the addition of
turbocompounding, which the agencies' analysis showed would require a
longer development time and would not be available in MY 2014. The
agencies therefore proposed to provide additional lead time to allow
for the introduction of this additional technology, and to wait until
2017 to increase stringency to levels reflecting application of this
technology.
The agencies proposed that the MHD and HHD diesel engine
CO2 standards for Class 7 and 8 combination tractors would
become effective in MY 2014 for EPA, with more stringent CO2
standards becoming effective in MY 2017, while NHTSA's fuel consumption
standards would become effective in MY 2017, which would be both
consistent with the EISA four-year minimum lead-time requirements and
harmonized with EPA's timing. The agencies explained that the three-
year timing, besides being required by EISA, made sense because EPA's
heavy-duty highway engine program for criteria pollutants had begun to
provide new emissions standards for the industry in three year
increments, which had caused the heavy-duty engine product plans to
fall largely into three year cycles reflecting this regulatory
environment. To further harmonize with EPA, NHTSA proposed voluntary
fuel consumption standards for MHD and HHD diesel engines that are
equivalent to EPA CO2 standards for MYs 2014-2016, allowing
manufacturers to opt into the voluntary standards in any of those model
years.\64\ NHTSA proposed that manufacturers could opt into the program
by declaring their intent to opt in to the program at the same time
they submit the Pre-Certification Compliance Report, and that a
manufacturer opting into the program would begin tracking credits and
debits beginning in the model year in which they opt into the program.
Both agencies proposed to allow manufacturers to generate and use
credits to achieve compliance with the HD diesel engine standards,
including averaging, banking, and trading (ABT) and deficit carry-
forward. The agencies sought comment on the proposed MHD and HHD engine
standards and timing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ Once a manufacturer opts into the NHTSA program it must
stay in the program for all the optional MYs and remain standardized
with the implementation approach being used to meet the EPA emission
program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agencies received comments from EMA, Navistar, Cummins, ACEEE,
Center for Biological Diversity, Detroit Diesel Corporation, American
Lung Association, and the Union of
[[Page 57142]]
Concerned Scientists. Comments were divided with respect to the
proposed levels of stringency. While Cummins and DDC expressed support
for the CO2 and fuel consumption standards for diesel
engines, and EMA and Navistar stated the standards could be met if the
flexibilities outlined in the NPRM are finalized as proposed, Navistar
also stated that the model year 2017 standard may not be feasible since
what the agencies characterized as existing technologies are not in
production for all manufacturers. In contrast, environmental groups and
NGOs stated that the standards did not reflect the potential reductions
outlined in the 2010 NAS study and should be more stringent. CBD argued
that the standards were not set at the maximum feasible level by
definition, because the agencies had said that they were based on the
use of existing technologies. In addition, the Center for Neighborhood
Technology encouraged the agencies to implement the rules as soon as
possible, beginning in the 2012 model year.
In light of the above comments, the agencies re-evaluated the
technical basis for the heavy-duty engine standards. The baseline HHD
diesel engine performance in 2010 model year on the SET is estimated at
490 g CO2/bhp-hr (4.81 gal/100 bhp-hr), based on our
analysis of confidential data provided by manufacturers and data
submitted for the non-GHG emissions certification process. Similarly,
the baseline MHD diesel engine performance on the SET cycle is
estimated to be 518 g CO2/bhp-hr (5.09 gallon/100-bhp-hr)
for the 2010 model year. Further discussion of the derivation of the
baseline can be found in Section III. The agencies believe that the MY
2014 standards can be achieved by most manufacturers through the use of
technologies time frame such as improved aftertreatment systems,
friction reduction, improved auxiliaries, turbochargers, pistons, and
other components. These standards will require diesel engine
manufacturers to achieve on average a three percent reduction in fuel
consumption and CO2 emissions over the baseline 2010 model
year levels.
However, in recognizing that some manufacturers have engines that
would not meet the standard even after applying technologies that
improve GHG emissions and fuel consumption by three percent, the
agencies are finalizing both the proposed ABT provisions for these
engines and also an optional alternate engine standard for 2014 model
year, described in more detail below. We believe that concerns
expressed by Navistar regarding the 2014 MY standards will be addressed
by this alternative standard. The agencies also continue to believe
that the 2017 MY standards are achievable using the above approaches
and, in the case of SET certified engines, turbocompounding. While
Navistar commented that the 2017 MY standard may be challenging because
not all manufacturers are presently producing the technologies that may
be required to meet the standards, the agencies believe that since
manufacturers that may require turbocompounding to meet the standards
will not have to do so until 2017 MY, there will be sufficient lead
time for all manufacturers to introduce this technology. As noted
above, by MY 2017 all MHD and HHD engines installed in combination
tractors should have gone through a redesign during which all needed
technology can be applied. We note that we are finalizing these
standards as proposed based on the assessment that most manufacturers
(not just Navistar) will need to make improvements to existing engine
systems in order to meet the standards. EPA's HD diesel engine
CO2 emission standards and NHTSA's HD diesel engine fuel
consumption standards for engines installed in tractors are presented
in Table II-3. As explained above, the first set of standards take
effect with MY 2014 (mandatory standards for EPA, voluntary standards
for NHTSA), and the second set take effect with MY 2017 (mandatory for
both agencies).
Table II-3--Final Heavy-duty Diesel Engine Standards for Engines Installed in Tractors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effective 2014 model year Effective 2017 model year
---------------------------------------------------------------
Voluntary fuel Fuel
CO2 standard consumption CO2 standard consumption
(g/bhp-hr) standard (gal/ (g/bhp-hr) standard (gal/
100 bhp-hr) 100 bhp-hr)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MHD diesel engine............................... 502 4.93 487 4.78
HHD diesel engine............................... 475 4.67 460 4.52
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agencies have also decided to remove NHTSA's proposed Pre-
Certification Compliance Report requirement. Instead, manufacturers
must submit their decision to opt into NHTSA's voluntary standards for
the 2014 through 2016 model years as part of its certification process
with EPA. Once a manufacturer opts into the NHTSA program it must stay
in the program for all the subsequent optional model years.
Manufacturers that opt in become subject to NHTSA standards for all
regulatory categories. The declaration statement must be entered prior
to or at the same time the manufacturer submits its first application
for a certificate of conformity. NHTSA will begin tracking credits and
debits beginning in the model year in which a manufacturer opts into
its program.
Compliance with the CO2 emissions and fuel consumption
standards will be evaluated based on the SET engine test cycle. In the
NPRM, the agencies proposed standards based on the SET cycle for MHD
and HHD engines used in tractors due to these engines' primary use in
steady state operating conditions (typified by highway cruising).
Tractors spend the majority of their operation at steady state
conditions, and will obtain in-use benefit of technologies such as
turbocompounding and other waste heat recovery technologies during this
kind of typical engine operation. Therefore, the engines installed in
tractors will be required to meet the standard based on the SET, which
is a steady state test cycle.
The agencies gave full consideration to the need for engine
manufacturers to redesign and upgrade their engines during the MYs
2014-2017 to meet standards, and fully considered the cost-
effectiveness of the standards and the available lead time. The final
two-step CO2 emission and fuel consumption standards
recognize the opportunity for technology improvements over the
rulemaking time frame, while reflecting the typical engine
manufacturers' product plan cycles. Over these four model years there
will be an opportunity for manufacturers to evaluate almost every one
of their
[[Page 57143]]
engine models and add technology in a cost-effective way, consistent
with existing redesign schedules, to control GHG emissions and reduce
fuel consumption. The time-frame and levels for the standards, as well
as the ability to average, bank and trade credits and carry a deficit
forward for a limited time, are expected to provide manufacturers the
time and flexibilities needed to incorporate technology that will
achieve the final GHG and fuel consumption standards within the normal
engine redesign process. This is an important aspect of the final
rules, as it will avoid the much higher costs that would occur if
manufacturers needed to add or change technology at times other than
these scheduled redesigns.\65\ This time period will also provide
manufacturers the opportunity to plan for compliance using a multi-year
time frame, again in alignment with their normal business practice.
Further details on lead time, redesigns and technical feasibility can
be found in Section III.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ See 75 FR at 25467-68 for further discussion of the
negative cost implications of establishing requirements outside of
the redesign cycle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agencies continue to believe the standards for MHD and HHD
diesel engines installed in combination tractors are the most stringent
technically feasible in the time frame established in this regulation.
The standards will require a 3 percent reduction in engine fuel
consumption and GHG emissions in 2014 MY based on improvements to
engine components and aftertreatment systems. The 2017 MY standards
will require a 6 percent reduction in fuel consumption and GHG
emissions over a 2010 model year baseline and assumes the introduction,
for some engines, of technologies such as turbocompounding. The
standards, however, are not premised on the introduction of
technologies that are still in development--such as Rankine bottoming
cycle--since these approaches cannot be introduced without further
technical development or engine re-design.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ See RIA Chapter 2.4.2.7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional discussion on technical feasibility is included in
Section III below and in Chapter 2 of the RIA.
The agencies recognize, however, that the schedule of changes for
the final standards may not be the most cost-effective one for all
manufacturers. The agencies also sought comment as to whether an
alternate phase-in schedule for the HD diesel engine standards for
combination tractors should be considered. In developing the proposal,
heavy-duty engine manufacturers stated that the phase-in of the GHG and
fuel consumption standards should be aligned with the On Board
Diagnostic (OBD)\67\ phase-in schedule, which includes new requirements
for heavy-duty vehicles in the 2013 and 2016 model years. The agencies
did not adopt this suggestion in the proposal, explaining that the
credit averaging, banking and trading provisions would provide
manufacturers with considerable flexibility to manage their GHG and
fuel efficiency standard compliance plans--including the phase-in of
the new heavy-duty OBD requirements--but requested comment on whether
EPA and NHTSA should provide an alternate phase-in schedules that would
more explicitly accommodate this request in the event that
manufacturers did not agree that the ABT provisions mitigated their
concern about the GHG/fuel consumption standard phase-in. See 75 FR at
74178.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ On-board diagnostics (OBD) is a computer-based emissions
monitoring system that was first required in 2007 for vehicles under
14,000 pounds (65 FR 59896, Oct. 6, 2000) and in 2010 for vehicles
over 14,000 pounds (74 FR 8310, Feb. 24, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response, Cummins, Engine Manufacturers Association, and DTNA
commented that their first choice was a delay in the OBD effective date
for one year to the 2014 model year. The industry's second choice was
to provide manufacturers with an optional GHG and fuel consumption
phase-in that aligns their product development plans with their current
plans to meet the OBD regulations for EPA and California in the 2013
and 2016 model years. These commenters argued that meeting the OBD
regulation in the 2013 model year already poses a significant
challenge, and that having to meet GHG and fuel consumption standards
beginning in 2014 could require them to redesign and recertify their
products just one year later. They argued that bundling design changes
where possible can reduce the burden on industry for complying with
regulations, so aligning the introduction of the OBD, GHG, and fuel
consumption standards could help reduce manufacturers' burden for
product development, validation and certification.
In order to provide additional flexibility for manufacturers
looking to align their technology changes with multiple regulatory
requirements, the agencies are finalizing an alternate ``OBD phase-in''
option for meeting the standards for MHD and HHD diesel engines
installed in tractors (in addition to engines installed in vocational
vehicles as noted below in Section II.D), which delivers equivalent
CO2 emissions and fuel consumption reductions as the primary
standards for the engines built in the 2013 through 2017 model years,
as shown in Table II-4. The optional OBD phase-in schedule requires
that engines built in the 2013 and 2016 model years to achieve greater
reductions than the engines built in those model years under the
primary program, but requires fewer reductions for the engines built in
the 2014 and 2015 model years.
Table II-4--Comparison of CO2 reductions for the HHD and MHD Tractor Standards Under the Alternative OBD Phase-
In and Primary Phase-In
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HHD Tractor engines MHD Tractor engines
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Difference Difference
Primary Optional in lifetime Primary Optional in lifetime
phase-in phase-in CO2 engine phase-in phase-in CO2 engine
standard standard emissions standard standard emissions
(g/bhp-hr) (g/bhp-hr) (MMT) (g/bhp-hr) (g/bhp-hr) (MMT)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline.......................... 490 490 -- 518 518 --
2013 MY Engine.................... 490 485 14 518 512 17
2014 MY Engine.................... 475 485 -28 502 512 -28
2015 MY Engine.................... 475 485 -28 502 512 -28
2016 MY Engine.................... 475 460 42 502 487 42
2017 MY Engine.................... 460 460 0 487 487 0
Net Reductions (MMT).............. ........... ........... 0 ........... ........... 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 57144]]
The technologies for the 2013 model year optional standard include
a subset of technologies that could be used to meet the primary 2014
model year standard. The agencies believe this approach is appropriate
because the shorter lead time provided for manufacturers selecting this
option limits the technologies which can be applied. However, in order
to maintain equivalent CO2 emissions and fuel consumption
reduction over the 2013 through 2017 model year period, it is necessary
for the 2016 model year standard to be equal to the 2017 model year
standard, using the same technology paths described for the primary
engine program. If a manufacturer selects this optional phase-in, then
the engines must be certified starting in the 2013 model year and
continue using this phase-in through 2016 model year. That is, once
electing this compliance path, manufacturers must adhere to it.\68\
Manufacturers may opt into the optional OBD phase-in through the
voluntary NHTSA program, but must opt in in the 2013 model year and
continue using this phase-in through the 2016 model year. Manufacturers
that opt in to the voluntary NHTSA program in 2014 and 2015 will be
required to meet the primary phase-in schedule and may not adopt the
OBD phase-in option. Table II-5 below presents the final HD diesel
engine CO2 emission standards under the ``OBD phase-in''
option.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ See Sec. 1036.150(e).
Table II-5--Optional Heavy-Duty Engine Standard Phase-in Schedule for
Tractor Engines
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MHD Diesel engine HHD Diesel engine
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effective 2013 Through 2015 Model Year
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 Standard (g/bhp-hr)......... 512 485
Voluntary Fuel Consumption 5.03 4.76
Standard (gallon/100 bhp-hr)...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effective 2016 Model Year and Later
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 Standard (g/bhp-hr)......... 487 460
Fuel Consumption (gallon/100 bhp- 4.78 4.52
hr)............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the agencies believe that the standards for the HD diesel
engines installed in combination tractors are generally appropriate,
cost-effective, and technologically feasible in the rulemaking time
frame, we also recognize that when regulating a category of engines for
the first time, there will be individual products that may deviate
significantly from the baseline level of performance, whether because
of a specific approach to criteria pollution control, or due to engine
calibration for specific applications or duty cycles. In the current
fleet of 2010 and 2011 model year engines used in combination tractors,
NHTSA and EPA understand that there is a relatively small group of
legacy engines that are up to approximately 25 percent worse than the
average baseline for other engines. For this group of legacy MHD and
HHD diesel engines installed in tractors, when compared to the typical
performance levels of the majority of the engines in the fleet and the
fuel consumption/GHG emissions reductions that the majority of engines
would achieve through increased application of technology, the same
reduction from the industry baseline may not be possible at reasonably
comparable cost given the same amount of lead-time, because these
products may require a total redesign in order to meet the standards.
Manufacturers of the MHD and HHD diesel engines installed in tractors
with atypically high baseline CO2 and fuel consumption
levels may also, in some instances, have a limited line of engines
across which to average performance to meet the generally-applicable
standards.
To account for this possibility, the agencies requested comment in
the NPRM on the establishment of an optional alternative MHD and HHD
engine standard for those engines installed in combination tractors
which would be set at 3 percent below a manufacturer's 2011 engine
baseline emissions and fuel consumption, or alternatively, at 2 percent
below a manufacturer's 2011 baseline. The agencies also requested
comment on extending this optional standard one year (to the 2017 MY)
for a single engine family at a 6 percent level below the 2011
baseline.\69\ This option would not be available unless and until a
manufacturer had exhausted all available credits and credit
opportunities, and engines under the optional standard could not
generate credits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ See 75 FR at 74178-74179.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In comments to the NPRM, Navistar supported the alternative engine
standard, but recommended that it be set at 2 percent below the
manufacturer's 2011 baseline. They also supported the extension to 2017
MY at 6 percent. Navistar provided CBI in support of its comments.
Volvo, DTNA, environmental groups, NGOs, and the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation opposed the optional engine
standard, arguing that existing flexibilities are sufficient to allow
compliance with the standards and that all manufacturers should be held
to the same standards.
Based on the CBI submitted by Navistar, the agencies found that a
large majority of the HD diesel engines used in Class 7 and 8
combination tractors were relatively close to the average baseline,
with some above and some below, but also that some legacy MHD and HDD
diesel engines were far enough away from the baseline that they could
not meet the generally-applicable standards with application of
technology that would be available for those specific engines by 2014.
The agencies continue to believe that an interim alternative standard
is needed for these products, and that an interim standard reflects a
legitimate difference between products starting from different fuel
consumption/GHG emitting baselines. As explained in the proposal, it is
legally permissible to accommodate short term lead time constraints
with alternative standards. Commenters did not dispute that there are
legacy engine families with significantly higher CO2
emissions and fuel consumption baselines, and that these engines
require longer lead time to meet the principal standards in the early
model years of the program. Although the agencies acknowledge the view
that all manufacturers should be subject to the same burden for meeting
the primary standards, the agencies believe that, in the initial years
of a new program,
[[Page 57145]]
additional flexibilities should be provided. The GHG standards and fuel
consumption standards are first-time standards for these engines, so
the possibility of significantly different baselines is not
unexpected.\70\ Moreover, the agencies do not believe that the
alternative standard affords a relative competitive advantage to the
higher emitting legacy engines: the same level of improvement at the
same cost will be required of those tractor engines, and in addition,
by 2017 MY, those tractor engines will be required to make the
additional improvements to meet the same standards as other engines. We
believe that the concern expressed by Navistar regarding the 2014 MY
standards will be addressed by this alternative. The agencies also
continue to believe the 2017 MY standards are achievable using the
above approaches and, in the case of MHD and HHD engines installed in
tractors, turbocompounding. While Navistar commented that the 2017 MY
standard may be challenging, the agencies believe that since
manufacturers which may need to use turbocompounding to meet the
standards will not have to do so until 2017 MY, there will be
sufficient lead time for all engine manufacturers to introduce this
technology. Thus, the agencies are finalizing a regulatory alternative
whereby a manufacturer, for an interim period of the 2014-2016 model
years, would have the option to comply with a unique standard based on
a three percent reduction from an individual engine's own 2011 model
year baseline level. Our assessment is that this three percent
reduction is appropriate given the potential for manufacturers to apply
similar technology packages with similar cost to what we have estimated
for the primary program. This is similar to EPA's approach in the
light-duty rule for handling a certain subset of vehicles that were
deemed unable to meet the generally-applicable GHG standards during the
2012-2015 time frame due to higher initial baseline conditions, and
which therefore needed alternate standards in those model years.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ See 75 FR at 74178.
\71\ See 75 FR 25414-25419.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agencies stress that this is a temporary and limited option
being implemented to address diverse manufacturer needs associated with
complying with this first phase of the regulations. As codified in 40
CFR 1036.620 and 49 CFR 535.5(d), this optional standard will be
available only for the 2014 through 2016 model years, because we
believe that manufacturers will have had ample opportunity to make
appropriate changes to bring their product performance into line with
the rest of the industry after that time. As proposed, the final rules
require that manufacturers making use of these provisions for the
optional standard would need to exhaust all credits available to this
averaging set prior to using this flexibility and would not be able to
generate emissions credits from other engines in the same regulatory
averaging set as the engines complying using this alternate approach.
The agencies note again that manufacturers choosing to utilize this
option in MYs 2014-2016 will have to make a greater relative
improvement in MY 2017 than the rest of the industry, since they will
be starting from a worse level--for compliance purposes, emissions from
engines certified and sold at the three percent level will be averaged
with emissions from engines certified and sold at more stringent levels
to arrive at a weighted average emissions for all engines in the
subcategory. Again, this option can only be taken if all other credit
opportunities have been exhausted and the manufacturer still cannot
meet the primary standards. If a manufacturer chooses this option to
meet the EPA emission standards in the MY 2014-2016, and wants to opt
into the NHTSA fuel consumption program in these same MYs it must
follow the exact path followed under the EPA program utilizing
equivalent fuel consumption standards. Since the NHTSA standards are
optional in 2014, manufacturers may choose not to adopt either the
alternative engine standard or the regular voluntary standard by not
participating in the NHTSA program in 2014 and 2015.
Some commenters argued that manufacturers could game the standard
by establishing an artificially high 2011 baseline emission level. This
could be done, for example, by certifying an engine with high fuel
consumption and GHG emissions that is either: (1) Not sold in
significant quantities; or (2) later altered to emit fewer GHGs and
consume less fuel through service changes. In order to mitigate this
possibility, the agencies are requiring that the 2011 model year
baseline must be developed by averaging emissions over all engines in
an engine family certified and sold for that model year so as to
prevent a manufacturer from developing a single high GHG output engine
solely for the purpose of establishing a high baseline. As an
alternative, if a manufacturer does not certify all engine families in
an averaging set to the alternate standards, then the tested
configuration of the engine certified to the alternate standard must
have the same engine displacement and its rated power within 5 percent
of the highest rated power of the baseline tested configuration. In
addition, the tested configuration of the engine certified to the
alternate standard must be a configuration sold to customers. These
three requirements will prevent a manufacturer from producing an engine
with an artificially high power rating and therefore produce
artificially low grams of CO2 emissions and fuel consumption
per brake horsepower. In addition, the tested configurations must have
a BSFC equivalent to or better than all other configurations within the
engine family which will prevent a manufacturer from creating a
baseline configuration with artificially high CO2 emissions
and fuel consumption.
(c) In-Use Standards
Section 202(a)(1) of the CAA specifies that EPA is to adopt
emissions standards that are applicable for the useful life of the
vehicle. The in-use standards that EPA is finalizing would apply to
individual vehicles and engines. NHTSA is adopting an approach which
does not include in-use standards.
EPA proposed that the in-use standards for heavy-duty engines
installed in tractors be established by adding an adjustment factor to
the full useful life emissions and fuel consumption results projected
in the EPA certification process to address measurement variability
inherent in comparing results among different laboratories and
different engines. The agency proposed a two percent adjustment factor
and requested comments and additional data during the proposal to
assist in developing an appropriate factor level. The agency received
additional data during the comment period which identified production
variability which was not accounted for at proposal. Details on the
development of the final adjustment factor are included in RIA Chapter
3. Based on the data received, EPA determined that the adjustment
factor in the final rules should be higher than the proposed level of
two percent. EPA is finalizing a three percent adjustment factor for
the in-use standard to provide a reasonable margin for production and
test-to-test variability that could result in differences between the
initial emission test results and emission results obtained during
subsequent in-use testing.
We are finalizing regulatory text (in Sec. 1036.150) to allow
engine manufacturers to used assigned
[[Page 57146]]
deterioration factors (DFs) without performing their own durability
emission tests or engineering analysis. However, the engines would
still be required to meet the standards in actual use without regard to
whether the manufacturer used the assigned DFs. This allowance is being
adopted as an interim provision applicable only for this initial phase
of standards.
Manufacturers will be allowed to use an assigned additive DF of 0.0
g/bhp-hr for CO2 emissions from any conventional engine
(i.e., an engine not including advance or innovative technologies).
Upon request, we could allow the assigned DF for CO2
emissions from engines including advance or innovative technologies,
but only if we determine that it would be consistent with good
engineering judgment. We believe that we have enough information about
in-use CO2 emissions from conventional engines to conclude
that they will not increase as the engines age. However, we lack such
information about the more advanced technologies.
EPA is also finalizing the proposed provisions requiring that the
useful life for these engine and vehicles with respect to GHG emissions
be set equal to the respective useful life periods for criteria
pollutants. EPA is adopting provisions where the existing engine useful
life periods, as included in Table II-6, be broadened to include
CO2 emissions for both engines (See 40 CFR 1036.108(d)) and
tractors (See 40 CFR 1037.105).
Table II-6--Tractor and Engine Useful Life Periods
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Years Miles
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Medium Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines.................. 10 185,000
Heavy Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines................... 10 435,000
Class 7 Tractors.................................. 10 185,000
Class 8 Tractors.................................. 10 435,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) Test Procedures and Related Issues
The agencies are finalizing a complete set of test procedures to
evaluate fuel consumption and CO2 emissions from Class 7 and
8 tractors and the engines installed in them. Consistent with the
proposal, the test procedures related to the tractors are all new,
while the engine test procedures already established were built
substantially on EPA's current non-GHG emissions test procedures,
except as noted. This section discusses the final simulation model
developed for demonstrating compliance with the tractor standard and
the final engine test procedures.
(a) Vehicle Simulation Model
We are finalizing as proposed separate engine and vehicle-based
emission standards to achieve the goal of reducing emissions and fuel
consumption for both combination tractors and engines. Engine
manufacturers are subject to the engine standards while the Class 7 and
8 tractor manufacturers are required to install certified engines in
their tractors. The tractor manufacturer is also subject to a separate
vehicle-based standard which utilizes a vehicle simulation model to
evaluate the impact of the tractor cab design to determine compliance
with the tractor standard.
A simulation model, in general, uses various inputs to characterize
a vehicle's properties (such as weight, aerodynamics, and rolling
resistance) and predicts how the vehicle would behave on the road when
it follows a driving cycle (vehicle speed versus time). On a second-by-
second basis, the model determines how much engine power needs to be
generated for the vehicle to follow the driving cycle as closely as
possible. The engine power is then transmitted to the wheels through
transmission, driveline, and axles to move the vehicle according to the
driving cycle. The second-by-second fuel consumption of the vehicle,
which corresponds to the engine power demand to move the vehicle, is
then calculated according to a fuel consumption map in the model.
Similar to a chassis dynamometer test, the second-by-second fuel
consumption is aggregated over the complete drive cycle to determine
the fuel consumption of the vehicle.
Consistent with the proposal, NHTSA and EPA are finalizing a
procedure to evaluate fuel consumption and CO2 emissions
respectively through a simulation of whole-vehicle operation,
consistent with the NAS recommendation to use a truck model to evaluate
truck performance.\72\ The EPA developed the Greenhouse gas Emissions
Model (GEM) for the specific purpose of this rulemaking to evaluate
truck performance. The GEM is similar in concept to a number of vehicle
simulation tools developed by commercial and government entities. The
model developed by the EPA and finalized here was designed for the
express purpose of vehicle compliance demonstration and is therefore
simpler and less configurable than similar commercial products. This
approach gives a compact and quicker tool for vehicle compliance
without the overhead and costs of a more sophisticated model. Details
of the model are included in Chapter 4 of the RIA. The agencies are
aware of several other simulation tools developed by universities and
private companies. Tools such as Argonne National Laboratory's
Autonomie, Gamma Technologies' GT-Drive, AVL's CRUISE, Ricardo's VSIM,
Dassault's DYMOLA, and University of Michigan's HE-VESIM codes are
publicly available. In addition, manufacturers of engines, vehicles,
and trucks often have their own in-house simulation tools. The agencies
sought comments regarding other software packages which would better
serve the compliance purposes of the rules than the GEM, but did not
receive any recommendations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ See 2010 NAS Report. Note 21, Recommendation 8-4. Page 190.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The GEM is designed to focus on the inputs most closely associated
with fuel consumption and CO2 emissions--i.e., on those
which have the largest impacts such as aerodynamics, rolling
resistance, weight, and others.
EPA has validated the GEM based on the chassis test results from
two combination tractors tested at Southwest Research Institute. The
validation work conducted on this vehicle was representative of the
other Class 7 and 8 tractors. Many aspects of one tractor configuration
(such as the engine, transmission, axle configuration, tire sizes, and
control systems) are similar to those used on the manufacturer's sister
models. For example, the powertrain configuration of a sleeper cab with
any roof height is similar to the one used on a day cab with any roof
height. Overall, the GEM predicted the fuel consumption and
CO2 emissions within 2 percent of the chassis test procedure
results for three test cycles--the California ARB Transient cycle, 65
mph cruise cycle, and 55 mph cruise cycle. These cycles are the ones
the agencies are utilizing in compliance testing. Since the time of the
proposal, the EPA also conducted a validation of the GEM relative to a
commonly used vehicle simulation software, GT-Power. The results of
this validation found that the two software programs predicted the fuel
efficiency of each subcategory of tractor to be within 2 percent. Test
to test variation for heavy-duty vehicle chassis testing can be higher
than 4 percent due to driver variation alone. The final simulation
model is described in greater detail in Chapter 4 of the RIA and is
available for download by at (http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/regulations.htm).
After proposal, the agencies conducted a peer review of GEM version
1.0 which was proposed. In addition, we requested comment on all
aspects of
[[Page 57147]]
this approach to compliance determination in general and to the use of
the GEM in particular. The agencies received comments from stakeholders
and made changes for the release of GEM v2.0 to address concerns raised
in the comments, along with the comments received during the peer
review process. The most noticeable changes to the GEM include
improvements to the graphical user interface (GUI). In response to
comments, the agencies have reduced the amount of information required
in the Identification section; linked the inputs to the selected
subcategory while graying-out the items that are not applicable to the
subcategory; and added batch modeling capability to reduce the
compliance burden to manufacturers. In addition, substantial work went
into model validations and benchmarking against vehicle test data and
other commonly used vehicle simulation models.
The model also includes a new driver model, a simplified electric
system model, and revised engine fuel maps to better reflect the 2017
model year engine standards. The model in the final rulemaking uses the
targeted vehicle driving speed to estimate vehicle torque demand at any
given time, and then the power required to drive the vehicle is derived
to estimate the required accelerator and braking pedal positions. If
the driver misses the vehicle speed target, a speed correction logic
controlled by a PID controller is applied to adjust necessary
accelerator and braking pedal positions in order to match targeted
vehicle speed at every simulation time step. The enhanced driver model
used in the final rulemaking with its feed-forward driver controls more
realistically models driving behavior. The GEM v1.0, the proposed
version of the model, had four individual components to model the
electric system--starter, electrical energy system, alternator, and
electrical accessory. For the final rulemaking, the GEM v2.0 has a
single electric system model with a constant power consumption level.
Based on comments received, the agencies revisited the 2017 model year
proposed fuel maps, specifically the low load area, which was
extrapolated during the proposal and (incorrectly) generated negative
improvements. The agencies redeveloped the fuel maps for the final
rulemaking to better predict the fuel consumption of engines in this
area of the fuel consumption map. Details of the changes are included
in RIA Chapter 4.
To demonstrate compliance, a Class 7 and 8 tractor manufacturer
will measure the performance of specified tractor systems (such as
aerodynamics and tire rolling resistance), input the values into the
GEM, and compare the model's output to the standard. The rules require
that a tractor manufacturer provide the inputs for each of following
factors for each of the tractors it wishes to certify under
CO2 standards and for establishing fuel consumption values:
Coefficient of Drag, Tire Rolling Resistance Coefficient, Weight
Reduction, Vehicle Speed Limiter, and Extended Idle Reduction
Technology. These are the technologies on which the agencies' own
feasibility analysis for these vehicles is predicated. An example of
the GEM input screen is included in Figure II-1.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15SE11.001
For the aerodynamic assessment, tire rolling resistance, and
tractor weight reduction, the input values for the simulation model
will be determined by the manufacturer through conducting tests using
the test procedures finalized
[[Page 57148]]
by the agencies in this action and described below. The agencies are
allowing several testing alternatives for aerodynamic assessment
referenced back to a coastdown test procedure, a single procedure for
determination of the coefficient of rolling resistance (CRR) for tires,
and a prescribed method to determine tractor weight reduction. The
agencies have finalized defined model inputs for determining vehicle
speed limiter and extended idle reduction technology benefits. The
other aspects of vehicle performance are fixed within the model as
defined by the agencies and are not varied for the purpose of
compliance.
(b) Metric
Test metrics which are quantifiable and meaningful are critical for
a regulatory program. The CO2 and fuel consumption metric
should reflect what we wish to control (CO2 or fuel
consumption) relative to the clearest value of its use: in this case,
carrying freight. It should encourage efficiency improvements that will
lead to reductions in emissions and fuel consumption during real world
operation. The agencies are finalizing standards for Class 7 and 8
combination tractors that would be expressed in terms of moving a ton
(2,000 pounds) of freight over one mile. Thus, NHTSA's final fuel
consumption standards for these trucks would be represented as gallons
of fuel used to move one ton of freight 1,000 miles, or gal/1,000 ton-
mile. EPA's final CO2 vehicle standards would be represented
as grams of CO2 per ton-mile. The model converts
CO2 emissions to fuel consumption using the CO2
grams per ton mile estimated by GEM and an assumed 10,180 grams of
CO2 per gallon of diesel fuel.
This approach tracks the recommendations of the NAS report. The NAS
panel concluded, in their report, that a load-specific fuel consumption
metric is appropriate for HD trucks. The panel spent considerable time
explaining the advantages of and recommending a load-specific fuel
consumption approach to regulating the fuel efficiency of heavy-duty
trucks. See NAS Report pages 20 through 28. The panel first points out
that the nonlinear relationship between fuel economy and fuel
consumption has led consumers of light-duty vehicles to have difficulty
in judging the benefits of replacing the most inefficient vehicles. The
panel describes an example where a light-duty vehicle can save the same
107 gallons per year (assuming 12,000 miles travelled per year) by
improving one vehicle's fuel efficiency from 14 to 16 mpg or improving
another vehicle's fuel efficiency from 35 to 50.8 mpg. The use of miles
per gallon leads consumers to undervalue the importance of small mpg
improvements in vehicles with lower fuel economy. Therefore, the NAS
panel recommends the use of a fuel consumption metric over a fuel
economy metric. The panel also describes the primary purpose of most
heavy-duty vehicles as moving freight or passengers (the payload).
Therefore, they concluded that the most appropriate way to represent an
attribute-based fuel consumption metric is to normalize the fuel
consumption to the payload.
With the approach to compliance NHTSA and EPA are adopting, a
default payload is specified for each of the tractor categories
suggesting that a gram per mile metric with a specified payload and a
gram per ton-mile metric would be effectively equivalent. The primary
difference between the metrics and approaches relates to our treatment
of mass reductions as a means to reduce fuel consumption and greenhouse
gas emissions. In the case of a gram per mile metric, mass reductions
are reflected only in the calculation of the work necessary to move the
vehicle mass through the drive cycle. As such it directly reduces the
gram emissions in the numerator since a vehicle with less mass will
require less energy to move through the drive cycle leading to lower
CO2 emissions. In the case of Class 7 and 8 tractors and our
gram/ton-mile metric, reductions in mass are reflected both in less
mass moved through the drive cycle (the numerator) and greater payload
(the denominator). We adjust the payload based on vehicle mass
reductions because we estimate that approximately one third of the time
the amount of freight loaded in a trailer is limited not by volume in
the trailer but by the total gross vehicle weight rating of the
tractor. By reducing the mass of the tractor the mass of the freight
loaded in the vehicle can go up. Based on this general approach, it can
be estimated that for every 1,200 pounds in mass reduction across all
Class 7 and 8 tractors on the road, that total vehicle miles traveled,
and therefore trucks on the road, could be reduced by one percent.
Without the use of a per ton-mile metric it would not be clear or
straightforward for the agencies to reflect the benefits of mass
reduction from large freight carrying vehicles that are often limited
in the freight they carry by the gross vehicle weight rating of the
vehicle. There was strong consensus in the public comments for adopting
the proposed metrics for tractors.
(c) Vehicle Aerodynamic Assessment
The aerodynamic drag of a vehicle is determined by the vehicle's
coefficient of drag (Cd), frontal area, air density and speed. As noted
in the NPRM, quantifying truck aerodynamics as an input to the GEM
presents technical challenges because of the proliferation of vehicle
configurations, the lack of a clearly preferable standardized test
method, and subtle variations in measured aerodynamic values among
various test procedures. Class 7 and 8 tractor aerodynamics are
currently developed by manufacturers using a range of techniques,
including wind tunnel testing, computational fluid dynamics, and
constant speed tests.
Consistent with our discussion at proposal, we believe a broad
approach allowing manufacturers to use these multiple different test
procedures to demonstrate aerodynamic performance of its tractor fleet
is appropriate given that no single test procedure is superior in all
aspects to other approaches. Allowing manufacturers to use multiple
test procedures and modeling coupled with good engineering judgment to
determine aerodynamic performance is consistent with the current
approach used in determining representative road load forces for light-
duty vehicle testing (40 CFR 86.129-00(e)(1)). However, we also
recognize the need for consistency and a level playing field in
evaluating aerodynamic performance.
The agencies are retaining an aerodynamic bin structure for the
final rulemaking, but are adjusting the method used to determine the
bins. To address the consistency and level playing field concerns,
NHTSA and EPA proposed that manufacturers use a two-part screening
approach for determining the aerodynamic inputs to the GEM. The first
part would have required the manufacturers to assign each vehicle
aerodynamic configuration based on descriptions of vehicle
characteristics to one of five aerodynamics bins created by EPA and
NHTSA. The proposed assignment by bin would have fixed (by rule) the
aerodynamic characteristics of the vehicle. However, the agencies,
while working with industry, concluded for the final rulemaking that an
approach which identified a reference aerodynamic test method and a
procedure to align results from other aerodynamic test procedures with
the reference method is a simpler, more accurate approach than
deciphering and interpreting written descriptions of aerodynamic
components.
Therefore, we are finalizing an approach, as described in Section
V.B.3.d and Sec. 1037.501, which uses an
[[Page 57149]]
enhanced coastdown procedure as a reference method and defines a
process for manufacturers to align drag results from each of their own
test methods to the reference method results. Manufacturers will be
able to use any aerodynamic evaluation method in demonstrating a
vehicle's aerodynamic performance as long as the method is aligned to
the reference method. The results from the aerodynamic testing will be
the single determining factor for aerodynamic bin assignments.
EPA and NHTSA recognize that wind conditions, most notably wind
direction, have a greater impact on real world CO2 emissions
and fuel consumption of heavy-duty trucks than of light-duty vehicles.
As noted in the NAS report,\73\ the wind average drag coefficient is
about 15 percent higher than the zero degree coefficient of drag. In
addition, the agencies received comments that supported the use of wind
averaged drag results for the aerodynamic determination. The agencies
considered finalizing the use of a wind averaged drag coefficient in
this regulatory program, but ultimately decided to finalize drag values
which represent zero yaw (i.e., representing wind from directly in
front of the vehicle, not from the side) instead. We are taking this
approach recognizing that the reference method is coastdown testing
which is not capable of determining wind averaged yaw. Wind tunnels are
currently the only tool which can accurately assess the influence of
wind speed and direction on a vehicle's aerodynamic performance. The
agencies recognize, as NAS did, that the results of using the zero yaw
approach may result in fuel consumption predictions that are offset
slightly from real world performance levels, not unlike the offset we
see today between fuel economy test results in the CAFE program and
actual fuel economy performance observed in-use. We believe this
approach will not impact overall technology effectiveness or change the
kinds of technology decisions made by the tractor manufacturers in
developing equipment to meet our final standards. However, the agencies
are adopting provisions which allow manufacturers to generate credits
reflecting performance of technologies which improve the aerodynamic
performance in crosswind conditions, similar to those experienced by
vehicles in use through innovative technologies, as described in
Section IV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\73\ See 2010 NAS Report, Note 21, Finding 2-4 on page 39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As just noted, the agencies are adopting an approach for this final
action where the manufacturer would determine a tractor's aerodynamic
drag force using their own aerodynamic assessment tools and correlating
the results back to the reference aerodynamic test method of enhanced
coastdown testing. The manufacturer determines the appropriate
predefined aerodynamic bin based on the correlated test results and
then inputs the predefined Cd value for that aerodynamic bin into the
GEM. Coefficient of drag and frontal area of the tractor-trailer
combination go hand-in-hand to determine the force required to overcome
aerodynamic drag. The agencies proposed that the Cd value would be a
GEM input derived by the manufacturer and that the agencies would
specify the vehicle's frontal area for each regulatory subcategory. The
agencies sought and received comment recommending an alternate approach
where the aerodynamic input tables (as shown in Table 0-7 and Table 0-
8) represent the drag force as defined as Cd multiplied by the frontal
area. Because both approaches are essentially equivalent and the use of
CdA more directly relates back to the aerodynamic testing, the agencies
are finalizing the use of CdA as recommended by manufacturers.
The agencies are finalizing aerodynamic technology bins which
divide the wide spectrum of tractor aerodynamics into five bins (i.e.,
categories) for high roof tractors. The first high roof category, Bin
I, is designed to represent tractor bodies which prioritize appearance
or special duty capabilities over aerodynamics. These Bin I trucks
incorporate few, if any, aerodynamic features and may have several
features which detract from aerodynamics, such as bug deflectors,
custom sunshades, B-pillar exhaust stacks, and others. The second high
roof aerodynamics category is Bin II which roughly represents the
aerodynamic performance of the average new tractor sold today. The
agencies developed this bin to incorporate conventional tractors which
capitalize on a generally aerodynamic shape and avoid classic features
which increase drag. High roof tractors within Bin III build on the
basic aerodynamics of Bin II tractors with added components to reduce
drag in the most significant areas on the tractor, such as integral
roof fairings, side extending gap reducers, fuel tank fairings, and
streamlined grill/hood/mirrors/bumpers, similar to SmartWay trucks
today. The Bin IV aerodynamic category for high roof tractors builds
upon the Bin III tractor body with additional aerodynamic treatments
such as underbody airflow treatment, down exhaust, and lowered ride
height, among other technologies. And finally, Bin V tractors
incorporate advanced technologies which are currently in the prototype
stage of development, such as advanced gap reduction, rearview cameras
to replace mirrors, wheel system streamlining, and advanced body
designs.
The agencies had proposed five aerodynamic bins for each tractor
regulatory subcategory. The agencies received comments from ATA, EMA/
TMA, and Volvo indicating that this approach was not consistent with
the aerodynamics of low and mid roof tractors. High roof tractors are
consistently paired with box trailer designs, and therefore
manufacturers can design the tractor aerodynamics as a tractor-trailer
unit and target specific areas like the gap between the tractor and
trailer. In addition, the high roof tractors tend to spend more time at
high speed operation which increases the impact of aerodynamics on fuel
consumption and GHG emissions. On the other hand, low and mid roof
tractors are designed to pull variable trailer loads and shapes. They
may pull trailers such as flat bed, low boy, tankers, or bulk carriers.
The loads on flat bed trailers can range from rectangular cartons with
tarps, to a single roll of steel, to a front loader. Due to these
variables, manufacturers do not design unique low and mid roof tractor
aerodynamics but instead use derivatives from their high roof tractor
designs. The aerodynamic improvements to the bumper, hood, windshield,
mirrors, and doors are developed for the high roof tractor application
and then carried over into the low and mid roof applications. As
mentioned above, the types of designs that would move high roof
tractors from a Bin III to Bins IV and V include features such as gap
reducers and integral roof fairings which would not be appropriate on
low and mid roof tractors. The agencies considered and largely agree
with these comments and are therefore finalizing only two aerodynamic
bins for low and mid roof tractors. The agencies are reducing the
number of bins to reflect the actual range of aerodynamic technologies
effective in low and mid roof tractor applications. Thus, the agencies
are differentiating the aerodynamic performance for low and mid roof
applications into two bins--conventional and aerodynamic.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\ As explained in Section IV, there are no ABT implications
to this change from proposal, since all Class 8 combination tractors
are considered to be a single averaging set for ABT purposes.
Similarly, all Class 7 tractors are considered to be a single
averaging set for ABT purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 57150]]
For high roof combination tractor compliance determination, a
manufacturer would use the aerodynamic results determined through
testing to establish the appropriate bin. The manufacturer would then
input into GEM the Cd value specified for each bin as defined in Table
II-7 and Table II-8. For example, if a manufacturer tests a Class 8
sleeper cab high roof tractor and the test produces a CdA value between
5.8 and 6.6, the manufacturer would assign this tractor to the Class 8
Sleeper Cab High Roof Bin III. The manufacturer would then use the Cd
value identified for Bin III of 0.60 as the input to GEM.
The Cd values in Table II-7 and Table II-8 differ from proposal
based on a change in the reference method (enhanced coastdown
procedure) and additional testing conducted by EPA. Details of the test
program and results are included in RIA Chapter 2.5.1.4.
Table II-7--Aerodynamic Input Definitions to GEM for High Roof Tractors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class 7 Class 8
--------------------------------------
Day cab Day cab Sleeper cab
--------------------------------------
High roof High roof High roof >
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aerodynamic Test Results (CdA in m\2\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bin I............................ >= 8.0 >= 8.0 >= 7.6
Bin II........................... 7.1-7.9 7.1-7.9 6.7-7.5
Bin III.......................... 6.2-7.0 6.2-7.0 5.8-6.6
Bin IV........................... 5.6-6.1 5.6-6.1 5.2-5.7
Bin V............................ <= 5.5 <= 5.5 <= 5.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aerodynamic Input to GEM (Cd)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bin I............................ 0.79 0.79 0.75
Bin II........................... 0.72 0.72 0.68
Bin III.......................... 0.63 0.63 0.60
Bin IV........................... 0.56 0.56 0.52
Bin V............................ 0.51 0.51 0.47
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CdA values in Table II-8 are based on testing using the
enhanced coastdown test procedures adopted for the final rulemaking,
which includes aerodynamic assessment of the low and mid roof tractors
without a trailer. The removal of the trailer significantly reduces the
CdA value of mid roof tractors with tanker trailers because of the poor
aerodynamic performance of the tanker trailer. The agencies developed
the Cd input for each of the low and mid roof tractor bins to represent
the Cd of the tractor, its frontal area, and the impact of the Cd value
due to the trailer such that the GEM value is representative of a
tractor-trailer combination, as it is for the high roof tractors.
Table II-8--Aerodynamic Input Definitions to GEM for Low and Mid Roof Tractors
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class 7 Class 8
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Cab Day Cab Sleeper
---------------------------------------------------------------- Cab
------------
Low Roof Mid Roof Low Roof Mid Roof Low
Roof
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------
Aerodynamic Test Results (CdA in m\2\)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bin I............................................................. >= 5.1 >= 5.6 >= 5.1 >= 5.6 >= 5.1 >= 5.6
Bin II............................................................ <= 5.0 <= 5.5 <= 5.0 <= 5.5 <= 5.0 <= 5.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aerodynamic Input to GEM (Cd)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bin I............................................................. 0.77 0.87 0.77 0.87 0.77 0.87
Bin II............................................................ 0.71 0.82 0.71 0.82 0.71 0.82
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(d) Tire Rolling Resistance Assessment
NHTSA and EPA are finalizing as proposed that the tractor's tire
rolling resistance input to the GEM be determined by either the tire
manufacturer or tractor manufacturer using the test method adopted by
the International Organization for Standardization, ISO 28580:2009.\75\
The agencies believe the ISO test procedure is appropriate for this
program because the procedure is the same one used by NHTSA in its fuel
efficiency tire labeling program \76\ and is consistent with the
testing direction being taken by
[[Page 57151]]
the tire industry both in the United States and Europe. The rolling
resistance from this test would be used to specify the rolling
resistance of each tire on the steer and drive axle of the tractor. The
results would be expressed as a rolling resistance coefficient (CRR)
and measured as kilogram per metric ton (kg/metric ton). The agencies
are finalizing as proposed that three tire samples within each tire
model be tested three times each to account for some of the production
variability and the average of the nine tests would be the rolling
resistance coefficient for the tire. The GEM will use the steer and
drive tire rolling resistance inputs and distribute 15 percent of the
gross weight of the tractor and trailer to the steer axle, 42.5 percent
to the drive axles, and 42.5 percent to the trailer axles.\77\ The
trailer tires' rolling resistance is prescribed by the agencies as part
of the standardized trailer used for demonstrating compliance at 6 kg/
metric ton, which was the average trailer tire rolling resistance
measured during the SmartWay tire testing.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ ISO, 2009, Passenger Car, Truck, and Bus Tyres--Methods of
Measuring Rolling Resistance--Single Point Test and Correlation of
Measurement Results: ISO 28580:2009(E), First Edition, 2009-07-01
\76\ NHTSA, 2009. ``NHTSA Tire Fuel Efficiency Consumer
Information Program Development: Phase 1--Evaluation of Laboratory
Test Protocols.'' DOT HS 811 119. June. (http://www.regulations.gov,
Docket ID: NHTSA-2008-0121-0019).
\77\ This distribution is equivalent to the federal over-axle
weight limits for an 80,000 GVWR 5-axle tractor-trailer: 12,000
pounds over the steer axle, 34,000 pounds over the tandem drive
axles (17,000 pounds per axle) and 34,000 pounds over the tandem
trailer axles (17,000 pounds per axle).
\78\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. SmartWay Transport
Partnership July 2010 e-update accessed July 16, 2010, from http://www.epa.gov/smartwaylogistics/newsroom/documents/e-update-july-10.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA and NHTSA conducted additional evaluation testing on HD trucks
tires used for tractors, and also for vocational vehicles. The agencies
also received several comments on the suitability of low rolling
resistance tires for various HD vehicle applications. The summary of
the agencies' findings and a response to issues raised by commenters is
presented in Section II.D(1)(a).
(e) Weight Reduction Assessment
The agencies proposed that the tractor standards reflect improved
CO2 emissions and fuel consumption performance of a 400
pound weight reduction in Class 7 and 8 tractors through the
substitution of single wide tires and light-weight wheels for dual
tires and steel wheels. This approach was taken since there is a large
variation in the baseline weight among trucks that perform roughly
similar functions with roughly similar configurations. Because of this,
the only effective way to quantify the exact CO2 and fuel
consumption benefit of mass reduction using GEM is to estimate baseline
weights for specific components that can be replaced with light weight
components. If the weight reduction is specified for light weight
versions of specific components, then both the baseline and weight
differentials for these are readily quantifiable and well-understood.
Lightweight wheels are commercially available as are single wide tires
and thus data on the weight reductions attributable to these two
approaches are readily available.
The agencies received comments on this approach from Volvo, ATA,
MEMA, Navistar, American Chemistry Council, the Auto Policy Center,
Iron and Steel Institute, Arvin Meritor, Aluminum Association, and
environmental groups and NGOs. Volvo and ATA stated that not all fleets
can use single wide tires and if this is the case the 400 pound weight
reduction target cannot be met. Volvo stated that without the use of
single wide drive tires, a 6x4 tractor will have a maximum weight
reduction of 300 pounds if the customer selects all ten wheels to be
outfitted with light weight aluminum wheels. A number of additional
commenters--including American Chemistry Council, The Auto Policy
Center, Iron and Steel Institute, Aluminum Association, Arvin Meritor,
MEMA, Navistar, Volvo, and environmental and nonprofit groups--stated
that manufacturers should be allowed to use additional light weight
components in order to meet the tractor fuel consumption and
CO2 emissions standards. These groups stated that weight
reductions should not be limited to wheels and tires. They asked that
cab doors, cab sides and backs, cab underbodies, frame rails, cross
members, clutch housings, transmission cases, axle differential carrier
cases, brake drums, and other components be allowed to be replaced with
light-weight versions. Materials suggested for substitution included
aluminum, light-weight aluminum, high strength steel, and plastic
composites. The American Iron and Steel Institute stated there are
opportunities to reduce mass by replacing mild steel--which currently
dominates the heavy-duty industry--with high strength steel.
In addition, The American Auto Policy Center asked that
manufacturers be allowed to use materials other than aluminum and high
strength steel to comply with the regulations. DTNA asked that weight
reduction due to engine downsizing be allowed to receive credit. Volvo
requested that weight reductions due to changes in axle configuration
be credited. They used the example of a customer selecting a 4 X 2 over
a 6 X 4 axle tractor. In this case, they assert there would be a 1,000
pound weight savings from removing an axle.
As proposed, many of the material substitutions could have been
considered as innovative technologies for tractors and hence eligible
for off cycle credits (so that the commenters overstated that these
technologies were `disallowed'). Nonetheless in response to the above
summarized comments, the agencies evaluated whether additional
materials and components could be used directly for compliance with the
tractor weight reduction through the primary program (i.e. be available
as direct inputs to the GEM). The agencies reviewed comments and data
received in response to the NPRM and additional studies cited by
commenters. A summary of this review is provided in the following
paragraphs.
TIAX, in their report to the NAS, cited information from Alcoa
identifying several mass reduction opportunities from material
substitution in the tractor cab components which were similar to the
ones identified by the Aluminum Association in their comments to this
rulemaking.\79\ TIAX included studies submitted by Alcoa showing the
potential to reduce the weight of a tractor-trailer combination by
3,500 to 4,500 pounds.\80\ In addition, the U.S. Department of Energy
has several projects underway to improve the freight efficiency of
Class 8 trucks which provide relevant data: \81\ DOE reviewed
prospective lightweighting alternative materials and found that
aluminum has a potential to reduce mass by 40 to 60 percent, which is
in line with the estimates of mass reductions of various components
provided by Alcoa, and by the Aluminum Association in their comments
and as cited in the TIAX report. These combined studies, comments, and
additional data provided information on specific components that could
be replaced with aluminum components.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\79\ TIAX, LLC. ``Assessment of Fuel Economy Technologies for
Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles,'' Final Report to National Academy
of Sciences, November 19, 2009. Pages 4-62 through 4-64.
\80\ Alcoa. ``Improving Sustainability of Transport: Aluminum is
Part of the Solution.'' 2009.
\81\ Schutte, Carol. U.S. Department of Energy, Vehicle
Technologies Program. ``Losing Weight--an enabler for a Systems
Level Technology Development, Integration, and Demonstration for
Efficient Class 8 Trucks (SuperTruck) and Advanced Technology
Powertrains for Light-Duty Vehicles.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regard to high strength steel, the Iron and Steel Institute
found that the use of high strength steel and redesign can reduce the
weight of light-duty trucks by 25 percent.\82\ Approximately
[[Page 57152]]
10 percent of this reduction results from material substitution and 15
percent from vehicle re-design. While this study evaluated light-duty
trucks, the agencies believe that a similar reduction could be achieved
in heavy-duty trucks since the reductions from material substitution
would likely be similar in heavy-trucks as in light-trucks. U.S. DOE,
in the report noted above, identified opportunities to reduce mass by
10 percent through high strength steel.\83\ This study was also for
light-duty vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\82\ American Iron and Steel Institute. ``A Cost Benefit
Analysis Report to the North American Steel Industry on Improved
Materials and Powertrain Architectures for 21st Century Trucks.''
\83\ Schutte, Carol. U.S. Department of Energy, Vehicle
Technologies Program. ``Losing Weight--an enabler for a Systems
Level Technology Development, Integration, and Demonstration for
Efficient Class 8 Trucks (SuperTruck) and Advanced Technology
Powertrains for Light-Duty Vehicles''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agencies considered other materials such as plastic composites
and magnesium substitutes but were not able to obtain weights for
specific components made from these materials. We have therefore not
included components made from these materials as possible substitutes
in the primary program, but they may be considered through the
innovative technology/off-cycle credits provision. We may consider
including these materials as part of the primary compliance option in a
subsequent regulation if data become available.
Based on this analysis, the agencies developed an expanded list of
weight reduction opportunities for the final rulemaking that may be
reflected in the GEM, as listed in Table II-9. The list includes
additional components, but not materials, from those proposed. For high
strength steel, the weight reduction value is equal to 10 percent of
the presumed baseline component weight, as the agencies used a
conservative value based on the DOE report. We recognize that there may
be additional potential for weight reduction in new high strength steel
components which combine the reduction due to the material substitution
along with improvements in redesign, as evidenced by the studies done
for light-duty vehicles. In the development of the high strength steel
component weights, we are only assuming a reduction from material
substitution and no weight reduction from redesign, since we do not
have any data specific to redesign of heavy-duty components nor do we
have a regulatory mechanism to differentiate between material
substitution and improved design. We are finalizing for wheels that
both aluminum and light weight aluminum are eligible to be used as
light-weight materials. Aluminum, but not light-weight aluminum, can be
used as a light-weight material for other components. The reason for
this is that data were available for light weight aluminum for wheels
but were not available for other components.
The agencies received comments on the proposal from the American
Chemistry Council highlighting the role of plastics and composites in
heavy-duty vehicles. As they stated, composites can be low density
while having high strength and are currently used in applications such
as oil pans and buses. The DOE mass reduction program demonstrated for
heavy vehicles proof of concept designs for hybrid composite doors with
an overall mass savings of 40 percent; 30 percent mass reduction of a
hood system with carbon fiber sheet molding compound; 50 percent mass
reduction from composite tie rods, trailing arms, and axles; and
superplastically formed aluminum body panels.\84\ While the agencies
recognize these opportunities, we do not believe the technologies have
advanced far enough to quantify the benefits of these materials because
they are very dependent on the actual composite material. The agencies
may consider such lightweighting opportunities in future actions, but
are not including them as part of this primary program. Manufacturers
which opt to pursue composite and plastic material substitutions may
seek credits through the innovative technology provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\84\ Schutte, Carol. U.S. Department of Energy, Vehicle
Technologies Program. ``Losing Weight--an enabler for a Systems
Level Technology Development, Integration, and Demonstration for
Efficient Class 8 Trucks (SuperTruck) and Advanced Technology
Powertrains for Light-Duty Vehicles''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regard to Volvo's request that manufacturers be allowed to
receive credit for trucks with fewer axles, the agencies recognize that
vehicle options exist today which have less mass than other options.
However, we believe the decisions to add or subtract such components
will be made based on the intended use of the vehicle and not based on
a crediting for the mass difference in our compliance program. It is
not our intention to create a tradeoff between the right vehicle to
serve a need (e.g. one with more or fewer axles) and compliance with
our final standards. Therefore, we are not including provisions to
credit (or penalize) vehicle performance based on the subtraction (or
addition) of specific vehicle components. Table II-9 provides weight
reduction values for different components and materials.
Table II-9--Weight Reduction Values
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weight reduction technology Weight reduction (lb per tire/
wheel)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Single Wide Drive Tire with:
Steel Wheel......................... 84
Aluminum Wheel...................... 139
Light Weight Aluminum Wheel......... 147
Steer Tire or Dual Wide Drive Tire with:
High Strength Steel Wheel........... 8
Aluminum Wheel...................... 21
Light Weight Aluminum Wheel......... 30
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weight reduction technologies Aluminum High strength
weight steel weight
reduction reduction
(lb.) (lb.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Door.................................... 20 6
Roof.................................... 60 18
Cab rear wall........................... 49 16
Cab floor............................... 56 18
Hood Support Structure.................. 15 3
[[Page 57153]]
Fairing Support Structure............... 35 6
Instrument Panel Support Structure...... 5 1
Brake Drums--Drive (4).................. 140 11
Brake Drums--Non Drive (2).............. 60 8
Frame Rails............................. 440 87
Crossmember--Cab........................ 15 5
Crossmember--Suspension................. 25 6
Crossmember--Non Suspension (3)......... 15 5
Fifth Wheel............................. 100 25
Radiator Support........................ 20 6
Fuel Tank Support Structure............. 40 12
Steps................................... 35 6
Bumper.................................. 33 10
Shackles................................ 10 3
Front Axle.............................. 60 15
Suspension Brackets, Hangers............ 100 30
Transmission Case....................... 50 12
Clutch Housing.......................... 40 10
Drive Axle Hubs (8)..................... 160 4
Non Drive Front Hubs (2)................ 40 5
Driveshaft.............................. 20 5
Transmission/Clutch Shift Levers........ 20 4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA and NHTSA are specifying the baseline vehicle weight for each
regulatory vehicle subcategory (including the tires, wheels, frame, and
cab components) in the GEM in aggregate based on weight of vehicles
used in EPA's aerodynamic test program, but allow manufacturers to
specify the use of light-weight components. The GEM then quantifies the
weight reductions based on the pre-determined weight of the baseline
component minus the pre-determined weight of the component made from
light-weight material. Manufacturers cannot specify the weight of the
light-weight component themselves, only the material used in the
substitute component. The agencies assume the baseline wheel and tire
configuration contains dual tires with steel wheels, along with steel
frame and cab components, because these represent the vast majority of
new vehicle configurations today. The weight reduction due to
replacement of components with light weight versions will be reflected
partially in the payload tons and partially in reducing the overall
weight of the vehicle run in the GEM. The specified payload in the GEM
will be set to the prescribed payload plus one third of the weight
reduction amount to recognize that approximately one third of the truck
miles are travelled at maximum payload, as discussed below in the
payload discussion. The other two thirds of the weight reduction will
be subtracted from the overall vehicle weight prescribed in the GEM.
The agencies continue to believe that the 400 pound weight target
is appropriate to use as a basis for setting the final combination
tractor CO2 emissions and fuel consumption standards. The
agencies agree with the commenter that 400 pounds of weight reduction
without the use of single wide tires may not be achievable for all
tractor configurations. As noted, the agencies have extended the list
of weight reduction components in order to provide the manufacturers
with additional means to comply with the combination tractors and to
further encourage reductions in vehicle weight. The agencies considered
increasing the target value beyond 400 pounds given the additional
reduction potential identified in the expanded technology list;
however, lacking information on the capacity for the industry to change
to these lightweight components across the board by the 2014 model
year, we have decided to maintain the 400 pound target. The agencies
intend to continue to study the potential for additional weight
reductions in our future work considering a second phase of vehicle
fuel efficiency and GHG regulations. In the context of the current
rulemaking for HD fuel consumption and GHG standards, one would expect
that reducing the weight of medium-duty trucks similarly would, if
anything, have a positive impact on safety. However, given the large
difference in weight between light-duty and medium-duty vehicles, and
even larger difference between light-duty vehicles and heavy-duty
vehicles with loads, the agencies believe that the impact of weight
reductions of medium- and heavy-duty vehicles would not have a
noticeable impact on safety for any of these classes of vehicles.\85\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\85\ For more information on the estimated safety effects of
this rule, see Chapter 9 of the RIA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(f) Extended Idle Reduction Technology Assessment
Extended idling from Class 8 heavy-duty long haul combination
tractors contributes to significant CO2 emissions and fuel
consumption in the United States. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration regulations require a certain amount of driver rest for
a corresponding period of driving hours.\86\ Extended idle occurs when
Class 8 long haul drivers rest in the sleeper cab compartment during
rest periods as drivers find it both convenient and less expensive to
rest in the tractor cab itself than to pull off the road and find
accommodations.\87\ During this rest period a driver will idle the
tractor engine in order to provide heating or cooling, or to run on-
board appliances. In some cases the engine can idle in excess of 10
hours. During this period, the engine will consume approximately 0.8
gallons of fuel and emit over 8,000 grams of CO2 per hour.
An average tractor engine can consume 8 gallons of fuel and emit over
80,000 grams of CO2 during overnight idling in such a case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\86\ Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. Hours of
Service Regulations. Last accessed on August 2, 2010 at http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regulations/topics/hos/.
\87\ The agencies note that some sleeper cabs may be classified
as vocational tractors and therefore are expected to primarily
travel locally and would not benefit from an idle reduction
technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Idling reduction technologies (IRT) are available to allow for
driver comfort while reducing fuel consumptions and CO2
emissions. Auxiliary power units, fuel operated heaters, battery
supplied air conditioning, and thermal storage systems are among the
technologies
[[Page 57154]]
available today. The agencies are adopting a provision for use of
extended idle reduction technology as an input to the GEM for Class 8
sleeper cabs. As discussed further in Section III, if a manufacturer
wishes to receive credit for using IRT to meet the standard, then an
automatic main engine shutoff must be programmed and enabled, such that
engine shutdown occurs after 5 minutes of idling, to help ensure the
reductions are realized in-use. A discussion of the provisions the
agencies are adopting for allowing an override of this automatic
shutdown can be found in RIA Chapter 2. As with all of the technology
inputs discussed in this section, the agencies are not mandating the
use of idle reductions or idle shutdown, but rather allowing their use
as one part of a suite of technologies feasible for reducing fuel
consumption and meeting the final standards and using these
technologies as the inputs to the GEM. The default value (5 g
CO2/ton-mile or 0.5 gal/1,000 ton-mile) for the use of
automatic engine shutdown (AES) with idle reduction technologies was
determined as the difference between a baseline main engine with idle
fuel consumption of 0.8 gallons per hour that idles 1,800 hours and
travels 125,000 miles per year, and a diesel auxiliary power unit
operating in lieu of main engine during those same idling hours. The
agencies received various comments from ACEEE and MEMA regarding the
assumptions used to derive the idle reduction value. ACEEE argued that
the agencies should use a fuel consumption rate of 0.47 gallon/hour for
main engine idling based on a paper written by Kahn. MEMA argued that
the agencies should use a main engine idling fuel consumption rate of
0.87 gal/hr, which is the midpoint of a DOE calculator reporting fuel
consumption rates from 0.64 to 1.15 gal/hr at idling conditions, and
between 800 and 1200 rpm with the air conditioning on and off,
respectively. The agencies respectfully disagree with the 0.47 gal/hr
recommendation because the same paper by Kahn shows that while idling
fuel consumption is 0.47 gal/hr on average at 600 rpm, CO2
emissions increase by 25 percent with A/C on at 600 rpm, and increase
by 165 percent between 600 rpm and 1,100 rpm with A/C on.\88\ MEMA
recommended using 2,500 hours per year for APU operation. They cited
the SmartWay Web site which uses 2,400 hours per year (8 hours per day
and 300 days per year). Also, they cited an Argonne study which assumed
7 hours per day and 303 days per year, which equals 2,121 hours per
year. Lastly, they referred to the FMCSA 2010 driver guidelines which
reduce the number of hours driven per day by one to two hours, which
would lead to 2,650 to 2,900 hours per year. The agencies reviewed
other studies to quantify idling operations, as discussed in greater
detail in RIA Section 2.5.4.2, and believe that the entirety of the
research does not support a change from the proposed calculation.
Therefore, the agencies are finalizing the calculation as proposed.
Additional details regarding the comments, calculations, and agency
decisions are included in RIA Section 2.5.4.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\88\ See Gaines, L., A. Vyas, J. Anderson. ``Estimation of Fuel
Used by Idling Commercial Trucks,'' Page 9 (2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agencies are adopting a provision to allow manufacturers to
provide an AES system which is active for only a portion of a vehicle's
life. In this case, a discounted idle reduction value would be entered
into GEM. A discussion of the calculation of a discounted IRT credit
can be found in Section III. Additional details on the emission and
fuel consumption reduction values are included in RIA Section 2.5.4.2.
(g) Vehicle Speed Limiters
The NPRM proposed to allow combination tractors that use vehicle
speed limiters (VSL) to include the maximum governed speed value as an
input to the GEM for purposes of determining compliance with the
vehicle standards. The agencies also proposed not to assume the use of
a mandatory vehicle speed limiter because of concerns about how to set
a realistic application rate that avoids unintended consequences. See
75 FR at 74223. Governing the top speed of a vehicle can reduce fuel
consumption and GHG emissions, because fuel consumption and
CO2 emissions increase proportionally to the square of
vehicle speed.\89\ Limiting the speed of a vehicle reduces the fuel
consumed, which in turn reduces the amount of CO2 emitted.
The specific input to the GEM would be the maximum governed speed limit
of the VSL that is programmed into the powertrain control module (PCM).
The agencies stressed in the NPRM that in order to obtain a benefit in
the GEM, a manufacturer must preset the limiter in such a way that the
setting will not be ``capable of being easily overridden by the fleet
or the owner.'' If the top speed could be easily overridden, the fuel
consumption/CO2 benefits of the VSL might not be realized,
and the agencies did not want to allow the technology to be used for
compliance if the technology could be disabled easily and the real
world benefits not achieved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\89\ See 2010 NAS Report, Note 21, Page 28. Road Load Force
Equation defines the aerodynamic portion of the road load as
[frac12] * Coefficient of Drag * Frontal Area * air density *
vehicle speed squared.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Both the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) and New York State
Department of Transportation and Environmental Conservation commented
that the application of speed limiters should be used to set the
tractor standards.\90\ CBD urged the agencies to reconsider the
position and adopt a speed limitation technology. NY State commented
that the technologies are cost effective, reduce emissions, and appear
to be generally acceptable to the trucking industry. They continued to
say that the vehicle speed limit could be set without compromising
operational logistics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\90\ One commenter mistakenly thought that the agencies were
rejecting consideration of VSLs due to perceived jurisdictional
obstacles. In fact, both the CAA and EISA allow consideration of VSL
technology and the agencies considered the appropriateness of basing
standards on performance of the technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many commenters (Cummins, Daimler, EMA/TMA, ATA, AAPC, NADA)
supported the use of VSLs as an input to the GEM, but requested
clarification of what the specific requirements would be to ensure the
VSL setting would not be capable of being easily overridden. Cummins
and Daimler requested that the final rules explicitly allow vehicle
manufacturers to access and adjust the VSL control feature for setting
the maximum governed speed, arguing that the diverse needs of the
commercial vehicle industry warrant flexibility in electronic control
features, and that otherwise supply chain issues \91\ may result from
the use of VSLs. NADA and EMA/TMA also requested that VSLs have
override features and be adjustable, citing various needs for
flexibility by the fleets. EMA/TMA and ATA requested that VSLs be
adjustable downward by fleets in order to obtain greater benefit in
GEM, if company policies change or if a subsequent vehicle owner needs
a different VSL setting. EMA/TMA stated that the agencies should
prohibit tampering with VSLs, and both EMA and TRALA requested more
information on how the agencies intended to address tampering with
VSLs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\91\ Commenters stated that OEMs need access for setting
appropriate trims for managing the VSL, otherwise significant supply
chain issues could result such as parts shortages caused by the need
for unique speed governed PCMs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to features governing the maximum vehicle speed,
commenters requested adding other programmable flexibilities to
mitigate potential drawbacks to VSLs. Cummins, DTNA,
[[Page 57155]]
and EMA/TMA requested that a programmable ``soft top'' speed be added
to PCMs which would allow a vehicle to exceed the speed limit setting
governed by a VSL for a short period of time. A ``soft top'' feature
could be used for a limited duration in order to maneuver and pass
other on-road vehicles at speeds greater than that governed by the VSL.
The commenters argued this was important for vehicle passing and
safety-related situations where, without a soft top feature, it could
be possible for speed limited trucks to obstruct other vehicles on the
road and cause severe road congestion.
ATA and EMA/TMA also requested that manufacturers be allowed to
program a mileage based expiration into the VSL control feature, in
order to preserve the value of vehicles for second owners who may
require operation at higher speeds. ATA further commented that
manufacturers should be allowed to account for additional GEM input
benefits if the speed governor is reprogrammed to a lower speed within
the useful life of the vehicle.
After carefully considering the comments, the agencies have
decided, for these final rules, to retain most of the elements in the
proposal. Manufacturers will be allowed to implement a fixed maximum
governed vehicle speed through a VSL feature and to use the maximum
governed vehicle speed as an input to the GEM for certification. Also
consistent with the proposal, the agencies are not premising the final
standards on the use of VSLs. The comments received from stakeholders
did not address the agencies' concerns discussed in the proposal,
specifically the risk of requiring VSL in situations that are not
appropriate from an efficiency perspective because it may lead to
additional vehicle trips to deliver the same amount of freight.\92\ The
agencies continue to believe that we are not in a position to determine
how many additional vehicles would benefit from the use of a VSL with a
setting of less than 65 mph (a VSL with a speed set at or above 65 mph
will show no CO2 emissions or fuel consumption benefit on
the drive cycles included in this program). The agencies further
believe that manufacturers will not utilize VSLs unless it is in their
interest to do so, so that these unintended consequences should not
occur when manufacturers use VSLs as a compliance strategy. We will
monitor the industry's use of VSL in this program and may consider
using this technology in standard setting in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\92\ See 75 FR at page 74223.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agencies have decided to adopt commenters' suggestions to allow
adjustable lower limits that can be set and governed by VSLs
independent of the one governing the maximum certified speed limit to
provide the desired flexibility requested by the trucking industry. We
believe that this flexibility would not decrease the anticipated fuel
consumption or CO2 benefits of VSLs because the adjustable
limits would be lower values. Issues identified by the commenters
including the ability to change delivery routes requiring lower
governed speeds or when a fleet's business practices change resulting
in a desire for greater fuel consumption savings are not in conflict
with the purpose and benefit of VSLs. As such, the agencies have
decided to allow a manufacturer to install features for its fleet
customers to set their own lower adjustable limits below the maximum
VSL specified by the agencies. However, the agencies have decided to
not allow any additional benefit in the GEM to a manufacturer for
allowing a lower governed speed in-use than the certified maximum limit
for this first phase of the HD National Program because we can only be
certain that the VSL will be at the maximum setting.
Both agencies also agree that manufacturers can provide a ``soft
top'' and expiration features to be programmed into PCMs to provide
additional flexibility for fleet owners and so that fleets who purchase
used vehicles have the ability to have different VSL policies than the
original owner of the vehicle. Although the agencies considered
limiting the soft top maximum level due to safety and fuel consumption/
GHG benefit concerns, we have decided to allow the soft top maximum
level to be set to any level higher than the maximum speed governed by
the VSL. This approach will provide drivers with the ability to better
navigate through traffic. However, the agencies are requiring that
manufacturers providing a soft top feature must design the system so it
cannot be modified by the fleets and will not decrement the vehicle
speed limit causing the vehicle to decelerate while the driver is
operating a vehicle above the normal governed vehicle speed limit. For
example, if a manufacturer designs a vehicle speed limiter that has a
normal governed speed limiter setting of 62 mph, and a ``soft top''
speed limiter value of 65 mph, the algorithm shall not cause the
vehicle speed to decrement causing the vehicle to decelerate while the
driver is operating the vehicle at a speed greater that 62 mph (between
62 and 65 mph). The agencies are concerned that a forced deceleration
when a driver is attempting to pass or maneuver could have an adverse
impact on safety.
In using a soft top feature, a manufacturer will be required to
provide to the agencies a functional description of the ``soft top''
control strategy including calibration values, the speed setting for
both the hard limit and the soft top and the maximum time per day the
control strategy could allow the vehicle to operate at the ``soft top''
speed limit at the time of certification. This information will be used
to derive a factor to discount the VSL input used in the GEM to
determine the fuel consumption and GHG emissions performance of the
vehicle. The agencies also agree with comments that VSLs should be
adjustable so as not to potentially limit a vehicle's resale value.
However, manufacturers choosing the option to override the VSL after a
specified number of miles would be required to discount the benefit of
the VSL relative to the tractor's full lifetime miles. The VSL discount
benefits for using soft-top and expiration features must be calculated
using Equation II-1.\93\ Additional details regarding the derivation of
the discounted equation are included in RIA Chapter 2. The agencies are
also requiring that any vehicle that has a ``soft top'' VSL to identify
the use of the ``soft top'' VSL on the vehicle emissions label.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\93\ See Sec. 1037.640.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equation II-1: Discounted Vehicle Speed Limiter Equation
VSL input for GEM = Expiration Factor * [Soft Top Factor* Soft Top VSL
+ (1-Soft Top Factor) * VSL] + (1-Expiration Factor)*65 mph
The agencies will require that the VSL algorithm be designed to
assure that over the useful life of the vehicle that the vehicle will
not operate in the soft top mode for more miles than would be expected
based on the values used in Equation 0-1, as specified by the
expiration factor and the soft top factor. In addition, any time the
cumulative percentage of operation in the soft top mode (based on
miles) exceeds the maximum ratio that could occur at the full lifetime
mileage, or at the expiration mileage if used, the algorithm must not
allow the vehicle to exceed the VSL value. In this case, the soft top
feature remain disabled until the vehicle mileage reaches a point where
the ratio no longer meets this condition.
In response to the comments about how the agencies will evaluate
[[Page 57156]]
tampering, NHTSA and EPA have added a number of requirements in these
final rules relating to the VSL control feature. VSL control features
should be designed so they cannot be easily overridden. Manufacturers
must ensure that the governed speed limit programmed into the VSL must
also be verifiable through on-board diagnostic scanning tools, and must
provide a description of the coding to identify the governed maximum
speed limit and the expiration mileage both at the time of the initial
vehicle certification and in-use. The agencies believe both
manufacturers and fleets should work toward maintaining the integrity
of VSLs, and the agencies may conduct new-vehicle and in-use random
audits to verify that inputs into GEM are accurate.
The agencies are aware that some fleets/owners make changes to
vehicles, such as installing different diameter tires, changing the
axle (final drive) ratio and transmission gearing, such that a vehicle
could travel at speeds higher than the speed limited by its VSL.
Vehicles subject to FMCSA requirements must be in compliance with 49
CFR 393.82. The requirements apply to speedometers and states as
follows:
Each bus, truck, and truck-tractor must be equipped with a
speedometer indicating vehicle speed in miles per hour and/or
kilometers per hour. The speedometer must be accurate to within plus
or minus 8 km/hr (5 mph) at a speed of 80 km/hr (50 mph).
To facilitate adjustments for component changes affecting vehicle
speed, manufacturers should provide a fleet/owner with the means to do
so unless the adjustments would affect the VSL setting or operation.
DTNA and ATA additionally requested that the agencies ensure that
any VSL provisions adopted under the GHG emissions and fuel efficiency
rules align with existing NHTSA standards. The agencies agree and note
that there are no existing standards for a VSL outside of this current
rulemaking activity. However, NHTSA has announced its intent to publish
a proposal in 2012 for a VSL.\94\ While both agencies have taken steps
to avoid potential conflicts between the rulemaking being finalized
today for fuel consumption and GHG emissions and the anticipated safety
rulemaking, different conclusions may be reached in a safety-based
rulemaking on VSLs, particularly in the approach to specifying soft top
parameters and VSL expiration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\94\ 76 FR 78.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(h) Defined Vehicle Configurations in the GEM
As discussed above, the agencies are adopting methodologies that
manufacturers will use to quantify the values input into the GEM for
these factors affecting vehicle efficiency: Coefficient of Drag, Tire
Rolling Resistance Coefficient, Weight Reduction, Vehicle Speed
Limiter, and Extended Idle Reduction Technology. The other aspects of
the vehicle configuration are fixed within the model and are not varied
for the purpose of compliance. The defined inputs include the tractor-
trailer combination curb weight, payload, engine characteristics, and
drivetrain for each vehicle type, and others.
(i) Vehicle Drive Cycles
The GEM simulation model uses various inputs to characterize a
vehicle's configuration (such as weight, aerodynamics, and rolling
resistance) and predicts how the vehicle would behave on the road when
it follows a driving cycle (vehicle speed versus time). As noted by the
2010 NAS Report,\95\ the choice of a drive cycle used in compliance
testing has significant consequences on the technology that will be
employed to achieve a standard as well as the ability of the technology
to achieve real world reductions in emissions and improvements in fuel
consumption. Manufacturers naturally will design vehicles to ensure
they satisfy regulatory standards. An ill-suited drive cycle for a
regulatory category could encourage GHG emissions and fuel consumption
technologies which satisfy the test but do not achieve the same
benefits in use. For example, requiring all trucks to use a constant
speed highway drive cycle will drive significant aerodynamic
improvements. However, in the real world a combination tractor used for
local delivery may spend little time on the highway, reducing the
benefits achieved by this technology. In addition, the extra weight of
the aerodynamic fairings will actually penalize the GHG and fuel
consumption performance in urban driving and may reduce the freight
carrying capability. The unique nature of the kinds of CO2
emissions control and fuel consumption technology means that the same
technology can be of benefit during some operation but cause a reduced
benefit under other operation.\96\ To maximize the GHG emissions and
fuel consumption benefits and avoid unintended reductions in benefits,
the drive cycle should focus on promoting technology that produces
benefits during the primary operation modes of the application.
Consequently, drive cycles used in GHG emissions and fuel consumption
compliance testing should reasonably represent the primary actual use,
notwithstanding that every vehicle has a different drive cycle in-use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\95\ See 2010 NAS Report, Note 21, Chapters 4 and 8.
\96\ This situation does not typically occur for heavy-duty
emission control technology designed to control criteria pollutants
such as PM and NOX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agencies proposed a modified version of the California ARB
Heavy Heavy-duty Truck 5 Mode Cycle \97\, using the basis of three of
the cycles which best mirror Class 7 and 8 combination tractor driving
patterns, based on information from EPA's MOVES model.\98\ The key
advantage of the California ARB 5 mode cycle is that it provides the
flexibility to use several different modes and weight the modes to fit
specific vehicle application usage patterns. For the proposal, EPA
analyzed the five cycles and found that some modifications to the
cycles were required to allow sufficient flexibility in weightings. The
agencies proposed the use of the Transient mode, as defined by
California ARB, because it broadly covers urban driving. The agencies
also proposed altered versions of the High Speed Cruise and Low Speed
Cruise modes which reflected only constant speed cycles at 65 mph and
55 mph respectively. In the NPRM, the agencies proposed to use three
cycles which were the ARB transient cycle, a 55 mph steady state
cruise, and a 65 mph steady state cruise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\97\ California Air Resources Board. Heavy Heavy-duty Diesel
Truck chassis dynamometer schedule, Transient Mode. Last accessed on
August 2, 2010 at http://www.dieselnet.com/standards/cycles/hhddt.html.
\98\ EPA's MOVES (Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator). See http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/moves/index.htm for additional information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agencies received comment from NACAA recommending an increase
in the high speed cruise cycle speed from the proposed value of 65 mph
to 75 mph because trucks travel at higher speeds. The agencies analyzed
the urban and rural interstate truck speed limits in each state to
determine the national average truck speed limit. State interstate
speed limits for trucks vary between 55 and 75 mph, depending on the
state.\99\ Based on this information, the national median truck speed
limit is
[[Page 57157]]
65 mph. The agencies also analyzed the national average truck speed
limit weighted by VMT for each state based on VMT data by state from
the Federal Highway Administration as described in RIA Section 3.4.2.
Based on this information, the national average VMT-weighted truck
speed limit is 63 mph. The agencies continue to believe that the
appropriate high speed cruise speed should be set at the national
average truck speed limit to appropriately balance the evaluation of
technologies such as aerodynamics, but not overstate the benefits of
these technologies. Therefore, the agencies are adopting as proposed a
speed of 65 mph for the high speed cruise cycle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\99\ Governors Highway Safety Association. Speed Limit Laws May
2011. Last viewed on May 9, 2011 at http://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/laws/speedlimit_laws.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agencies also received comments from Allison which disagreed
with proposed drive cycles for combination tractors because the cycles
did not account for external factors such as grades, wind, traffic
condition, etc. Allison also believes that the acceleration rates are
too low. The agencies recognize that the proposed drive cycles do not
incorporate the external factors described by Allison. Parallel to the
approach used to evaluate light-duty vehicles, the drive cycles do not
incorporate either grade or wind which can be difficult to simulate in
chassis dynamometer cells. In the final rules, the agencies are
defining an approach that manufacturers may take to evaluate their
aerodynamic packages in a wind-averaged condition and use a modified Cd
value in GEM.\100\ The agencies are also adopting provisions for the
innovative technology demonstration that allows for the use of on-road
testing which includes grades for technologies whose benefits are
reflected with grade. Lastly, the agencies' final drive cycles for
highway operation contain a constant speed, as proposed. The
acceleration and deceleration rates are only used to bring the vehicle
to the cruising speed and the CO2 emissions and fuel
consumption from these portions of the drive cycle are not included in
the composite emissions and fuel consumption results. The agencies did
not include the speed dithering, which is representative of actual
driving and traffic conditions, in the proposed constant speed portion
of the cycles because the dithering does not provide any additional
distinction between technologies but only added complexity to the
cycle. The agencies believe this approach is still appropriate for the
final action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\100\ See Section IV.B.3.b below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allison referred the agencies to the Oak Ridge National Laboratory
and SmartWay program to review the amount of time long-haul vehicles
spend on the highway. They believe the steady state highway speeds are
overestimated. Data provided by Allison indicates that day cabs spend
only 14 percent of miles traveling at speeds greater than 60 mph. NHTSA
and EPA recognize that there is a variation in the amount of miles day
cabs travel under different operations. As described above, the
agencies are adopting an approach where tractors which operate like
vocational vehicles may be regulated as such in the HD program. Thus,
these day cabs will have a drive cycle weighting representative of
vocational vehicles with more weighting on the transient operation and
less on the highway speed operation.
For proposal, EPA and NHTSA relied on the EPA MOVES analysis of
Federal Highway Administration data to develop the mode weightings to
characterize typical operations of heavy-duty trucks, per Table II-10
below.\101\ A detailed discussion of drive cycles is included in RIA
Chapter 3.\102\ The agencies are adopting the proposed drive cycle
weightings for combination tractors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\101\ The Environmental Protection Agency. Draft MOVES2009
Highway Vehicle Population and Activity Data. EPA-420-P-09-001,
August 2009 http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/moves/techdocs/420p09001.pdf.
\102\ In the light-duty vehicle rule, EPA and NHTSA based
compliance with tailpipe standards on use of the FTP and HFET, and
declined to use alternative tests. See 75 FR 25407. NHTSA is
mandated to use the FTP and HFET tests for CAFE standards, and all
relevant data was obtained by FTP and HFET testing in any case. Id.
Neither of these constraints exists for Class 7-8 tractors. The
little data which exist on current performance are principally
measured by the ARB Heavy Heavy-duty Truck 5 Mode Cycle testing, and
NHTSA is not mandated to use the FTP to establish heavy-duty fuel
economy standards. See 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(2) authorizing NHTSA,
among other things, to adopt and implement appropriate ``test
methods, measurement metrics, * * * and compliance protocols''.
Table II-10--Drive Cycle Mode Weightings
------------------------------------------------------------------------
55 mph 65 mph
Transient cruise cruise
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Cabs......................... 19% 17% 64%
Sleeper Cabs..................... 5% 9% 86%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(ii) Standardized Trailers
As proposed, NHTSA and EPA are adopting provisions so that the
tractor performance in the GEM is judged assuming the tractor is
pulling a standardized trailer. The agencies did not receive any
adverse comments related to this approach. The agencies believe that an
assessment of the tractor fuel consumption and CO2 emissions
should be conducted using a tractor-trailer combination. We believe
this approach best reflects the impact of the overall weight of the
tractor-trailer and the aerodynamic technologies in actual use, where
tractors are designed and used with a trailer. The GEM will continue to
use a predefined typical trailer in assessing overall performance. The
high roof sleeper cabs are paired with a standard box trailer; the mid
roof tractors are paired with a tanker trailer; and the low roof
tractors are paired with a flat bed trailer.
(iii) Empty Weight and Payload
The total weight of the tractor-trailer combination is the sum of
the tractor curb weight, the trailer curb weight, and the payload. The
total weight of a vehicle is important because it in part determines
the impact of technologies, such as rolling resistance, on GHG
emissions and fuel consumption. In this final action, the agencies are
specifying each of these aspects of the vehicle, as proposed.
In use, trucks operate at different weights at different times
during their operations. The greatest freight transport efficiency (the
amount of fuel required to move a ton of payload) would be achieved by
operating trucks at the maximum load for which they are designed all of
the time. However, logistics such as delivery demands which require
that trucks travel without full loads, the density of payload, and the
availability of full loads of freight limit the ability of trucks to
operate at their highest efficiency all the time. M.J. Bradley analyzed
the Truck Inventory and Use Survey and found that
[[Page 57158]]
approximately 9 percent of combination tractor miles travelled empty,
61 percent are ``cubed-out'' (the trailer is full before the weight
limit is reached), and 30 percent are ``weighed out'' (operating weight
equal 80,000 pounds which is the gross vehicle weight limit on the
Federal Interstate Highway System or greater than 80,000 pounds for
vehicles traveling on roads outside of the interstate system).\103\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\103\ M.J. Bradley & Associates. Setting the Stage for
Regulation of Heavy-Duty Vehicle Fuel Economy and GHG Emissions:
Issues and Opportunities. February 2009. Page 35. Analysis based on
1992 Truck Inventory and Use Survey data, where the survey data
allowed developing the distribution of loads instead of merely the
average loads.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As described above, the amount of payload that a tractor can carry
depends on the category (or GVWR and GCWR) of the vehicle. For example,
a typical Class 7 tractor can carry less payload than a Class 8
tractor. For proposal, the agencies used the Federal Highway
Administration Truck Payload Equivalent Factors using Vehicle Inventory
and Use Survey (VIUS) and Vehicle Travel Information System data to
determine the proposed payloads. FHWA's results found that the average
payload of a Class 8 vehicle ranged from 36,247 to 40,089 pounds,
depending on the average distance travelled per day.\104\ The same
results found that Class 7 vehicles carried between 18,674 and 34,210
pounds of payload also depending on average distance travelled per day.
Based on this data, the agencies proposed to prescribe a fixed payload
of 25,000 pounds for Class 7 tractors and 38,000 pounds for Class 8
tractors for their respective test procedures. The agencies proposed a
common payload for Class 8 day cabs and sleeper cabs as predefined GEM
input because the data available do not distinguish based on type of
Class 8 tractor. These payload values represent a heavily loaded
trailer, but not maximum GVWR, since as described above the majority of
tractors ``cube-out'' rather than ``weigh-out.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\104\ The U.S. Federal Highway Administration. Development of
Truck Payload Equivalent Factor. Table 11. Last viewed on March 9,
2010 at http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/faf/faf2_reports/reports9/s510_11_12_tables.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agencies developed the proposed tractor curb weight inputs from
actual tractor weights measured in two of EPA's test programs and based
on information from the manufacturers. The proposed trailer curb weight
inputs were derived from actual trailer weight measurements conducted
by EPA and weight data provided to ICF International by the trailer
manufacturers.\105\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\105\ ICF International. Investigation of Costs for Strategies
to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Heavy-Duty On-road Vehicles.
July 2010. Pages 4-15. Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162-0044.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agencies received comments from UMTRI and ATA regarding the
values assumed for the combination tractor weights. UMTRI recommended
using 80,000 pounds for the total weight for tractor-trailer
combinations. ATA based on their analysis of the Federal Highway
Administration's Long Term Pavement Database, recommended 5,000 to
10,000 pound payload for Class 7 tractors and 25,000 to 30,000 pounds
for Class 8 tractors. ATA also determined from the same database that
20 percent of tractor miles are empty, 67 percent cube-out, and 13
percent weigh-out. The agencies are adopting the proposed tractor-
trailer weights because we do not have strong evidence to select other
values and because changing the assumed values would not change the
impact on GHG emissions or fuel consumption of the technologies
included in this phase of the HD program (the relative stringency of
the standards and the projected emission reductions do not change with
assumed payload). NHTSA and EPA intend to continue evaluating
additional sources of weight information in future phases of the
program.
Details of the final individual weight inputs by regulatory
category, as shown in Table II-11, are included in RIA Chapter 3.
Table II-11--Final Combination Tractor Weights
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tractor Trailer Total
Model type Regulatory subcategory tare weight weight Payload weight
(lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class 8............................. Sleeper Cab High Roof. 19,000 13,500 38,000 70,500
Class 8............................. Sleeper Cab Mid Roof.. 18,750 10,000 38,000 66,750
Class 8............................. Sleeper Cab Low Roof.. 18,500 10,500 38,000 67,000
Class 8............................. Day Cab High Roof..... 17,500 13,500 38,000 69,000
Class 8............................. Day Cab Mid Roof...... 17,100 10,000 38,000 65,100
Class 8............................. Day Cab Low Roof...... 17,000 10,500 38,000 65,500
Class 7............................. Day Cab High Roof..... 11,500 13,500 25,000 50,000
Class 7............................. Day Cab Mid Roof...... 11,100 10,000 25,000 46,100
Class 7............................. Day Cab Low Roof...... 11,000 10,500 25,000 46,500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(iv) Standardized Drivetrain
The agencies' assessment at proposal of the current vehicle
configuration process at the truck dealer's level was that the truck
companies provide tools to specify the proper drivetrain matched to the
buyer's specific circumstances. These dealer tools allow a significant
amount of customization for drive cycle and payload to provide the best
specification for each individual customer. The agencies are not
seeking to disrupt this process. Optimal drivetrain selection is
dependent on the engine, drive cycle (including vehicle speed and road
grade), and payload. Each combination of engine, drive cycle, and
payload has a single optimal transmission and final drive ratio. The
agencies received comments from ArvinMeritor and ICCT which suggested
that the agencies incorporate the actual drivetrain configuration (axle
configuration, driveline efficiency, and transmission) into the GEM.
The agencies continue to believe, and therefore are adopting as
proposed, that it is appropriate to specify the engine's fuel
consumption map, drive cycle, and payload; therefore, it makes sense to
also specify the drivetrain that matches.
(v) Engine Input to the GEM for Tractors
As proposed, the agencies are defining the engine characteristics
used in the GEM, including the fuel consumption map which provides the
fuel consumption at hundreds of engine speed and torque points. If the
agencies did not standardize the fuel map, then a tractor that uses an
engine with emissions and fuel consumption better than the standards
would require fewer vehicle reductions than those technically feasible
reductions reflected in the final standards. The agencies are
finalizing two distinct fuel consumption maps for use in the GEM. The
first fuel
[[Page 57159]]
consumption map would be used in the GEM for the 2014 through 2016
model years and represents an average engine which meets EPA's final
2014 model year engine CO2 emissions standards. The same
fuel map would be used for NHTSA's voluntary standards in the 2014 and
2015 model years, as well as its mandatory program in the 2016 model
year. A second fuel consumption map will be used beginning in the 2017
model year and represents an engine which meets the 2017 model year
CO2 emissions and fuel consumption standards and accounts
for the increased stringency in the final MY 2017 standard. The
agencies have modified the 2017 MY fuel map used in the GEM for the
final rulemaking to address comments received. Details regarding this
change can be found in RIA Chapter 4.4.4. Effectively there is no
change in stringency of the tractor vehicle (not including the engine
standards over the full rulemaking period).\106\ These inputs are
appropriate given the separate regulatory requirement that Class 7 and
8 combination tractor manufacturers use only certified engines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\106\ As noted earlier, use of the 2017 model year fuel
consumption map as a GEM input results in numerically more stringent
final vehicle standards for MY 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Heavy-Duty Engine Test Procedure for Engines Installed in
Combination Tractors
The HD engine test procedure consists of two primary aspects--a
duty cycle and a metric to evaluate the emissions and fuel consumption.
EPA proposed that the GHG emission standards for heavy-duty engines
under the CAA would be expressed as g/bhp-hr while NHTSA's proposed
fuel consumption standards under EISA, in turn, be represented as gal/
100 bhp-hr. The NAS panel did not specifically discuss or recommend a
metric to evaluate the fuel consumption of heavy-duty engines. However,
as noted above they did recommend the use of a load-specific fuel
consumption metric for the evaluation of vehicles.\107\ An analogous
metric for engines is the amount of fuel consumed per unit of work. The
g/bhp-hr metric is also consistent with EPA's current standards for
non-GHG emissions for these engines. The agencies did not receive any
adverse comments related to the metrics for HD engines; therefore, we
are adopting the metrics as proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\107\ See NAS Report, Note 21, at page 39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agencies believe it is appropriate to set standards based on a
single test procedure, either the Heavy-duty FTP or SET, depending on
the primary expected use of the engine. This approach differs from
EPA's criteria pollutant standards for engines which currently require
that manufacturers demonstrate compliance over the transient FTP cycle;
over the steady-state SET procedure; and during not-to-exceed testing.
EPA created this multi-layered approach to criteria emissions control
in response to engine designs that optimized operation for lowest fuel
consumption at the expense of very high criteria emissions when
operated off the regulatory cycle. EPA's use of multiple test
procedures for criteria pollutants helps to ensure that manufacturers
calibrate engine systems for compliance under all operating conditions.
We are not concerned if manufacturers further calibrate engines off-
cycle to give better in-use fuel consumption while maintaining
compliance with the criteria emissions standards as such calibration is
entirely consistent with the goals of our joint program. Further, we
believe that setting GHG and fuel consumption standards based on both
transient and steady-state operating conditions for all engines could
lead to undesirable outcomes.
It is critical to set standards based on the most representative
test cycles in order for performance in-use to obtain the intended (and
feasible) air quality and fuel consumption benefits. Tractors spend the
majority of their operation at steady state conditions, and will obtain
in-use benefit of technologies such as turbocompounding and other waste
heat recovery technologies during this kind of typical engine
operation. Turbocompounding is a very effective approach to lower fuel
consumption under steady driving conditions typified by combination
tractor trailer operation and is well reflected in testing over the SET
test procedure. However, when used in driving typified by transient
operation as we expect for vocational vehicles and as is represented by
the Heavy-duty FTP, turbocompounding shows very little benefit. Setting
an emission standard based on the Heavy-duty FTP for engines intended
for use in combination tractor trailers could lead manufacturers to not
apply turbocompounding even though it can be a highly cost effective
means to reduce GHG emissions and lower fuel consumption. (It is for
this reason that turbocompounding is not part of the technology basis
for MHD or HHD engines installed in vocational vehicles.)
The agencies proposed that engines installed in tractors
demonstrate compliance with the CO2 emissions and fuel
consumption standards over the SET cycle. Commenters such as Cummins,
Bosch, Daimler, and Honeywell supported the proposed approach. ACEEE
recommended adopting a new test cycle, such as the World Harmonized
Duty Cycle which was developed using newer data, to evaluate HD
engines. Daimler also supported the WHDC for future phases of the
program. The agencies continue to believe the important issues and
technical work related to setting new criteria pollutant emissions
standards appropriate for the World Harmonized Duty Cycle are
significant and beyond the scope of this rulemaking. The SET cycle
remains representative of typical driving cycles for combination
tractors (and engines installed in them). Therefore, the agencies are
adopting the SET cycle to evaluate CO2 emissions and fuel
consumption of HD engines installed in tractors, as proposed.
The current non-GHG emissions engine test procedures also require
the development of regeneration emission rates and frequency factors to
account for the emission changes during a regeneration event (40 CFR
86.004-28). EPA and NHTSA proposed not to include these emissions from
the calculation of the compliance levels over the defined test
procedures. Cummins and Daimler supported this approach and stated that
sufficient incentives already exist for manufacturers to limit
regeneration frequency. Conversely, Volvo opposed the omission of IRAF
requirements for CO2 emissions because emissions from
regeneration can be a significant portion of the expected improvement
and a significant variable between manufacturers
At proposal, we considered including regeneration in the estimate
of fuel consumption and GHG emissions and decided not to do so for two
reasons. See 75 FR at 74188. First, EPA's existing criteria emission
regulations already provide a strong motivation to engine manufacturers
to reduce the frequency and duration of infrequent regeneration events.
The very stringent 2010 NOX emission standards cannot be met
by engine designs that lead to frequent and extend regeneration events.
Hence, we believe engine manufacturers are already reducing
regeneration emissions to the greatest degree possible. In addition to
believing that regenerations are already controlled to the extent
technologically possible, we believe that attempting to include
regeneration emissions in the standard setting could lead to an
inadvertently lax emissions standard. In order to include regeneration
and set appropriate standards, EPA and NHTSA would have needed to
project the regeneration
[[Page 57160]]
frequency and duration of future engine designs in the time frame of
this program. Such a projection would be inherently difficult to make
and quite likely would underestimate the progress engine manufacturers
will make in reducing infrequent regenerations. If we underestimated
that progress, we would effectively be setting a more lax set of
standards than otherwise would be expected. Hence in setting a standard
including regeneration emissions we faced the real possibility that we
would achieve less effective CO2 emissions control and fuel
consumption reductions than we will achieve by not including
regeneration emissions. Therefore, the agencies are finalizing an
approach as proposed which does not include the regenerative emissions.
(j) Chassis-Based Test Procedure
In the proposal, the agencies considered proposing a chassis-based
vehicle test to evaluate Class 7 and 8 tractors based on a laboratory
test of the engine and vehicle together. A ``chassis dynamometer test''
for heavy-duty vehicles would be similar to the Federal Test Procedure
used today for light-duty vehicles.
However, the agencies decided not to propose the use of a chassis
test procedure to demonstrate compliance for tractor standards due to
the significant technical hurdles to implementing such a program by the
2014 model year. The agencies recognize that such testing requires
expensive, specialized equipment that is not yet widespread within the
industry. The agencies have only identified approximately 11 heavy-duty
chassis sites in the United States today and rapid installation of new
facilities to comply with model year 2014 is not possible.\108\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\108\ For comparison, engine manufacturers typically own a large
number of engine dynamometer test cells for engine development and
durability (up to 100 engine dynamometers per manufacturer).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, and of equal if not greater importance, because of the
enormous numbers of vehicle configurations that have an impact on fuel
consumption, we do not believe that it would be reasonable to require
testing of many combinations of tractor model configurations on a
chassis dynamometer. The agencies evaluated the options available for
one tractor model (provided as confidential business information from a
truck manufacturer) and found that the company offered three cab
configurations, six axle configurations, five front axles, 12 rear
axles, 19 axle ratios, eight engines, 17 transmissions, and six tire
sizes--where each of these options could impact the fuel consumption
and CO2 emissions of the tractor. Even using representative
grouping of tractors for purposes of certification, this presents the
potential for many different combinations that would need to be tested
if a standard were adopted based on a chassis test procedure.
The agencies received comments from ACEEE and UCS supporting a full
vehicle testing approach, but these commenters recognized the
difficulties in doing this in the first phase of the HD program. The
agencies maintain that the full vehicle testing on chassis dynamometers
is not feasible in the timeframe of this rulemaking, although we
believe such an approach may be appropriate in the future, if more
testing facilities become available and if the agencies are able to
address the complexity of tractor configurations issue described above.
(4) Summary of Flexibility and Credit Provisions for Tractors and
Engine Used in These Tractors
EPA and NHTSA are finalizing four flexibility provisions
specifically for heavy-duty tractor and engine manufacturers, as
discussed in Section IV below. These are an averaging, banking and
trading program for emissions and fuel consumption credits, as well as
provisions for early credits, advanced technology credits, and credits
for innovative vehicle or engine technologies which are not included as
inputs to the GEM or are not demonstrated on the engine SET test cycle.
With the exception of the advanced technology credits, credits
generated under these provisions can only be used within the same
averaging set which generated the credit (for example, credits
generated by HD engines installed in tractors can only be used by HD
engines). EPA is also adopting a N2O emission credit
program, as described in Section IV below.
(5) Deferral of Standards for Tractor and Engine Manufacturing
Companies That Are Small Businesses
EPA and NHTSA are not adopting greenhouse gas emissions and fuel
consumption standards for small tractor or engine manufacturers meeting
the Small Business Administration (SBA) size criteria of a small
business as described in 13 CFR 121.201.\109\ The agencies will instead
consider appropriate GHG and fuel consumption standards for these
entities as part of a future regulatory action. This includes both
U.S.-based and foreign small volume heavy-duty tractor and engine
manufacturers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\109\ See Sec. 1036.150 and Sec. 1037.150.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agencies have identified two entities that fit the SBA size
criterion of a small business.\110\ The agencies estimate that these
small entities comprise less than 0.5 percent of the total heavy-duty
combination tractors in the United States based on Polk Registration
Data from 2003 through 2007,\111\ and therefore that the exemption will
have a negligible impact on the GHG emissions and fuel consumption
improvements from the final standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\110\ The agencies have identified Ottawa Truck, Inc. and Kalmar
Industries USA as two potential small tractor manufacturers.
\111\ M.J. Bradley. Heavy-duty Vehicle Market Analysis. May
2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To ensure that the agencies are aware of which companies would be
exempt, we are requiring that such entities submit a declaration to EPA
and NHTSA containing a detailed written description of how that
manufacturer qualifies as a small entity under the provisions of 13 CFR
121.201.
C. Heavy-Duty Pickup Trucks and Vans
The primary elements of the EPA and NHTSA programs for complete HD
pickups and vans are presented in this section. These provisions also
cover optional chassis certification of incomplete HD vehicles and of
Class 4 and 5 vehicles, as discussed in detail in Section V.B(1)(e).
Section II.C(1) explains the form of the CO2 and fuel
consumption standards, the numerical levels for those standards, and
the approach to phasing in the standards over time. The measurement
procedure for determining compliance is discussed in Section II.C(2),
and the EPA and NHTSA compliance programs are discussed in Section
II.C(3). Section II.C(4) discusses implementation flexibility
provisions. Section II.E discusses additional standards and provisions
for N2O and CH4 emissions, for vehicle air
conditioning leakage, and for ethanol-fueled and electric vehicles. HD
pickup and van air conditioning efficiency is not being regulated, for
reasons discussed in Section II.E.
(1) What are the levels and timing of HD pickup and van standards?
(a) Vehicle-Based Standards
About 90 percent of Class 2b and 3 vehicles are pickup trucks,
passenger vans, and work vans that are sold by the original equipment
manufacturers as complete vehicles, ready for use on the road. In
addition, most of these
[[Page 57161]]
complete HD pickups and vans are covered by CAA vehicle emissions
standards for criteria pollutants today (i.e., they are chassis tested
similar to light-duty), expressed in grams per mile. This distinguishes
this category from other, larger heavy-duty vehicles that typically
have only the engines covered by CAA engine emission standards,
expressed in grams per brake horsepower-hour. As a result, Class 2b and
3 complete vehicles share much more in common with light-duty trucks
than with other heavy-duty vehicles.
Three of these commonalities are especially significant: (1) Over
95 percent of the HD pickups and vans sold in the United States are
produced by Ford, General Motors, and Chrysler--three companies with
large light-duty vehicle and light-duty truck sales in the United
States, (2) these companies typically base their HD pickup and van
designs on higher sales volume light-duty truck platforms and
technologies, often incorporating new light-duty truck design features
into HD pickups and vans at their next design cycle, and (3) at this
time most complete HD pickups and vans are certified to vehicle-based
rather than engine-based EPA standards. There is also the potential for
substantial GHG and fuel consumption reductions from vehicle design
improvements beyond engine changes (such as through optimizing
aerodynamics, weight, tires, and accessories), and the manufacturer is
generally responsible for both engine and vehicle design. All of these
factors together suggest that it is appropriate and reasonable to set
standards for the vehicle as a whole, rather than to establish separate
engine and vehicle GHG and fuel consumption standards, as is being done
for the other heavy-duty categories. This approach for complete
vehicles is consistent with Recommendation 8-1 of the NAS Report, which
encourages the regulation of ``the final stage vehicle manufacturers
since they have the greatest control over the design of the vehicle and
its major subsystems that affect fuel consumption.'' There was
consensus in the public comments supporting this approach.
(b) Work-Based Attributes
In setting heavy-duty vehicle standards it is important to take
into account the great diversity of vehicle sizes, applications, and
features. That diversity reflects the variety of functions performed by
heavy-duty vehicles, and this in turn can affect the kind of technology
that is available to control emissions and reduce fuel consumption, and
its effectiveness. EPA has dealt with this diversity in the past by
making weight-based distinctions where necessary, for example in
setting HD vehicle standards that are different for vehicles above and
below 10,000 lb GVWR, and in defining different standards and useful
life requirements for light-, medium-, and heavy-heavy-duty engines.
Where appropriate, distinctions based on fuel type have also been made,
though with an overall goal of remaining fuel-neutral.
The joint EPA GHG and NHTSA fuel economy rules for light-duty
vehicles accounted for vehicle diversity in that segment by basing
standards on vehicle footprint (the wheelbase times the average track
width). Passenger cars and light trucks with larger footprints are
assigned numerically higher target levels for GHGs and numerically
lower target levels for fuel economy in acknowledgement of the
differences in technology as footprint gets larger, such that vehicles
with larger footprints have an inherent tendency to burn more fuel and
emit more GHGs per mile of travel. Using a footprint-based attribute to
assign targets also avoids interfering with the ability of the market
to offer a variety of products to maintain consumer choice.
In developing this rulemaking, the agencies emphasized creating a
program structure that would achieve reductions in fuel consumption and
GHGs based on how vehicles are used and on the work they perform in the
real world, consistent with the NAS report recommendations to be
mindful of HD vehicles' unique purposes. Despite the HD pickup and van
similarities to light-duty vehicles, we believe that the past practice
in EPA's heavy-duty program of using weight-based distinctions in
dealing with the diversity of HD pickup and van products is more
appropriate than using vehicle footprint. Work-based measures such as
payload and towing capability are key among the things that
characterize differences in the design of vehicles, as well as
differences in how the vehicles will be used. Vehicles in this category
have a wide range of payload and towing capacities. These work-based
differences in design and in-use operation are the key factors in
evaluating technological improvements for reducing CO2
emissions and fuel consumption. Payload has a particularly important
impact on the test results for HD pickup and van emissions and fuel
consumption, because testing under existing EPA procedures for criteria
pollutants is conducted with the vehicle loaded to half of its payload
capacity (rather than to a flat 300 lb as in the light-duty program),
and the correlation between test weight and fuel use is strong.\112\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\112\ Section II.C(2) discusses our decision that GHGs and fuel
consumption for HD pickups and vans be measured using the same test
conditions as in the existing EPA program for criteria pollutants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Towing, on the other hand, does not directly factor into test
weight as nothing is towed during the test. Hence only the higher curb
weight caused by heavier truck components would play a role in
affecting measured test results. However towing capacity can be a
significant factor to consider because HD pickup truck towing
capacities can be quite large, with a correspondingly large effect on
design.
We note too that, from a purchaser perspective, payload and towing
capability typically play a greater role than physical dimensions in
influencing purchaser decisions on which heavy-duty vehicle to buy. For
passenger vans, seating capacity is of course a major consideration,
but this correlates closely with payload weight.
Although heavy-duty vehicles are traditionally classified by their
GVWR, we do not believe that GVWR is the best weight-based attribute on
which to base GHG and fuel consumption standards for this group of
vehicles. GVWR is a function of not only payload capacity but of
vehicle curb weight as well; in fact, it is the simple sum of the two.
Allowing more GHG emissions from vehicles with higher curb weight tends
to penalize lightweighted vehicles with comparable payload capabilities
by making them meet more stringent standards than they would have had
to meet without the weight reduction. The same would be true for
another common weight-based measure, the gross vehicle combination
weight, which adds the maximum combined towing and payload weight to
the curb weight.
Similar concerns about using weight-based attributes that include
vehicle curb weight were raised in the EPA/NHTSA proposal for light-
duty GHG and fuel economy standards: ``footprint-based standards
provide an incentive to use advanced lightweight materials and
structures that would be discouraged by weight-based standards'', and
``there is less risk of `gaming' (artificial manipulation of the
attribute(s) to achieve a more favorable target) by increasing
footprint under footprint-based standards than by increasing vehicle
mass under weight-based standards--it is relatively easy for a
manufacturer to add enough weight to a vehicle to decrease its
applicable fuel economy target a significant amount, as compared to
increasing vehicle footprint'' (74 FR 49685, September 28,
[[Page 57162]]
2009). The agencies believe that using payload and towing capacities as
the work-based attributes avoids the above-mentioned disincentive for
the use of lightweighting technology by taking vehicle curb weight out
of the standards determination.
After taking these considerations into account, EPA and NHTSA
proposed to set standards for HD pickups and vans based on the proposed
``work factor'' attribute that combines vehicle payload capacity and
vehicle towing capacity, in pounds, with an additional fixed adjustment
for four-wheel drive (4wd) vehicles. This adjustment accounts for the
fact that 4wd, critical to enabling the many off-road heavy-duty work
applications, adds roughly 500 lb to the vehicle weight. There was
consensus in the public comments supporting this attribute, and the
agencies are adopting it as proposed. Target GHG and fuel consumption
standards will be 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 will then be production
weighted and summed to derive a manufacturer's annual fleet average
standard for its heavy-duty pickups and vans. Widespread support for
the proposed work factor-based approach to standards and fleet average
approach to compliance was expressed in the comments we received.
To ensure consistency and help preclude gaming, we are finalizing
the proposed provision that payload capacity be defined as GVWR minus
curb weight, and towing capacity as GCWR minus GVWR. For purposes of
determining the work factor, GCWR is defined according to the Society
of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Recommended Practice J2807 APR2008, GVWR
is defined consistent with EPA's criteria pollutants program, and curb
weight is defined as in 40 CFR 86.1803-01. Based on analysis of how
CO2 emissions and fuel consumption correlate to work factor,
we believe that a straight line correlation is appropriate across the
spectrum of possible HD pickups and vans, and that vehicle distinctions
such as Class 2b versus Class 3 need not be made in setting standards
levels for these vehicles.\113\ This approach was supported by
commenters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\113\ Memorandum from Anthony Neam and Jeff Cherry, U.S.EPA, to
docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162, October 18, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We note that payload/towing-dependent gram per mile and gallon per
100 mile standards for HD pickups and vans parallel the gram per ton-
mile and gallon per 1,000 ton-mile standards being finalized for Class
7 and 8 combination tractors and for vocational vehicles. Both
approaches account for the fact that more work is done, more fuel is
burned, and more CO2 is emitted in moving heavier loads than
in moving lighter loads. Both of these load-based approaches avoid
penalizing vehicle designers wishing to reduce GHG emissions and fuel
consumption by reducing the weight of their trucks. However, the
sizeable diversity in HD work truck and van applications, which go well
beyond simply transporting freight, and the fact that the curb weights
of these vehicles are on the order of their payload capacities, suggest
that setting simple gram/ton-mile and gallon/ton-mile standards for
them is not appropriate. Even so, we believe that our setting of
payload-based standards for HD pickups and vans is consistent with the
NAS Report's recommendation in favor of load-specific fuel consumption
standards. Again, commenters agreed with this approach to setting HD
pickup and van standards.
These attribute-based CO2 and fuel consumption standards
are meant to be relatively consistent from a stringency perspective.
Vehicles across the entire range of the HD pickup and van segment have
their respective target values for CO2 emissions and fuel
consumption, and therefore all HD pickups and vans will be affected by
the standard. With this attribute-based standards approach, EPA and
NHTSA believe there should be no significant effect on the relative
distribution of vehicles with differing capabilities in the fleet,
which means that buyers should still be able to purchase the vehicle
that meets their needs.
(c) Standards
The agencies are finalizing standards based on a technology
analysis performed by EPA to determine the appropriate HD pickup and
van standards. This analysis, described in detail in RIA Chapter 2,
considered:
The level of technology that is incorporated in current
new HD pickups and vans,
The available data on corresponding CO2
emissions and fuel consumption for these vehicles,
Technologies that would reduce CO2 emissions
and fuel consumption and that are judged to be feasible and appropriate
for these vehicles through the 2018 model year,
The effectiveness and cost of these technologies for HD
pickup and vans,
Projections of future U.S. sales for HD pickup and vans,
and
Forecasts of manufacturers' product redesign schedules.
Based on this analysis, EPA is finalizing the proposed
CO2 attribute-based target standards shown in Figure 0-2 and
II-3, and NHTSA is finalizing the equivalent attribute-based fuel
consumption target standards, also shown in Figure 0-2 and II-3,
applicable in model year 2018. These figures also shows phase-in
standards for model years before 2018, and their derivation is
explained below, along with alternative implementation schedules to
ensure equivalency between the EPA and NHTSA programs while meeting
respective statutory obligations. Also, for reasons discussed below,
the agencies proposed and are establishing separate targets for
gasoline-fueled (and any other Otto-cycle) vehicles and diesel-fueled
(and any other Diesel-cycle) vehicles. The targets will be used to
determine the production-weighted fleet average standards that apply to
the combined diesel and gasoline fleet of HD pickups and vans produced
by a manufacturer in each model year.
[[Page 57163]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15SE11.002
\114\ The NHTSA program provides voluntary standards for model
years 2014 and 2015. Target line functions for 2016-2018 are for the
second NHTSA alternative described in Section II.C(d)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 57164]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15SE11.003
Described mathematically, EPA's and NHTSA's target standards are
defined by the following formulae:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\115\ The NHTSA program provides voluntary standards for model
years 2014 and 2015. Target line functions for 2016-2018 are for the
second NHTSA alternative described in Section II.C(d)(ii).
EPA CO2 Target (g/mile) = [a x WF] + b
NHTSA Fuel Consumption Target (gallons/100 miles) = [c x WF] + d
Where:
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 the vehicle is equipped with 4wd, otherwise equals 0
lb
Towing Capacity = GCWR (lb) - GVWR (lb)
Coefficients a, b, c, and d are taken from Table II-12 or Table II-
13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\116\ The NHTSA program provides voluntary standards for model
years 2014 and 2015. Target line functions for 2016-2018 are for the
second NHTSA alternative described in Section II.C(d)(ii).
Table II-12--Coefficients for HD Pickup and Van Target Standards \116\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model year a b c d
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diesel Vehicles
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014............................ 0.0478 368 0.000470 3.61
2015............................ 0.0474 366 0.000466 3.60
2016............................ 0.0460 354 0.000452 3.48
2017............................ 0.0445 343 0.000437 3.37
2018 and later.................. 0.0416 320 0.000409 3.14
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gasoline Vehicles
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014............................ 0.0482 371 0.000542 4.17
2015............................ 0.0479 369 0.000539 4.15
2016............................ 0.0469 362 0.000528 4.07
2017............................ 0.0460 354 0.000518 3.98
2018 and later.................. 0.0440 339 0.000495 3.81
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 57165]]
Table II-13--Coefficients for NHTSA's First Alternative and EPA's
Alternative HD Pickup and Van Target Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model year a b c d
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diesel Vehicles
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014 a.......................... 0.0478 368 0.000470 3.61
2015 a.......................... 0.0474 366 0.000466 3.60
2016-2018....................... 0.0440 339 0.000432 3.33
2019 and later.................. 0.0416 320 0.000409 3.14
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gasoline Vehicles
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014 a.......................... 0.0482 371 0.000542 4.17
2015 a.......................... 0.0479 369 0.000539 4.15
2016-2018....................... 0.0456 352 0.000513 3.96
2019 and later.................. 0.0440 339 0.000495 3.81
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
a NHTSA standards will be voluntary in 2014 and 2015.
These targets are based on a set of vehicle, engine, and
transmission technologies assessed by the agencies and determined to be
feasible and appropriate for HD pickups and vans in the 2014-2018
timeframe. See Section III.B for a detailed analysis of these vehicle,
engine and transmission technologies, including their feasibility,
costs, and effectiveness in HD pickups and vans.
To calculate a manufacturer's HD pickup and van fleet average
standard, the agencies are requiring that separate target curves be
used for gasoline and diesel vehicles. The agencies estimate that in
2018 the target curves will achieve 15 and 10 percent reductions in
CO2 and fuel consumption for diesel and gasoline vehicles,
respectively, relative to a common baseline for current (model year
2010) HD pickup trucks and vans. An additional two percent reduction in
GHGs will be achieved by the direct air conditioning leakage standard
in the EPA standards. These reductions are based on the agencies'
assessment of the feasibility of incorporating technologies (which
differ significantly for gasoline and diesel powertrains) in the 2014-
2018 model years, and on the differences in relative efficiency in the
current gasoline and diesel vehicles. The resulting reductions
represent roughly equivalent stringency levels for gasoline and diesel
vehicles, which is important in ensuring our program maintains product
choices available to vehicle buyers.
In written comments on the proposal, Cummins objected to setting
separate diesel and gasoline vehicle standards, on the basis that it
increases the burden for diesel engine manufacturers more than for
gasoline engine manufacturers, and thereby could shift market share
away from diesels. EMA argued for fuel-neutrality based on historical
precedent and the fact that GHGs emitted by one type of engine are no
different than those emitted by another type of engine. We believe that
both engine types have roughly equivalent redesign burdens as evidenced
by the feasibility and cost analysis in RIA Chapter 2. Also, even
though the emissions and fuel consumption reductions are expressed from
a common diesel/gasoline baseline in these final rules, the actual
starting base for diesels is at a lower level than for gasoline
vehicles. Other industry commenters, including those with sizeable
diesel sales, expressed general support for the standards. The agencies
agree that standards that do not distinguish between fuel types are
generally preferable where technological or market-based reasons do not
strongly argue otherwise. These technological differences exist
presently between gasoline and diesel engines for GHGs, as described
above. The agencies emphasize, however, that they are not committed to
perpetuating separate GHG standards for gasoline and diesel heavy-duty
vehicles and engines, and expect to reexamine the need for separate
gasoline/diesel standards in the next rulemaking.
Environmental groups and others commented that the proposed
standards were not stringent enough, citing the heavy-duty vehicle NAS
study finding that technologies such as hybridization are feasible.
However, in the ambitious timeframe we are focusing on for these rules,
targeting as it does technologies implementable in the HD pickup and
van fleet starting in 2014 and phasing in with normal product redesign
cycles through 2018, our assessment shows that the standards we are
establishing are appropriate. More advanced technologies considered in
the NAS report would be appropriate for consideration in future
rulemaking activity. Additional conventional technologies identified by
commenters as promising in light-duty applications and potentially
useful for HD applications are discussed in RIA chapter 2.
The NHTSA fuel consumption target curves and the EPA GHG target
curves are equivalent. The agencies established the target curves using
the direct relationship between fuel consumption and CO2
using conversion factors of 8,887 g CO2/gallon for gasoline
and 10,180 g CO2/gallon for diesel fuel.
It is expected that measured performance values for CO2
will generally be equivalent to fuel consumption. However, as explained
below in Section 0, EPA is finalizing a provision for manufacturers to
use CO2 credits to help demonstrate compliance with
N2O and CH4 emissions standards, by expressing
any N2O and CH4 undercompliance in terms of their
CO2-equivalent and applying the needed CO2
credits. For test families that do not use this compliance alternative,
the measured performance values for CO2 and fuel consumption
will be equivalent because the same test runs and measurement data will
be used to determine both values, and calculated fuel consumption will
be based on the same conversion factors that are used to establish the
relationship between the CO2 and fuel consumption target
curves (8,887 g CO2/gallon for gasoline and 10,180 g
CO2/gallon for diesel fuel). For manufacturers that choose
to use the EPA provision for CO2 credit use in demonstrating
N2O and CH4 compliance, compliance with the
CO2 standard will not be directly equivalent to compliance
with the NHTSA fuel consumption standard.
[[Page 57166]]
(d) Implementation Plan
(i) EPA Program Phase-In MY 2014-2018
EPA is finalizing the proposed provision that the GHG standards be
phased in gradually over the 2014-2018 model years, with full
implementation effective in the 2018 model year. Therefore, 100 percent
of a manufacturer's vehicle fleet will need to meet a fleet-average
standard that will become increasingly more stringent each year of the
phase-in period. For both gasoline and diesel vehicles, this phase-in
will be 15-20-40-60-100 percent of the model year 2018 stringency in
model years 2014-2015-2016-2017-2018, respectively. These percentages
reflect stringency increases from a baseline performance level for
model year 2010, determined by the agencies based on EPA and
manufacturer data. Because these vehicles are not currently regulated
for GHG emissions, this phase-in takes the form of target line
functions for gasoline and diesel vehicles that become increasingly
stringent over the phase-in model years. These year-by-year functions
have been derived in the same way as the 2018 function, by taking a
percent reduction in CO2 from a common unregulated baseline.
For example, in 2014 the reduction for both diesel and gasoline
vehicles will be 15 percent of the fully-phased-in reductions. Figures
II-2 and II-3, and Table 0-12, reflect this phase-in approach.
EPA is also providing manufacturers with an optional alternative
implementation schedule in model years 2016 through 2018, equivalent to
NHTSA's first alternative for standards that do not change over these
model years, described below. Under this option the phase-in will be
15-20-67-67-67-100 percent of the model year 2019 stringency in model
years 2014-2015-2016-2017-2018-2019, respectively. Table 0-13, above,
provides the coefficients ``a'' and ``b'' for this manufacturer's
alternative. As explained below, this alternative will provide roughly
equivalent overall CO2 reductions and fuel consumption
improvements as the 15-20-40-60-100 percent phase-in. In addition, as
explained below, the stringency of this alternative was established by
NHTSA such that a manufacturer with a stable production volume and mix
over the model year 2016-2018 period could use Averaging, Banking and
Trading to comply with either alternative and have a similar credit
balance at the end of model year 2018.
Under the above-described alternatives, each manufacturer will need
to demonstrate compliance with the applicable fleet average standard
using that year's target function over all of its HD pickups and vans
starting with its MY 2014 fleet of HD pickups and vans. No comments
were received in support of an alternative approach that EPA requested
comment on, involving phasing in an annually increasing percentage of
each manufacturer's sales volume.
(ii) NHTSA Program Phase-In 2016 and Later
NHTSA is finalizing the proposed provision to allow manufacturers
to select one of two fuel consumption standard alternatives for model
years 2016 and later. Each manufacturer will select an alternative in
its joint pre-model year report, discussed below, that is now required
to be electronically submitted to the agencies; and, once selected, the
alternative will apply for model years 2016 and later, and cannot be
reversed. The first alternative will define a fuel consumption target
line function for gasoline vehicles and a target line function for
diesel vehicles that will not change for model years 2016 to 2018. The
target line function coefficients are provided in Table II-13.
The second alternative will be equivalent to the EPA target line
functions in each model year starting in 2016 and continuing
afterwards. Stringency of fuel consumption standards will increase
gradually for the 2016 and later model years. Relative to a model year
2010 unregulated baseline for both gasoline and diesel vehicles,
stringency will be 40, 60, and 100 percent of the 2018 target line
function in model years 2016, 2017, and 2018, respectively. The
stringency of the target line functions in the first alternative for
model years 2016-2017-2018-2019 is 67-67-67-100 percent, respectively,
of the 2019 stringency in the second alternative. The stringency of the
first alternative was established so that a manufacturer with a stable
production volume and mix over the model year 2016-2018 period could
use Averaging, Banking and Trading to comply with either alternative
and have a similar credit balance at the end of model year 2018 under
the EPA and NHTSA programs.
(iii) NHTSA Voluntary Standards Period
NHTSA is finalizing the proposed provision that manufacturers may
voluntarily opt into the NHTSA HD pickup and van program in model years
2014 or 2015. If a manufacturer elects to opt in to the program, it
must stay in the program for all the optional model years.
Manufacturers that opt in become subject to NHTSA standards for all
regulatory categories. To opt into the program, a manufacturer must
declare its intent to opt in to the program in its Pre-Model Year
Report. The agencies have finalized new requirements for manufacturers
to provide all early model declarations as a part of the pre-model year
reports. See regulatory text for 49 CFR 535.8 for information related
to the Pre-Model Year Report. A manufacturer would begin tracking
credits and debits beginning in the model year in which they opt into
the program. The handling of credits and debits would be the same as
for the mandatory program.
For manufacturers that opt into NHTSA's HD pickup and van fuel
consumption program in 2014 or 2015, the stringency would increase
gradually each model year. Relative to a model year 2010 unregulated
baseline, for both gasoline and diesel vehicles, stringency would be
15-20 percent of the model year 2019 target line function stringency
(under the NHTSA first alternative) and 15-20 percent of the model year
2018 target line function stringency (under the NHTSA second
alternative) in model years 2014-2015, respectively. The corresponding
absolute standards target levels are provided in Figure II-2 and II-3,
and the accompanying equations.
(2) What are the HD pickup and van test cycles and procedures?
EPA and NHTSA are finalizing the proposed provision that HD pickup
and van testing be conducted using the same heavy-duty chassis test
procedures currently used by EPA for measuring criteria pollutant
emissions from these vehicles, but with the addition of the highway
fuel economy test cycle (HFET) currently required only for light-duty
vehicle GHG emissions and fuel economy testing. Although the highway
cycle driving pattern is identical to that of the light-duty test,
other test parameters for running the HFET, such as test vehicle loaded
weight, are identical to those used in running the current EPA Federal
Test Procedure for complete heavy-duty vehicles.
The GHG and fuel consumption results from vehicle testing on the
Light-duty FTP and the HFET will be weighted by 55 percent and 45
percent, respectively, and then averaged in calculating a combined
cycle result. This result corresponds with the data used to develop the
work factor-based CO2 and fuel consumption standards, since
the data on the baseline and technology efficiency was also
[[Page 57167]]
developed in the context of these test procedures. The addition of the
HFET and the 55/45 cycle weightings are the same as for the light-duty
CO2 and CAFE programs, as we believe the real world driving
patterns for HD pickups and vans are not too unlike those of light-duty
trucks, and we are not aware of data specifically on these patterns
that would lead to a different choice of cycles and weightings, nor did
any commenters provide such data. More importantly, we believe that the
55/45 weightings will provide for effective reductions of GHG emissions
and fuel consumption from these vehicles, and that other weightings,
even if they were to more precisely match real world patterns, are not
likely to significantly improve the program results.
Another important parameter in ensuring a robust test program is
vehicle test weight. Current EPA testing for HD pickup and van criteria
pollutants is conducted with the vehicle loaded to its Adjusted Loaded
Vehicle Weight (ALVW), that is, its curb weight plus [frac12] of the
payload capacity. This is substantially more challenging than loading
to the light-duty vehicle test condition of curb weight plus 300
pounds, but we believe that this loading for HD pickups and vans to
[frac12] payload better fits their usage in the real world and will
help ensure that technologies meeting the standards do in fact provide
real world reductions. The choice is likewise consistent with use of an
attribute based in considerable part on payload for the standard. We
see no reason to set test load conditions differently for GHGs and fuel
consumption than for criteria pollutants, and we are not aware of any
new information (such as real world load patterns) since the ALVW was
originally set this way that would support a change in test loading
conditions, nor did any commenters provide such information. We are
therefore using ALVW for test vehicle loading in GHG and fuel
consumption testing.
Additional provisions for our final testing and compliance program
are provided in Section V.B.
(3) How are the HD pickup and van standards structured?
EPA and NHTSA are finalizing the proposed fleet average standards
for new HD pickups and vans, based on a manufacturer's new vehicle
fleet makeup. In addition, EPA is finalizing proposed in-use standards
that apply to the individual vehicles in this fleet over their useful
lives. The compliance provisions for these fleet average and in-use
standards for HD pickups and vans are largely based on the recently
promulgated light-duty GHG and fuel economy program, as described in
detail in the proposal.
(a) Fleet Average Standards
In the programs we are finalizing, each manufacturer will have a
GHG standard and a fuel consumption standard unique to its new HD
pickup and van fleet in each model year, depending on the load
capacities of the vehicle models produced by that manufacturer, and on
the U.S.-directed production volume of each of those models in that
model year. Vehicle models with larger payload/towing capacities have
individual targets at numerically higher CO2 and fuel
consumption levels than lower payload/towing vehicles, as discussed in
Section II.C(1). The fleet average standard for a manufacturer is a
production-weighted average of the work factor-based targets assigned
to unique vehicle configurations within each model type produced by the
manufacturer in a model year.
The fleet average standard with which the manufacturer must comply
is based on its final production figures for the model year, and thus a
final assessment of compliance will occur after production for the
model year ends. Because compliance with the fleet average standards
depends on actual test group production volumes, it is not possible to
determine compliance at the time the manufacturer applies for and
receives an EPA certificate of conformity for a test group. Instead, at
certification the manufacturer will demonstrate a level of performance
for vehicles in the test group, and make a good faith demonstration
that its fleet, regrouped by unique vehicle configurations within each
model type, is expected to comply with its fleet average standard when
the model year is over. EPA will issue a certificate for the vehicles
covered by the test group based on this demonstration, and will include
a condition in the certificate that if the manufacturer does not comply
with the fleet average, then production vehicles from that test group
will be treated as not covered by the certificate to the extent needed
to bring the manufacturer's fleet average into compliance. As in the
light-duty program, additional ``model type'' testing will be conducted
by the manufacturer over the course of the model year to supplement the
initial test group data. The emissions and fuel consumption levels of
the test vehicles will be used to calculate the production-weighted
fleet averages for the manufacturer, after application of the
appropriate deterioration factor to each result to obtain a full useful
life value. See generally 75 FR 25470-25472.
EPA and NHTSA do not currently anticipate notable deterioration of
CO2 emissions and fuel consumption performance, and are
therefore requiring that an assigned deterioration factor be applied at
the time of certification: an additive assigned deterioration factor of
zero, or a multiplicative factor of one will be used. EPA and NHTSA
anticipate that the deterioration factor may be updated from time to
time, as new data regarding emissions deterioration for CO2
are obtained and analyzed. Additionally, EPA and NHTSA may consider
technology-specific deterioration factors, should data indicate that
certain control technologies deteriorate differently than others. See
also 75 FR 25474.
(b) In-Use Standards
Section 202(a)(1) of the CAA specifies that EPA set emissions
standards that are applicable for the useful life of the vehicle. The
in-use standards that EPA is finalizing apply to individual vehicles.
NHTSA is not adopting in-use standards because they are not required
under EISA, and because it is not currently anticipated that there will
be any notable deterioration of fuel consumption. For the EPA program,
compliance with the in-use standard for individual vehicles and vehicle
models will not impact compliance with the fleet average standard,
which will be based on the production-weighted average of the new
vehicles.
EPA is finalizing the proposed provision that the in-use standards
for HD pickups and vans be established by adding an adjustment factor
to the full useful life emissions and fuel consumption results used to
calculate the fleet average. EPA is also finalizing the proposed
provision that the useful life for these vehicles with respect to GHG
emissions be set equal to their useful life for criteria pollutants: 11
years or 120,000 miles, whichever occurs first (40 CFR 86.1805-04(a)).
As discussed above, we are finalizing the proposed provision that
certification test results obtained before and during the model year be
used directly to calculate the fleet average emissions for assessing
compliance with the fleet average standard. Therefore, this assessment
and the fleet average standard itself do not take into account test-to-
test variability and production variability that can affect measured
in-use levels. For this reason, EPA is finalizing the proposed
adjustment factor for the in-use standard to provide some margin for
production and test-to-
[[Page 57168]]
test variability that could result in differences between the initial
emission test results used to calculate the fleet average and emission
results obtained during subsequent in-use testing. EPA is finalizing
the proposed provision that each model's in-use CO2 standard
be the model-specific level used in calculating the fleet average, plus
10 percent. This is the same as the approach taken for light-duty
vehicle GHG in-use standards (See 75 FR 25473-25474). No adverse
comments were received on this proposed provision.
As it does now for heavy-duty vehicle criteria pollutants, EPA will
use a variety of mechanisms to conduct assessments of compliance with
the in-use standards, including pre-production certification and in-use
monitoring once vehicles enter customer service. The full useful life
in-use standards apply to vehicles that have entered customer service.
The same standards apply to vehicles used in pre-production and
production line testing, except that deterioration factors are not
applied.
(4) What HD pickup and van flexibility provisions are being
established?
This program contains substantial flexibility in how manufacturers
can choose to implement the EPA and NHTSA standards while preserving
their timely benefits for the environment and energy security. Primary
among these flexibilities are the gradual phase-in schedule,
alternative compliance paths, and corporate fleet average approach
which encompasses averaging, banking and trading described above.
Additional flexibility provisions are described briefly here and in
more detail in Section IV.
As explained in Section II.C(3), we are finalizing the proposed
provision that, at the end of each model year, when production for the
model year is complete, a manufacturer calculate its production-
weighted fleet average CO2 and fuel consumption. Under this
approach, a manufacturer's HD pickup and van fleet that achieves a
fleet average CO2 or fuel consumption level better than its
standard will be allowed to generate credits. Conversely, if the fleet
average CO2 or fuel consumption level does not meet its
standard, the fleet would incur debits (also referred to as a
shortfall).
A manufacturer whose fleet generates credits in a given model year
will have several options for using those credits to offset emissions
from other HD pickups and vans. These options include credit carry-
back, credit carry-forward, and credit trading. These provisions exist
in the light-duty 2012-2016 MY vehicle rule, and similar provisions are
part of EPA's Tier 2 program for light-duty vehicle criteria pollutant
emissions, as well as many other mobile source standards issued by EPA
under the CAA. The manufacturer will be able to carry back credits to
offset a deficit that had accrued in a prior model year and was
subsequently carried over to the current model year, with a limitation
on the carry-back of credits to three model years, consistent with the
light-duty program. We are finalizing the proposed provision that,
after satisfying any need to offset pre-existing deficits, a
manufacturer may bank remaining credits for use in future years, with a
limitation on the carry-forward of credits to five model years. We are
also finalizing the proposed provision that manufacturers may certify
their HD pickup and van fleet a year early, in MY 2013, to generate
credits against the MY 2014 standards. This averaging, banking, and
trading program for HD pickups and vans is discussed in more detail in
Section IV.A. For reasons discussed in detail in that section, we are
not finalizing any credit transferability to or from other credit
programs or averaging sets.
Consistent with the President's May 21, 2010, directive to promote
advanced technology vehicles and with the agencies' respective
statutory authorities, we are adopting flexibility provisions that
parallel similar provisions adopted in the light-duty program. These
include credits for advance technology vehicles such as electric
vehicles, and credits for innovative technologies that are shown by the
manufacturer to provide GHG and fuel consumption reductions in real
world driving, but not on the test cycle. See Section IV.B.
D. Class 2b-8 Vocational Vehicles
Heavy-duty vehicles serve a vast range of functions including
service for urban delivery, refuse hauling, utility service, dump,
concrete mixing, transit service, shuttle service, school bus,
emergency, motor homes,\117\ and tow trucks to name only a small subset
of the full range of vehicles. The vehicles designed to serve these
functions are as unique as the jobs they do. They are vastly
different--one from the other--in size, shape and function. The
agencies were unable to develop a specific vehicle definition based on
the characteristics of these vehicles. Instead at proposal, we proposed
to define that Class 2b-8 vocational vehicles as all heavy-duty
vehicles which are not included in the Heavy-duty Pickup Truck and Van
or the Class 7 and 8 Tractor categories. In effect, we said everything
that is not a combination tractor or a pickup truck or van is a
vocational vehicle. We are finalizing that definition as proposed
reflecting the same challenges we faced at proposal regarding defining
the full range of heavy-duty vehicles. As at proposal, recreational
vehicles are included under EPA's standards but are not included under
NHTSA's final standards. The agencies note that we are adding
vocational tractors to the vocational vehicle category in the final
rulemaking, as described above in Section II.B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\117\ See above for discussion of applicability of NHTSA's
standards to non-commercial vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agencies proposed that Class 4 pickup trucks although similar
to Class 2b and 3 vehicles be included in the vocational vehicle
category. Comments from EMA, Cummins, NTEA and Navistar supported the
premise that Class 4 vehicles belong as part of the vocational vehicle
program because they are specifically designed and engineered to meet
vocational requirements. They stated that components such as
transmissions, axles, frames, and tires differ from the similar pickup
trucks and vans in the Class 2b and 3 market. We agree with commenters'
arguments that there are a number of important differences between the
Class 4 and Class 3 trucks it unreasonable to regulate Class 4 vehicles
under the standards for heavy duty pickups and vans. As a result, we
are keeping Class 4 vehicles in the vocational vehicle category, but
are allowing the optional chassis certification of Class 4 and 5
vehicles. (See Section V.B(1)(e)).
As mentioned in Section I, vocational vehicles undergo a complex
build process. Often an incomplete chassis is built by a chassis
manufacturer with an engine purchased from an engine manufacturer and a
transmission purchased from another manufacturer. A body manufacturer
purchases an incomplete chassis which is then completed by attaching
the appropriate features to the chassis.
The diversity in the vocational vehicle segment can be primarily
attributed to the variety of vehicle bodies rather than to the chassis.
For example, a body builder can build either a Class 6 bucket truck or
a Class 6 delivery truck from the same Class 6 chassis. The aerodynamic
difference between these two vehicles due to their bodies will lead to
different baseline fuel consumption and GHG emissions. However, the
baseline fuel consumption and emissions due to the components included
in the common chassis (such as the engine, drivetrain, frame, and
[[Page 57169]]
tires) will be the same between these two types of complete vehicles.
The agencies face difficulties in establishing the baseline
CO2 and fuel consumption performance for the wide variety of
complete vocational vehicles because of the very large number of
vehicle types and the need to conduct testing on each of the vehicle
types to establish the baseline. To establish standards for a complete
vocational vehicle, it would be necessary to assess the potential for
fuel consumption and GHG emissions improvement for each of these
vehicle types and to establish standards for each vehicle type. Because
of the size and complexity of this task, the agencies judged it was not
practical to regulate complete vocational vehicles for this first fuel
consumption and GHG emissions program. To overcome the lack of baseline
information from the different vehicle types and to still achieve
improvements to fuel consumption and GHG emissions, the agencies
proposed to set standards for the chassis manufacturers of vocational
vehicles (but not the body builders) and the engine manufacturers.
Chassis manufacturers represent a limited number of companies as
compared to body builders, which are made up of a diverse set of
companies that are typically small businesses. These companies would
need to be regulated if whole vehicle standards were established.
Similar to combination tractors, the agencies proposed to set
separate vehicle and engine standards for vocational vehicles. A number
of comments were received on the proposal to regulate chassis and
engine manufacturers. The agencies received comments from DTNA
supporting the proposal to regulate the chassis manufacturer but not
body manufacturers. While organizations like Cummins and ICCT expressed
support for separate engine and vehicle standards, Navistar, Pew, and
Volvo, in contrast, opposed separate engine and chassis standards,
stating that separate engine standards disadvantages integrated truck/
engine manufacturers and full vehicle standards should be required.
Volvo asked that the standards include an alternative integrated
standard as well as complete vehicle modeling and testing beginning in
2017. ACEEE and Sierra Club stated that the proposed standards and test
procedures should move the agencies closer to full vehicle testing.
Although the agencies understand that full vehicle standards would
allow integrated truck/engine manufacturers--such as electrified
accessories and weight reduction--the agencies are finalizing separate
standards for vocational vehicles that apply to chassis manufacturers
and engine standards for engines installed in these vehicles that apply
to engine manufacturers. The agencies continue to believe that it is
not practical to regulate complete vocational vehicles for this first
fuel consumption and GHG emissions program because of the size and
complexity of the task associated with assessing the potential for fuel
consumption and GHG emissions improvement for each of the myriad types
of vocational vehicles. This issue is discussed further in comment
responses found in sections 5 and 6.1.4 of the Response to Comment
Document, as well as in the following section of the preamble. Thus,
the agencies are finalizing a set of standards for the chassis
manufacturers of vocational vehicles (but not the body builders) and
for the manufacturers of HD engines used in vocational vehicles.
(1) What are the vocational vehicle and engine CO2 and fuel
consumption standards and their timing?
In the NPRM, the agencies proposed vehicle standards based on the
agencies' assessment of the availability of low rolling resistance
tires that could be applied generally to vocational vehicles across the
entire category. The agencies considered the possibility of including
other technologies in determining the proposed stringency of the
vocational vehicle standards, such as aerodynamic improvements, but as
discussed in the NPRM, tentatively concluded that such improvements
would not be appropriate for basing vehicle standard stringency in this
phase of the rulemaking.\118\ For example, the aerodynamics of a
recovery vehicle are impacted significantly by the equipment such as
the arm located on the exterior of the truck.\119\ The agencies found
little opportunity to improve the aerodynamics of the equipment on the
truck. The agencies also evaluated the aerodynamic opportunities
discussed in the NAS report. The panel found that there was minimal
fuel consumption reduction opportunity through aerodynamic technologies
for bucket trucks, transit buses, and refuse trucks \120\ primarily due
to the low vehicle speed in normal operation. The panel did report that
there are opportunities to reduce the fuel consumption of straight
trucks by approximately 1 percent for trucks which operate at the
average speed typical of a pickup and delivery truck (30 mph), although
the opportunity is greater for vehicles that operate at higher
speeds.\121\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\118\ See 75 FR at 74241.
\119\ A recovery vehicle removes or recovers vehicles that are
disabled (broken down).
\120\ See 2010 NAS Report, Note 21, page 133.
\121\ See 2010 NAS Report, Note 21, page 110.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agencies received comments from the Motor Equipment
Manufacturers Association, Eaton, NRDC, NESCAUM, NACAA, ACEEE, ICCT,
Navistar, Arvin Meritor, the Union of Concerned Scientists and others
that technologies such as idle reduction, advanced transmissions,
advanced drivetrains, weight reduction, hybrid powertrains, and
improved auxiliaries provide opportunities to reduce fuel consumption
from vocational vehicles. Commenters asked that the agencies establish
regulations that would reflect performance of these technologies and
essentially force their utilization.
The agencies assessed these technologies and have concluded that
they may have the potential to reduce fuel consumption and GHG
emissions from at least certain vocational vehicles, but the agencies
have not been able to estimate baseline fuel consumption and GHG
emissions levels for each type of vocational vehicle and for each type
of technology, given the wide variety of models and uses of vocational
vehicles. For example, idle reduction technologies such as APUs and
cabin heaters can reduce workday idling associated with vocational
vehicles. However, characterizing idling activity for the vocational
segment in order to quantify the benefits of idle reduction technology
is complicated by the variety of duty cycles found in the sector.
Idling in school buses, fire trucks, pickup trucks, delivery trucks,
and other types of vocational vehicles varies significantly. Given the
great variety of duty cycles and operating conditions of vocational
vehicles and the timing of these rules, it is not feasible at this time
to establish an accurate baseline for quantifying the expected
improvements which could result from use of idle reduction
technologies. Similarly, for advanced drivetrains and advanced
transmissions determining a baseline configuration, or a set of
baseline configurations, is extremely difficult given the variety of
trucks in this segment. The agencies do not believe that we can
legitimately base standard stringency on the use of technologies for
which we cannot identify baseline configurations, because absent
baseline emissions and baseline fuel consumption, the emissions
reductions achieved from introduction of the technology cannot be
quantified. For some technologies, such as weight
[[Page 57170]]
reduction and improved auxiliaries--such as electrically driven power
steering pumps and the vehicle's air conditioning system--the need to
limit technologies to those under the control of the chassis
manufacturer further restricted the agencies' options for predicating
standard stringency on use of these technologies. For example,
lightweight components that are under the control of chassis
manufacturers are limited to a very few components such as frame rails.
Considering the fuel efficiency and GHG emissions reduction benefits
that will be achieved by finalizing these rules in the time frame
proposed, rather than delaying in order to gain enough information to
include additional technologies, the agencies have decided to finalize
standards that do not assume the use of these technologies and will
consider incorporating them in a later action applicable to later model
years. Cf. Sierra Club v. EPA, 325 F. 3d 374, 380 (DC Cir. 2003) (in
implementing a technology-forcing provision of the CAA, EPA reasonably
adopted modest initial controls on an industry sector in order to
better assess rules' effects in preparation for follow-up rulemaking).
As the program progresses and the agencies gather more information,
we expect to reconsider whether vocational vehicle standards for MYs
2019 and beyond should be based on the use of additional technologies
besides low rolling resistance tires.
EPA is adopting CO2 standards and NHTSA is finalizing
fuel consumption standards for manufacturers of chassis for new
vocational vehicles and for manufacturers of heavy-duty engines
installed in these vehicles. The final heavy-duty engine standards for
CO2 emissions and fuel consumption focus on potential
technological improvements in fuel combustion and overall engine
efficiency and those controls would achieve most of the emission
reductions. Further reductions from the Class 2b-8 vocational vehicle
itself are possible within the time frame of these final regulations.
Therefore, the agencies are also finalizing separate standards for
vocational vehicles that will focus on additional reductions that can
be achieved through improvements in vehicle tires. The agencies'
analyses, as discussed briefly below and in more detail later in this
preamble and in the RIA Chapter 2, show that these final standards
appear appropriate under each agency's respective statutory
authorities. Together these standards are estimated to achieve
reductions of up to 10 percent from most vocational vehicles.
EPA is also adopting standards to control N2O and
CH4 emissions from Class 2b-8 vocational vehicles through
controlling these GHG emissions from the HD engines. The final heavy-
duty engine standards for both N2O and CH4 and
details of the standard are included in the discussion in Section
II.E.1.b and II.E.2.b. EPA neither proposed nor is adopting air
conditioning leakage standards applying to vocational vehicle chassis
manufacturers.
As discussed further below, the agencies are setting CO2
and fuel consumption standards for the chassis based on tire rolling
resistance improvements and for the engines based on engine
technologies. The fuel consumption and GHG emissions impact of tire
rolling resistance is impacted by the mass of the vehicle. However, the
impact of mass on rolling resistance is relatively small so the
agencies proposed to aggregate several vehicle weight categories under
a single category for setting the standards. The agencies proposed to
divide the vocational vehicle segment into three broad regulatory
subcategories--Light Heavy-Duty (Class 2b through 5), Medium Heavy-Duty
(Class 6 and 7), and Heavy Heavy-Duty (Class 8) which is consistent
with the nomenclature used in the diesel engine classification. The
agencies received comments supporting the division of vocational
vehicles into three regulatory categories from DTNA. The agencies also
received comments from Bosch, Clean Air Task Force, and National Solid
Waste Management Association supporting a finer resolution of
vocational vehicle subcategories. Their concerns include that the
agencies' vehicle configuration in GEM is not representative of a
particular vocational application, such as refuse trucks. Another
recommendation was to divide the category by both GVWR and by
operational characteristics. Upon further consideration, the agencies
are finalizing as proposed three vocational vehicle subcategories
because we believe this adequately balances simplicity while still
obtaining reductions in this diverse segment. (As noted in section IV.A
below, these three subcategories also denominate separate averaging
sets for purposes of ABT.) Finer distinctions in regulatory
subcategories would not change the technology basis for the standards
or the reductions expected from the vocational vehicle category. As the
agencies move towards future heavy-duty fuel consumption and GHG
regulations for post-2017 model years, we intend to gather GHG and fuel
consumption data for specific vocational applications which could be
used to establish application-specific standards in the future.
The agencies received comments supporting the exclusion of
recreational vehicles, emergency vehicles, school buses from the
vocational vehicle standards. The commenters argued that these
individual vehicle types were small contributors to overall GHG
emissions and that tires meeting their particular performance needs
might not be available by 2014. The agencies considered these comments
and the agencies have met with a number of tire manufacturers to better
understand their expectations for product availability for the 2014
model year. Based on our review of the information shared, we are
convinced that tires with rolling resistance consistent with our final
vehicle standards and meeting the full range of other performance
characteristics desired in the vehicle market, including for RVs,
emergency vehicles, and school buses, will be broadly available by the
2014 model year.\122\ Absent regulations for the vast majority of
vehicles in this segment, feasible cost-effective reductions available
at reasonable cost in the 2014-2018 model years will be needlessly
foregone. Therefore, the agencies have decided to finalize the
vocational vehicle standards as proposed with recreational vehicles,
emergency vehicles and school buses included in the vocational vehicle
category. As RVs were not included by NHTSA for proposed regulation,
they are not within the scope of the NPRM and are therefore excluded in
NHTSA's portion of the final program. NHTSA will revisit this issue in
the next rulemaking. In developing the final standards, the agencies
have evaluated the current levels of emissions and fuel consumption,
the kinds of technologies that could be utilized by manufacturers to
reduce emissions and fuel consumption and the associated lead time, the
associated costs for the industry, fuel savings for the consumer, and
the magnitude of the CO2 and fuel savings that may be
achieved. After examining the possibility of vehicle improvements based
on use of the technologies underlying the standards for Class 7 and 8
tractors, including improved aerodynamics, vehicle speed limiters, idle
reduction technologies, tire rolling resistance, and weight reduction,
as well as use of hybrid technologies, the agencies ultimately
[[Page 57171]]
determined to base the final vehicle standards on performance of tires
with superior rolling resistance. For standards for diesel engines
installed in vocational vehicles, the agencies examined performance of
engine friction reduction, aftertreatment optimization, air handling
improvements, combustion optimization, turbocompounding, and waste heat
recovery, ultimately deciding to base the final standards on the
performance of all of the technologies except turbocompounding and
waste heat recovery systems. The standards for gasoline engine
installed in vocational vehicles are based on performance of
technologies such as gasoline direct injection, friction reduction, and
variable valve timing. The agencies' evaluation indicates that these
technologies, as described in Section III.C, are available today in the
heavy-duty tractor and light-duty vehicle markets, but have very low
application rates in the vocational vehicle market. The agencies have
analyzed the technical feasibility of achieving the CO2 and
fuel consumption standards, based on projections of what actions
manufacturers would be expected to take to reduce emissions and fuel
consumption to achieve the standards, and believe that the standards
are cost-effective and technologically feasible and appropriate within
the rulemaking time frame. EPA and NHTSA also present the estimated
costs and benefits of the vocational vehicle standards in Section III.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\122\ Bachman, Joseph. Memorandum to the Docket. Heavy-Duty Tire
Evaluation. See Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162. Pages 2-3 and
Appendix B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Vocational Vehicle Chassis Standards
In the NPRM, the agencies defined tire rolling resistance as a
frictional loss of energy, associated mainly with the energy dissipated
in the deformation of tires under load that influences fuel efficiency
and CO2 emissions. Tires with higher rolling resistance lose
more energy in response to this deformation, thus using more fuel and
producing more CO2 emissions in operation, while tires with
lower rolling resistance lose less energy, and save more fuel and
CO2 emissions in operation. Tire design characteristics
(e.g., materials, construction, and tread design) influence durability,
traction (both wet and dry grip), vehicle handling, ride comfort, and
noise in addition to rolling resistance.
The agencies explained that a typical Low Rolling Resistance (LRR)
tire's attributes, compared to a non-LRR tire, would include increased
tire inflation pressure; material changes; and tire construction with
less hysteresis, geometry changes (e.g., reduced height to width aspect
ratios), and reduction in sidewall and tread deflection. When a
manufacturer applies LRR tires to a vehicle, the manufacturer generally
also makes changes to the vehicle's suspension tuning and/or suspension
design in order to maintain vehicle handling and ride comfort.
The agencies also explained that while LRR tires can be applied to
vehicles in all MD/HD classes, they may have special potential for
improving fuel efficiency and reducing CO2 emissions for
vocational vehicles. According to an energy audit conducted by Argonne
National Lab, tires are the second largest contributor to energy losses
of vocational vehicles, after engines.\123\ Given this finding, the
agencies considered the availability of LRR tires for vocational
applications by examining the population of tires available, and
concluded that there appeared to be few LRR tires for vocational
applications. The agencies suggested in the NPRM that this low number
of LRR tires for vocational vehicles could be due in part to the fact
that the competitive pressure to improve rolling resistance of
vocational vehicle tires has been less than in the line haul tire
market, given that line haul vehicles generally drive significantly
more miles and therefore have significantly higher operating costs for
fuel than vocational vehicles, and much greater incentive to improve
fuel consumption. The small number of LRR tires for vocational vehicles
may perhaps also be due in part to the fact that vocational vehicles
generally operate more frequently on secondary roads, gravel roads and
roads that have less frequent winter maintenance, which leads
vocational vehicle buyers to value tire traction and durability more
than rolling resistance. The agencies recognized that this provided an
opportunity to improve fuel consumption and GHG emissions by creating a
regulatory program that encourages improvements in tire rolling
resistance for both line haul and vocational vehicles. The agencies
proposed to base standards for all segments of HD vehicles on the use
of LRR tires. The agencies estimated that a 10 percent reduction in
average tire rolling resistance would be attainable between model years
2010 and 2014 based on the tire development achievements over the last
several years in the line haul truck market. This reduction in tire
rolling resistance would correlate to a two percent reduction in fuel
consumption as modeled by the GEM.\124\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\123\ A Class 6 pick up and delivery truck at 50% load has tires
as the second largest contributor at speeds up to 35 mph, a typical
average speed of urban delivery vehicles. See Argonne National
Laboratory. ``Evaluation of Fuel Consumption Potential of Medium and
Heavy Duty Vehicles through Modeling and Simulation.'' October 2009.
Page 91.
\124\ See 75 FR at 74241.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Summary of Comments
The agencies received many comments on the subject of tire rolling
resistance as applied to vocational vehicles. Comments included
suggestions for alternative test procedures; whether LRR tires should
be applied to certain types of vocational vehicles and whether certain
vehicles should be exempted from the vocational vehicle standards if
the standards are based on the ability to use LRR tires; the
appropriateness of the proposed standards; and compliance issues
(discussed below in Section II.D.2.b.
Regarding whether LRR tires should be applied to certain types of
vocational vehicles, the agencies received many comments from
stakeholders, such as Daimler Trucks North America, Fire Apparatus
Manufacturers Association (FAMA), International Association of Fire
Chiefs, National Ready Mix, National Solid Wastes Management
Association (NSWMA), Spartan Motors, National Automobile Dealers
Association, among others. There were comments regarding applicability
of low rolling resistance tires to vocational vehicles based on LRR
tire availability, suitability of the tires for the applications, fuel
consumption and GHG emissions benefits and the appropriateness of
standards. Many of these commenters focused particularly on the whether
LRR tires would compromise the capability of emergency vehicles.
Regarding whether LRR tires are available in the market for certain
vocational vehicles and whether the vocational vehicle standards were
therefore appropriate and feasible, both Ford and AAPC stated that the
proposed model-based requirement for Class 2b-8 vocational chassis
appeared to require tires with rolling resistance values of
approximately 8.0-8.1 kg/metric ton or better, and that limited data
available for smaller diameter tires, such as light-truck (LT) tires
used on many light heavy-duty trucks and vans, suggested that there
exist few if any choices for tires that would comply. Given this
concern about the availability of compliant tires, particularly in the
case of tires smaller than 22.5'', during the proposed regulatory time
frame, AAPC and Ford requested revisions to the requirement, or the
modeling method, to establish different standards for vehicles
[[Page 57172]]
that use different tire classes, with separate requirements for LT
tires, 19.5'' tires, and 22.5'' tires. AAPC argued that standards
should be set based on data collected on high volume in-use tires, and
that they should be set at a level that ensures the availability of
multiple compliant tires. CRR
(ii) Summary of Research Done Since the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Since the NPRM, the agencies have conducted additional research on
tire rolling resistance for medium- and heavy-duty applications. This
research involved direct discussions with tire suppliers,\125\
assessment of the comments received, additional review of tire products
available, and a more thorough review of tire use in the field. In
addition, EPA has conducted tire rolling resistance testing to help
inform the final rulemaking.\126\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\125\ Records of these communications, and additional
information submitted by the supplier companies and not CBI, are
available at Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162.
\126\ Bachman, Joseph. Memorandum to the Docket. Heavy-Duty Tire
Evaluation. July 2011. Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162, Pages 3-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agencies discussed many aspects of low rolling resistance tire
technologies and their application to vocational vehicles with tire
suppliers since publication of the NPRM. Several tire suppliers
indicated to the agencies that low rolling resistance tires are
currently available for vocational applications that would enable
compliance with the proposed vocational vehicle standards, such as
delivery vehicles, refuse vehicles, and other vocations. However, these
conversations also made the agencies aware that availability of low
rolling resistance tires varies by supplier. Some suppliers stated they
focused their company resources on areas of the medium- and heavy-duty
vehicle spectrum where fleet operators would see the most fuel
efficiency benefits for the application of low rolling resistance
technologies; specifically the long-haul, on-highway applications that
drive many miles and use large amounts of fuel. These suppliers stated
that this choice was driven by the significant capital investment that
would be needed to improve tire rolling resistance across the
relatively large number of product offerings in the vocational vehicle
segment, based on the wide range of tire sizes, load ratings, and speed
ratings, compared to the much narrower range of offerings for long-haul
applications.\127\ Other suppliers stated that they have made conscious
efforts to reduce the rolling resistance of all of their medium- and
heavy-duty vehicle tire offerings, including vocational applications,
in an effort to become leaders in this technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\127\ More tire types and sizes have been developed for
vocational vehicle applications than for long-haul applications. In
some cases, suppliers offer up to 17 different vocational tire
designs, and for each design there may be 8-10 different tire sizes.
In contrast, a line-haul application may have only 2-3 tire designs
with a fewer range of sizes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agencies also discussed with tire suppliers the potential tire
attribute tradeoffs that may be associated with incorporating designs
that improve tire rolling resistance, given the driving patterns,
environmental conditions, and on-road and off-road surface conditions
that vocational vehicles are subjected to. Some vehicle manufacturer
commenters had suggested that changes in tire tread block design that
improve rolling resistance may adversely affect tire performance
characteristics such as traction, resistance to tearing, and resistance
to wear and damage from scrubbing on curbs and frequent tight radius
turns that are important to customers for vocational vehicle
performance. The suppliers agreed that providing tires unable to
withstand these conditions or meet the vehicle application needs would
adversely affect customer satisfaction and warranty expenses, and would
have detrimental financial effects to their businesses. One supplier
indicated that theoretically, tread-wear (tire life) could be
compromised if suppliers choose to reduce the initial tire tread depth
without any offsetting tire compound or design enhancements as the
means to achieve rolling resistance reductions. That supplier argued
that taking this approach could lead to more frequent tire replacements
or re-treading of existing tire carcasses, and that the agencies should
therefore take a total lifecycle view when evaluating the effects of
driving rolling resistance reductions. That supplier also indicated
that a correlation of a 20 percent reduction in rolling resistance
achieved through tread depth reduction could lead to a 30 percent
decrease in tread-life and 15 percent reduction in wet traction. The
agencies note that when they inquired about potential `safety' related
tradeoffs, such as traction (braking and handling) and tread wear when
applying low rolling resistance technologies, tire suppliers which
remain subject to safety standards regardless of this program,
consistently responded that they would not produce a tire that
compromises safety when fitted in its proper application.
In addition to the supplier discussions and evaluation of comments
to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, EPA conducted a series of tire
rolling resistance tests on medium- and heavy-duty vocational vehicle
tires. The testing measured the CRR of tires representing 16 different
vehicle applications for Class 4-8 vocational vehicles. The testing
included approximately 5 samples each of both steer and drive tires for
each application. The tests were conducted by two independent tire test
labs, Standards Testing Lab (STL) and Smithers-Rapra (Smithers).
Overall, a total of 156 medium- and heavy-duty tires\128\ were
included in this testing, which was comprised of 88 tires covering
various commercial vocational vehicle types, such as bucket trucks,
school buses, city delivery vehicles, city transit buses and refuse
haulers among others; 47 tires intended for application to tractors;
and 21 tires classified as light-truck (LT) tires intended for Class 4
vocational vehicles such as delivery vans. In addition, approximately
20 of the tires tested were exchanged between the labs to assess inter-
laboratory variability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\128\ After the agencies completed their analysis of these data,
the agencies received raw data on 43 additional tires. See Powell,
Greg. Memorandum to the Docket. Additional Tire Testing Results.
July 2011. Docket NHTSA-2010-0079. The agencies have not analyzed
these additional data, nor included them in the final report, and
the data therefore played no role in the agencies' determination of
an appropriate standard for vocational vehicles. The agencies will
analyze and consider these data, along with any future data received
through continued testing, as appropriate, in the next rulemaking
for the heavy duty sector.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The test results for 88 commercial vocational vehicle tires (19.5''
and 22.5'' sizes) showed a test average CRR of 7.4 kg/metric ton, with
results ranging from 5.1 to 9.8. To comply with the proposed vocational
vehicle fuel consumption and GHG emissions standards using improved
tire rolling resistance as the compliance strategy, a manufacturer
would need to achieve an average tire CRR value of 8.1 kg/metric
ton.\129\ The measured average CRR of 7.4kg/metric ton is thus better
than the average value that would be needed to meet vocational vehicle
standards. Of those 173 tires tested, twenty tires had CRR values
exceeding 8.1 kg/metric ton, two were at 8.1 kg/metric ton, and sixty-
six tires were better than 8.1 kg/metric ton. Additional data analyses
examining the tire data by tire size to determine the range and
distribution of CRR values within each tire size showed each tire size
generally had tires ranging from approximately 6.0 to 8.5 kg/metric
ton, with a small number of tires in the 5.3-5.7 kg/metric ton range
and a small
[[Page 57173]]
number of tires in a range as high as 9.3-9.8 kg/ton. Review of the
data showed that for each tire size and vehicle type, the majority of
tires tested would enable compliance with vocational vehicle fuel
consumption and GHG emission standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\129\ See 75 FR at 74244.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The test results for the 47 tires intended for tractor application
showed an overall average of 6.9 kg/ton, the lowest overall average
rolling resistance of the different tire applications tested.\130\ This
is consistent with what the agencies heard through comments and
meetings with tire suppliers whose efforts have focused on tractor
applications, particularly for long-haul applications, which yield the
highest fuel efficiency benefits from LRR tire technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\130\ The CRR values for these applications ranged from 5.4 to
9.2 kg/metric ton.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the 21 LT tires intended for Class 4 vocational vehicles
were comprised of two sizes; LT225/75R16 and LT245/75R16 with 11 and 10
samples tested, respectively. Some auto manufacturers have indicated
that CRR values for tires fitted to these Class 4 vehicles typically
have a higher CRR values than tires found on commercial vocational
vehicles because of the smaller diameter wheel size and the ISO testing
protocol.\131\ The test data showed the average CRR for LT225/75R16
tires was 9.1 kg/metric ton and the average for LT245/75R16 tires was
8.6 kg/metric ton. The range for the LT225/75R16 tires spanned 7.4 to
11.0 \132\ and the range for the LT245/75R16 tires ranged from 6.6 to
9.8 kg/metric ton. Overall, the average for the tested LT tires was 8.9
kg/metric ton.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\131\ See comments to docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162-1761; Ford
Motor Company
\132\ The agency notes the highest CRR values recorded for LT
tires, of 11.0 and 10.9, were for two tires of the same size and
brand. The nearest recorded values to these two tires were 9.8;
substantially beyond the differences between other tires tested.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analysis of the EPA test data for all vocational vehicles,
including LT tires, shows the test average CRR is 7.7 kg/metric ton
with a standard deviation of 1.2 kg/metric ton. Review of the data thus
shows that for each tire size and vehicle type, there are many tires
available that would enable compliance with the proposed standards for
vocational vehicles and tractors except for LT tires for Class 4
vocational vehicles where test results show the majority of these tires
have CRR worse than 8.1 kg/metric ton.
The agencies also reviewed the CRR data from the tires that were
tested at both the STL and Smithers laboratories to assess inter-
laboratory and test machine variability. The agencies conducted
statistical analysis of the data to gain better understanding of lab-
to-lab correlation and developed an adjustment factor for data measured
at each of the test labs. When applied, this correction factor showed
that for 77 of the 80 tires tested, the difference between the original
CRR and a value corrected CRR was 0.01 kg/metric ton. The values for
the remaining three tires were 0.03 kg/metric ton, 0.05 kg/metric ton
and 0.07 kg/metric ton. Based on these results, the agencies believe
the lab-to-lab variation for the STL and Smithers laboratories would
have very small effect on measured CRR values. Further, in analyzing
the data, the agencies considered both measurement variability and the
value of the measurements relative to proposed standards. The agencies
concluded that although laboratory-to-laboratory and test machine-to-
test machine measurement variability exists, the level observed is not
excessive relative to the distribution of absolute measured CRR
performance values and relative to the proposed standards. Based on
this, the agencies concluded that the test protocol is reasonable for
this program, but are making some revisions to the vehicle standards.
The agencies also conducted a winter traction test of 28 tires to
evaluate the impact of low rolling resistance designs on winter
traction. The results of the study indicate that there was no
statistical relationship between rolling resistance and snow
traction.\133\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\133\ Bachman, Joseph. Memorandum to Docket. Heavy-Duty Tire
Evaluation. Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162. Pages 3-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(iii) Summary of Final Rules
For vocational vehicles, the agencies intend to keep rolling
resistance as an input to the GEM but with modifications to the
proposed targets as a result of the testing completed by EPA since the
NPRM and information from tire suppliers. The agencies continue to
believe that LRR tires, which are an available, cost-effective, and
appropriate technology with demonstrated fuel efficiency and GHG
reduction benefits, are reasonable for all on-highway vehicles.
The agencies acknowledge there can be tradeoffs when designing a
tire for reduced rolling resistance. These tradeoffs can include
characteristics such as wear resistance, cost and scuff resistance.
However, the agencies have continued to review this issue and do not
believe that LRR tires as specified in the rules present safety issues.
The agencies continue to believe that LRR tires, which are an
available, cost-effective, and appropriate technology with demonstrated
fuel efficiency and GHG reduction benefits, are reasonable for all on-
highway vehicles. The final program also provides exemptions for
vehicles meeting ``low-speed'' or ``off-road'' criteria, including
application of speed restricted tires. Vocational vehicles that have
speed restricted tires in order to accommodate particular applications
may be exempted from the program under the off-road or low-speed
exemption, described in greater detail below in Section
II.D.(1)(a)(iv).
As just noted, the agencies conducted independent testing of
current tires available to assist confirming the finalized rolling
resistance standards. The tire test samples were selected from those
currently available on the market and therefore have no known safety
issues and meet all current requirements to allow availability in
commerce; including wear, scuff resistance, braking, traction under wet
or icy conditions, and other requirements. These tires included a wide
array of sizes and designs intended for most all vocational
applications, including those used for school buses, refuse haulers,
emergency vehicles, concrete mixers, and recreational vehicles. As the
test results revealed, there are a significant number of tires
available that meet or do better than the rolling resistance targets
for vocational vehicles; both light-truck (with an adjustment factor
described later in this preamble section) and non-LT tire types, while
meeting all applicable safety standards.
The agencies also recognize the extreme conditions fire apparatus
equipment must navigate to enable firefighters to perform their duties.
As described below, the final rules contain provisions to allow for
exemption of specific off-road capable vocational vehicles from the
fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas standards. Included in the exemption
criteria are provisions for vehicles equipped with specific tire types
that would be fit to a vehicle to meet extreme demands, including those
vehicles designed for off-road capability.
As follow-up to the final rules and in support for development of a
separate FMVSS rule, NHTSA plans to conduct additional performance-
focused testing (beyond rolling resistance) for medium- and heavy-duty
trucks. This testing is targeted for completion toward the end of this
year. The agencies will review these performance data when available,
in concert with any subsequent proposed rulemakings regarding fuel
consumption and GHG emissions
[[Page 57174]]
standards for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles.
For vocational vehicles, the rolling resistance of each tire will
be measured using the ISO 28850 test method for drive tires and steer
tires planned for fitment to the vehicle being certified. Once the test
CRR values are obtained, a manufacturer will input the CRR values for
the drive and steer tires separately into the GEM where, for vocational
vehicles, the vehicle load is distributed equally over the steer and
drive tires. Once entered, the amount of GHG reduction attributed to
tire rolling resistance will be incorporated into the overall vehicle
compliance value. The following table provides the revised target CRR
values for vocational vehicles for 2014 and 2017 model years that are
used to determine the vehicle standards.
Table II-14--Vocational Vehicle--Target CRR Values for GEM Input
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014 MY 2017 MY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tire Rolling Resistance (kg/ 7.7 kg/metric ton. 7.7 kg/metric ton
metric ton).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
These target values are being revised based on the significant
availability of tires for vocational vehicles applications which have
performance better than the originally proposed 8.1 kg/metric ton
target. As just discussed, 63 of the 88 tires tested for vocational
applications had CRR values better than the proposed target. The tires
tested covered fitment to a wide range of vocational vehicle types and
classes; thus agencies believe the original target value of 8.1 kg/
metric ton was possibly too lenient after reviewing the testing data.
Therefore, the agencies believe it is appropriate to reduce the
proposed vehicle standard based on performance of a CRR target value of
7.7 kg/metric ton for non-LT tire type. As discussed previously, this
value is the test average of all vocational tires tested (including LT)
which takes a conservative approach over setting a target based on the
average of only the non-LT vocational tires tested. For LT tires, based
on both the test data and the comments from AAPC and Ford Motor
Company, the agencies recognize the need to provide an adjustment. In
lieu of having two sets of Light Heavy-Duty vocational vehicle
standards, the agencies are finalizing an adjustment factor which
applies to the CRR test results for LT tires. The agencies developed an
adjustment factor dividing the overall vocational test average CRR of
7.7 by the LT vocational average of 8.9. This yields an adjustment
factor of 0.87. For LT vocational vehicle tires, the measured CRR
values will be multiplied by the 0.87 adjustment factor before entering
the values in the GEM for compliance.
Based on the tire rolling resistance inputs noted above, EPA is
finalizing the following CO2 standards for the 2014 model
year for the Class 2b through Class 8 vocational vehicle chassis, as
shown in Table II-15. Similarly, NHTSA is finalizing the following fuel
consumption standards for the 2016 model year, with voluntary standards
beginning in the 2014 model year. For the EPA GHG program, the standard
applies throughout the useful life of the vehicle. The agencies note
that both the baseline performance and standards derived for the final
rules slightly differ from the values derived for the NPRM. The first
difference is due to the change in the target rolling resistance from
8.1 to 7.7 kg/metric ton based on the agencies' test results. Second,
there are minor differences in the fuel consumption and CO2
emissions due to the small modifications made to the GEM, as noted in
RIA Chapter 4. Lastly, the final HHD vocational vehicle standard uses a
revised payload assumption of 15,000 pounds instead of the 38,000
pounds used in the NPRM, as described in Section II.D.3.c.iii. As a
result, the emission standards shown in Table II-15 for vocational
vehicles have changed from the standards published in the NPRM. The
changes for light heavy and medium heavy-duty vehicles are modest. The
change for heavy heavy-duty vocational vehicles is larger, due to the
difference in assumed payload.
As with the 2017 MY standards for Class 7 and 8 tractors, EPA and
NHTSA are adopting more stringent vocational vehicle standards for the
2017 model year which reflect the CO2 emissions reductions
required through the 2017 model year engine standards. See also Section
II.B.2 explaining the same approach for the standards for combination
tractors. As explained in Section 0 below, engine performance is one of
the inputs into the GEM compliance model that has a pre-defined (i.e.
fixed) value established by the agencies, and that input will change in
the 2017 MY to reflect the 2017 MY engine standards. The 2017 MY
vocational vehicle standards are not premised on manufacturers
installing additional vehicle technologies, and a vocational vehicle
that complies with the standards in MY 2016 will also comply in MY 2017
with no vehicle (tire) changes. Thus, although chassis manufacturers
will not be required to make further improvements in the 2017 MY to
meet the standards, the standards will be more stringent to reflect the
engine improvements required in that year. This is because in 2017 MY
GEM vehicle modeling outputs (in grams per ton mile and gallons per
1,000 ton mile) will automatically decrease since engine efficiency
will improve in that year.
Table II-15--Final Class 2b-8 Vocational Vehicle CO2 and Fuel Consumption Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA CO2 (gram/ton-mile) Standard Effective 2014 Model Year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Light Heavy-Duty Class Medium Heavy-Duty Class Heavy Heavy-Duty Class
2b-5. 6-7. 8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 Emissions........................ 388.................... 234.................... 226
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA Fuel Consumption (gallon per 1,000 ton-mile) Standard Effective 2016 Model Year \134\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Light Heavy-DutyClass Medium Heavy-Duty Class Heavy Heavy-Duty Class
2b-5. 6-7. 8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuel Consumption..................... 38.1................... 23.0................... 22.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA CO2 (gram/ton-mile) Standard Effective 2017 Model Year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Light Heavy-Duty Class Medium Heavy-Duty Class Heavy Heavy-Duty Class
2b-5. 6-7. 8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 Emissions........................ 373.................... 225.................... 222
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 57175]]
NHTSA Fuel Consumption (gallon per ton-mile) Standard Effective 2017 Model Year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Light Heavy-Duty Class Medium Heavy-Duty Class Heavy Heavy-Duty Class
2b-5. 6-7. 8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuel Consumption..................... 36.7................... 22.1................... 21.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(iv) Off-Road and Low-Speed Vocational Vehicle Standards
Some vocational vehicles, because they are primarily designed for
off-road use, may not be good candidates for low rolling resistance
tires. These vehicles may travel on-road for very limited periods of
time, such as in traveling on an urban road, or if they are off-loaded
from another vehicle onto a road and then are driven off-road. The
infrequent and limited exposure to on-road environments makes these
vehicles suitable candidates for providing an exemption from the
CO2 emissions and fuel consumption standards for vocational
vehicles (although the standards for HD engines used in vocational
vehicles would still apply).\135\ The agencies are also targeting other
vehicles that travel at low speeds and that are meant to be used both
on- and off-road. The application of certain technologies to these
vehicles may not provide the same level of benefits as it would for
pure on-road vehicles, and moreover, could even reduce the
functionality of the vehicle. In this case, the agencies want to ensure
that vehicle functionality is maintained to the maximum extent
possible, while avoiding the possibility that achievable benefits are
not realized because of the structure of the regulations. The sections
below explain this issue in more detail as it applies to tractors and
vocational vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\134\ Manufacturers may voluntarily opt-in to the NHTSA fuel
consumption program in 2014 or 2015. Once a manufacturer opts into
the NHTSA program it must stay in the program for all the optional
MYs.
\135\ See 75 FR at 74199.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agencies explained in the NPRM that certain vocational vehicles
have very limited on-road usage, and that although they would be
defined as ``motor vehicles'' per 40 CFR 85.1703, the fact that they
spend the most of their operations off-road might be reason for
excluding them from the vocational vehicle standards. Vocational
vehicles, such as those used on oil fields and construction sites,\136\
experience very little benefit from LRR tires or from any other
technologies to reduce GHG emissions and fuel consumption. The agencies
proposed to allow a narrow range of these de facto off-road vehicles to
be excluded from the proposed vocational vehicle standards if equipped
with special off-road tires having lug type treads. The agencies stated
in the NPRM that on/off road traction is the only tire performance
parameter which trades off with TRR so significantly that tire
manufacturers could be unable to develop tires meeting both a TRR
standard while maintaining or improving the characteristic allowing
them to perform off-road. See generally 75 FR at 74199-200. Therefore,
the agencies proposed to exempt these vehicles from the standards while
requiring them to use certified engines, which would provide fuel
consumption and CO2 emission reductions in all vocational
applications. To ensure that these vehicles were in fact used chiefly
off-road, the agencies proposed requirements that would allow exemption
of a vehicle provided the vehicle and the tires were speed restricted.
As mentioned, the agencies were aware that the majority of off road
trucks primarily use off-road tires and are low speed vehicles as well.
Based upon this understanding, the agencies specifically proposed that
a vehicle must meet the following requirements to qualify for an
exemption from vocational vehicle standards:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\136\ Vehicles such as concrete mixers, off-road dump trucks,
backhoes and wheel loaders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tires which are lug tires or contain a speed rating of
less than or equal to 60 mph; and
A vehicle speed limiter governed to 55 mph.
In response to the NPRM, EMA/TMA, Navistar and Volvo agreed with
the proposal to exclude off-road vocational vehicles from the standards
because these vehicles primarily operate off-road, but requested
broadening the exclusion to cover other types of vocational vehicles.
Several manufacturers (IAFC, FAMA, NTEA, NSWMA, AAPC, RMA, Navistar and
DTNA) requested the exemption of specific vehicle types, such as on/
off-road emergency vehicles, refuse vehicles, low speed transit buses
or school buses, because their usage was viewed as being incompatible
with LRR tires. Navistar opposed the application of the proposed
regulations to school buses, arguing that LRR tires may impact the ride
quality for children in school buses. However, Navistar also
acknowledged that a significant portion of the national fleet of school
buses already utilizes off-road tires designed with lug type tread
patterns (e.g., Kentucky). IAFC, FAMA and NTEA commented that fire
trucks and ambulances should also be exempted due to their part-time
off-road use such as in responding to a wildland fire or hazardous
materials incidents which would require operations on dirt and gravel
roads, fields or other off-road environments. Commenters also contended
that by requiring a 55-mph limitation, the proposed exemption would be
impractical for emergency vehicles due to the need to respond quickly
to life-threatening events. The refuse truck manufacturers and trade
associations, NSWMA and AAPC, commented that the solid waste industry
operates a variety of vocational vehicles that perform solely off-road
at landfills. These comments also requested an exemption for certain
refuse trucks (i.e., roll-off container trucks) that frequently go off-
road at construction sites. Other commenters (FAMA, IAFC and Oshkosh)
opposed compliance with the LRR standard for vocational vehicles for
on/off road mixed service tires with aggressive or lug treads, stating
that up to this point the industry has had very little interest in
improving the LRR aspects of these tires or even to conducting testing
to determine values for the coefficient of rolling resistance.
For the final rules, the agencies have considered the issues raised
by commenters and have decided to adopt different criteria than
proposed for exempting vocational vehicles and vocational tractors that
primarily travel off-road. The agencies believe that the reasons for
proposing the exemption are equally applicable to a wider class of
vocational vehicles operating mostly off-road so that the proposals
were either unsuitable for the industry or too restrictive to capture
all the vehicles intended for the exemption. For example, the NPRM
proposal, by using tire tread patterns and VSLs as the basis for
qualifying vehicles for the exemption, was too restrictive because
other non-lug type tread patterns exist in the market as well as other
technologies which are equally capable of limiting the speed of the
vehicle, as mentioned by Volvo. Therefore, the
[[Page 57176]]
proposed exemption for off-road vocational vehicles will be replaced
with new criteria based on the vehicle application, whether it operates
at low speed and whether the vehicle has speed restricted tires. The
exemption is in part based on existing industry standards established
by NHTSA.\137\ As such, any vocational vehicle including vocational
tractors primarily used off-road or at low speeds must meet the
following criteria to be exempt from GHG and fuel consumption vehicle
standards:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\137\ The heavy-duty off-road exemption is based in part on
requirements existing in NHTSA's Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards (FMVSS) Nos. 119 and 121. In FMVSS No. 119, titled ``New
pneumatic tires for motor vehicles with a GVWR of more than 4,538
kilograms (10,000 pounds) and motorcycles,'' speed restricted tires
rated at a speed of 55 mph or less are subjected to lower test drum
speeds in the endurance test to account for their low design speeds
(e.g., off-road tires). The off-road vehicle exemptions adopted for
this heavy-duty program were based on the requirements used in FMVSS
No. 121, ``Air brake systems,'' to identify and exclude vocational
vehicles based upon their inability to meet on-highway stopping
distance requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any vehicle primarily designed to perform work off-road
such as in oil fields, forests, or construction sites and having
permanently or temporarily affixed components designed to work in an
off-road environment (i.e., hazardous material equipment or off-road
drill equipment) or vehicles operating at low speeds making them
unsuitable for normal highway operation; and meeting one or more of the
following criteria:
Any vehicle equipped with an axle that has a gross axle
weight rating (GAWR) of 29,000 pounds; or
Any truck or bus that has a speed attainable in 2 miles of
not more than 33 mph; or
Any truck that has a speed attainable in 2 miles of not
more than 45 mph, an unloaded vehicle weight that is not less than 95
percent of its gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR), and no capacity to
carry occupants other than the driver and operating crew.
The agencies are also adopting in the final rules provisions to
exempt any vocational vehicle that can operate in both on and off-road
environments and has speed restricted tires rated at 55 mph or
below.\138\ The agencies' reasoning in adopting a speed restricted
exemption for tires is that the majority of mixed service tires used
for off-road use was identified as being restricted at 55 mph or
less.\139\ Also, as identified by FMVSS No. 119, speed restricted tires
at a rating of 55 mph or less are incapable of meeting the same on-road
performance standards as conventional tires. The agencies acknowledge
that using a speed restriction criteria could allow certain vehicles to
be exempted inappropriately (i.e., low speed city delivery tractors)
but the agencies believe this is preferable to creating a situation
where a segment of vehicles are precluded from performing their
intended applications. Therefore, the final rules include an exemption
for any mixed service (on and off-road) vocational vehicle equipped
with off-road tires that are speed restricted at 55 mph or less.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\138\ See 40 CFR 1037.631.
\139\ Particular tire use was identified during the FMVSS 119
rulemaking and confirmed through subsequent market research. See
``2010 Year Book the Tire and RIM Association Inc.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturers choosing to exempt vehicles based on the above
criteria will be required to provide a description of how they meet the
qualifications for each vehicle family group in their end-of-the year
and final year reports (see Section V).
A manufacturer having an off-road vehicle failing to meet the
criteria under the agencies' off-road exemptions will be allowed to
submit a petition describing how and why their vehicles should qualify
for exclusion. The process of petitioning for an exemption is explained
in Sec. 1037.631 and Sec. 535.8. For each request, the manufacturer
will be required to describe why it believes an exemption is warranted
and address the following factors which the agencies will consider in
granting its petition:
The agencies provide an exemption based on off-road
capability of the vehicle or if the vehicle is fitted with speed
restricted tires. Which exemption does your vehicle qualify under; and
Are there any comparable tires that exist in the market to
carry out the desired application both on and off road for the subject
vehicle(s) of the petition which have LLR values that would enable
compliance with the standard?
(b) Heavy-Duty Engine Standards for Engines Installed in Vocational
Vehicles
EPA is finalizing GHG standards \140\ and NHTSA is finalizing fuel
consumption standards for new heavy-duty engines installed in
vocational vehicles. The standards will vary depending on whether the
engines are diesel or gasoline powered since emissions and fuel
consumption profiles differ significantly depending on whether the
engine is gasoline or diesel powered. The agencies' analyses, as
discussed briefly below and in more detail later in this preamble and
in the RIA Chapter 2, show that these standards are appropriate and
feasible under each agency's respective statutory authorities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\140\ Specifically, EPA is finalizing CO2,
N2O, and CH4 emissions standards for new
heavy-duty engines over an EPA specified useful life period (See
Section 0 for the N2O and CH4 standards).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agencies have analyzed the feasibility of achieving the GHG and
fuel consumption standards, based on projections of what actions
manufacturers are expected to take to reduce emissions and fuel
consumption. EPA and NHTSA also present the estimated costs and
benefits of the heavy-duty engine standards in Section III below. In
developing the final rules, the agencies have evaluated the kinds of
technologies that could be utilized by engine manufacturers compared to
a baseline engine, as well as the associated costs for the industry and
fuel savings for the consumer and the magnitude of the GHG and fuel
consumption savings that may be achieved.
EPA's existing criteria pollutant emissions regulations for heavy-
duty highway engines establish four service classes (three for
compression-ignition or diesel engines and one for spark ignition or
gasoline engines) that represent the engine's intended and primary
vehicle application, as shown in Table II-16 (40 CFR 1036.140 and
NHTSA's 49 CFR 535.4). The agencies proposed to use the existing
service classes to define the engine subcategories in this HD GHG
emissions and fuel consumption program. The agencies did not receive
any adverse comments to using this approach. Thus, the agencies are
adopting the four engine subcategories for this final action.
Table II-16--Engine Regulatory Subcategories
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engine category Intended application
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Light Heavy-duty (LHD) Diesel.......... Class 2b through Class 5 trucks
(8,501 through 19,500 pounds
GVWR).
Medium Heavy-duty (MHD) Diesel......... Class 6 and Class 7 trucks
(19,501 through 33,000 pounds
GVWR).
Heavy Heavy-duty (HHD) Diesel.......... Class 8 trucks (33,001 pounds
and greater GVWR.
Gasoline............................... Incomplete vehicles less than
14,000 pounds GVWR and all
vehicles (complete or
incomplete) greater than
14,000 pounds GVWR.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Diesel Engine Standards for Engines Installed in Vocational
Vehicles
In the NPRM, the agencies proposed the following CO2 and
fuel consumption standards for HD diesel engines to be
[[Page 57177]]
installed in vocational vehicles, as shown in Table II-17.
Table II-17--Vocational Diesel Engine Standards Over the Heavy-Duty FTP Cycle
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Light heavy- Medium heavy- Heavy heavy-
Model year Standard duty diesel duty diesel duty diesel
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014-2016............................. CO2 Standard (g/bhp-hr). 600 600 567
Voluntary Fuel 5.89 5.89 5.57
Consumption Standard
(gallon/100 bhp-hr).
2017 and Later........................ CO2 Standard (g/bhp-hr). 576 576 555
Fuel Consumption (gallon/ 5.66 5.66 5.45
100 bhp-hr).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agencies explained in the NPRM that the standards were based on
our assessment of the findings of the 2010 NAS report and other
literature sources that there are technologies available to reduce fuel
consumption in all these engines by this level in the final time frame
in a cost-effective manner. Similar to the technology basis for HD
engines used in combination tractors, these technologies include
improved turbochargers, aftertreatment optimization, low temperature
exhaust gas recirculation, and engine friction reductions.
The agencies proposed that the HD diesel engine CO2
standards for vocational vehicles would become effective in MY 2014 for
EPA, with more stringent CO2 standards becoming effective in
MY 2017, while NHTSA's fuel consumption standards would become
effective in MY 2017, which would be both consistent with the EISA
four-year minimum lead-time requirements and harmonized with EPA's
timing for stringency increases. The agencies explained that the three-
year timing, besides being required by EISA, made sense because EPA's
heavy-duty highway engine program for criteria pollutants had begun to
provide new emissions standards for the industry in three year
increments, which had caused the heavy-duty engine and vehicle
manufacturer product plans to fall largely into three year cycles
reflecting this regulatory environment.\141\ To further harmonize with
EPA, NHTSA proposed voluntary fuel consumption standards for HD diesel
engines for vocational vehicles in MYs 2014-2016, allowing
manufacturers to opt into the voluntary standards in any of those model
years.\142\ Manufacturers opting into the program must declare by
statement their intent to comply prior to or at the same time they
submit their first application for a certificate of conformity. A
manufacturer opting into the program would begin tracking credits and
debits beginning in the model year in which they opt in. Both agencies
proposed to allow manufacturers to generate and use credits to achieve
compliance with the HD diesel engine standards for vocational vehicles,
including averaging, banking, and trading (ABT), and deficit carry-
forward.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\141\ See generally 75 FR at 74200-201.
\142\ Once a manufacturer opts into the NHTSA program it must
stay in the program for all the optional MYs and remain standardized
with the implementation approach being used to meet the EPA emission
program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agencies proposed to require HD diesel engine manufacturers to
achieve, on average, a three percent reduction in fuel consumption and
CO2 emissions for the 2014 standards over the baseline MY
2010 performance for the HHD diesel engines, and a five percent
reduction for the LHD and MHD diesel engines. The standards for the LHD
and MHD engine categories were proposed to be set at the same level
because the agencies found that there is an overlap in the displacement
of engines which are currently certified as LHDD or MHDD. The agencies
developed the baseline 2010 model year CO2 emissions from
data provided to EPA by manufacturers during the non-GHG certification
process. Analysis of CO2 emissions from 2010 model year LHD
and MHDD diesel engines showed little difference between LHD and MHD
diesel engine baseline CO2 performance in the 2010 model
year, which overall averaged 630 g CO2/bhp-hr (6.19 gal/100
bhp-hr).\143\ Furthermore, the technologies available to reduce fuel
consumption and CO2 emissions from these two categories of
engines are similar. The agencies considered combining these engine
categories into a single category, but decided to maintain these two
separate engine categories with the same standard level to respect the
different useful life periods associated with each category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\143\ Calculated using the conversion 10,180 g CO2/
gallon for diesel fuel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For vocational engines certified on the FTP cycle, the agencies
proposed to require a five percent reduction for HHD engines and nine
percent for LHD and MHD engines. For LHD and MHD engines in 2017 MY,
the nine percent reduction is based on the assumption that valvetrain
friction reduction can be achieved in LHD and MHD engines in addition
to turbo efficiency and accessory (water, oil, and fuel pump)
improvements, improved EGR cooler, and other approaches being used for
HHD engines.
Commenters who discussed the HD diesel engine standards generally
did not differentiate between the standards for engines used in
combination tractors and the engines used in vocational vehicles. As
explained above in Section II.B.2.b, some commenters, such as EMA/TMA,
Cummins, DTNA, and other manufacturers, supported the proposed
standards, as long as the flexibilities proposed in the NPRM were
finalized as proposed. Volvo argued that the standards are being phased
in too quickly. Environmental groups and NGOs commented that the
standards should be more stringent and reflect the potential for
greater fuel consumption and CO2 emissions reductions
through the use of additional technologies outlined in the 2010 NAS
study.
In response to those comments, the agencies refer back to our
discussion in Section II.B.2.b. The agencies believe that the
additional reductions may be achieved through the increased development
of the technologies evaluated for the 2014 model year standard, but the
agencies' analysis indicates that this type of advanced engine
development will require a longer development time than MY 2014. The
agencies are therefore providing additional lead time to allow for the
introduction of this additional technology, and waiting until 2017 to
increase stringency to levels reflecting application of
turbocompounding. See Chapter 2 of the RIA for more details.
While it made sense to set standards at the same level for LHD and
MHD diesel engines for vocational vehicles, the agencies found that it
did not make sense to set HHD standards at the same level. Based on
manufacturer-submitted
[[Page 57178]]
CO2 data for the non-GHG emissions certification process,
the agencies found that the baseline for HHD diesel engines was much
lower than for LHD/MHD diesel engines--584 g CO2/bhp-hr
(5.74 gal/100 bhp-hr) on average for HHD, compared to 630 g
CO2/bhp-hr (6.19 gal/100 bhp-hr) on average for LHD/
MHD.\144\ In addition to the differences in the baseline performance,
the agencies believe that there may be some technologies available to
reduce fuel consumption and CO2 emissions that may be
appropriate for the HHD diesel engines but not for the LHD/MHD diesel
engines, such as turbocompounding. Therefore, the agencies are setting
a different standard level for HHD diesel engines to be used in
vocational vehicles. Additional discussion on technical feasibility is
included in Section III below and in Chapter 2 of the RIA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\144\ Calculated using the conversion 10,180 g CO2/
gallon for diesel fuel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After consideration of the comments, EPA and NHTSA are adopting as
proposed the CO2 emission standards and fuel consumption
standards for heavy-duty diesel engines installed in vocational
vehicles are presented in Table II-17. Consistent with proposal, the
first set of standards take effect with MY 2014 (mandatory standards
for EPA, voluntary standards for NHTSA), and the second set take effect
with MY 2017 (mandatory for both agencies).
Compliance with the standards for engines installed in vocational
vehicles will be evaluated based on the composite HD FTP cycle. In the
NPRM, the agencies proposed standards based on the Heavy-duty FTP cycle
for engines used in vocational vehicles reflecting their primary use in
transient operating conditions (typified by both frequent accelerations
and decelerations), as well as in some steady cruise conditions as
represented on the Heavy-duty FTP. The primary reason the agencies
proposed two separate certification cycles for HD diesel engines--one
for HD diesel engines used in combination tractors and the other for HD
diesel engines used in vocational vehicles--is to encourage engine
manufacturers to install technologies appropriate to the intended use
of the engine with the vehicle.\145\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\145\ See generally 75 FR at 74201.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DTNA, Cummins, EMA/TMA, and Honeywell commented that certain
vocational vehicle applications would achieve greater fuel consumption
and CO2 emissions reductions in-use by using an engine
designed to meet the SET-based standard. They stated that some
vocational vehicles operate at steady-state more frequently than in
transient operation, such as motor coaches, and thus should be able to
have an engine certified on a steady-state cycle to better reflect the
vehicle's real use.
In response, while the agencies recognize the value to
manufacturers of having additional flexibility that allows them to meet
the standards in a way most consistent with how their vehicles and
engines will ultimately be used, we remain concerned about increasing
flexibility in ways that might impair fuel consumption and
CO2 emissions reductions. The agencies are therefore
providing the option in these final rules for some vocational vehicles,
but not others, to have SET certified engines. Heavy heavy-duty
vocational engines will be allowed to be SET certified for vocational
vehicles, since SET certified HHD engines must meet more stringent GHG
and fuel consumption standards than FTP certified engines. We believe
this will provide manufacturers additional flexibility while still
achieving the expected fuel consumption and CO2 emissions
reductions. However, medium heavy-duty vocational engines will not be
allowed to be SET-certified, because medium heavy-duty engines
certified on the FTP must meet a more stringent standard than engines
certified on the SET, and the agencies are not confident that fuel
consumption and CO2 emissions reduction levels would
necessarily be maintained.
As discussed above in Section II.B.2.b, the agencies place
important weight in making our decisions about the cost-effectiveness
of the standards and the availability of lead time on the fact that
engine manufacturers are expected to redesign and upgrade their
products during MYs 2014-2017. The final two-step CO2
emission and fuel consumption standards recognize the opportunity for
technology improvements over the rulemaking time frame, while
reflecting the typical diesel truck manufacturers' and diesel engine
manufacturers' product plan cycles. Over these four model years there
will be an opportunity for manufacturers to evaluate almost every one
of their engine models and add technology in a cost-effective way,
consistent with existing redesign schedules, to control GHG emissions
and reduce fuel consumption. The time-frame and levels for the
standards, as well as the ability to average, bank and trade credits
and carry a deficit forward for a limited time, are expected to provide
manufacturers the time needed to incorporate technology that will
achieve the final GHG and fuel consumption reductions, and to do this
as part of the normal engine redesign process. This is an important
aspect of the final rules, as it will avoid the much higher costs that
would occur if manufacturers needed to add or change technology at
times other than these scheduled redesigns.\146\ This time period will
also provide manufacturers the opportunity to plan for compliance using
a multi-year time frame, again in accord with their normal business
practice. Further details on lead time, redesigns and technical
feasibility can be found in Section III.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\146\ See 75 FR at 25467-68.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agencies recognize, however, that the schedule of changes for
the final standards may not be the most cost-effective one for all
manufacturers. For HD diesel engines for use in tractors, the agencies
discussed above in Section II.B.2.b our decision in this final program
to allow an ``OBD phase-in'' option for meeting the standards, based on
comments received from several industry organizations indicating that
aligning technology changes for multiple regulatory requirements would
provide them with greater flexibility. In the context of HD diesel
engines for use in vocational vehicles, Volvo, EMA/TMA, and DDC
specifically requested an ``OBD phase-in'' option in its comments to
the NPRM. DDC argued that bundling design changes where possible can
reduce the burden on industry for complying with regulations, so
aligning the introduction of the OBD, GHG, and fuel consumption
standards could help reduce the resources devoted to validation of new
product designs and certification.
The agencies have the same interest in providing this flexibility
for manufacturers of HD diesel engines for use in vocational vehicles
as in providing it for manufacturers of HD diesel engines for use in
combination tractors, as long as equivalent emissions and fuel savings
are maintained. Thus, in order to provide additional flexibility for
manufacturers looking to align their technology changes with multiple
regulatory requirements, the agencies are finalizing an alternate ``OBD
phase-in'' option for meeting the HD diesel engine standards which
delivers equivalent CO2 emissions and fuel consumption
reductions as the primary standards for the engines built in the 2013
through 2017 model years, as shown in Table II-18.
[[Page 57179]]
Table II-18--Comparison of CO2 reductions for the Engine Standards Under the Alternative OBD Phase-in and
Primary Phase-In
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HHD FTP LHD/MHD FTP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Difference Difference
Primary Optional in lifetime Primary Optional in lifetime
phase-in phase-in CO2 engine phase-in phase-in CO2 engine
standard (g/ standard (g/ emissions standard (g/ standard (g/ emissions
bhp-hr) bhp-hr) (MMT) bhp-hr) bhp-hr) (MMT)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline.......................... 584 584 ........... 630 630
2013 MY Engine.................... 584 577 20 630 618 14
2014 MY Engine.................... 567 577 -28 600 618 -22
2015 MY Engine.................... 567 577 -28 600 618 -22
2016 MY Engine.................... 567 555 34 600 576 29
2017 MY Engine.................... 555 555 0 576 576 0
Net Reductions (MMT).............. ........... ........... -3 ........... ........... 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table II-19 presents the final HD diesel engine CO2
emission and fuel consumption standards under the optional ``OBD phase-
in'' option.
Table II-19--Optional Heavy-Duty Engine Standard Phase-in
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Light heavy- Medium heavy- Heavy heavy-
Model year Standard duty diesel duty diesel duty diesel
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2013.................................. CO2 Standard (g/bhp-hr). 618 618 577
Voluntary Fuel 6.07 6.07 5.67
Consumption Standard
(gallon/100 bhp-hr).
2016 and Later........................ CO2 Standard (g/bhp-hr). 576 576 555
Fuel Consumption (gallon/ 5.66 5.66 5.45
100 bhp-hr).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to ensure equivalent CO2 and fuel consumption
reductions and orderly compliance, and to avoid gaming, the agencies
are requiring that if a manufacturer selects the OBD phase-in option,
it must certify its engines starting in the 2013 model year and
continue using this phase-in through the 2016 model year. Manufacturers
may opt into the OBD phase-in option through the voluntary NHTSA
program, but must opt in in the 2013 model year and continue using this
phase-in through the 2016 model year. Manufacturers that opt in to the
voluntary NHTSA program in 2014 and 2015 will be required to meet the
primary phase-in schedule and may not adopt the OBD phase-in option.
As discussed above in Section II.B.2.b, while the agencies believe
that the HD diesel engine standards are appropriate, cost-effective,
and technologically feasible in the rulemaking time frame, we also
recognize that when regulating a category of engines for the first
time, there will be individual products that may deviate significantly
from the baseline level of performance, whether because of a specific
approach to criteria pollution control, or due to engine calibration
for specific applications or duty cycles. That earlier discussion
described HD diesel engines for use in combination tractors, but the
same supporting information is relevant to the agencies' consideration
of an alternate standard for HD diesel engines installed in vocational
vehicles. In the NPRM, the agencies proposed an optional engine
standard for HD diesel engines installed in vocational vehicles based
on a five percent reduction from the engine's own 2011 model year
baseline level, but requested comment on whether a two percent
reduction would be more appropriate.\147\ The comments received in
response did not directly address engines for vocational vehicles, but
the agencies believe that the information provided by Navistar and
others is equally applicable to HD diesel engines for combination
tractors and for vocational vehicles. Our assessment for the final
standards is that a 2.5 percent reduction is appropriate for LHD and
MHD engines installed in vocational vehicles and 3 percent is
appropriate for HHD engines installed in vocational vehicles given the
technologies available for application to legacy products by model year
2014.\148\ Unlike the majority of engine products in this segment,
engine manufacturers have devoted few resources to developing
technologies for these legacy products reasoning that the investment
would have little value if the engines are to be substantially
redesigned or replaced in the next five years. Hence, although the
technologies we have identified to achieve the proposed five percent
reduction would theoretically work for these legacy products, there is
inadequate lead time for manufacturers to complete the pre-application
development needed to add the technology to these engines by 2014. The
mix of technologies available off the shelf for legacy engines varies
between engine lines within OEMs and varies among OEMs as well. On
average, based on our review of manufacturer development history and
current plans, we project that for the legacy products approximately
half of the defined technologies appropriate for the 2014 standard will
be available and ready for application by 2014 for older legacy engine
designs. Hence, we have concluded that if we limit the reductions to
those improvements which reflect further enhancements of already
installed systems rather than the addition or replacement of
technologies with fully developed new on the shelf components, the
potential improvement for the 2014 model year will be 2.5 percent for
LHD and MHD engines and 3 percent HHD engines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\147\ See 75 FR at 74202.
\148\ To be codified at 40 CFR 1036.620.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just as for HD diesel engines used in combination tractors, the
agencies stress that this option for HD engines used in vocational
vehicles is temporary and
[[Page 57180]]
limited and is being adopted to address diverse manufacturer needs
associated with complying with this first phase of the regulations.
This optional, alternative standard will be available only for the 2014
through 2016 model years, because we believe that manufacturers will
have had ample opportunity to make appropriate changes to bring their
product performance into line with the rest of the industry after that
time. This optional standard will not be available unless and until a
manufacturer has exhausted all available credits and credit
opportunities, and engines under the alternative standard could not
generate credits.
The agencies note that manufacturers choosing to utilize this
option in MYs 2014-2016 will have to make a greater relative
improvement in MY 2017 than the rest of the industry, since they will
be starting from a worse level. For compliance purposes, in MYs 2014-
2016 emissions from engines certified and sold at the alternate level
will be averaged with emissions from engines certified and sold at more
stringent levels to arrive at a weighted average emissions level for
all engines in the subcategory. Again, this option can only be taken if
all other credit opportunities have been exhausted and the manufacturer
still cannot meet the primary standards. If a manufacturer chooses this
option to meet the EPA emission standards in MY 2014-2016, and wants to
opt into the NHTSA fuel consumption program in these same MYs it must
follow the exact path followed under the EPA program utilizing
equivalent fuel consumption standards.
As discussed above in Section II.B.2.b, Volvo argued that
manufacturers could game the standard by establishing an artificially
high 2011 baseline emission level. This could be done, for example, by
certifying an engine with high fuel consumption and GHG emissions that
is either: (1) Not sold in significant quantities; or (2) later altered
to emit fewer GHGs and consume less fuel through service changes. In
order to mitigate this possibility, the agencies are requiring either
that the 2011 model year baseline must be developed by averaging
emissions over all engines in an engine averaging set certified and
sold for that model year so as to prevent a manufacturer from
developing a single high GHG output engine solely for the purpose of
establishing a high baseline or meet additional criteria. The agencies
are allowing manufacturers to combine light heavy-duty and medium
heavy-duty diesel engines into a single averaging set for this
provision because the engines have the same GHG emissions and fuel
consumption standards. If a manufacturer does not certify all engine
families in an averaging set to the alternate standards, then the
tested configuration of the engine certified to the alternate standard
must have the same engine displacement and its rated power within 5
percent of the highest rated power as the baseline engine. In addition,
the tested configurations must have a BSFC equivalent to or better than
all other configurations within the engine family and represent a
configuration that is sold to customers.
(ii) Gasoline Engine Standard
Heavy-duty gasoline engines are also used in vocational vehicle
applications. The number of engines certified in the past for this
segment of vehicles is very limited and has ranged between three and
five engine models.\149\ Unlike the heavy-duty diesel engines typical
of this segment which are built for vocational vehicles, these gasoline
engines are developed for heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans primarily,
but are also sold as loose engines to vocational vehicle manufacturers,
for use in vocational vehicles such as some delivery trucks. Some
fleets still prefer gasoline engines over diesel engines. In the past,
this was the case since gasoline stations were more prevalent than
stations that sold diesel fuel. Because they are developed for HD
pickups and vans, the agencies evaluated these engines in parallel with
the heavy-duty pickup truck and van standard development. As in the
pickup truck and van segment, the agencies anticipated that the
manufacturers will have only one engine re-design within the 2014-2018
model years under consideration within the proposal. The agencies
therefore proposed fuel consumption and CO2 emissions
standards for gasoline engines for use in vocational vehicles, which
represent a five percent reduction in CO2 emissions and fuel
consumption in the 2016 model year over the 2010 MY baseline through
use of technologies such as coupled cam phasing, engine friction
reduction, and stoichiometric gasoline direct injection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\149\ EPA's heavy-duty engine certification database at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/certdata.htm#largeng.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In our meetings with all three of the major manufacturers in the HD
pickup and van segment, confidential future product plans were shared
with the agencies. Reflecting those plans and our estimates for when
engine changes will be made in alignment with those product plans, we
had concluded for proposal that the 2016 model year reflects the most
logical model year start date for the heavy-duty gasoline engine
standards. In order to meet the standards we are finalizing for heavy-
duty pickups and vans, we project that all manufacturers will have
redesigned their gasoline engine offerings by the start of the 2016
model year. Given the small volume of loose gasoline engine sales
relative to complete heavy-duty pickup sales, we think it is
appropriate to set the timing for the heavy-duty gasoline engine
standard in line with our projections for engine redesigns to meet the
heavy-duty pickup truck standards. Therefore, NHTSA's final fuel
consumption standard and EPA's final CO2 standard for heavy-
duty gasoline engines are first effective in the 2016 model year.
The baseline 2010 model year CO2 performance of these
heavy-duty gasoline engines over the Heavy-duty FTP cycle is 660 g
CO2/bhp-hr (7.43 gal/100 bhp-hr) in 2010 based on non-GHG
certification data provided to EPA by the manufacturers. The agencies
are finalizing 2016 model year standards that require manufacturers to
achieve a five percent reduction in CO2 compared to the 2010
MY baseline through use of technologies such as coupled cam phasing,
engine friction reduction, and stoichiometric gasoline direct
injection. Additional detail on technology feasibility is included in
Section III and in the RIA Chapter 2. As shown in Table II-20, NHTSA is
finalizing as proposed a 7.06 gallon/100 bhp-hr standard for fuel
consumption while EPA is adopting as proposed a 627 g CO2/
bhp-hr standard tested over the Heavy-duty FTP, effective in the 2016
model year. Similar to EPA's non-GHG standards approach, manufacturers
may generate and use credits by the same engine averaging set to show
compliance with both agencies' standards.
Table II-20--Heavy-Duty Gasoline Engine Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gasoline
Model year engine
standard
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2016 and Later.................... CO2 Standard (g/bhp- 627
hr).
Fuel Consumption 7.06
(gallon/100 bhp-hr).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) In-Use Standards
Section 202(a)(1) of the CAA specifies that emissions standards are
to be applicable for the useful life of the vehicle. The in-use
standards that EPA
[[Page 57181]]
is finalizing apply to individual vehicles and engines. NHTSA is not
finalizing in-use standards that would apply to the vehicles and
engines in a similar fashion.
EPA proposed that the in-use standards for heavy-duty engines
installed in vocational vehicles be established by adding an adjustment
factor to the full useful life emissions results projected in the EPA
certification process to account for measurement variability inherent
in testing done at different laboratories with different engines. The
agency proposed a two percent adjustment factor and requested comments
and additional data during the proposal to assist in developing an
appropriate factor level. The agency received additional data during
the comment period which identified production variability which was
not accounted for at proposal. Details on the development of the final
adjustment factor are included in RIA Chapter 3. Based on the data
received, EPA determined that the adjustment factor in the final rules
should be higher than the proposed level of two percent. EPA is
finalizing a three percent adjustment factor for the in-use standard to
provide a reasonable margin for production and test-to-test variability
that could result in differences between the initial emission test
results and emission results obtained during subsequent in-use testing.
We are finalizing regulatory text (in Sec. 1036.150) to allow
engine manufacturers to used assigned deterioration factors (DFs)
without performing their own durability emission tests or engineering
analysis. However, the engines would still be required to meet the
standards in actual use without regard to whether the manufacturer used
the assigned DFs. This allowance is being adopted as an interim
provision applicable only for this initial phase of standards.
Manufacturers will be allowed to use an assigned additive DF of 0.0
g/bhp-hr for CO2 emissions from any conventional engine
(i.e., an engine not including advance or innovative technologies).
Upon request, we could allow the assigned DF for CO2
emissions from engines including advance or innovative technologies,
but only if we determine that it would be consistent with good
engineering judgment. We believe that we have enough information about
in-use CO2 emissions from conventional engines to conclude
that they will not increase as the engines age. However, we lack such
information about the more advanced technologies.
EPA proposed that the useful life for these engines and vehicles
with respect to GHG emissions be set equal to the respective useful
life periods for criteria pollutants. EPA proposed that the existing
engine useful life periods, as included in Table II-21, be broadened to
include CO2 emissions and fuel consumption for both engines
and vocational vehicles. The agency did not receive any adverse
comments with this approach and is finalizing the useful life periods
as proposed (see 40 CFR 1036.108(d) and 1037.105). While NHTSA will use
useful life considerations for establishing fuel consumption
performance for initial compliance and for ABT, NHTSA does not intend
to implement an in-use compliance program for fuel consumption, because
it is not required under EISA and because it is not currently
anticipated there will be notable deterioration of fuel consumption
over the engines' useful life.
Table II-21--Useful Life Periods
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Years Miles
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class 2b-5 Vocational Vehicles, Spark 10 110,000
Ignited, and Light Heavy-Duty Diesel
Engines................................
Class 6-7 Vocational Vehicles and Medium 10 185,000
Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines..............
Class 8 Vocational Vehicles and Heavy 10 435,000
Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines..............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Test Procedures and Related Issues
The agencies are finalizing test procedures to evaluate fuel
consumption and CO2 emissions of vocational vehicles in a
manner very similar to Class 7 and Class 8 combination tractors. This
section describes the simulation model for demonstrating compliance,
engine test procedures, and a test procedure for evaluating hybrid
powertrains (a potential means of generating credits, although not part
of the technology package on which the final standard for vocational
vehicles is premised).
(a) Computer Simulation Model
As previously mentioned, to achieve the goal of reducing emissions
and fuel consumption for both trucks and engines, we are finalizing
separate engine and vehicle-based emission and fuel consumption
standards for vocational vehicles and engines used in those vehicles.
For the vocational vehicles, engine manufacturers are subject to the
engine standards, and chassis manufacturers are required to install
certified engines in their chassis. The chassis manufacturer is subject
to a separate vehicle-based standard that uses the final vehicle
simulation model, the GEM, to evaluate the impact of the tire design to
determine compliance with the vehicle standard.
A simulation model, in general, uses various inputs to characterize
a vehicle's properties (such as weight, aerodynamics, and rolling
resistance) and predicts how the vehicle would behave on the road when
it follows a driving cycle (vehicle speed versus time). On a second-by-
second basis, the model determines how much engine power needs to be
generated for the vehicle to follow the driving cycle as closely as
possible. The engine power is then transmitted to the wheels through
transmission, driveline, and axles to move the vehicle according to the
driving cycle. The second-by-second fuel consumption of the vehicle,
which corresponds to the engine power demand to move the vehicle, is
then calculated according to the fuel consumption map embedded in the
compliance model. Similar to a chassis dynamometer test, the second-by-
second fuel consumption is aggregated over the complete drive cycle to
determine the fuel consumption of the vehicle.
NHTSA and EPA are finalizing an approach consistent with the
proposal to evaluate fuel consumption and CO2 emissions
respectively through a simulation of whole-vehicle operation,
consistent with the NAS recommendation to use a truck model to evaluate
truck performance. The EPA developed the GEM for the specific purpose
of this rulemaking to evaluate vehicle performance. The GEM is similar
in concept to a number of vehicle simulation tools developed by
commercial and government entities. The model developed by the EPA and
finalized here was designed for the express purpose of vehicle
compliance demonstration and is therefore simpler and less configurable
than similar
[[Page 57182]]
commercial products. This approach gives a compact and quicker tool for
evaluating vehicle compliance without the overhead and costs of a more
complicated model. Details of the model, including changes made to the
model to address concerns of the peer reviewers and commenters are
included in Chapter 4 of the RIA. An example of the GEM input screen is
shown in Figure II-4.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15SE11.004
EPA and NHTSA have validated the GEM simulation of vocational
vehicles against a commonly used simulation tool used in industry, GT-
Drive, for each vocational vehicle subcategory. Prior to using GT-Drive
as a comparison tool, the agencies first benchmarked a GT-Drive
simulation of the combination tractor tested at Southwest Research
against the experimental test results from the chassis dynamometer in
the same manner as done for GEM. Then the EPA developed three
vocational vehicle models (LHD, MHD, and HHD) and simulated them using
both GEM and GT-Drive. Overall, the GEM and GT-Drive predicted the fuel
consumption and CO2 emissions for all three vocational
vehicle subcategories with differences of less than 2 percent for the
three test cycles--the California ARB Transient cycle, 55 mph cruise,
and 65 mph cruise cycle.\150\ The final simulation model is described
in greater detail in RIA Chapter 4 and is available for download by
interested parties at (http://www.epa.gov/otaq/).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\150\ See RIA Chapter 4, Table 4-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agencies are requiring that for demonstrating compliance, a
chassis manufacturer would measure the performance of tires, input the
values into GEM, and compare the model's output to the standard. As
explained earlier, low rolling resistance tires are the only technology
on which the agencies' own feasibility analysis for these vehicles is
predicated. The input values for the simulation model will be derived
by the manufacturer from the final tire test procedure described in
this action. The remaining model inputs will be fixed values pre-
defined by the agencies. These are detailed in the RIA Chapter 4,
including the engine fuel consumption map to be used in the simulation.
(b) Tire Rolling Resistance Assessment
In terms of how tire rolling resistance would be measured, the
agencies proposed to require that the tire rolling resistance input to
the GEM be determined using ISO 28580:2009(E), Passenger car, truck and
bus tyres--Methods of measuring rolling resistance--Single point test
and correlation of measurement results.\151\ The agencies stated that
they believed the ISO test method was the most appropriate for this
program because the method is the same one used by the NHTSA tire fuel
efficiency consumer information program,\152\ by European
regulations,\153\ and by the EPA SmartWay program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\151\ See http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=44770.
\152\ 75 FR 15893, March 30,2010.
\153\ See http://www.energy.ca.gov/2009publications/CEC-600-2009-010/CEC-600-2009-010-SD-REV.PDF (last accessed May 9, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NPRM also discussed the potential for tire-to-tire variability
to confound rolling resistance measurement results for LRR tires--that
is, different tires of the same tire model could turn out to have
different rolling resistance measurements when run on
[[Page 57183]]
the same test. NHTSA's research during the development of the light-
duty vehicle tire fuel efficiency consumer information program
identified several sources of variability including test procedures,
test equipment and the tires themselves, but found that all of the
existing test methods had similar levels of and sources of
variability.\154\ The agencies proposed to address production tire-to-
tire variability by specifying that three tire samples within each tire
model be tested three times each, and that the average of the nine
tests would be used as the Rolling Resistance Coefficient (CRR) for the
tire, which would be the basis for the rolling resistance value for
that tire that the manufacturer would enter into the GEM. The agencies
requested comment on this proposed method.\155\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\154\ 75 FR 15893, March 30, 2010.
\155\ See generally 75 FR at 74204.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agencies received many comments on the subject of tire rolling
resistance, including suggestions for alternative test procedures and
compliance issues. Regarding whether the agencies should base tire CRR
inputs for the GEM on the use of the ISO 28580 test procedure, the
American Automotive Policy Council (AAPC) argued that the agencies
should instead require the SAE J2452 Coastdown test method for
calculating tire rolling resistance, which the commenter stated was
preferred by OEMs because it simulates the use of tires on actual
vehicles rather than the ISO procedure which tests the tire by itself.
The Rubber Manufacturers Association (RMA) argued, in contrast, that
the agencies should use the SAE J1269 multi-point test, which is
currently the basis for the EPA SmartWay\TM\ CRR baseline values. RMA
also argued that the SAE J1269 multi-point test can be used to
accurately predict truck/bus tire CRR at various loads and inflations,
including at the ISO 28580 load and inflation conditions, and that
therefore the agencies should use the SAE test, or if the agencies want
to use ISO, they should accept results from the SAE test and just
correlate them. Regarding compliance obligations, RMA further argued
that it was not clear how or in what format testing information would
need to be provided in order to be in compliance with the proposed
requirement at Sec. 1037.125(i).
The agencies analyzed many comments on the subject of tire rolling
resistance. One of the primary concerns raised in comments was that the
proposed test protocol and measurement methodology would not adequately
address production tire variability and measurement variability.
Commenters stated that machine-to-machine differences are a significant
source of variation, and this variation would make it difficult for
manufacturers to be confident that the agency would assign the same CRR
to a tire was tested for compliance purposes. Commenters argued that
the ISO 28580 test method is unique in that it specifies a procedure to
correlate results between different test equipment (i.e., different
rolling resistance test machines), but not all aspects of the ISO
procedure have been completely defined. Commenters stated that under
ISO 28580, the lab alignment procedure depends on the specification of
a reference test machine to which all other labs will align their
measurement results. RMA particularly emphasized the need for
establishing a tire testing reference lab for use with ISO 28580,
referencing the European Tyre and Rim Technical Organization (ETRTO)
estimate that CRR values could vary as much as 20 percent absent an
inter-laboratory alignment procedure. RMA stated the agencies should
specify a reference laboratory with the designation proposed in a
supplemental notice that provides public comment. In addition, RMA
commented that the extra burden proposed by the agencies for testing
three tires, three times each is nine times more burdensome than what
is required through the ISO procedure.
Based on the additional tire rolling resistance research conducted
by the agencies, we have decided to use the ISO 28580 test procedure,
as proposed, to measure tire performance for these final rules.
The agencies believe this test procedure provides two advantages
over other test methods. First, the ISO 28580 test method is unique in
that it specifies a procedure to correlate results between different
test equipment (i.e., different tire rolling resistance test machines).
This is important because NHTSA's research conducted for the light-duty
tire fuel efficiency program indicated that machine-to-machine
differences are a source of variation.\156\ In addition, the ISO 28580
test procedure is either used, or proposed to be used, by several
groups including the European Union through Regulation (EC) No 661/2009
\157\and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) through a staff
recommendation for a California regulation,\158\ and the EPA SmartWay
program. Using the ISO 28580 may help reduce burden on manufacturers by
allowing a single test protocol to be used for multiple regulations and
programs. While we recognize that commenters recommended the use of
other test procedures, like SAE J1269, the agencies have determined
there is no established data conversion method from the SAE J1269
vehicle condition for vocational vehicle tires to the ISO 28580 single
point condition at this time, and that given our reasonable preference
for the ISO procedure, it would not be practical to attempt to include
the use of the SAE J1269 procedure as an optional way of determining
CRR values for the GEM inputs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\156\ 75 FR 15893, March 30, 2010.
\157\ See http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:200:0001:0024:EN:PDF (last accessed May
8, 2011).
\158\ See http://www.energy.ca.gov/2009publications/CEC-600-2009-010/CEC-600-2009-010-SD-REV.PDF (last accessed May 9, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agencies received comments from the Rubber Manufacturers
Association, Michelin, and Bridgestone which identified the need to
develop a reference lab and alignment tires. Because the ISO has not
yet specified a reference lab and machine for the ISO 28580 test
procedure, NHTSA announced in its March 2010 final rule concerning the
light-duty tire fuel efficiency consumer information program that NHTSA
would specify this laboratory for the purposes of implementing that
rule so that tire manufacturers would know the identity of the machine
against which they may correlate their test results. NHTSA has not yet
announced the reference test machine(s) for the tire fuel efficiency
consumer information program. Therefore, for the light-duty tire fuel
efficiency rule, the agencies are postponing the specification of a
procedure for machine-to-machine alignment until a tire reference lab
is established. The agencies anticipate establishing this lab in the
future with intentions for the lab to accommodate the light-duty tire
fuel efficiency program.
Under the ISO 28580 lab alignment procedure, machine alignment is
conducted using batches of alignment tires of two models with defined
differences in rolling resistance that are certified on a reference
test machine. ISO 28580 specifies requirements for these alignment
tires (``Lab Alignment Tires'' or LATs), but exact tire sizes or models
of LATs are not specifically identified in ISO 28580. Because the test
procedure has not been finalized and heavy-duty LATs are not currently
defined, the agencies are postponing the use of these elements of ISO
28580 to
[[Page 57184]]
a future rulemaking. The agencies also note the lab-to-lab comparison
conducted in the most recent EPA tire test program mentioned
previously. The agencies reviewed the CRR data from the tires that were
tested at both the STL and Smithers laboratories to assess inter-
laboratory and machine variability. The agencies conducted statistical
analysis of the data to gain better understanding of lab-to-lab
correlation and developed an adjustment factor for data measured at
each of the test labs. Based on these results, the agencies believe the
lab-to-lab variation for the STL and Smithers laboratories would have
very small effect on measured CRR values. Based on the test data, the
agencies judge that it is reasonable to implement the HD program with
current levels of variability, and to allow the use of either Smithers
or STL laboratories for determining the CRR value in the HD program, or
demonstrate that the test facilities will not bias results low relative
to Smithers or STL laboratories.
RMA also commented that the extra burden proposed by the agencies
for testing three tires, three times each is nine times more burdensome
than what is required through the ISO procedure. Since the proposal,
EPA obtained replicate test data for a number of Class 8 combination
tractor tires from various manufacturers. Some of these were tires
submitted to SmartWay for verification, while some were tires tested by
manufacturers for other purposes. Three tire model samples for 11 tire
models were tested using the ISO 28580 test.\159\ A mean and a standard
deviation were calculated for each set of three replicate measurements
performed on each tire of the 3-tire sample. The coefficient of
variability (COV) of the CRR was calculated by dividing the standard
deviation by the mean. The values of COV ranged from 0 percent (no
measurable variability) to six percent. In addition, during the period
September 2010 and June 2011, EPA contracted with Smithers-Rapra to
select and test for rolling resistance using ISO 28580 for a
representative sample of Class 4-8 vocational vehicle tires. As part of
the test, 10 tires were selected for replicate testing.\160\ Three
replicate tests were conducted for each of the tires, to evaluate test
variability only. The COV of the RRC results ranged from
nearly 0 to 2 percent, with a mean of less than 1 percent. Based on the
results of these two testing programs, the agencies determined that the
impact of production variability is greater than the impact of
measurement variability. Thus, the agencies concluded that the extra
burden of testing a single tire three times was not necessary to obtain
accurate results, but the variability of RRC results due to
manufacturing of the tires is significant to continue to require
testing of three tire samples for each tire model. In summary, we are
allowing manufacturers to determine the rolling resistance coefficient
of the heavy-duty tires by testing three tire samples one time each.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\159\ Bachman, Joseph. EPA Memorandum to the Docket. Heavy-Duty
Tire Evaluation. Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162. July 2011.
\160\ Bachman, Joseph. EPA Memorandum to the Docket. Heavy-Duty
Tire Evaluation. Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162. July 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the final rules, the agencies are also including a warm up
cycle as part of the procedure for bias ply tires to allow these tires
to reach a steady temperature and volume state before ISO 28580
testing. This procedure is similar to a procedure that was developed
for the light-duty tire fuel efficiency consumer information program,
and was adopted from a procedure defined in Federal motor vehicle
safety standard No. 109 (FMVSS No. 109).\161\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\161\ See 49 CFR 571.109.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the agencies are including testing and reporting for
`single-wide' or `super-single' type tires. These tires replace the
traditional `dual' wheel tire combination with a single wheel and tire
that is nearly as wide as the dual combination with similar load
capabilities. These tire types were developed as a fuel saving
technology. The tires provide lower rolling resistance along with a
reduction in weight when compared to a typical set of dual wheel tire
combinations; and are one of the technologies included in the EPA
SmartWay\TM\ program. The agencies have learned that there is limited
testing equipment available that is capable of testing single wide
tires; single wide tires require a wider test machine drum than
required for conventional tires. Although the number of machines
available is limited, the agencies believe the equipment is adequate
for the testing and reporting of CRR for this program.
As discussed above, the agencies are taking the approach of using
CRR for the HD fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas program to align with
the measurement methodology already employed or proposed by the EPA
SmartWay program, the European Union Regulation (EC) No 661/2009 \162\
and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) through a staff
recommendation for a California regulation.\163\ In the NPRM, the
agencies proposed to use CRR, but for purposes of developing these
final rules, the agencies also evaluated whether to use CRR or Rolling
Resistance Force (RRF) as the measurement for tire rolling
resistance for the GEM input. The agencies considered RRF
largely because in the NPRM for Passenger Car Tire Fuel Efficiency
(TFE) program, NHTSA had proposed to use RRF. A key
distinction between these two programs, and their associated metrics,
are the differences in how the measurement data are used and who uses
the data. In particular, the HD fuel efficiency and GHG emissions
program is a compliance program using information developed by and for
technical personnel at manufacturers and agencies to determine a
vehicle's compliance with regulations. The TFE program, in contrast, is
a consumer education program intended to inform consumers making
purchase decisions regarding the fuel saving benefits of replacement
passenger car tires. The target audiences are much different for the
two programs which in turn affect how the information will be used. The
agencies believe that RRF may be more intuitive for non-
technical people because tires that are larger and/or that carry higher
loads will generally have numerically higher RRF values than
smaller tires and/or tires that carry lower loads. CRR values generally
follow an opposite trend, where tires that are larger and/or carry
higher loads will generally have numerically lower CRR values than
smaller tires and/or tires that carry lower loads. The agencies believe
this key distinction helps define the type of metrics to be used and
communicated in accordance with their respective purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\162\ See Note 157, above.
\163\ See Note 158, above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, the CRR metric for use in the MD/HD program is not
susceptible to the skew associated with tire diameter. Medium- and
heavy-duty vehicle tires are available in a small fraction of the tire
sizes of the passenger market and, for the most part, are larger tires
than those found on passenger cars. When viewing CRR over a larger
range of sizes, small diameter tires tend to appear as having a lower
performance, which is not necessarily accurate, with the converse
occurring as the diameter increases.
Using the CRR value for determining the rolling resistance also
takes into account the load carrying capability for the tire being
tested, which, intuitively, can lead to some potentially confusing
results. Several vocational vehicle manufacturers argued in their
comments that LRR tires were not available for, e.g., vehicles like
refuse trucks, which tend to use large diameter tires to carry very
heavy loads. Based on the agencies'
[[Page 57185]]
testing, in fact, the measured CRR (as opposed to the RRF)
for refuse trucks were found to be among the best tested. This finding
can be explained by considering that CRR is calculated by dividing the
measured rolling resistance force by the tire's load capacity rating.
Although the tire may have a relatively high rolling resistance force,
the tire load capacity rating is also very high, resulting in an
overall lower (better) CRR value than many other types of tires. The
amount of load tire can carry (test load) contributes to a very low
reported CRR, thus confirming low rolling resistance tires meeting the
standards, as measured by CRR, are available to the industry regardless
of segment or application.
Based on these considerations, the agencies have decided to use the
CRR metric for the HD fuel efficiency and GHG emissions program.
(c) Defined Vehicle Configurations in the GEM
As discussed above, the agencies are finalizing a methodology that
chassis manufacturers will use to quantify the tire rolling resistance
values to be input into the GEM. Moreover, the agencies are defining
the remaining GEM inputs (i.e., specifying them by rule), which differ
by the regulatory subcategory (for reasons described in the RIA Chapter
4). The defined inputs, among others, include the drive cycle,
aerodynamics, vehicle curb weight, payload, engine characteristics, and
drivetrain for each vehicle type.
(i) Metric
Based on NAS's recommendation and feedback from the heavy-duty
truck industry, NHTSA and EPA proposed standards for vocational
vehicles that would be expressed in terms of moving a ton of payload
over one mile. Thus, NHTSA's proposed fuel consumption standards for
these vehicles would be represented as gallons of fuel used to move one
ton of payload one thousand miles, or gal/1,000 ton-mile. EPA's
proposed CO2 vehicle standards would be represented as grams
of CO2 per ton-mile. The agencies received comments that a
payload-based metric is not appropriate for all types of vocational
vehicles, specifically buses. The agencies recognize that a payload-
based approach may not be the most representative of an individual
vocational application; however, it best represents the broad
vocational category. The metric which we proposed treats all vocational
applications equally and requires the same technologies be applied to
meet the standard. Thus, the agencies are adopting the proposed metric,
but will revisit the issue of metrics in any future action, if
required, depending on the breadth of each standard.
(ii) Drive cycle
The drive cycles proposed for the vocational vehicles consisted of
the same three modes used for the Class 7 and 8 combination tractors.
The proposed cycle included the Transient mode, as defined by
California ARB in the HHDDT cycle, a constant speed cycle at 65 mph and
a 55 mph constant speed mode. The agencies proposed different
weightings for each mode for vocational vehicles than those proposed
for Class 7 and 8 combination tractors, given the known difference in
driving patterns between these two categories of vehicles. The same
reasoning underlies the agencies' use of the Heavy-duty FTP cycle to
evaluate compliance with the standards for diesel engines used in
vocational vehicles.
The variety of vocational vehicle applications makes it challenging
to establish a single cycle which is representative of all such trucks.
However, in aggregate, the vocational vehicles typically operate over
shorter distances and spend less time cruising at highway speeds than
combination tractors. The agencies evaluated for proposal two sources
for mode weightings, as detailed in RIA Chapter 3. The agencies
proposed the mode weightings based on the vehicle speed characteristics
of single unit trucks used in EPA's MOVES model which were developed
using Federal Highway Administration data to distribute vehicle miles
traveled by road type.\164\ The proposed weighted CO2 and
fuel consumption value consisted of 37 percent of 65 mph Cruise, 21
percent of 55 mph Cruise, and 42 percent of Transient performance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\164\ The Environmental Protection Agency. Draft MOVES2009
Highway Vehicle Population and Activity Data. EPA-420-P-09-001,
August 2009 http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/moves/techdocs/420p09001.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agencies received comments stating that the proposed drive
cycles and weightings are not representative of individual vocational
applications, such as buses and refuse haulers. A number of groups
commented that the vocational vehicle cycle is not representative of
real world driving and recommended changes to address that concern.
Several organizations proposed the addition of new drive cycles to make
the test more representative.
Bendix suggested using the Composite International Truck Local and
Commuter Cycle (CILCC) as the general purpose mixed urban/freeway
cycles and to use four representative cycles: mixed urban, freeway,
city bus, refuse, and utility. Bendix suggested using the Standardized
On-Road Test (SORT) cycles for vocational vehicles operating in the
urban environment in addition to SORT cycles for 3 different
vocations--with separate weightings. They stated that SORT with an
average speed of 11.2 mph, lines up most closely with the average of
transit bus duty cycles at 9.9 mph as well as the overall U.S. National
average of 12.6 mph. As alternative approaches they suggested adopting
the Orange County duty cycle for the urban transit bus vocation, or
creating an Urban Transit Bus cycle with several possible weighting
factors--all with very high percentage transient (90% to 100%), very
low 55 mph (0% to 7%), very low 65 mph (0% to 3%), and an average speed
of 15 to 17 mph. Bendix supported their assertions about urban bus
vehicle speed with data from the 2010 American Public Transportation
Association (APTA) `Fact Book' and other sources. In contrast, Bendix
stated, the GEM cycle average speed is currently 32.6 mph. Such high
speeds at steady state will penalize technologies such as
hybridization.
Clean Air Task Force said the agencies have not adequately
addressed the diversity of the vocational vehicle fleet since they are
not distinguished by different duty cycles. They urged the agencies to
sub-divide vocational vehicles by expected use, with separate test
cycles for each sub-group in order to capture the full potential
benefits of hybridization and other advanced technologies in a
meaningful and accurate way in future rulemakings for MY2019 and later
trucks.
Two groups cautioned that unintended consequences could result from
the lack of diversity in duty cycles. DTNA said that the single drive
cycle proposed for all vehicles by the agencies would likely lead to
unintended consequences--such as customers being driven for regulatory
reasons to purchase a transmission that does not suit their actual
operation. Similarly, Volvo said medium- and heavy-duty vehicles are
uniquely built for specific applications but it will not be feasible to
develop regulatory protocols that can accurately predict efficiency in
each application duty cycle. This trade-off could result in unintended
or negative consequences in parts of the market.
Several commenters suggested changing the weightings of the cycle
to more accurately reflect real world driving. Allison stated that the
vocational vehicle cycle includes too much steady state driving time.
They suggested (with supporting data from
[[Page 57186]]
the Oakridge National Laboratory analysis) reducing steady state
driving at 60 mph to minimal or no time on the cycle to address this
problem. Allison commented that GEM contains lengthy accelerations to
reach 55 and 65 miles per hour--much longer than is required in real
world driving. They supported this statement with data from a testing
program conducted at Oakridge National Laboratory showing medium- and
heavy-duty vehicles accelerate more rapidly than in the GEM drive
cycle. According to Allison, this long acceleration time in the GEM,
coupled with too much steady state operation with very little
variation, is not representative of vocational vehicle operation. In
addition, Allison said that the GEM does not adequately account for
shift time, clutch profile, turbo lag, and other impacts on both steady
state and transient operation. The impact, they state, is that the
cycle will hinder proper deployment of technologies to reduce fuel
consumption and GHG emissions.
BAE focused their comments on urban transit bus operation. They
stated the weighting factors for steady state operation are
inconsistent with urban transit bus cycles.
Other commenters suggested the agencies develop chassis dynamometer
tests based on the engine (FTP) test. Cummins said that chassis
dynamometer testing should allow the use of average vehicle
characteristics to determine road load and make use of the vehicle FTP
and SET cycles. Others commented that the correlation between the FTP
and the UDDS is poor.
After careful consideration of the comments, the agencies are
adopting the proposed drive cycles. The final drive cycles and
weightings represent the straight truck operations which dominate the
vehicle miles travelled by vocational vehicles. The agencies do not
believe that application-specific drive cycles are required for this
final action because the program is based on the generally-applicable
use of low rolling resistance tires. The drive cycles that we are
adopting treat all vocational applications equally predicate standard
stringency on use of the same technology (LRR tires) to meet the
standard. The drive cycles in the final rule accurately reflect the
performance of this technology. The agencies are also finalizing, as
proposed, the mode weightings based on the vehicle speed
characteristics of single unit trucks used in EPA's MOVES model which
were developed using Federal Highway Administration data to distribute
vehicle miles traveled by road type.\165\ Similar to the issue of
metrics discussed above, the agencies may revisit drive cycles and
weightings in any future regulatory action to develop standards
specific to applications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\165\ The Environmental Protection Agency. Draft MOVES2009
Highway Vehicle Population and Activity Data. EPA-420-P-09-001,
August 2009 http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/moves/techdocs/420p09001.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(iii) Empty Weight and Payload
The total weight of the vehicle is the sum of the tractor curb
weight and the payload. The agencies are proposed to specify each of
these aspects of the vehicle. The agencies developed the proposed
vehicle curb weight inputs based on industry information developed by
ICF.\166\ The proposed curb weights were 10,300 pounds for the LHD
trucks, 13,950 pounds for the MHD trucks, and 29,000 pounds for the HHD
trucks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\166\ ICF International. ``Investigation of Costs for Strategies
to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Heavy-Duty On-Road
Vehicles.'' July 2010. Pages 16-20. Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-
2010-0162-0044.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA and EPA proposed payload requirements for each regulatory
category developed from Federal Highway statistics based on averaging
the payloads for the weight categories represented within each vehicle
subcategory.\167\ The proposed payloads were 5,700 pounds for the Light
Heavy-Duty trucks, 11,200 pounds for Medium Heavy-Duty trucks, and
38,000 pounds for Heavy Heavy-Duty trucks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\167\ The U.S. Federal Highway Administration. Development of
Truck Payload Equivalent Factor. Table 11. Last viewed on March 9,
2010 at http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/faf/faf2_reports/reports9/s510_11_12_tables.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agencies received comments from several stakeholders regarding
the proposed curb weights and payloads for vocational vehicles. BAE
said a Class 8 transit bus has a typical curb weight of 27,000 pounds
and maximum payload of 15,000 pounds. Daimler commented that Class 8
buses have a GVWR of 42,000 pounds. Autocar said that Class 8 refuse
trucks typically have a curb weight of 31,000 to 33,000 pounds, typical
average payload of 10,000 pounds, and typical maximum payload of 20,000
pounds.
Upon further consideration, the agencies are reducing the assigned
weight of heavy heavy-duty vocational vehicles. While we still believe
the proposed values are appropriate for some vocational vehicles, we
reduced the total weight to bring it closer to some of the lighter
vocational vehicles. The agencies are adopting final curb weights of
10,300 pounds for the LHD trucks, 13,950 pounds for the MHD trucks, and
27,000 pounds for the HHD trucks. The agencies are also adopting
payloads of 5,700 pounds for the Light Heavy-Duty trucks, 11,200 pounds
for Medium Heavy-Duty trucks, and 15,000 pounds for Heavy Heavy-Duty
trucks. Additional information is available in RIA Chapter 3.
(iv) Engine
As the agencies are finalizing separate engine and vehicle
standards, the GEM will be used to assess the compliance of the chassis
with the vehicle standard. To maintain the separate assessments, the
agencies are adopting the proposed approach of using fixed values that
are predefined by the agencies for the engine characteristics used in
GEM, including the fuel consumption map which provides the fuel
consumption at hundreds of engine speed and torque points. If the
agencies did not standardize the fuel map, then a vehicle that uses an
engine with emissions and fuel consumption better than the standards
would require fewer vehicle reductions than those being finalized. As
proposed, the agencies are using diesel engine characteristics in the
GEM, as most representative of the largest fraction of engines in this
market. The agencies did not receive any adverse comments to using this
approach.
The agencies are finalizing two distinct sets of fuel consumption
maps for use in GEM. The first fuel consumption map would be used in
GEM for the 2014 through 2016 model years and represent a diesel engine
which meets the 2014 model year engine CO2 emissions
standards. A second fuel consumption map would be used beginning in the
2017 model year and represents a diesel engine which meets the 2017
model year CO2 emissions and fuel consumption standards and
accounts for the increased stringency in the final MY 2017 standard).
The agencies have modified the 2017 MY heavy heavy-duty diesel fuel map
used in the GEM for the final rulemaking to address comments received.
Details regarding this change can be found in RIA Chapter 4.4.4.
Effectively there is no change in stringency of the vocational vehicle
standard (not including the engine) between the 2014 MY and 2017 MY
standards for the full rulemaking period. These inputs are reasonable
(indeed, seemingly necessitated) given the separate final regulatory
requirement that vocational vehicle chassis manufacturers use only
certified engines.
[[Page 57187]]
(v) Drivetrain
The agencies' assessment of the current vehicle configuration
process at the truck dealer's level is that the truck companies provide
software tools to specify the proper drivetrain matched to the buyer's
specific circumstances. These dealer tools allow a significant amount
of customization for drive cycle and payload to provide the best
specification for the customer. The agencies are not seeking to disrupt
this process. Optimal drivetrain selection is dependent on the engine,
drive cycle (including vehicle speed and road grade), and payload. Each
combination of engine, drive cycle, and payload has a single optimal
transmission and final drive ratio. The agencies are specifying the
engine's fuel consumption map, drive cycle, and payload; therefore, it
makes sense to specify the drivetrain that matches.
(d) Engine Metrics and Test Procedures
EPA proposed that the GHG emission standards for heavy-duty engines
under the CAA would be expressed as g/bhp-hr while NHTSA's proposed
fuel consumption standards under EISA, in turn, be represented as gal/
100 bhp-hr. The NAS panel did not specifically discuss or recommend a
metric to evaluate the fuel consumption of heavy-duty engines. However,
as noted above they did recommend the use of a load-specific fuel
consumption metric for the evaluation of vehicles.\168\ An analogous
metric for engines is the amount of fuel consumed per unit of work. The
g/bhp-hr metric is also consistent with EPA's current standards for
non-GHG emissions for these engines. The agencies did not receive any
adverse comments related to the metrics for HD engines; therefore, we
are adopting the metrics as proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\168\ See NAS Report, Note 21, at page 39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regard to GHG and fuel consumption control, the agencies
believe it is appropriate to set standards based on a single test
procedure, either the Heavy-duty FTP or SET, depending on the primary
expected use of the engine. EPA's criteria pollutant standards for
engines currently require that manufacturers demonstrate compliance
over the transient Heavy-duty FTP cycle; over the steady-state SET
procedure; and during not-to-exceed testing. EPA created this multi-
layered approach to criteria emissions control in response to engine
designs that optimized operation for lowest fuel consumption at the
expense of very high criteria emissions when operated off the
regulatory cycle. EPA's use of multiple test procedures for criteria
pollutants helps to ensure that manufacturers calibrate engine systems
for compliance under all operating conditions. We are not concerned if
manufacturers further calibrate these engines off cycle to give better
in-use fuel consumption while maintaining compliance with the criteria
emissions standards as such calibration is entirely consistent with the
goals of our joint program. Further, we believe that setting standards
based on both transient and steady-state operating conditions for all
engines could lead to undesirable outcomes.
It is critical to set standards based on the most representative
test cycles in order for performance in-use to obtain the intended (and
feasible) air quality and fuel consumption benefits. We are finalizing
standards based on the composite Heavy-duty FTP cycle for engines used
in vocational vehicles reflecting these vehicles' primary use in
transient operating conditions typified by frequent accelerations and
decelerations as well as some steady cruise conditions as represented
on the Heavy-duty FTP. The primary reason the agencies are finalizing
two separate diesel engine standards--one for diesel engines used in
tractors and the other for diesel engines used in vocational vehicles--
is to encourage engine manufacturers to install engine technologies
appropriate to the intended use of the engine with the vehicle. The
current non-GHG emissions engine test procedures also require the
development of regeneration emission rates and frequency factors to
account for the emission changes during a regeneration event (40 CFR
86.004-28). EPA and NHTSA proposed not to include these emissions from
the calculation of the compliance levels over the defined test
procedures. Cummins and Daimler supported and stated sufficient
incentives already exist for manufacturers to limit regeneration
frequency. Conversely, Volvo opposed the omission of IRAF requirements
for CO2 emissions because emissions from regeneration can be
a significant portion of the expected improvement and a significant
variable between manufacturers
For the proposal, we considered including regeneration in the
estimate of fuel consumption and GHG emissions and decided not to do so
for two reasons. First, EPA's existing criteria emission regulations
already provide a strong motivation to engine manufacturers to reduce
the frequency and duration of infrequent regeneration events. The very
stringent 2010 NOX emission standards cannot be met by
engine designs that lead to frequent and extend regeneration events.
Hence, we believe engine manufacturers are already reducing
regeneration emissions to the greatest degree possible. In addition to
believing that regenerations are already controlled to the extent
technologically possible, we believe that attempting to include
regeneration emissions in the standard setting could lead to an
inadvertently lax emissions standard. In order to include regeneration
and set appropriate standards, EPA and NHTSA would have needed to
project the regeneration frequency and duration of future engine
designs in the time frame of this program. Such a projection would be
inherently difficult to make and quite likely would underestimate the
progress engine manufacturers will make in reducing infrequent
regenerations. If we underestimated that progress, we would effectively
be setting a more lax set of standards than otherwise would be
expected. Hence in setting a standard including regeneration emissions
we faced the real possibility that we would achieve less effective
CO2 emissions control and fuel consumption reductions than
we will achieve by not including regeneration emissions. Therefore, the
agencies are finalizing an approach as proposed which does not include
the regenerative emissions.
(e) Hybrid Powertrain Technology
Although the final vocational vehicle standards are not premised on
use of hybrid powertrains, certain vocational vehicle applications may
be suitable candidates for use of hybrids due to the greater frequency
of stop-and-go urban operation and their use of power take-off (PTO)
systems. Examples are vocational vehicles used predominantly in stop-
start urban driving (e.g., delivery trucks). As an incentive, the
agencies are finalizing to provide credits for the use of hybrid
powertrain technology as described in Section IV. Under the advanced
technology credit provisions, credits generated by use of hybrid
powertrains could be used to meet any of the heavy-duty standards, and
are not restricted to the averaging set generating the credit, unlike
the other credit provisions in the final rules. The agencies are
finalizing that any credits generated using such advanced technologies
could be applied to any heavy-duty vehicle or engine, and not be
limited to the averaging set generating the credit. Section IV below
also details the final approach to account for the use of a hybrid
powertrain when evaluating compliance with the vehicle standard. In
general, manufacturers can derive the fuel consumption and
CO2 emissions
[[Page 57188]]
reductions based on comparative test results using the final chassis
testing procedures.
(3) Summary of Final Flexibility and Credit Provisions
EPA and NHTSA are finalizing four flexibility provisions
specifically for heavy-duty vocational vehicle and engine
manufacturers, as discussed in Section IV below. These are an
averaging, banking and trading program for emissions and fuel
consumption credits, as well as provisions for early credits, advanced
technology credits, and credits for innovative vehicle or engine
technologies which are not included as inputs to the GEM or are not
demonstrated on the engine FTP test cycle. With the exception of the
advanced technology credits, credits generated under these provisions
can only be used within the same averaging set which generated the
credit (for example, credits generated by HHD vocational vehicles can
only be used by HHD vehicles). EPA is also adopting a temporary
provision whereby N2O emission credits can be used to comply
with the CO2 emissions standard, as described in Section IV
below.
(3) Deferral of Standards for Small Chassis Manufacturing Business and
Small Business Engine Companies
EPA and NHTSA are finalizing an approach to defer greenhouse gas
emissions and fuel consumption standards from small vocational vehicle
chassis manufacturers meeting the SBA size criteria of a small business
as described in 13 CFR 121.201 (see 40 CFR 1036.150 and 1037.150). The
agencies will instead consider appropriate GHG and fuel consumption
standards for these entities as part of a future regulatory action.
This includes both U.S.-based and foreign small volume heavy-duty truck
and engine manufacturers.
The agencies have identified ten chassis entities that appear to
fit the SBA size criterion of a small business.\169\ The agencies
estimate that these small entities comprise less than 0.5 percent of
the total heavy-duty vocational vehicle market in the United States
based on Polk Registration Data from 2003 through 2007,\170\ and
therefore that the exemption will have a negligible impact on the GHG
emissions and fuel consumption improvements from the final standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\169\ The agencies have identified Lodal, Indiana Phoenix,
Autocar LLC, HME, Giradin, Azure Dynamics, DesignLine International,
Ebus, Krystal Koach, and Millenium Transit Services LLC as potential
small business chassis manufacturers.
\170\ M.J. Bradley. Heavy-duty Vehicle Market Analysis. May
2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA and NHTSA have also identified three engine manufacturing
entities that appear to fit the SBA size criteria of a small business
based on company information included in Hoover's.\171\ Based on 2008
and 2009 model year engine certification data submitted to EPA for non-
GHG emissions standards, the agencies estimate that these small
entities comprise less than 0.1 percent of the total heavy-duty engine
sales in the United States. The final exemption from the standards
established under this rulemaking would have a negligible impact on the
GHG emissions and fuel consumption reductions otherwise due to the
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\171\ The agencies have identified Baytech Corporation, Clean
Fuels USA, and BAF Technologies, Inc. as three potential small
businesses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To ensure that the agencies are aware of which companies would be
exempt, we are finalizing as proposed to require that such entities
submit a declaration to EPA and NHTSA containing a detailed written
description of how that manufacturer qualifies as a small entity under
the provisions of 13 CFR 121.201, as described in Section V below.
E. Other Standards
In addition to finalizing CO2 emission standards for
heavy-duty vehicles and engines, EPA is also finalizing separate
standards for N2O and CH4 emissions.\172\ NHTSA
is not finalizing comparable separate standards for these GHGs because
they are not directly related to fuel consumption in the same way that
CO2 is, and NHTSA's authority under EISA exclusively relates
to fuel efficiency. N2O and CH4 are important
GHGs that contribute to global warming, more so than CO2 for
the same amount of emissions due to their high Global Warming Potential
(GWP).\173\ EPA is finalizing N2O and CH4
standards which apply to HD pickup trucks and vans as well as to all
heavy-duty engines. EPA is not finalizing N2O and
CH4 standards for the Class 7 and 8 tractor or Class 2b-8
chassis manufacturers because these emissions would be controlled
through the engine program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\172\ NHTSA's statutory responsibilities relating to reducing
fuel consumption are directly related to reducing CO2
emissions, but not to the control of other GHGs.
\173\ The global warming potentials (GWP) used in this rule are
consistent with the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). At this time, the 1996 IPCC
Second Assessment Report (SAR) GWP values are used in the official
U.S. greenhouse gas inventory submission to the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change (per the reporting
requirements under that international convention). N2O
has a GWP of 298 and CH4 has a GWP of 25 according to the
2007 IPCC AR4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA requested comment on possible alternative CO2
equivalent approaches to provide near-term flexibility for 2012-14 MY
light-duty vehicles. As described below, EPA is finalizing alternative
provisions allowing manufacturers to use CO2 credits, on a
CO2-equivalent (CO2eq) basis, to meet the
N2O and CH4 standards, which is consistent with
many commenters' preferred approach.
Almost universally across current engine designs, both gasoline-
and diesel-fueled, N2O and CH4 emissions are
relatively low today and EPA does not believe it would be appropriate
or feasible to require reductions from the levels of current gasoline
and diesel engines. This is because for the most part, the same
hardware and controls used by heavy-duty engines and vehicles that have
been optimized for non-methane hydrocarbon (NMHC) and NOX
control indirectly result in highly effective control of N2O
and CH4. Additionally, unlike criteria pollutants, specific
technologies beyond those presently implemented in heavy-duty vehicles
to meet existing emission requirements have not surfaced that
specifically target reductions in N2O or CH4.
Because of this, reductions in N2O or CH4 beyond
current levels in most heavy-duty applications would occur through the
same mechanisms that result in NMHC and NOX reductions and
would likely result in an increase in the overall stringency of the
criteria pollutant emission standards. Nevertheless, it is important
that future engine technologies or fuels not currently researched do
not result in increases in these emissions, and this is the intent of
the final ``cap'' standards. The final standards would primarily
function to cap emissions at today's levels to ensure that
manufacturers maintain effective N2O and CH4
emissions controls currently used should they choose a different
technology path from what is currently used to control NMHC and
NOX but also largely successful methods for controlling
N2O and CH4. As discussed below, some
technologies that manufacturers may adopt for reasons other than
reducing fuel consumption or GHG emissions could increase
N2O and CH4 emissions if manufacturers do not
address these emissions in their overall engine and aftertreatment
design and development plans. Manufacturers will be able to design and
develop the engines and aftertreatment to avoid such emissions
increases through appropriate emission control technology selections
like those already used and available
[[Page 57189]]
today. Because EPA believes that these standards can be capped at the
same level, regardless of type of HD engine involved, the following
discussion relates to all types of HD engines regardless of the
vehicles in which such engines are ultimately used. In addition, since
these standards are designed to cap current emissions, EPA is
finalizing the same standards for all of the model years to which the
rules apply.
EPA believes that the final N2O and CH4 cap
standards will accomplish the primary goal of deterring increases in
these emissions as engine and aftertreatment technologies evolve
because manufacturers will continue to target current or lower
N2O and CH4 levels in order to maintain typical
compliance margins. While the cap standards are set at levels that are
higher than current average emission levels, the control technologies
used today are highly effective and there is no reason to believe that
emissions will slip to levels close to the cap, particularly
considering compliance margin targets. The caps will protect against
significant increases in emissions due to new or poorly implemented
technologies. However, we also believe that an alternative compliance
approach that allows manufacturers to convert these emissions to
CO2eq emission values and combine them with CO2
into a single compliance value would also be appropriate, so long as it
did not undermine the stringency of the CO2 standard. As
described below, EPA is finalizing that such an alternative compliance
approach be available to manufacturers to provide certain flexibilities
for different technologies.
EPA requested comments in the NPRM on the approach to regulating
N2O and CH4 emissions including the
appropriateness of ``cap'' standards, the technical bases for the
levels of the final N2O and CH4 standards, the
final test procedures, and the final timing for the standards. In
addition, EPA requested any additional emissions data on N2O
and CH4 from current technology engines. We solicited
additional data, and especially data for in-use vehicles and engines
that would help to better characterize changes in emissions of these
pollutants throughout their useful lives, for both gasoline and diesel
applications. As is typical for EPA emissions standards, we are
finalizing that manufacturers should establish deterioration factors to
ensure compliance throughout the useful life. We are not at this time
aware of deterioration mechanisms for N2O and CH4
that would result in large deterioration factors, but neither do we
believe enough is known about these mechanisms to justify finalizing
assigned factors corresponding to no deterioration, as we are
finalizing for CO2, or for that matter to any predetermined
level. In addition to N2O and CH4 standards, this
section also discusses air conditioning-related provisions and EPA
provisions to extend certification requirements to all-electric HD
vehicles and vehicles and engines designed to run on ethanol fuel.
(1) What is EPA's Approach to Controlling N2O?
N2O is a global warming gas with a GWP of 298. It
accounts for about 0.3 percent of the current greenhouse gas emissions
from heavy-duty trucks.\174\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\174\ Value adapted from ``Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2007''. April 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
N2O is emitted from gasoline and diesel vehicles mainly
during specific catalyst temperature conditions conducive to
N2O formation. Specifically, N2O can be generated
during periods of emission hardware warm-up when rising catalyst
temperatures pass through the temperature window when N2O
formation potential is possible. For current heavy-duty gasoline
engines with conventional three-way catalyst technology, N2O
is not generally produced in significant amounts because the time the
catalyst spends at the critical temperatures during warm-up is short.
This is largely due to the need to quickly reach the higher
temperatures necessary for high catalyst efficiency to achieve emission
compliance of criteria pollutants. N2O formation is
generally only a concern with diesel and potentially with future
gasoline lean-burn engines with compromised NOX emissions
control systems. If the risk for N2O formation is not
factored into the design of the controls, these systems can but need
not be designed in a way that emphasizes efficient NOX
control while allowing the formation of significant quantities of
N2O. However, these future advanced gasoline and diesel
technologies do not inherently require N2O formation to
properly control NOX. Pathways exist today that meet
criteria emission standards that would not compromise N2O
emissions in future systems as observed in current production engine
and vehicle testing \175\ which would also work for future diesel and
gasoline technologies. Manufacturers would need to use appropriate
technologies and temperature controls during future development
programs with the objective to optimize for both NOX and
N2O control. Therefore, future designs and controls at
reducing criteria emissions would need to take into account the balance
of reducing these emissions with the different control approaches while
also preventing inadvertent N2O formation, much like the
path taken in current heavy-duty compliant engines and vehicles.
Alternatively, manufacturers who find technologies that reduce criteria
or CO2 emissions but see increases N2O emissions
beyond the cap could choose to offset N2O emissions with
reduction in CO2 as allowed in the CO2eq option
discussed in Section II.E.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\175\ Memorandum ``N2O Data from EPA Heavy-Duty
Testing''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is finalizing an N2O emission standard that we
believe would be met by most current-technology gasoline and diesel
vehicles at essentially no cost to the vehicle, though the agency is
accounting for additional N2O measurement equipment costs.
EPA believes that heavy-duty emission standards since 2008 model year,
specifically the very stringent NOX standards for both
engine and chassis certified engines, directly result in stringent
N2O control. It is believed that the current emission
control technologies used to meet the stringent NOX
standards achieve the maximum feasible reductions and that no
additional technologies are recognized that would result in additional
N2O reductions. As noted, N2O formation in
current catalyst systems occurs, but their emission levels are
inherently low, because the time the catalyst spends at the critical
temperatures during warm-up when N2O can form is short. At
the same time, we believe that the standard would ensure that the
design of advanced NOX control systems for future diesel and
lean-burn gasoline vehicles would control N2O emission
levels. While current NOX control approaches used on current
heavy-duty diesel vehicles do not compromise N2O emissions
and actually result in N2O control, we believe that the
standards would discourage any new emission control designs for diesels
or lean-burn gasoline vehicles that achieve criteria emissions
compliance at the cost of increased N2O emissions. Thus, the
standard would cap N2O emission levels, with the expectation
that current gasoline and diesel vehicle control approaches that comply
with heavy-duty vehicle emission standards for NOX would not
increase their emission levels, and that the cap would ensure that
future diesel and lean-burn gasoline vehicles with advanced
NOX controls would appropriately control their emissions of
N2O.
[[Page 57190]]
(a) Heavy-Duty Pickup Truck and Van N2O Exhaust Emission
Standard
EPA is finalizing the proposed per-vehicle N2O emission
standard of 0.05 g/mi, measured over the Light-duty FTP and HFET drive
cycles. Similar to the CO2 standard approach, the
N2O emission level of a vehicle would be a composite of the
Light-duty FTP and HFET cycles with the same 55 percent city weighting
and 45 percent highway weighting. The standard would become effective
in model year 2014 for all HD pickups and vans that are subject to the
CO2 emission requirements. Averaging between vehicles would
not be allowed. The standard is designed to prevent increases in
N2O emissions from current levels, i.e., a no-backsliding
standard.
The N2O standard level is approximately two times the
average N2O level of current gasoline and diesel heavy-duty
trucks that meet the NOX standards effective since 2008
model year.\176\ Manufacturers typically use design targets for
NOX emission levels at approximately 50 percent of the
standard, to account for in-use emissions deterioration and normal
testing and production variability, and we expect manufacturers to
utilize a similar approach for N2O emission compliance. We
are not adopting a more stringent standard for current gasoline and
diesel vehicles because the stringent heavy-duty NOX
standards already result in significant N2O control, and we
do not expect current N2O levels to rise for these vehicles
particularly with expected manufacturer compliance margins.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\176\ Memorandum ``N2O Data from EPA Heavy-Duty
Testing.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diesel heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans with advanced emission
control technology are in the early stages of development and
commercialization. As this segment of the vehicle market develops, the
final N2O standard would require manufacturers to
incorporate control strategies that minimize N2O formation.
Available approaches include using electronic controls to limit
catalyst conditions that might favor N2O formation and
considering different catalyst formulations. While some of these
approaches may have associated costs, EPA believes that they will be
small compared to the overall costs of the advanced NOX
control technologies already required to meet heavy-duty standards.
The light-duty GHG rule requires that manufacturers begin testing
for N2O by 2015 model year. The manufacturers of complete
pickup trucks and vans (Ford, General Motors, and Chrysler) are already
impacted by the light-duty GHG rule and will therefore have this
equipment and capability in place for the timing of this rulemaking.
Overall, we believe that manufacturers of HD pickups and vans (both
gasoline and diesel) would meet the standard without implementing any
significantly new technologies, only further refinement of their
existing controls, and we do not expect there to be any significant
costs associated with this standard.
(b) Heavy-Duty Engine N2O Exhaust Emission Standard
EPA proposed a per engine N2O emissions standard of 0.05
g/bhp-hr for heavy-duty engines, but is finalizing a standard of 0.10
g/bhp-hr based on additional data submitted to the agency which better
represents the full range of current diesel and gasoline engine
performance. The final N2O standard becomes effective in
2014 model year for diesel engines, as proposed. However, EPA is
finalizing N2O standards for gasoline engines that become
effective in 2016 model year to align with the first year of the
CO2 gasoline engine standards. Without this alignment,
manufacturers would not have any flexibility, such as CO2eq
credits, in meeting the N20 cap and therefore would not have
any recourse to comply if an engine's N2O emissions were
above the standard. The standard remains the same over the useful life
of the engine. The N2O emissions would be measured over the
composite Heavy-duty FTP cycle because it is believed that this cycle
poses the highest risk for N2O formation versus the
additional heavy-duty compliance cycles. The agencies received comments
from industry suggesting that the N2O and CH4
emissions be evaluated over the same test cycle required for
CO2 emissions compliance. In other words, the commenters
wanted to have the N2O emissions measured over the SET for
engines installed in tractors. The agencies are not adopting this
approach for the final action because we do not have sufficient data to
set the appropriate N2O level using the SET. The agencies
are not requiring any additional burden by requiring the measurement to
be conducted over the Heavy-Duty FTP cycle because it is already
required for criteria emissions. Averaging of N2O emissions
between HD engines will not be allowed. The standard is designed to
prevent increases in N2O emissions from current levels,
i.e., a no-backsliding standard.
The proposed N2O level was twice the average
N2O level of primarily pre-2010 model year diesel engines as
demonstrated in the ACES Study and in EPA's testing of two additional
engines with selective catalytic reduction aftertreatement
systems.\177\ Manufacturers typically use design targets for
NOX emission levels of about 50 percent of the standard, to
account for in-use emissions deterioration and normal testing and
production variability, and manufacturers are expected to utilize a
similar approach for N2O emission compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\177\ Coordinating Research Council Report: ACES Phase 1 of the
Advanced Collaborative Emissions Study, 2009. (This study included
detailed chemical characterization of exhaust species emitted from
four 2007 model year heavy heavy diesel engines).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA sought comment about deterioration factors for N2O
emissions. See 75 FR 74208. Industry stakeholders recommended that the
agency define a DF of zero. While we believe it is also possible that
N2O emissions will not deteriorate in use, very little data
exist for aged engines and vehicles. Therefore, the value we are
assigning is conservative, specifically additive DF of 0.02 g/bhp-hr.
While the value is conservative, it is small enough to allow compliance
for all engines except those very close to the standards. For engines
too close to the standard to use the assigned DFs, the manufacturers
would need to demonstrate via engineering analysis that deterioration
is less than assigned DF.
EPA sought additional data on the level of the proposed
N2O level of 0.05 g/bhp-hr. See 75 FR 74208. The agency
received additional data of 2010 model year engines from the Engine
Manufacturers Association.\178\ The agencies reanalyzed a new data set,
as shown in Table II-22, to derive the final N2O standard of
0.10 g/bhp-hr with a defined deterioration factor of 0.02 g/bhp-hr.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\178\ Engine Manufacturers Association. EMA N2O Email
03--22--2011. See Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162.
[[Page 57191]]
Table II-22--N2O Data Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Composite FTP
Rated power cycle N2O
Engine family (HP) result (g/bhp-
hr)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA Data of 2007 Engine with SCR........ .............. 0.042
EPA Data of 2010 Production Intent .............. 0.037
Engine.................................
A....................................... 450 0.0181
A....................................... 600 0.0151
B....................................... 360 0.0326
C....................................... 380 0.0353
D....................................... 560 0.0433
D....................................... 455 0.0524
E....................................... 600 0.0437
F....................................... 500 0.0782
G....................................... 483 0.1127
H....................................... 385 0.0444
H....................................... 385 0.0301
H....................................... 385 0.0283
J....................................... 380 0.0317
========================================================================
Mean 0.043
2 * Mean 0.09
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engine emissions regulations do not currently require testing for
N2O. The Mandatory GHG Reporting final rule requires
reporting of N2O and requires that manufacturers either
measure N2O or use a compliance statement based on good
engineering judgment in lieu of direct N2O measurement (74
FR 56260, October 30, 2009). The light-duty GHG final rule allows
manufacturers to provide a compliance statement based on good
engineering judgment through the 2014 model year, but requires
measurement beginning in 2015 model year (75 FR 25324, May 7, 2010).
EPA is finalizing a consistent approach for heavy-duty engine
manufacturers which allows them to delay direct measurement of
N2O until the 2015 model year.
Manufacturers without the capability to measure N2O by
the 2015 model year would need to acquire and install appropriate
measurement equipment in response to this final program. EPA has
established four separate N2O measurement methods, all of
which are commercially available today. EPA expects that most
manufacturers would use either photo-acoustic measurement equipment for
stand-alone, existing FTIR instrumentation at a cost of $50,000 per
unit or upgrade existing emission measurement systems with NDIR
analyzers for $25,000 per test cell.
Overall, EPA believes that manufacturers of heavy-duty engines,
both gasoline and diesel, would meet the final standard without
implementing any new technologies, and beyond relatively small
facilities costs for any company that still needs to acquire and
install N2O measurement equipment, EPA does not project that
manufacturers would incur significant costs associated with this final
N2O standard.
EPA is not adopting any vehicle-level N2O standards for
heavy-duty vocational vehicles and combination tractors. The
N2O emissions would be controlled through the heavy-duty
engine portion of the program. The only requirement of those vehicle
manufacturers to comply with the N2O requirements is to
install a certified engine.
(2) What is EPA's approach to controlling CH4?
CH4 is greenhouse gas with a GWP of 25. It accounts for
about 0.03 percent of the greenhouse gases from heavy-duty trucks.\179\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\179\ Value adapted from ``Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2007. April 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is finalizing a standard that would cap CH4 emission
levels, with the expectation that current heavy-duty vehicles and
engines meeting the heavy-duty emission standards would not increase
their levels as explained earlier due to robust current controls and
manufacturer compliance margin targets. It would ensure that emissions
would be addressed if in the future there are increases in the use of
natural gas or any other alternative fuel. EPA believes that current
heavy-duty emission standards, specifically the NMHC standards for both
engine and chassis certified engines directly result in stringent
CH4 control. It is believed that the current emission
control technologies used to meet the stringent NMHC standards achieve
the maximum feasible reductions and that no additional technologies are
recognized that would result in additional CH4 reductions.
The level of the standard would generally be achievable through normal
emission control methods already required to meet heavy-duty emission
standards for hydrocarbons and EPA is therefore not attributing any
cost to this part of the final action. Since CH4 is produced
in gasoline and diesel engines similar to other hydrocarbon components,
controls targeted at reducing overall NMHC levels generally also work
at reducing CH4 emissions. Therefore, for gasoline and
diesel vehicles, the heavy-duty hydrocarbon standards will generally
prevent increases in CH4 emissions levels. CH4
from heavy-duty vehicles is relatively low compared to other GHGs
largely due to the high effectiveness of the current heavy-duty
standards in controlling overall HC emissions.
EPA believes that this level for the standard would be met by
current gasoline and diesel trucks and vans, and would prevent
increases in future CH4 emissions in the event that
alternative fueled vehicles with high methane emissions, like some past
dedicated compressed natural gas vehicles, become a significant part of
the vehicle fleet. Currently EPA does not have separate CH4
standards because, unlike other hydrocarbons, CH4 does not
contribute significantly to ozone formation.\180\ However,
CH4 emissions levels in the gasoline and diesel heavy-duty
truck fleet have nevertheless
[[Page 57192]]
generally been controlled by the heavy-duty HC emission standards. Even
so, without an emission standard for CH4, future emission
levels of CH4 cannot be guaranteed to remain at current
levels as vehicle technologies and fuels evolve.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\180\ But See Ford Motor Co. v. EPA, 604 F. 2d 685 (DC Cir.
1979) (permissible for EPA to regulate CH4 under CAA
section 202(b)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In recent model years, a small number of heavy-duty trucks and
engines were sold that were designed for dedicated use of natural gas.
While emission control designs on these recent dedicated natural gas-
fueled vehicles demonstrate CH4 control can be as effective
as on gasoline or diesel equivalent vehicles, natural gas-fueled
vehicles have historically generated significantly higher
CH4 emissions than gasoline or diesel vehicles. This is
because the fuel is predominantly methane, and most of the unburned
fuel that escapes combustion without being oxidized by the catalyst is
emitted as methane. However, even if these vehicles meet the heavy-duty
hydrocarbon standard and appear to have effective CH4
control by nature of the hydrocarbon controls, the heavy-duty standards
do not require CH4 control and therefore some natural gas
vehicle manufacturers have invested very little effort into methane
control. While the final CH4 cap standard should not require
any different emission control designs beyond what is already required
to meet heavy-duty hydrocarbon standards on a dedicated natural gas
vehicle (i.e., feedback controlled 3-way catalyst), the cap will ensure
that systems provide robust control of methane much like a gasoline-
fueled engine. We are not finalizing more stringent CH4
standards because we believe that the controls used to meet current
heavy-duty hydrocarbon standards should result in effective
CH4 control when properly implemented. Since CH4
is already measured under the current heavy-duty emissions regulations
(so that it may be subtracted to calculate NMHC), the final standard
will not result in additional testing costs.
(a) Heavy-Duty Pickup Truck and Van CH4 Standard
EPA is finalizing the proposed CH4 emission standard of
0.05 g/mi as measured on the Light-duty FTP and HFET drive cycles, to
apply beginning with model year 2014 for HD pickups and vans subject to
the CO2 standards. Similar to the CO2 standard
approach, the CH4 emission level of a vehicle will be a
composite of the Light-duty FTP and HFET cycles, with the same 55
percent city weighting and 45 percent highway weighting.
The level of the standard is approximately two times the average
heavy-duty gasoline and diesel truck and van levels.\181\ As with
N2O, this standard level recognizes that manufacturers
typically set emissions design targets with a compliance margin of
approximately 50 percent of the standard. Thus, we believe that the
standard should be met by current gasoline vehicles with no increase
from today's CH4 levels. Similarly, since current diesel
vehicles generally have even lower CH4 emissions than
gasoline vehicles, we believe that diesels will also meet the standard
with a larger compliance margin resulting in no change in today's
CH4 levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\181\ Memorandum ``CH4 Data from 2010 and 2011 Heavy-
Duty Vehicle Certification Tests''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Heavy-Duty Engine CH4 Exhaust Emission Standard
EPA is adopting a heavy-duty engine CH4 emission
standard of 0.10 g/hp-hr with a defined deterioration factor of 0.02 g/
bhp-hr as measured on the composite Heavy-duty FTP, to apply beginning
in model year 2014 for diesel engines and in 2016 model year for
gasoline engines. EPA is adopting a different CH4 standard
than proposed based on additional data submitted to the agency which
better represents the full range of current diesel and gasoline engine
performance. EPA is adopting CH4 standards for gasoline
engines that become effective in 2016 model year to align with the
first year of the gasoline engine CO2 standards. Without
this alignment, manufacturers would not have any flexibility, such as
CO2eq credits, in meeting the CH4 cap and
therefore would not be able to sell any engine with a CH4
level above the standard. The final standard would cap CH4
emissions at a level currently achieved by diesel and gasoline heavy-
duty engines. The level of the standard would generally be achievable
through normal emission control methods already required to meet 2007
emission standards for NMHC and EPA is therefore not attributing any
cost to this part of this program (see 40 CFR 86.007-11).
The level of the final CH4 standard is twice the average
CH4 emissions from gasoline engines from General Motors in
addition to the four diesel engines in the ACES study.\182\ As with
N2O, this final level recognizes that manufacturers
typically set emission design targets at about 50 percent of the
standard. Thus, EPA believes the final standard would be met by current
diesel and gasoline engines with little if any technological
improvements. The agency believes a more stringent CH4
standard is not necessary due to effective CH4 controls in
current heavy-duty technologies, since, as discussed above for
N2O, EPA believes that the challenge of complying with the
CO2 standards should be the primary focus of the
manufacturers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\182\ Coordinating Research Council Report: ACES Phase 1 of the
Advanced Collaborative Emissions Study, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CH4 is measured under the current 2007 regulations so
that it may be subtracted to calculate NMHC. Therefore EPA expects that
the final standard would not result in additional testing costs.
EPA is not adopting any vehicle-level CH4 standards for
heavy-duty combination tractors or vocational vehicles in this final
action. The CH4 emissions will be controlled through the
heavy-duty engine portion of the program. The only requirement of these
truck manufacturers to comply with the CH4 requirements is
to install a certified engine.
(3) Use of CO2 Credits
As proposed, if a manufacturer is unable to meet the N2O
or CH4 cap standards, the EPA program will allow the
manufacturer to comply using CO2 credits. In other words, a
manufacturer could offset any N2O or CH4
emissions above the standard by taking steps to further reduce
CO2. A manufacturer choosing this option would convert its
measured N2O and CH4 test results that are in
excess of the applicable standards into CO2eq to determine
the amount of CO2 credits required. For example, a
manufacturer would use 25 Mg of positive CO2 credits to
offset 1 Mg of negative CH4 credits or use 298 Mg of
positive CO2 credits to offset 1 Mg of negative
N2O credits.\183\ By using the Global Warming Potential of
N2O and CH4, the approach recognizes the inter-
correlation of these compounds in impacting global warming and is
environmentally neutral for demonstrating compliance with the
individual emissions caps. Because fuel conversion manufacturers
certifying under 40 CFR part 85, subpart F do not participate in ABT
programs, EPA is finalizing a compliance option for fuel conversion
manufacturers to comply with the N2O and CH4
standards that is similar to the credit program just described above.
The compliance option will allow conversion manufacturers, on an
individual engine family basis, to convert CO2
overcompliance into CO2 equivalents of N20 and/or
CH4 that can be subtracted from the CH4 and
N20 measured values to demonstrate compliance with
CH4 and/or N20 standards. Other than in the
limited
[[Page 57193]]
case of N2O for model years 2014-16, we have not finalized
similar provisions allowing overcompliance with the N2O or
CH4 standards to serve as a means to generate CO2
credits because the CH4 and N2O standards are cap
standards representing levels that all but the worst vehicles should
already be well below. Allowing credit generation against such cap
standard would provide a windfall credit without any true GHG
reduction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\183\ N2O has a GWP of 298 and CH4 has a
GWP of 25 according to the IPCC AR4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The final NHTSA fuel consumption program will not use
CO2eq, as suggested above. Measured performance to the NHTSA
fuel consumption standards will be based on the measurement of
CO2 with no adjustment for N2O and/or
CH4. For manufacturers that use the EPA alternative
CO2eq credit, compliance to the EPA CO2 standard
will not be directly equivalent to compliance with the NHTSA fuel
consumption standard.
(4) Amendment to Light-Duty Vehicle N2O and CH4
Standards
EPA also requested comment on revising a portion of the light-duty
vehicle standards for N2O and CH4. 75 FR at
74211. Specifically, EPA requested comments on two additional options
for manufacturers to comply with N2O and CH4
standards to provide additional near-term flexibility. EPA is
finalizing one of those options, as discussed below.
For light-duty vehicles, as part of the MY 2012-2016 rulemaking,
EPA finalized standards for N2O and CH4 which
take effect with MY 2012. 75 FR at 25421-24. Similar to the heavy-duty
standards discussed in Section II.E above, the light-duty vehicle
standards for N2O and CH4 were established to cap
emissions and to prevent future emissions increases, and were generally
not expected to result in the application of new technologies or
significant costs for the manufacturers for current vehicle designs.
EPA also finalized an alternative CO2 equivalent standard
option, which manufacturers may choose to use in lieu of complying with
the N2O and CH4 cap standards. The CO2
equivalent standard option allows manufacturers to fold all
N2O and CH4 emissions, on a CO2eq
basis, along with CO2 into their otherwise applicable
CO2 emissions standard level. For flexible fueled vehicles,
the N2O and CH4 standards must be met on both
fuels (e.g., both gasoline and E-85).
After the light-duty standards were finalized, manufacturers raised
concerns that for a few of the vehicle models in their existing fleet
they were having difficulty meeting the N2O and/or
CH4 standards, especially in the early years of the program
for a few of the vehicle models in their existing fleet. These
standards could be problematic in the near term because there is little
lead time to implement unplanned redesigns of vehicles to meet the
standards. In such cases, manufacturers may need to either drop vehicle
models from their fleet or to comply using the CO2
equivalent alternative. On a CO2eq basis, folding in all
N2O and CH4 emissions would add 3-4 g/mile or
more to a manufacturer's overall fleet-average CO2 emissions
level because the alternative standard must be used for the entire
fleet, not just for the problem vehicles.\184\ See 75 FR at 74211. This
could be especially challenging in the early years of the program for
manufacturers with little compliance margin because there is very
limited lead time to develop strategies to address these additional
emissions. As stated at proposal, EPA believed this posed a legitimate
issue of sufficiency of lead time in the short term, as well as an
issue of cost, since EPA assumed that the N2O and
CH4 standards would not result in significant costs for
existing vehicles. Id. However, EPA expected that manufacturers would
be able to make technology changes (e.g., calibration or catalyst
changes) to the few vehicle models not currently meeting the
N2O and/or CH4 standards in the course of their
planned vehicle redesign schedules in order to meet the standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\184\ 0.030 g/mile CH4 multiplied by a GWP of 25 plus
0.010 g/mile N2O multiplied by a GWP of 298 results in a
combined 3.7 g/mile CO2-equivalent value. Manufacturers
using the default N2O value of 0.10 g/mile prior to MY
2015 in lieu of measuring N2O would fold in the entire
0.010 g/mile on a CO2-equivalent basis, or about 3 g/mile
under the CO2-equivalent option.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because EPA intended for these standards to be caps with little
anticipated near-term impact on manufacturer's current product lines,
EPA requested comment in the heavy-duty vehicle and engine proposal on
two approaches to provide additional flexibilities in the light-duty
vehicle program for meeting the N2O and CH4
standards. 75 FR at 74211. EPA requested comments on the option of
allowing manufacturers to use the CO2 equivalent approach
for one pollutant but not the other for their fleet--that is, allowing
a manufacturer to fold in either CH4 or N2O as
part of the CO2-equivalent standard. For example, if a
manufacturer is having trouble complying with the CH4
standard but not the N2O standard, the manufacturer could
use the CO2 equivalent option including CH4, but
choose to comply separately with the applicable N2O cap
standard.
EPA also requested comments on an alternative approach of allowing
manufacturers to use CO2 credits, on a CO2
equivalent basis, to offset N2O and CH4 emissions
above the applicable standard. This is similar to the approach proposed
and being finalized for heavy-duty vehicles as discussed above in
Section II.E. EPA requested comments on allowing the additional
flexibility in the light-duty program for MYs 2012-2014 to help
manufacturers address any near-term issues that they may have with the
N2O and CH4 standards.
Commenters providing comment on this issue supported additional
flexibility for manufacturers, and manufacturers specifically supported
the heavy-duty vehicle approach of allowing CO2 credits on a
CO2 equivalent basis to be used to meet the CH4
and N2O standards. The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
and the American Automotive Policy Council commented that the proposed
heavy-duty approach represented a significant improvement over the
approach adopted for light-duty vehicles. Manufacturers support de-
linking N2O and CH4, and commented that the
formation of the pollutants do not necessarily trend together.
Manufacturers also commented that a deficit against the N2O
or CH4 cap would be required to be covered with
CO2 credits for that model, but the approach does not
``punish'' manufacturers for using a specific technology (which could
provide CO2 benefits, e.g., diesel, CNG, etc.) by requiring
manufacturers to use the CO2-equivalent approach for their
entire fleet. The Natural Gas Vehicle Interests also supported allowing
the use of CO2 credits on a CO2-equivalent basis
for compliance with CH4 standards and urged providing this
type of flexibility on a permanent basis. The Institute for Policy
Integrity also submitted comments supportive of providing additional
flexibility to manufacturers as long as it does not undermine standard
stringency. This commenter was supportive of either approach discussed
at proposal.\185\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\185\ The Institute for Policy Integrity questioned whether EPA
had provided adequate notice of the proposal, given that it appeared
in the proposed GHG rules for heavy duty vehicles. EPA provided
notice not only in the preamble, but in the summary of action
appearing on the first page of the Federal Register notice (``EPA is
also requesting comment on possible alternative CO2-
equivalent approaches for model year 2012-14 light-duty vehicles'').
75 FR at 74152. This is ample notice (demonstrated as well by the
comments received on the issue, including from the Institute).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturers supported not only adopting the aspects of the heavy-
duty approach noted above, but the entire
[[Page 57194]]
heavy-duty vehicle approach, including two aspects of the program not
contemplated in EPA's request for comments. First, manufacturers
commented that EPA incorrectly characterizes the light-duty vehicle
issues with CH4 and N2O as short-term or early
lead time issues. For the reasons discussed above, manufacturers
believe the changes should be made permanent, for the entire 2012-2016
light-duty rulemaking period and, indeed, in any subsequent rules for
the light-duty vehicle sector. Second, manufacturers commented that
N2O and CH4 should be measured on the combined
55/45 weighting of the FTP and highway cycles, respectively, as these
cycles are the yardstick for fuel economy and CO2
measurement. Manufacturers commented that there should not be a
disconnect between the light-duty and heavy-duty vehicle programs.
EPA continues to believe that it is appropriate to provide
additional flexibility to manufacturers to meet the N2O and
CH4 standards. EPA is thus finalizing provisions allowing
manufacturers to use CO2 credits, on a CO2-
equivalent basis, to meet the N2O and CH4
standards, which is consistent with many commenters' preferred
approach. Manufacturers will have the option of using CO2
credits to meet N2O and CH4 standards on a test
group basis as needed for MYs 2012-2016. Because fuel conversion
manufacturers certifying under 40 CFR part 85, subpart F do not
participate in ABT programs, EPA is finalizing a compliance option for
fuel conversion manufacturers to comply with the N2O and
CH4 standards similar to the credit option just described
above. The compliance option will allow conversion manufacturers, on an
individual test group basis, to convert CO2 overcompliance
into CO2 equivalents of N2O and/or CH4
that can be subtracted from the CH4 and N2O
measured values to demonstrate compliance with CH4 and/or
N2O standards.
In EPA's request for comments, EPA discussed the new flexibility as
being needed to address lead time issues for MYs 2012-2014. EPA
understands that manufacturers are now making technology decisions for
beyond MY 2014 and that some technologies such as FFVs may have
difficulty meeting the CH4 and N2O standards,
presenting manufacturers with difficult decisions of absorbing the 3-4
g/mile CO2-equivalent emissions fleet wide, making
significant investments in existing vehicle technologies, or curtailing
the use of certain technologies.\186\ The CH4 standard, in
particular, could prove challenging for FFVs because exhaust
temperatures are lower on E-85 and CH4 is more difficult to
convert over the catalyst. EPA's initial estimate that these issues
could be resolved without disrupting product plans by MY 2015 appears
to be overly optimistic, and therefore EPA is extending the flexibility
through model year 2016. This change helps ensure that the
CH4 and N2O standards will not be an obstacle for
the use of FFVs or other technologies in this timeframe, and at the
same time, assure that overall fleet average GHG emissions will remain
at the same level as under the main standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\186\ ``Discussions with Vehicle Manufacturers Regarding the
Light-duty Vehicle CH4 and N2O Standards,''
Memorandum from Christopher Lieske to Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to comments from manufacturers and from the Natural Gas
Vehicle Interests that the changes to the program make sense and should
be made on a permanent basis (i.e. for model years after 2016), EPA is
extending this flexibility through MY 2016 as discussed above, but we
believe it is premature to decide here whether or not these changes
should be permanent. EPA may consider this issue further in the context
of new standards for MYs 2017-2025 in the planned future light-duty
vehicle rulemaking. With regard to comments on changing the test
procedures over which N2O and CH4 emissions are
measured to determine compliance with the standards, the level of the
standards and the test procedures go hand-in-hand and must be
considered together. Weighting the highway test result with the city
test result in the emissions measurement would in most cases reduce the
overall emissions levels for determining compliance with the standards,
and would thereby, in effect make the standards less stringent. This
appears to be inappropriate. In addition, EPA did not request comments
on changing the level of the N2O and CH4
standards or the test procedures and it is inappropriate to amend the
standards for that reason as well.
(5) EPA's Final Standards for Direct Emissions From Air Conditioning
Air conditioning systems contribute to GHG emissions in two ways--
direct emissions through refrigerant leakage and indirect exhaust
emissions due to the extra load on the vehicle's engine to provide
power to the air conditioning system. HFC refrigerants, which are
powerful GHG pollutants, can leak from the A/C system.\187\ This
includes the direct leakage of refrigerant as well as the subsequent
leakage associated with maintenance and servicing, and with disposal at
the end of the vehicle's life.\188\ The most commonly used refrigerant
in automotive applications--R134a, has a high GWP of 1430.\189\ Due to
the high GWP of R134a, a small leakage of the refrigerant has a much
greater global warming impact than a similar amount of emissions of
CO2 or other mobile source GHGs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\187\ The United States has submitted a proposal to the Montreal
Protocol which, if adopted, would phasedown production and
consumption of HFCs.
\188\ The U.S. EPA has reclamation requirements for refrigerants
in place under Title VI of the Clean Air Act.
\189\ The global warming potentials used in this rule are
consistent with the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report. At this time, the global warming
potential values from the 1996 IPCC Second Assessment Report are
used in the official U.S. greenhouse gas inventory submission to the
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (per the
reporting requirements under that international convention, which
were last updated in 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heavy-duty air conditioning systems today are similar to those used
in light-duty applications. However, differences may exist in terms of
cooling capacity (such that sleeper cabs have larger cabin volumes than
day cabs), system layout (such as the number of evaporators), and the
durability requirements due to longer vehicle life. However, the
component technologies and costs to reduce direct HFC emissions are
similar between the two types of vehicles.
The quantity of GHG refrigerant emissions from heavy-duty trucks
relative to the CO2 emissions from driving the vehicle and
moving freight is very small. Therefore, a credit approach is not
appropriate for this segment of vehicles because the value of the
credit is too small to provide sufficient incentive to utilize feasible
and cost-effective air conditioning leakage improvements. For the same
reason, including air conditioning leakage improvements within the main
standard would in many instances result in lost control opportunities.
Therefore, EPA is finalizing the proposed requirement that vehicle
manufacturers meet a low leakage requirement for all air conditioning
systems installed in 2014 model year and later trucks, with one
exception. The agency is not finalizing leakage standards for Class 2b-
8 Vocational Vehicles at this time due to the complexity in the build
process and the potential for different entities besides the chassis
manufacturer to be involved in the air conditioning system production
and installation, with
[[Page 57195]]
consequent difficulties in developing a regulatory system.
For air conditioning systems with a refrigerant capacity greater
than 733 grams, EPA is finalizing a leakage standard which is a
``percent refrigerant leakage per year'' to assure that high-quality,
low-leakage components are used in each air conditioning system design.
The agency believes that a single ``gram of refrigerant leakage per
year'' would not fairly address the variety of air conditioning system
designs and layouts found in the heavy-duty truck sector. EPA is
finalizing a standard of 1.50 percent leakage per year for heavy-duty
pickup trucks and vans and Class 7 and 8 tractors. The final standard
was derived from the vehicles with the largest system refrigerant
capacity based on the Minnesota GHG Reporting database.\190\ The
average percent leakage per year of the 2010 model year vehicles is 2.7
percent. This final level of reduction is roughly comparable to that
necessary to generate credits under the light-duty vehicle program. See
75 FR 25426-25427. Since refrigerant leakage past the compressor shaft
seal is the dominant source of leakage in belt-driven air conditioning
systems, the agency recognizes that a single ``percent refrigerant
leakage per year'' is not feasible for systems with a refrigerant
capacity of 733 grams or lower, as the minimum feasible leakage rate
does not continue to drop as the capacity or size of the air
conditioning system is reduced. The fixed leakage from the compressor
seal and other system devices results in a minimum feasible yearly
leakage rate, and further reductions in refrigerant capacity (the
`denominator' in the percent refrigerant leakage calculation) will
result in a system which cannot meet the 1.50 percent leakage per year
standard. EPA does not believe that leakage reducing technologies are
available at this time which would allow lower capacity systems to meet
the percent per year standard, so we are finalizing a maximum gram per
year leakage standard of 11.0 grams per year for air conditioning
systems with a refrigerant capacity of 733 grams or lower. EPA defined
the standard, as well as the refrigerant capacity threshold, by
examining the State of Minnesota GHG Reporting Database for the yearly
leakage rate from 2010 and 2011 model year pickup trucks. In the
Minnesota data, the average leak rate for the pickup truck category (16
unique model and refrigerant capacity combinations) was 13.3 grams per
year, with an average capacity of 654 grams, resulting in an average
percent refrigerant leakage per year of 2.0 percent. 4 of the 16 model/
capacity combinations in the reporting data achieved a leak rate 11.0
grams per year or lower, and this was chosen as the maximum yearly leak
rate, as several manufacturers have demonstrated that this level of
yearly leakage is feasible. To avoid a discontinuity between the
``percent leakage'' and ``leak rate'' standards--where one approach
would be more or less stringent, depending on the refrigerant
capacity--a refrigerant capacity of 733 grams was chosen as a threshold
capacity, below which, the leak rate approach can be used. EPA believes
this approach of having a leak rate standard for lower capacity systems
and a percent leakage per year standard for higher capacity systems
will result in reduced refrigerant emissions from all air conditioning
systems, while still allowing manufacturers the ability to produce low-
leak, lower capacity systems in vehicles which require them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\190\ The Minnesota refrigerant leakage data can be found at
http://www.pca.state.mn.us/climatechange/mobileair.html#leakdata.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturers can choose to reduce A/C leakage emissions in two
ways. First, they can utilize leak-tight components. Second,
manufacturers can largely eliminate the global warming impact of
leakage emissions by adopting systems that use an alternative, low-
Global Warming Potential (GWP) refrigerant. One alternative
refrigerant, HFO-1234yf, with a GWP of 4, has been approved for use in
light-duty passenger vehicles under EPA's Significant New Alternatives
Program (SNAP). While the scope of this SNAP approval does not include
heavy-duty highway vehicles, we expect that those interested in using
this refrigerant in other sectors will petition EPA for broader
approval of its use in all mobile air conditioning systems. In
addition, the EPA is currently acting on a petition to de-list R-134a
as an acceptable refrigerant for new, light-duty passenger vehicles.
The time frame and scale of R-134a de-listing is yet to be determined,
but any phase-down of R-134a use will likely take place after this
rulemaking is in effect. Given that HFO-1234yf is yet to be approved
for heavy-duty vehicles, and that the time frame for the de-listing of
R-134a is not known, EPA believes that a leakage standard for heavy-
duty vehicles is still appropriate. If future heavy-duty vehicles adopt
refrigerants other than R-134a, the calculated refrigerant leak rate
can be adjusted by multiplying the leak rate by the ratio of the GWP of
the new refrigerant divided by the GWP of the old refrigerant (e.g. for
HFO-1234yf replacing R-134a, the calculated leak rate would be
multiplied by 0.0028, or 4 divided by 1430).
EPA believes that reducing A/C system leakage is both highly cost-
effective and technologically feasible. The availability of low leakage
components is being driven by the air conditioning program in the
light-duty GHG rule which apply to 2012 model year and later vehicles.
The cooperative industry and government Improved Mobile Air
Conditioning program has demonstrated that new-vehicle leakage
emissions can be reduced by 50 percent by reducing the number and
improving the quality of the components, fittings, seals, and hoses of
the A/C system.\191\ All of these technologies are already in
commercial use and exist on some of today's systems, and EPA does not
anticipate any significant improvements in sealing technologies for
model years beyond 2014. However, EPA has recognized some manufacturers
utilize an improved manufacturing process for air conditioning systems,
where a helium leak test is performed on 100 percent of all o-ring
fittings and connections after final assembly. By leak testing each
fitting, the manufacturer or supplier is verifying the o-ring is not
damaged during assembly (which is the primary source of leakage from o-
ring fittings), and when calculating the yearly leak rate for a system,
EPA will allow a relative emission value equivalent to a `seal washer'
can be used in place of the value normally used for an o-ring fitting,
when 100 percent helium leak testing is performed on those fittings.
While further updates to the SAE J2727 standard may be forthcoming (to
address new materials and measurement methods for permeation through
hoses), EPA believes it is appropriate to include the helium leak test
update to the leakage calculation method at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\191\ Team 1-Refrigerant Leakage Reduction: Final Report to
Sponsors, SAE, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consistent with the light-duty 2012-2016 MY vehicle rule, we are
estimating costs for leakage control at $18 (2008$) in direct
manufacturing costs. Including a low complexity indirect cost
multiplier (ICM) of 1.14 results in costs of $21 in the 2014 model
year. A/C control technology is considered to be on the flat portion of
the learning curve, so costs in the 2017 model year will be $19. These
costs are applied to all heavy-duty pickups and vans, and to all
combination tractors. EPA views these costs as minimal and the
reductions of potent GHGs to be easily feasible and reasonable in the
lead times provided by the final rules.
[[Page 57196]]
EPA is requiring that manufacturers demonstrate improvements in
their A/C system designs and components through a design-based method.
The method for calculating A/C leakage is based closely on an industry-
consensus leakage scoring method, described below. This leakage scoring
method is correlated to experimentally-measured leakage rates from a
number of vehicles using the different available A/C components. Under
the final approach, manufacturers will choose from a menu of A/C
equipment and components used in their vehicles in order to establish
leakage scores, which will characterize their A/C system leakage
performance and calculate the percent leakage per year as this score
divided by the system refrigerant capacity.
Consistent with the light-duty rule, EPA is finalizing a
requirement that a manufacturer will compare the components of its A/C
system with a set of leakage-reduction technologies and actions that is
based closely on that being developed through the Improved Mobile Air
Conditioning program and SAE International (as SAE Surface Vehicle
Standard J2727, ``HFC-134a, Mobile Air Conditioning System Refrigerant
Emission Chart,'' August 2008 version). See generally 75 FR 25426. The
SAE J2727 approach was developed from laboratory testing of a variety
of A/C related components, and EPA believes that the J2727 leakage
scoring system generally represents a reasonable correlation with
average real-world leakage in new vehicles. Like the cooperative
industry-government program, our final approach will associate each
component with a specific leakage rate in grams per year that is
identical to the values in J2727 and then sum together the component
leakage values to develop the total A/C system leakage. However, in the
heavy-duty vehicle program, the total A/C leakage score will then be
divided by the value of the total refrigerant system capacity to
develop a percent leakage per year. EPA believes that the design-based
approach will result in estimates of likely leakage emissions
reductions that will be comparable to those that would eventually
result from performance-based testing.
EPA is not specifying a specific in-use standard for leakage, as
neither test procedures nor facilities exist to measure refrigerant
leakage from a vehicle's air conditioning system. However, consistent
with the light-duty rule, where we require that manufacturers attest to
the durability of components and systems used to meet the
CO2 standards (see 75 FR 25689), we will require that
manufacturers of heavy-duty vehicles attest to the durability of these
systems, and provide an engineering analysis which demonstrates
component and system durability.
(6) Indirect Emissions From Air Conditioning
In addition to direct emissions from refrigerant leakage, air
conditioning systems also create indirect exhaust emissions due to the
extra load on the vehicle's engine to provide power to the air
conditioning system. These indirect emissions are in the form of the
additional CO2 emitted from the engine when A/C is being
used due to the added loads. Unlike direct emissions which tend to be a
set annual leak rate not directly tied to usage, indirect emissions are
fully a function of A/C usage.
These indirect CO2 emissions are associated with air
conditioner efficiency, since air conditioners create load on the
engine. See 74 FR 49529. However, the agencies are not setting air
conditioning efficiency standards for vocational vehicles, combination
tractors, or heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans. The CO2
emissions due to air conditioning systems in these heavy-duty vehicles
are minimal compared to their overall emissions of CO2. For
example, EPA conducted modeling of a Class 8 sleeper cab using the GEM
to evaluate the impact of air conditioning and found that it leads to
approximately 1 gram of CO2/ton-mile. Therefore, a projected
24 percent improvement of the air conditioning system (the level
projected in the light-duty GHG rulemaking), would only reduce
CO2 emissions by less than 0.3 g CO2/ton-mile, or
approximately 0.3 percent of the baseline Class 8 sleeper cab
CO2 emissions.
(7) Ethanol-Fueled and Electric Vehicles
Current EPA emissions control regulations explicitly apply to
heavy-duty engines and vehicles fueled by gasoline, methanol, natural
gas and liquefied petroleum gas. For multi-fueled vehicles they call
for compliance with requirements established for each consumed fuel.
This contrasts with EPA's light-duty vehicle regulations that apply to
all vehicles generally, regardless of fuel type. As we proposed, we are
revising the heavy-duty vehicle and engine regulations to make them
consistent with the light-duty vehicle approach, applying standards for
all regulated criteria pollutants and GHGs regardless of fuel type,
including application to all-electric vehicles (EVs). This provision
will take effect in the 2014 model year, and be optional for
manufacturers in earlier model years. However, to satisfy the CAA
section 202(a)(3) lead time constraints, the provision will remain
optional for all criteria pollutants through the 2015 model year.
Commenters did not oppose this change in EPA regulations.
This change primarily affects manufacturers of ethanol-fueled
vehicles (designed to operate on fuels containing at least 50 percent
ethanol) and EVs. Flex-fueled vehicles (FFVs) designed to run on both
gasoline and fuel blends with high ethanol content will also be
impacted, as they will need to comply with requirements for operation
both on gasoline and ethanol.
The regulatory requirements we are finalizing today for
certification on ethanol follow those already established for methanol,
such as certification to NMHC equivalent standards and waiver of
certain requirements. We expect testing to be done using the same E85
test fuel as is used today for light-duty vehicle testing, an 85/15
blend of commercially-available ethanol and gasoline vehicle test fuel.
EV certification will also follow light-duty precedents, primarily
calling on manufacturers to exercise good engineering judgment in
applying the regulatory requirements, but will not be allowed to
generate NOX or PM credits.
This provision is not expected to result in any significant added
burden or cost. It is already the practice of HD FFV manufacturers to
voluntarily conduct emissions testing for these vehicles on E85 and
submit the results as part of their certification application, along
with gasoline test fuel results. No changes in certification fees are
being set in connection with this provision. We expect that there will
be strong incentives for any manufacturer seeking to market these
vehicles to also want them to be certified: (1) Uncertified vehicles
carry a disincentive to potential purchasers who typically have the
benefit to the environment as one of their reasons for considering
alternative fuels, (2) uncertified vehicles are not eligible for the
substantial credits they could likely otherwise generate, (3) EVs have
no tailpipe or evaporative emissions and thus need no added hardware to
put them in a certifiable configuration, and (4) emissions controls for
gasoline vehicles and FFVs are also effective on dedicated ethanol-
fueled vehicles, and thus costly development programs and specialized
components will not be needed; in fact the highly integrated nature of
modern automotive products make the emission control systems essential
to reliable vehicle performance.
[[Page 57197]]
Regarding technological feasibility, as mentioned above, HD FFV
manufacturers already test on E85 and the resulting data shows that
they can meet emissions standards on this fuel. Furthermore, there is a
substantial body of certification data on light-duty FFVs (for which
testing on ethanol is already a requirement), showing existing emission
control technology is capable of meeting even the more stringent Tier 2
standards in place for light-duty vehicles.
(8) Correction to 40 CFR 1033.625
In a 2008 final rule that set new locomotive and marine engine
standards, EPA adopted a provision allowing manufacturers to use a
limited number of nonroad engines to power switch locomotives provided,
among other things, that ``the engines were certified to standards that
are numerically lower than the applicable locomotive standards of this
part (1033).'' (40 CFR 1033.625(a)). The goal of this provision is to
encourage the replacement of aging, high-emitting switch locomotives
with new switch locomotives having very low emissions of PM,
NOX, and hydrocarbons. However, this provision neglected to
consider the fact that preexisting nonroad engine emission standards
for CO were set at levels that were slightly numerically higher than
those for locomotives. The applicable switch locomotive CO standard of
part 1033 is 3.2 g/kW-hr (2.4 g/hp-hr), while the applicable nonroad
engine CO standard is 3.5 g/kW-hr (2.6 g/hp-hr). This is the case even
for the cleanest final Tier 4 nonroad engines that will phase in
starting in 2014. Thus, nonroad engines cannot be certified to CO
standards that are numerically lower than the applicable locomotive
standards, and the nonroad engine provision is rendered practically
unusable. This matter was brought to EPA's attention by affected engine
manufacturers.\192\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\192\ See e-mail correspondence from Timothy A. French, EMA, to
Donald Kopinski and Charles Moulis, U.S. EPA dated 12/8/10,
``Switcher Locomotive Flexibility'', docket EPA-HQ-OAR-
2010-0162.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As indicated above, EPA believes that allowing certification of new
switch locomotive engines to nonroad engine standards will greatly
reduce emissions from switch locomotives, and EPA does not believe the
slight difference in CO standards should prevent this environmentally
beneficial program. EPA is therefore adopting a corrective technical
amendment in part 1033. The regulation is being amended at Sec.
1033.625(a)(2) to add the following italicized text: ``The engines were
certified to PM, NOX, and hydrocarbon standards that are
numerically lower than the applicable locomotive standards of this
part.'' This change is a straightforward correction to restore the
intended usability of the provision and is not expected to have adverse
environmental impacts, as nonroad engines have CO emissions that are
typically well below both the nonroad and locomotive emissions
standards.
(9) Corrections to 40 CFR Part 600
EPA adopted changes to fuel economy labeling requirements on July
6, 2011 (76 FR 39478). We are making the following corrections to these
regulations in 40 CFR part 600:
We adopted a requirement to use the specifications of SAE
J1711 for fuel economy testing related to hybrid-electric vehicles. In
this final rule, we are extending that requirement to the calculation
provisions in Sec. 600.114-12. This change was inadvertently omitted
from the earlier final rule.
We are correcting an equation in Sec. 600.116-12.
We are removing text describing label content that differs
from the sample labels that were published with the final rule. The
sample labels properly characterize the intended label content.
(10) Definition of Urban Bus
EPA is adding a new section 86.012-2 to revise the definition of
``urban bus.'' The new definition will treat engines used in urban
buses the same as engines used in any other HD vehicle application,
relying on the definitions of primary intended service class for
defining which standards and useful life apply for bus engines. This
change is necessary to allow for installation of engines other than
HHDDE for hybrid bus applications.
III. Feasibility Assessments and Conclusions
In this section, NHTSA and EPA discuss several aspects of our joint
technical analyses. These analyses are common to the development of
each agency's final standards. Specifically we discuss: the development
of the baseline used by each agency for assessing costs, benefits, and
other impacts of the standards, the technologies the agencies evaluated
and their costs and effectiveness, and the development of the final
standards based on application of technology in light of the attribute
based distinctions and related compliance measurement procedures. We
also discuss the agencies' consideration of standards that are either
more or less stringent than those adopted.
This program is based on the need to obtain significant oil savings
and GHG emissions reductions from the transportation sector, and the
recognition that there are appropriate and cost-effective technologies
to achieve such reductions feasibly in the model years of this program.
The decision on what standard to set is guided by each agency's
statutory requirements, and is largely based on the need for
reductions, the effectiveness of the emissions control technology, the
cost and other impacts of implementing the technology, and the lead
time needed for manufacturers to employ the control technology. The
availability of technology to achieve reductions and the cost and other
aspects of this technology are therefore a central focus of this final
rulemaking.
CBD submitted several comments on whether NHTSA had met EISA's
mandate to set standards ``designed to achieve the maximum feasible
improvement'' and, to that end, appropriately considered feasible
technologies in setting the stringency level. CBD stated that the
proposed rule had been improperly limited to currently available
technology, and that none of the alternatives contained all of the
available technology, which it argued violated EISA and the CAA. CBD
also stated that the phase-in schedule violated the technology-forcing
intention of EISA, and that the agencies misperceived their statutory
mandates, arguing that the agencies are required to force technological
innovation through aggressive standards.
As demonstrated in the standard-specific discussions later in this
section of the preamble, the standards adopted in the final program are
consistent with section 202(a) of the CAA and section 32902(k)(2) of
EISA. With respect to the EPA rules, we note at the outset, that CBD's
premise that EPA must adopt ``technology-forcing'' standards for heavy-
duty vehicles and engines is wrong. A technology-forcing standard is
one that is to be based on standards which will be available, rather
than technology which is presently available. NRDC v. Thomas, 805 F. 2d
410, 429 (DC Cir. 1986). Clean Air Act provisions requiring ``the
greatest degree of emission reduction achievable through the
application of technology which the Administrator determines will be
available'' are technology-forcing. See e.g., CAA sections
202(a)(3)(1);\193\
[[Page 57198]]
213(a)(3). Section 202(a)(1) standards are technology-based, but not
technology-forcing, requiring EPA to issue standards for a vehicle's
useful life ``after providing 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.'' See NACAA v. EPA, 489 F. 3d 1221, 1230 (DC Cir.
2007) upholding EPA's interpretation of similar language in CAA section
231(a) as providing even greater leeway to weigh the statutory factors
than if the provision were technology-forcing. See generally 74 FR at
49464-465 (Sept. 28. 2009); 75 FR at 74171.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\193\ CBD cites the District Court's opinion in Cent. Valley
Chrysler-Jeep Inc. v. Goldstene, 529 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1178 (E.D.
Cal. 2007) for the proposition that standard-setting provisions of
Title II of the CAA are technology forcing, but the court was citing
to the technology-forcing provision section 202(a)(3)(A)(i), which
is not the applicable authority here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 202(a)(1) of course allows EPA to consider application of
technologies which will be available as well as those presently
available, id., and EPA exercised that discretion here. For example, as
shown below, the agencies carefully considered application of hybrid
technologies and bottoming cycle technologies for a number of the
standards. Thus, the critical issue is whether EPA's choice of
technology penetration on which the standards are premised is
reasonable considering the statutory factors, the key ones being
technology feasibility, technology availability in the 2014-2018 model
years (i.e., adequacy of lead time), and technology cost and cost-
effectiveness. EPA has considerable discretion to weigh these factors
in a reasonable manner (even for provisions which are explicitly
technology-forcing, see Sierra Club v. EPA, 325 F. 3d 374, 378 (DC Cir.
2003)), and has done so here.
With respect to EISA, 49 U.S.C. section 32902(k)(2) directs NHTSA
to ``determine in a rulemaking proceeding how to implement a commercial
medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicle and work truck fuel
efficiency improvement program designed to achieve the maximum feasible
improvement,'' and ``adopt and implement appropriate test methods,
measurement metrics, fuel economy standards, and compliance and
enforcement protocols that are appropriate, cost-effective, and
technologically feasible for commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-
highway vehicles and work trucks'' NHTSA recognizes that Congress
intended EPCA (and by extension, EISA, which amended it) to be
technology-forcing. See Center for Auto Safety v. National Highway
Traffic Safety Admin., 793 F.2d 1322, 1339 (DC Cir. 1986). However,
NHTSA believes it is important to distinguish between setting ``maximum
feasible'' standards, as EPCA/EISA requires, and ``maximum
technologically feasible'' standards, as CBD would have NHTSA do. The
agency must weigh all of the statutory factors in setting fuel
efficiency standards, and therefore may not weigh one statutory factor
in isolation of others.
Neither EPCA nor EISA define ``maximum feasible'' in the context of
setting fuel efficiency or fuel economy standards. Instead, NHTSA is
directed to consider and meet three factors when determining what the
maximum feasible standards are--``appropriateness, cost-effectiveness,
and technological feasibility.'' 32902(k)(2). These factors modify
``feasible'' in the context of the MD/HD rules beyond a plain meaning
of ``capable of being done.'' See Center for Biological Diversity v.
National Highway Traffic Safety Admin., 538 F.3d 1172, 1194 (9th Cir.
2008). With respect to the setting of standards for light-duty
vehicles, EPCA/EISA ``gives NHTSA discretion to decide how to balance
the statutory factors--as long as NHTSA's balancing does not undermine
the fundamental purpose of EPCA: energy conservation.'' Id. at 1195.
Where Congress has not directly spoken to a potential issue related to
such a balancing, NHTSA's interpretation must be a ``reasonable
accommodation of conflicting policies * * * committed to the agency's
care by the statute.'' Id. (discussing consideration of consumer
demand) (internal citations omitted). In the context of the agency's
light-duty vehicle authority, it was determined that Congress delegated
the process for setting the maximum feasible standard to NHTSA with
broad guidelines concerning the factors that the agency must consider.
Id. (internal citations omitted) (emphasis in original). We believe
that the same conclusion should be drawn about the statutory provisions
governing the agency's setting of standards for heavy-duty vehicles.
Those provisions prescribe statutory factors commensurate to, and
equally broad as, those prescribed for light-duty. Thus, NHTSA believes
that it is firmly within our discretion to weigh and balance the
factors laid out in 32902(k) in a way that is technology-forcing, as
evidenced by these standards promulgated in this final action, but not
in a way that requires the application of technology which will not be
available in the lead time provided by the rules, or which is not cost-
effective, or is cost-prohibitive, as CBD evidently deems mandated.
As detailed below for each regulatory category, NHTSA has
considered the appropriateness, cost-effectiveness, and technological
feasibility of the standards in designing a program to achieve the
maximum feasible fuel efficiency improvement. It believes that each of
those criteria is met.
As described in Section I. F. (2) above, the final standards will
remain in effect indefinitely at their 2018 or 2019 levels, unless and
until the standards are revised. CBD maintained that this is a per se
violation of EISA, arguing that, by definition, standards which are not
updated continually and regularly cannot be considered maximum
feasible. NHTSA would like to clarify that the NPRM specified that the
standards would remain indefinitely ``until amended by a future
rulemaking action.'' NPRM at 74172. Further, as noted above, NHTSA has
broad discretion to determine the maximum feasible standards. Unlike
Sec. 32902(b)(3)(B), which applies to automobiles regulated under
light-duty CAFE, Sec. 32902(k) does not specify a maximum number of
years that fuel economy standards for heavy-duty vehicles will be in
place. Consistent with its broad authority to define maximum feasible
standards, NHTSA interprets its authority as including the discretion
to define expiration periods where Congress has not otherwise
specified. This is particularly appropriate for the heavy-duty sector,
where fuel efficiency regulation is unprecedented. NHTSA believes that
it would be unwise to set an expiration period for this first
rulemaking absent both Congressional direction and a known compelling
reason for setting a specific date.
NHTSA believes that the phase-in schedules provide an appropriate
balance between the technology-forcing purpose of the statute and EISA-
mandated considerations of economic practicability. NHTSA recognizes,
as noted in the case above, that balancing each statutory factor in
order to set the maximum feasible standards means that the agency must
engage in a ``reasonable accommodation of conflicting policies.'' See
538 F.3d at 1195, supra. Here, the agency has determined that the
phase-in schedules are one such reasonable accommodation.
Navistar commented generally that the proposed rule was not
technologically feasible, stating that the proposed standards assume
technologies which are not in production for all manufacturers. This is
[[Page 57199]]
not the test for technical feasibility. Under the Clean Air Act, EPA
needs only to outline a technical path toward compliance with a
standard, giving plausible reasons for its belief that technology will
either be developed or applied in the requisite period. NRDC v. EPA,
655 F. 2d 318, 333-34 (DC Cir. 1981). EPA has done so here with respect
to the alternative engine standards of particular concern to
Navistar.\194\ Similarly, NHTSA has previously interpreted
``technological feasibility'' to mean ``whether a particular method of
improving fuel economy can be available for commercial application in
the model year for which a standard is being established.'' 74 FR
14196, 14216. NHTSA has further clarified that the consideration of
technological feasibility ``does not mean that the technology must be
available or in use when a standard is proposed or issued.'' Center for
Auto Safety v. National Highway Traffic Safety Admin., 793 F.2d 1322,
1325 n12 (DC Cir. 1986), quoting 42 FR 63, 184, 63, 188 (1977).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\194\ See 40 CFR 1036.620.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consistent with these previous interpretations, NHTSA believes that
a technology does not necessarily need to be currently available or in
use for all regulated parties to be ``technologically feasible'' for
this program, as long as it is reasonable to expect, based on the
evidence before the agency, that the technology will be available in
the model year in which the relevant standard takes effect. The
agencies provide multiple technology pathways for compliance with a
standard, allowing each manufacturer to develop technologies which fit
their current production and research, and the standards are based on
fleet penetration rates of those technologies. As discussed below, it
is reasonable to assume that all the technologies on whose performance
the standards are premised will be available over the period the
standards are in effect.
The Institute for Policy Integrity (IPI) commented that the
agencies should increase the scope and stringency of the final rule to
the point at which net benefits would be maximized, citing Executive
Orders 12866 and 13563. EOs 12866 and 13563 instruct agencies, to the
extent permitted by law, to select, among other things, the regulatory
approaches which maximize net benefits. NHTSA agrees with IPI about the
applicability of these EOs and has made every effort to incorporate
their guidance in drafting this rule.
Though IPI agreed that the proposed rule was cost-benefit
justified, IPI further stated that the agencies must implement an
alternative that provides the maximum net benefits. The agencies
believe that standards that maximized net benefits would be beyond the
point of technological feasibility for this first phase of the HD
National Program. The standards already require the maximum feasible
fuel efficiency improvements for the HD fleet in the 2014-2018 time
frame. Thus, even though, the final standards are highly cost-
effective, and standards that maximized net benefits would likely be
more stringent than those being promulgated in this final action, NHTSA
believes that standards that maximized net benefits would not be
appropriate or technologically feasible in the rulemaking time frame.
The Executive Orders cited by IPI cannot and do not require an agency
to select a regulatory alternative that is inconsistent with its
statutory obligations. Thus, the standards adopted in the final rules
are consistent with the agencies' respective statutory authorities, and
are not established at levels which are infeasible or cost-ineffective.
Here, the focus of the standards is on applying fuel efficiency and
emissions control technology to reduce fuel consumption, CO2
and other greenhouse gases. Vehicles combust fuel to generate power
that is used to perform two basic functions: (1) Transport the truck
and its payload, and (2) operate various accessories during the
operation of the truck such as the PTO units. Engine-based technology
can reduce fuel consumption and CO2 emissions by improving
engine efficiency, which increases the amount of power produced per
unit of fuel consumed. Vehicle-based technology can reduce fuel
consumption and CO2 emissions by increasing the vehicle
efficiency, which reduces the amount of power demanded from the engine
to perform the truck's primary functions.
Our technical work has therefore focused on both engine efficiency
improvements and vehicle efficiency improvements. In addition to fuel
delivery, combustion, and aftertreatment technology, any aspect of the
truck that affects the need for the engine to produce power must also
be considered. For example, the drag due to aerodynamics and the
resistance of the tires to rolling both have major impacts on the
amount of power demanded of the engine while operating the vehicle.
The large number of possible technologies to consider and the
breadth of vehicle systems that are affected mean that consideration of
the manufacturer's design and production process plays a major role in
developing the final standards. Engine and vehicle manufacturers
typically develop many different models based on a limited number of
platforms. The platform typically consists of a common engine or truck
model architecture. For example, a common engine platform may contain
the same configuration (such as inline), number of cylinders,
valvetrain architecture (such as overhead valve), cylinder head design,
piston design, among other attributes. An engine platform may have
different calibrations, such as different power ratings, and different
aftertreatment control strategies, such as exhaust gas recirculation
(EGR) or selective catalytic reduction (SCR). On the other hand, a
common vehicle platform has different meanings depending on the market.
In the heavy-duty pickup truck market, each truck manufacturer usually
has only a single pickup truck platform (for example the F series by
Ford) with common chassis designs and shared body panels, but with
variations on load capacity of the axles, the cab configuration, tire
offerings, and powertrain options. Lastly, the combination tractor
market has several different platforms and the trucks within each
platform (such as LoneStar by Navistar) have less commonality. Tractor
manufacturers will offer several different options for bumpers,
mirrors, aerodynamic fairing, wheels, and tires, among others. However,
some areas such as the overall basic aerodynamic design (such as the
grill, hood, windshield, and doors) of the tractor are tied to tractor
platform.
The platform approach allows for efficient use of design and
manufacturing resources. Given the very large investment put into
designing and producing each truck model, manufacturers of heavy-duty
pickup trucks and vans typically plan on a major redesign for the
models every 5 years or more (a key consideration in the choice of the
five model year duration during which the vehicle standards are phased
in). Recently, EPA's non-GHG heavy-duty engine program provided new
emissions standards every three model years. Heavy-duty engine and
truck manufacturer product plans typically have fallen into three year
cycles to reflect this regime. While the recent non-GHG emissions
standards can be handled generally with redesigns of engines and
trucks, a complete redesign of a new heavy-duty engine or truck
typically occurs on a slower cycle and often does not align in time due
to the fact that the manufacturer of engines
[[Page 57200]]
differs from the truck manufacturer. At the redesign stage, the
manufacturer will upgrade or add all of the technology and make most
other changes supporting the manufacturer's plans for the next several
years, including plans related to emissions, fuel efficiency, and
safety regulations.
A redesign of either engine or truck platforms often involves a
package of changes designed to work together to meet the various
requirements and plans for the model for several model years after the
redesign. This often involves significant engineering, development,
manufacturing, and marketing resources to create a new product with
multiple new features. In order to leverage this significant upfront
investment, manufacturers plan vehicle redesigns with several model
years of production in mind. Vehicle models are not completely static
between redesigns as limited changes are often incorporated for each
model year. This interim process is called a refresh of the vehicle and
it generally does not allow for major technology changes although more
minor ones can be done (e.g., small aerodynamic improvements, etc).
More major technology upgrades that affect multiple systems of the
vehicle thus occur at the vehicle redesign stage and not in the time
period between redesigns.
As discussed below, there are a wide variety of CO2 and
fuel consumption reducing technologies involving several different
systems in the engine and vehicle that are available for consideration.
Many can involve major changes to the engine or vehicle, such as
changes to the engine block and cylinder heads or changes in vehicle
shape to improve aerodynamic efficiency. Incorporation of such
technologies during the periodic engine, transmission or vehicle
redesign process would allow manufacturers to develop appropriate
packages of technology upgrades that combine technologies in ways that
work together and fit with the overall goals of the redesign. By
synchronizing with their multi-year planning process, manufacturers can
avoid the large increase in resources and costs that would occur if
technology had to be added outside of the redesign process. We
considered redesign cycles both in our costing and in assessing needed
the lead time required.
As described below, the vast majority of technology on whose
performance the final standards are predicated is commercially
available and already being utilized to a limited extent across the
heavy-duty fleet. Therefore the majority of the emission and fuel
consumption reductions which would result from these final rules would
result from the increased use of these technologies. EPA and NHTSA also
believe that these final rules will encourage the development and
limited use of more advanced technologies, such as advanced
aerodynamics and hybrid powertrains in some vocational vehicle
applications.
In evaluating truck efficiency, NHTSA and EPA have excluded
consideration of standards which could result in fundamental changes in
the engine or vehicle's performance. Put another way, none of the
technology pathways underlying the final standards involve any
alteration in vehicle utility. For example, the agencies did not
consider approaches that would necessitate reductions in engine power
or otherwise limit truck performance. The agencies have thus limited
the assessment of technical feasibility and resultant vehicle cost to
technologies which maintain freight utility. Similarly, the agencies'
choice of attributes on which to base the standards, and the metrics
used to measure them, are consciously adopted to preserve the utility
of heavy-duty vehicles and engines.
The agencies worked together to determine component costs for each
of the technologies and build up the costs accordingly. For costs, the
agencies considered both the direct or ``piece'' costs and indirect
costs of individual components of technologies. For the direct costs,
the agencies followed a bill of materials approach utilized by the
agencies in the light-duty 2012-16 MY vehicle rule. A bill of
materials, in a general sense, is a list of components or sub-systems
that make up a system--in this case, an item of technology which
reduces GHG emissions and fuel consumption. In order to determine what
a system costs, one of the first steps is to determine its components
and what they cost. NHTSA and EPA estimated these components and their
costs based on a number of sources for cost-related information. In
general, the direct costs of fuel consumption-improving technologies
for heavy-duty pickups and vans are consistent with those used in the
light-duty 2012-2016 MY vehicle rule, except that the agencies have
scaled up certain costs where appropriate to accommodate the larger
size and/or loads placed on parts and systems in the heavy-duty classes
relative to the light-duty classes. For loose heavy-duty engines, the
agencies have consulted various studies and have exercised engineering
judgment when estimating direct costs. For technologies expected to be
added to vocational vehicles and combination tractors, the agencies
have again consulted various studies and have used engineering judgment
to arrive at direct cost estimates. Once costs were determined, they
were adjusted to ensure that they were all expressed in 2009 dollars
using a ratio of gross domestic product deflators for the associated
calendar years.
Indirect costs were accounted for using the ICM approach explained
in Chapter 2 of the RIA, rather than using the traditional Retail Price
Equivalent (RPE) multiplier approach. For the heavy-duty pickup truck
and van cost projections in this final action, the agencies have used
ICMs developed for light-duty vehicles (with the exception that here
return on capital has been incorporated into the ICMs, where it had not
been in the light-duty rule) primarily because the manufacturers
involved in this segment of the heavy-duty market are the same
manufacturers that build light-duty trucks. For the Class 7 and 8
tractor, vocational vehicle, and heavy-duty engine cost projections in
this final rulemaking, EPA contracted with RTI International to update
EPA's methodology for accounting for indirect costs associated with
changes in direct manufacturing costs for heavy-duty engine and truck
manufacturers.\195\ In addition to the indirect cost multipliers
varying by complexity and time frame, there is no reason to expect that
the multipliers would be the same for engine manufacturers as for truck
manufacturers. The report from RTI provides a description of the
methodology, as well as calculations of new indirect cost multipliers.
The multipliers used here include a factor of 5 percent of direct costs
representing the return on capital for heavy-duty engines and truck
manufacturers. These indirect cost multipliers are intended to be used,
along with calculations of direct manufacturing costs, to provide
improved estimates of the full additional costs associated with new
technologies. The agencies did not receive any adverse comments related
to this methodology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\195\ RTI International. Heavy-duty Truck Retail Price
Equivalent and Indirect Cost Multipliers. July 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Details of the direct and indirect costs, and all applicable ICMs,
are presented in Chapter 2 of the RIA. In addition, for details on the
ICMs, please refer to the RTI report (See Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-
0162-0283). Importantly, the agencies have revised the ICM factors and
the way that indirect costs are calculated using the ICMs. As a result,
the ICM factors are now higher, the indirect costs are higher and,
therefore, technology costs are
[[Page 57201]]
higher. The changes made to the ICMs and the indirect cost calculations
are discussed in Section VIII of this preamble and are detailed in
Chapter 2 of the RIA.
EPA and NHTSA believe that the emissions reductions called for by
the final standards are technologically feasible at reasonable costs
within the lead time provided by the final standards, reflecting our
projections of widespread use of commercially available technology.
Manufacturers may also find additional means to reduce emissions and
lower fuel consumption beyond the technical approaches we describe
here. We encourage such innovation through provisions in our
flexibility program as discussed in Section IV.
The remainder of this section describes the technical feasibility
and cost analysis in greater detail. Further detail on all of these
issues can be found in the joint RIA Chapter 2.
A. Class 7-8 Combination Tractor
Class 7 and 8 tractors are used in combination with trailers to
transport freight.\196\ The variation in the design of these tractors
and their typical uses drive different technology solutions for each
regulatory subcategory. The agencies are adopting provisions to treat
vocational tractors as vocational vehicles instead of as combination
tractors, as noted in Section II.B. The focus of this section is on the
feasibility of the standards for combination tractors, not the
vocational tractors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\196\ ``Tractor'' is defined in 49 CFR 571.3 to mean ``a truck
designed primarily for drawing other motor vehicles and not so
constructed as to carry a load other than a part of the weight of
the vehicle and the load so drawn.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA and NHTSA collected information on the cost and effectiveness
of fuel consumption and CO2 emission reducing technologies
from several sources. The primary sources of information were the 2010
National Academy of Sciences report of Technologies and Approaches to
Reducing the Fuel Consumption of Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles,\197\
TIAX's assessment of technologies to support the NAS panel report,\198\
EPA's Heavy-duty Lumped Parameter Model,\199\ the analysis conducted by
the Northeast States Center for a Clean Air Future, International
Council on Clean Transportation, Southwest Research Institute and TIAX
for reducing fuel consumption of heavy-duty long haul combination
tractors (the NESCCAF/ICCT study),\200\ and the technology cost
analysis conducted by ICF for EPA.\201\ Following on the EISA of 2007,
the National Research Council appointed a NAS committee to assess
technologies for improving fuel efficiency of heavy-duty vehicles to
support NHTSA's rulemaking. The 2010 NAS report assessed current and
future technologies for reducing fuel consumption, how the technologies
could be implemented, and identified the potential cost of such
technologies. The NAS panel contracted with TIAX to perform an
assessment of technologies which provide potential fuel consumption
reductions in heavy-duty trucks and engines and the technologies'
associated capital costs. Similar to the Lumped Parameter model which
EPA developed to assess the impact and interactions of GHG and fuel
consumption reducing technologies for light-duty vehicles, EPA
developed a new version of that model to specifically address the
effectiveness and interactions of the final pickup truck and light
heavy-duty engine technologies. The NESCAFF/ICCT study assessed
technologies available in 2012 through 2017 to reduce CO2
emissions and fuel consumption of line haul combination tractors and
trailers. Lastly, the ICF report focused on the capital, maintenance,
and operating costs of technologies currently available to reduce
CO2 emissions and fuel consumption in heavy-duty engines,
combination tractors, and vocational vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\197\ Committee to Assess Fuel Economy Technologies for Medium-
and Heavy-Duty Vehicles; National Research Council; Transportation
Research Board (2010). Technologies and Approaches to Reducing the
Fuel Consumption of Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles. (``The NAS
Report'') Washington, DC, The National Academies Press. Available
electronically from the National Academy Press Web site at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12845.
\198\ TIAX, LLC. ``Assessment of Fuel Economy Technologies for
Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles,'' Final Report to National Academy
of Sciences, November 19, 2009.
\199\ U.S. EPA. Heavy-duty Lumped Parameter Model.
\200\ NESCCAF, ICCT, Southwest Research Institute, and TIAX.
Reducing Heavy-Duty Long Haul Combination Truck Fuel Consumption and
CO2 Emissions. October 2009.
\201\ ICF International. ``Investigation of Costs for Strategies
to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Heavy-Duty On-Road
Vehicles.'' July 2010. Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162-0283.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) What technologies did the agencies consider to reduce the
CO2 emissions and fuel consumption of combination tractors?
Manufacturers can reduce CO2 emissions and fuel
consumption of combination tractors through use of, among others,
engine, aerodynamic, tire, extended idle, and weight reduction
technologies. The standards in the final rules are premised on use of
these technologies. The agencies note that SmartWay trucks are
available today which incorporate the technologies on whose performance
the final standards are based. We will also discuss other technologies
that could potentially be used, such as vehicle speed limiters,
although we are not basing the final standards on their use for the
model years covered by this rulemaking, for various reasons discussed
below.
In this section we discuss the baseline tractor and engine
technologies for the 2010 model year, and then discuss the types of
technologies that the agencies considered to improve performance
relative to this baseline, while Section III.A.2 discusses the
technology packages the agencies used to determine the final standard
levels.
(a) Baseline Tractor & Tractor Technologies
Baseline tractor: The agencies developed the baseline tractor to
represent the average 2010 model year tractor. Today there is a large
spread in aerodynamics in the new tractor fleet. Trucks sold may
reflect so-called classic styling (as described in Section II.B.3.c),
or may be sold with aerodynamic packages. Based on our review of
current truck model configurations and Polk data provided through MJ
Bradley,\202\ we believe the aerodynamic configuration of the baseline
new truck fleet is approximately 25 percent Bin I, 70 percent Bin II,
and 5 percent Bin III (as these bin configurations are explained above
in Section II.B. (2)(c). The baseline Class 7 and 8 day cab tractor
consists of an aerodynamic package which closely resembles the Bin I
package described in Section II.B. (2)(c), baseline tire rolling
resistance of 7.8 kg/metric ton for the steer tire and 8.2 kg/metric
ton,\203\ dual tires with steel wheels on the drive axles, and no
vehicle speed limiter. The baseline tractor for the Class 8 sleeper
cabs contains the same aerodynamic and tire rolling resistance
technologies as the baseline day cab, does not include vehicle speed
limiters, and does not include an idle reduction technology. The
agencies assume the baseline transmission is a 10 speed manual. The
agencies received a comment from the ICCT stating that the 0.69 Cd
baseline for high roof sleepers published in the NPRM is higher than
existing studies show. ICCT cited three studies
[[Page 57202]]
including a Society of Automotive Engineering paper showing a lower Cd
for tractor trailers. The agencies based the average Cd for high roof
sleepers on available in use fleet composition data, combined with an
assessment of drag coefficient for different truck configurations. The
agencies are finalizing the 0.69 baseline Cd for high roof sleeper
based on our assessment for the NPRM. However, we will continue to
gather information on the composition of the in-use fleet and may alter
the baseline in a future action, should more data become available that
demonstrates our estimate is incorrect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\202\ MJ Bradley. Heavy-duty Market Analysis. May 2009. Page 10.
\203\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. SmartWay Transport
Partnership July 2010 e-update accessed July 16, 2010, from http://www.epa.gov/smartwaylogistics/newsroom/documents/e-update-july-10.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Performance from this baseline can be improved by the use of the
following technologies:
Aerodynamic technologies: There are opportunities to reduce
aerodynamic drag from the tractor, but it is difficult to assess the
benefit of individual aerodynamic features. Therefore, reducing
aerodynamic drag requires optimizing of the entire system. The
potential areas to reduce drag include all sides of the truck--front,
sides, top, rear and bottom. The grill, bumper, and hood can be
designed to minimize the pressure created by the front of the truck.
Technologies such as aerodynamic mirrors and fuel tank fairings can
reduce the surface area perpendicular to the wind and provide a smooth
surface to minimize disruptions of the air flow. Roof fairings provide
a transition to move the air smoothly over the tractor and trailer.
Side extenders can minimize the air entrapped in the gap between the
tractor and trailer. Lastly, underbelly treatments can manage the flow
of air underneath the tractor. As discussed in the TIAX report, the
coefficient of drag (Cd) of a SmartWay sleeper cab high roof tractor is
approximately 0.60, which is a significant improvement over a truck
with no aerodynamic features which has a Cd value of approximately
0.80.\204\ The GEM demonstrates that an aerodynamic improvement of a
Class 8 high roof sleeper cab with a Cd value of 0.60 (which represents
a Bin III tractor) provides a 5 percent reduction in fuel consumption
and CO2 emissions over a truck with a Cd of 0.68.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\204\ See TIAX, Note 198, Page 4-50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lower Rolling Resistance Tires: A tire's rolling resistance results
from the tread compound material, the architecture and materials of the
casing, tread design, the tire manufacturing process, and its operating
conditions (surface, inflation pressure, speed, temperature, etc.).
Differences in rolling resistance of up to 50 percent have been
identified for tires designed to equip the same vehicle. The baseline
rolling resistance coefficient for today's fleet is 7.8 kg/metric ton
for the steer tire and 8.2 kg/metric ton for the drive tire, based on
sales weighting of the top three manufacturers based on market
share.\205\ Since 2007, SmartWay trucks have had steer tires with
rolling resistance coefficients of less than 6.6 kg/metric ton for the
steer tire and less than 7.0 kg/metric ton for the drive tire.\206\ Low
rolling resistance (LRR) drive tires are currently offered in both dual
assembly and single wide-base configurations. Single wide tires can
offer rolling resistance reduction along with improved aerodynamics and
weight reduction. The GEM demonstrates that replacing baseline tractor
tires with tires which meet the Bin I level provides approximately a 4
percent reduction in fuel consumption and CO2 emissions over
the prescribed test cycle, as shown in RIA Chapter 2, Figure 2-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\205\ See SmartWay, Note 203, above.
\206\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weight Reduction: Reductions in vehicle mass reduce fuel
consumption and GHGs by reducing the overall vehicle mass to be
accelerated and also through increased vehicle payloads which can allow
additional tons to be carried by fewer trucks consuming less fuel and
producing lower emissions on a ton-mile basis. Initially for proposal,
the agencies considered evaluating vehicle mass reductions on a total
vehicle basis for combination tractors.\207\ The agencies considered
defining a baseline vehicle curb weight and the GEM would have used the
vehicle's actual curb weight to calculate the increase or decrease in
fuel consumption related to the overall vehicle mass relative to that
baseline. After considerable evaluation of this issue, including
discussions with the industry, we decided it would not be possible to
define a single vehicle baseline mass for the tractors that would be
appropriate and representative. Actual vehicle curb weights for these
classes of vehicles vary by thousands of pounds dependent on customer
features added to vehicles and critical to the function of the vehicle
in the particular vocation in which it is used. This is true of
vehicles such as Class 8 tractors considered in this section that may
appear to be relatively homogenous but which in fact are quite
heterogeneous.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\207\ The agencies are using the approach of evaluating total
vehicle mass for heavy-duty pickups and vans where we have more data
on the current fleet vehicle mass.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This reality led us to the solution we proposed. In the proposal,
we reflected mass reductions for specific technology substitutions
(e.g., installing aluminum wheels instead of steel wheels) where we
could with confidence verify the mass reduction information provided by
the manufacturer even though we cannot estimate the actual curb weight
of the vehicle. In this way, we accounted for mass reductions where we
can accurately account for its benefits.
For the final rules, based on evaluation of the comments, the
agencies developed an expanded list of weight reduction opportunities,
from which the sum of the weight reduction from the technologies
installed on a specific tractor can be input into the GEM as listed in
Table II-9 in Section II. The list includes additional components, but
not materials, from those proposed in the NPRM. For high strength
steel, the weight reduction value is equal to 10 percent of the
presumed baseline component weight, as the agencies used a conservative
value based on the DOE report. We recognize that there may be
additional potential for weight reduction in new high strength steel
components which combine the reduction due to the material substitution
along with improvements in redesign, as evidenced by the studies done
for light-duty vehicles. In the development of the high strength steel
component weights, we are only assuming a reduction from material
substitution and no weight reduction from redesign, since we do not
have any data specific to redesign of heavy-duty components nor do we
have a regulatory mechanism to differentiate between material
substitution and improved design. We are finalizing for wheels that
both aluminum and light weight aluminum are eligible to be used as
light-weight materials. Only aluminum and not light weight aluminum can
be used as a light-weight material for other components. The reason for
this is data was available for light weight aluminum for wheels but was
not available for other components.
As explained in Section II.B above, the agencies continue to
believe that the 400 pound weight target is appropriate for setting the
final combination tractor CO2 emissions and fuel consumption
standards. The agencies agree with the commenter that 400 pounds of
weight reduction without the use of single wide tires may not be
achievable for all tractor configurations. The agencies have expanded
the list of weight reduction components which can be input into the GEM
in order to provide the manufacturers with additional means to comply
with the combination tractors and to further encourage reductions in
vehicle weight. The agencies considered increasing the
[[Page 57203]]
target value beyond 400 pounds given the additional reduction potential
identified in the expanded technology list; however, lacking
information on the capacity for the industry to change to these light
weight components across the board by the 2014 model year, we have
decided to maintain the 400 pound target. The agencies intend to
continue to study the potential for additional weight reductions in our
future work considering a second phase of truck fuel efficiency and GHG
regulations.
A weight reduction of 400 pounds applied to a truck which travels
at 70,000 pounds will have a minimal impact on fuel consumption.
However, for trucks which operate at the maximum GVWR which occurs
approximately in one third of truck miles travelled, a reduced tare
weight will allow for additional payload to be carried. The GEM
demonstrates that a weight reduction of 400 pounds applied to the
payload tons for one third of the trips provides a 0.3 percent
reduction in fuel consumption and CO2 emissions over the
prescribed test cycle, as shown in Figure 2-3 of RIA Chapter 2.
Extended Idle Reduction: Auxiliary power units (APU)s, fuel
operated heaters, battery supplied air conditioning, and thermal
storage systems are among the technologies available today to reduce
main engine extended idling from sleeper cabs. Each of these
technologies reduces the baseline fuel consumption during idling from a
truck without this equipment (the baseline) from approximately 0.8
gallons per hour (main engine idling fuel consumption rate) to
approximately 0.2 gallons per hour for an APU.\208\ EPA and NHTSA agree
with the TIAX assessment of a 6 percent reduction in overall fuel
consumption reduction.\209\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\208\ See the RIA Chapter 2 for details.
\209\ See the 2010 NAS Report, Note 197, above, at 128.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vehicle Speed Limiters: Fuel consumption and GHG emissions increase
proportional to the square of vehicle speed. Therefore, lowering
vehicle speeds can significantly reduce fuel consumption and GHG
emissions. A vehicle speed limiter (VSL), which limits the vehicle's
maximum speed, is a simple technology that is utilized today by some
fleets (though the typical maximum speed setting is often higher than
65 mph). The GEM shows that using a vehicle speed limiter set at 62 mph
on a sleeper cab tractor will provide a 4 percent reduction in fuel
consumption and CO2 emissions over the prescribed test
cycles over a baseline vehicle without a VSL or one set above 65
mph.\210\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\210\ The Center for Biological Diversity thought that the
agencies; were limiting their consideration of vehicle speed
limiters as a potential control technology due to perceived legal
constraints. As noted above, vehicle speed limiters are a potential
control technology for heavy duty vehicles and there is no statutory
bar on either agency considering the performance of VSLs in
developing the standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transmission: As discussed in the 2010 NAS report, automatic and
automated manual transmissions may offer the ability to improve vehicle
fuel consumption by optimizing gear selection compared to an average
driver. However, as also noted in the report and in the supporting TIAX
report, the improvement is very dependent on the driver of the truck,
such that reductions ranged from 0 to 8 percent.\211\ Well-trained
drivers would be expected to perform as well or even better than an
automatic transmission since the driver can see the road ahead and
anticipate a changing stoplight or other road condition that an
automatic transmission can not anticipate. However, poorly-trained
drivers that shift too frequently or not frequently enough to maintain
optimum engine operating conditions could be expected to realize
improved in-use fuel consumption by switching from a manual
transmission to an automatic or automated manual transmission. Although
we believe there may be real benefits in reduced fuel consumption and
GHG emissions through the application of dual clutch, automatic or
automated manual transmission technology, we are not reflecting this
potential improvement in our standard setting or in our compliance
model. We have taken this approach because we cannot say with
confidence what level of performance improvement to expect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\211\ See TIAX, Note 198, above at 4-70.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low Friction Transmission, Axle, and Wheel Bearing Lubricants: The
2010 NAS report assessed low friction lubricants for the drivetrain as
a 1 percent improvement in fuel consumption based on fleet
testing.\212\ The light-duty 2012-16 MY vehicle rule and the pickup
truck portion of this program estimate that low friction lubricants can
have an effectiveness value between 0 and 1 percent compared to
traditional lubricants. However, it is not clear if in many heavy-duty
applications these low friction lubricants could have competing
requirements like component durability issues requiring specific
lubricants with different properties than low friction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\212\ See the 2010 NAS Report, Note 197, page 67.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hybrid: Hybrid powertrain development in Class 7 and 8 tractors has
been limited to a few manufacturer demonstration vehicles to date. One
of the key benefit opportunities for fuel consumption reduction with
hybrids is less fuel consumption when a vehicle is idling, but the
standard is already premised on use of extended idle reduction so use
of hybrid technology would duplicate many of the same emission
reductions attributable to extended idle reduction. NAS estimated that
hybrid systems would cost approximately $25,000 per tractor in the 2015
through the 2020 time frame and provide a potential fuel consumption
reduction of 10 percent, of which 6 percent is idle reduction which can
be achieved (less expensively) through the use of other idle reduction
technologies.\213\ The limited reduction potential outside of idle
reduction for Class 8 sleeper cab tractors is due to the mostly highway
operation and limited start-stop operation. Due to the high cost and
limited benefit during the model years at issue in this action (as well
as issues regarding sufficiency of lead time (see Section III.2 (a)
below), the agencies are not including hybrids in assessing standard
stringency (or as an input to GEM). However as discussed in Section IV,
the agencies are providing incentives to encourage the introduction of
advanced technologies including hybrid powertrains in appropriate
applications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\213\ See the 2010 NAS Report, Note 197, page 128.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Management: The 2010 NAS report noted many operational
opportunities to reduce fuel consumption, such as driver training and
route optimization. The agencies have included discussion of several of
these strategies in RIA Chapter 2, but are not using these approaches
or technologies in the standard setting process. The agencies are
looking to other resources, such as EPA's SmartWay Transport
Partnership and regulations that could potentially be promulgated by
the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration, to continue to encourage the development and
utilization of these approaches.
(b) Baseline Engine & Engine Technologies
The baseline engine for the Class 8 tractors is a Heavy Heavy-Duty
Diesel engine with 15 liters of displacement which produces 455
horsepower. The agencies are using a smaller baseline engine for the
Class 7 tractors because of the lower combined weights of this class of
vehicles require less power, thus the baseline is an 11L engine with
350 horsepower. The agencies
[[Page 57204]]
developed the baseline diesel engine as a 2010 model year engine with
an aftertreatment system which meets EPA's 0.20 grams of
NOX/bhp-hr standard with an SCR system along with EGR and
meets the PM emissions standard with a diesel particulate filter with
active regeneration. The baseline engine is turbocharged with a
variable geometry turbocharger. The following discussion of
technologies describes improvements over the 2010 model year baseline
engine performance, unless otherwise noted. Further discussion of the
baseline engine and its performance can be found in Section III.A.2.6
below.
With respect to stringency level, the agencies received comments
from Cummins and Daimler stating that the proposed stringency levels
were appropriate for the lead-times. Conversely, the agencies received
comments from several environmental groups (UCS, CATF, ACEEE)
supporting a greater reduction in engine CO2 emissions and
fuel consumption based on the NAS report. Navistar also stated that the
agencies' baseline engine is inappropriate since there is not currently
a 0.20 NOX compliant engine in production. A discussion of
how the baseline engine configuration can be found below in Section
(2)(b)(i).
Navistar also stated that the baseline engines proposed in the
NPRM, MY 2010 selective catalytic reduction (SCR)-equipped, could not
meet the agencies' statutory obligation to set feasible standards, and
requested instead that MY 2010 engines currently in-use be used to meet
the feasibility factor. The agencies thus disagree with the statement
that SCR is infeasible and therefore, the agencies reaffirm that the
engine used as the baseline engine in the agencies' analysis does
indeed exist. In fact, several engine families have been certified by
EPA using SCR technology over the past two years, all of which have met
the 0.20 g/bhp-hr NOX standard.\214\ EPA disagrees with
Navistar that SCR engines currently certified do not meet this
standard. Compliance with the 0.20 g/bhp-hr FTP NOX standard
is measured based on an engine's performance when tested over a
specific duty cycle (see 40 CFR 86.007-11(a)(2)). This is also true
regarding the SET standard (see 40 CFR 86.007-11(a)(3)). Further, the
FTP and SET tests are average tests, so emissions could go over 0.20
even for some portion of the test itself. Manufacturers are also
required to ensure that their engines meet the NTE standard under all
conditions specified in the regulations (see 40 CFR 86.007-11(a)(4)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\214\ See 2010 Model Year Engine Certification Data and 2011
Model Year Engine Certification Data files located in the Docket
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several manufacturers have been able to show compliance with these
standards in applications for certification provided to EPA for several
engine families. Navistar has provided no information indicating that
these tests were false or improper. Indeed, Navistar does not appear to
suggest, or provide any evidence, that engines with working SCR systems
do not meet the NOX standard. Thus, it is demonstrably false
to conclude that the NOX standard cannot be met with SCR-
equipped engines.
A more detailed response to these comments appears in Section 6.2
of the Response to Comment document for this rule.
Engine performance for CO2 emissions and fuel
consumption can be improved by use of the following technologies:
Improved Combustion Process: Fuel consumption reductions in the
range of 1 to 3 percent over the baseline diesel engine are identified
in the 2010 NAS report through improved combustion chamber design,
higher fuel injection pressure, improved injection shaping and timing,
and higher peak cylinder pressures.\215\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\215\ See TIAX. Note 198, Page 4-13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Turbochargers: Improved efficiency of a turbocharger compressor or
turbine could reduce fuel consumption by approximately 1 to 2 percent
over variable geometry turbochargers in the market today.\216\ The 2010
NAS report identified technologies such as higher pressure ratio radial
compressors, axial compressors, and dual stage turbochargers as design
paths to improve turbocharger efficiency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\216\ See TIAX Note 198, Page 4-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Higher efficiency air handling processes: To maximize the
efficiency of such processes, induction systems may be improved by
manufacturing more efficiently designed flow paths (including those
associated with air cleaners, chambers, conduit, mass air flow sensors
and intake manifolds) and by designing such systems for improved
thermal control. Improved turbocharging and air handling systems must
include higher efficiency EGR systems and intercoolers that reduce
frictional pressure loss while maximizing the ability to thermally
control induction air and EGR. The agencies received comments from
Honeywell confirming that turbochargers provide a role in reducing the
CO2 emissions from engines. Other components that offer
opportunities for improved flow efficiency include cylinder heads,
ports and exhaust manifolds to further reduce pumping losses. Variable
air breathing systems such as variable valve actuation may provide
additional gains at different loads and speeds. The NESCCAF/ICCT study
indicated up to 1.2 percent reduction could be achieved solely through
improved EGR systems.
Low Temperature Exhaust Gas Recirculation: Most medium- and heavy-
duty vehicle diesel engines sold in the U.S. market today use cooled
EGR, in which part of the exhaust gas is routed through a cooler
(rejecting energy to the engine coolant) before being returned to the
engine intake manifold. EGR is a technology employed to reduce peak
combustion temperatures and thus NOX. Low-temperature EGR
uses a larger or secondary EGR cooler to achieve lower intake charge
temperatures, which tend to further reduce NOX formation. If
the NOX requirement is unchanged, low-temperature EGR can
allow changes such as more advanced injection timing that will increase
engine efficiency slightly more than 1 percent.\217\ Because low-
temperature EGR reduces the engine's exhaust temperature, it may not be
compatible with exhaust energy recovery systems such as
turbocompounding or a bottoming cycle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\217\ See TIAX, Note 198, Page 4-13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engine Friction Reduction: Reduced friction in bearings, valve
trains, and the piston-to-liner interface will improve efficiency. Any
friction reduction must be carefully developed to avoid issues with
durability or performance capability. Estimates of fuel consumption
improvements due to reduced friction range from 0 to 2 percent.\218\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\218\ TIAX, Note 198, pg 4-15
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reduced Parasitic Loads: Accessories that are traditionally gear or
belt driven by a vehicle's engine can be optimized and/or converted to
electric power. Examples include the engine water pump, oil pump, fuel
injection pump, air compressor, power-steering pump, cooling fans, and
the vehicle's air-conditioning system. Optimization and improved
pressure regulation may significantly reduce the parasitic load of the
water, air and fuel pumps. Electrification may result in a reduction in
power demand, because electrically powered accessories (such as the air
compressor or power steering) operate only when needed if they are
electrically powered, but they impose a parasitic demand all the time
if they are engine driven. In other cases, such as
[[Page 57205]]
cooling fans or an engine's water pump, electric power allows the
accessory to run at speeds independent of engine speed, which can
reduce power consumption. The TIAX study used 2 to 4 percent fuel
consumption improvement for accessory electrification, with the
understanding that electrification of accessories will have more effect
in short-haul/urban applications and less benefit in line-haul
applications.\219\ Bendix, in their comments to the agencies, confirmed
that there are engine accessories available that can improve an
engine's fuel efficiency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\219\ See TIAX. Note 198, Page 3-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Selective catalytic reduction: This technology is common on 2010
the medium- and heavy-duty diesel engines used in Class 7 and 8
tractors (and the agencies therefore have included it as part of the
baseline engine, as noted above). Because SCR is a highly effective
NOX aftertreatment approach, it enables engines to be
optimized to maximize fuel efficiency, rather than minimize engine-out
NOX. 2010 SCR systems are estimated to result in improved
engine efficiency of approximately 3 to 5 percent compared to a 2007
in-cylinder EGR-based emissions system and by an even greater
percentage compared to 2010 in-cylinder approaches.\220\ As more
effective low-temperature catalysts are developed, the NOX
conversion efficiency of the SCR system will increase. Next-generation
SCR systems could then enable additional efficiency improvements;
alternatively, these advances could be used to maintain efficiency
while down-sizing the aftertreatment. We estimate that continued
optimization of the catalyst could offer 1 to 2 percent reduction in
fuel use over 2010 model year systems in the 2014 model year.\221\ The
agencies estimate an additional 1 to 2 percent reduction may be
feasible in the 2017 model year through additional refinement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\220\ Stanton, D. ``Advanced Diesel Engine Technology
Development for High Efficiency, Clean Combustion.'' Cummins, Inc.
Annual Progress Report 2008 Vehicle Technologies Program: Advanced
Combustion Engine Technologies, U.S. Department of Energy. Pp 113-
116. December 2008.
\221\ See TIAX, Note 198, pg. 4-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mechanical Turbocompounding: Mechanical turbocompounding adds a low
pressure power turbine to the exhaust stream in order to extract
additional energy, which is then delivered to the crankshaft. Published
information on the fuel consumption reduction from mechanical
turbocompounding varies between 2.5 and 5 percent.\222\ Some of these
differences may depend on the operating condition or duty cycle that
was considered by the different researchers. The performance of a
turbocompounding system tends to be highest at full load and much less
or even zero at light load.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\222\ NESCCAF/ICCT study (p. 54) and TIAX (2009, pp. 3-5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric Turbocompounding: This approach is similar in concept to
mechanical turbocompounding, except that the power turbine drives an
electrical generator. The electricity produced can be used to power an
electrical motor supplementing the engine output, to power electrified
accessories, or to charge a hybrid system battery. None of these
systems have been demonstrated commercially, but modeled results by
industry and DOE have shown improvements of 3 to 5 percent.\223\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\223\ K. G. Duleep of Energy and Environmental Analysis, R.
Kruiswyk, 2008, pp. 212-214, NESCCAF/ICCT, 2009, p. 54.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bottoming Cycle: An engine with bottoming cycle uses exhaust or
other heat energy from the engine to create power without the use of
additional fuel. The sources of energy include the exhaust, EGR, charge
air, and coolant. The estimates for fuel consumption reduction range up
to 10 percent as documented in the 2010 NAS report.\224\ However, none
of the bottoming cycle or Rankine systems has been demonstrated
commercially and are currently in only the research stage. See Section
2.4.2.7 of the RIA and Section II.B above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\224\ See 2010 NAS Report, Note 197, page 57.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Projected Technology Package Effectiveness and Cost
(a) Class 7 and 8 Combination Tractors
EPA and NHTSA project that CO2 emissions and fuel
consumption reductions can be feasibly and cost-effectively achieved in
these rules' time frames through the increased application of
aerodynamic technologies, LRR tires, weight reduction, extended idle
reduction technologies, vehicle speed limiters, and engine
improvements. The agencies believe that hybrid powertrains systems for
tractors will not be sufficiently developed and the necessary
manufacturing capacity put in place to base a standard on any
significant volume of hybrid tractors. The agencies are not aware of
any full hybrid systems currently developed for long haul tractor
applications. To date, hybrid systems for tractors have been primarily
focused on idle shutdown technologies and not the broader energy
storage and recovery systems necessary to achieve reductions over
typical vehicle drive cycles. The final standards reflect the potential
for idle shutdown technologies through the GEM model. Further as
highlighted by the 2010 NAS report, the agencies do believe that full
hybrid powertrains have the potential in the longer term to provide
significant improvements in fuel efficiency and to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions. However lacking any existing systems or manufacturing
base, we cannot conclude such technology will be available in the 2014-
2018 timeframe. Developing a full hybrid system itself would be a three
to five project followed by several more years to put in place
manufacturing capacity. The agencies are including incentives for the
use of hybrid technologies to help encourage their development and to
reward manufacturers that can produce hybrids through prototype and low
volume production methods. The agencies also are not including
drivetrain technologies in the standard setting process, as discussed
in Section II.B.3.h.iv.
The agencies evaluated each technology and estimated the most
appropriate application rate of technology into each tractor
subcategory. The next sections describe the effectiveness of the
individual technologies, the costs of the technologies, the projected
application rates of the technologies into the regulatory
subcategories, and finally the derivation of the final standards.
(i) Baseline Tractor Performance
The agencies developed the baseline tractor for each subcategory to
represent an average 2010 model year tractor configured as noted
earlier. The approach taken by the agencies was to define the
individual inputs to the GEM, as shown in Table III-1. For example, the
agencies evaluated the industry's tractor offerings and concluded that
the average tractor contains a generally aerodynamic shape (such as
roof fairings) and avoids classic features such as an exhaust stacks at
the B-pillar, which increases drag. As noted earlier, our assessment of
the baseline new high roof tractor fleet aerodynamics consists of
approximately 25 percent Bin I, 70 percent Bin II, and 5 percent Bin
III tractors. The baseline rolling resistance coefficient for today's
fleet is 7.8 kg/metric ton for the steer tire and 8.2 kg/metric ton for
the drive tire, based on sales weighting of the top three
[[Page 57206]]
manufacturers based on market share.\225\ The agencies assumed no
application of vehicle speed limiters, weight reduction technologies,
or idle reduction technologies in the baseline tractor. The agencies
use the inputs in the GEM to derive the baseline CO2
emissions and fuel consumption of Class 7 and 8 tractors. The results
are included in Table III-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\225\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. SmartWay Transport
Partnership July 2010 e-update accessed July 16, 2010, from http://www.epa.gov/smartwaylogistics/newsroom/documents/e-update-july-10.pdf.
Table III-1--Baseline Tractor Definitions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class 7 Class 8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day cab Day cab Sleeper cab
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low roof Mid roof High roof Low roof Mid roof High roof Low roof Mid roof High roof
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aerodynamics (Cd)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline........................... 0.77 0.87 0.73 0.77 0.87 0.73 0.77 0.87 0.70
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steer Tires (CRR kg/metric ton)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline........................... 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drive Tires (CRR kg/metric ton)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline........................... 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weight Reduction (lb)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline........................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extended Idle Reduction (gram CO2/ton-mile reduction)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline........................... N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vehicle Speed Limiter
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline........................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engine
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline........................... 2010 MY 11L 2010 MY 11L 2010 MY 11L 2010 MY 15L 2010 MY 15L 2010 MY 15L 2010 MY 15L 2010 MY 15L 2010 MY 15L
Engine Engine Engine Engine Engine Engine Engine Engine Engine
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table III-2--Class 7 and 8 Tractor Baseline CO2 Emissions and Fuel Consumption
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class 7 Class 8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day cab Day cab Sleeper cab
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low roof Mid roof High roof Low roof Mid roof High roof Low roof Mid roof High roof
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 (grams CO2/ton-mile)........... 116 128 138 88 95 103 80 89 94
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuel Consumption (gal/1,000 ton- 11.4 12.6 13.6 8.7 9.4 10.1 7.8 8.7 9.3
mile).............................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(ii) Tractor Technology Package Definitions
The agencies' assessment of the final technology effectiveness was
developed through the use of the GEM in coordination with chassis
testing of three SmartWay certified Class 8 sleeper cabs. The agencies
developed the standards through a three-step process. First, the
agencies developed technology performance characteristics for each
technology, described below. Each technology is associated with an
input parameter which is in turn modeled in the GEM. The performance
levels for the range of Class 7 and 8 tractor aerodynamic packages and
vehicle technologies are described in Table III-3. Second, the agencies
combined the technology performance levels with a projected technology
application rate to determine the GEM inputs used to set the stringency
of the final standards. Third, the agencies input the parameters
[[Page 57207]]
into GEM and used the output to determine the final CO2
emissions and fuel consumption levels.
Aerodynamics
The aerodynamic packages are categorized as Bin I, Bin II, Bin III,
Bin IV, or Bin V based on the aerodynamic performance determined
through testing conducted by the manufacturer. A more complete
description of these aerodynamic packages is included in Chapter 2 of
the RIA. In general, the CdA values for each package and tractor
subcategory were developed through EPA's coastdown testing of tractor-
trailer combinations, the 2010 NAS report, and SAE papers.
Tire Rolling Resistance
The rolling resistance coefficient for the tires was developed from
SmartWay's tire testing to develop the SmartWay certification, in
addition to testing a selection of tractor tires as part of this
program. The tire performance was evaluated in three levels--the
baseline (average), 15 percent better than the average, and an
additional 15 percent improvement. The first 15 percent improvement
represents the threshold used to develop SmartWay certified tires for
long haul tractors. The second 15 percent threshold represents an
incremental step for improvements beyond today's SmartWay level and
represents the best in class rolling resistance of the tires we tested.
Weight Reduction
The weight reductions were developed from tire manufacturer
information, the Aluminum Association, the Department of Energy, and
TIAX, as discussed above in Section II.B.3.e.
Idle Reduction
The benefits for the extended idle reductions were developed from
literature, SmartWay work, and the 2010 NAS report. The agencies
received comments from multiple stakeholders regarding idle reduction
technologies (IRT). Two commenters asked us to revise the default value
associated with the IRT technology, and two commenters want to use IRT
in GEM even without automatic engine shut down (AES). The agencies
proposed AES after 5 minutes with no exceptions to help ensure that the
idle reductions are realized in-use. Use of an AES ensures the main
engine will be shut down, whereas idle reduction technologies alone do
not provide that level of certainty. Without an automatic shutdown of
the main engine, actual savings would depend on operator behavior and
thus be essentially unverifiable. The agencies are finalizing the
calculation as proposed, along with the automotive engine shutdown
requirement. Additional details regarding the comments and calculations
are included in RIA Section 2.5.4.2.
Several commenters requested that the level of emissions reductions
vary in GEM by different idle reduction technologies, and one commenter
requested that the application of battery powered APUs be incentivized.
The agencies recognize that the level of emission reductions provided
by different IRT varies, but are adopting a conservative level to
recognize that some vehicles may be sold with only an AES but may then
install an IRT in-use. Or some vehicles may be sold with one IRT but
then choose to install alternative ones in-use. The agencies cannot
verify the savings which depend on operator behavior.
One commenter requested that we provide manufacturers with an
option to allow the AES feature to be reprogammable after a specified
number of miles or time in service. The agencies recognize that AES may
impact the resale value of tractors and, in response to comments, are
adopting provisions for the optional expiration of an AES. Thus, the
initial buyer could select AES only for the number of miles based on
the expected time before resale. Similar to vehicle speed limiters, we
would discount the impact based on the full life of the truck (e.g.
1,259,000 miles). Additional detail can be found in RIA Section
2.5.4.2.
Vehicle Speed Limiter
The agencies are not including vehicle speed limiters in the
technology package for Class 7 and 8 tractors.
Summary of Technology Performance
Table III-3 describes the performance levels for the range of Class
7 and 8 tractor aerodynamic packages and vehicle technologies.
Table III-3--Class 7 and 8 Tractor Technology Values
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class 7 Class 8
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day cab Day cab Sleeper cab
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low/mid Low/mid
roof High roof roof High roof Low roof Mid roof High roof
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aerodynamics (Cd)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bin I........................................................ 0.77/0.87 0.79 0.77/0.87 0.79 0.77 0.87 0.75
Bin II....................................................... 0.71/0.82 0.72 0.71/0.82 0.72 0.71 0.82 0.68
Bin III...................................................... ........... 0.63 ........... 0.63 ........... ........... 0.60
Bin IV....................................................... ........... 0.56 ........... 0.56 ........... ........... 0.52
Bin V........................................................ ........... 0.51 ........... 0.51 ........... ........... 0.47
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steer Tires (CRR kg/metric ton)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline..................................................... 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8
Level I...................................................... 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.6
Level II..................................................... 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drive Tires (CRR kg/metric ton)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline..................................................... 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2
Level I...................................................... 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Level II..................................................... 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 57208]]
Weight Reduction (lb)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Control...................................................... 400 400 400 400 400 400 400
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extended Idle Reduction (gram CO2/ton-mile reduction) \a\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Control...................................................... N/A N/A N/A N/A 5 5 5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vehicle Speed Limiter \b\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Control...................................................... N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
\a\ While the standards are set based on this value, users would enter another value if AES is not applied or applied for less than the full useful life
of the engine.
\b\ Vehicle speed limiters are an applicable technology for all Class 7 and 8 tractors, however the standards are not premised on the use of this
technology.
(iii) Tractor Technology Application Rates
As explained above, vehicle manufacturers often introduce major
product changes together, as a package. In this manner the
manufacturers can optimize their available resources, including
engineering, development, manufacturing and marketing activities to
create a product with multiple new features. In addition, manufacturers
recognize that a truck design will need to remain competitive over the
intended life of the design and meet future regulatory requirements. In
some limited cases, manufacturers may implement an individual
technology outside of a vehicle's redesign cycle.
With respect to the levels of technology application used to
develop the final standards, NHTSA and EPA established technology
application constraints. The first type of constraint was established
based on the application of fuel consumption and CO2
emission reduction technologies into the different types of tractors.
For example, idle reduction technologies are limited to Class 8 sleeper
cabs using the assumption that day cabs are not used for overnight
hoteling. A second type of constraint was applied to most other
technologies and limited their application based on factors reflecting
the real world operating conditions that some combination tractors
encounter. This second type of constraint was applied to the
aerodynamic, tire, and vehicle speed limiter technologies. Table III-4
specifies the application rates that EPA and NHTSA used to develop the
final standards. The agencies received a significant number of comments
related to this second basis. In particular, commenters questioned the
reasons for not requiring the maximum reduction technology in every
case. The agencies have not done so because we have concluded that
within each of these individual vehicle categories there are particular
applications where the use of the identified technologies would be
either ineffective or not technically feasible. The addition of
ineffective technologies provides no environmental or fuel efficiency
benefit, increases costs and is not a basis upon which to set a maximum
feasible improvement. For example, the agencies have not required the
use of full aerodynamic vehicle treatments on 100 percent of tractors
because we know that in many applications (for example gravel truck
engaged in local aggregate delivery) the added weight of the
aerodynamic technologies will increase fuel consumption and hence
CO2 emissions to a greater degree than the reduction that
would be accomplished from the more aerodynamic nature of the tractor.
To simply set the standard based on the largest reduction possible
estimated narrowly over a single test procedure while ignoring the in-
use effects of the technology would in this case result in a perverse
outcome that is not in keeping with the agencies' goals or the
requirements of the CAA and EISA.
Aerodynamics Application Rate
The impact of aerodynamics on a truck's efficiency increases with
vehicle speed. Therefore, the usage pattern of the truck will determine
the benefit of various aerodynamic technologies. Sleeper cabs are often
used in line haul applications and drive the majority of their miles on
the highway travelling at speeds greater than 55 mph. The industry has
focused aerodynamic technology development, including SmartWay
tractors, on these types of trucks. Therefore the agencies are adopting
the most aggressive aerodynamic technology application to this
regulatory subcategory. All of the major manufacturers today offer at
least one SmartWay truck model. The 2010 NAS Report on heavy-duty
trucks found that manufacturers indicated that aerodynamic improvements
which yield 3 to 4 percent fuel consumption reduction or 6 to 8 percent
reduction in Cd values, beyond technologies used in today's SmartWay
trucks are achievable.\226\ The aerodynamic application rate for Class
8 sleeper cab high roof cabs (i.e., the degree of technology
application on which the stringency of the final standard is premised)
consists of 20 percent of Bin IV, 70 percent Bin III, and 10 percent
Bin II reflecting our assessment of the fraction of tractors in this
segment that can successfully apply these aerodynamic packages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\226\ See TIAX, Note 198, Page 4-40.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 90 percent of tractors that we project can either be Bin II or
Bin III equipped reflects the bulk of Class 8 high roof sleeper cab
applications. We are not projecting a higher fraction of Bin III
aerodynamic systems because of the limited lead time for the program
and the need for these more advanced technologies to be developed and
demonstrated before being applied across a wider fraction of the fleet.
Aerodynamic improvements through new tractor designs and the
[[Page 57209]]
development of new aerodynamic components is an inherently slow and
iterative process. Aerodynamic impacts are highly nonlinear and often
reflect unexpected interactions between multiple components. Given the
nature of aerodynamic improvements it is inherently difficult to
estimate the degree to which improvements can be made beyond previously
demonstrated levels. The changes required for Bins III and IV reflect
the kinds of improvements projected in the Department of Energy's
Supertruck program. That program assumes that such systems can be
demonstrated on vehicles by 2017. In this case, the agencies are
projecting that truck OEMs will be able to begin implementing these
aerodynamic technologies prior to 2017 on a limited scale. Importantly,
our averaging, banking and trading provisions provide manufacturers
with the flexibility to implement these technologies over time even
though the standard changes in a single step.
The final aerodynamic application for the other tractor regulatory
categories is less aggressive than for the Class 8 sleeper cab high
roof. The agencies recognize that there are truck applications which
require on/off-road capability and other truck functions which restrict
the type of aerodynamic equipment applicable. We also recognize that
these types of trucks spend less time at highway speeds where
aerodynamic technologies have the greatest benefit. The 2002 VIUS data
ranks trucks by major use.\227\ The heavy trucks usage indicates that
up to 35 percent of the trucks may be used in on/off-road applications
or heavier applications. The uses include construction (16 percent),
agriculture (12 percent), waste management (5 percent), and mining (2
percent). Therefore, the agencies analyzed the technologies to evaluate
the potential restrictions that would prevent 100 percent application
of SmartWay technologies for all of the tractor regulatory
subcategories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\227\ U.S. Department of Energy. Transportation Energy Data
Book, Edition 28-2009. Table 5.7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in Section II.B.2.c, in response to comments received
from manufacturers making some of these same points, the agencies are
finalizing only two aerodynamic bins for low and mid roof tractors. The
agencies are reducing the number of bins for these tractors from the
proposal to reflect the actual range of aerodynamic technologies
effective in low and mid roof tractor applications. The aerodynamic
improvements to the bumper, hood, windshield, mirrors, and doors are
developed for the high roof tractor application and then carried over
into the low and mid roof applications. As mentioned in Section
II.B.2.c, the types of designs that would move high roof tractors from
a Bin III to Bins IV and V include features such as gap reducers and
integral roof fairings which would not be appropriate on low and mid
roof tractors. Thus, the agencies are differentiating the aerodynamic
performance for low- and mid-roof tractors into two bins--Bin I and Bin
II. The application rates in the low and mid roof categories are the
same as proposed, but aggregated into just two bins. Bin I for these
tractors corresponds to the proposed ``Classic'' and ``Conventional''
bins and Bin II corresponds to the proposed ``SmartWay,'' ``Advanced
SmartWay,'' and ``Advanced SmartWay II'' bins.
Low Rolling Resistance Tire Application Rate
At proposal, the agencies stated that at least one LRR tire model
is available today that meets the rolling resistance requirements of
the Level I and Level II tire packages so the 2014 MY should afford
manufacturers sufficient lead time to install these packages. EPA and
NHTSA conducted additional evaluation testing on HD tires used for
tractors. The agencies also received several comments on the
suitability of low rolling resistance tires for various HD truck
applications. The summary of the agencies findings and a response to
issues raised by commenters is presented in Section II.D(1)(a).
The agencies note that baseline rolling resistance level for tires
installed on tractors is approximately equivalent to what the agencies
consider to be low rolling resistance tires for vocational vehicles
because of the tire manufacturer's focus on improving the rolling
resistance of tractor tires. For the tire manufacturers to further
reduce tire rolling resistance, the manufacturers must consider several
performance criteria that affect tire selection. The characteristics of
a tire also influence durability, traction control, vehicle handling,
comfort, and retreadability. A single performance parameter can easily
be enhanced, but an optimal balance of all the criteria will require
improvements in materials and tread design at a higher cost, as
estimated by the agencies. Tire design requires balancing performance,
since changes in design may change different performance
characteristics in opposing directions. Similar to the discussion
regarding lesser aerodynamic technology application in tractor segments
other than sleeper cab high roof, the agencies believe that the final
standards should not be premised on 100 percent application of Level II
tires in all tractor segments given the interference with vehicle
utility that would result. The agencies are basing their analyses on
application rates that vary by subcategory recognizing that some
subcategories require a different balancing of performance versus
rolling resistance.
Weight Reduction Technology Application Rate
The agencies proposed setting the 2014 model year tractor standards
using 100 percent application of a 400 pound weight reduction package.
Volvo and ATA stated in their comments that not all fleets can use
single wide tires and if this is the case the 400 pound weight
reduction cannot be met. The agencies also received comments from MEMA,
Navistar, American Chemistry Council, the Auto Policy Center, Iron and
Steel Institute, Arvin Meritor, Aluminum Association, and environmental
groups and NGOs identifying other potential weight reduction
opportunities for tractors. As described in Section II.B.3.e above, the
agencies are adopting an expanded list of weight reduction options
which can be input into the GEM for the final rulemaking.
As also explained in that earlier discussion, the agencies, upon
further analysis, continue to believe that a 400 pound weight reduction
package is appropriate for tractors in the time frame. As stated in
Section II.B.2.e above, for tractors where single wide tires are not
appropriate, the manufacturers have additional options available to
achieve weight reduction, such as body panels and chassis components as
documented in the earlier discussion. The agencies have extended the
list of weight reduction components in order to provide the
manufacturers with additional means to comply with the combination
tractors and to further encourage reductions in vehicle weight. The
agencies considered increasing the target value beyond 400 pounds given
the additional reduction potential components identified in the
expanded list; however, lacking information on the capacity for the
industry to change to these light weight components across the board by
the 2014 model year, we have decided to maintain the 400 pound target.
The agencies intend to continue to study the potential for additional
weight reductions in our future work considering a second phase of
truck fuel efficiency and GHG regulations.
[[Page 57210]]
Idle Reduction Technology Application Rate
Idle reduction technologies provide significant reductions in fuel
consumption and CO2 emissions for Class 8 sleeper cabs and
are available on the market today, and therefore will be available in
the 2014 model year. There are several different technologies available
to reduce idling. These include APUs, diesel fired heaters, and battery
powered units. Our discussions with manufacturers indicate that idle
technologies are sometimes installed in the factory, but it is also a
common practice to have the units installed after the sale of the
truck. We would like to continue to incentivize this practice and to do
so in a manner that the emission reductions associated with idle
reduction technology occur in use. Therefore, as proposed, we are
allowing only idle emission reduction technologies with include an
automatic engine shutoff (AES). We are also adopting some override
provisions in response to comments we received (as explained below). As
proposed, we are adopting a 100 percent application rate for this
technology for Class 8 sleeper cabs, even though the current fleet is
estimated to have a 30 percent application rate. The agencies are
unaware of reasons why AES with extended idle reduction technologies
could not be applied to all tractors with a sleeper cab, except those
deemed a vocational tractor, in the available lead time.
One commenter stated the application rate of AES should be less
than 100 percent, but did not recommend an alternative application rate
or provide justification for a change. The agencies re-evaluated the
proposed 100 percent application rate and determined that a 100 percent
application rate for this technology for Class 8 sleeper cabs remains
appropriate. The agencies have also considered the many comments which
raised concerns about the proposed mandatory 5 minute automatic engine
shut down without override capability (in terms of safety, extreme
temperatures and low battery conditions). To avoid unintended adverse
impacts, we are adopting limited override provisions. Three of the five
exceptions are similar to those currently in effect under a California
Air Resources Board (CARB) regulation. CARB provides AES exceptions (or
overrides) within its existing heavy-duty vehicle anti-idling laws,
which were developed to address these same types of concerns. The
exceptions we are adopting include override capability during exhaust
emissions control device regeneration, during engine servicing and
maintenance, when battery state of charge is too low, in extreme
ambient temperatures, when engine coolant temperature is too low, and
during PTO operation. The RIA provides more detail about these final
override provisions in Section 2.5.4.3.
The agencies received comment that we should extend the idle
reduction benefits beyond Class 8 sleepers, including Class 7 tractors
and vocational vehicles. The agencies reviewed literature to quantify
the amount of idling which is conducted outside of hoteling operations.
One study, conducted by Argonne National Laboratory, identified several
different types of trucks which might idle for extended amounts of time
during the work day.\228\ Idling may occur during the delivery process,
queuing at loading docks or border crossings, during power take off
operations, or to provide comfort during the work day. However, the
study provided only ``rough estimates'' of the idle time and energy use
for these vehicles. The agencies are not able to appropriately develop
a baseline of workday idling for the other types of vehicles and
identify the percent of this idling which could be reduced through the
use of AES. Absent such information, the agencies cannot justify adding
substantial cost for AES systems with such uncertain benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\228\ Gaines, L., A. Vyas, J. Anderson. Estimation of Fuel Use
by Idling Commercial Trucks. January 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vehicle Speed Limiter Application Rate
Vehicle speed limiters may be used as a technology to meet the
standard, but in setting the standard we assumed a zero percent
application rate of vehicle speed limiters. Although we believe vehicle
speed limiters are a simple, easy to implement, and inexpensive
technology, we want to leave the use of vehicles speed limiters to the
truck purchaser. Since truck fleets purchase trucks today with owner
set vehicle speed limiters, we considered not including VSLs in our
compliance model. However, we have concluded that we should allow the
use of VSLs that cannot be overridden by the operator as a means of
compliance for vehicle manufacturers that wish to offer it and truck
purchasers that wish to purchase the technology. In doing so, we are
providing another means of meeting that standard that can lower
compliance cost and provide a more optimal vehicle solution for some
truck fleets. For example, a local beverage distributor may operate
trucks in a distribution network of primarily local roads. Under those
conditions, aerodynamic fairings used to reduce aerodynamic drag
provide little benefit due to the low vehicle speed while adding
additional mass to the vehicle. A vehicle manufacturer could choose to
install a VSL set a 55 mph for this customer. The resulting truck
modeled in GEM could meet our final emission standard without the use
of any specialized aerodynamic fairings. The resulting truck would be
optimized for its intended application and would be fully compliant
with our program all at a lower cost to the ultimate truck
purchaser.\229\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\229\ Ibid.
The agencies note that because a VSL value can be input into
GEM, its benefits can be directly assessed with the model and off
cycle credit applications therefore are not necessary even though
the standard is not based on performance of VSLs (i.e. VSL is an on-
cycle technology).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in Section II.B.2.g above, we have chosen not to base
the standards on performance of VSLs because of concerns about how to
set a realistic application rate that avoids unintended adverse
impacts. Although we expect there will be some use of VSL, currently it
is used when the fleet involved decides it is feasible and practicable
and increases the overall efficiency of the freight system for that
fleet operator. However, at this point the agencies are not in a
position to determine in how many additional situations use of a VSL
would result in similar benefits to overall efficiency. Therefore, the
agencies are not premising the final standards on use of VSL, and
instead will rely on the industry to select VSL when circumstances are
appropriate for its use. The agencies have not included either the cost
or benefit due to VSLs in analysis of the program's costs and benefits.
Implementation of this program may provide greater information for
using this technology in standard setting in the future. Many
stakeholders including the American Trucking Association have advocated
for more widespread use of vehicle speed limits to address fuel
efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions. The Center for Biological
Diversity (CBD) argued the agencies should reflect the use of VSLs in
setting the standard for tractors rather than assuming no VSL use in
determining the appropriate standard. The agencies have chosen not to
do so because, as explained, we are not able at this time to quantify
to potential loss in utility due to the use of VSLs. Absent this
information, we cannot make a determination regarding the
reasonableness of setting a standard based on a particular VSL level.
In
[[Page 57211]]
confirmation, a number of commenters most notably the Owner Operator
Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) suggest that VSLs could
significantly impact the ability of a vehicle to deliver goods against
a fixed schedule and hence would significantly impact its utility. ATA
commented that limited flexibility must be built into speed limiters as
not to interfere with NHTSA planned rulemaking in response to 2006 ATA
petition and its 2008 Sustainability Plan. Similar comments were
received from DTNA requesting that the agencies consider any NHTSA
safety regulations that may also be regulating VSLs. NHTSA plans to
issue a rule in 2012 addressing the safety performance features of
VSLs.
Table III-4 provides the final application rates of each technology
broken down by weight class, cab configuration, and roof height.
Table III-4--Final Technology Application Rates for Class 7 and 8 Tractors
[In percent]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class 7 Class 8
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day cab Day cab Sleeper cab
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low/mid Low/mid
roof High roof roof High roof Low roof Mid roof High roof
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aerodynamics (Cd)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bin I........................................................ 40 0 40 0 30 30 0
Bin II....................................................... 60 30 60 30 70 70 10
Bin III...................................................... ........... 60 ........... 60 ........... ........... 70
Bin IV....................................................... ........... 10 ........... 10 ........... ........... 20
Bin V........................................................ ........... 0 ........... 0 ........... ........... 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steer Tires (CRR kg/metric ton)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline..................................................... 40 30 40 30 30 30 10
Bin I........................................................ 50 60 50 60 60 60 70
Bin II....................................................... 10 10 10 10 10 10 20
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drive Tires (CRR kg/metric ton)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline..................................................... 40 30 40 30 30 30 10
Bin I........................................................ 50 60 50 60 60 60 70
Bin II....................................................... 10 10 10 10 10 10 20
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weight Reduction (lb)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
400 lb. Weight Reduction..................................... 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extended Idle Reduction (gram CO2/ton-mile reduction)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AES.......................................................... N/A N/A N/A N/A 100 100 100
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vehicle Speed Limiter
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VSL.......................................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(iv) Derivation of the Final Tractor Standards
The agencies used the technology inputs and final technology
application rates in GEM to develop the final fuel consumption and
CO2 emissions standards for each subcategory of Class 7 and
8 combination tractors. The agencies derived a scenario tractor for
each subcategory by weighting the individual GEM input parameters
included in Table III-3 with the application rates in Table III-4. For
example, the Cd value for a Class 8 Sleeper Cab High Roof scenario case
was derived as 10 percent times 0.68 plus 70 percent times 0.60 plus 20
percent times 0.55, which is equal to a Cd of 0.60. Similar
calculations were done for tire rolling resistance, weight reduction,
idle reduction, and vehicle speed limiters. To account for the two
final engine standards, the agencies assumed a compliant engine in
GEM.\230\ In other words, EPA is finalizing the use of a 2014 model
year fuel consumption map in GEM to derive the 2014 model year tractor
standard and a 2017 model year fuel consumption map to derive the 2017
model year tractor standard.\231\ The agencies then ran GEM with a
single set of vehicle inputs, as shown in Table III-5, to derive the
final standards for each subcategory. Additional detail is provided in
the RIA Chapter 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\230\ See Section III.A.2.b below explaining the derivation of
the engine standards.
\231\ As explained further in Section V below, EPA would use
these inputs in GEM even for engines electing to use the alternative
engine standard.
[[Page 57212]]
Table III-5--GEM Inputs for the Class 7 and 8 Tractor Standard Setting
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class 7 Class 8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day cab Day cab Sleeper cab
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low roof Mid roof High roof Low roof Mid roof High roof Low roof Mid roof High roof
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aerodynamics (Cd)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.73............................................ 0.84 0.65 0.73 0.84 0.65 0.73 0.84 0.59
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steer Tires (CRR kg/metric ton)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6.99............................................ 6.99 6.87 6.99 6.99 6.87 6.87 6.87 6.54
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drive Tires (CRR kg/metric ton)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7.38............................................ 7.38 7.26 7.38 7.38 7.26 7.26 7.26 6.92
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weight Reduction (lb)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
400............................................. 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extended Idle Reduction (gram CO2/ton-mile reduction)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
N/A............................................. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 5 5 5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vehicle Speed Limiter
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--.............................................. ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engine
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014/17 MY 11L Engine........................... 2014/17 MY 2014/17 MY 2014/17 MY 2014/17 MY 2014/17 MY 2014/17 MY 2014/17 MY 2014/17 MY
11L Engine 11L Engine 15L Engine 15L Engine 15L Engine 15L Engine 15L Engine 15L Engine
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The level of the 2014 and 2017 model year final standards and
percent reduction from the baseline for each subcategory are included
in Table III-6.
Table III-6--Final 2014 and 2017 Model Year Tractor Reductions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014 Model Year CO2 Grams per Ton-Mile
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day cab Sleeper cab
-----------------------------------------------
Class 7 Class 8 Class
-----------------------------------------------
Low Roof........................................................ 107 81 68
Mid Roof........................................................ 119 88 76
High Roof....................................................... 124 92 75
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014-2016 Model Year Gallons of Fuel per 1,000 Ton-Mile \232\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day cab Sleeper cab
-----------------------------------------------
Class 7 Class 8 Class
-----------------------------------------------
Low Roof........................................................ 10.5 8.0 6.7
Mid Roof........................................................ 11.7 8.7 7.4
High Roof....................................................... 12.2 9.0 7.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017 Model Year CO2 Grams per Ton-Mile
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day cab Sleeper cab
-----------------------------------------------
Class 7 Class 8 Class
-----------------------------------------------
Low Roof........................................................ 104 80 66
Mid Roof........................................................ 115 86 73
High Roof....................................................... 120 89 72
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017 Model Year and Later Gallons of Fuel per 1,000 Ton-Mile
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 57213]]
Day cab Sleeper cab
-----------------------------------------------
Class 7 Class 8 Class
-----------------------------------------------
Low Roof........................................................ 10.2 7.8 6.5
Mid Roof........................................................ 11.3 8.4 7.2
High Roof....................................................... 11.8 8.7 7.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A summary of the final technology package costs is included in
Table III-7 with additional details available in the RIA Chapter 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\232\ Manufacturers may voluntarily opt-in to the NHTSA fuel
consumption program in 2014 or 2015. If a manufacturer opts-in, the
program becomes mandatory.
Table III-7--Class 7 and 8 Tractor Technology Costs Inclusive of Indirect Cost Markups in the 2014 Model Year a (2009$)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class 7 Class 8
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day cab Day cab Sleeper cab
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low/mid Low/mid
roof High roof roof High roof Low roof Mid roof High roof
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aerodynamics................................................. $675 $924 $675 $924 $962 $983 $1,627
Steer Tires.................................................. 68 68 68 68 68 68 68
Drive Tires.................................................. 63 63 126 126 126 126 126
Weight Reduction............................................. 1,536 1,536 1,980 1,980 3,275 3,275 1,980
Idle Reduction with Auxiliary Power Unit..................... ........... ........... ........... ........... 3,819 3,819 3,819
Air Conditioning\c\.......................................... 22 22 22 22 22 22 22
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................................................... 2,364 2,612 2,871 3,119 8,271 8,291 7,641
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
\a\ Costs shown are for the 2014 model year so do not reflect learning impacts which would result in lower costs for later model years. For a
description of the learning impacts considered in this analysis and how it impacts technology costs for other years, refer to Chapter 2 of the RIA
(see RIA 2.2.2).
\b\ Note that values in this table include penetration rates. Therefore, the technology costs shown reflect the average cost expected for each of the
indicated classes. To see the actual estimated technology costs exclusive of penetration rates, refer to Chapter 2 of the RIA (see RIA 2.9 in
particular).
\c\ EPA's air conditioning standards are presented in Section II.E.5 above.
(v) Reasonableness of the Final Standards
The final standards are based on aggressive application rates for
control technologies which the agencies regard as the maximum feasible
for purposes of EISA section 32902 (k) and appropriate under CAA
section 202 (a) for the reasons given in Section (iii) above; see also
RIA Chapter 2.5.8.2. These technologies, at the estimated application
rates, are available within the lead time provided, as discussed in RIA
Chapter 2.5. Use of these technologies would add only a small amount to
the cost of the vehicle, and the associated reductions are highly cost
effective, an estimated $20 per ton of CO2eq per vehicle in
2030 without consideration of the substantial fuel savings.\233\ This
is even more cost effective than the estimated cost effectiveness for
CO2eq removal and fuel economy improvements under the light-
duty vehicle rule, already considered by the agencies to be a highly
cost effective reduction.\234\ Moreover, the cost of controls is
rapidly recovered due to the associated fuel savings, as shown in the
payback analysis included in Table VIII-11 located in Section VIII
below. Thus, overall cost per ton of the program, considering fuel
savings, is negative--fuel savings associated with the rules more than
offset projected costs by a wide margin. See Table VIII-6 in Section
VIII below. Given that the standards are technically feasible within
the lead time afforded by the 2014 model year, are inexpensive and
highly cost effective even without accounting for the fuel savings, and
have no apparent adverse potential impacts (e.g., there are no
projected negative impacts on safety or vehicle utility), the final
standards represent a reasonable choice under section 202(a) of the CAA
and the maximum feasible under NHTSA's EISA authority at 49 U.S.C.
32902(k)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\233\ See Section VIII.D below.
\234\ The light-duty rule had an estimated cost per ton of $50
when considering the vehicle program costs only and a cost of -$210
per ton considering the vehicle program costs along with fuel
savings in 2030. See 75 FR 25515, Table III.H.3-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(vi) Alternative Tractor Standards Considered
The agencies are not adopting tractor standards less stringent than
the proposed standards because the agencies believe these standards are
appropriate, highly cost effective, and technologically feasible within
the rulemaking time frame.
The agencies considered adopting tractor standards which are more
stringent than those proposed reflecting increased application rates of
the technologies discussed. We also considered setting more stringent
standards based on the inclusion of hybrid powertrains in tractors. We
stopped short of finalizing more stringent standards based on higher
application rates of improved aerodynamic controls and tire rolling
resistance because we concluded that the technologies would not be
compatible with the use profile of a subset of tractors which operate
in off-
[[Page 57214]]
road conditions. We have not adopted more stringent standards for
tractors based on the use of hybrid vehicle technologies, believing
that additional development and therefore lead-time is needed to
develop hybrid systems and battery technology for tractors that operate
primarily in highway cruise operations. We know, for example, that
hybrid systems are being researched to capture and return energy for
tractors that operate in gently rolling hills. However, as discussed
above, it is not clear to us today that these systems will be generally
applicable to tractors in the time frame of this regulation. In
addition, even if hybrid technologies were generally available for
these tractors during the MY 2014-2017 period, their costs would be
extremely high and benefits would be limited given that idle reduction
controls already capture many of the same emissions. According to the
2010 NAS Report, hybrid powertrains in tractors have the potential to
improve fuel consumption by 10 percent, but it displaces the 6 percent
reduction for idle reduction technologies, for a net improvement of 4
percent at a cost of $25,000 per vehicle.\235\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\235\ See 2010 NAS Report, Note 197, Page 146.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Tractor Engines
(i) Baseline Engine Performance
As noted above, EPA and NHTSA developed the baseline medium- and
heavy heavy-duty diesel engine to represent a 2010 model year engine
compliant with the 0.20 g/bhp-hr NOX standard for on-highway
heavy-duty engines.
The agencies developed baseline SET values for medium- and heavy
heavy-duty diesel engines based on 2009 model year confidential
manufacturer data and from testing conducted by EPA. The agencies
adjusted the pre-2010 data to represent 2010 model year engine maps by
using predefined technologies including SCR and other systems that are
being used in current 2010 model year production. If an engine utilized
did not meet the 0.20 g/bhp-hr NOX level, then the
individual engine's CO2 result was adjusted to accommodate
aftertreatment strategies that would result in a 0.20 g/bhp-hr
NOX emission level as described in RIA Chapter 2.4.2.1. The
engine CO2 results were then sales weighted within each
regulatory subcategory (i.e., medium heavy-duty diesel or heavy heavy-
duty diesel) to develop an industry average 2010 model year reference
engine. Although, most of the engines fell within a few percent of this
baseline at least one engine was more than six percent above this
average baseline.
Table III-8--2010 Model Year Baseline Diesel Engine Performance
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuel
CO2 Emissions consumption
(g/bhp-hr) (gallon/100
bhp-hr)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Medium Heavy-Duty Diesel--SET........... 518 5.09
Heavy Heavy-Duty Diesel--SET............ 490 4.81
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(ii) Engine Technology Package Effectiveness
The MHD and HHD diesel engine technology package for the 2014 model
year includes engine friction reduction, improved aftertreatment
effectiveness, improved combustion processes, and low temperature EGR
system optimization. The agencies considered improvements in parasitic
and friction losses through piston designs to reduce friction, improved
lubrication, and improved water pump and oil pump designs to reduce
parasitic losses. The aftertreatment improvements are available through
lower backpressure of the systems and optimization of the engine-out
NOX levels. Improvements to the EGR system and air flow
through the intake and exhaust systems, along with turbochargers can
also produce engine efficiency improvements. We note that individual
technology improvements are not additive due to the interaction of
technologies. The agencies assessed the impact of each technology over
each of the 13 SET modes to project an overall weighted SET cycle
improvement in the 2014 model year of 3 percent, as detailed in RIA
Chapter 2.4.2.9 through 2.4.2.14. All of these technologies represent
engine enhancements already developed beyond the research phase and are
available as ``off the shelf'' technologies for manufacturers to add to
their engines during the engine's next design cycle. We have estimated
that manufacturers will be able to implement these technologies on or
before the 2014 engine model year. The agencies adopted a standard that
therefore reflects a 100 percent application rate of this technology
package. The agencies gave consideration to finalizing a more stringent
standard based on the application of mechanical turbocompounding by
model year 2014, a mechanical means of waste heat recovery, but
concluded that manufacturers would have insufficient lead-time to
complete the necessary product development and validation work
necessary to include this technology. Implementing turbocompounding
into an engine design must be done through a significant redesign of
the engine architecture a process that typically takes 4 to 5 years.
Hence, we believe that turbocompounding is a more appropriate
technology for the agencies to consider in the 2017 timeframe.
As explained earlier, EPA's heavy-duty highway engine standards for
criteria pollutants apply in three year increments. The heavy-duty
engine manufacturer product plans have fallen into three year cycles to
reflect these requirements. The agencies are finalizing fuel
consumption and CO2 emission standards recognizing the
opportunity for technology improvements over this time frame
(specifically, the addition of turbocompounding to the engine
technology package) while reflecting the typical heavy-duty engine
manufacturer product plan redesign and refresh cycles. Thus, the
agencies are finalizing a more stringent standard for heavy-duty
engines beginning in the 2017 model year.
The MHDD and HHDD engine technology package for the 2017 model year
includes the continued development of the 2014 model year technology
package including refinement of the aftertreatment system plus
turbocompounding. The agencies calculated overall reductions in the
same manner as for the 2014 model year package. The weighted SET cycle
improvements lead to a 6 percent reduction on the SET cycle, as
detailed
[[Page 57215]]
in RIA Chapter 2.4.2.12. The agencies' final standards are premised on
a 100 percent application rate of this technology package.
Commenters noted that the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) study
indicates that additional technology improvements can be made to heavy-
duty engines in MY 2014 and 2017. For diesel engine standards, the
agencies evaluated the following technologies: Combustion system
optimization, turbocharging and air handling systems, engine parasitic
and friction reduction, integrated aftertreatment systems,
electrification, and waste heat recovery.
The agencies carefully evaluated the research supporting the NAS
report and its recommendations and incorporated them to the extent
practicable in the development of the HD program. While the NAS report
suggests that greater engine improvements could be achieved by the use
of technologies such as improved emission control systems and
turbocompounding than do the agencies in this final action, we believe
the standards being finalized represent the most stringent technically
feasible for diesel engines used in tractors and vocational vehicles in
the 2014 to 2017 model year time frame. The NAS study concluded that
tractor engine fuel consumption can be reduced by approximately 15
percent in the 2015 to 2020 time frame and vocational engine fuel
consumption can be reduced by approximately 10 to 17 percent in the
same time frame compared to a 2008 engine baseline.\236\ Throughout
this presentation, the agencies' projections of performance
improvements are measured relative to a 2010 engine performance
baseline that itself reflects a four to five percent improvement over
the 2008 engine baseline used by NAS. Based on a review of existing
studies, NAS study authors found a range of reduction potential exists
for improvements in combustion efficiency, electrification of
accessories; improved emission control systems; and turbocompounding.
The study found that improvements in combustion efficiency can provide
reductions of 1 percent to 4 percent; electrification of accessories
can provide reductions of 2 percent to 5 percent in a hybridized
vehicle; improved emission control systems can provide a 1 percent to 4
percent improvement (depending on whether the improvement is to the EGR
or SCR system); and a 2.5 percent to 10 percent reduction is possible
with mechanical or electrical turbocompounding. While the reductions
being finalized in this regulation are lower than those published in
the NAS study, the agencies believe that the percent reductions being
finalized in these rules are consistent with the findings of the NAS
study. The reasons for this are as follows.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\236\ National Research Council, ``Technologies and Approaches
to Reducing the Fuel Consumption of Medium- and Heavy-Duty
Vehicles'' Figure S-1, page 4, National Acedemies Press, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, some technologies cannot be used by all manufacturers. For
example, improved SCR conversion efficiency was projected by NAS to
provide a 3 percent to 4 percent improvement in fuel consumption.
Conversely, low temperature EGR was found to provide only a one percent
improvement. While the majority of manufacturers do use SCR systems and
will be able to realize the 3 percent to 4 percent improvement, not all
manufacturers use SCR for NOX aftertreatment. Manufacturers
that do not use SCR aftertreatment systems would only be able to
realize the 1 percent improvement from low temperature EGR. The
agencies need to take into consideration the entire market in setting
the stringency of the standards and, in assessing feasibility and cost,
cannot assume that all manufacturers will be able to use all
technologies.
Second, significant technical advances may be needed in order to
realize the upper end of estimates for some technologies. For example,
studies evaluated by NAS on turbocompounding found that a 2.5 percent
to 10 percent reduction is feasible. However, only one system is
available commercially and this system provides reductions on the low
end of this range.\237\ Little technical information is available on
the systems that achieve reductions in the upper range for
turbocompounding. These systems are based on proprietary designs the
improvement results for which have not yet been replicated by other
companies or organizations. The agencies are assuming that all tractor
engine manufacturers will use turbocompounding by 2017 model year. This
will require a significant change in the design of heavy-duty tractor
engines, one that represents the maximum technically feasible standard
even at the low end of the assumed improvement spectrum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\237\ NAS 2010, page 53 cites Detroit Diesel Corporation, DD15
Brochure, DDC-EMC-BRO-0003-0408, April 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, different duty cycles used in the evaluation of medium-
and heavy-duty engine technologies can affect reported fuel consumption
improvements. For example, some technologies are dependent on high load
conditions to provide the greatest reductions. The duty cycles used to
evaluate some of the technologies considered by NAS differed
significantly from that used by the agencies in the modeling for this
rulemaking. Maximum and average speed was higher in some of the cycles
used in the studies, for example, and one result was demonstrated on a
nonroad engine cycle. In another example, the effectiveness of
turbocompounding when evaluated on a duty cycle with higher engine load
can show a greater reduction potential than when evaluated with a lower
engine load. In addition, technologies such as improvements to cooling
fans, air compressors, and air conditioning systems will not be
demonstrated using the engine dynamometer test procedures being adopted
in this final action because those components are not installed on the
engine during the testing. The agencies selected the duty cycles for
analysis, and for the final standards, that we believed best suited
tractor engines.
The agencies selected engine technologies and the estimated fuel
reduction percentages for setting the standards. For the reasons stated
above, the agencies believe the technologies and required improvements
in fuel consumption represent the maximum feasible improvement, and are
appropriate, cost-effective, and technologically feasible.
We gave consideration to finalizing an even more stringent standard
based on the use of waste heat recovery via a Rankine cycle (also
called bottoming cycle) but concluded that there is insufficient lead-
time between now and 2017 for this promising technology to be developed
and applied generally to all heavy-duty engines. TIAX noted in their
report to the NAS committee that the engine improvements beyond 2015
model year included in their report are highly uncertain, though they
include Rankine cycle type waste heat recovery as applicable sometime
between 2016 and 2020.\238\ The Department of Energy is working with
industry to develop waste heat recovery systems for heavy-duty engines.
At the Diesel Engine-Efficiency and Emissions Research (DEER)
conference in 2010, Caterpillar presented details regarding their waste
heat recovery systems development effort. In their presentation,
Caterpillar clearly noted that the work is a research project and
therefore does not imply
[[Page 57216]]
commercial viability.\239\ At the same conference, Concepts NREC
presented a status of exhaust energy recovery in heavy-duty engines.
The scope of Concepts NREC included the design and development of
prototype parts.\240\ Cummins, also in coordination with DOE, is also
active in developing exhaust energy recovery systems. Cummins made a
presentation to the DEER conference in 2009 providing an update on
their progress which highlighted opportunities to achieve a 10 percent
engine efficiency improvement during their research, but indicated the
need to focus their future development on areas with the highest
recovery opportunities (such as EGR, exhaust, and charge air).\241\
Cummins also indicated that future development would focus on reducing
the high additional costs and system complexity. Based upon the
assessment of this information, the agencies did not include these
technologies in determining the stringency of the final standards.
However, we do believe the bottoming cycle approach represents a
significant opportunity to reduce fuel consumption and GHG emissions in
the future. EPA and NHTSA are therefore both finalizing provisions for
advanced technology credits described in Section IV to create
incentives for manufacturers to continue to invest to develop this
technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\238\ See TIAX, Note 198, Page 4-29.
\239\ Kruiswyk, R. ``An Engine System Approach to Exhaust Waste
Heat Recovery.'' Presented at DOE DEER Conference on September 29,
2010. Last viewed on May 11, 2011 at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/deer_2010/wednesday/presentations/deer10_kruiswyk.pdf.
\240\ Cooper, D, N. Baines, N. Sharp. ``Organic Rankine Cycle
Turbine for Exhaust Energy Recovery in a Heavy Truck Engine.''
Presented at the 2010 DEER Conference. Last viewed on May 11, 2011
at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/deer_2010/wednesday/presentations/deer10_baines.pdf.
\241\ Nelson, C. ``Exhaust Energy Recovery.'' Presented at the
DOE DEER Conference on August 5, 2009. Last viewed on May 11, 2011
at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/deer_2009/session5/deer09_nelson_1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(iii) Derivation of Engine Standards
EPA developed the final 2014 model year CO2 emissions
standards (based on the SET cycle) for diesel engines by applying the
three percent reduction from the technology package (just explained
above) to the 2010 model year baseline values determined using the SET
cycle. EPA developed the 2017 model year CO2 emissions
standards for diesel engines while NHTSA similarly developed the 2017
model year diesel engine fuel consumption standards by applying the 6
percent reduction from the 2017 model year technology package
(reflecting performance of turbocompounding plus the 2014 MY technology
package) to the 2010 model year baseline values. The final standards
are included in Table III-9.
Table III-9--Final Diesel Engine Standards Over the SET Cycle
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MHD diesel HHD diesel
Model year engine engine
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014-2016..................................... CO2 Standard (g/bhp-hr)......... 502 475
Voluntary Fuel Consumption 4.93 4.67
Standard (gallon/100 bhp-hr).
2017 and later................................ CO2 Standard (g/bhp-hr)......... 487 460
Fuel Consumption (gallon/100 bhp- 4.78 4.52
hr).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(iv) Engine Technology Package Costs
EPA has historically used two different approaches to estimate the
indirect costs (sometimes called fixed costs) of regulations including
costs for product development, machine tooling, new capital investments
and other general forms of overhead that do not change with incremental
changes in manufacturing volumes. Where the Agency could reasonably
make a specific estimate of individual components of these indirect
costs, EPA has done so. Where EPA could not readily make such an
estimate, EPA has instead relied on the use of markup factors referred
to as indirect cost multipliers (ICMs) to estimate these indirect costs
as a ratio of direct manufacturing costs. In general, EPA has used
whichever approach it believed could provide the most accurate
assessment of cost on a case-by-case basis. The agencies' general
approach used elsewhere in this action (for HD pickup trucks, gasoline
engines, combination tractors, and vocational vehicles) estimates
indirect costs based on the use of ICMs. See also 75 FR 25376. We have
used this approach generally because these standards are based on
installing new parts and systems purchased from a supplier. In such a
case, the supplier is conducting the bulk of the research and
development on the new parts and systems and including those costs in
the purchase price paid by the original equipment manufacturer. In this
situation, we believe that the ICM approach provides an accurate and
clear estimate of the additional indirect costs borne by the
manufacturer.
For the heavy-duty diesel engine segment, however, the agencies do
not consider this model to be the most appropriate because the primary
cost is not expected to be the purchase of parts or systems from
suppliers or even the production of the parts and systems, but rather
the development of the new technology by the original equipment
manufacturer itself. Most of the technologies the agencies are
projecting the heavy-duty engine manufacturers will use for compliance
reflect modifications to existing engine systems rather than wholesale
addition of technology (e.g., improved turbochargers rather than adding
a turbocharger where it did not exist before as was done in our light-
duty joint rulemaking in the case of turbo-downsizing). When the bulk
of the costs come from refining an existing technology rather than a
wholesale addition of technology, a specific estimate of indirect costs
may be more appropriate. For example, combustion optimization may
significantly reduce emissions and cost a manufacturer millions of
dollars to develop but will lead to an engine that is no more expensive
to produce. Using a bill of materials approach would suggest that the
cost of the emissions control was zero reflecting no new hardware and
ignoring the millions of dollars spent to develop the improved
combustion system. Details of the cost analysis are included in the RIA
Chapter 2. The agencies did not receive any comments regarding the cost
approach used in the proposal.
The agencies developed the engineering costs for the research and
development of diesel engines with lower fuel consumption and
CO2 emissions. The aggregate costs for engineering hours,
technician support,
[[Page 57217]]
dynamometer cell time, and fabrication of prototype parts are estimated
at $6.8 million (2009 dollars) per manufacturer per year over the five
years covering 2012 through 2016. In aggregate, this averages out to
$284 per engine during 2012 through 2016 using an annual sales volume
of 600,000 light-, medium- and heavy-HD engines. The agencies received
comments from Horriba regarding the assumption the agencies used in the
proposal that said manufacturers would need to purchase new equipment
for measuring N2O and the associated costs. Horriba provided
information regarding the cost of stand-alone FTIR instrumentation
(estimated at $50,000 per unit) and cost of upgrading existing emission
measurement systems with NDIR analyzers (estimated at $25,000 per
unit). The agencies further analyzed our assumptions along with
Horriba's comments. Thus, we have revised the equipment costs estimates
and assumed that 75 percent of manufacturers would update existing
equipment while the other 25 percent would require new equipment. The
agencies are estimating costs of $63,087 (2009 dollars) per engine
manufacturer per engine subcategory (light-, medium- and heavy-HD) to
cover the cost of purchasing photo-acoustic measurement equipment for
two engine test cells. This would be a one-time cost incurred in the
year prior to implementation of the standard (i.e., the cost would be
incurred in 2013). In aggregate, this averages out to less than $1 per
engine in 2013 using an annual sales volume of 600,000 light-, medium-
and heavy-HD engines.
Where we projected that additional new hardware was needed to the
meet the final standards, we developed the incremental costs for those
technologies and marked them up using the ICM approach. Table III-10
below summarizes those estimates of cost on a per item basis. All costs
shown in Table III-18, below, include a low complexity ICM of 1.15 and
flat-portion of the curve learning is considered applicable to each
technology.
Table III-10--Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine Component Costs for Combination
Tractors\a\ (2009$)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technology 2014 2017
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cylinder Head........................... $6 $6
Turbo efficiency........................ 18 17
EGR cooler.............................. 4 3
Water pump.............................. 91 84
Oil pump................................ 5 4
Fuel pump............................... 5 4
Fuel rail............................... 10 9
Fuel injector........................... 11 10
Piston.................................. 3 3
Engine Friction Reduction of Valvetrain. 82 76
Turbo-compounding (engines placed in 0 875
combination tractors only).............
MHHD and HHDD Total (combination 234 1,091
tractors)..............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:
\a\ Costs for aftertreatment improvements for MH and HH diesel engines
are covered via the engineering costs (see text). For LH diesel
engines, we have included the cost of aftertreatment improvements as a
technology cost.
The overall diesel engine technology package cost for an engine
being placed in a combination tractor is $234 in the 2014 model year
and $1,091 in the 2017 model year.
(v) Reasonableness of the Final Standards
The final engine standards appear to be reasonable and consistent
with the agencies' respective statutory authorities. With respect to
the 2014 and 2017 MY standards, all of the technologies on which the
standards are predicated have already been demonstrated in some
capacity and their effectiveness is well documented. The final
standards reflect a 100 percent application rate for these
technologies. The costs of adding these technologies remain modest
across the various engine classes as shown in Table III-10. Use of
these technologies would add only a small amount to the cost of the
vehicle,\242\ and the associated reductions are highly cost effective,
an estimated $20 per ton of CO2eq per vehicle.\243\ This is
even more cost effective than the estimated cost effectiveness for
CO2eq removal under the light-duty vehicle rule, already
considered by the agencies to be a highly cost effective
reduction.\244\ Even the more expensive 2017 MY final standard still
represents only a small fraction of the vehicle's total cost and is
even more cost effective than the light-duty vehicle rule. Moreover,
costs are more than offset by fuel savings. Accordingly, EPA and NHTSA
view these standards as reflecting an appropriate balance of the
various statutory factors under section 202(a) of the CAA and under
NHTSA's EISA authority at 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\242\ Sample 2010 MY day cabs are priced at $89,000 while 2010
MY sleeper cabs are priced at $113,000. See page 3 of ICF's
``Investigation of Costs for Strategies to Reduce Greenhouse Gas
Emissions for Heavy-Duty On-Road Vehicles.'' July 2010.
\243\ See Tractor CO2 savings and technology costs in
Table 7-5 in RIA chapter 7.
\244\ The light-duty rule had an estimated cost per ton of $50
when considering the vehicle program costs only and a cost of -$210
per ton considering the vehicle program costs along with fuel
savings in 2030. See 75 FR 25515, Table III.H.3-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(vi) Temporary Alternative Standard for Certain Engine Families
As discussed above in Section II.B(2)(b), notwithstanding the
general reasonableness of the final standards, the agencies recognize
that heavy-duty engines have never been subject to GHG or fuel
consumption (or fuel economy) standards and that such control has not
necessarily been an independent priority for manufacturers. The result
is that there are a group of legacy engines with emissions higher than
the industry baseline for which compliance with the final 2014 MY
standards may be more challenging and for which there may simply be
inadequate lead time. The issue is not whether these engines' GHG and
fuel consumption performance cannot be improved by utilizing the
technology packages on which the final standards are based. Those
technologies can be utilized by all diesel engines installed in
tractors and the same degree of reductions obtained. Rather the
underlying base engine components of these engines reflect designs that
are decades old and therefore have base performance levels below what
is typical for the industry as a whole
[[Page 57218]]
today. Manufacturers have been gradually replacing these legacy
products with new engines. Engine manufacturers have indicated to the
agencies they will have to align their planned replacement of these
products with our final standards and at the same time add additional
technologies beyond those identified by the agencies as the basis for
the final standard. Because these changes will reflect a larger degree
of overall engine redesign, manufacturers may not be able to complete
this work for all of their legacy products prior to model year 2014. To
pull ahead these already planned engine replacements would be
impossible as a practical matter given the engineering structure and
lead-times inherent in the companies' existing product development
processes. We have also concluded that the use of fleet averaging would
not address the issue of legacy engines because each manufacturer
typically produces only a limited line of MHDD and HHDD engines.
Because there are ample fleetwide averaging opportunities for heavy-
duty pickups and vans, the agencies do not perceive similar
difficulties for these vehicles.
Facing a similar issue in the light-duty vehicle rule, EPA adopted
a Temporary Lead Time Allowance provision whereby a limited number of
vehicles of a subset of manufacturers would meet an alternative
standard in the early years of the program, affording them sufficient
lead time to meet the more stringent standards applicable in later
model years. See 75 FR 25414-25418. The agencies are finalizing a
similar approach here. As explained above in Section II.B.(2)(b), the
agencies are finalizing a regulatory alternative whereby a
manufacturer, for a limited period, would have the option to comply
with a unique standard requiring the same level of reduction of
emissions (i.e., percent removal) and fuel consumption as otherwise
required, but the reduction would be measured from its own 2011 model
year baseline. We are thus finalizing an optional standard whereby
manufacturers would elect to have designated engine families meet a
standard of 3 percent reduction from their 2011 baseline emission and
fuel consumption levels for that engine family or engine subcategory.
Our assessment is that this three percent reduction is appropriate
based on use of similar technology packages at similar cost as we have
estimated for the primary program. In the NPRM, we solicited comment on
extending this alternative (See 75 FR at 74202). As explained earlier,
we have decided not to allow the alternative standard to continue past
the 2016 MY. By this time, the engines should have gone through a
redesign cycle which will allow manufacturers to replace those legacy
engines which resulted in abnormally high baseline emission and fuel
consumption levels and to achieve the MY 2017 standards which would be
feasible using the technology package set out above (optimized
NOX aftertreatment, improved EGR, reductions in parasitic
losses, and turbocharging). Manufacturers would, of course, be free to
adopt other technology paths which meet the final MY 2017 standards.
Since the alternative standard is premised on the need for
additional lead time, manufacturers would first have to utilize all
available flexibilities which could otherwise provide that lead time.
Thus, as proposed, the alternative would not be available unless and
until a manufacturer had exhausted all available credits and credit
opportunities, and engines under the alternative standard could not
generate credits. See also 75 FR 25417-25419 (similar approach for
vehicles which are part of Temporary Lead Time Allowance under the
light-duty vehicle rule). We are finalizing that manufacturers can
select engine families for this alternative standard without agency
approval, but are requiring that manufacturers notify the agency of
their choice and also requiring manufacturers to include in that
notification a demonstration that it has exhausted all available
credits and credit opportunities. Manufacturers would also have to
demonstrate their 2011 baseline calculations as part of the
certification process for each engine family for which the manufacturer
elects to use the alternative standard. See Section V.C.1(b)(i) below.
(vii) ther Engine Standards Considered
The agencies are not finalizing engine standards less stringent
than the final standards because the agencies believe these final
standards are appropriate, highly cost effective, and technologically
feasible, as just described.
The agencies considered finalizing engine standards which are more
stringent. Since the final standards reflect 100 percent utilization of
the various technology packages, some additional technology would have
to be added. The agencies are finalizing 2017 model year standards
based on the use of turbocompounding. As discussed above in Section
III.A.2.b.iii, the agencies considered the inclusion of more advanced
heat recovery systems, such as Rankine or bottoming cycles, which would
provide further reductions. However, the agencies are not finalizing
this level of stringency because our assessment is that these
technologies would not be available for production by the 2017 model
year.
B. Heavy-Duty Pickup Trucks and Vans
This section describes the process the agencies used to develop the
standards the agencies are finalizing for HD pickups and vans. We
started by gathering available information about the fuel consumption
and CO2 emissions from recent model year vehicles. The core
portion of this information comes primarily from EPA's certification
databases, CFEIS and Verify, which contain the publicly available data
\245\ regarding emission and fuel economy results. This information is
not extensive because manufacturers have not been required to chassis
test HD diesel vehicles for EPA's criteria pollutant emissions
standards, nor have they been required to conduct any testing of heavy-
duty vehicles on the highway cycle. Nevertheless, enough certification
activity has occurred for diesels under EPA's optional chassis-based
program, and, due to a California NOX requirement for the
highway test cycle, enough test results have been voluntarily reported
for both diesel and gasoline vehicles using the highway test cycle, to
yield a reasonably robust data set. To supplement this data set, for
purposes of this rulemaking EPA initiated its own testing program using
in-use vehicles. This program and the results from it thus far are
described in a memorandum to the docket for this rulemaking.\246\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\245\ http://www.epa.gov/otaq/certdata.htm.
\246\ Memorandum from Cleophas Jackson, U.S.EPA, to docket EPA-
HQ-OAR-2010-0162, ``Heavy-Duty Greenhouse Gas and Fuel Consumption
Test Program Summary'', September 20, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans are sold in a variety of
configurations to meet market demands. Among the differences in these
configurations that affect CO2 emissions and fuel
consumption are curb weight, GVWR, axle ratio, and drive wheels (two-
wheel drive or four-wheel drive). Because the currently-available test
data set does not capture all of these configurations, it is necessary
to extend that data set across the product mix using adjustment
factors. In this way a test result from, say a truck with two-wheel
drive, 3.73:1 axle ratio, and 8000 lb test weight, can be used to model
emissions and fuel consumption from a truck of the same basic body
design, but with four-wheel drive, a 4.10:1 axle ratio, and 8,500 lb
test weight. The adjustment factors are
[[Page 57219]]
based on data from testing in which only the parameters of interest are
varied. These parameterized adjustments and their basis are also
described in a memorandum to the docket for this rulemaking.\247\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\247\ Memorandum from Anthony Neam and Jeff Cherry, U.S.EPA, to
docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162, October 18, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agencies requested and received from each of the three major
manufacturers confidential information for each model and
configuration, indicating the values of each of these key parameters as
well as the annual production (for the U.S. market). Production figures
are useful because, under our final standards for HD pickups and vans,
compliance is judged on the basis of production-weighted (corporate
average) emissions or fuel consumption level, not individual vehicle
levels. For consistency and to avoid confounding the analysis with data
from unusual market conditions in 2009, the production and vehicle
specification data is from the 2008 model year. We made the simplifying
assumption that these sales figures reasonably approximate future sales
for purposes of this analysis.
One additional assessment was needed to make the data set useful as
a baseline for the standards selection. Because the appropriate
standards are determined by applying efficiency-improving technologies
to the baseline fleet, it is necessary to know the level of penetration
of these technologies in the latest model year (2010). This information
was also provided confidentially by the manufacturers. Generally, the
agencies found that the HD pickup and van fleet was at a roughly
consistent level of technology application, with (1) the transition
from 4-speed to 5- or 6-speed automatic transmissions mostly
accomplished, (2) coupled cam phasing to achieve variable valve control
on gasoline engines likewise mostly in place,\248\ and (3) substantial
remaining potential for optimizing catalytic diesel NOX
aftertreatment to improve fuel economy (the new heavy-duty
NOX standards having taken effect in the 2010 model year).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\248\ See Section III.B(2)(a) for our response to comments
arguing for inclusion of this technology in the list of technologies
needed to meet the standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Taking this 2010 baseline fleet, and applying the technologies
determined to be feasible and appropriate by the 2018 model year, along
with their effectiveness levels, the agencies could then make a
determination of appropriate final standards. The assessment of
feasibility, described immediately below, takes into account the
projected costs of these technologies. The derivation of these costs,
largely based on analyses developed in the light-duty GHG and fuel
economy rulemaking, are described in Section III.B(3).
Our assessment concluded that the technologies that the agencies
considered feasible and appropriate for HD pickups and vans could be
consistently applied to essentially all vehicles across this sector by
the 2018 model year. Therefore we did not apply varying penetration
rates across vehicle types and models in developing and evaluating the
final standards.
Since the manufacturers of HD pickups and vans generally only have
one basic pickup truck and van with different versions (i.e., different
wheel bases, cab sizes, two-wheel drive, four-wheel drive, etc.) and do
not have the flexibility of the light-duty fleet to coordinate model
improvements over several years, changes to the HD pickups and vans to
meet new standards must be carefully planned with the redesign cycle
taken into account. The opportunities for large-scale changes (e.g.,
new engines, transmission, vehicle body and mass) thus occur less
frequently than in the light-duty fleet, typically at spans of 8 or
more years. However, opportunities for gradual improvements not
necessarily linked to large scale changes can occur between the
redesign cycles. Examples of such improvements are upgrades to an
existing vehicle model's engine, transmission and aftertreatment
systems. Given this long redesign cycle and our understanding with
respect to where the different manufacturers are in that cycle, the
agencies have initially determined that the full implementation of the
final standards would be feasible and appropriate by the 2018 model
year.
Although we did not determine a technological need for less than
full implementation of any technology, we did decide that a phased
implementation schedule would be appropriate to accommodate
manufacturers' redesign workload and product schedules, especially in
light of this sector's relatively low sales volumes and long product
cycles. We did not determine a specific cost of implementing the final
standards immediately in 2014 without a phase-in, but we assessed it to
be much higher than the cost of the phase-in we are finalizing, due to
the workload and product cycle disruptions it would cause, and also due
to manufacturers' resulting need to develop some of these technologies
for heavy-duty applications sooner than or simultaneously with light-
duty development efforts. See generally 75 FR 25467-25468 explaining
why attempting major changes outside the redesign cycle period raises
very significant issues of both feasibility and cost. On the other
hand, waiting until 2018 before applying any new standards could miss
the opportunity to achieve meaningful and cost-effective early
reductions not requiring a major product redesign.
The final phase-in schedule, 15-20-40-60-100 percent in 2014-2015-
2016-2017-2018, respectively, was chosen to strike a balance between
meaningful reductions in the early years (reflecting the technologies'
penetration rates of 15 and 20 percent) and providing manufacturers
with needed lead time via a gradually accelerating ramp-up of
technology penetration.\249\ By expressing the final phase-in in terms
of increasing fleetwide stringency for each manufacturer, while also
providing for credit generation and use (including averaging, carry-
forward, and carry-back), we believe our program affords manufacturers
substantial flexibility to satisfy the phase-in through a variety of
pathways, among them, the gradual application of technologies across
the fleet (averaging a fifth of total production in each year), greater
application levels on only a portion of the fleet, or a mix of the two.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\249\ The NHTSA program provides voluntary standards for model
years 2014 and 2015. NHTSA and EPA are also providing an alternative
standards phase-in that meets EISA's requirement for three years of
regulatory stability. See Section II.C.d.ii for a more detailed
discussion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We considered setting more stringent standards that would require
the application of additional technologies by 2018. We expect, in fact,
that some of these technologies may well prove feasible and cost-
effective in this time frame, and may even become technologies of
choice for individual manufacturers. This dynamic has played out in EPA
programs before and highlights the value of setting performance-based
standards that leave engineers the freedom to find the most cost-
effective solutions.
However, the agencies do believe that at this stage there is not
enough information to conclude that the additional technologies provide
an appropriate basis for standard-setting. For example, we believe that
42V stop-start systems can be applied to gasoline vehicles with
significant GHG and fuel consumption benefits, but we recognize that
there is uncertainty at this time over the cost-effectiveness of these
systems in heavy-duty applications, and legitimate concern with
customer
[[Page 57220]]
acceptance of vehicles with high GCWR towing large loads that would
routinely stop running at idle. Hybrid electric technology likewise
could be applied to heavy-duty vehicles, and in fact has already been
so applied on a limited basis. However, the development, design, and
tooling effort needed to apply this technology to a vehicle model is
quite large, and seems less likely to prove cost-effective in this time
frame, due to the small sales volumes relative to the light-duty
sector. Here again, potential customer acceptance would need to be
better understood because the smaller engines that facilitate much of a
hybrid's benefit are typically at odds with the importance pickup
trucks buyers place on engine horsepower and torque, whatever the
vehicle's real performance.
We also considered setting less stringent standards calling for a
more limited set of applied technologies. However, our assessment
concluded with a high degree of confidence that the technologies on
which the final standards are premised are clearly available at
reasonable cost in the 2014-2018 time frame, and that the phase-in and
other flexibility provisions allow for their application in a very
cost-effective manner, as discussed in this section below.
More difficult to characterize is the degree to which more or less
stringent standards might be appropriate because of under- or over-
estimating effectiveness of the technologies whose performance is the
basis of the final standards. Our basis for these estimates is
described in the following Section 0. Because for the most part these
technologies have not yet been applied to HD pickups and vans, even on
a limited basis, we are relying to some degree on engineering judgment
in predicting their effectiveness. Even so, we believe that we have
applied this judgment using the best information available, primarily
from our recent rulemaking on light-duty vehicle GHGs and fuel economy,
and have generated a robust set of effectiveness values.
(1) What technologies did the agencies consider?
The agencies considered over 35 vehicle technologies that
manufacturers could use to improve the fuel consumption and reduce
CO2 emissions of their vehicles during MYs 2014-2018. The
majority of the technologies described in this section is readily
available, well known, and could be incorporated into vehicles once
production decisions are made. Several of the technologies have already
been introduced into the heavy-duty pickup and van market (i.e.,
variable valve timing, improved accessories, etc.) in a limited number
of applications. Other technologies considered may not currently be in
production, but are beyond the research phase and under development,
and are expected to be in production in highway vehicles over the next
few years. These are technologies which are capable of achieving
significant improvements in fuel economy and reductions in
CO2 emissions, at reasonable costs. The agencies did not
consider technologies in the research stage because there is
insufficient time for such technologies to move from research to
production during the model years covered by this final action.
The agencies received comments regarding applicability of certain
advanced technologies described in the TIAX 2009 report submitted to
NAS. Specifically mentioned were turbocharging and downsizing of
gasoline vehicles and hydraulic hybrid systems. While turbocharging and
downsizing of gasoline vehicles was a principal technology underlying
the standards in the light-duty rule, the agencies determined that in
the realm of heavy-duty vehicles, this approach provides much less
benefit to vehicles which are required to regularly operate at high and
sustained loads. In light-duty applications, downsizing of a typically
oversized engine largely results in benefits mainly under partial and
light load conditions. This approach is more applicable to light-duty
vehicles because they infrequently require high or full power. Further,
while turbo downsizing was already occurring in a portion of the light-
duty fleet, it has not been demonstrated in the heavy-duty fleet,
likely due to concerns with durability of this technology in the
sustained high-load duty cycles frequently encountered. Similarly,
other light-duty technologies (i.e., cylinder deactivation, engine
start stop) were also determined to not be compatible with the duty
cycle of heavy-duty vehicles for similar reasons. Due to the relatively
aggressive implementation of this program and the lack of
commercialization in the heavy-duty market, hydraulic hybrid systems
were not considered a technology that could be implemented in the time
frame of this program for the HD pickup and van sector. The fact that
no HD pickup or van hydraulic hybrids have been, or are the verge of
being marketed makes their widespread introduction before the MY 2018
final year of the phase-in very unlikely.
The technologies considered in the agencies' analysis are briefly
described below. They fall into five broad categories: engine
technologies, transmission technologies, vehicle technologies,
electrification/accessory technologies, and hybrid technologies.
In this class of trucks and vans, diesel engines are installed in
about half of all vehicles. The ratio between gasoline and diesel
engine purchases by consumers has tended to track changes in the
overall cost of oil and the relative cost of gasoline and diesel fuels.
When oil prices are higher, diesel sales tend to increase. This trend
has reversed when oil prices fall or when diesel fuel prices are
significantly higher than gasoline. In the context of our technology
discussion for heavy-duty pickups and vans, we are treating gasoline
and diesel engines separately so each has a set of baseline
technologies. We discuss performance improvements in terms of changes
to those baseline engines. Our cost and inventory estimates contained
elsewhere reflect the current fleet baseline with an appropriate mix of
gasoline and diesel engines. Note that we are not basing the final
standards on a targeted switch in the mix of diesel and gasoline
vehicles. We believe our final standards require similar levels of
technology development and cost for both diesel and gasoline vehicles.
Hence the final program does not force, nor does it discourage, changes
in a manufacturer's fleet mix between gasoline and diesel vehicles.
Although we considered setting a single standard based on the
performance level possible for diesel vehicles, we are not finalizing
such an approach because the potential disruption in the HD pickup and
van market from a forced shift would not be justified. Types of engine
technologies that improve fuel efficiency and reduce CO2
emissions include the following:
Low-friction lubricants--low viscosity and advanced low
friction lubricants oils are now available with improved performance
and better lubrication. If manufacturers choose to make use of these
lubricants, they would need to make engine changes and possibly conduct
durability testing to accommodate the low-friction lubricants.
Reduction of engine friction losses--can be achieved
through low-tension piston rings, roller cam followers, improved
material coatings, more optimal thermal management, piston surface
treatments, and other improvements in the design of engine components
and subsystems that improve engine operation.
Cylinder deactivation--deactivates the intake and exhaust
valves and prevents fuel injection into some cylinders during light-
load operation.
[[Page 57221]]
The engine runs temporarily as though it were a smaller engine which
substantially reduces pumping losses.
Variable valve timing--alters the timing of the intake
valve, exhaust valve, or both, primarily to reduce pumping losses,
increase specific power, and control residual gases.
Stoichiometric gasoline direct-injection technology--
injects fuel at high pressure directly into the combustion chamber to
improve cooling of the air/fuel charge within the cylinder, which
allows for higher compression ratios and increased thermodynamic
efficiency.
Diesel engine improvements and diesel aftertreatment
improvements--improved EGR systems and advanced timing can provide more
efficient combustion and, hence, lower fuel consumption. Aftertreatment
systems are a relatively new technology on diesel vehicles and, as
such, improvements are expected in coming years that allow the
effectiveness of these systems to improve while reducing the fuel and
reductant demands of current systems.
Types of transmission technologies considered include:
Improved automatic transmission controls --optimizes shift
schedule to maximize fuel efficiency under wide ranging conditions, and
minimizes losses associated with torque converter slip through lock-up
or modulation.
Six-, seven-, and eight-speed automatic transmissions--the
gear ratio spacing and transmission ratio are optimized for a broader
range of engine operating conditions specific to the mating engine.
Types of vehicle technologies considered include:
Low-rolling-resistance tires--have characteristics that
reduce frictional losses associated with the energy dissipated in the
deformation of the tires under load, therefore improving fuel
efficiency and reducing CO2 emissions.
Aerodynamic drag reduction--is achieved by changing
vehicle shape or reducing frontal area, including skirts, air dams,
underbody covers, and more aerodynamic side view mirrors.
Mass reduction and material substitution--Mass reduction
encompasses a variety of techniques ranging from improved design and
better component integration to application of lighter and higher-
strength materials. Mass reduction is further compounded by reductions
in engine power and ancillary systems (transmission, steering, brakes,
suspension, etc.). The agencies recognize there is a range of diversity
and complexity for mass reduction and material substitution
technologies and there are many techniques that automotive suppliers
and manufacturers are using to achieve the levels of this technology
that the agencies have modeled in our analysis for this program.
Types of electrification/accessory and hybrid technologies
considered include:
Electric power steering and Electro-Hydraulic power
steering--are electrically-assisted steering systems that have
advantages over traditional hydraulic power steering because it
replaces a continuously operated hydraulic pump, thereby reducing
parasitic losses from the accessory drive.
Improved accessories--may include high efficiency
alternators, electrically driven (i.e., on-demand) water pumps and
cooling fans. This excludes other electrical accessories such as
electric oil pumps and electrically driven air conditioner compressors.
Air Conditioner Systems--These technologies include
improved hoses, connectors and seals for leakage control. They also
include improved compressors, expansion valves, heat exchangers and the
control of these components for the purposes of improving tailpipe
CO2 emissions as a result of A/C use.\250\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\250\ See RIA Chapter 2.3 for more detailed technology
descriptions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) How did the agencies determine the costs and effectiveness of each
of these technologies?
Building on the technical analysis underlying the light-duty 2012-
2016 MY vehicle rule, the agencies took a fresh look at technology cost
and effectiveness values for purposes of this final action. For costs,
the agencies reconsidered both the direct or ``piece'' costs and
indirect costs of individual components of technologies. For the direct
costs, the agencies followed a bill of materials (BOM) approach
employed by NHTSA and EPA in the light-duty rule.
For two technologies, stoichiometric gasoline direct injection
(SGDI) and turbocharging with engine downsizing, the agencies relied to
the extent possible on the available tear-down data and scaling
methodologies used in EPA's ongoing study with FEV, Incorporated. This
study consists of complete system tear-down to evaluate technologies
down to the nuts and bolts to arrive at very detailed estimates of the
costs associated with manufacturing them.\251\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\251\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ``Draft Report--
Light-Duty Technology Cost Analysis Pilot Study,'' Contract No. EP-
C-07-069, Work Assignment 1-3, September 3, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the other technologies, considering all sources of information
and using the BOM approach, the agencies worked together intensively to
determine component costs for each of the technologies and build up the
costs accordingly. Where estimates differ between sources, we have used
engineering judgment to arrive at what we believe to be the best cost
estimate available today, and explained the basis for that exercise of
judgment.
Once costs were determined, they were adjusted to ensure that they
were all expressed in 2009 dollars using a ratio of gross domestic
product (GDP) values for the associated calendar years,\252\ and
indirect costs were accounted for using the new approach developed by
EPA and used in the light-duty 2012-2016 MY vehicle rule. NHTSA and EPA
also reconsidered how costs should be adjusted by modifying or scaling
content assumptions to account for differences across the range of
vehicle sizes and functional requirements, and adjusted the associated
material cost impacts to account for the revised content, although some
of these adjustments may be different for each agency due to the
different vehicle subclasses used in their respective models.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\252\ NHTSA examined the use of the CPI multiplier instead of
GDP for adjusting these dollar values, but found the difference to
be exceedingly small--only $0.14 over $100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding estimates for technology effectiveness, NHTSA and EPA
used the estimates from the light-duty rule as a baseline but adjusted
them as appropriate, taking into account the unique requirement of the
heavy-duty test cycles to test at curb weight plus half payload versus
the light-duty requirement of curb plus 300 lb. The adjustments were
made on an individual technology basis by assessing the specific impact
of the added load on each technology when compared to the use of the
technology on a light-duty vehicle. The agencies also considered other
sources such as the 2010 NAS Report, recent CAFE compliance data, and
confidential manufacturer estimates of technology effectiveness. NHTSA
and EPA engineers reviewed effectiveness information from the multiple
sources for each technology and ensured that such effectiveness
estimates were based on technology hardware consistent with the BOM
components used to estimate costs. Together, the agencies compared the
multiple estimates and assessed their validity, taking care to ensure
that common BOM definitions and other
[[Page 57222]]
vehicle attributes such as performance and drivability were taken into
account.
The agencies note that the effectiveness values estimated for the
technologies may represent average values applied to the baseline fleet
described earlier, and do not reflect the potentially-limitless
spectrum of possible values that could result from adding the
technology to different vehicles. For example, while the agencies have
estimated an effectiveness of 0.5 percent for low friction lubricants,
each vehicle could have a unique effectiveness estimate depending on
the baseline vehicle's oil viscosity rating. Similarly, the reduction
in rolling resistance (and thus the improvement in fuel efficiency and
the reduction in CO2 emissions) due to the application of
LRR tires depends not only on the unique characteristics of the tires
originally on the vehicle, but on the unique characteristics of the
tires being applied, characteristics which must be balanced between
fuel efficiency, safety, and performance. Aerodynamic drag reduction is
much the same--it can improve fuel efficiency and reduce CO2
emissions, but it is also highly dependent on vehicle-specific
functional objectives. For purposes of this NPRM, NHTSA and EPA believe
that employing average values for technology effectiveness estimates is
an appropriate way of recognizing the potential variation in the
specific benefits that individual manufacturers (and individual
vehicles) might obtain from adding a fuel-saving technology.
The following section contains a detailed description of our
assessment of vehicle technology cost and effectiveness estimates. The
agencies note that the technology costs included in this NPRM take into
account only those associated with the initial build of the vehicle.
(a) Engine Technologies
NHTSA and EPA have reviewed the engine technology estimates used in
the light-duty rule. In doing so NHTSA and EPA reconsidered all
available sources and updated the estimates as appropriate. The section
below describes both diesel and gasoline engine technologies considered
for this program.
(i) Low Friction Lubricants
One of the most basic methods of reducing fuel consumption in both
gasoline and diesel engines is the use of lower viscosity engine
lubricants. More advanced multi-viscosity engine oils are available
today with improved performance in a wider temperature band and with
better lubricating properties. This can be accomplished by changes to
the oil base stock (e.g., switching engine lubricants from a Group I
base oils to lower-friction, lower viscosity Group III synthetic) and
through changes to lubricant additive packages (e.g., friction
modifiers and viscosity improvers). The use of 5W-30 motor oil is now
widespread and auto manufacturers are introducing the use of even lower
viscosity oils, such as 5W-20 and 0W-20, to improve cold-flow
properties and reduce cold start friction. However, in some cases,
changes to the crankshaft, rod and main bearings and changes to the
mechanical tolerances of engine components may be required. In all
cases, durability testing would be required to ensure that durability
is not compromised. The shift to lower viscosity and lower friction
lubricants will also improve the effectiveness of valvetrain
technologies such as cylinder deactivation, which rely on a minimum oil
temperature (viscosity) for operation.
Based on the light-duty 2012-2016 MY vehicle rule, and previously-
received confidential manufacturer data, NHTSA and EPA estimated the
effectiveness of low friction lubricants to be between 0 to 1 percent.
In the light-duty rule, the agencies estimated the cost of moving
to low friction lubricants at $3 per vehicle (2007$). That estimate
included a markup of 1.11 for a low complexity technology. For HD
pickups and vans, we are using the same base estimate but have marked
it up to 2009 dollars using the GDP price deflator and have used a
markup of 1.24 for a low complexity technology to arrive at a value of
$4 per vehicle. As in the light-duty rule, learning effects are not
applied to costs for this technology and, as such, this estimate
applies to all model years.253 254
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\253\ Note that throughout the cost estimates for this HD
analysis, the agencies have used slightly higher markups than those
used in the 2012-2016 MY light-duty vehicle rule. The new, slightly
higher ICMs include return on capital of roughly 6%, a factor that
was not included in the light-duty analysis. The markups are also
higher than those used the in proposal for this action. That change
has to do with our decision to base the ICMs solely on EPA internal
work rather than averaging that work with earlier work done under
contract to EPA by RTI, International. That change is discussed in
Section VIII.C of this preamble and is detailed in Chapter 2 of the
RIA (See RIA 2.2.1)
\254\ Note that the costs developed for low friction lubes for
this analysis reflect the costs associated with any engine changes
that would be required as well as any durability testing that may be
required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(ii) Engine Friction Reduction
In addition to low friction lubricants, manufacturers can also
reduce friction and improve fuel consumption by improving the design of
both diesel and gasoline engine components and subsystems.
Approximately 10 percent of the energy consumed by a vehicle is lost to
friction, and just over half is due to frictional losses within the
engine.\255\ Examples include improvements in low-tension piston rings,
piston skirt design, roller cam followers, improved crankshaft design
and bearings, material coatings, material substitution, more optimal
thermal management, and piston and cylinder surface treatments.
Additionally, as computer-aided modeling software continues to improve,
more opportunities for evolutionary friction reductions may become
available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\255\ ``Impact of Friction Reduction Technologies on Fuel
Economy,'' Fenske, G. Presented at the March 2009 Chicago Chapter
Meeting of the `Society of Tribologists and Lubricated Engineers'
Meeting, March 18th, 2009. Available at: http://www.chicagostle.org/program/2008-2009/Impact%20of%20Friction%20Reduction%20Technologies%20on%20Fuel%20Economy%20-%20with%20VGs%20removed.pdf (last accessed July 9, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
All reciprocating and rotating components in the engine are
potential candidates for friction reduction, and minute improvements in
several components can add up to a measurable fuel efficiency
improvement. The light-duty 2012-2106 MY vehicle rule, the 2010 NAS
Report, and NESCCAF and Energy and Environmental Analysis reports, as
well as confidential manufacturer data, indicate a range of
effectiveness for engine friction reduction to be between 1 to 3
percent. NHTSA and EPA continue to believe that this range is accurate.
Consistent with the light-duty rule, the agencies estimate the cost
of this technology at $15 per cylinder compliance cost (2008$),
including the low complexity ICM markup value of 1.24. Learning impacts
are not applied to the costs of this technology and, as such, this
estimate applies to all model years. This cost is multiplied by the
number of engine cylinders.
(iii) Coupled Cam Phasing
Valvetrains with coupled (or coordinated) cam phasing can modify
the timing of both the inlet valves and the exhaust valves an equal
amount by phasing the camshaft of an overhead valve engine. For
overhead valve engines, which have only one camshaft to actuate both
inlet and exhaust valves, couple cam phasing is the only variable valve
timing implementation option available and requires only one cam
phaser. Based on the light-duty rule, previously-received confidential
manufacturer data, and the NESCCAF report, NHTSA and EPA estimated the
effectiveness of couple cam phasing to be between 1 and 4 percent.
NHTSA
[[Page 57223]]
and EPA reviewed this estimate for purposes of the NPRM, and continue
to find it accurate.
The agencies received comments questioning the exclusion of cam
phasing from the technology packages. During the rulemaking process,
manufacturers introduced many new or updated gasoline engines resulting
in the majority of the 2010 gasoline heavy-duty engines including cam
phasing, and so we now consider this technology to be in the baseline
fleet. Because of this, the baseline analysis of technology for the
2010 heavy-duty gasoline fleet already includes the benefits of cam
phasing and therefore it is not appropriate for the agencies to include
this as a technology that is available for most manufactures to add to
their current gasoline engines.
(iv) Cylinder Deactivation
In conventional spark-ignited engines throttling the airflow
controls engine torque output. At partial loads, efficiency can be
improved by using cylinder deactivation instead of throttling. Cylinder
deactivation can improve engine efficiency by disabling or deactivating
(usually) half of the cylinders when the load is less than half of the
engine's total torque capability--the valves are kept closed, and no
fuel is injected--as a result, the trapped air within the deactivated
cylinders is simply compressed and expanded as an air spring, with
reduced friction and heat losses. The active cylinders combust at
almost double the load required if all of the cylinders were operating.
Pumping losses are significantly reduced as long as the engine is
operated in this ``part-cylinder'' mode.
Cylinder deactivation control strategy relies on setting maximum
manifold absolute pressures or predicted torque within a range in which
it can deactivate the cylinders. Noise and vibration issues reduce the
operating range to which cylinder deactivation is allowed, although
manufacturers are exploring vehicle changes that enable increasing the
amount of time that cylinder deactivation might be suitable. Some
manufacturers may choose to adopt active engine mounts and/or active
noise cancellations systems to address Noise Vibration and Harshness
(NVH) concerns and to allow a greater operating range of activation.
Cylinder deactivation is a technology keyed to more lightly loaded
operation, and so may be a less likely technology choice for
manufacturers designing for effectiveness in the loaded condition
required for testing, and in the real world that involves frequent
operation with heavy loads.
Cylinder deactivation has seen a recent resurgence thanks to better
valvetrain designs and engine controls. General Motors and Chrysler
Group have incorporated cylinder deactivation across a substantial
portion of their light-duty V8-powered lineups.
Effectiveness improvements scale roughly with engine displacement-
to-vehicle weight ratio: The higher displacement-to-weight vehicles,
operating at lower relative loads for normal driving, have the
potential to operate in part-cylinder mode more frequently. For heavy-
duty vehicles tested and operated at loaded conditions, the power to
weight ratio is considerably lower than the light-duty case greatly
reducing the opportunity for ``part-cylinder'' mode and therefore was
not considered in this rulemaking as an effective technology for heavy-
duty pickup truck and van applications.
(v) Stoichiometric Gasoline Direct Injection
SGDI engines inject fuel at high pressure directly into the
combustion chamber (rather than the intake port in port fuel
injection). SGDI requires changes to the injector design, an additional
high pressure fuel pump, new fuel rails to handle the higher fuel
pressures and changes to the cylinder head and piston crown design.
Direct injection of the fuel into the cylinder improves cooling of the
air/fuel charge within the cylinder, which allows for higher
compression ratios and increased thermodynamic efficiency without the
onset of combustion knock. Recent injector design advances, improved
electronic engine management systems and the introduction of multiple
injection events per cylinder firing cycle promote better mixing of the
air and fuel, enhance combustion rates, increase residual exhaust gas
tolerance and improve cold start emissions. SGDI engines achieve higher
power density and match well with other technologies, such as boosting
and variable valvetrain designs.
Several manufacturers have recently introduced vehicles with SGDI
engines, including GM and Ford and have announced their plans to
increase dramatically the number of SGDI engines in their portfolios.
The light-duty 2012-2016 MY vehicle rule estimated the range of 1
to 2 percent for SGDI. NHTSA and EPA reviewed this estimate for
purposes of the NPRM, and continue to find it accurate.
Consistent with the light-duty rule, NHTSA and EPA cost estimates
for SGDI take into account the changes required to the engine hardware,
engine electronic controls, ancillary and NVH mitigation systems.
Through contacts with industry NVH suppliers, and manufacturer press
releases, the agencies believe that the NVH treatments will be limited
to the mitigation of fuel system noise, specifically from the injectors
and the fuel lines. For this analysis, the agencies have estimated the
costs at $481 (2009$) in the 2014 model year. Flat-portion of the curve
learning is applied to this technology. This technology was considered
for gasoline engines only, as diesel engines already employ direct
injection.
(b) Diesel Engine Technologies
Diesel engines have several characteristics that give them superior
fuel efficiency compared to conventional gasoline, spark-ignited
engines. Pumping losses are much lower due to lack of (or greatly
reduced) throttling. The diesel combustion cycle operates at a higher
compression ratio, with a very lean air/fuel mixture, and turbocharged
light-duty diesels typically achieve much higher torque levels at lower
engine speeds than equivalent-displacement naturally-aspirated gasoline
engines. Additionally, diesel fuel has a higher energy content per
gallon.\256\ However, diesel fuel also has a higher carbon to hydrogen
ratio, which increases the amount of CO2 emitted per gallon
of fuel used by approximately 15 percent over a gallon of gasoline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\256\ Burning one gallon of diesel fuel produces about 15
percent more carbon dioxide than gasoline due to the higher density
and carbon to hydrogen ratio.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on confidential business information and the 2010 NAS Report,
two major areas of diesel engine design will be improved during the
2014-2018 time frame. These areas include aftertreatment improvements
and a broad range of engine improvements.
(i) Aftertreatment Improvements
The HD diesel pickup and van segment has largely adopted the SCR
type of aftertreatment system to comply with criteria pollutant
emission standards. As the experience base for SCR expands over the
next few years, many improvements in this aftertreatment system such as
construction of the catalyst, thermal management, and reductant
optimization will result in a significant reduction in the amount of
fuel used in the process. This technology was not considered in the
light-duty rule. Based on confidential business information,
[[Page 57224]]
EPA and NHTSA estimate the reduction in CO2 as a result of
these improvements at 3 to 5 percent.
The agencies have estimated the cost of this technology at $25 for
each percentage improvement in fuel consumption. This estimate is based
on the agencies' belief that this technology is, in fact, a very cost
effective approach to improving fuel consumption. As such, $25 per
percent improvement is considered a reasonable cost. This cost would
cover the engineering and test cell related costs necessary to develop
and implement the improved control strategies that would allow for the
improvements in fuel consumption. Importantly, the engineering work
involved would be expected to result in cost savings to the
aftertreatment and control hardware (lower platinum group metal
loadings, lower reductant dosing rates, etc.). Those savings are
considered to be included in the $25 per percent estimate described
here. Given the 4 percent average expected improvement in fuel
consumption results in an estimated cost of $119 (2009$) for a 2014
model year truck or van. This estimate includes a low complexity ICM of
1.24 and flat-portion of the curve learning from 2012 forward.
(ii) Engine Improvements
Diesel engines in the HD pickup and van segment are expected to
have several improvements in their base design in the 2014-2018 time
frame. These improvements include items such as improved combustion
management, optimal turbocharger design, and improved thermal
management. This technology was not considered in the light-duty rule.
Based on confidential business information, EPA and NHTSA estimate the
reduction in CO2 as a result of these improvements at 4 to 6
percent.
The cost for this technology includes costs associated with low
temperature exhaust gas recirculation, improved turbochargers and
improvements to other systems and components. These costs are
considered collectively in our costing analysis and termed ``diesel
engine improvements.'' The agencies have estimated the cost of diesel
engine improvements at $148 based on the cost estimates for several
individual technologies. Specifically, the direct manufacturing costs
we have estimated are: improved cylinder head, $9; turbo efficiency
improvements, $16; EGR cooler improvements, $3; higher pressure fuel
rail, $10; improved fuel injectors, $13; improved pistons, $2; and
reduced valve train friction, $95. All values are in 2009 dollars and
are applicable in the 2014 MY. Applying a low complexity ICM of 1.24
results in a cost of $184 (2009$) applicable in the 2014 MY. We
consider flat-portion of the curve learning to be appropriate for these
technologies.
(c) Transmission Technologies
NHTSA and EPA have also reviewed the transmission technology
estimates used in the light-duty rule. In doing so, NHTSA and EPA
considered or reconsidered all available sources and updated the
estimates as appropriate. The section below describes each of the
transmission technologies considered for the final standards.
(i) Improved Automatic Transmission Control (Aggressive Shift Logic and
Early Torque Converter Lockup)
Calibrating the transmission shift schedule to upshift earlier and
quicker, and to lock-up or partially lock-up the torque converter under
a broader range of operating conditions can reduce fuel consumption and
CO2 emissions. However, this operation can result in a
perceptible degradation in NVH. The degree to which NVH can be degraded
before it becomes noticeable to the driver is strongly influenced by
characteristics of the vehicle, and although it is somewhat subjective,
it always places a limit on how much fuel consumption can be improved
by transmission control changes. Given that the Aggressive Shift Logic
and Early Torque Converter Lockup are best optimized simultaneously due
to the fact that adding both of them primarily requires only minor
modifications to the transmission or calibration software, these two
technologies are combined in the modeling. We consider these
technologies to be present in the baseline, since 6-speed automatic
transmissions are installed in the majority of Class 2b and 3 trucks in
the 2010 model year time frame.
(ii) Automatic 6- and 8-Speed Transmissions
Manufacturers can also choose to replace 4- 5- and 6-speed
automatic transmissions with 8-speed automatic transmissions.
Additional ratios allow for further optimization of engine operation
over a wider range of conditions, but this is subject to diminishing
returns as the number of speeds increases. As additional planetary gear
sets are added (which may be necessary in some cases to achieve the
higher number of ratios), additional weight and friction are
introduced. Also, the additional shifting of such a transmission can be
perceived as bothersome or busy to some consumers, so manufacturers
need to develop strategies for smooth shifts. Some manufacturers are
replacing 4- and 5-speed automatics with 6-speed automatics already,
and 7- and 8-speed automatics have entered production in light-duty
vehicles, albeit in lower-volume applications in luxury and performance
oriented cars.
As discussed in the light-duty rule, confidential manufacturer data
projected that 6-speed transmissions could incrementally reduce fuel
consumption by 0 to 5 percent from a 4-speed automatic transmission,
while an 8-speed transmission could incrementally reduce fuel
consumption by up to 6 percent from a 4-speed automatic transmission.
GM has publicly claimed a fuel economy improvement of up to 4 percent
for its new 6-speed automatic transmissions.\257\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\257\ General Motors, news release, ``From Hybrids to Six-
Speeds, Direct Injection And More, GM's 2008 Global Powertrain
Lineup Provides More Miles with Less Fuel'' (released Mar. 6, 2007).
Available at http:// www.gm.com/ experience/ fuel-- economy/ news/
2007/ adv-- engines/ 2008- powertrain- lineup- 082707.jsp (last
accessed Sept. 18, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA and EPA reviewed and revised these effectiveness estimates
based on actual usage statistics and testing methods for these vehicles
along with confidential business information. When combined with
improved automatic transmission control, the agencies estimate the
effectiveness for a conversion from a 4- to a 6-speed transmission to
be 5.3 percent and a conversion from a 6- to 8-speed transmission to be
1.7 percent. While 8-speed transmissions were not considered in the
light-duty 2012-2016 MY vehicle rule, they are considered as a
technology of choice for this analysis in that manufacturers are
expected to upgrade the 6-speed automatic transmissions being
implemented today with 8-speed automatic transmissions in the 2014-2018
time frame. We are estimating the cost of an 8-speed automatic
transmission at $281 (2009$) relative to a 6-speed automatic
transmission in the 2014 model year. This estimate is based from the
2010 NAS Report and we have applied a low complexity ICM of 1.24 and
flat-portion of the curve learning. This technology applies to both
gasoline and diesel pickup trucks and vans.
(d) Electrification/Accessory Technologies
(i) Electrical Power Steering or Electrohydraulic Power Steering
Electric power steering (EPS) or Electrohydraulic power steering
(EHPS) provides a potential reduction in CO2 emissions and
fuel consumption over
[[Page 57225]]
hydraulic power steering because of reduced overall accessory loads.
This eliminates the parasitic losses associated with belt-driven power
steering pumps which consistently draw load from the engine to pump
hydraulic fluid through the steering actuation systems even when the
wheels are not being turned. EPS is an enabler for all vehicle
hybridization technologies since it provides power steering when the
engine is off. EPS may be implemented on most vehicles with a standard
12V system. Some heavier vehicles may require a higher voltage system
which may add cost and complexity.
The light-duty rule estimated a one to two percent effectiveness
based on the 2002 NAS report for light-duty vehicle technologies, a
Sierra Research report, and confidential manufacturer data. NHTSA and
EPA reviewed these effectiveness estimates and found them to be
accurate, thus they have been retained for purposes of this NPRM.
NHTSA and EPA adjusted the EPS cost for the current rulemaking
based on a review of the specification of the system. Adjustments were
made to include potentially higher voltage or heavier duty system
operation for HD pickups and vans. Accordingly, higher costs were
estimated for systems with higher capability. After accounting for the
differences in system capability and applying the ICM markup of low
complexity technology of 1.24, the estimated costs are $115 for a MY
2014 truck or van (2009$). As EPS systems are in widespread usage
today, flat-portion of the curve learning is deemed applicable. EHPS
systems are considered to be of equal cost and both are considered
applicable to gasoline and diesel engines.
(ii) Improved Accessories
The accessories on an engine, including the alternator, coolant and
oil pumps are traditionally mechanically-driven. A reduction in
CO2 emissions and fuel consumption can be realized by
driving the pumping accessories electrically, and only when needed
(``on-demand''). Alternator improvements include internal changes
resulting in lower mechanical and electrical losses combined with
control logic that charges the battery at more efficient voltage levels
and during conditions of available kinetic energy from the vehicle
which would normally be wasted energy such as braking during vehicle
decelerations.
Electric water pumps and electric fans can provide better control
of engine cooling. For example, coolant flow from an electric water
pump can be reduced and the radiator fan can be shut off during engine
warm-up or cold ambient temperature conditions which will reduce warm-
up time, reduce warm-up fuel enrichment, and reduce parasitic losses.
Indirect benefit may be obtained by reducing the flow from the
water pump electrically during the engine warm-up period, allowing the
engine to heat more rapidly and thereby reducing the fuel enrichment
needed during cold starting of the engine. Further benefit may be
obtained when electrification is combined with an improved, higher
efficiency engine alternator. Intelligent cooling can more easily be
applied to vehicles that do not typically carry heavy payloads, so
larger vehicles with towing capacity present a challenge, as these
vehicles have high cooling fan loads.\258\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\258\ In the CAFE model, improved accessories refer solely to
improved engine cooling. However, EPA has included a high efficiency
alternator in this category, as well as improvements to the cooling
system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agencies considered whether to include electric oil pump
technology for the rulemaking. Because it is necessary to operate the
oil pump any time the engine is running, electric oil pump technology
has insignificant effect on efficiency. Therefore, the agencies decided
to not include electric oil pump technology.
NHTSA and EPA jointly reviewed the estimates of 1 to 2 percent
effectiveness estimates used in the light-duty rule and found them to
be accurate for Improved Electrical Accessories. Consistent with the
light-duty rule, the agencies have estimated the cost of this
technology at $93 (2009$) including a low complexity ICM of 1.24. This
cost is applicable in the 2014 model year. Improved accessory systems
are in production currently and thus flat-portion of the curve learning
is applied. This technology was considered for diesel pickup trucks and
vans only.
(e) Vehicle Technologies
(i) Mass Reduction
Reducing a vehicle's mass, or down-weighting the vehicle, decreases
fuel consumption by reducing the energy demand needed to overcome
forces resisting motion, and rolling resistance. Manufacturers employ a
systematic approach to mass reduction, where the net mass reduction is
the addition of a direct component or system mass reduction plus the
additional mass reduction taken from indirect ancillary systems and
components, as a result of full vehicle optimization, effectively
compounding or obtaining a secondary mass reduction from a primary mass
reduction. For example, use of a smaller, lighter engine with lower
torque-output subsequently allows the use of a smaller, lighter-weight
transmission and drive line components. Likewise, the compounded weight
reductions of the body, engine and drivetrain reduce stresses on the
suspension components, steering components, wheels, tires and brakes,
allowing further reductions in the mass of these subsystems. The
reductions in unsprung masses such as brakes, control arms, wheels and
tires further reduce stresses in the suspension mounting points. This
produces a compounding effect of mass reductions.
Estimates of the synergistic effects of mass reduction and the
compounding effect that occurs along with it can vary significantly
from one report to another. For example, in discussing its estimate, an
Auto-Steel Partnership report states that ``These secondary mass
changes can be considerable--estimated at an additional 0.7 to 1.8
times the initial mass change.'' \259\ This means for each one pound
reduction in a primary component, up to 1.8 pounds can be reduced from
other structures in the vehicle (i.e., a 180 percent factor). The
report also discusses that a primary variable in the realized secondary
weight reduction is whether or not the powertrain components can be
included in the mass reduction effort, with the lower end estimates
being applicable when powertrain elements are unavailable for mass
reduction. However, another report by the Aluminum Association, which
primarily focuses on the use of aluminum as an alternative material for
steel, estimated a factor of 64 percent for secondary mass reduction
even though some powertrain elements were considered in the
analysis.\260\ That report also notes that typical values for this
factor vary from 50 to 100 percent. Although there is a wide variation
in stated estimates, synergistic mass reductions do exist, and the
effects result in tangible mass reductions. Mass reductions in a single
vehicle component, for example a door side
[[Page 57226]]
impact/intrusion system, may actually result in a significantly higher
weight savings in the total vehicle, depending on how well the
manufacturer integrates the modification into the overall vehicle
design. Accordingly, care must be taken when reviewing reports on
weight reduction methods and practices to ascertain if compounding
effects have been considered or not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\259\ ``Preliminary Vehicle Mass Estimation Using Empirical
Subsystem Influence Coefficients,'' Malen, D.E., Reddy, K. Auto-
Steel Partnership Report, May 2007, Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0472-
0169. Accessed on the Internet on May 30, 2009 at: http://www.a-sp.org/database/custom/Mass%20Compounding%20-%20Final%20Report.pdf.
\260\ ``Benefit Analysis: Use of Aluminum Structures in
Conjunction with Alternative Powertrain Technologies in
Automobiles,'' Bull, M. Chavali, R., Mascarin, A., Aluminum
Association Research Report, May 2008, Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0472-
0168. Accessed on the Internet on April 30, 2009 at: http://www.autoaluminum.org/downloads/IBIS-Powertrain-Study.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mass reduction is broadly applicable across all vehicle subsystems
including the engine, exhaust system, transmission, chassis,
suspension, brakes, body, closure panels, glazing, seats and other
interior components, engine cooling systems and HVAC systems. It is
estimated that up to 1.25 kilograms of secondary weight savings can be
achieved for every kilogram of weight saved on a light-duty vehicle
when all subsystems are redesigned to take into account the initial
primary weight savings.261 262
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\261\ ``Future Generation Passenger Compartment-Validation (ASP
241)'' Villano, P.J., Shaw, J.R., Polewarczyk, J., Morgans, S.,
Carpenter, J.A., Yocum, A.D., in ``Lightweighting Materials--FY 2008
Progress Report,'' U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Vehicle Technologies Program, May
2009, Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0472-0190.
\262\ ``Preliminary Vehicle Mass Estimation Using Empirical
Subsystem Influence Coefficients,'' Malen, D.E., Reddy, K. Auto-
Steel Partnership Report, May 2007, Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0472-
0169. Accessed on the Internet on May 30, 2009 at: http://www.a-sp.org/database/custom/Mass%20Compounding%20-%20Final%20Report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mass reduction can be accomplished by proven methods such as:
Smart Design: Computer aided engineering (CAE) tools can
be used to better optimize load paths within structures by reducing
stresses and bending moments applied to structures. This allows better
optimization of the sectional thicknesses of structural components to
reduce mass while maintaining or improving the function of the
component. Smart designs also integrate separate parts in a manner that
reduces mass by combining functions or the reduced use of separate
fasteners. In addition, some ``body on frame'' vehicles are redesigned
with a lighter ``unibody'' construction.
Material Substitution: Substitution of lower density and/
or higher strength materials into a design in a manner that preserves
or improves the function of the component. This includes substitution
of high-strength steels, aluminum, magnesium or composite materials for
components currently fabricated from mild steel.
Reduced Powertrain Requirements: Reducing vehicle weight
sufficiently allows for the use of a smaller, lighter and more
efficient engine while maintaining or increasing performance.
Approximately half of the reduction is due to these reduced powertrain
output requirements from reduced engine power output and/or
displacement, changes to transmission and final drive gear ratios. The
subsequent reduced rotating mass (e.g., transmission, driveshafts/
halfshafts, wheels and tires) via weight and/or size reduction of
components are made possible by reduced torque output requirements.
Automotive companies have largely used weight savings in
some vehicle subsystems to offset or mitigate weight gains in other
subsystems from increased feature content (sound insulation,
entertainment systems, improved climate control, panoramic roof, etc.).
Lightweight designs have also been used to improve vehicle
performance parameters by increased acceleration performance or
superior vehicle handling and braking.
Many manufacturers have already announced final future products
plans reducing the weight of a vehicle body through the use of high
strength steel body-in-white, composite body panels, magnesium alloy
front and rear energy absorbing structures reducing vehicle weight
sufficiently to allow a smaller, lighter and more efficient engine.
Nissan will be reducing average vehicle curb weight by 15 percent by
2015.\263\ Ford has identified weight reductions of 250 to 750 lb per
vehicle as part of its implementation of known technology within its
sustainability strategy between 2011 and 2020.\264\ Mazda plans to
reduce vehicle weight by 220 pounds per vehicle or more as models are
redesigned.265 266 Ducker International estimates that the
average curb weight of light-duty vehicle fleet will decrease
approximately 2.8 percent from 2009 to 2015 and approximately 6.5
percent from 2009 to 2020 via changes in automotive materials and
increased change-over from previously used body-on-frame automobile and
light-truck designs to newer unibody designs.\263\ While the
opportunity for mass reductions available to the light-duty fleet may
not in all cases be applied directly to the heavy-duty fleet due to the
different designs for the expected duty cycles of a ``work'' vehicle,
mass reductions are still available particularly to areas unrelated to
the components and systems necessary for the work vehicle aspects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\263\ ``Lighten Up!,'' Brooke, L., Evans, H. Automotive
Engineering International, Vol. 117, No. 3, March 2009.
\264\ ``2008/9 Blueprint for Sustainability,'' Ford Motor
Company. Available at: http://www.ford.com/go/sustainability (last
accessed February 8, 2010).
\265\ ``Mazda to cut vehicle fuel consumption 30 percent by
2015,'' Mazda press release, June 23, 2009. Available at: http://www.mazda.com/publicity/release/2008/200806/080623.html (last
accessed February 8, 2010).
\266\ ``Mazda: Don't believe hot air being emitted by hybrid
hype,'' Greimel, H. Automotive News, March 30, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Due to the payload and towing requirements of these heavy-duty
vehicles, engine downsizing was not considered in the estimates for
CO2 reduction in the area of mass reduction and material
substitution. NHTSA and EPA estimate that a 3 percent mass reduction
with no engine downsizing results in a 1 percent reduction in fuel
consumption. In addition, a 5 and 10 percent mass reduction with no
engine downsizing result in an estimated CO2 reduction of
1.6 and 3.2 percent respectively. These effectiveness values are 50
percent of the light-duty rule values due to the elimination of engine
downsizing for this class of vehicle.
In the NPRM, EPA and NHTSA relied on three studies to estimate the
cost of vehicle mass reduction. The agencies used a value of $1.32 per
pound of mass reduction that was derived from a 2002 National Academy
of Sciences study, a 2008 Sierra Research report, and a 2008 MIT study.
The cost was estimated to be constant, independent of the level of mass
reduction.
The agencies along with the California Air Resources Board (CARB)
have recently completed work on an Interim Joint Technical Assessment
Report (TAR) that considers light-duty GHG and fuel economy standards
for model years 2017 through 2025 and have continued this work to
support the light-duty vehicle NPRM, which is expected to be issued
this fall. Based on new information from various industry and
literature sources, the TAR modified the mass reduction/cost
relationship used in the light-duty 2012-2016 MY vehicle rule to begin
at the origin (zero cost at zero percent mass reduction) and to have
increasing cost with increasing mass reduction.\267\ The resulting
analysis showed costs for 5 percent mass reduction on light-duty
vehicles to be near zero or cost parity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\267\ ``Interim Joint Technical Assessment Report: Light-Duty
Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel
Economy Standards for Model Years 2017-2025;'' September 2010;
available at http://epa.gov/otaq/climate/regulations/ldv-ghg-tar.pdf
and in the docket for this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the proposal for heavy-duty vehicles, we estimated mass
reduction costs based on the 2012-2016 light-duty analysis without
accounting for the new work completed in the Interim Joint Technical
Assessment and additional
[[Page 57227]]
work the agencies have considered for the upcoming light-duty vehicle
NPRM. Since the heavy-duty vehicle proposal, the agencies have been
able to consider updated cost estimates in the context of both light-
duty and heavy-duty vehicle bodies of work. While the agencies intend
to discuss the additional work for the light-duty NPRM in much more
detail in the documents for that rulemaking, we think it appropriate to
explain here that after having considered a number of additional and
highly-varying sources, the agencies believe that the cost estimates
used in the TAR may have been lower than would be reasonable for HD
pickups and vans, given their different and work-related uses and thus
different construction as compared to the light-duty vehicles evaluated
in the TAR. We do not believe that all of the weight reduction
opportunities for light-duty vehicles can be applied to heavy-duty
trucks. However, we do believe reductions in the following components
and systems can be found that do not affect the payload and towing
requirements of these heavy-duty vehicles: Body, closure panels,
glazing, seats and other interior components, engine cooling systems
and HVAC systems.
The agencies have reviewed and considered many different mass
reduction studies during the technical assessment for the heavy-duty
vehicle GHG and fuel efficiency rulemaking. The agencies found that
many of the studies on this topic vary considerably in their rigor,
transparency, and applicability to the regulatory assessment. Having
considered a variety of options, the agencies for this heavy-duty
analysis have been unable to come up with a way to quantitatively
evaluate the available studies. Therefore, the agencies have chosen a
value within the range of the available studies that the agencies
believe is reasonable. The studies and manufacturers' confidential
business information relied upon in determining the final mass
reduction costs are summarized in Figure 2.1, Section 2.3.6 of the RIA.
Each study relied upon by the agencies in this determination has also
been placed in the agencies' respective dockets. See NHTSA-2010-0079;
EPA-HQ-0AR-2010-0162.
The agencies note that the NAS 2010 study provided estimates of
mass reduction costs, but the agencies did not consider using the NAS
2010 study as the single source of mass reduction cost estimates
because the NAS 2010 estimates were not based on literature reports
that focused on trucks or were necessarily appropriate for MD/HD
vehicles, and also because a variety of newer and more rigorous studies
were available to the agencies than those relied upon by the NAS in
developing its estimates. We note, however, that for a 5 percent
reduction in mass, the NAS 2010 report estimates a per pound cost of
mass reduction of $1.65.
Thus, we are estimating the direct manufacturing costs for a 5
percent mass reduction of a 6,000 lb vehicle at a range of $75-$90 per
vehicle. With additional margin for uncertainty, we arrive at a direct
manufacturing cost of $85-$100, which is roughly in the upper middle of
the range of values that resulted from the additional and highly-
varying studies mentioned above that were considered in the agencies'
review. We have broken this down for application to HD pickup trucks
and vans as follows: Class 2b gasoline $85, Class 2b diesel $95, Class
3 gasoline $90, and Class 3 diesel trucks $100. Applying the low
complexity ICM of 1.24 results in estimated total costs for a 5 percent
mass reduction applicable in the 2016 model year as follows: Class 2b
gasoline $108, Class 2b diesel $121, Class 3 gasoline $115, and Class 3
diesel trucks $127. All mass reduction costs stated here are in 2009
dollars.
(ii) Low Rolling Resistance Tires
Tire rolling resistance is the frictional loss associated mainly
with the energy dissipated in the deformation of the tires under load
and thus influences fuel efficiency and CO2 emissions. Other
tire design characteristics (e.g., materials, construction, and tread
design) influence durability, traction (both wet and dry grip), vehicle
handling, and ride comfort in addition to rolling resistance. A typical
LRR tire's attributes would include: increased tire inflation pressure,
material changes, and tire construction with less hysteresis, geometry
changes (e.g., reduced aspect ratios), and reduction in sidewall and
tread deflection. These changes would generally be accompanied with
additional changes to suspension tuning and/or suspension design.
EPA and NHTSA estimated a 1 to 2 percent increase in effectiveness
with a 10 percent reduction in rolling resistance, which was based on
the 2010 NAS Report findings and consistent with the light-duty rule.
Based on the light-duty rule and the 2010 NAS Report, the agencies
have estimated the cost for LRR tires to be $7 per Class 2b truck or
van, and $10 per Class 3 truck or van (both values in 2009$ and
inclusive of a 1.24 low complexity markup).\268\ The higher cost for
the Class 3 trucks and vans is due to the predominant use of dual rear
tires and, thus, 6 tires per truck. Due to the commodity-based nature
of this technology, cost reductions due to learning are not applied.
This technology is considered applicable to both gasoline and diesel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\268\ ``Tires and Passenger Vehicle Fuel Economy,''
Transportation Research Board Special Report 286, National Research
Council of the National Academies, 2006, Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-
0472-0146.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(iii) Aerodynamic Drag Reduction
Many factors affect a vehicle's aerodynamic drag and the resulting
power required to move it through the air. While these factors change
with air density and the square and cube of vehicle speed,
respectively, the overall drag effect is determined by the product of
its frontal area and drag coefficient, Cd. Reductions in these
quantities can therefore reduce fuel consumption and CO2
emissions. Although frontal areas tend to be relatively similar within
a vehicle class (mostly due to market-competitive size requirements),
significant variations in drag coefficient can be observed. Significant
changes to a vehicle's aerodynamic performance may need to be
implemented during a redesign (e.g., changes in vehicle shape).
However, shorter-term aerodynamic reductions, with a somewhat lower
effectiveness, may be achieved through the use of revised exterior
components (typically at a model refresh in mid-cycle) and add-on
devices that currently are being applied. The latter list would include
revised front and rear fascias, modified front air dams and rear
valances, addition of rear deck lips and underbody panels, and lower
aerodynamic drag exterior mirrors.
The light-duty 2012-2016 MY vehicle rule estimated that a fleet
average of 10 to 20 percent total aerodynamic drag reduction is
attainable which equates to incremental reductions in fuel consumption
and CO2 emissions of 2 to 3 percent for both cars and
trucks. These numbers are generally supported by confidential
manufacturer data and public technical literature. For the heavy-duty
truck category, a 5 to 10 percent total aerodynamic drag reduction was
considered due to the different structure and use of these vehicles
equating to incremental reductions in fuel consumption and
CO2 emissions of 1 to 2 percent.
Consistent with the light-duty rule, the agencies have estimated
the cost for this technology at $58 (2009$) including a low complexity
ICM of 1.24. This cost is applicable in the 2014 model year to
[[Page 57228]]
both gasoline and diesel pickup trucks and vans.
(3) What are the projected technology packages' effectiveness and cost?
The assessment of the final technology effectiveness was developed
through the use of the EPA Lumped Parameter model developed for the
light-duty rule. Many of the technologies were common with the light-
duty assessment but the effectiveness of individual technologies was
appropriately adjusted to match the expected effectiveness when
implemented in a heavy-duty application. The model then uses the
individual technology effectiveness levels but then takes into account
technology synergies. The model is also designed to prevent double
counting from technologies that may directly or indirectly impact the
same physical attribute (e.g., pumping loss reductions).
To achieve the levels of the final standards for gasoline and
diesel powered heavy-duty vehicles, the technology packages were
determined to generally require the technologies previously discussed
respective to unique gasoline and diesel technologies. Although some of
the technologies may already be implemented in a portion of heavy-duty
vehicles, none of the technologies discussed are considered ubiquitous
in the heavy-duty fleet. Also, as would be expected, the available test
data shows that some vehicle models will not need the full complement
of available technologies to achieve the final standards. Furthermore,
many technologies can be further improved (e.g., aerodynamic
improvements) from today's best levels, and so allow for compliance
without needing to apply a technology that a manufacturer might deem
less desirable.
Technology costs for HD pickup trucks and vans are shown in Table
III-11.
Table III-11--Technology Costs for HD Pickup Trucks & Vans Inclusive of Indirect Cost Markups for the 2014MY
[2009$]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class 2b Class 2b Class 3 Class 3
Technology gasoline diesel gasoline diesel
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low friction lubes.......................................... $4 $4 $4 $4
Engine friction reduction................................... 116 N/A 116 N/A
Stoichiometric gasoline direct injection.................... 481 N/A 481 N/A
Engine improvements......................................... N/A 184 N/A 184
8s automatic transmission (increment to 6s automatic 281 281 281 281
transmission)..............................................
Improved accessories........................................ N/A 93 N/A 93
Low rolling resistance tires................................ 7 7 10 10
Aerodynamic improvements.................................... 58 58 58 58
Electric (or electro/hydraulic) power steering.............. 115 115 115 115
Aftertreatment improvements................................. N/A 119 N/A 119
Mass reduction (5%)......................................... 108 121 115 127
Air conditioning............................................ 21 21 21 21
Total................................................... 1,190 1,003 1,209 1,013
---------------------------------------------------
At 15% phase-in in 2014..................................... 179 150 180 152
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(4) Reasonableness of the Final Standards
The final standards are based on the application of the control
technologies described in this section. These technologies are
available within the lead time provided, as discussed in RIA Chapter
2.3. These controls are estimated to add costs of approximately $1,048
for MY 2018 heavy-duty pickups and vans. Reductions associated with
these costs and technologies are considerable, estimated at a 12
percent reduction of CO2eq emissions from the MY 2010
baseline for gasoline engine-equipped vehicles and 17 percent for
diesel engine equipped vehicles, estimated to result in reductions of
18 MMT of CO2eq emissions over the lifetimes of 2014 through
2018 MY vehicles.\269\ The reductions are cost effective, estimated at
$90 per ton of CO2eq removed in 2030.\270\ This cost is
consistent with the light-duty rule which was estimated at $100 per ton
of CO2eq removed in 2020 excluding fuel savings. Moreover,
taking into account the fuel savings associated with the program, the
cost becomes -$230 per ton of CO2eq (i.e. a savings of $230
per ton) in 2030. The cost of controls is fully recovered due to the
associated fuel savings, with a payback period in the second year of
ownership, as shown in Table VIII-9 below in Section VIII. Given the
large, cost effective emission reductions based on use of feasible
technologies which are available in the lead time provided, plus the
lack of adverse impacts on vehicle safety or utility, EPA and NHTSA
regard these final standards as appropriate and consistent with our
respective statutory authorities under CAA section 202(a) and NHTSA's
EISA authority under 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(2). Based on the discussion
above, NHTSA believes these standards are the maximum feasible under
EISA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\269\ See Table VI-4 of this preamble.
\270\ See Table 0-3 of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(5) Alternative HD Pickup Truck and Van Standards Considered
The agencies rejected consideration of any less stringent standards
given that the standards adopted are feasible at reasonable cost and
cost-effectiveness within the lead time of the program. Furthermore, as
explained above, because the standards are premised on 100 percent
application of available technologies during this period, the agencies
rejected adoption of more stringent standards. The agencies have also
explained above why the phase-in period for the standards is reasonable
and that attempting more aggressive phase-ins would start to force
changes outside normal redesign cycles at likely exorbitant cost.
C. Class 2b-8 Vocational Vehicles
Vocational vehicles cover a wide variety of applications which
influence both the body style and usage patterns. They also are built
using a complex process, which includes additional entities such as
body builders. These factors create special sensitivity to
[[Page 57229]]
concerns of needed lead time, as well as developing standards that do
not interfere with vocational vehicles' utility. The agencies are
adopting a standard for vocational vehicles for the first phase of the
program that relies on less extensive addition of technology than do
the other regulatory categories as well as making the chassis
manufacturer the manufacturer subject to the standard. We intend that
future rulemakings will consider increased stringency and possibly more
application-specific standards. The agencies are also finalizing
standards for the diesel and gasoline engines installed in vocational
vehicles, similar to those discussed above for HD engines installed in
Class 7 and 8 tractors.
(1) What technologies did the agencies consider to reduce the
CO2 emissions and fuel consumption of vocational vehicles?
Similar to the approach taken with tractors, the agencies evaluated
aerodynamic, tire, idle reduction, weight reduction, hybrid powertrain,
and engine technologies and their impact on reducing fuel consumption
and GHG emissions. The engines used in vocational vehicles include both
gasoline and diesel engines, thus, each type is discussed separately
below. As explained in Section II.D.1.b, the final regulatory structure
for heavy-duty engines separates the compression ignition (or
``diesel'') engines into three regulatory subcategories--light heavy,
medium heavy, and heavy heavy diesel engines--while spark ignition (or
``gasoline'') engines are a single regulatory subcategory (an approach
for which there was consensus in the public comments). Therefore, the
subsequent discussion will assess each type of engine separately.
(a) Vehicle Technologies
Vocational vehicles typically travel fewer miles than combination
tractors. They also tend to be used in more urban locations (with
consequent stop and start drive cycles). Therefore the average speed of
vocational vehicles is significantly lower than combination tractors.
This has a significant effect on the types of technologies that are
appropriate to consider for reducing CO2 emissions and fuel
consumption.
The agencies considered the type of technologies for vocational
vehicles based on the energy losses of a typical vocational vehicle.
The technologies are similar to the ones considered for combination
tractors. Argonne National Lab conducted an energy audit using
simulation tools to evaluate the energy losses of vocational vehicles,
such as a Class 6 pickup and delivery truck. Argonne found that 74
percent of the energy losses are attributed to the engine, 13 percent
to tires, 9 percent to aerodynamics, two percent to transmission
losses, and the remaining four percent of losses to axles and
accessories for a medium-duty truck traveling at 30 mph.\271\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\271\ Argonne National Lab. Evaluation of Fuel Consumption
Potential of Medium and Heavy-duty Vehicles through Modeling and
Simulation. October 2009. Page 89.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low Rolling Resistance Tires: Tires are the second largest
contributor to energy losses of vocational vehicles, as found in the
energy audit conducted by Argonne National Lab (as just mentioned). The
range of rolling resistance of tires used on vocational vehicles today
is large. This is in part due to the fact that the competitive pressure
to improve rolling resistance of vocational vehicle tires has been less
than that found in the line haul tire market. In addition, the drive
cycles typical for these applications often lead truck buyers to value
tire traction and durability more heavily than rolling resistance.
Therefore, the agencies concluded that a regulatory program that seeks
to optimize tire rolling resistance in addition to traction and
durability can bring about fuel consumption and CO2 emission
reductions from this segment. The 2010 NAS report states that rolling
resistance impact on fuel consumption reduces with mass of the vehicle
and with drive cycles with more frequent starts and stops. The report
found that the fuel consumption reduction opportunity for reduced
rolling resistance ranged between one and three percent in the 2010
through 2020 time frame.\272\ The agencies estimate that average
rolling resistance from tires in 2010 model year can be reduced by 10
percent for 50 percent of the vehicles by 2014 model year based on the
tire development achievements over the last several years in the line
haul truck market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\272\ See 2010 NAS Report, Note 197, page 146.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aerodynamics: The Argonne National lab work shows that aerodynamics
has less of an impact on vocational vehicle energy losses than do
engines or tires. In addition, the aerodynamic performance of a
complete vehicle is significantly influenced by the body of the
vehicle. The agencies are not regulating body builders in this phase of
regulations for the reasons discussed in Section II. Therefore, we are
not basing any of the final standards for vocational vehicles on
aerodynamic improvements. Nor would aerodynamic performance be input
into GEM to demonstrate compliance.
Weight Reduction: NHTSA and EPA are also not basing any of the
final vocational vehicle standards on use of vehicle weight reduction.
Thus, vehicle mass reductions are not an input into GEM. The agencies
are taking this approach despite comments suggesting that the agencies
make use of weight reductions for this segment, because we are unable
to quantify the potential impact of weight reduction on vehicle utility
in this broad segment. Vocational vehicles serve an incredibly diverse
range of functions. Each of these unique vehicle functions is likely to
have its own unique tradeoff between vehicle utility and the potential
for vehicle mass reduction. The agencies have not been able at this
time to determine the degree to which such tradeoffs exist nor the
specific level of the tradeoff for each unique vehicle vocation. No
commenter provided data to inform this question. Absent this
information, the agencies cannot at this time project the potential for
worthwhile weight reductions from vocational vehicles.
Drivetrain: Optimization of vehicle gearing to engine performance
through selection of transmission gear ratios, final drive gear ratios
and tire size can play a significant role in reducing fuel consumption
and GHGs. Optimization of gear selection versus vehicle and engine
speed accomplished through driver training or automated transmission
gear selection can provide additional reductions. The 2010 NAS report
found that the opportunities to reduce fuel consumption in heavy-duty
vehicles due to transmission and driveline technologies in the 2015
time frame ranged between 2 and 8 percent.\273\ Initially, the agencies
considered reflecting transmission choices and technology in our
standard setting process for both tractors and vocational vehicles (see
previous discussion above on automated manual and automatic
transmissions for tractors). We have however decided not to do so for
the following reasons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\273\ See 2010 NAS Report, Note 197, pp 134 and 137.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The primary factors that determine optimum gear selection are
vehicle weight, vehicle aerodynamics, vehicle speed, and engine
performance typically considered on a two dimensional map of engine
speed and torque. For a given power demand (determined by speed,
aerodynamics and vehicle mass) an optimum transmission and gearing
setup will keep the engine power delivery operating at the best speed
and torque points for highest engine
[[Page 57230]]
efficiency. Since power delivery from the engine is the product of
speed and torque a wide range of torque and speed points can be found
that deliver adequate power, but only a smaller subset will provide
power with peak efficiency. Said more generally, the design goal is for
the transmission to deliver the needed power to the vehicle while
maintaining engine operation within the engine's ``sweet spot'' for
most efficient operation. Absent information about vehicle mass and
aerodynamics (which determines road load at highway speeds) it is not
possible to optimize the selection of gear ratios for lowest fuel
consumption. Truck and chassis manufacturers today offer a wide range
of tire sizes, final gear ratios and transmission choices so that final
bodybuilders can select an optimal combination given the finished
vehicle weight, general aerodynamic characteristics and expected
average speed. In order to set fuel efficiency and GHG standards that
would reflect these optimizations, the agencies would need to regulate
a wide range of small entities that are final bodybuilders, would need
to set a large number of uniquely different standards to reflect the
specific weight and aerodynamic differences and finally would need test
procedures to evaluate these differences that would not themselves be
excessively burdensome. Finally, the agencies would need the underlying
data regarding effectively all of the vocational trucks produced today
in order to determine the appropriate standards. Because the market is
already motivated to reach these optimizations themselves today,
because we have insufficient data to determine appropriate standards,
and finally, because we believe the testing burden would be
unjustifiably high, we are not finalizing to reflect transmission and
gear ratio optimization in our GEM or in our standard setting.
Some commenters suggested that the agencies predicate the
vocational vehicle standard on the use of specific transmission
technologies for example automated manual transmissions believing that
these mechanically more efficient designs would inherently provide
better fuel efficiency and lower greenhouse gas emissions than
conventional torque convertor automatic transmission designs. However
as discussed above the agencies believe that the small mechanical
efficiency differences between these transmission designs are
relatively insignificant in the context of the dominant impact of
proper gear ratio selection in determining a vehicle's overall
performance. In many cases, the mechanically more efficient design may
prove less effective in use if other aspects of vehicle performance
(such a vehicle launch under load) compromise the selection of gear
ratios. This somewhat surprising outcome can be seen most readily by
looking at modern passenger cars where mechanically less efficient
torque converter automatic models often produce equal or better fuel
economy when compared to the more mechanically efficient manual
transmission versions of the same vehicles. Given this reality, we do
not believe it would be appropriate to base the vocational truck
standard on the use of a particular transmission technology. In the
future, if we develop a complete vehicle chassis test approach to
regulating this segment, we would then be able to incorporate
transmission performance as we already do for the heavy-duty pickup
truck and van segment.
Idle Reduction: Episodic idling by vocational vehicles occurs
during the workday, unlike the overnight idling of combination tractors
(see discussion in Section III.A.2.a). Vocational vehicle idling can be
divided into two typical types. The first type is idling while
waiting--such as during a pickup or delivery. This type of idling can
be reduced through automatic engine shut-offs. The second type of
idling is to accomplish PTO operation, such as compacting garbage or
operating a bucket. The agencies have found only one study that
quantifies the emissions due to idling conducted by Argonne National
Lab based on 2002 VIUS data.\274\ EPA conducted a work assignment to
assist in characterizing PTO operations. The study of a utility truck
used in two different environments (rural and urban) and a refuse
hauler found that the PTO operated on average 28 percent of time
relative to the total time spent driving and idling.\275\ The use of
hybrid powertrains to reduce idling is discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\274\ Gaines, Linda, A. Vyas, J. Anderson (Argonne National
Laboratory). Estimation of Fuel Use by Idling Commercial Trucks.
January 2006.
\275\ Southwest Research Institute. Power Take Off Cycle
Development and Testing. 2010. Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162-3335.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hybrid Powertrains: Several types of vocational vehicles are well
suited for hybrid powertrains. Vehicles such as utility or bucket
trucks, delivery vehicles, refuse haulers, and buses have operational
usage patterns with either a significant amount of stop-and-go activity
or spend a large portion of their operating hours idling the main
engine to operate a PTO unit. The industry is currently developing many
variations of hybrid powertrain systems. The hybrids developed to date
have seen fuel consumption and CO2 emissions reductions
between 20 and 50 percent in the field. However, there are still some
key issues that are restricting the penetration of hybrids, including
overall system cost, battery technology, and lack of cost-effective
electrified accessories. We have not predicated the standards based on
the use of hybrids reflecting the still nascent level of technology
development and the very small fraction of vehicle sales they would be
expected to account for in this time frame--on the order of only a
percent or two. Were we to overestimate the number of hybrids that
could be produced, we would set a standard that is not feasible. We
believe that it is more appropriate given the status of technology
development and our hopes for future advancements in hybrid
technologies to encourage their production through incentives. Thus, to
create an incentive for early introduction of hybrid powertrains into
the vocational vehicle fleet, the agencies are adopting the proposed
advanced technology credits if hybrid powertrains are used as a
technology to meet the vocational vehicle standard (or any other
vehicle standard), as described in Section IV.
(b) Gasoline Engine Technologies
The gasoline (or spark ignited) engines certified and sold as loose
engines into the heavy-duty truck market are typically large V8 and V10
engines produced by General Motors and Ford. The basic architecture of
these engines is the same as the versions used in the heavy-duty pickup
trucks and vans. Therefore, the technologies analyzed by the agencies
mirror the gasoline engine technologies used in the heavy-duty pickup
truck analysis in Section III.B above.
Building on the technical analysis underlying the light-duty 2012-
2016 MY vehicle rule, the agencies took a fresh look at technology
effectiveness values for purposes of this analysis using as a starting
point the estimates from that rule. The agencies then considered the
impact of test procedures (such as higher test weight of HD pickup
trucks and vans) on the effectiveness estimates. The agencies also
considered other sources such as the 2010 NAS Report, recent CAFE
compliance data, and confidential manufacturer estimates of technology
effectiveness. NHTSA and EPA engineers reviewed effectiveness
information from the multiple sources for each technology and ensured
that such effectiveness estimates were based
[[Page 57231]]
on technology hardware consistent with the BOM components used to
estimate costs.
The agencies note that the effectiveness values estimated for the
technologies may represent average values, and do not reflect the
potentially-limitless spectrum of possible values that could result
from adding the technology to different vehicles. For example, while
the agencies have estimated an effectiveness of 0.5 percent for low
friction lubricants, each vehicle could have a unique effectiveness
estimate depending on the baseline vehicle's oil viscosity rating. For
purposes of this final rulemaking, NHTSA and EPA believe that employing
average values for technology effectiveness estimates is an appropriate
way of recognizing the potential variation in the specific benefits
that individual manufacturers (and individual engines) might obtain
from adding a fuel-saving technology.
Baseline Engine: Similar to the gasoline engine used as the
baseline in the light-duty rule, the agencies assumed the baseline
engine in this segment to be a naturally aspirated, overhead valve V8
engine.\276\ The agencies did not receive any comments regarding the
baseline engine assumptions in the proposal. The following discussion
of effectiveness is generally in comparison to 2010 baseline engine
performance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\276\ The agencies note that baseline did not include coupled
cam phasing for loose HD gasoline engines. The HD loose engines are
slightly different than the ones used in the HD pickup trucks. They
tend to be the older versions of the same engine.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the final rulemaking, the agencies considered the same set of
technologies for loose gasoline engines at proposal. The agencies
received comments which suggested that the agencies consider
electrification of accessories to reduce the fuel consumption and
CO2 emissions from heavy-duty gasoline engines.
Electrification may result in a reduction in power demand, because
electrically powered accessories (such as the air compressor or power
steering) operate only when needed if they are electrically powered,
but they impose a parasitic demand all the time if they are engine
driven. In other cases, such as cooling fans or an engine's water pump,
electric power allows the accessory to run at speeds independent of
engine speed, which can reduce power consumption. However, technologies
such as these improvements to accessories are not demonstrated using
the engine dynamometer test procedures being adopted in this final rule
because those systems are not installed on the engine during the
testing. Thus, the technologies the agencies considered include the
following:
Engine Friction Reduction: In addition to low friction lubricants,
manufacturers can also reduce friction and improve fuel consumption by
improving the design of engine components and subsystems. Examples
include improvements in low-tension piston rings, piston skirt design,
roller cam followers, improved crankshaft design and bearings, material
coatings, material substitution, more optimal thermal management, and
piston and cylinder surface treatments. The 2010 NAS, NESCCAF \277\ and
EEA \278\ reports as well as confidential manufacturer data used in the
light-duty vehicle rulemaking suggested a range of effectiveness for
engine friction reduction to be between 1 to 3 percent. NHTSA and EPA
continue to believe that this range is accurate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\277\ Northeast States Center for a Clean Air Future. ``Reducing
Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Light-Duty Motor Vehicles.'' September
2004.
\278\ Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc. ``Technology to
Improve the Fuel Economy of Light Duty Trucks to 2015.'' May 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coupled Cam Phasing: Valvetrains with coupled (or coordinated) cam
phasing can modify the timing of both the inlet valves and the exhaust
valves an equal amount by phasing the camshaft of a single overhead cam
engine or an overhead valve engine. Based on the light-duty 2012-2016
MY vehicle rule, previously-received confidential manufacturer data,
and the NESCCAF report, NHTSA and EPA estimated the effectiveness of
couple cam phasing CCP to be between 1 and 4 percent. NHTSA and EPA
reviewed this estimate for purposes of the NPRM, and continue to find
it accurate.
Cylinder Deactivation: In conventional spark-ignited engines
throttling the airflow controls engine torque output. At partial loads,
efficiency can be improved by using cylinder deactivation instead of
throttling. Cylinder deactivation can improve engine efficiency by
disabling or deactivating (usually) half of the cylinders when the load
is less than half of the engine's total torque capability--the valves
are kept closed, and no fuel is injected--as a result, the trapped air
within the deactivated cylinders is simply compressed and expanded as
an air spring, with reduced friction and heat losses. The active
cylinders combust at almost double the load required if all of the
cylinders were operating. Pumping losses are significantly reduced as
long as the engine is operated in this ``part cylinder'' mode.
Effectiveness improvements scale roughly with engine displacement-to-
vehicle weight ratio: The higher displacement-to-weight vehicles,
operating at lower relative loads for normal driving, have the
potential to operate in part-cylinder mode more frequently. Cylinder
deactivation is less effective on heavily-loaded vehicles because they
require more power and spend less time in areas of operation where only
partial power is required. The technology also requires proper
integration into the vehicles which is difficult in the vocational
vehicle segment where often the engine is sold to a chassis
manufacturer or body builder without knowing the type of transmission
or axle used in the vehicle or the precise duty cycle of the vehicle.
The cylinder deactivation requires fine tuning of the calibration as
the engine moves into and out of deactivation mode to achieve
acceptable NVH. Additionally, cylinder deactivation would be difficult
to apply to vehicles with a manual transmission because it requires
careful gear change control. NHTSA and EPA adjusted the 2012-16 MY
light-duty rule estimates using updated power to weight ratings of
heavy-duty trucks and confidential business information and downwardly
adjusted the effectiveness to 0 to 3 percent for these vehicles to
reflect the differences in drive cycle and operational opportunities
compared to light-duty vehicles. Because of the complexities associated
with integrating cylinder deactivation in a non-integrated vehicle
assembly process and the low effectiveness of the technology, the
agencies did not include cylinder deactivation in the final gasoline
engine technology package.
Stoichiometric gasoline direct injection: SGDI (also known as
spark-ignition direct injection engines) inject fuel at high pressure
directly into the combustion chamber (rather than the intake port in
port fuel injection). Direct injection of the fuel into the cylinder
improves cooling of the air/fuel charge within the cylinder, which
allows for higher compression ratios and increased thermodynamic
efficiency without the onset of combustion knock. Recent injector
design advances, improved electronic engine management systems and the
introduction of multiple injection events per cylinder firing cycle
promote better mixing of the air and fuel, enhance combustion rates,
increase residual exhaust gas tolerance and improve cold start
emissions. SGDI engines achieve higher power density and match well
with other technologies, such as boosting and variable valvetrain
designs. The light-duty 2012-2016 MY vehicle rule estimated the
effectiveness
[[Page 57232]]
of SGDI to be between 2 and 3 percent. NHTSA and EPA revised these
estimated accounting for the use and testing methods for these vehicles
along with confidential business information estimates received from
manufacturers while developing the program. Based on these revisions,
NHTSA and EPA estimate the range of 1 to 2 percent for SGDI.
(c) Diesel Engine Technologies
Different types of diesel engines are used in vocational vehicles,
depending on the application. They fall into the categories of Light,
Medium, and Heavy Heavy-duty Diesel engines. The Light Heavy-duty
Diesel engines typically range between 4.7 and 6.7 liters displacement.
The Medium Heavy-duty Diesel engines typically have some overlap in
displacement with the Light Heavy-duty Diesel engines and range between
6.7 and 9.3 liters. The Heavy Heavy-duty Diesel engines typically are
represented by engines between 10.8 and 16 liters.
Baseline Engine: There are three baseline diesel engines, a Light,
Medium, and a Heavy Heavy-duty Diesel engine. The agencies developed
the baseline diesel engine as a 2010 model year engine with an
aftertreatment system which meets EPA's 0.2 grams of NOX/
bhp-hr standard with an SCR system along with EGR and meets the PM
emissions standard with a diesel particulate filter with active
regeneration. The engine is turbocharged with a variable geometry
turbocharger. As noted above in Section III.A.1.b, the agencies
received comments from Navistar stating that the agencies used an
artificially low baseline CO2 emissions level which was
tilted toward the use of SCR aftertreatment system. As discussed in
Section III.A.1.b, the agencies disagree with the statement that SCR is
infeasible. Additional responses from the agencies are available in the
Response to Comments document, Section 6.2.\279\ The following
discussion of technologies describes improvements over the 2010 model
year baseline engine performance, unless otherwise noted. Further
discussion of the baseline engine and its performance can be found in
Section III.C.2.(c)(i) below. The following discussion of effectiveness
is generally in comparison to 2010 baseline engine performance, and is
in reference to performance in terms of the Heavy-duty FTP that would
be used for compliance for these engine standards. This is in
comparison to the steady state SET procedure that would be used for
compliance purposes for the engines used in Class 7 and 8 tractors. See
Section II.B.2.(i) above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\279\ U.S. EPA. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel
Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and
Vehicles--EPA Response to Comments Document for Joint Rulemaking.
EPA-420-R-11-004. Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Turbochargers: Improved efficiency of a turbocharger compressor or
turbine could reduce fuel consumption by approximately 1 to 2 percent
over today's variable geometry turbochargers in the market today. The
2010 NAS report identified technologies such as higher pressure ratio
radial compressors, axial compressors, and dual stage turbochargers as
design paths to improve turbocharger efficiency.
Low Temperature Exhaust Gas Recirculation: Most LHDD, MHDD, and
HHDD engines sold in the U.S. market today use cooled EGR, in which
part of the exhaust gas is routed through a cooler (rejecting energy to
the engine coolant) before being returned to the engine intake
manifold. EGR is a technology employed to reduce peak combustion
temperatures and thus NOX. Low-temperature EGR uses a larger
or secondary EGR cooler to achieve lower intake charge temperatures,
which tend to further reduce NOX formation. If the
NOX requirement is unchanged, low-temperature EGR can allow
changes such as more advanced injection timing that will increase
engine efficiency slightly more than one percent. Because low-
temperature EGR reduces the engine's exhaust temperature, it may not be
compatible with exhaust energy recovery systems such as
turbocompounding or a bottoming cycle.
Engine Friction Reduction: Reduced friction in bearings, valve
trains, and the piston-to-liner interface will improve efficiency. Any
friction reduction must be carefully developed to avoid issues with
durability or performance capability. Estimates of fuel consumption
improvements due to reduced friction range from 0.5 to 1.5
percent.\280\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\280\ See TIAX, Note 198, pg. 4-15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Selective catalytic reduction: This technology is common on 2010
heavy-duty diesel engines. Because SCR is a highly effective
NOX aftertreatment approach, it enables engines to be
optimized to maximize fuel efficiency, rather than minimize engine-out
NOX. 2010 SCR systems are estimated to result in improved
engine efficiency of approximately 4 to 5 percent compared to a 2007
in-cylinder EGR-based emissions system and by an even greater
percentage compared to 2010 in-cylinder approaches.\281\ As more
effective low-temperature catalysts are developed, the NOX
conversion efficiency of the SCR system will increase. Next-generation
SCR systems could then enable still further efficiency improvements;
alternatively, these advances could be used to maintain efficiency
while down-sizing the aftertreatment. We estimate that continued
optimization of the catalyst could offer 1 to 2 percent reduction in
fuel use over 2010 model year systems in the 2014 model year.\282\ The
agencies also estimate that continued refinement and optimization of
the SCR systems could provide an additional 2 percent reduction in the
2017 model year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\281\ Stanton, D. ``Advanced Diesel Engine Technology
Development for High Efficiency, Clean Combustion.'' Cummins, Inc.
Annual Progress Report 2008 Vehicle Technologies Program: Advanced
Combustion Engine Technologies, U.S. Department of Energy. Pp 113-
116. December 2008.
\282\ See TIAX, Note 198, pg. 4-9
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Improved Combustion Process: Fuel consumption reductions in the
range of 1 to 4 percent are identified in the 2010 NAS report through
improved combustion chamber design, higher fuel injection pressure,
improved injection shaping and timing, and higher peak cylinder
pressures.\283\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\283\ See 2010 NAS Report, Note 197, page 56.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reduced Parasitic Loads: Accessories that are traditionally gear or
belt driven by a vehicle's engine can be optimized and/or converted to
electric power. Examples include the engine water pump, oil pump, fuel
injection pump, air compressor, power-steering pump, cooling fans, and
the vehicle's air-conditioning system. Optimization and improved
pressure regulation may significantly reduce the parasitic load of the
water, air and fuel pumps. Electrification may result in a reduction in
power demand, because electrically powered accessories (such as the air
compressor or power steering) operate only when needed if they are
electrically powered, but they impose a parasitic demand all the time
if they are engine driven. In other cases, such as cooling fans or an
engine's water pump, electric power allows the accessory to run at
speeds independent of engine speed, which can reduce power consumption.
The TIAX study used 2 to 4 percent fuel consumption improvement for
accessory electrification, with the understanding that electrification
of accessories will have more effect in short-haul/urban applications
and less benefit in line-haul applications.\284\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\284\ See TIAX. Note 198, Pages 3-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 57233]]
(2) What is the projected technology package's effectiveness and cost?
(a) Vocational Vehicles
(i) Baseline Vocational Vehicle Performance
The baseline vocational vehicle model is defined in the GEM, as
described in RIA Chapter 4.4.6. At proposal, the agencies used a
baseline rolling resistance coefficient for today's vocational vehicle
fleet of 9.0 kg/metric ton.\285\ As discussed in Section II.D.1, the
agencies conducted a tire rolling resistance evaluation of tires used
in vocational vehicles. The agencies found that the average rolling
resistance of the tires was lower than the agencies' assessment at
proposal. Based on this new information and our understanding of the
potential to improve tire rolling resistance by 2014, the agencies are
setting the vocational truck standard premised on the use of tires with
a rolling resistance coefficient of 7.7 kg/metric ton. This value is
consistent with the average performance of the subset of tires the
agencies tested. We are projecting this standard will drive a 5 percent
reduction in tire rolling resistance on average across the fleet. We
are projecting this 5 percent reduction based on our expectation that
manufacturers will desire to bring all of their tires below the
standard (not just comply on average) and knowing manufacturers will
need some degree of overcompliance to ensure despite manufacturing
variability and test to test variability their products are compliant
with the emission standards. In order to reflect both this tighter
standard (based on 7.7) and the 5 percent reduction in rolling
resistance we project it will accomplish, we are modeling the baseline
performance of vocational truck tires as 8.1 kg/metric ton.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\285\ The baseline tire rolling resistance for this segment of
vehicles was derived for the proposal based on the current baseline
tractor and passenger car tires. The baseline tractor drive tire has
a rolling resistance of 8.2 kg/metric ton based on SmartWay testing.
The average passenger car has a tire rolling resistance of 9.75 kg/
metric ton based on a presentation made to CARB by the Rubber
Manufacturer's Association. As noted above, further analysis has
resulted in an estimate of improved performance in the baseline
fleet, which is based entirely on use of LRR tires on vocational
vehicles (not cars). Additional details are available in the RIA
chapter 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further vehicle technology is not included in this baseline, as
discussed below in the discussion of the baseline vocational vehicle.
The baseline engine fuel consumption represents a 2010 model year
diesel engine, as described in RIA Chapter 4. Using these values, the
baseline performance of these vehicles is included in Table III-12.
The agencies note that the baseline performance derived for the
final rule slightly differs from the values derived for the NPRM. The
first difference is due to the change in rolling resistance from 9.0 to
8.1 kg/metric ton based on the agencies' post-proposal test results.
Second, there are minor differences in the fuel consumption and
CO2 emissions due to the small modifications made to the
GEM, as noted in RIA Chapter 4. In addition, the HHD vocational vehicle
baseline performance for the final rule uses a revised payload
assumption from 38,000 to 15,000 pounds, as described in Section
II.D.3.c.iii.
Table III-12--Baseline Vocational Vehicle Performance
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vocational vehicle
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Medium heavy- Heavy heavy-
Heavy-duty duty duty
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuel Consumption Baseline 40.0 24.3 23.2
(gallon/1,000 ton-mile)......
CO2 Baseline (grams CO2/ton- 408 247 236
mile)........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(ii) Vocational Vehicle Technology Package
The final program for vocational vehicles for this phase of
regulatory standards is based on the performance of tire and engine
technologies. Aerodynamics technology, weight reduction, drive train
improvement, and hybrid power trains are not included for the reasons
discussed above in Section III.C (1) and Section II.D.
The assessment of the final technology effectiveness was developed
through the use of the GEM. To account for the two final engine
standards, EPA is finalizing the use of a 2014 model year fuel
consumption map in the GEM to derive the 2014 model year truck standard
and a 2017 model year fuel consumption map to derive the 2017 model
year truck standard. (These fuel consumption maps reflect the main
standards for HD diesel engines, not the alternative engine standards.)
The agencies estimate that the rolling resistance of 50 percent of the
tires can be reduced by 10 percent in the 2014 model year, for an
overall reduction in rolling resistance of 5 percent. The vocational
vehicle standards for all three regulatory categories were determined
using a tire rolling resistance coefficient of 7.7 kg/metric ton in the
2014 model year. The set of input parameters which are modeled in GEM
are shown in Table III-13.
Table III-13--GEM Inputs for Final Vocational Vehicle Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014 MY 2017 MY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engine...................................................... 2014 MY 7L for LHD/MHD 2017 MY 7L for LHD/MHD
and 15L for HHD Trucks and 15L for HHD Trucks.
Tire Rolling Resistance (kg/metric ton)..................... 7.7 7.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agencies developed the final standards by using the engine and
tire rolling resistance inputs in the GEM, as shown in Table III-13.
The percent reductions shown in Table III-14 reflect improvements over
the 2010 model year baseline vehicle with a 2010 model year baseline
engine.
[[Page 57234]]
Table III-14--Final Vocational Vehicle Standards and Percent Reductions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vocational vehicle
-----------------------------------------------
Light heavy- Medium heavy- Heavy heavy-
duty duty duty
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2016 MY Fuel Consumption Standard (gallon/1,000 ton-mile)....... 38.1 23.0 22.2
2017 MY Fuel Consumption Standard (gallon/1,000 ton-mile)....... 36.7 22.1 21.8
2014 MY CO2 Standard (grams CO2/ton-mile)....................... 388 234 226
2017 MY CO2 Standard (grams CO2/ton-mile)....................... 373 225 222
Percent Reduction from 2010 baseline in 2014 MY................. 5% 5% 4%
Percent Reduction from 2010 baseline in 2017 MY................. 8% 9% 6%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(iii) Technology Package Cost
The agencies did not receive any substantial comments on the engine
costs proposed. Thus the agencies are projecting the costs of the
technologies used to develop the final standards based on the costs
used in the proposal, but revised to reflect 2009$, new ICMs, and a 50
percent penetration rate of low rolling resistance tires (as explained
above). EPA and NHTSA developed the costs of LRR tires based on the ICF
report. The estimated cost per truck is $81 (2009$) for LHD and MHD
trucks and $97 (2009$) for HHD trucks. These costs include a low
complexity ICM of 1.18 and are applicable in the 2014 model year.
(iv) Reasonableness of the Final Vocational Vehicle Standards
The final standards would not only add only a small amount to the
vehicle cost, but are highly cost effective, an estimated $20 ton of
CO2eq per vehicle in 2030.\286\ This is even less than the
estimated cost effectiveness for CO2eq removal under the
light-duty vehicle rule, already considered by the agencies to be a
highly cost effective reduction.\287\ Moreover, the modest cost of
controls is recovered almost immediately due to the associated fuel
savings, as shown in the payback analysis included in Table VIII-7.
Given that the standards are technically feasible within the lead time
afforded by the 2014 model year, are inexpensive and highly cost
effective, and do not have other adverse potential impacts (e.g., there
are no projected negative impacts on safety or vehicle utility), the
final standards represent a reasonable choice under section 202(a) of
the CAA and NHTSA's EISA authority under 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(2), and the
agencies believe that the standards are consistent with their
respective authorities. Based on the discussion above, NHTSA believes
these standards are the maximum feasible under EISA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\286\ See Section VIII.D.
\287\ As noted above, the light-duty rule had an estimated cost
per ton of $50 when considering the vehicle program costs only and a
cost of -$210 per ton considering the vehicle program costs along
with fuel savings in 2030. See 75 FR 25515, Table III.H.3-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(v) Alternative Vehicle Standards Considered
The agencies are not finalizing vehicle standards less stringent
than the final standards because the agencies believe these standards
are highly cost effective, as just explained.
The agencies considered finalizing truck standards which are more
stringent reflecting the inclusion of hybrid powertrains in those
vocational vehicles where use of hybrid powertrains is appropriate. The
agencies estimate that a 25 percent utilization rate of hybrid
powertrains in MY 2017 vocational vehicles would add, on average,
$30,000 to the cost of each vehicle and more than double the cost of
the rule for this sector. See the RIA at chapter 6.1.8. The emission
reductions associated with these very high costs appear to be modest.
See the RIA Table 6-14. In addition, the agencies are finalizing
flexibilities in the form of generally applicable credit opportunities
for advanced technologies, to encourage use of hybrid powertrains. See
Section IV.C. 2 below. Several commenters recommended that in addition
to hybrid powertrains, the agencies consider setting more stringent
standards based on the use of aerodynamic improvements, weight
reduction, idle shutdown technologies, vehicle speed limiters, and
specific transmission technologies. As described above, we are not
finalizing standards based on these technologies for reasons that
related to the unique nature of the very diverse vocational vehicle
segment. At this time, the agencies have no means to determine the
current baseline aerodynamic performance of all vocational vehicles
(ranging from concrete mixers to school buses), nor a means to project
to what degree the aerodynamic performance could be improved without
compromising the utility of the vehicle. Absent this information, the
agencies cannot set a standard based on improvements in aerodynamic
performance. The agencies face similar obstacles regarding our ability
to project the utility tradeoffs that may exist between limitations on
vehicle speed or reductions in vehicle mass and utility and safety of
vocational vehicles. We are confident the answer to those questions
will differ for a school bus compared to a concrete mixer compared to a
fire truck compared to an ambulance. Absent an approach to set distinct
standards for each of the vocational vehicle types and the information
necessary to determine the appropriate level of performance for those
vehicles, the agencies cannot set standards for vocational vehicles
based on the use of these technologies. For these reasons, the agencies
are not adopting more comprehensive standards for vocational vehicles.
The agencies do agree that at least some vocational vehicles can be
made more efficient through the use of technologies, including those
technologies mentioned in the comments, and the agencies fully intend
to take on the challenge of developing the data, test procedures and
regulatory structures necessary to set more comprehensive standards for
vocational trucks in the future.
(b) Gasoline Engines
(i) Baseline Gasoline Engine Performance
EPA and NHTSA developed the reference heavy-duty gasoline engines
to represent a 2010 model year engine compliant with the 0.20 g/bhp-hr
NOX standard for on-highway heavy-duty engines.
NHTSA and EPA developed the baseline fuel consumption and
CO2 emissions for the gasoline engines from manufacturer
reported CO2 values used in the certification of non-GHG
pollutants. The baseline engine for the analysis was developed to
represent a 2011 model year engine, because this is the most current
information available. The average CO2 performance of the
heavy-duty gasoline engines was 660 g/bhp-hour, which will be used as a
[[Page 57235]]
baseline. The baseline gasoline engines are all stoichiometric port
fuel injected V-8 engines without cam phasers or other variable valve
timing technologies. While they may reflect some degree of static valve
timing optimization for fuel efficiency they do not reflect the
potential to adjust timing with engine speed.
(ii) Gasoline Engine Technology Package Effectiveness
The gasoline engine technology package includes engine friction
reduction, coupled cam phasing, and SGDI to produce an overall five
percent reduction from the reference engine based on the Heavy-duty
Lumped Parameter model. The agencies are projecting a 100 percent
application rate of this technology package to the heavy-duty gasoline
engines, which results in a CO2 standard of 627 g/bhp-hr and
a fuel consumption standard of 7.05 gallon/100 bhp-hr. As discussed in
Section II.D.b.ii, the agencies are adopting gasoline engine standards
that begin in the 2016 model year based on the agencies' projection of
the engine redesign schedules for the small number of engines in this
category.
(iii) Gasoline Engine Technology Package Cost
For the proposed costs, the agencies considered both the direct or
``piece'' costs and indirect costs of individual components of
technologies. For the direct costs, the agencies followed a BOM
approach employed by NHTSA and EPA in the light-duty 2012-2016 MY
vehicle rule. In this final action, the agencies are using marked up
gasoline engine technology costs developed for the HD Pickup Truck and
Van segment because these engines are made by the same manufacturers
(primarily by Ford and GM) and are simply, sold as loose engines rather
than as complete vehicles. Hence the engine cost estimates are
fundamentally the same. The agencies did not receive any comments
recommending adjustments to the proposed gasoline engine technology
costs. The costs summarized in Table III-15 are consistent with the
proposed values, but updated to reflect 2009$ and new ICMs. The costs
shown in Table III-15 include a low complexity ICM of 1.24 and are
applicable in the 2016 model year. No learning effects are applied to
engine friction reduction costs, while flat-portion of the curve
learning is considered applicable to both coupled cam phasing and SGDI.
Table III-15--Heavy-Duty Gasoline Engine Technology Costs Inclusive of
Indirect Cost Markups
[2009$]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2016 MY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engine Friction Reduction.................................... $95
Coupled Cam Phasing.......................................... 46
Stoichiometric Gas Direct Injection.......................... 452
----------
Total.................................................... 594
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(iv) Reasonableness of the Final Standard
The final engine standards are reasonable and consistent with the
agencies' respective authorities. With respect to the 2016 MY standard,
all of the technologies on which the standards are predicated have been
demonstrated and their effectiveness is well documented. The final
standards reflect a 100 percent application rate for these
technologies. The costs of adding these technologies remain modest
across the various engine classes as shown in Table 0-15. Use of these
technologies would add only a small amount to the cost of the
vehicle,\288\ and the associated reductions are highly cost effective,
an estimated $20 per ton of CO2eq per vehicle.\289\ This is
even more cost effective than the estimated cost effectiveness for
CO2eq removal and fuel economy improvement under the light-
duty vehicle rule, already considered by the agencies to be a highly
cost effective reduction.\290\ Accordingly, EPA and NHTSA view these
standards as reflecting an appropriate balance of the various statutory
factors under section 202(a) of the CAA and under NHTSA's EISA
authority at 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(2). Based on the discussion above,
NHTSA believes these standards are the maximum feasible under EISA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\288\ Sample 2010 MY vocational vehicles range in price between
$40,000 for a Class 4 work truck to approximately $200,000 for a
Class 8 refuse hauler. See pages 16-17 of ICF's ``Investigation of
Costs for Strategies to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Heavy-
Duty On-Road Vehicles.'' July 2010.
\289\ See Vocational Vehicle CO2 savings and
technology costs in Table 7-4 in RIA chapter 7.
\290\ The light-duty rule had an estimated cost per ton of $50
when considering the vehicle program costs only and a cost of -$210
per ton considering the vehicle program costs along with fuel
savings in 2030. See 75 FR 25515, Table III.H.3-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several commenters suggested that the lead time provided by the
agencies for heavy-duty pickups and vans and by extension the 2016
gasoline engine standards were unnecessarily long. The agencies do not
agree with this assessment. The technologies that we are considering
here cannot simply be bolted on to an existing engine but can only be
effectively applied through an integrated design and development
process. The four years lead time provided here is short in the context
of engine redesigns and is only possible in part because the standards
align with engine manufacturers' planned redesign processes that are
either just starting or will be starting within the year. These
standards set a clear metric of performance for those planned redesigns
and we project will lead manufacturers to include a number of
technologies that would not otherwise have been incorporated into those
engines.
(v) Alternative Gasoline Engine Standards Considered
The agencies are not finalizing gasoline standards less stringent
than the final standards because the agencies believe these standards
are feasible in the lead time provided, inexpensive, and highly cost
effective.
The final rule reflects 100 percent penetration of the technology
package on whose performance the standard is based, so some additional
technology would need to be added to obtain further improvements. The
agencies considered finalizing gasoline engine standards which are more
stringent reflecting the inclusion of cylinder deactivation and other
advanced technologies. However, the agencies are not finalizing this
level of stringency because our assessment is that these technologies
cannot be adapted to the higher average engine loads of heavy-duty
vehicles for production by the 2017 model year. We intend to continue
to evaluate the potential for further gasoline engine improvements
building on the work done for light-duty passenger cars and trucks as
we begin work on the next phase of heavy-duty regulations.
(c) Diesel Engines
(i) Baseline Diesel Engine Performance
EPA and NHTSA developed the baseline heavy-duty diesel engines to
represent a 2010 model year engine compliant with the 0.20 g/bhp-hr
NOX standard for on-highway heavy-duty engines.
The agencies utilized 2007 through 2011 model year CO2
certification levels from the Heavy-duty FTP cycle as the basis for the
baseline engine CO2 performance. The pre-2010 data are
subsequently adjusted to represent 2010 model year engine maps by using
predefined technologies including SCR and other systems that are being
used in current 2010 production. The engine CO2 results were
then sales weighted
[[Page 57236]]
within each regulatory subcategory to develop an industry average 2010
model year reference engine, as shown in Table III-16. The level of
CO2 emissions and fuel consumption of these engines varies
significantly, where the engine with the highest CO2
emissions is estimated to be 20 percent greater than the sales weighted
average. Details of this analysis are included in RIA Chapter 2.
Table III-16--2010 Model Year Reference Diesel Engine Performance Over
the Heavy-Duty FTP Cycle
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 emissions (g/ Fuel consumption
bhp-hr) (gallon/100 bhp-hr)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LHD Diesel.................. 630 6.19
MHD Diesel.................. 630 6.19
HHD Diesel.................. 584 5.74
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(ii) Diesel Engine Packages
The diesel engine technology packages for the 2014 model year
include engine friction reduction, improved aftertreatment
effectiveness, improved combustion processes, and low temperature EGR
system optimization. The improvements in parasitic and friction losses
come through piston designs to reduce friction, improved lubrication,
and improved water pump and oil pump designs to reduce parasitic
losses. The aftertreatment improvements are available through lower
backpressure of the systems and optimization of the engine-out
NOX levels. Improvements to the EGR system and air flow
through the intake and exhaust systems, along with turbochargers can
also produce engine efficiency improvements. It should be pointed out
that individual technology improvements are not additive to each other
due to the interaction of technologies. The agencies assessed the
impact of each technology over the Heavy-duty FTP and project an
overall cycle improvement in the 2014 model year of 3 percent for HHD
diesel engines and 5 percent for LHD and MHD diesel engines, as
detailed in RIA Chapter 2.4.2.9 and 2.4.2.10. EPA used a 100 percent
application rate of this technology package to determine the level of
the final 2014 MY standards
Recently, EPA's heavy-duty highway engine program for criteria
pollutants provided new emissions standards for the industry in three
year increments. The heavy-duty engine manufacturer product plans have
fallen into three year cycles to reflect this environment. EPA is
finalizing CO2 emission standards recognizing the
opportunity for technology improvements over this time frame while
reflecting the typical heavy-duty engine manufacturer product plan
redesign cycles. Thus, the agencies are establishing initial standards
for the 2014 model year and a more stringent standard for these heavy-
duty engines beginning in the 2017 model year.
The 2017 model year technology package for LHD and MHD diesel
engine includes continued development and refinement of the 2014 model
year technology package, in particular the additional improvement to
aftertreatment systems. This package leads to a projected 9 percent
reduction for LHD and MHD diesel engines in the 2017 model year. The
HHD diesel engine technology packages for the 2017 model year include
the continued development of the 2014 model year technology package. A
similar approach to evaluating the impact of individual technologies as
taken to develop the overall reduction of the 2014 model year package
was taken with the 2017 model year package. The Heavy-duty FTP cycle
improvements lead to a 5 percent reduction on the cycle for HHDD, as
detailed in RIA Chapter 2.4.2.13. The agencies used a 100 percent
application rate of the technology package to determine the final 2017
MY standards. The agencies believe that bottom cycling technologies are
still in the development phase and will not be ready for production by
the 2017 model year.\291\ Therefore, these technologies were not
included in determining the stringency of the final standards. However,
we do believe the bottoming cycle approach represents a significant
opportunity to reduce fuel consumption and GHG emissions in the future
for vehicles that operate under primarily steady-state conditions like
line-haul tractors and some vocational vehicles. As discussed above, we
also considered setting standards based on the use of hybrid
powertrains that are a better match to many vocational vehicle duty
cycles but have decided for the reasons articulated above to not base
the vocational vehicle standard on the use of hybrid technologies in
this first regulation. However, EPA and NHTSA are both finalizing
provisions described in Section IV to create incentives for
manufacturers to continue to invest to develop these technologies in
the believe that with further development these technologies can form
the basis of future standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\291\ TIAX noted in their report to the NAS panel that the
engine improvements beyond 2015 model year included in their report
are highly uncertain, though they include waste heat recovery in the
engine package for 2016 through 2020 (page 4-29).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The overall projected improvements in CO2 emissions and
fuel consumption over the baseline are included in Table III-17.
Table III-17--Percent Fuel Consumption and CO2 Emission Reductions Over
the Heavy-duty FTP Cycle
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014 2017
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LHD Diesel............................................ 5% 9%
MHD Diesel............................................ 5 9
HHD Diesel............................................ 3 5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(iii) Technology Package Costs
NHTSA and EPA jointly developed costs associated with the engine
technologies to assess an overall package cost for each regulatory
category. Our engine cost estimates for diesel engines used in
vocational vehicles include a separate analysis of the incremental part
costs, research and development activities, and additional equipment,
such as emissions equipment to measure N2O emissions. Our
general approach used elsewhere in this action (for HD pickup trucks,
gasoline engines, Class 7 and 8 tractors, and Class 2b-8 vocational
vehicles) estimates a direct manufacturing cost for a part and marks it
up based on a factor to account for indirect costs. See also 75 FR
25376. We believe that approach is appropriate when compliance with
final standards is achieved generally by installing new parts and
systems purchased from a supplier. In such a case, the supplier is
conducting the bulk of the research and development on the new parts
and systems and including those costs in the purchase price paid by the
original equipment manufacturer. The indirect costs incurred by the
original equipment manufacturer need not include much cost to cover
research and development since the bulk of that effort is already done.
For the MHD and
[[Page 57237]]
HHD diesel engine segment, however, the agencies believe we can make a
more accurate estimate of technology cost using this alternate approach
because the primary cost is not expected to be the purchase of parts or
systems from suppliers or even the production of the parts and systems,
but rather the development of the new technology by the original
equipment manufacturer itself. Therefore, the agencies believe it more
accurate to directly estimate the indirect costs. EPA commonly uses
this approach in cases where significant investments in research and
development can lead to an emission control approach that requires no
new hardware. For example, combustion optimization may significantly
reduce emissions and cost a manufacturer millions of dollars to develop
but will lead to an engine that is no more expensive to produce. Using
a bill of materials approach would suggest that the cost of the
emissions control was zero reflecting no new hardware and ignoring the
millions of dollars spent to develop the improved combustion system.
Details of the cost analysis are included in the RIA Chapter 2. To
reiterate, we have used this different approach because the MHD and HHD
diesel engines are expected to comply in large part via technology
changes that are not reflected in new hardware but rather knowledge
gained through laboratory and real world testing that allows for
improvements in control system calibrations--changes that are more
difficult to reflect through direct costs with indirect cost
multipliers.
The agencies developed the engineering costs for the research and
development of diesel engines with lower fuel consumption and
CO2 emissions. The aggregate costs for engineering hours,
technician support, dynamometer cell time, and fabrication of prototype
parts are estimated at $6.8 million (2009$) per manufacturer per year
over the five years covering 2012 through 2016. In aggregate, this
averages out to $284 per engine during 2012 through 2016 using an
annual sales value of 600,000 light, medium, and heavy heavy-duty
engines. The agencies received comments from Horriba regarding the
assumption the agencies used in the proposal that said manufacturers
would need to purchase new equipment for measuring N2O and
the associated costs. Horriba provided information regarding the cost
of stand-alone FTIR instrumentation (estimated at $50,000 per unit) and
cost of upgrading existing emission measurement systems with NDIR
analyzers (estimated at $25,000 per unit). The agencies further
analyzed our assumptions along with Horriba's comments. Thus, we have
revised the equipment costs estimates and assumed that 75 percent of
manufacturers would update existing equipment while the other 25
percent would require new equipment. The agencies are estimating costs
of $63,087 (2009$) per engine manufacturer per engine subcategory
(light, medium, and heavy HD) to cover the cost of purchasing photo-
acoustic measurement equipment for two engine test cells. This would be
a one-time cost incurred in the year prior to implementation of the
standard (i.e., the cost would be incurred in 2013). In aggregate, this
averages out to less than $1 per engine in 2013 using an annual sales
value of 600,000 light, medium, and heavy HD engines.
EPA also developed the incremental piece cost for the components to
meet each the 2014 and 2017 standards. These costs shown in Table III-
18 which include a low complexity ICM of 1.15; flat-portion of the
curve learning is considered applicable to each technology.
Table III-18--Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine Component Costs Inclusive of
Indirect Cost Markups a
[2009$]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014 Model year 2017 Model year
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cylinder Head (flow optimized, $6 (MHD & HH), $11 $6 (MHD & HHD),
increased firing pressure, (LHD). $10 (LHD).
improved thermal management).
Exhaust Manifold (flow $0................ $0.
optimized, improved thermal
management).
Turbocharger (improved $18............... $17.
efficiency).
EGR Cooler (improved efficiency) $4................ $3.
Water Pump (optimized, variable $91............... $84.
vane, variable speed).
Oil Pump (optimized)............ $5................ $4.
Fuel Pump (higher working $5................ $4.
pressure, increased efficiency,
improved pressure regulation).
Fuel Rail (higher working $10 (MHD & HHD), $9 (MHD & HHD),
pressure). $12 (LHD). $11 (LHD).
Fuel Injector (optimized, $11 (MHD & HHD), $10 (MHD & HHD),
improved multiple event $15 (LHD). $13 (LHD).
control, higher working
pressure).
Piston (reduced friction skirt, $3................ $3.
ring and pin).
Aftertreatment system (improved $0 (MHD & HHD), $0 (MHD & HHD),
effectiveness SCR, dosing, $111 (LHD). $101 (LHD).
dpf)a.
Valve Train (reduced friction, $82 (MHD), $109 $76 (MHD), $101
roller tappet). (LHD). (LHD).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:
a Note that costs for aftertreatment improvements for MHD and HHD diesel
engines are covered via the engineering costs (see text). For LH
diesel engines, we have included the cost of aftertreatment
improvements as a technology cost.
The overall costs for each diesel engine regulatory subcategory are
included in Table III-19.
Table III-19--Diesel Engine Technology Costs per Engine
[2009$]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014 2017
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LHD Diesel............................................ $388 $358
MHD Diesel............................................ 234 216
HHD Diesel............................................ 234 216
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reasonableness of the Final Standards
The final engine standards appear to be reasonable and consistent
with the agencies' respective authorities. With respect to the 2014 and
2017 MY standards, all of the technologies on which the standards are
based have already been demonstrated and their effectiveness is well
documented. The final standards reflect a 100 percent application rate
for these technologies.
[[Page 57238]]
The costs of adding these technologies remain modest across the various
engine classes as shown in Table III-19. Use of these technologies
would add only a small amount to the cost of the vehicle,\292\ and the
associated reductions are highly cost effective, an estimated $20 per
ton of CO2eq per vehicle.\293\ This is even more cost
effective than the estimated cost effectiveness for CO2eq
removal and fuel economy improvement under the light-duty vehicle rule,
already considered by the agencies to be a highly cost effective
reduction.\294\ Accordingly, EPA and NHTSA view these standards as
reflecting an appropriate balance of the various statutory factors
under section 202(a) of the CAA and under NHTSA's EISA authority at 49
U.S.C. 32902(k)(2). Based on the discussion above, NHTSA believes these
standards are the maximum feasible under EISA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\292\ Sample 2010 MY vocational vehicles range in price between
$40,000 for a Class 4 work truck to approximately $200,000 for a
Class 8 refuse hauler. See pages 16-17 of ICF's ``Investigation of
Costs for Strategies to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Heavy-
Duty On-Road Vehicles.'' July 2010.
\293\ See RIA chapter 7, Table 7-4.
\294\ The light-duty rule had a cost per ton of $50 when
considering the vehicle program costs only and a cost of -$210 per
ton considering the vehicle program costs along with fuel savings in
2030. See 75 FR 25515, Table III.H.3-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(v) Alternative Diesel Engine Standards Considered
Other than the specific option related to legacy engine products,
the agencies are not finalizing diesel engine standards less stringent
than the final standards because the agencies believe these standards
are highly cost effective.
The agencies have not considered finalizing diesel engine standards
which are more stringent because we have exhausted the list of engine
technologies that we believe are directly applicable to medium- and
heavy-duty diesel engines used in vocational applications. We are
continuing to evaluate the potential for bottoming cycle technologies
to be used in the future, however it is not clear today that this
technology, although promising for more steady-state operation will
provide any significant efficiency improvement under the more transient
operating cycles typical of vocational vehicles. Moreover, as stated at
II.D above, the agencies do not believe that this technology will be
available in the time frame of this rule in any case.
IV. Final Regulatory Flexibility Provisions
This section describes flexibility provisions intended to advance
the goals of the overall program while providing alternate pathways to
achieve those goals, consistent with the agencies' statutory authority,
as well as with Executive Order 13563.\295\ The primary flexibility
provisions for combination tractors and vocational vehicles and the
engines installed in these vehicles are incorporated in a program of
averaging, banking, and trading of credits. For HD pickups and vans,
the primary flexibility provision is also an ABT program expressed in
the fleet average form of the standards, along with provisions for
credit and deficit carry-forward and for trading, patterned after the
agencies' light-duty vehicle GHG and CAFE programs. Furthermore, EPA
will allow manufacturers to comply with the N2O and
CH4 standards using CO2 credits and is providing
an opportunity for engine manufacturers to earn N2O credits
that can be used to comply with the CO2 standards. However,
EPA is not adopting an emission credit program associated with the
CH4 or HFC standards. This section also describes other
flexibility provisions that apply, including advanced technology
credits, innovative technology credits and early compliance credits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\295\ Section 4 of EO 13563 states that ``Where relevant,
feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives, and to the
extent permitted by law, each agency shall identify and consider
regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility
and freedom of choice for the public.'' 76 FR 3821 (Jan. 21, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Averaging, Banking, and Trading Program
Averaging, Banking, and Trading (ABT) of emissions credits have
been an important part of many EPA mobile source programs under CAA
Title II, including engine and vehicle programs. NHTSA has also long
had an averaging and banking program for light-duty CAFE under EPCA,
and recently gained authority to add a trading program for light-duty
CAFE through EISA. ABT programs are useful because they can help to
address many issues of technological feasibility and lead-time, as well
as considerations of cost. They provide manufacturers flexibilities
that assist the efficient development and implementation of new
technologies and therefore enable new technologies to be implemented at
a more aggressive pace than without ABT. ABT programs are more than
just add-on provisions included to help reduce costs, and can be, as in
EPA's Title II programs an integral part of the standard setting
itself. A well-designed ABT program can also provide important
environmental and energy security benefits by increasing the speed at
which new technologies can be implemented (which means that more
benefits accrue over time than with slower-starting standards) and at
the same time increase flexibility for, and reduce costs to, the
regulated industry. American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy
(ACEEE) has commented that ABT and related flexibilities should not be
offered for this program because the agencies are not promoting the use
of new technologies but rather the use of existing technologies.
However, without ABT provisions (and other related flexibilities),
standards would typically have to be numerically less stringent since
the numerical standard would have to be adjusted to accommodate issues
of feasibility and available lead time. See 75 FR at 25412-13. By
offering ABT credits and additional flexibilities the agencies can
offer progressively more stringent standards that help meet our fuel
consumption reduction and GHG emission goals at a faster pace.
Section II above describes EPA's GHG emission standards and NHTSA's
fuel consumption standards. For each of these respective sets of
standards, the agencies also offer ABT provisions, consistent with each
agency's statutory authority. The agencies worked closely to design
these provisions to be essentially identical to each other in form and
function. Because of this fundamental similarity, the remainder of this
section refers to these provisions collectively as ``the ABT program''
except where agency-specific distinctions are required.
As discussed in detail below, the structure of the GHG and fuel
consumption ABT program for HD engines was based closely on EPA's
earlier ABT programs for HD engines; the program for HD pickups and
vans was built on the existing light-duty GHG program flexibility
provisions; and the first-time ABT provisions for combination tractors
and vocational vehicles are as consistent as possible with EPA's other
HD vehicle regulations. The flexibility provisions associated with this
new regulatory category were intended to build systematically upon the
structure of the existing programs.
As an overview, ``averaging'' means the exchange of emission or
fuel consumption credits between engine families or truck families
within a given manufacturer's regulatory subcategories and averaging
sets. For example, specific ``engine families,'' which manufacturers
create by dividing their product lines into groups expected to have
similar emission characteristics throughout their useful life, would be
contained within an averaging set.
[[Page 57239]]
Averaging allows a manufacturer to certify one or more engine families
(or vehicle families, as appropriate) within the same averaging set at
levels worse than the applicable emission or fuel consumption standard.
The increased emissions or fuel consumption over the standard would
need to be offset by one or more engine (or vehicle) families within
that manufacturer's averaging set that are certified better than the
same emission or fuel consumption standard, such that the average
emissions or fuel consumption from all the manufacturer's engine
families, weighted by engine power, regulatory useful life, and
production volume, are at or below the level of the emission or fuel
consumption standard \296\ Total credits for each averaging set within
each model year are determined by summing together the credits
calculated for every engine family within that specific averaging set.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\296\ The inclusion of engine power, useful life, and production
volume in the averaging calculations allows the emissions or fuel
consumption credits or debits to be expressed in total emissions or
consumption over the useful life of the credit-using or generating
engine sales.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
``Banking'' means the retention of emission credits by the
manufacturer for use in future model year averaging or trading.
``Trading'' means the exchange of emission credits between
manufacturers, which can then be used for averaging purposes, banked
for future use, or traded to another manufacturer.
In EPA's current HD engine program for criteria pollutants,
manufacturers are restricted to averaging, banking and trading only
credits generated by the engine families within a regulatory
subcategory, and EPA and NHTSA proposed to continue this restriction in
the GHG and fuel consumption program for engines and vehicles. However,
the agencies sought comment on potential alternative approaches in
which fewer restrictions are placed on the use of credits for
averaging, banking, and trading. Particularly, the agencies requested
comment on removing prohibitions on averaging and trading between some
or all regulatory categories in the proposal, and on removing
restrictions between some or all regulatory subcategories that are
within the same regulatory category (e.g., allowing trading of credits
between Class 7 day cabs and Class 8 sleeper cabs).
The agencies received many comments on the restrictions proposed
for the ABT program, namely on the proposal that credits could only be
averaged within the specified vehicle and engine subcategories and not
averaged across subcategories or between vehicle and engine categories.
Many commenters, including Union of Concerned Scientist (UCS), NY Dept
of Transportation, Natural Resources Defense Council, Oshkosh, and
Autocar, requested that the agencies maintain the restrictions as
proposed in the NPRM. UCS argued that allowing credits to be used
across categories could undermine further technology advancements, and
that manufacturers that have broad portfolios would have advantages
over those manufacturers that do not. The Center for Biological
Diversity (CBD) argued that because of the various credit opportunities
in the ABT program and the potential that manufacturers will pay
penalties rather than comply with the standards, the program could
actually cause an increase in emissions and a decrease in fuel
efficiency. On the other hand, several commenters, including EMA/TMA,
Cummins, Volvo, and ATA, requested that the agencies maintain the
proposed restrictions of averaging credits between the engine and
vehicle categories, but reduce the restrictions on credit averaging
across vehicle subcategories or engine subcategories or averaging sets
within similar vehicle and engine weight classes (LHD, MHD and HHD).
Cummins requested that the agencies allow credit averaging between
engine subcategories within the same weight classes (LHD, MHD and HHD).
Cummins explained that tractor and vocational engines in the
corresponding weight classes not only share the same useful life but
also use the same emission and fuel consumption technologies and
therefore should be placed into the same engine averaging set. EMA/TMA
argued that the NPRM restrictions would inhibit a manufacturer's
ability to use credits to address market fluctuations, which would
reduce the flexibility that the ABT program was intended to provide. As
an example, EMA/TMA stated that if the line-haul market were depressed
for a period of time a manufacturer could make up any deficit selling
more low-roof tractors with regional hauling operations. The same
market shift could eliminate a manufacturer's ability to generate
credits using its aerodynamic high-roof sleeper cab tractors and could
create a credit deficit if there is a demand for more of the less
aerodynamic low-roof tractors. EMA/TMA argued that credit exchanges
across vehicle categories within the same weight classes within the
tractor subcategories and across vocational vehicle and tractor
subcategories would allow a manufacturer more flexibility to deal with
these types of market and customer demand situations. Finally, several
commenters, including Ford, DTNA NADA, NTEA and Navistar, requested
that the agencies reduce the proposed restrictions even further by
allowing credit averaging between vehicle categories and engine
categories. Navistar argued that more flexibility was necessary for
manufacturers like itself to increase innovation at a reasonable cost,
stating that more restrictions would increase costs within a shorter
time frame.
After considering these comments, the agencies continue to believe
that the ABT program developed by the agencies increases and
accelerates the technological feasibility of the GHG and fuel
consumption standards by providing manufacturers flexibility in
implementing new technologies in a way that may be more consistent with
their business practices and cost considerations. In response to the
comments submitted by CBD, the agencies disagree with CBD's statements
that the ABT program will adversely affect the fuel efficiency and GHG
emission goals of this regulation. This joint final action requires
vehicle and engine manufacturers to meet increasingly more stringent
emission and fuel consumption standards which will result in emission
reductions and fuel consumption savings. Manufacturers will not have
the option of not meeting the standards. The ABT program simply
provides each manufacturer the flexibility to meet these standards
based upon their individual products and implementation plans.
By assuming the use of credits for compliance, the agencies were
able to set the fuel consumption/GHG standards at more stringent levels
than would otherwise have been feasible. One reason is that use of ABT
allows each manufacturer maximum flexibility to develop compliance
strategies consistent with its redesign cycles and with its product
plans generally, allowing the agencies, in turn, to adopt standards
which are numerically more stringent in earlier model years than would
be possible with a more rigid program since those rigidities would be
associated with greater costs. Greater improvements in fuel efficiency
will occur under more stringent standards; manufacturers will simply
have greater flexibility to determine where and how to make those
improvements than they would have without credit options. Further, this
is consistent with the directive in EO 13563 to ``seek to identify, as
appropriate, means to
[[Page 57240]]
achieve regulatory goals that are designed to promote innovation.''
The agencies further agree that certain restrictions on use of ABT
which were proposed are unnecessary. The proposed ABT program for
engines was somewhat more restrictive, in its definition of averaging
sets, than EPA's parallel ABT program for criteria pollutant emissions
from the same engines. The final rules conform to the ABT provisions
for GHG heavy-duty engine emissions to be consistent with the parallel
ABT provisions for criteria pollutants with same weight engines treated
as a single averaging set regardless of the vehicles in which they are
installed. We have applied this same principle with respect to
combination tractors and vocational vehicles: Treating like weight
classes as an averaging set. The agencies have determined that these
additional flexibilities will help to reduce manufacturing costs
further and encourage technology implementation without creating an
unfair advantage for manufactures with vertically integrated portfolios
including engines and vehicles. EPA's experience in administering the
ABT program for heavy-duty diesel engine criteria pollutant emissions
supports this conclusion. Therefore, the agencies have decided to allow
credit averaging within and across vocational vehicle and tractor
subcategories within the same weight class groups, as well as credit
averaging across the same weight class vocational and tractor engine
groups. This added flexibility beyond what was proposed in the NPRM
will not be extended to the HD pickup truck and van category because
this group of vehicles is comprised of only one subcategory and is not
broken down like the other categories and corresponding subcategories
into different weight classes, and the standard applies to the entire
vehicle, so that there are no separate engine and vehicle standards.
Put another way, the HD pickup truck and van category is one large
averaging set that will remain as proposed.
However, the agencies are maintaining the restrictions against
averaging vehicle credits with engine credits or between vehicle weight
classes or engine subcategories for this first phase of regulation. We
believe averaging or trading credits between averaging sets would be
problematic because of the diversity of applications involved. This
diversity creates large differences in the real world conditions that
impact lifetime emissions--such as actual operating life, load cycles,
and maintenance practices. In lieu of conducting extensive and
burdensome real world tracking of these parameters, along with
corrective measures to provide some assurance of parity between credits
earned and credits redeemed, averaging sets provide a reasonable amount
of confidence that typical engines or vehicles within each set have
comparable enough real world experience to make such follow-up activity
unnecessary. The agencies believe this approach will ensure that
CO2 emissions are reduced and fuel consumption is improved
in each engine subcategory without interfering with the ability of
manufacturers to engage in free trade and competition. Again, EPA's
experience in administering its ABT program for criteria pollutant
emissions from heavy-duty diesel engines confirms these views. The
agencies also note that no commenter offered an explanation of why the
restrictions on this ABT program should differ from the parallel ABT
program respecting criteria pollutants. As explained earlier in this
preamble, the agencies intend to re-evaluate the appropriateness of the
ABT averaging sets and credit use restrictions we are adopting here for
the HD GHG and fuel consumption program in the future based on
information we gain implementing this first phase of regulation.
Under previous ABT programs for other rulemakings, EPA and NHTSA
have allowed manufacturers to carry forward credit deficits for a set
period of time--if a manufacturer cannot meet an applicable standard in
a given model year, it may make up its shortfall by overcomplying in a
subsequent year. In the NPRM the agencies proposed to allow
manufacturers of engines, tractors, HD pickups and vans, and vocational
vehicles to carry forward deficits for up to three years before
reconciling the shortfall--the same period allowed in numerous other
EPA rules--but sought comments on alternative approaches for
reconciling deficits. DTNA supported the three year period and stated
that it was sufficient for reconciling deficits. CBD did not support
the use of the carry forward of deficits because it would delay
investments and technological innovation. The agencies respectfully
disagree with CBD and believe this provision has enabled the agencies
to consider overall standards that are more stringent and that will
become effective sooner than we could consider with a more rigid
program, one in which all of a manufacturer's similar vehicles or
engines would be required to achieve the same emissions or fuel
consumption levels, and at the same time. Therefore the agencies
included in the final rulemaking the proposed 3 year reconciliation
period. However, the agencies' respective credit programs require
manufacturers to use credits to offset a shortfall before credits may
be banked or traded for additional model years. This restriction
reduces the chance of manufacturers passing forward deficits before
reconciling shortfalls and exhausting those credits before reconciling
past deficits.
For the heavy-duty pickup and van category, the agencies proposed a
5-year credit life provision, as adopted in the light-duty vehicle GHG/
CAFE program. Navistar requested that the agencies drop the 5-year
credit expiration date proposed for the heavy-duty pickup and van
category and not specify an expiration date for earned credits.
Navistar stated that such credits are necessary to further improve the
flexibilities of this program in order to meet the new stringent
standards within the limited lead time provided. The agencies disagree.
The 5-year credit life is substantial, and allows credits earned early
in the phase-in to be held and used without discounting throughout the
phase-in period.
For engines, vocational vehicles and tractors, EPA also proposed
that CO2 credits generated during this first phase of the HD
National Program could not be used for later phases of standards, but
NHTSA did not expressly specify the potential expiration of fuel
consumption credits. DTNA and Cummins requested that the surplus
credits from the first phase of the program not expire. DTNA suggested
that the agencies drop any reference to credit expiration until the
next rulemaking, at which time the agencies would have a better
understanding of actual credit balances and what kind of lifespan for
credits might be necessary or appropriate. DTNA argued that in some of
EPA's past programs, EPA had delayed a final decision about credit
expiration until development of the subsequent rule when, EPA had a
better understanding of associated credit balances, along with the
stringency of the standards being proposed for future model years. EPA
had proposed to limit the lifespan of credits earned to the first phase
of standards in the interest of ensuring a level playing field before
the next phase begins. Upon further consideration, the agencies
recognize that this is a new program and it is unknown whether any
manufacturers will have credit surpluses by the end of the first phase
of standards, much less whether some manufacturers will have
significantly larger credit surpluses that might create an unlevel
playing field going into the next phase. The agencies
[[Page 57241]]
are adopting a 5-year credit life provision for all regulatory
categories, as adopted in the light-duty vehicle program and proposed
for the HD pickup trucks and vans.\297\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\297\ Note, however, that manufacturers have no property right
in these credits, so no issues of deprivation of property arise if
later rules choose not to recognize those credits. See 69 FR at
39001-002 (June 29, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following sections provide further discussions of the
flexibilities provided in this action under the ABT program and the
agencies' rationale for providing them.
(1) Heavy-duty Engines
For the heavy-duty engine ABT program, EPA and NHTSA proposed to
use six averaging sets per 40 CFR 1036.740 for EPA and 49 CFR 535.7(d)
for NHTSA, which aligned with the proposed regulatory engine
subcategories. As described above, the agencies have decided that these
engine averaging sets should be the same as for criteria pollutants
under the EPA heavy-duty diesel engine rules, and agree with commenters
that increasing the size of averaging sets from within subcategories to
across subcategories within the same engine weight class would provide
important additional flexibilities for engine manufacturers without
negatively impacting fuel savings or emissions reductions. The agencies
are therefore adopting four engine averaging sets rather than the
proposed six. The four engine averaging sets are light heavy-duty (LHD)
diesel, medium heavy-duty (MHD) diesel, heavy heavy-duty (HHD) diesel,
and gasoline or spark ignited engines without distinction for the type
of vehicle in which the engine is installed. Thus, the final ABT
program will allow for averaging, banking, and trading of credits
between HHD diesel engines which are certified for use in vocational
vehicles and HHD diesel engines which are certified for installation in
tractors. Similarly, the MHD diesel engines certified for use in either
vocational vehicles or tractors will be treated as a single averaging
set. As noted in Section I.G above, the agencies intend to monitor this
program and consider possibilities of more widespread trading based on
experience in implementing the program as the first engines and
vehicles certified to the new standards are introduced. Credits
generated by engine manufacturers under this ABT program are restricted
for use only within their engine averaging set, based on performance
against the standard as defined in Section II.B and II.D. Thus, LHD
diesel engine manufacturers can only use their LHD diesel engine
credits for averaging, banking and trading with LHD diesel engines, not
with MHD diesel or HHD diesel engines. As noted, this limitation is
consistent with ABT provisions in EPA's existing criteria pollutant
program for engines and will help avoid problems created by the
diversity of applications that the broad spectrum of HD engines goes
into, as discussed above.
The compliance program for the final rules adopts the proposed
method for generating a manufacturer's CO2 emission and fuel
consumption credit or deficit. The manufacturer's certification test
results would serve as the basis for the generation of the
manufacturer's Family Certification Level (FCL). The agencies did not
receive comment on this, and continue to believe that it is the best
approach. The FCL is a new term we proposed for this program to
differentiate the purpose of this credit generation technique from the
Family Emission Limit (FEL) previously used in a similar context in
other EPA rules. A manufacturer may define its FCL at any level at or
above the certification test results. Credits for the ABT program are
generated when the FCL is compared to its CO2 and fuel
consumption standard, as discussed in Section II. Credit calculation
for the Engine ABT program, either positive or negative, is based on
Equation IV-1 and Equation IV-2:
Equation IV-1: Final HD Engine CO2 credit (deficit)
HD Engine CO2 credit (deficit)(metric tons) = (Std - FCL) x
(CF) x (Volume) x (UL) x (10-6)
Where:
Std = the standard associated with the specific engine regulatory
subcategory (g/bhp-hr)
FCL = Family Certification Level for the engine family
CF = a transient cycle conversion factor in bhp-hr/mile which is the
integrated total cycle brake horsepower-hour divided by the
equivalent mileage of the Heavy-duty FTP cycle. For gasoline heavy-
duty engines, the equivalent mileage is 6.3 miles. For diesel heavy-
duty engines, the equivalent mileage is 6.5 miles. The CF determined
by the Heavy-duty FTP cycle is used for engines certifying to the
SET standard.
Volume = (projected or actual) production volume of the engine
family
UL = useful life of the engine (miles)
10-6 converts the grams of CO2 to metric tons
Equation IV-2: Final HD Engine Fuel Consumption credit (deficit) in
gallons
HD Engine Fuel Consumption credit (deficit)(gallons) = (Std - FCL) x
(CF) x (Volume) x (UL) x 10\2\
Where:
Std = the standard associated with the specific engine regulatory
subcategory (gallon/100 bhp-hr)
FCL = Family Certification Level for the engine family (gallon/100
bhp-hr)
CF = a transient cycle conversion factor in bhp-hr/mile which is the
integrated total cycle brake horsepower-hour divided by the
equivalent mileage of the Heavy-duty FTP cycle. For gasoline heavy-
duty engines, the equivalent mileage is 6.3 miles. For diesel heavy-
duty engines, the equivalent mileage is 6.5 miles. The CF determined
by the Heavy-duty FTP cycle is used for engines certifying to the
SET standard.
Volume = (projected or actual) production volume of the engine
family
UL = useful life of the engine (miles)
10\2\ = conversion to gallons
To calculate credits or deficits, manufacturers will determine an
FCL for each engine family they have designated for the ABT program.
The agencies have defined engine families in 40 CFR 1036.230 and 49 CFR
535.4 and manufacturers may designate how to group their engines for
certification and compliance purposes. The FCL may be above or below
its respective subcategory standard and is used to establish the
CO2 credits earned in Equation IV-1 or the fuel consumption
credits earned in Equation IV-2. The final CO2 and fuel
consumption standards are associated with specific regulatory
subcategories as described in Sections II.B and II.D (gasoline, light
heavy-duty diesel, medium heavy-duty diesel, and heavy heavy-duty
diesel). In the ABT program, engines certified with an FCL below the
standard generate positive credits and an FCL above the standard
generates negative credits. As discussed in Section II.B and II.D,
engine averaging sets that include engine families for which a
manufacture elects to use the alternative standard of a percent
reduction from the engine family's 2011 MY baseline are ineligible to
either generate or use credits. Credit deficits accumulated in an
averaging set where engine families have used the alternate standard
can carry that deficit forward for three years following the model year
for which that deficit was generated at which time the deficit must be
reconciled with surplus credits.
The volume used in Equations IV-1 and IV-2 refers to the total
number of eligible engines sold per family participating in the ABT
program during that model year. The useful life values in Equation IV-1
and IV-2 are the same as the regulatory classifications previously used
for the engine subcategories. Thus, for LHD diesel engines and gasoline
engines, the useful life values are 110,000 miles; for MHD
[[Page 57242]]
diesel engines, 185,000 miles; and for HHD diesel engines, 435,000
miles.
As described in Section II.E above, for purposes of EPA's
standards, an engine manufacturer may choose to comply with the
N2O or CH4 cap standards using CO2
credits.\298\ A manufacturer choosing this option would convert its
N2O or CH4 test results into CO2eq to
determine the amount of CO2 credits required. This approach
recognizes the correlation of these elements in impacting global
climate change. To account for the different global warming potential
of these GHGs, manufacturers will determine the amount of
CO2 credits required by multiplying the shortfall by the
GWP. For example, a manufacturer would use 25 kg of positive
CO2 credits to offset 1 kg of negative CH4
credits. Or a manufacturer would use 298 kg of positive CO2
credits to offset 1 kg of negative N2O credits. In general
the agencies do not expect manufacturers to use this provision, but are
providing it as an alternative in the event an engine manufacturer has
trouble meeting the CH4 and/or N2O emission caps.
There are no ABT credits for performance that falls below the
CH4 cap. As described below, EPA is adopting a provision
applicable in MYs 2014 through 2016 to allow the creation of
CO2 credits by demonstrating N2O below the
current average baseline performance, a value that is well below the
final N2O cap standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\298\ This option does not apply to the NHTSA fuel consumption
program, since NHTSA is not regulating N2O or
CH4 emissions, since they are irrelevant to fuel
consumption reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturers of engines that generate a credit deficit at the end
of the model year for any of its averaging sets can carry that deficit
forward for three years following the model year for which that deficit
was generated at which time the deficit must be reconciled with surplus
credits. Manufacturers must use credits once those credits have been
generated to offset a shortfall before those credits can be banked or
traded for additional model years. This restriction reduces the chance
of an engine manufacturer passing forward deficits before reconciling
their shortfalls and exhausting those credits before reconciling past
deficits. Deficits will need to be reconciled at the reporting dates
for model year three. Surplus credits earned in the engine categories
will expire after five model years. As noted above, the agencies may
reconsider 5 year credit life during the next phase of rulemaking.
Under the EPA and NHTSA programs, engine manufacturers are provided
flexibilities in complying with compression ignition (CI) engine
standards. These flexibilities are provided in order to: (1)
Synchronize the implementation schedules for the upcoming EPA OBD
regulatory changes with the GHG and fuel consumption regulatory
requirements; (2) aid manufacturers that produce legacy engines in the
early years of the HD program; and (3) provide an opportunity for
manufacturers to earn early credits as mentioned in sections
II.B.(2)(b), II.D.(1)(b)(i) and IV.B.(1) of this document. The
flexibilities provide manufacturers of CI engines with four different
and distinct paths that can be followed to meet the EPA and NHTSA
emission and fuel consumption standards. Manufacturers do not have
these flexibility mechanisms for gasoline engines, since the standards
for gasoline engines go into effect after the flexibility mechanisms
have expired. As a general guideline applicable for each of these four
compliance paths, if a manufacturer chooses to opt into the NHTSA
program prior to MY 2017, which is the year the NHTSA compression
ignition engine standards become mandatory, the path chosen must be the
same path chosen to meet the EPA emission standards. Each of the four
paths is discussed below.
The first path is for a manufacturer to meet the regular or
``primary'' standards that become mandatory in MY 2014 under the EPA
regulations. These standards are voluntary in 2014, 2015, and 2016
under the NHTSA program, and become mandatory in 2017 in the NHTSA
program. The primary path standards become more stringent in model year
2017 in both the EPA and NHTSA regulations. For the NHTSA program, an
engine manufacturer may choose to voluntarily opt into the program
early, in any of the MYs 2014, 2015 or 2016 allowing that manufacturer
to earn credits for those model years. In the NHTSA program however,
once the manufacturer has made the decision to opt into the program
early it must remain in the program during the subsequent model years.
Path two allows manufacturers to earn early credits as part of the
``primary'' MY 2014 emission standard path. Early credits can be earned
in MY 2013, as discussed in section IV.B.(1). Under the NHTSA fuel
consumption program, an engine manufacturer may also choose to opt into
the primary standards program beginning in MY 2013 to obtain early
credits, but once the decision has been made to opt into the program in
MY 2013 the manufacturer must remain in the program in the subsequent
model years. If a manufacturer chooses to opt into the NHTSA program
prior to the mandatory 2017 model year it must follow that same path
chosen to meet the EPA emission standards.
If a manufacturer produces ``legacy'' engines, which typically have
2011 baseline emissions that are significantly higher than the 2010
baseline for this regulation, the manufacturer may choose path three.
This path allows a manufacturer to meet alternate CI engine standards
in MYs 2014 through 2016 for specific engine families. More details
about this path are provided in section II.B.(2)(b) and II.D.(1)(b)(i).
This path can only be taken if all other credit opportunities have been
exhausted and the manufacturer still cannot meet the primary standards
under the first path. Again, if a manufacturer chooses this path to
meet the EPA emission standards in MY 2014-2016, and wants to opt into
the NHTSA fuel consumption program in these same MYs it must follow the
exact path followed under the EPA program.
The fourth path that a CI engine manufacturer can take is referred
to as the alternative ``OBD phase-in'' path. Manufacturers that wish to
``bundle'' or combine design changes needed for the 2013 and 2016
heavy-duty OBD requirements with design changes needed for the GHG and
fuel consumption requirements may choose this path. The EPA standards
in this path become mandatory in MY 2013 instead of 2014. In addition,
in this path emission and fuel consumption standards increase in
stringency in 2016 rather than in 2017. While the OBD phase-in schedule
requires engines built in MYs 2013 and 2016 to achieve greater
reductions than those engines built in the model years under the
primary program (path one above), it requires lower reductions for
engines built in 2014 and 2015. Under the NHTSA program, an engine
manufacturer may choose to opt into the ``OBD phase-in'' path only if
this is the same path chosen under the EPA program and only if the
manufacturer is opting into the program in MY 2013 and staying in the
program through MY 2016. If a manufacturer chooses the OBD phase-in
path to meet the EPA emission standards and decides to opt into the
NHTSA program prior to the mandatory MY 2017 requirement, the
manufacturer must follow the same path under both the EPA and NHTSA
programs. Under this path the early credit MY 2013 flexibility as
discussed in path two above is not available. While it does not involve
credits, the agencies consider the alternative ``OBD phase-in'' path to
be an additional flexibility.
[[Page 57243]]
Additional flexibilities for engines, discussed later in Section
IV.B, provide manufacturers the opportunity to generate early, advanced
and innovative technology credits.
(2) Heavy-Duty Vocational Vehicles and Tractors
In addition to the engine ABT program described above, the agencies
also proposed a heavy-duty vehicle ABT program to facilitate reductions
in GHG emissions and fuel consumption based on heavy-duty vocational
vehicle and tractor design changes and improvements. EPA and NHTSA had
proposed averaging sets which aligned with the proposed twelve
regulatory subcategories; however in response to the comments
described, which requested that averaging sets be expanded across
subcategories within similar weight classes, (analogous to the
principle on which ABT is structured under EPA's heavy-duty diesel
engine program for criteria pollutants), the agencies are finalizing
only three averaging sets--LHD, MHD, and HHD based upon the three
weight classes. In other words, all HHD (Class 8) tractors, HHD
vocational tractors, and HHD vocational vehicles will be treated as a
single averaging set. Similarly, all MHD (Class 7) tractors, MHD
vocational tractors, and MHD (Class 6-7) vocational vehicles will be
treated as a single averaging set, and LHD vocational vehicles (Class
2b-5) will be treated as a single averaging set. For this category, the
structure of the final ABT program should create incentives for vehicle
manufacturers to advance new, clean technologies, or existing
technologies earlier than they otherwise would. ABT provides
manufacturers the flexibility to deal with unforeseen shifts in the
marketplace that affect sales volumes. At the same time, restricting
trading to within these segments gives the agencies confidence that the
reductions are truly offsetting given the similarity in products
engaged in trading. This structure also allows for a straightforward
compliance program for each sector, with aspects that are independently
quantifiable and verifiable.
Credit calculation for the final HD Vocational Vehicle and Tractor
CO2 and fuel consumption credits, either positive or
negative, will be generated according to Equation IV-3 and Equation IV-
4:
Equation IV-3: The Final HD Vocational Vehicle and Tractor
CO2 credit (deficit)
HD Vocational Vehicle and Tractor CO2 credit
(deficit)(metric tons) = (Std - FEL) x (Payload Tons) x (Volume) x (UL)
x (10-6)
Where:
Std = the standard associated with the specific regulatory
subcategory (g/ton-mile)
Payload tons = the prescribed payload for each class in tons (12.5
tons for Class 7 tractors, 19 tons for Class 8 tractors, 2.85 tons
for LHD vocational, 5.6 tons for MHD vocational, and 7.5 tons for
HHD vocational vehicles)
FEL = Family Emission Limit for the vehicle family which is equal to
the output from GEM (g/ton-mile)
Volume = (projected or actual) production volume of the vehicle
family
UL = useful life of the vehicle (435,000 miles for HHD, 185,000
miles for MHD, and 110,000 miles for LHD)
10-6 converts the grams of CO2 to metric tons
Equation IV-4: Final HD Vocational Vehicle and Tractor Fuel Consumption
credit (deficit) in gallons
HD Vocational Vehicle and Tractor Fuel Consumption Credit (deficit)
(gallons) = (Std - FEL) x (Payload Tons) x (Volume) x (UL) x 10\3\
Where:
Std = the standard associated with the specific regulatory
subcategory (gallons/1,000 ton-mile)
Payload tons = the prescribed payload for each class in tons (12.5
tons for Class 7 tractors, 19 tons for Class 8 tractors, 2.85 tons
for LHD vocational, 5.6 tons for MHD vocational, and 7.5 tons for
HHD vocational vehicles)
FEL = Family Emission Limit for the vehicle family (gallons/1,000
ton-mile)
Volume = (projected or actual) production volume of the vehicle
family
UL = useful life of the vehicle (435,000 miles for HHD, 185,000
miles for MHD, and 110,000 miles for LHD)
10\3\ = conversion to gallons
Manufacturers of vocational vehicles and tractors that generate a
credit deficit at the end of the model year for any of its averaging
sets can carry that deficit forward for three years following the model
year for which that deficit was generated at which time the deficit
must be reconciled with surplus credits. Manufacturers must use credits
once those credits have been generated to offset a shortfall before
those credits can be banked or traded for additional model years. This
restriction reduces the chance of a vehicle manufacturer passing
forward deficits before reconciling their shortfalls and exhausting
those credits before reconciling past deficits. Deficits will need to
be reconciled at the reporting dates for model year three. Surplus
credits earned in the vehicle categories will have a five year
expiration date. The agencies may reconsider the 5 year credit life
during the next phase of the rulemaking.
Additional flexibilities for HD vocational vehicles and tractors,
discussed later in Section IV.B, provide manufacturers the opportunity
to generate early, advanced, and innovative technology credits.
(3) Heavy-Duty Pickup Truck and Van Flexibility Provisions
The NPRM included specific flexibility provisions for manufacturers
of HD pickups and vans, similar to provisions adopted in the recent
rulemaking for light-duty car and truck GHGs and fuel economy. The
agencies are finalizing the flexibilities as proposed. In the heavy-
duty pickup and van category a manufacturer's credit or debit balance
will be determined by calculating their fleet average performance and
comparing it to the manufacturer's CO2 and fuel consumption
standards, as determined by their fleet mix, for a given model year. A
target standard is determined for each vehicle. These targets, weighted
by their associated production volumes, are summed at the end of the
model year to derive the production volume-weighted manufacturer annual
fleet average standard. A manufacturer will generate credits if its
fleet average CO2 or fuel consumption level is lower than
its standard and will generate debits if its fleet average
CO2 or fuel consumption level is above that standard. To
receive the benefit of the advanced technology provisions, if the
manufacturer's fleet includes conventional and advanced technology
vehicles, the manufacturer will divide this fleet of vehicles into two
separate fleets for calculation of fleet average credits. The end-of-
year reports will provide the appropriate data to reconcile pre-
compliance estimates with final model year figures (see 40 CFR 1037.730
and 49 CFR 535.8).
The EPA credit calculation is expressed in metric tons and
considers production volumes, the fleet standards and performance, and
a factor for the vehicle useful life, as in the light-duty GHG program.
The NHTSA credit calculation uses the fleet standard and performance
levels in fuel consumption units (gallons per 100 miles), as opposed to
fuel economy units (mpg) as done in the light-duty program, along with
the vehicle useful life, in miles, allowing the expression of credits
in gallons. The total model year fleet credit (debit) calculations will
use the following equations:
CO2 Credits (Mg) = [(CO2 Std - CO2
Act) x Volume x UL] / 1,000,000
[[Page 57244]]
Fuel Consumption Credits (gallons) = (FC Std - FC Act) x Volume x UL x
100
Where:
CO2 Std = Fleet average CO2 standard (g/mi)
FC Std = Fleet average fuel consumption standard (gal/100 mile)
CO2 Act = Fleet average actual CO2 value (g/
mi)
FC Act = Fleet average actual fuel consumption value (gal/100 mile)
Volume = the total production of vehicles in the regulatory category
UL = the useful life for the regulatory category (miles)
As described above, HD pickup and van manufacturers will be able to
carry forward deficits from their fleet-wide average for three years
before reconciling the shortfall. Manufacturers will be required to
provide a plan in their pre-model year reports showing how they will
resolve projected credit deficits. However, just as in the engine
category, manufacturers will need to use credits earned once those
credits have been generated to offset a shortfall before those credits
can be banked or traded for additional model years. This restriction
reduces the chance of vehicle manufacturers passing forward deficits
before reconciling their shortfalls and exhausting those credits before
reconciling past deficits. Deficits will need to be reconciled at the
reporting dates for model year three. Surplus credits earned in the HD
pickup and van categories (like surplus credits for all the other
subcategories) will have a five year expiration date. The agencies may
reconsider the 5 year credit life during the next phase of the
rulemaking.
Additional flexibilities for heavy-duty pickup and van category are
discussed below in Section IV.B which provides manufacturers the
opportunity to generate early, advanced and innovative technology
credits.
B. Additional Flexibility Provisions
The agencies proposed additional provisions to facilitate
reductions in GHG emissions and fuel consumption beginning in the 2014
model year. While EPA and NHTSA believed the ABT and flexibility
structure would be sufficient to encourage reduction efforts by heavy-
duty highway engine and vehicle manufacturers, the agencies understood
that other efforts could create additional opportunities for
manufacturers to reduce their GHG emissions and fuel consumption. These
provisions would provide additional incentives for manufacturers to
innovate and to develop new strategies and cleaner technologies. The
agencies requested comment on these provisions, as described below.
(1) Early Credit Option
The agencies proposed that manufacturers of HD engines, HD pickup
trucks and vans, combination tractors, and vocational vehicles be
eligible to generate early credits if they demonstrate improvements in
excess of the standards prior to the model year the standards become
effective. As an example, if a manufacturer's MY 2013 subcategory of
tractors exceeds the EPA mandatory MY 2014 standard for those same
vehicles, then that manufacturer could claim MY 2013 credits or ``early
credits'' to utilize in its ABT program starting in the MY 2014. As
noted in the NPRM, the start dates for EPA's GHG standards and NHTSA's
fuel consumption standards vary by regulatory category (see Section II
for the model years when the standards become effective), meaning that
the early credits provision, if selected by a manufacturer, could begin
during different model years. The NPRM stated that manufacturers would
need to certify their engines or vehicles to the standards at least six
months before the start of the first model year of the mandatory
standards and that limitations on the use of credits in the ABT
programs--i.e., limiting averaging to within each vehicle or engine
averaging set--would apply for the early credits as well. In the NPRM,
NHTSA and EPA requested comment on whether a credit multiplier,
specifically a multiplier of 1.5, would be appropriate to apply to
early credits from HD engines, combination tractors, and vocational
vehicles (but not to early credits from HD pickups and vans), as a
greater incentive for early compliance. See 75 FR at 74255.
The agencies received comments from Cummins, DTNA, EMA/TMA,
Navistar, Eaton, Bosch, CBD and CALSTART relating to these early credit
provisions. All of these commenters supported the early credit
provision for the most part, but many requested that the agencies
eliminate some of the restrictions relating to this provision. EMA/TMA
argued that MY 2012 should also be considered for early credits and
that the requirement to certify six months before the start of the
first model year would unnecessarily restrict manufacturers from
earning credits for technology introduced within six months of the
respective model year. In addition, EMA/TMA stated that requiring
certification of the entire averaging set instead of individual vehicle
configurations would not allow for early introduction of new
technologies. Cummins stated that the six month lead time requirement
should be removed and that manufacturers be allowed to earn early
credits for individual engine families rather than only for the entire
averaging set, stating that removal of these restrictions would further
benefit the environment. CBD stated that early credits should only be
granted if the emission and fuel consumption benefits are in addition
to or above the existing performance levels and are quantifiable and
verifiable.
EPA and NHTSA have reviewed these comments and decided to clarify
the proposed early credit provisions to account for the above concerns.
Early credits are intended to be an incentive to manufacturers to
introduce more efficient engines and vehicles earlier than they
otherwise would be. However, the agencies do not want to provide a
windfall of credits to manufacturers that may already have one or more
products that meet the standards. Therefore, the final rules include
the option for a manufacturer to obtain early credits for products if
they certify their entire subcategory at GHG emissions and fuel
consumption levels below the standards. See 75 FR at 74255. Thus, for
example, early credits could be generated for all HHD engines installed
in combination tractors. The agencies are making a clarification in
this action that the manufacturers must certify their entire
subcategory, not necessarily their entire averaging set, because the
averaging sets are broadened under the final rulemaking from the
categories proposed in the NPRM. In addition, the agencies are
providing the flexibility for combination tractor manufacturers to
obtain early credits for their additional sales, as compared to their
2012 model year sales, of SmartWay designated combination tractors
(which includes high roof sleeper cabs only) in 2013 model year. The
agencies view this subcategory of vehicles as the only segment of
vehicles or engines where the true additional reductions due to the
early credits can be quantified outside of certifying an entire
subcategory, because the benefit is tied directly to the increase in
the SmartWay vehicles manufactured in MY 2013 in excess of those
manufactured in MY 2012.
A manufacturer may opt to apply for early credits from their 2013
model year SmartWay designated combination tractor sales by first
calculating the difference between the number of SmartWay designated
combination tractors sold in 2012 MY versus 2013 model year. The
increment in sales determines the number of 2013 model year SmartWay
designated tractors which can be used to certify for early credits, at
the manufacturer's choice of which vehicles to consider. The
[[Page 57245]]
manufacturer would then determine each tractor configuration's
performance by modeling in GEM, using each vehicle configuration's
appropriate inputs for coefficient of drag, tire rolling resistance,
idle reduction, weight reduction, and vehicle speed limiter. Next, the
difference between a specific tractor configuration's performance and
the 2014 MY standard for the appropriate regulatory subcategory (e.g.,
Class 8 sleeper cab high roof tractors) would be calculated. The
CO2 and fuel consumption credits are calculated using
Equation IV-4 and IV-5.
As discussed above and in Section II, manufacturers may opt into
the NHTSA voluntary program prior to when the program becomes
mandatory. Manufacturers that opt in become subject to NHTSA standards
for all regulatory categories. This provides manufacturers the option
of complying with NHTSA fuel consumption standards equivalent to the
EPA emission standards in order to accumulate credits in the ABT
program. If a manufacturer opts into the EPA early credit program, it
may also opt into an equivalent NHTSA early credit program. In this
case, the manufacturer must enter the program concurrently with the EPA
program and will be subject to the full MY 2014-2015/2016 NHTSA
voluntary program. NHTSA would like to clarify that for the early
credit provision, implementation must occur in MY 2013 exactly as
implemented under the EPA emission program, and not in the model year
immediately before the NHTSA standards become mandatory (since
otherwise manufacturers would generate credits under the fuel
consumption program as a result of complying with mandatory GHG
standards--a windfall). Further, once a manufacturer opts into the
NHTSA program it must stay in the program for all the optional MYs and
remain standardized with the implementation approach being used to meet
the EPA emission program. EPA and NHTSA intend for manufacturers' ABT
credit balances to remain equivalent wherever possible.
The agencies also received comments from EMA/TMA and Cummins
opposing the requirement to certify six months prior to the first model
year of the mandatory standards for early credits. The commenters
argued and the agencies agree that this restriction could cause some
delays in technology rollout and are therefore not adopting this
provision. The agencies reviewed the restriction and evaluated the
light-duty 2012-2016 MY vehicle early credit program. No such
restriction exists for LD vehicles. We therefore believe that this
requirement is not necessary for our implementation of the program. In
addition, we are adopting a provision which allows manufacturers to
generate early credits for certifying less than a full model year
early.
Several commenters, including DTNA, Edison Electric Institute,
Eaton, and Bosch, supported using a 1.5 multiplier for early credits,
stating that it would encourage early introduction of technology.
Cummins and UCS opposed the multiplier stating that the opportunity to
earn credits at their normal value should be sufficient incentive for
early compliance. The agencies believe that this incentive will further
encourage faster implementation of emission and fuel savings technology
and help to reduce the costs manufacturers will incur in efforts to
comply with these rules. The agencies have therefore decided to
finalize a 1.5 multiplier for early credits earned in MY 2013.\299\
However, the agencies note that manufacturers may not apply an
additional 1.5 multiplier for advanced technology credits which are
also certified as early credits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\299\ There is no multiplier for the early credit provisions in
the light-duty vehicle rule. However, the situation there was more
complicated, since early credits needed to be correlated with credit
opportunities under the California GHG program for light-duty
vehicle, and also needed to be integrated with statutory credits
under EPCA/EISA for flexible fuel vehicles. See 75 FR at 25440-443.
Thus, the light-duty vehicle rule early credit provisions are not
analogous to those adopted in this rule for the heavy duty sector.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to heavy-duty pickups and vans, the agencies proposed
that early credits could be generated on a fleetwide basis by
comparison of the manufacturer's 2013 heavy-duty pickup and van fleet
with the manufacturer's fleetwide targets, using the target standards
equations for the 2014 model year. 75 FR at 74255. The agencies are
finalizing these provisions as proposed. Under the structure for the
fleet average standards, this credit opportunity entails certifying a
manufacturer's entire HD pickup and van fleet in model year 2013.
Industry commenters argued that early credits should be calculated
against a target curve that is less stringent than the 2014 curve. We
disagree. Because it is the first year of a 5-year phase-in, the 2014
model year has quite modest emissions and fuel consumption reductions
targets of only 15 percent of the 2018 model year standards stringency.
Targeting even less significant improvements over the baseline would
unduly increase the prospect for windfall credits by individual
manufacturers who may have better than average baseline fleets. On the
other hand, we are confident that the early credit program, based as it
is on full fleet compliance with the MY 2014 targets, will not result
in windfall credits as it represents, in effect, a complete bringing
forward of the program start date by one model year for manufacturers
who choose to pursue it. Again, the agencies consider the availability
of early credits to be a valuable complement to the overall program to
the extent that they encourage early implementation of effective
technologies.
(2) Advanced Technology Credits
The NPRM proposed targeted provisions that were expected to promote
the implementation of advanced technologies. Specifically,
manufacturers that incorporate these technologies would be eligible for
special credits that could be applied to other heavy-duty vehicles or
engines, including those in other heavy-duty categories. The credits
are thus `special' in that they can be applied across the entire heavy-
duty sector, unlike the ABT and early credits discussed above and the
innovative technology credits discussed in the following subsection.
The eligible technologies were:
Hybrid powertrain designs that include energy storage
systems.
Rankine cycle engines.\300\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\300\ Although as noted in Section III above and in Chapter 2 of
the RIA, this technology is still under development and so is not
presently available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
All-electric vehicles.
Fuel cell vehicles.
NHTSA and EPA requested comment on the list of technologies
identified as advanced technologies and whether additional technologies
should be added to the list. In addition to the increased fungibility
of advanced technology credits, NHTSA and EPA requested comment on
whether a credit multiplier, specifically a multiplier of 1.5, would be
appropriate to apply to advanced technology credits, as a greater
incentive for the technologies' introduction. See 75 FR at 74255.
MEMA asked that the agencies expand the list of technologies that
are eligible for Advanced Technology Credits to include advanced
transmission and drivetrain technologies, tire and wheel accessories,
and advanced engine accessories technologies (such as electronic air
control systems and clutched turbocharged air compressor). Bendix
requested that weight reduction approaches, improved transmission and
drivetrains, driver management and coaching, and tire and wheel
improvements be allowed to receive
[[Page 57246]]
credit through the Advanced Technology Credit Program.
The advanced technology credit program is intended to encourage
development of technologies that are not yet commercially available. In
order to provide incentives for the research and development needed to
introduce these technologies, Advanced Technology Credits can be
applied to any heavy-duty vehicle or engine and are not limited to the
vehicle or engine categories generating the credit. Because of this
flexibility in the application of these credits, it is important that
the list of eligible technologies only include technologies that are
not yet available in the market. In addition, the technologies must
lend themselves to straight forward methodologies for quantifying
emissions and fuel consumption reductions. For some of the technologies
that MEMA and Bendix asked be included in the program, such as
electrified accessories and improved tires, the agencies have already
established a mechanism for quantifying reductions associated with
these approaches. For example, the agencies assumed in the regulatory
impact analysis that some electrified accessories will be used to
comply with the regulations. Specifically, improved water and oil pumps
are assumed to be used for 2014 LHD, MHD, and HHD FTP and SET diesel
engines to comply with standards and if used, their performance would
be assessed in the engine certification process. (See RIA Chapter 2.4).
Any reductions in engine load and resulting emissions and fuel
consumption resulting from accessory electrification thus will be
accounted for in engine dynamometer testing. However, other electrified
accessories, such as air conditioning do not impact engine operation
over the FTP and SET cycles. As such, we are allowing credit for
tailpipe AC emissions (as opposed to AC leakage) to be established
through the Innovative Technology Credit Program described in section
IV.B(3) below. With regard to tire rolling resistance improvements,
light weight wheels, and weight reduction associated with the use of
super single tires, these are already part of the technology basis for
the standard for combination tractors and are accounted for in the GEM,
and are also part of the technology basis for the standards for heavy-
duty pickups and vans (See RIA Chapter 2.3). Some improved
transmissions--such as automatic manuals--have been available
commercially for ten years and as such, does not meet the criteria to
be included on the list of advanced technologies. However, as described
in Section IV.B.(3), advanced transmissions and drivetrains could be
eligible for credits in the Innovative Technology Credit Program, and
the agencies acknowledge the importance of including advanced
transmissions and drivetrains in the program. With regard to weight
reduction, the agencies are allowing additional weight reduction
approaches to be used for tractors through modeling using GEM and
through the innovative technology program. And finally, for driver
management and coaching--while we recognize that there could be
significant benefits to this, the difficulty in establishing a baseline
condition for driver behavior limits the agencies' ability to establish
a reduction for this approach at this time.
The agencies have decided not to change the proposed list of
technologies evaluated as advanced technologies, but are providing
additional clarity in the advanced technology list. The agencies
proposed that Rankine cycle engines be included, but the agencies are
adopting the wording of Rankine cycle waste heat recovery system
attached to an engine.
The agencies received comments from Bendix, Bosch, MEMA, Navistar,
Odyne, Green Truck Association, Eaton, ArvinMeritor and Calstart, which
supported the 1.5 multiplier for advanced technology credits. MEMA
argued that these added flexibilities are absolutely necessary to help
advanced technologies penetrate the marketplace and are the primary
impetus to integrate these technologies onto vehicles. The agencies
also received comments from several stakeholders, including ACEEE and
Cummins opposing the 1.5 multiplier for advanced technology credits.
ACEEE argued that multipliers should be avoided because they lessen the
total emission reductions by allowing a greater increase in the
emissions of other vehicles than they offset. After reviewing these
comments, the agencies have determined that the relatively low volumes
expected in this time frame are likely to mitigate any potential
dilution of environmental benefits and be outweighed by the benefits of
introduction of advanced technology into the heavy-duty sector.
Further, the credit multiplier will provide enough added benefit to the
nascent heavy-duty hybrid community to help reduce barriers to market
entry for new technologies. Therefore, the final rules include a
multiplier of 1.5 for advanced technology credits. However, the
agencies are also capping the amount of advanced credits that can be
brought into any averaging set into any model year at 60,000 Mg to
prevent market distortions.
(a) HD Pickup Truck and Van Hybrids and all Electric Vehicles
For HD pickup and van hybrids, the agencies proposed that testing
would be done using adjustments to the test procedures developed for
light-duty hybrids. See 75 FR at 74255. NHTSA and EPA also proposed
that all-electric and other zero tailpipe emission vehicles produced in
model years before 2014 be able to earn credits for use in the 2014 and
later HD pickup and van compliance program, provided the vehicles are
covered by an EPA certificate of conformity for criteria pollutants.
These credits would be calculated based on the 2014 diesel standard
targets corresponding to the vehicle's work factor, and treated as
though they were earned in 2014 for purposes of credit life.
Manufacturers would not have to early-certify their entire HD pickup
and van fleet in a model year as for other early-complying vehicles.
NHTSA and EPA also proposed that model year 2014 and later EVs and
other zero tailpipe emission vehicles be factored into the fleet
average GHG and fuel consumption calculations based on the diesel
standards targets for their model year and work factor. A manufacturer
also has the option to subtract these vehicles out of its fleet and
determine their performance as advanced technology credits that can be
used for all other HD vehicle categories, but these credits would, of
course, not then be reflected in the manufacturer's pickup and van
category credit balance. Commenters generally supported the
introduction of hybrid and zero tailpipe emission vehicles, but did not
comment on the specific provisions discussed above. The agencies also
proposed in determining advanced technology credits for electric and
zero emission vehicles that in the credits equation the actual
emissions and fuel consumption performance be set to zero (i.e. that
emissions be considered on a tailpipe basis exclusively). We are
finalizing these provisions as proposed.
The proposal also solicited comment on the accounting of upstream
GHG emissions. Some commenters argued that EPA should maintain its
traditional focus in mobile source rulemakings on vehicle tailpipe
emissions and leave the consideration of GHG emissions from upstream
fuel production and distribution-related sources such as refineries and
power plants to EPA regulatory programs which could focus specifically
on those sources. Others argued that, since EPA accounts for upstream
GHG emissions in its benefits assessments, the agency should reflect
[[Page 57247]]
upstream GHG emissions impacts in vehicle compliance values as well.
After considering these comments, the agencies have decided to base the
credit accounting on tailpipe emissions only. The agencies believe that
introduction of EV technology into the heavy-duty pickup and van sector
in these model years will be limited and that incentives are important
to encourage such introduction. Similarly, the agencies believe that
use of EV technology for these vehicles in these model years will be
infrequent so that there is no need to adopt a cap whereby upstream
emissions would be counted after a certain volume of sales. See 75 FR
at 25434-438 (adopting such a cap for light-duty vehicles under the
2012-2016 MY GHG standards). We also recognize that the ongoing EPA/
NHTSA rulemaking to reduce GHGs and fuel consumption in MY 2017 and
later light-duty vehicles is examining this issue, and may yield
information and policy direction relevant to the planned follow-on
rulemaking for the heavy-duty sector.
(b) Vocational Vehicle and Tractor Hybrids
For vocational vehicles or combination tractors incorporating
hybrid powertrains, we proposed two methods for establishing the number
of credits generated--chassis dynamometer and engine dynamometer
testing--each of which is discussed next. As discussed in the NPRM the
agencies are not aware of models that have been adequately peer
reviewed with data that can assess this technology without the
conclusion of a comparison test of the actual physical product.
(i) Chassis Dynamometer Evaluation
For hybrid certification to generate credits we proposed to use
chassis testing as an effective way to compare the CO2
emissions and fuel consumption performance of conventional and hybrid
vehicles. See 75 FR at 74256. We proposed that heavy-duty hybrid
vehicles be certified using ``A to B'' vehicle chassis dynamometer
testing. This concept allows a hybrid vocational vehicle manufacturer
to directly quantify the benefit associated with use of its hybrid
system on an application-specific basis. The concept would entail
testing the conventional vehicle, identified as ``A'', using the cycles
as defined in Section V. The ``B'' vehicle would be the hybrid version
of vehicle ``A''. The ``B'' vehicle would need to be the same exact
vehicle model as the ``A'' vehicle. As an alternative, if no specific
``A'' vehicle exists for the hybrid vehicle that is the exact vehicle
model, the most similar vehicle model would need to be used for
testing. We proposed to define the ``most similar vehicle'' as a
vehicle with the same footprint, same payload, same testing capacity,
the same engine power system, the same intended service class, and the
same coefficient of drag. We did not receive any adverse comments to
this approach and are therefore adopting the same criteria as proposed.
To determine the benefit associated with the hybrid system for GHG
performance, the weighted CO2 emissions results from the
chassis test of each vehicle would define the benefit as described
below:
1. (CO2--A - CO2--B)/(CO2--A) = --
-- (Improvement Factor)
2. Improvement Factor x GEM CO2 Result--B = ------ (g/
ton mile benefit)
Similarly, the benefit associated with the hybrid system for fuel
consumption would be determined from the weighted fuel consumption
results from the chassis tests of each vehicle as described below:
3. (Fuel Consumption--A--Fuel Consumption--B)/(Fuel Consumption--A)
= ------ (Improvement Factor)
4. Improvement Factor x GEM Fuel Consumption Result--B = ------
(gallon/1,000 ton mile benefit)
The credits for the hybrid vehicle would be calculated as described
in the ABT program except that the result from Equation 2 and Equation
4 above replaces the (Std-FEL) value.
The agencies proposed two sets of duty cycles to evaluate the
benefit depending on the vehicle application to assess hybrid vehicle
performance--without and with PTO systems. The key difference between
these two sets of vehicles is that one set (e.g., delivery trucks) does
not operate a PTO while the other set (e.g., bucket and refuse trucks)
does.
The first set of duty cycles would apply to the hybrid powertrains
used to improve the motive performance of the vehicles without a PTO
system (such as pickup and delivery trucks). The typical operation of
these vehicles is very similar to the overall drive cycles final in
Section II. Therefore, the agencies are finalizing to use the same
vehicle drive cycle weightings for testing these vehicles, as shown in
Table IV-1.
Table IV-1--Final Drive Cycle Weightings for Hybrid Vehicles Without PTO
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transient
(percent) 55 mph (percent) 65 mph (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vocational Vehicles....................................... 75% 9% 16%
Day Cab Tractors.......................................... 19% 17% 64%
Sleeper Cab Tractors...................................... 5% 9% 86%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The second set of duty cycles apply to testing hybrid vehicles used
in applications such as utility and refuse trucks which tend to have
additional benefits associated with use of stored energy, in terms of
avoiding main engine operation and related CO2 emissions and
fuel consumption during PTO operation. To appropriately address
benefits, exercising the conventional and hybrid vehicles using their
PTO would help to quantify the benefit to GHG emissions and fuel
consumption reductions. The duty cycle proposed to quantify the hybrid
CO2 and fuel consumption impact over this broader set of
operation was the three primary drive cycles plus a PTO duty cycle. The
PTO duty cycle as proposed took into account the sales impact and
population of utility trucks and refuse haulers. As described in RIA
Chapter 3, the agencies proposed to add an additional PTO cycle to
measure the improvement achieved for this type of hybrid powertrain
application. The agencies welcomed comments on the final drive cycle
weightings and the final PTO cycle.
The agencies received comments from Cummins stating that the
proposed weighting of the PTO cycle used a time-based weighting instead
of a VMT-based weighting. For the final rules, the agencies derived new
PTO cycle weighting by calculating the average speed of a vehicle
during the motive portion of its operation, as detailed in RIA Chapter
3.7.1.1. The average speed is used in a conversion factor to convert
the emissions from the PTO operation
[[Page 57248]]
measured in grams per hour into grams per ton-mile. A number of
comments were received on the proposed hybrid chassis testing approach.
The agencies received comments from engine manufacturers, hybrid
manufacturers, and industry associations, as well as non-governmental
organizations related to proper characterization of hybrid performance.
To address concerns raised by commenters regarding hybrid testing
several updates have been made to clarify a hybrid engine and/or system
for pre-transmission, post-transmission, and chassis dynamometer
testing. As described in 40 CFR 1036.801, a hybrid engine or hybrid
power train means an engine or powertrain that includes energy storage
features other than a conventional battery system or conventional
flywheel. Supplemental electrical batteries and hydraulic accumulators
are examples of hybrid energy storage systems. A hybrid vehicle is
defined in 40 CFR 1037.801 and it means a vehicle that includes energy
storage features (other than a conventional battery system or
conventional flywheel) in addition to an internal combustion engine or
other engine using consumable chemical fuel. The duty cycles used for
testing hybrid systems as either the post-transmission or complete
chassis configuration will be retained from the proposal, however the
weighting factors have been adjusted so that the performance of
applications expected to be hybridized in the near term is better
reflected. The testing provisions for evaluating the performance
including the driver model definition, vehicle model, and overall cycle
performance have been enhanced as described in 40 CFR 1036.525 and 40
CFR 1037.525. Additionally, provisions for evaluating power take-off
performance improvement have been addressed for charge-sustaining
testing. For those hybrid systems which utilize shore power (e.g. plug-
in hybrids), an innovative technology approach in which the certifier
characterizes the performance associated with the operation of the
system in a charge-depleting and charge-sustaining mode is most
appropriate given the potential for variability in performance between
applications and system designs. To address the issue of parity between
methods it should be clarified that the approach taken for hybrid
testing is consistent for chassis cycle based testing. This method used
for both post-transmission and complete vehicle chassis testing is the
development of an improvement factor which is then related to the base
system performance. The pre-transmission approach relies on work based
assessment of performance as with the current engine standards.
Comments were received from EMA/TMA, ACEEE, stating that the hybrid
definition and test methodology needs to be more clearly defined.
Cummins and EMA/TMA asked that the control volumes for the chassis test
procedure be specified. Allison stated that the baseline configuration
in A to B testing needs clarification--as an example they said it is
not clear if the baseline vehicle needs to be the same model year as
the hybrid configuration. They added that it is unclear how to account
for hotel or accessory loads.
EMA/TMA, Allison, Odyne, and American Trucking Association said
that the hybrid drive cycles do not match real world hybrid
applications, and as such, will result in an underestimation of
benefits resulting from hybrid use. Some or all of these commenters
asked that a hybrid drive cycle be developed that consists mainly of
transient cycle, increased idle time, low steady state operation, and
high acceleration and deceleration rates. EMA/TMA said the proposed
cycle--the CARB heavy-heavy duty truck transient mode cycle, was
developed as a composite cycle based on a wide range of medium- and
heavy-duty vehicles but does not reflect the high acceleration and
deceleration of vehicles used in urban applications and which is
typical for hybrid vehicles and does not reflect the level of
acceleration and deceleration typical of hybrids. Eaton asked that the
agencies establish four separate test cycles for hybrids rather than
two that more closely match what actual hybrids do in use. Hino said
that energy recapture from regenerative braking needs to be built into
the test cycle and as currently designed it is not. Hino also urged the
agencies to create test cycles that capture variations in different
types of hybrids. Cummins said that more representative vehicle test
cycles should be developed based on the FTP and SET to ensure that the
test cycles are functionally equivalent between vehicles and engines to
ensure fair evaluation of the technology. ICCT articulated the same
point on the need for parity between engine and vehicle test cycles.
EMA/TMA, DTNA, and Cummins asked that manufacturers not be required
to conduct coastdown testing for hybrid vehicles to establish road
loads for each type of vehicle. Instead, they asked that the agencies
define default road load values for manufacturers to use for hybrids.
EMA/TMA said that conducting coastdown tests is expensive. They also
argued that road load is irrelevant to determining hybrid performance
since the chassis dynamometer method requires a comparison of a vehicle
that is identical in all respects except those factors directly
relating to the hybrid powertrain.
Cummins, ICCT, and Center for Clean Air Policy expressed general
support for chassis dynamometer testing. Allison said that the lack of
dynamometer infrastructure could limit the ability of manufacturers to
certify and get hybrids into the market place. BAE said that hybrids
should not have to be tested on a chassis dynamometer.
Given the options available for certification of hybrid systems,
the constraints on available infrastructure for traditional chassis
testing and coastdown testing has been mitigated. Should a manufacturer
contemplate chassis testing or powerpack testing to assess hybrid
vehicle performance, coastdown testing will still be needed for
vocational applications to develop the road load values. To address
concerns regarding the baseline vehicle definition, the following
clarifications are provided. The baseline vehicle must be identical to
the hybrid, with the exception being the presence of the hybrid
vehicle. Should an identical vehicle not be available as a baseline,
the baseline vehicle and hybrid vehicle must have equivalent power or
the hybrid vehicle must have greater power. Additionally, the sales
volume of the conventional vehicle from the previous model year (the
vehicle being displaced by the hybrid), must be substantially such that
there can be a reasonable basis to believe the hybrid certification and
related improvement factor are authentic. Should no previous year
baseline or otherwise existing baseline vehicle exist, the manufacturer
shall produce or provide a prototype equivalent test vehicle. For pre-
transmission hybrid certification, drivetrain components will not be
included in the testing, as is the case for criteria pollutant engine
certification today on a brake-specific basis. Manufacturers are
expected to submit A to B test results for the hybrid vehicle
certification being sought for each vehicle family. Manufacturers may
choose the worst case performer as a basis for the entire family. The
agencies continue to expect to use existing precedent regarding
treatment of accessory loads for purposes of chassis testing. Accessory
loads for A to B testing will not need to be accounted for differently
for hybrid A to B chassis testing than for criteria pollutant chassis
testing. Based on the description of the hybrid engines and vehicles as
found in
[[Page 57249]]
40 CFR 1036 and 1037.801, the agencies will not restrict hybrid
configuration certification. The expectation is that hybrid engines and
vehicles certified under the provisions for GHG will use certified
engines. As stated previously, based on data provided by commenters and
industry associations, the agencies have revised the duty cycles for
complete vehicle and post-transmission powerpack testing by revising
the weighting factors such that the performance of the hybrid system is
more appropriately characterized. The new weighting factors result in a
performance assessment that more closely matches performance seen in-
use by many of the applications most likely to be hybridized in the
near-term. At this time the requirement to conduct coastdown testing
remains in place for the vehicle to be chassis tested or for the
simulated vehicle in powertrain testing. Absent appropriate
coefficients that accurately reflect vehicle performance, making an
assumption about vehicle performance could lead to erroneous results
and/or errors in the performance assessment. The agencies have provided
numerous flexibilities, so the options available to those manufacturers
who choose to certify hybrid engines or vehicles are not constrained to
a single test method for which limited infrastructure may exist.
(ii) Engine Dynamometer Evaluation
The engine test procedure proposed in the NPRM for hybrid
evaluation involved exercising the conventional engine and hybrid-
engine system based on an engine testing strategy. The basis for the
system control volume, which serves to determine the valid test
article, would need to be the most accurate representation of real
world functionality. An engine test methodology would be considered
valid to the extent the test is performed on a test article that does
not mischaracterize criteria pollutant performance or actual system
performance. Energy inputs should not be based on simulation data which
is not an accurate reflection of actual real world operation. Pre-
transmission test protocols will include both the engine and the hybrid
system for assessing GHG performance, however EPA is not changing
criteria pollutant certification at this time for engines. In effect,
the engine will need to be certified for criteria pollutant
performance, while the engine and hybrid system in combination may be
certified for GHG performance. It is clearly important to be sure
credits are generated based on known physical systems. This includes
testing using the appropriate recovered vehicle kinetic energy.
Additionally, the duty cycle over which this engine-hybrid system would
be exercised would need to reflect the use of the application, while
not promoting a proliferation of duty cycles which prevent a
standardized basis for comparing hybrid system performance. The
agencies proposed the use of the Heavy-duty FTP cycle for evaluation of
hybrid vehicles, which is the same test cycle final for engines
installed in vocational vehicles. For powerpack testing, which includes
the engine and hybrid systems in a pre-transmission format, the engine
based testing is applicable for determination of brake-specific
emissions benefit versus the engine standard. For post-transmission
powertrain systems and vehicles, the comparison evaluation based on the
Improvement Factor and the GEM result based on a vehicle drive trace in
a powertrain test cell or chassis dynamometer test cell seem to
accurately reflect the performance improvements associated with these
test configurations. It is important that introduction of clean
technology be incentivized without compromising the program intent of
real world improvements in GHG and fuel consumption performance. In the
NPRM the agencies asked for comments on the most appropriate test
procedures to accurately reflect the performance improvement associated
with hybrid systems tested using these or other protocols. 75 FR at
74257.
A number of comments were received on the proposed engine testing
approaches. Comments were received from EMA/TMA, Cummins, Allison,
Hino, and ICCT, stating that the hybrid test methodology needs to be
more clearly defined. EMA/TMA, Cummins, and Allison stated that the
agencies have not defined what they will accept as a ``complete hybrid
system'' and a clearer definition for hybrids needs to be developed.
For example, Allison stated that the DRIA says that a ``complete hybrid
system'' can exclude the transmission. They added that a hybrid system
must include a transmission. EMA/TMA stated that simulated engine
dynamometer testing should include hybrid components. EMA/TMA stated
that the agencies' proposal that part 1065 may be amended, but did not
provide specifics on how it might be amended. They suggested the
following changes to part 1065: (1) All engine and hybrid components
capable of providing or recovering traction power be included in the
control volume; (2) use of hybrid system torque curves rather than
engine torque curves; (3) reference to J2711 for management of energy
storage devices; (4) adhere to conventional calculation of emissions
with only positive work counted; and (5) provide an estimate of maximum
available kinetic energy in 1065 to ensure that energy capture is
consistent with real world operation of hybrids.
Hino said that energy recapture from regenerative braking needs to
be built into the test cycle and as currently designed it is not.
Regenerative braking provides fuel consumption and GHG reduction
benefits. Eaton said that the proposed powerpack testing does not
capture true performance of hybrid vehicles. As noted above, ICCT
commented on the need for parity between engine and vehicle test
cycles. They supported hardware-in-the-loop post-transmission testing,
but only if an equivalent cycle is used as for chassis testing.
Concerns were raised by hybrid system manufacturers that the
potential for a competitive advantage could exist for hybrids using
different methods for certification based solely on the test method
chosen. For determination of the allowable brake energy that may be
used for the test cycle with hybrid engines, it is important to provide
consistency between test methods. For that reason EPA is setting a
brake energy fraction limit based on the engine FTP duty cycle which
would apply to the pre-transmission hybrid and defining that as the
limit for the post-transmission maximum available brake energy as well.
The brake energy fraction will need to be determined based on the
engine performance and the brake energy fraction limit will apply for
all powertrain test cell (powerpack) testing. This limit on the brake
energy fraction will be ratio of negative work to positive work as a
function of engine rated power.
The agencies are also finalizing that the proposed duty cycles
considered for the proposal will continue to be used with this final
action. The agencies proposed a transient duty cycle, a 55-mile-per-
hour steady state cruise and a 65-mile-per-hour steady state cruise.
The transient duty cycle, which has been corrected to address a concern
related to shift events, is essentially the same transient cycle
proposed in the NPRM with the exception that it minimizes inappropriate
shift events. Additionally, the steady state cycles proposed by the
Agencies remain essentially unchanged. The modification being adopted
with today's final action is to address the distribution of the
emissions impact associated with each duty cycle. However, in response
to the concerns detailed above and
[[Page 57250]]
raised by engine manufacturers, hybrid system manufacturers,
environmental groups, and NGOs regarding the lack of transient
operation in the hybrid cycles, the agencies are finalizing a change in
the weighting of the hybrid vehicle cycles. The weighting factors will
be changed such that a greater emphasis on the type of transient
activity seen as more characteristic of hybrid applications will be
evident. The new weighting factors between duty cycles for hybrid
certification (without PTO) will be 75 percent for the transient, 9
percent for the 55 mph cruise cycle, and 16 percent for the 65 mph
cruise cycle. The basis for this change may be seen in the memorandum
to OAR Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162 which describes the data set used to
describe real world vehicle performance. Additionally, provisions for
addressing brake energy fraction have been provided in 40 CFR 1036.525
for hybrid engine testing. The control volume for testing hybrid
systems for GHG and fuel consumption assessment has included all hybrid
power systems and for powertrain testing that is post-transmission,
simulated components including tires and regenerative braking impacts.
Additionally, provisions for accounting for the hybrid system and
engine torque curve are available in the hybrid test procedures of 40
CFR 1036.525.
In addition, the final rules allow manufacturers that want to
certify a hybrid on a different test cycle than the cycles described
above for chassis and engine dynamometer testing instead make a
demonstration using the procedures set out in the Innovative Technology
Credit provisions. Likewise, a manufacturer seeking to certify a hybrid
using an alternative approach, such as simulation modeling, would need
to follow the procedure described in the Innovative Technology Credit
section. However, manufacturers whose alternative hybrid testing
procedure is approved through the Innovative Technology Credit Program
would receive credits through the Advanced Technology Credit Program so
such credits would be fungible across all vehicle and engine categories
and would receive the 1.5 multiplier.
EMA/TMA also asked that in addition to the above-described engine,
chassis, and powerpack testing, other yet-to-be-defined methods should
be allowed so that a novel application of hybrids can be evaluated for
credit. They included hydraulic, kinetic, electro-mechanical, and
genset hybrids as examples of additional configurations that should be
accommodated by additional test cycles. Allison asked how emissions and
fuel consumption changes associated with ageing of hybrid systems will
be accounted for. ACEEE encouraged the agencies to finalize the three
approaches outlined in the NPRM for hybrid testing in the final rules.
Cummins supported three proposed options for evaluating hybrids.
ICCT supported option 1 and 3, but not 2. ICCT stated that EPA and
NHTSA need to ensure that: (1) Each hybrid test method/test cycle
combination requires the same amount of total energy to run the cycle
(for a specific vehicle weight), (2) each test method/test cycle
combination has the same amount of total energy available for capture
as regeneration by a hybrid system, and (3) that this available
regeneration energy appears in similar increments in each test method/
test cycle combination.
In allowing for three options for certification of hybrids, two of
those options require the use of a baseline vehicle. The post-
transmission hybrid certification and the chassis dynamometer
certification options are designed to allow for an assessment of the
improvement offered by incorporating a hybrid system into the vehicle.
Determination of an improvement factor for hybrid vehicle performance
is significantly influenced by the selection of the baseline vehicle,
test article ``A''. The Agencies received comments from engine and
hybrid system manufacturers that the options for selection of the
baseline should be carefully considered to avoid an unintended
consequence of limited real world improvement due to selection of a
baseline that was inappropriate. Several concerns regarding an
inappropriate baseline were broached including selection of technology
that is not actually available in the market, selection of baseline
technology that is not representative of the application(s) either by
sales volume or use, or selection of a baseline that in other ways
provides an advantage to a manufacturer which creates an unfair
competitive advantage. To address the concern of improvement factors
that have a basis in reality and demonstrate real world improvements,
as well as to continue to create incentives for the introduction of new
technology the Agencies are addressing the issue of the baseline
selection, as well as the determination of a ``most similar'' vehicle
basis in the case where there may not be an existing production vehicle
upon which the hybrid vehicle was based.
In making the determination of an appropriate baseline, four
options were considered by the agencies. These options included a fixed
baseline weight and definition by vehicle class, a non-hybrid baseline
intended for production vehicle and transmission system, a best in
class conventional application, or vehicle based on highest sales
volume. Each of these options has benefits and each raises potential
concerns. The determination based solely on a single vehicle by class
has the advantage of providing a fixed baseline the entire industry may
easily target for assessing improvements. It raises concerns regarding
the suitability of the vehicle selection for all applications in the
weight class, as well as the appropriateness of the selection based on
performance across the full range of vehicles and weights in the weight
class. The ``intended for production'' conventional vehicle baseline
ensures the baseline and hybrid vehicle pair will represent a real
improvement for the specific application. The challenge exists when the
conventional vehicle version of the hybrid may not exist. Another issue
would exist if the conventional vehicle in the pair had performance
characteristics such that the hybrid version does not represent
significant improvements beyond other conventional vehicles. The best
in class baseline vehicle approach provides some assurance that the
improvement factor generated by the hybrid vehicle or system would in
fact represent introduction of advanced technology with improvements
beyond existing conventional technology. The opportunity for confusion
that exists with a best in class determination includes matching all of
the appropriate performance metrics with the appropriate applications
in a way that is consistent with how the market values those
improvements. This can become a moving target which could represent an
ever evolving design target and eventually prove difficult for the
Agencies to implement in a way that ensured a level playing field. The
last option attempts to include the benefits of the previous options,
while maintaining the clarity needed for manufacturers to design and
build with a clear understanding of design targets. The highest sales
volume application by weight class for the previous model year ensures
benefits are measured based on how the market values performance. This
has the potential to avoid ambiguity regarding which vehicle technology
should serve as the baseline and it addresses a concern raised by some
commenters regarding the use of a baseline vehicle that clearly is not
a class leader. The presumption being that the market will value the
conventional technology that provides the best value over the lifetime
of the vehicle for its
[[Page 57251]]
intended service class and application. This approach is intended to be
used in conjunction with the basic premise that the ``A'' vehicle will
be the vehicle most similar to the hybrid ``B'' vehicle.
Should no apparent baseline be available, the vehicle being
displaced by the hybrid may be determined based on several
characteristics including but not limited to vehicle class, vehicle
application, and complete power system rated power (e.g. engine rated
power for the base vehicle versus combined rated power for the engine-
hybrid system). The agencies will continue to use the primary method of
highest sales volume, by application and vehicle weight class in its
assessment of the manufacturers selection of a baseline, however should
there be a new application introduced with no apparent existing
baseline, the closest baseline vehicle may be selected by the
manufacturer and will be evaluated by the agencies.
The commenters' concerns will continue to be reviewed by the
agencies as the program is implemented; however, the approach suggested
may not be appropriate across every method. To the extent that the pre-
transmission testing is a work based assessment consistent with today's
engine testing, we are remaining consistent with current practices in
which the engine certification has applicability across applications.
With that said we have defined a regenerative brake limit that will
align the relative energy (regenerative to tractive) across all three
methods. This can be found in 40 CFR 1036.525.
Given the use of the same duty cycles for both post-transmission
and chassis dynamometer testing, we are capturing the performance of
the powertrain by exercising it in the same manner for both methods, so
the methods will be equivalent in all three aspects that were mentioned
by the commenter.
(3) Innovative Technology Credits
The agencies proposed a credit opportunity intended to apply to new
and innovative technologies that reduce fuel consumption and
CO2 emissions, but for which the reduction benefits are not
captured over the test procedure, including the GEM, used to determine
compliance with the standards (i.e., the benefits are ``off-cycle'').
See 75 FR at 74257-58; see also 75 FR 25438-25440 where EPA adopted a
similar credit program for MY 2012-2016 light-duty vehicles.
The agencies explained in the NPRM that EPA and NHTSA are aware of
some emerging and innovative technologies and concepts in various
stages of development with CO2 emissions and fuel
consumption reduction potential that might not be adequately captured
on the final certification test cycles or are not inputs to the GEM,
and that some of these technologies might merit some additional
CO2 and fuel consumption credit generating potential for the
manufacturer. Eligible innovative technologies are those technologies
that are newly introduced in one or more vehicle models or engines, but
that are not yet widely implemented in the heavy-duty fleet--and more
specifically, not yet widely implemented in the averaging set for which
the credit is sought. Examples of such technologies mentioned in the
NPRM include predictive cruise control, gear-down protection, active
aerodynamic features, and adjustable ride height. Innovative
technologies can include known, commercialized technologies if they are
not yet widely utilized in a particular heavy-duty sector subcategory.
Any credits for these technologies would need to be based on real-world
fuel consumption and GHG reductions that can be measured with
verifiable test methods using representative driving conditions typical
of the engine or vehicle application.
In the NPRM, the agencies stated that we would not consider
technologies to be eligible for these credits if the technology has a
significant impact on CO2 emissions and fuel consumption
over the primary test cycles, or if it is one of the technologies on
whose performance the various vehicle and engine standards are
premised. The agencies believe it is appropriate to provide an
incentive to encourage the introduction of these types of technologies
and that a credit mechanism is an effective way to do so. Further,
there needs to be a mechanism to account for the emission reductions
and fuel efficiencies resulting when an innovative technology is used.
The agencies proposed that this optional credit opportunity would be
available through the 2018 model year reflecting that technologies
which are now uncommon may be more widely utilized by then, but the
agencies sought comment on the need to extend the ability to earn
credits beyond the model year 2018. See generally 75 FR at 74257-258.
EPA and NHTSA also proposed that credits generated using innovative
technologies be restricted within the subcategory averaging set where
the credit was generated but requested comments on whether these
innovative technology credits should be fungible across vehicle and
engine categories.
The agencies also proposed that manufacturers quantify
CO2 and fuel consumption reductions associated with the use
of the off-cycle technologies such that the credits could be applied
based on the metrics (such as g/mile and gal/100 mile for pickup
trucks, g/ton-mile and gal/1,000 ton-mile for tractors and vocational
vehicles, and g/bhp-hr and gal/100 bhp-hr for engines). Credits would
have to be based on real additional reductions of CO2
emissions and fuel consumption and would need to be quantifiable and
verifiable with a repeatable methodology. Such data would be submitted
to EPA and NHTSA, and would be subject to a public evaluation process
in which the public would have opportunity for comment. See 75 FR at
74258. We proposed that the technologies upon which the credits are
based would be subject to full useful life compliance provisions, as
with other emissions controls. Unless the manufacturer can demonstrate
that the technology would not be subject to in-use deterioration over
the useful life of the vehicle, the manufacturer would have to account
for deterioration in the estimation of the credits in order to ensure
that the credits are based on real in-use emissions reductions over the
life of the vehicle.
In cases where the benefit of a technological approach to reducing
CO2 emissions and fuel consumption cannot be adequately
represented using existing test cycles, it was proposed that EPA and
NHTSA would review and approve as appropriate test procedures and
analytical approaches to estimate the effectiveness of the technology
for the purpose of generating credits. The demonstration program would
have to be robust, verifiable, and capable of demonstrating the real-
world emissions benefit of the technology with strong statistical
significance.
Finally, the agencies explained in the NPRM that the CO2
and fuel consumption benefit of some technologies may have to be
demonstrated with a modeling approach. In other cases manufacturers
might have to design on-road test programs that are statistically
robust and based on real world driving conditions. As with the similar
procedure for alternative off-cycle credits under the light-duty 2012-
2016 MY vehicle program, the agencies would include an opportunity for
public comment as part of any approval process.
The agencies requested comments on the proposed approach for off-
cycle innovative technology emissions credits, including comments on
how
[[Page 57252]]
best to structure the program. EPA and NHTSA particularly requested
comments on how the case-by-case approach to assessing off-cycle
innovative technology credits could best be designed, including ways to
ensure the verification of real-world emissions benefits and to ensure
transparency in the process of reviewing manufacturer's proposed test
methods.
The agencies received numerous comments relating to all aspects of
the innovative technology credit flexibility provision. The vast
majority of the commenters supported this provision as proposed, but
requested that certain aspects be further clarified, so the agencies
are adopting the full provision as proposed and providing further
discussion that addresses and clarifies the provision in response to
comments. We also note generally that many comments asserting that the
GEM or certain of the engine standards failed to account for certain
types of emission reductions associated with technology improvements
did not consider the availability of innovative technologies for such
technologies. These comments are addressed specifically in the Response
to Comment Document or elsewhere in this preamble.
A number of organizations, including DTNA, MEMA, Navistar, Green
Truck Association, Eaton, ACEEE, and NESCAUM, commented that
technologies such as advanced transmissions, engine cooling strategies,
idle reduction, light-weight components (including light-weight
engines), and advanced drivelines should be able to receive credit
through the innovative technology program. The agencies agree with
these commenters. The NPRM did not provide a specific list of
technologies that the agencies would consider ``innovative'' because
the agencies intended that an innovative technology could be any
technology not in widespread use in the subcategory that can be proven
to reduce CO2 emissions and fuel consumption but for which
the benefits are not captured utilizing the FTP procedures, SET
procedures and GEM methodology used to determine compliance with the
emission and fuel consumption standards. Any of the suggested
technologies could be considered as an innovative technology if the
associated emission and fuel consumption benefit has not already been
considered to have widespread use in the subcategory, if the associated
emission and fuel savings can be measured and validated, and if the
technology and measurement methodology have been approved by the
agencies. NHTSA and EPA will determine the impact of the technology and
each agency in turn will accept the credits either jointly or
independently depending upon whether the technology has a direct
bearing upon GHG or fuel consumption performance.
A number of commenters, including Bendix, Bosch, Cummins, EMA/TMA,
Eaton, DTNA, Navistar, Volvo, ArvinMeritor and USC requested that the
innovative technology process and procedures be more clearly structured
and defined. Bendix requested that the agencies prescribe specific
processes and procedures in the final rules by which innovative
technologies can be submitted for review and approval. EMA/TMA
requested that the agencies provide guidance on the certification
process, and suggested that existing fuel consumption test procedures
developed jointly by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) and the
Technology & Maintenance Council (TMC), specifically that the Type II
and Type III procedures be used. Eaton requested that the agencies
identify test methods that can be used for certification in order to
provide transparency and certainty, and promote early technology
introduction. In response to these comments, the agencies have further
defined the process in the final action.
In cases where the benefit of a technological approach to reducing
CO2 emissions and fuel consumption cannot be adequately
represented using existing test cycles, EPA and NHTSA will review and
approve test procedures and analytical approaches as appropriate to
estimate the effectiveness of the technology for the purpose of
generating credits. The innovative technologies will be evaluated in an
A-to-B comparison. The baseline engine and/or vehicle configuration
must represent a configuration which is equivalent to the engine and/or
vehicle with the innovative technology in terms of the other aspects of
the engine and/or vehicle to prevent double counting of emissions
reductions or gaming.
Since innovative credits will be available for use within the same
averaging set as the engine or vehicle which employs the innovative
technology (for reasons explained below), the agencies are defining
innovative credit approaches by regulatory category.
(a) Heavy-Duty Pickup Truck and Van Innovative Technology Credits
For HD pickups and vans, EPA and NHTSA proposed that they would
review and approve manufacturer-provided test procedures and analytical
approaches to estimate the effectiveness of a technology for the
purpose of generating credits. The proposal also expressed the view
that the 5-cycle approach currently used in EPA's fuel economy labeling
program for light-duty vehicles may provide a suitable test regime,
provided it can be reliably conducted on the dynamometer and can
capture the impact of the off-cycle technology (see 71 FR 77872,
December 27, 2006). EPA established the 5-cycle test methods to better
represent real-world factors impacting fuel economy, including higher
speeds and more aggressive driving, colder temperature operation, and
the use of air conditioning. Because we have not firmly established the
suitability of the 5-cycle approach for HD pickups and vans at this
time, and we received no comments or data helping to establish it, we
are not adopting provisions to specify its use. However, it remains a
candidate approach that manufacturers may pursue in making their
demonstrations for innovative technology credits, described below.
Manufacturer data submitted to the agencies in pursuit of
innovative technology credits would be subject to a public evaluation
process in which the public would have opportunity for comment.\301\
Whether the approach involves on-road testing, modeling, or some other
analytical approach, the manufacturer would be required to present a
final methodology to EPA and NHTSA. EPA and NHTSA would approve the
methodology and credits only if certain criteria were met. Baseline
emissions and fuel consumption \302\ and control emissions and fuel
consumption would need to be clearly demonstrated over a wide range of
real world driving conditions and over a sufficient number of vehicles
to address issues of uncertainty with the data. Data would need to be
on a vehicle model-specific basis unless a manufacturer demonstrated
model-specific data was not necessary. The agencies would publish a
notice of availability in the Federal Register notifying the public of
a manufacturer's proposed alternative off-cycle credit calculation
methodology and provide opportunity for comment. The notice will
include details regarding the methodology, but not include any
Confidential Business Information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\301\ See 75 FR 25440.
\302\ Fuel consumption is derived from measured CO2
emissions using conversion factors of 8,887 g CO2/gallon
for gasoline and 10,180 g CO2/gallon for diesel fuel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agencies did not receive any adverse comments on using the
proposed approach for HD pickup trucks and vans. Consistent with the
proposal, the agencies are adopting the
[[Page 57253]]
proposed innovative technology credit provisions for HD pickup trucks
and vans.
(b) Heavy-Duty Engine, Combination Tractor, and Vocational Vehicle
Innovative Technology Credits
Innovative technology credits developed in the HD engine,
combination tractor, and vocational vehicle categories will need to be
applied to the subcategory in which they were generated. The agencies
are adopting provisions in Sec. 1037.610 to determine the separation
of engine credits and vehicle credits based on the method which is
selected by the manufacturer to determine the effectiveness of the
innovative technology. For example, improvements to the engine that are
demonstrated in either the engine dynamometer test or powerpack test
will clearly be engine credits. Improvements that are demonstrated
using chassis dynamometer or on-road test will be considered vehicle
credits. However, the agencies recognize that there may be exceptions
to this approach, and will allow for the manufacturer to request an
alternate classification of credits. A change in credit allocation will
require approval from the agencies and would be subject to a public
evaluation process.
Furthermore, to address the concerns of some commenters mentioned
above, the agencies are adopting an approach for HD engines and
vehicles that provides two paths for approval of the test procedure to
measure the CO2 emissions and fuel consumption reductions of
an innovative off-cycle technology used in the HD engine or vehicle.
These alternative approaches are similar to those adopted in the light-
duty vehicle rule. The first path will not require a public approval
process of the test method. The ``pre-approved'' test methods for HD
engines and vehicles will include the A-to-B chassis testing, powerpack
testing, and on-road testing. The agencies are also adopting as
proposed a second test method approval path that provides a
manufacturer the ability to submit an alternative evaluation approach
to EPA and NHTSA, which must be approved by the agencies prior to the
demonstration program. As with HD pickup trucks and vans, such
submissions of data should be submitted to the agencies and would be
subject to a public evaluation process in which the public would have
opportunity for comment.\303\ Baseline emissions and control emissions
would need to be clearly demonstrated over a wide range of real world
driving conditions and over a sufficient number of vehicles to address
issues of uncertainty with the data. The agencies will publish a notice
of availability in the Federal Register notifying the public of a
manufacturer's proposed alternative off-cycle credit calculation
methodology and provide opportunity for comment. The notice will
include details regarding the methodology, but not include any
Confidential Business Information. Approval of the approach to
determining a CO2 and fuel consumption benefit would not
imply approval of the results of the program or methodology; when the
testing, modeling, or analyses are complete the results would likewise
be subject to EPA and NHTSA review and approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\303\ See 75 FR 25440.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The pre-approved test procedures include engine dynamometer,
powerpack, chassis dynamometer, and on-road testing. Each of the test
procedures require the evaluation of a baseline and control engine or
vehicle (A vs. B testing) to quantify the improvement. Manufacturers
may use the engine dynamometer test procedures using the HD engine FTP
or SET cycle. The chassis testing and powerpack testing would be
conducted the same as described above for HD vocational vehicle and
tractor hybrid testing in Section IV.B.2.b using the drive cycles and
weightings finalized in this action for the primary program. If a
manufacturer requires the use of an alternate duty cycle, then it will
require prior approval from the agencies.
The on-road testing would be tested according to SAE J1321 Joint
TMC/SAE Fuel Consumption Test Procedure Type II Reaffirmed 1986-10 or
SAE J1526 Joint TMC/SAE Fuel Consumption In-Service Test Procedure Type
III Issues 1987-06, with additional constraints to improve the test
repeatability. The first constraint requires that the minimum route
distance be set at 100 miles. In addition, the route selected must be
representative in terms of grade. The agencies will take into account
published and relevant research in determining whether the grade is
representative.\304\ Similarly, the speed of the route must be
representative of the drive cycle weighting adopted for each regulatory
subcategory. For example, if the route selected for an evaluation of a
combination tractor with a sleeper cab contains only interstate
driving, then the improvement factor would only apply to 86 percent of
the weighted result. Lastly, the ambient air temperature must be
between 5 and 35 [deg]C. The agencies also would allow the use of a
Portable Emissions Measurement (PEMS) device for the measurement of
CO2 emissions during the on-road testing. The agencies are
not pre-approving any routes for the on-road testing. Manufacturers
will be required to submit the proposed route prior to testing for
approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\304\ The agencies would consider information such as the study
conducted by Oak Ridge National Lab which found that 72 percent of
their data records were driven on flat terrain of less than 1
percent grade to determine the representativeness of the route. See
Capps, G., O. Franzes, B. Knee, M.B. Lascurain, and P. Otaduy. Class
8 Heavy Truck Duty Cycle Project Final Report. ORNL/TM-2008/122, Oak
Ridge National Laboratory. Last accessed on April 14, 2011 at page
5-14 of http://cta.ornl.gov/data/tedb29/Edition29_Chapter05.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agencies requested comments on whether credits generated using
innovative technologies should be fungible across vehicle and engine
categories and received comments both supporting and opposing the
limited fungibility of these credits. Cummins did not support the
fungibility of innovative technology credits across subcategories,
arguing that it is not advisable given the large number and variability
of different technology types and the uncertainty in this provision.
DTNA stated that the credits should be fungible across engine and
vehicle classes to be treated the same as advanced technology credits.
EPA and NHTSA acknowledge that the HD program is a new program and,
though the agencies continue to believe the credit provision is an
important flexibility, the agencies are implementing innovative
technology credits based on the ability to assign a value for future
technologies and test methods that are as yet to be defined. Given the
fact that the agencies cannot make a determination at this time of,
what innovative technologies will be offered, and thus the impact of
increased fungibility to sectors outside the original application of
the innovative technology might be, it is premature to allow that
credit to be traded without restriction and with additional credit.
Until such uncertainty can be understood and quantified, the agencies
believe the final rules should continue to include restrictions on the
fungibility of innovative technology credits across service classes and
categories.
The agencies proposed that this credit opportunity be available
through the 2018 model year, reflecting that technologies may be common
by then, but sought comment on the need to extend beyond model year
2018. The agencies received comments from DTNA, Navistar, Eaton,
Cummins and Bosch supporting the extension of this provision beyond
model year 2018. Eaton stated that though some
[[Page 57254]]
technologies will be more common in 2018, new technologies will evolve
facing the same difficulties concerning implementation and would
benefit from this provision. Bosch explained that extension of the
provision past 2018 is important because at the time of the final rule
the GEM will not incorporate any newer technology until it is updated
in phase two of the program, and manufacturers will therefore continue
to need the innovative technology provision for receiving credits for
technologies not accounted for in GEM. The agencies have reviewed these
concerns and believe that they are valid. Therefore, the final rule
does not state that this provision ends in model year 2018. Any action
taken on these credits in a subsequent rulemaking will be addressed by
the agencies at that time in that future rulemaking.
(4) N2O Credit
EPA received a comment from an industry stakeholder requesting a
provision to allow manufacturers of heavy-duty engines to gain credit
for redesigning emission control systems to reduce N2O
emissions. The commenter argued that unlike CH4,
N2O emissions from some NOX control technologies
can vary in inverse proportion to CO2 emissions. Given such
a tradeoff, it would be appropriate to allow manufacturers to exploit
that tradeoff to achieve the lowest overall greenhouse gas emissions
possible. Thus, EPA is adopting a provision which allows engine
manufacturers to generate CO2 credits for very low
N2O emissions. Specifically, manufacturers that certify
engines with full useful life N2O FEL emissions which are
less than 0.04 g/hp-hr could generate 2.98 grams of CO2
credit for 0.01 grams of N2O reduced (consistent with the
relative global warming potentials of CO2 and
N2O). For example, where a manufacturer certifies an engine
family to have low per-brake horsepower hour N2O emissions
of 0.01 g/hp-hr and applies the 0.02 g/hp-hr assigned deterioration
factor, it could certify the engine family to a 0.03 g/hp-hr
N2O FEL and generate enough CO2 credits to offset
CO2 emissions 2.98 g/hp-hr above the standard. The 0.04 g/
hp-hr level is less than the cap standard of 0.10 g/bhp-hr (so credits
generated would not be windfalls) and reflects EPA's best estimate of
average N2O performance for today's engine technologies. See
Table II-22 above. This value has been chosen to ensure the credit
reflects improvements beyond today's baseline performance level. EPA is
limiting this provision to model years 2014 through 2016, the same
years that NHTSA's program is voluntary, to maintain alignment between
the CO2 emissions and fuel consumption standards. EPA
considered allowing the provision to continue beyond 2016 but decided
given its relatively small value (we expect this credit to be worth
approximately 3 g/bhp-hr on a standard of 460 g/bhp-hr) and the
ultimate desirability of alignment of the EPA and NHTSA programs to
limit the period of this flexibility to the period of time when the
NHTSA program will be voluntary.
V. NHTSA and EPA Compliance, Certification, and Enforcement Provisions
A. Overview
(1) Compliance Approach
This section describes EPA's and NHTSA's final program to ensure
compliance with EPA's final emission standards for CO2,
N2O, and CH4 and NHTSA's final fuel consumption
standards, as described in Section II. To achieve the goals projected
in the proposal, it is important for the agencies to have an effective
and coordinated compliance program for our respective standards. As is
the case with the light-duty vehicle rule, the final compliance program
for heavy-duty vehicles and engines has two central priorities: (1) To
address the agencies' respective statutory requirements; and (2) to
streamline the compliance process for both manufacturers and the
agencies by building on existing practice wherever possible, and by
structuring the program such that manufacturers can use a single data
set to satisfy the requirements of both agencies. It is also important
to consider the provisions of EPA's existing criteria pollutant program
and NHTSA's existing LD program in the development of the approach used
for heavy-duty certification and compliance. The existing EPA heavy-
duty highway engine emissions program has an established infrastructure
and methodology that will allow for an effective integration with this
final GHG and fuel consumption program, without needing to create new
unique processes in many instances. The HD compliance program will
address the importance of the impact of new control methods for heavy-
duty vehicles as well as other control systems and strategies that may
extend beyond the traditional purview of the criteria pollutant
program.
Section 202(b)(3)(A) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) defines ``model
year'' to mean ``* * * the manufacturer's annual production period (as
determined by the Administrator) which includes January 1 of such
calendar year'' or to mean calendar year if the manufacturer has no
annual production period. Section 32901(a)(16) of EISA defines ``model
year'' with almost identical language. Section 202(b)(3)(A) of the CAA
also allows the EPA Administrator to define model year differently to
assure `` * * * that vehicles and engines manufactured before the
beginning of a model year were not manufactured for purposes of
circumventing the effective date of a standard * * *.'' Consistent with
this statutory language, the NPRM proposed regulatory text to define
``model year,'' in 40 CFR 1036.801, 40 CFR 1037.801 and 49 CFR 535.4.
All three codified the primary CAA and EISA definition, but differed
with respect to language intended to prevent circumvention of the
standards. The proposed definition for engines was in the proposed rule
published November 30, 2010, 75 FR 74377, which stated that ``model
year'' means the manufacturer's annual new model production period,
except as restricted under this definition. It must include January 1
of the calendar year for which the model year is named, may not begin
before January 2 of the previous calendar year, and it must end by
December 31 of the named calendar year. Manufacturers may not adjust
model years to circumvent or delay compliance with emission or
standards or to avoid the obligation to certify annually.
The proposed definition for vehicles was in the proposed rule
published November 30, 2010, 75 FR 74401, which stated that ``model
year'' means the manufacturer's annual new model production period,
except as restricted under this definition and 40 CFR part 85, subpart
X. It must include January 1 of the calendar year for which the model
year is named, may not begin before January 2 of the previous calendar
year, and it must end by December 31 of the named calendar year. Use
the date on which a vehicle is shipped from the factory in which you
finish your assembly process as the date of manufacture for determining
your model year. For example, where a certificate holder sells a cab-
complete vehicle to a secondary vehicle manufacturer, the model year is
based on the date the vehicle leaves the factory as a cab-complete
vehicle.
EPA's and NHTSA's vehicle model year definitions differed slightly
in wording but were essentially the same for Sec. Sec. 1037.801 and
535.4. In creating the model year definition for vehicles, the agencies
were mindful of the confusion chassis manufacturers may face in
determining their model years in a given period of production, for
example, due to manufacturing and
[[Page 57255]]
shipping products at different levels of completion and involving
multiple manufacturers. The agencies included the term ``ship date'' in
order to provide chassis manufacturers a clear reference date (``in
which you finish your assembly process''), as well as to decrease the
risk of gaming that might occur if no reference date was specified and
there were therefore no parameters on the choice of model year. The
engine definition was chosen based on consistency with prior EPA
definitions for other mobile source programs.
The agencies received comments on the definitions from EMA/TMA and
Navistar expressing concern over the potential for unintended
consequences. The commenters argued that the use of ``ship date'' for
vehicles could create difficulty and uncertainty for manufacturers for
whom the ship date can be delayed for reasons outside of their control,
such as late-arriving components. They also argued that the differences
between the vehicle and engine definitions would increase the
likelihood that a single vehicle would be subject to different fuel
efficiency requirements during certain years of transition in the
standards, as it would not be unlikely that a vehicle would be a later
model year than an engine. For example, during the 2016-2017 period, an
engine may be model year 2016 while the vehicle is model year 2017.
NHTSA and EPA have considered further whether there are benefits to
maintaining separate definitions for ``model year'' for the engine and
vehicle standards based on these comments. We continue to believe that
differences in manufacturing practices for engines and vehicles support
the use of separate definitions. However, for this final action, we
have decided to modify the definitions to account for the above
concerns, address circumstances of multiple manufacturers, and provide
increased consistency and clarity. Thus, instead of ``ship date,'' the
vehicle definition for model year will refer to the date when the
certifying manufacturer's ``manufacturing operations were completed,''
within the specified year. The final definition also specifies that
each vehicle must be assigned a model year before introduction into
U.S. commerce, but allow a manufacturer to redesignate a later model
year if it does not complete its manufacturing operations for the
vehicle within the initial model year.
To further standardize with EPA definitions, NHTSA will add the EPA
engine model year definition to its corresponding regulation 49 CFR
535.4. We believe that this will address the concerns raised by
commenters because it will provide standardization, more specificity
and account for current manufacturer practices.
The agencies are aware that the designation of a model year on a
chassis for the purposes of this heavy-duty truck emission and fuel
consumption program may result in a complete vehicle that has one model
year associated with its chassis for emission/fuel consumption purposes
and another model year designation in its vehicle identification number
(VIN) for a motor vehicle's certification to Federal motor vehicle
safety standards. However, as the chassis model year designation would
only be used on the certificate of conformity by the responsible
manufacturer for the purpose of complying with these rules, it would
not contradict other purposes for which a VIN model year may be used.
EMA/TMA also argued that the proposed dates used to specify the
model year would shorten the lead time provided for manufacturers,
because production for HD vehicles often begins in the early months of
the year preceding the model year. We are addressing these concerns by
finalizing January 1, 2014 as the date certain when manufacturers are
required to comply. Prior to this date, certification of the vehicle
would be optional. Thus, a manufacturer could produce uncertified model
year 2014 vehicles through December 31, 2013. The heavy-duty compliance
program uses a variety of mechanisms to conduct compliance assessments,
including preproduction certification and postproduction testing and
in-use monitoring once vehicles enter customer service. Specifically,
the agencies are establishing a compliance program that utilizes
existing EPA testing protocols and certification procedures. Under the
provisions of this program, manufacturers will have significant
opportunity to exercise implementation flexibility, based on the
program schedule and design, as well as the credit provisions in the
program for advanced technologies. This program includes a process to
foster the use of innovative technologies, not yet contemplated in the
current certification process. EPA and NHTSA will conduct compliance
preview meetings which provide the agencies an opportunity to review a
manufacturer's new product plans and ABT projections. Given the nature
of the final compliance program that involves both engine and vehicle
compliance for some categories, it is necessary for manufacturers to
begin pre-certification meetings with the agencies early enough to
address issues of certification and compliance for both integrated and
non-integrated product offerings.
Based on feedback EPA and NHTSA received during the light-duty GHG
comment period, both agencies are seeking to ensure transparency in the
compliance process of this program. In addition to providing
information in published reports annually regarding the status of
credit balances and compliance on an industry basis, EPA and NHTSA
sought comments in the NPRM on additional strategies for providing
information useful to the public regarding industry's progress toward
reducing GHG emissions and fuel consumption from this sector while
protecting sensitive business information. In response, commenters
(Sierra Club and UCS) also had strong interests for the agencies to
ensure that any collected data is made available to the public with an
interest especially for providing details on the credit balances for
each manufacturer and for data on specific vehicle configuration
information data to better understand the market and help with the
development of future programs. Additional requests (ALA and EDF) were
also made for the agencies to expand consumer education and outreach
for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles thereby empowering fleet purchasers
to make better informed choices. Another commenter (ACEEE) specifically
requested that the agencies publish a heavy-duty truck trend report
describing vehicles and engines sold, including fuel efficiency and GHG
performance and the use of advanced technology. It was further
recommended (by ALA and EDF) that the agencies should create consumer
education and outreach programs for medium and heavy-duty vehicles such
as fuel consumption and GHG emissions information for all vehicles and
engines covered by the rules, in buyers guide similar to the fuel
economy guides that EPA and NHTSA provide for the light-duty CAFE
program. ICCT and UCS also requested having a consumer based label for
heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans providing fuel economy and emission
information like in the light-duty CAFE program.
The agencies agree that there is a need for sharing heavy-duty
emissions and fuel consumption information and therefore will make
information publically available under this program.
(a) Heavy-Duty Pickup Trucks and Vans
The final compliance regulations (for certification, testing,
reporting, and associated compliance activities) for heavy-duty pickup
trucks and vans closely track both current practices and
[[Page 57256]]
the recently adopted greenhouse gas regulations for light-duty vehicles
and trucks. Thus they are familiar to manufacturers. EPA already
oversees testing, collects and processes test data, and performs
calculations to determine compliance with both CAFE and CAA standards
for Light-Duty. For Heavy-Duty products that closely parallel light-
duty pickups and vans, under a coordinated approach, the compliance
mechanisms for both programs for NHTSA and EPA would be consistent and
non-duplicative for GHG pollutant standards and fuel consumption
requirements. Vehicle emission standards established under the CAA
apply throughout a vehicle's full useful life.
Under EPA's existing criteria pollutant emission standard program
for heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans, vehicle manufacturers certify a
group of vehicles called a test group. A test group typically includes
multiple vehicle lines and model types that share critical emissions-
related features. The manufacturer generally selects and tests a single
vehicle, typically considered ``worst case'' for criteria pollutant
emissions, which is allowed to represent the entire test group for
certification purposes. The test vehicle is the one expected to be the
worst case for the emission standard at issue. Emissions from the test
vehicle are assigned as the value for the entire test group. However,
the compliance program in the recent GHG regulations for light-duty
vehicles, which is essentially the well-established CAFE compliance
program, allows and may require manufacturers to perform additional
testing at finer levels of vehicle models and configurations in order
to get more precise model-level fuel economy and CO2
emission levels. The agencies are adopting this same approach for
heavy-duty pickups and vans. Additionally, like the light-duty
program's use of analytically derived fuel economy (ADFE) data, we will
allow manufacturers to predict CO2 levels (and corresponding
fuel consumption) of some vehicles in lieu of testing, using a
methodology deemed appropriate by the agencies. Based on manufacturer
input, a method for calculating analytically derived carbon dioxide
(ADCO2) is specified in Sec. 1037.104 of this rule.\305\ At
a manufacturer's request, EPA may approve analytical methods alternate
to the method described in this rule if said alternate methods are
deemed to be more accurate than the analytical method described in this
rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\305\ Memorandum from Don Kopinski, U.S. EPA to docket EPA-HQ-
OAR-2010-0162, July 7, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Heavy-Duty Engines
Heavy-duty engine certification and compliance for traditional
criteria pollutants has been established by EPA in its current general
form since 1985. In developing a program to address GHG pollutants, it
is important to build upon the infrastructure for certification and
compliance that exists today. At the same time, it is necessary to
develop additional tools to address compliance with GHG emissions
requirements, since the final standard reflect control strategies that
extend beyond those of traditional criteria pollutants. In so doing,
the agencies are finalizing use of EPA's current engine test based
strategy--currently used for criteria pollutant compliance--to also
measure compliance for GHG emissions. The agencies are also finalizing
to add new strategies to address vehicle specific designs and hardware
which impact GHG emissions. The traditional engine approach would
largely match the existing criteria pollutant control strategy. This
would allow the basic tools for certification and compliance, which
have already been developed and implemented, to be expanded for carbon
dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. Engines with similar emissions
control technology may be certified in engine families, as with
criteria pollutants.
For EPA, the final approach for certification will follow the
current process, which requires manufacturer submission of
certification applications, approval of the application, and receipt of
the certificate of conformity prior to introduction into commerce of
any engines. EPA proposed the certificate of conformity be a single
document that would be applicable for both criteria pollutants and
greenhouse gas pollutants. For NHTSA, a manufacturer must submit
certification applications with equivalent fuel consumption
information. NHTSA will assess compliance with its fuel consumption
standards based on the results of the EPA GHG emissions compliance
process for each engine family.
(c) Class 7 and 8 Combination Tractors and Class 2b-8 Vocational
Vehicles
Currently, except for HD pickups and vans, EPA does not directly
regulate exhaust emissions from heavy-duty vehicles as a complete
entity. Instead, a compliance assessment of the engine is undertaken as
described above. Vehicle manufacturers installing certified engines are
required to do so in a manner that maintains all functionality of the
emission control system. While no process exists for certifying these
heavy-duty vehicles, the agencies believe that a process similar to the
one we proposed to use for heavy-duty engines can be applied to the
vehicles.
The agencies are finalizing related certification programs for
heavy-duty vehicles. Manufacturers will divide their vehicles into
families and submit applications to each agency for certification for
each family. However, the demonstration of compliance will not require
emission testing of the complete vehicle, but will instead involve a
computer simulation model, GEM. This modeling tool uses a combination
of manufacturer-specified and agency-defined vehicle parameters to
estimate vehicle emissions and fuel consumption. This model is then
exercised over certain drive cycles. EPA and NHTSA are finalizing the
duty cycles over which Class 7 and 8 combination tractors would be
exercised to be: 65 mile per hour steady state cruise cycle, the 55
mile per hour steady state cruise cycle, and the California ARB
transient cycle. Additional details regarding these duty cycles will be
addressed in Section V.D(1)(b) below. Over each duty cycle, the
simulation tool will return the expected CO2 emissions, in
g/ton-mile, and fuel consumption, gal/1,000 ton-mile, which would then
be compared to the standards.
B. Heavy-Duty Pickup Trucks and Vans
(i) Compliance Approach
EPA and NHTSA are finalizing, largely as proposed, new emission
standards to control greenhouse gases (GHGs) and reduce fuel
consumption from heavy-duty vehicles with gross vehicle weight rating
between 8,500 and 14,000 pounds that are not already covered under the
MY 2012-2016 medium-duty passenger vehicle standards. In this section
``trucks'' refers to heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans between 8,500
and 14,000 pounds not already covered under the light-duty rule.
First, EPA is finalizing fleet average emission standards for
CO2 on a gram per mile (g/mile) basis and NHTSA is
finalizing fuel consumption standards on a gal/100 mile basis that
would apply to a manufacturer's fleet of heavy-duty trucks and vans
with a GVWR from 8,500 pounds to14,000 pounds (Class 2b and 3).
CO2 is the primary pollutant resulting from the combustion
of vehicular fuels, and the amount of CO2 emitted is highly
correlated to the amount of fuel consumed. In addition, the EPA is
finalizing separate emissions standards for three other GHG
[[Page 57257]]
pollutants: CH4, N2O, and HFC. CH4 and
N2O emissions relate closely to the design and efficient use
of emission control hardware (i.e., catalytic converters). The
standards for CH4 and N2O would be set as caps
that would limit emissions increases and prevent backsliding from
current emission levels. In lieu of meeting the caps, EPA is allowing
manufacturers the option of offsetting any N2O emissions or
any CH4 emissions above the cap by taking steps to further
reduce CO2. Separately, EPA is finalizing to set standards
to control the leakage of HFCs from air conditioning systems.
Previously, complete vehicles with a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating of
8,500-14,000 pounds could be certified according to 40 CFR part 86,
subpart S. These heavy-duty chassis certified vehicles were required to
pass emissions on both the Light-duty FTP and HFET (California
requirement).\306\ These rules will use the same testing procedures
already required for heavy-duty chassis certification, namely the
Light-duty FTP and the HFET. Using the data from these two tests, EPA
and NHTSA will compare the CO2 emissions and fuel
consumption results against the attribute-based target. The attribute
upon which the CO2 standard is based is a function of
vehicle payload, vehicle towing capacity and two-wheel versus four-
wheel drive configuration. The attribute-based standard targets will be
used to determine a manufacturer fleet standard. As discussed in
section IV above, manufacturers may use the ABT program and other
flexibilities in achieving and demonstrating compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\306\ Diesel engines are engine-certified with the option to
chassis certification Federally and for California.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These rules will generally require complete HD pickups and vans to
have CO2, CH4 and N2O values assigned
to them, either from actual chassis dynamometer testing or from the
results of a representative vehicle in the test group with appropriate
adjustments made for differences. Manufacturers will be allowed to
exclude vehicles they sell to secondary manufacturers as incomplete
vehicles, unless these vehicles are chassis-certified for criteria
(non-GHG) pollutants. To the extent manufacturers are allowed to
engine- or chassis-certify for criteria pollutant requirements today,
they will be allowed to continue to do so under the final regulations.
See subsection V.B(1)(e) for discussion of special provisions for
chassis-certification to GHG and fuel consumption standards.
Because this program for heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans is so
similar to the program recently adopted for light-duty trucks and
codified in 40 CFR part 86, subpart S, EPA will apply most of those
subpart S regulatory provisions to heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans
and not recodify them in the new part 1037. Most of the new part 1037
thus would not apply for heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans. How 40 CFR
part 86 applies, and which provisions of the new 40 CFR part 1037 apply
for heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans is described in Sec. 1037.104.
Similarly NHTSA's requirements for these vehicles in Sec. 535.6(a) are
based on 40 CFR part 86.
(a) Certification Process
CAA section 203(a)(1) prohibits manufacturers from introducing a
new motor vehicle into commerce unless the vehicle is covered by an
EPA-issued certificate of conformity. Section 206(a)(1) of the CAA
describes the requirements for EPA issuance of a certificate of
conformity, based on a demonstration of compliance with the emission
standards established by EPA under section 202 of the Act. The
certification demonstration requires emission testing, and
certification is required for each model year.\307\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\307\ CAA Section 206(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under existing heavy-duty chassis certification and other EPA
emission standard programs, vehicle manufacturers certify a group of
vehicles called a test group. A test group typically includes multiple
vehicle car lines and model types that share critical emissions-related
features.\308\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\308\ The specific test group criteria are described in 40 CFR
86.1827-01, car lines and model types have the meaning given in 40
CFR 86.1803-01.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA requires the manufacturer to make a good faith demonstration in
the certification application that vehicles in the test group will both
(1) comply throughout their useful life within the emissions bin
assigned, and (2) contribute to fleetwide compliance with the
applicable emissions standards when the year is over. EPA issues a
certificate for the vehicles included in the test group based on this
demonstration, and includes a condition in the certificate that if the
manufacturer does not comply with the fleet average, then production
vehicles from that test group will be treated as not covered by the
certificate to the extent needed to bring the manufacturer's fleet
average into compliance with the applicable standards.
The certification process often occurs several months prior to
production and manufacturer testing may occur months before the
certificate is issued. The certification process for the existing
heavy-duty chassis program is an efficient way for manufacturers to
conduct the needed testing well in advance of certification, and to
receive certificates in a time frame which allows for the orderly
production of vehicles. The use of conditions on the certificate has
been an effective way to ensure that manufacturers comply throughout
their useful life and meet fleet standards when the model year is
complete and the accounting for the individual model sales is
performed. EPA has also adopted this approach as part of its light-duty
vehicle GHG compliance program.
These rules will similarly condition each certificate of conformity
for the GHG program upon a manufacturer's good faith demonstration of
compliance with the manufacturer's fleetwide average CO2
standard. The following discussion explains how the agencies will
integrate this new vehicle certification program into the existing
certification program.
An integrated approach with NHTSA has been undertaken to allow
manufacturers a single point of entry to address certification and
compliance. Vehicle manufacturers will initiate the formal
certification process with their submission of application for a
certificate of conformity to EPA, similar to the light-duty program.
(b) Certification Test Groups and Test Vehicle Selection
For heavy-duty chassis certification to the criteria emission
standards, manufacturers currently, as mentioned above, divide their
fleet into ``test groups'' for certification purposes. The test group
is EPA's unit of certification; one certificate is issued per test
group/evaporative family combination. These groupings cover vehicles
with similar emission control system designs expected to have similar
emissions performance (see 40 CFR 86.1827-01). The factors considered
for determining test groups include Gross Vehicle Weight, combustion
cycle, engine type, engine displacement, number of cylinders and
cylinder arrangement, fuel type, fuel metering system, catalyst
construction and precious metal composition, among others. Vehicles
having these features in common are generally placed in the same test
group.\309\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\309\ EPA provides for other groupings in certain circumstances,
and can establish its own test groups in cases where the criteria do
not apply. See 40 CFR 86.1827-01(b), (c) and (d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This program will retain the current test group structure for
heavy-duty
[[Page 57258]]
pickups and vans in the certification requirements for CO2
and fuel consumption. At the time of certification, manufacturers will
use the CO2 emission level from the Emission Data Vehicle as
a surrogate to represent all of the models in the test group. However,
following certification further testing will generally be allowed for
compliance with the fleet average CO2 and fuel consumption
standards as described below. EPA's issuance of a certificate will be
conditioned upon the manufacturer's subsequent model level testing and
attainment of the actual fleet average, much like light-duty CAFE and
GHG compliance requires. Under the current program, complete heavy-duty
Otto-cycle vehicles under 14,000 pounds Gross Vehicle Weight Rating are
required to chassis certify (see 40 CFR 86.1801-01(a)). The current
program allows complete heavy-duty diesel vehicles under 14,000 pounds
GVWR to optionally chassis certify (see 40 CFR 86.1863-07(a)). The new
regulations we are adopting will not change these existing EPA
certification options for complete (or incomplete) HD vehicles. EPA
recognizes that the existing heavy-duty chassis test group criteria do
not necessarily relate to CO2 emission levels. See 75 FR
25472 (addressing the same issue for light-duty vehicles). For
instance, while some of the criteria, such as combustion cycle, engine
type and displacement, and fuel metering, may have a relationship to
CO2 emissions, others, such as those pertaining to the some
exhaust aftertreatment features, may not. In fact, there are many
vehicle design factors that impact CO2 generation and
emissions but are not major factors included in EPA's test group
criteria.\310\ Most important among these may be vehicle weight,
horsepower, aerodynamics, vehicle size, and performance features. To
remedy this, EPA will allow manufacturers provisions that are similar
to the light-duty vehicle rule that would yield more accurate
CO2 estimates than only using the test group emission data
vehicle CO2 emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\310\ EPA noted this potential lack of connection between fuel
economy testing and testing for emissions standard purposes when it
first adopted fuel economy test procedures. See 41 FR 38677, Sept.
10, 1976.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA believes that the current test group concept is appropriate for
N2O and CH4 because the technologies that would
be employed to control N2O and CH4 emissions may
generally be the same as those used to control the criteria pollutants.
However, manufacturers will determine if this approach is adequate
method for N2O and CH4 emissions compliance or if
testing on additional vehicles is required to ensure their entire fleet
meets applicable standards.
As just discussed, the ``worst case'' vehicle a manufacturer
selects as the Emissions Data Vehicle to represent a test group under
the existing regulations (40 CFR 86.1828-01) may not have the highest
levels of CO2 in that group. For instance, there may be a
heavier, more powerful configuration that would have higher
CO2, but may, due to the way the catalytic converter has
been matched to the engine, actually have lower NOX, CO, PM
or HC emissions. Therefore, EPA is allowing the use of a single
Emission Data Vehicle to represent the test group for both criteria
pollutant and CO2 certification. The manufacturer will be
allowed to initially apply the Emission Data Vehicle's CO2
emissions value to all models in the test group, even if other models
in the test group are expected to have higher CO2 emissions.
However, as a condition of the certificate, this surrogate
CO2 emissions value will generally be replaced with actual,
model-level CO2 values based on results from additional
testing that occurs later in the model year much like the light-duty
CAFE program, or through the use of approved methods for analytically
derived fuel economy. This model level data will become the official
certification test results (as per the conditioned certificate) and
will be used to determine compliance with the fleet average. If the
test vehicle is in fact the worst case CO2 vehicle for the
test group, the manufacturer may elect to apply the Emission Data
Vehicle emission levels to all models in the test group for purposes of
calculating fleet average emissions. Manufacturers may be unlikely to
make this choice, because doing so would ignore the emissions
performance of vehicle models in their fleet with lower CO2
emissions and would unnecessarily inflate their CO2 fleet
average. Testing at the model level, in order to better represent the
improved performance of vehicles within a test group other than the
Emission Data Vehicle, will necessarily increase testing burden beyond
the minimum EDV testing.
As explained in earlier Sections, there are two standards that the
manufacturer will be subject to, the fleet average standard and the in-
use standard for the useful life of the vehicle. Compliance with the
fleet average standard is based on production weighted averaging of the
test data that applies for each model. To address commenter concerns
regarding test variability due to facility and build variation for each
model, the in-use and SEA standards are set at 10 percent higher than
the level used for that model in calculating the fleet average. The
certificate covers both of the fleet and in-use standards, and the
manufacturer has to demonstrate compliance with both of these standards
for purposes of receiving a certificate of conformity. The
certification process for the in-use standard is discussed above.
(c) Demonstrating Compliance
(i) CO2 and Fuel Consumption Fleet Standards
As noted, attribute-based CO2 and fuel consumption
standards result in each manufacturer having fleet average
CO2 and fuel consumption standards unique to its heavy-duty
truck fleet of GVWR between 8,500-14,000 pounds and that standard will
be separate from the standard for passenger cars, light-trucks, and
other heavy-duty trucks. The standards depend on those attributes
corresponding to the relative capability, or ``work factor'', of the
vehicle models produced by that manufacturer. The final attributes used
to determine the stringency of the CO2 and fuel consumption
standards are payload and towing capacity as described in Section II.
Generally, fleets with a mix of vehicles with increased payloads or
greater towing capacity (or utilizing four wheel drive configurations)
will face numerically less stringent standards (i.e., higher
CO2 grams/mile standards or fuel consumption gallons/100
miles standards) than fleets consisting of less powerful vehicles.
(However, the standards will be expected to be equally challenging and
achieve similar percent reductions.) Although a manufacturer's fleet
average standard could be estimated throughout the model year based on
projected production volume of its vehicle fleet, the final compliance
values will be based on the final model year production figures. A
manufacturer's calculation of fleet average emissions and fuel
consumption at the end of the model year will be based on the
production-weighted average emissions and fuel consumption of each
model in its fleet. The payload and towing capacity inputs used to
determine manufacturer compliance will be the advertised values.
The agencies will use the same general vehicle category definitions
that are used in the current EPA HD chassis certification (See 40 CFR
86.1816-05). The new vehicle category definitions differ slightly from
the EPA definitions for Heavy-duty Vehicle definitions for the existing
program, as well as other EPA vehicle programs. Mainly,
[[Page 57259]]
manufacturers will be able to test, and possibly model, more
configurations of vehicles than were historically possible. The
existing criteria pollutant program requires the worst case
configuration be tested for emissions certification. For HD chassis
certification, this usually meant only testing the vehicle with the
highest ALVW, road-load, and engine displacement within a given test
group. This worst case configuration may only represent a small
fraction of the test group production volume. By testing the worst
case, albeit possibly small volume, vehicle configuration, the EPA had
a reasonable expectation that all represented vehicles would pass the
given emissions standards. Since CO2 standards are a fleet
standard based on a combination of sales volume and work factor (i.e.,
payload and towing capability), it may be in a manufacturer's best
interest to test multiple configurations within a given test group to
more accurately estimate the fleet average CO2 emission
levels and not accept the worst case vehicle test results as
representative of all models. Additionally, vehicle models for which a
manufacturer desires to use analytically derived fuel economy (ADFE) to
estimate CO2 emission levels may need additional actual test
data for vehicle models of similar but not identical configurations.
The agencies are allowing the use of ADFE similar to that allowed for
light-duty vehicles in 40 CFR 600.006-08(e). Some commenters, including
the American Automotive Policy Council, were concerned that adopting
the light-duty ADFE program with its current minimum test requirements
would unduly increase testing burden. In addition to concerns over
implementing the light-duty ADFE program for heavy-duty GHG compliance,
commenters noted the need to develop a new HD ADFE methodology that
addressed unique HD concerns. EPA and NHTSA have continued to work with
stakeholders to address the above concerns with using a modified LD
ADFE program. To address these concerns, the agencies will expand the
allowed use of ADFE beyond that which is allowed in the LD program.
Since ADFE equations are not final at the time of this action, updates
to the HD ADFE program will be made through guidance or future
rulemaking. The GHG and fuel economy rulemaking for light-duty vehicles
adopted a carbon balance methodology used historically to determine
fuel consumption for the light-duty labeling and CAFE programs, whereby
the carbon-related combustion products HC and CO are included on an
adjusted basis in the compliance calculations, along with
CO2. The resulting carbon-related exhaust emissions (CREE)
of each test vehicle are calculated and it is this value, rather than
simply CO2 emissions, that is used in compliance
determinations. The difference between the CREE and CO2 is
typically very small. See generally 75 FR at 25472.
NHTSA and EPA are not adopting the CREE methodology for HD pickups
and vans, and so will not adjust CO2 emissions to further
account for additional HC and CO. The basis of the CREE methodology in
historical labeling and CAFE programs is not relevant to HD pickups and
vans, because these historical programs do not exist for HD vehicles.
Furthermore, test data used in this rulemaking for standards-setting
has not been adjusted for this effect, and so it would create an
inconsistency, albeit a small one, to apply it for compliance with the
numerical standards we are finalizing. Finally, it would add complexity
to the program with little real world benefit.
(ii) CO2 In-Use Standards and Testing
Section 202(a)(1) of the CAA requires emission standards to apply
to vehicles throughout their statutory useful life. Section II
discusses in-use standards.
Currently, EPA regulations require manufacturers to conduct in-use
testing as a condition of certification for heavy-duty trucks between
8,500 and 14,000 gross vehicle weight that are chassis certified. The
vehicles are tested to determine the in-use levels of criteria
pollutants when they are in their first and third years of service.
This testing is referred to as the In-Use Verification Program, which
was first implemented as part of EPA's CAP 2000 certification program
(see 64 FR 23906, May 4, 1999).
An in-use program was already set forth in the light-duty 2012-2016
MY vehicle rule similar to the heavy-duty pickups and vans. The In-Use
Verification Program for heavy-duty pickups and vans will follow the
same general provisions of the light-duty program in regard to testing,
vehicle selection, and reporting. See 75 FR 25474-25476.
(d) Special Provisions for Chassis Certification
We proposed to include most cab-chassis Class 2b and 3 vehicles
(vehicles sold as incomplete vehicles with the cab substantially in
place but without the primary load-carrying enclosure) in the complete
HD pickup and van program. Because their numbers are relatively small,
and to reduce the testing and compliance tracking burden to
manufacturers, we proposed to treat these vehicles as equivalent to the
complete van or truck product from which they are derived. The
manufacturer would determine which complete vehicle configuration it
produces most closely matches the cab-chassis product leaving its
facility, and would include each of these cab-chassis vehicles in the
fleet averaging calculations as though it were identical to the
corresponding complete ``sister'' vehicle. See 75 FR at 74263.
Commenters opposed this proposed requirement for a number of
reasons: (1) It would have the unintended consequence of dual
certification for some of these vehicles--engine certification for
criteria pollutants and vehicle certification for GHGs, and vice-versa
for some other vehicles, (2) it would be of modest benefit because most
of these cab-chassis vehicles would receive the desired aerodynamic and
other non-engine improvements even without chassis certification, in
virtue of their derivation from complete vehicles, and (3) a readily-
identifiable sister vehicle may not exist in every case. Based on the
comments, the agencies have re-evaluated the proposed approach for cab-
chassis certification and are restructuring our compliance approach to
provide significantly more flexibility while still ensuring comparable
or better GHG and fuel consumption performance overall.
We are not requiring that cab-chassis vehicles be chassis-
certified, but are retaining chassis-certification for them as an
option using the proposed sister vehicle concept. We are instead
requiring that vehicles that are chassis-certified for criteria
pollutants be chassis-certified for GHGs and fuel consumption, and
likewise that vehicles with engines certified for criteria pollutants
(which in this case would be engines installed in vocational vehicles
exclusively) be certified to the vocational vehicle standards for GHGs
and fuel consumption, with minor exceptions detailed below. We believe
that this approach involving consistent chassis- and engine-
certification for criteria pollutants and GHGs is the most sensible way
to structure a program to minimize both the testing burden and the
potential for gaming.
We are allowing use of the sister vehicle concept for incomplete
vehicle certification to include the selection of sister vehicles not
actually produced for sale by the certifying manufacturer. For the
great majority of vehicles this will not be an issue because the sister
vehicle will obviously be the complete pickup truck or van from which
the cab-chassis vehicle is derived. However if
[[Page 57260]]
the complete sister vehicle ceases production but the corresponding
incomplete vehicle does not, a manufacturer may continue to use the
sister vehicle emissions data through the carryover process that is
already practiced today. If carryover is not appropriate because of,
for example, an emissions-impacting recalibration of the engine, the
manufacturer may conduct new emissions testing using the coastdown data
collected on the original sister vehicle. This would still save
substantial effort without sacrificing data quality because coastdowns
are rather resource-intensive but are not much affected by engine
changes. Another potentially inappropriate situation would exist where
no sister vehicle exists because the manufacturer does not sell a
related complete vehicle. In this case, the manufacturer may coastdown
a mocked-up vehicle made from its incomplete vehicle and an added open
or closed cargo box that simulates a complete van or pickup truck, or
may coastdown one of its customers' completed vehicles.
EPA and NHTSA requested comment on whether Class 4 vehicles that
are very similar to complete Class 3 pickup truck models should be
chassis-certified and regulated as part of the HD pickup and van
category, instead of as vocational vehicles. Commenters argued
convincingly that there are a number of important differences between
the Class 4 and Class 3 trucks that make such regulation inappropriate
as a general matter. As a result, we are keeping Class 4 trucks in the
vocational vehicle category. However, we are adding an optional
provision that allows manufacturers to certify Class 4 or 5 (14,001 to
19,500 lb GVWR) complete or incomplete vehicles to GHG and fuel
consumption standards, in the same way as Class 2b and 3 vehicles, and
thus be included within the Class 2b/3 fleet average. The engines in
these vehicles will continue to be engine-certified for criteria
pollutants, but the manufacturers could include the vehicles in their
fleet average standard and annual compliance calculations, using the
same certification and compliance provisions as for the smaller
vehicles, including the equations for determining work factors and
target standards, in-use requirements, reporting requirements, credit
generation and use, and sister vehicle provisions for incomplete
vehicles. Such vehicles would not be required to meet the vocational
vehicle standards. Because sales volumes of Class 4 and 5 trucks are
relatively small, and because we expect these Class 4 and 5 and Class
2b and 3 trucks to generally use the same technologies and face roughly
the same technology challenge in meeting their standards targets, we do
not believe that this provision will dilute the stringency of the fleet
average standards.
Any in-use testing of vehicles that are chassis-certified using the
sister vehicle provisions would involve loading of the tested vehicle
to a total weight equal to the ALVW of the corresponding complete
vehicle configuration. If the secondary manufacturer had altered or
replaced any vehicle components in a way that would substantially
affect CO2 emissions from the tested vehicle (e.g., axle
ratio has been changed for a special purpose vehicle), the vehicle
manufacturer could request that EPA not test the vehicle or invalidate
a test result. Secondary (finisher) manufacturers who finish incomplete
vehicles certified using the sister vehicle provisions would not be
subject to requirements under these regulations, other than to comply
with anti-tampering regulations. However, if they modify vehicle
components in such a way that GHG emissions and fuel consumption are
substantially affected, they become manufacturers subject to the
standards we are establishing in these rules.
Finally, we are adopting a related special provision involving
chassis-certification aimed at simplifying compliance for manufacturers
of complete HD pickups and vans that also sell a relatively small
number of engines that are designed for other manufacturers' heavy-duty
vehicles--normally referred to as `loose' engines. Today these loose
engines must be engine-certified for criteria pollutants, even though
most of the vehicles that use the engines are chassis-certified. Our
new provision does not change this, but it does provide manufacturers
with an option to focus their energy on improving the GHG and fuel
consumption performance of their complete vehicle products (including,
most likely, significant engine improvements), rather than on
concurrently calibrating for both vehicle and engine test compliance.
These loose engines would not be certified to engine-based GHG and
fuel consumption standards, but instead would be treated as though they
were additional sales of the manufacturer's complete pickup and van
products, on a one-for-one basis. The pickup/van vehicle so chosen must
be the vehicle with the highest ETW that uses the engine (as this
vehicle is likely to have the highest GHG emissions and fuel
consumption). However, if this vehicle is a credit-generator under the
HD pickup and van fleet averaging program, no credits would be
generated by these engine-as-vehicle contributors to the fleet average;
they would be treated as just achieving the target standard. If, on the
other hand, the vehicle is a credit-user, the appropriate number of
additional credits would be needed to offset the engine-as-vehicle
contributors. The purchaser of the engine would treat it as any other
certified engine, and would still need to meet applicable vocational
vehicle standards for the vehicles in which the engine is installed.
Because it is our intent that this loose engine provision
simplifies compliance for HD pickup/van manufacturers who sell a
relatively small number of engines for other manufacturers'
applications, we are limiting its use to 10 percent of the total
engines (15,000 maximum) of the same design that a manufacturer
produces in each model year for U.S.-directed heavy-duty application--
including complete vehicles, incomplete vehicles, and the loose engines
themselves. We are further limiting both this provision and the above-
described provision for chassis certification of Class 4/5 vehicles to
spark-ignition (gasoline) engines, because we believe that the HD
diesel engine business is more focused on designing for and marketing
into a wide variety of vehicles products, instead of into the engine
manufacturer's own chassis-certified vehicle products with a small
loose engine business on the side, as is common for HD gasoline
engines. This dynamic is also reflected in the existing provision for
criteria pollutants allowing complete HD vehicles to use certified
diesel engines but not certified gasoline engines.
Together these provisions provide a robust approach to regulating
these vehicles and engines. Although these certification options are
not as straightforward as the certification provisions for complete
Class 2b/3 pickups and vans, they are technically appropriate (for the
reasons explained above) and should accomplish more improvement in GHG
and fuel consumption performance than simply applying the vocational
vehicle and engine standards.
(2) Labeling Provisions
HD pickups and vans currently have vehicle emission control
information labels showing compliance with criteria pollutant
standards, similar to emission control information labels for engines.
As with engines, we believe this label is sufficient.
[[Page 57261]]
(3) Other Certification Issues
(a) Carryover Certification Test Data
EPA's final certification program for vehicles allows manufacturers
to carry certification test data over from one model year to the next,
when no significant changes to models are made. EPA will also apply
this policy to CO2, N2O and CH4
certification test data.
(b) Compliance Fees
The CAA allows EPA to collect fees to cover the costs of issuing
certificates of conformity for the classes of vehicles and engines
covered by this rulemaking. On May 11, 2004, EPA updated its fees
regulation based on a study of the costs associated with its motor
vehicle and engine compliance program (69 FR 51402). At the time that
cost study was conducted the current rulemaking was not considered.
At this time the extent of any added costs to EPA as a result of
this rulemaking is not known. EPA will assess its compliance testing
and other activities associated with the program and may amend its fees
regulations in the future to include any justifiable new costs.
(4) Compliance Reports
(a) Pre-Model Year Report
In the NPRM, EPA and NHTSA proposed that manufacturers must submit
early model year compliance reports demonstrating how their entire
fleets of heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans would comply with GHG
emissions and fuel consumption standards. The agencies understood that
early model year reports would contain estimates that may change over
the course of a model year and that compliance information manufactures
submit prior to the beginning of a new model year may not represent the
final compliance outcome. The agencies viewed the necessity for
requiring early model reports as a manufacturer's good faith projection
for demonstrating compliance with emission and fuel consumption
standards. The preamble language indicated that the compliance reports
would be submitted prior to the beginning of the model year and prior
to the certification of any test group. Preferably, a manufacturer
would submit its reports during its annual certification preview
meeting. Precertification preview meetings are typically held with a
manufacturer before the earliest date that the model year can begin
which is January 2nd of the calendar year prior to the model year.
Manufacturers voluntarily choose to participate in precertification
compliance meetings but meetings are not required by EPA and NHTSA
regulations. Manufacturers opt to participate in precertification
meetings because of the advantage it gives to exploring with the
agencies any possible compliance problems that may arise prior to
seeking approval for certificates of conformity. The NPRM preamble text
did not specify an exact date for manufacturers to submit early
compliance reports to the agency. NHTSA attempted to adopt requirements
in its regulatory text for manufactures to submit their early
compliance reports no later than the end of December two years prior to
the model year. NHTSA also proposed for manufacturers to provide
compliance information for the current model year and to the extent
possible two years into the future. NHTSA chose its submission deadline
and model years for reporting based upon the same dates required by EPA
in its CAFE provisions for light-duty pickups and vans beginning in
model year 2012.
The NPRM included requirements for manufacturers to submit early
model year compliance reports separately to each agency based upon
limitations existing in the statutory authorities prescribed under EISA
and CAA and the long-standing precedent set in the LD CAFE programs for
receiving reports. The EPA report, called the pre-model year report,
and NHTSA report, called the pre-certification compliance report, were
proposed to include an estimate of the manufacturer's attribute-based
standards, along with a demonstration of compliance with the standards
based on projected model-level and fleet CO2 emissions and
fuel consumption results, and were to include an estimate of the
manufacturer's production volumes. The NPRM also included a proposal
for submitting a credit plan for manufacturers seeking to take
advantage of credit flexibilities and a credit deficit plan for
manufacturers planning to accrue deficits during the model years.
Additionally, NHTSA attempted to reduce the burden on manufacturers by
allowing them to submit copies of EPA's proposed pre-model year reports
or applications for certifications of conformity, as a substitute to
its own compliance report, so long as EPA's reports were submitted with
equivalent fuel consumption information. In either case, NHTSA reserved
the right to ask manufacturers to provide additional information if
necessary to verify its fuel consumption requirements under this
program. EPA and NHTSA also proposed to review the compliance reports
for technical viability and to conduct a certification preview
discussion with the manufacturer. It was further proposed that the EPA
Administrator would have to approve a manufacturer's pre-model year
report before it would consider issuing any certificate of compliance
for the manufacturer.
Comments were received to the NPRM from EMA and TMA strongly
opposing providing separate reports to EPA and NHTSA and requested that
the agencies implement a single uniform reporting template that could
be submitted to both agencies simultaneously. DTNA requested that NHTSA
eliminate its pre-certification compliance report, arguing that report
was overly burdensome.
For the final rules, the agencies have decided to require
manufacturers to submit a single report, hereafter referenced as the
pre-model year report, to satisfy both agencies requirements for
receiving compliance reports in advance of the model year. The agencies
considered the commenters' requests and determined that the benefit
gained by receiving separate or distinct compliance reports would not
outweigh the burden placed on manufacturers in reporting. Therefore,
the final rules establish a harmonized approach by which manufacturers
will submit a single report through the EPA database system as the
single point of entry for all information required for this national
program and both agencies will have access to the information. If by
model year 2012, the agencies are not prepared to receive information
through the EPA database system, manufacturers are expected to submit
written reports to the agencies. EPA and NHTSA have determined that
requiring manufacturers to submit a joint pre-model year report for
their combined fleet of heavy-duty pickup trucks containing both
emissions and equivalent fuel consumption information falls within each
agencies' statutory authority. The final rules require a manufacturer
to submit the joint pre-model year report as early as the date of the
manufacturer's annual certification preview meeting, or prior to the
manufacturer submitting its first application for a certificate for the
given model year. Consequently, a manufacturer choosing to comply in
model year 2014 could submit its pre-model year report during its
precertification meeting, which could occur before January 2, 2013.
Alternately, the manufacturer could provide its pre-model year report
any time prior to submitting its first application. In either case, a
manufacturer would not be able to certify any of its test groups until
the
[[Page 57262]]
EPA Administrator approves its pre-model year report. NHTSA will use
the pre-model year report as preliminary model year data.
The agencies are adopting similar requirements for the pre-model
year reports as proposed. As mentioned, the agencies proposed that
reports would include an estimate of the manufacturer's attribute-based
standards, expected testing results and estimated production volumes.
The agencies agree that this information is essential for tracking
compliance of manufacturers and is therefore adopted for the final
rules. The final rules require manufacturers to identify any vehicle
exclusions and other flexibilities afforded for heavy-duty pickups and
vans. The summary of the required information for each pre-model year
report is as follows:
A list of each unique vehicle configuration included in
the manufacturer's fleet describing the make and model designations,
attribute based-values (GVWR, GCWR, Curb Weight and drive
configurations) and standards.
The emission and fuel consumption fleet average standard
derived from the unique vehicle configurations;
The estimated vehicle configuration, test group and fleet
production volumes;
The expected emissions and fuel consumption test group
results and fleet average performance;
A statement declaring whether the manufacturer chooses to
comply early in MY 2013 for EPA and NHTSA. The manufacturers must
acknowledge that once selected, the decision cannot be reversed and the
manufacturer will continue to comply with the fuel consumption
standards for subsequent model years;
A statement declaring whether the manufacturer will use
fixed or increasing standards; acknowledging that once selected, the
decision cannot be reversed and the manufacturer must continue to
comply with the same alternative for subsequent model years;
A statement declaring whether the manufacturer chooses to
comply voluntarily with NHTSA's fuel consumption standards for model
years 2014 through 2015. The manufacturers must acknowledge that once
selected, the decision cannot be reversed and the manufacturer will
continue to comply with the fuel consumption standards for subsequent
model years;
The list of Class 2b-3 cab-complete vehicles and the
method use to certify, as vocational vehicles and engines, or as
complete pickups and vans identifying the most similar complete
vehicles used to derive the target standards and performance test
results;
The list of Class 2b-3 incomplete vehicles and the method
use to certify, as vocational vehicles and engines, or as complete
pickups and vans identifying the most similar complete vehicles used to
derive the target standards and performance test results;
The list of Class 4 and 5 incomplete and complete vehicles
and the method use to certify, as vocational vehicles and engines, or
as complete pickups and vans identifying the most similar complete
vehicles used to derive the target standards and performance test
results;
List of loose engines included in the heavy-duty pickup
and van category and the list of vehicles used to derive target
standards.
Copy of any notices a vehicle manufacturer sends to the
engine manufacturer to notify the engine manufacturers that their
engines are subject to emissions and fuel consumption standards and
that it intends to use their engines in excluded vehicles; and
A credit plan identifying the manufacturers estimated
credit balances, planned credit flexibilities (i.e., credit balances,
planned credit trading, innovative, advanced and early credits and
etc.) and if needed a credit deficit plan demonstrating how it plans to
resolve any credit deficits that might occur for a model year within a
period of up to three model years after that deficit has occurred.
(b) Final Reports
The NPRM proposed for manufacturers participating in the ABT
program to provide two types of year end reports; end-of-the-year (EOY)
reports and final reports. The EOY reports for the ABT program were
required to be submitted by manufacturers no later than 90 days after
the calendar year and final report no later than 270 days after the
calendar year.\311\ Manufacturers not participating in the ABT program
were required to provide an EOY report within 45 days after the
calendar year but no final reports were required. The submission
deadline of the final ABT report was established to coincide with EPA's
existing criteria pollutant report for heavy-duty engines. The EOY
report is used by the agencies to review a manufacturer's preliminary
final estimates and to identify manufacturers that might have a credit
deficit for the given model year. Manufacturers with a credit surplus
at the end of each model year could submit a request to the agencies to
receive a waiver from providing EOY reports. As proposed, the remaining
manufacturers were required to submit reports to EPA and send copies of
those reports to NHTSA with equivalent fuel consumption values.
Manufacturers requesting to exempt vehicles in accordance with the
agencies' off-road vehicle exemption were required to a submit EOY
reports to the agencies identifying the vehicle applicable to each
report within 90 days after the model year ended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\311\ Corresponding to the compliance model year
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments in response to the NPRM did not oppose providing EOY
reports to the agencies but instead requested that they be allowed to
consolidate the various EOY reports into one single submission to the
agencies.
Upon consideration of commenters' requests, the agencies agree that
only one consolidated EOY report should be submitted in place of the
separate reports proposed in the NPRM. The consolidated EOY report
should include the combination of all the required information that is
applicable to a manufacturer's fleet. The agencies also agree to allow
manufacturers to no longer provide separate EOY reports to each agency
independently but rather to submit the single report through the EPA
database system as the single point of entry for all information
required for this national program. The consolidated EOY report is
required to contain both GHG emissions and fuel consumption
information. EPA will provide access to the information for both
agencies. Likewise, manufacturers will be required to electronically
provide one single final report through the EPA database system. If by
model year 2012, the agencies are not prepared to receive information
through the EPA database system, manufacturers are expected to submit
written reports to the agencies. The required information for EOY and
final reports that manufacturers must submit is as follows: A finalized
list of each unique vehicle configuration included in the manufacturers
fleet describing the designations, attribute based-values (GVWR, GCWR,
Curb Weight and drive configurations) and standards.
The final emission and fuel consumption fleet average
standard derived from the unique vehicle configurations;
The final vehicle configuration, test group and fleet
production volumes;
The final emissions and fuel consumption test group
results and fleet average performance;
The final list of cab-complete vehicles and the method use
to certify, as vocational vehicles and engine, or as
[[Page 57263]]
complete pickups and vans identifying the most similar complete
vehicles used to derive the target standards and performance test
results;
A final credit plan identifying the manufacturers
estimated credit balances, planned credit flexibilities (i.e., credit
balances, planned credit trading, innovative, advanced and early
credits, and etc.) and if needed a credit deficit plan demonstrating
how it plans to resolve any credit deficits that might occur for a
model year within a period of up to three model years after that
deficit has occurred;
A plan describing the vehicles that were exempted such as
for off-road or small business purposes; and
A plan describing any alternative fueled vehicles that
were produced for the model year identifying the approaches used to
determine compliance and the production volumes.
C. Heavy-Duty Engines
(i) Compliance Approach
Section 203 of the CAA requires that all motor vehicles and engines
sold in the United States carry a certificate of conformity issued by
the U.S. EPA. For heavy-duty engines, the certificate specifies that
the engine meets all requirements as set forth in the regulations (40
CFR part 86, subpart N, for criteria pollutants) including the
requirement that the engine be compliant with emission standards. This
demonstration is completed through emission testing as well as
durability testing to determine the level of emissions deterioration
throughout the useful life of the engine. In addition to comply with
emission standards, manufacturers are also required to warrant their
products against emission defects, and demonstrate that a service
network is in place to correct any such conditions. The engine
manufacturer also bears responsibility in the event that an emission-
related recall is necessary. Finally, the engine manufacturer is
responsible for tracking and ensuring correct installation of any
emission related components installed by a second party (i.e., vehicle
manufacturer). EPA and NHTSA believe this compliance structure is also
valid for administering the final GHG regulations for heavy-duty
engines.
(a) Certification Process
In order to obtain a certificate of conformity, engine
manufacturers must complete a compliance demonstration, normally
consisting of test data from relatively new (low-hour) engines as well
as supporting documentation, showing that their product meets emission
standards and other regulatory requirements. To account for aging
effects, low-hour test results are coupled with testing-based
deterioration factors (DFs), which provide a ratio (or offset) of end-
of-life emissions to low-hour emissions for each pollutant being
measured. These factors are then applied to all subsequent low-hour
test data points to predict the emissions behavior at the end of the
useful life.
For purposes of this compliance demonstration and certification,
engines with similar engine hardware and emission characteristics
throughout their useful life may be grouped together in engine
families, consistent with current criteria-pollutant certification
procedures. Examples of such engine characteristics that are normally
used to combine emissions families include similar combustion cycle,
aspiration methods, and aftertreatment systems. Under this system, the
worst-case engine (``parent rating'') is selected based on having the
highest fuel feed per engine stroke, and all emissions testing is
completed on this model. All other models within the family (``child
ratings'') are expected to have emissions at or below the parent model
and therefore in compliance with emission standards. Any engine within
the family can be subject to selective enforcement audits, in-use,
confirmatory, or other compliance testing.
We are continuing the use of this approach for the selection of the
worst-case engine (``parent rating'') for fuel consumption and GHG
emissions as well. As at proposal, we believe this is appropriate
because this worst case engine configuration would be expected to have
the highest in-use fuel consumption and GHG emissions within the
family. See 75 FR at 72264 for further information. We note that lower
engine ratings contained within this family would be expected to have a
higher fuel consumption rate when measured over the Federal Test
Procedures as expressed in terms of fuel consumption per brake
horsepower hour. However, this higher fuel consumption rate is
misleading in the context of comparing engines within a single engine
family. This apparent contradiction can be most easily understood in
terms of an example. For a typical engine family a top rating could be
500 horsepower with a number of lower engine ratings down to 400
horsepower or lower included within the family. When installed in
identical trucks the 400 and 500 horsepower engines would be expected
to operate identically when the demanded power from the engines is 400
horsepower or less. So in the case where in-use driving never included
acceleration rates leading to horsepower demand greater than 400
horsepower, the two trucks with the 400 and 500 horsepower engines
would give identical fuel consumption and GHG performance. When the
desired vehicle acceleration rates were high enough to require more
than 400 horsepower, the 500 horsepower truck would accelerate faster
than the 400 horsepower truck resulting in higher average speeds and
higher fuel consumption and GHG emissions measured on a per mile or per
ton-mile basis. Hence, the higher rated engine family would be expected
to have the highest in-use fuel consumption and CO2
emissions consistent with our current approach requiring manufacturers
to certify the worst case configuration.
As explained at proposal, the reason that the lower engine ratings
appear to have worse fuel consumption relates to our use of a brake
specific work metric. The brake specific metric measures power produced
from the engine and delivered to the vehicle ignoring the parasitic
work internal to the engine to overcome friction and air pumping work
within the engine. The fuel consumed and GHG emissions produced to
overcome this internal work and to produce useful (brake) work are both
measured in the test cycle but only the brake work is reflected in the
calculation of the fuel consumption rate. This is desirable in the
context of reducing fuel consumption as this approach rewards engine
designs that minimize this internal work through better engine designs.
The less work that is needed internal to the engine, the lower the fuel
consumption will be. If we included the parasitic work in the
calculation of the rate, we would provide no incentive to reduce
internal friction and pumping losses. However, when comparing two
engines within the very same family with identical internal work
characteristics, this approach gives a misleading comparison between
two engines as described above. This is the case because both engines
have an identical fuel consumption rate to overcome internal work but
different rates of brake work with the higher horsepower rating having
more brake work because the test cycle is normalized to 100 percent of
the engine's rated power. The fuel consumed for internal work can be
thought of as a fixed offset identical between both engines. When this
fixed offset is added to the fuel consumed for useful (brake) work over
the cycle, it increases the overall fuel consumption
[[Page 57264]]
(the numerator in the rate) without adding any work to the denominator.
This fixed offset identical between the two engines has a bigger impact
on the lower engine rating. In the extreme this can be seen easily. As
the engine ratings decrease and approach zero, the brake work
approaches zero and the calculated brake specific fuel consumption
approaches infinity. For these reasons, we are finalizing that the same
selection criteria, as outlined in 40 CFR part 86, subpart N, be used
to define a single engine family designation for both criteria
pollutant and GHG emissions. Further, we are finalizing that for fuel
consumption and CO2 emissions only any selective enforcement
audits, in-use, confirmatory, or other compliance testing would be
limited to the parent rating for the family. Consistent with the
current regulations, manufacturers may electively subdivide a grouping
of engines which would otherwise meet the criteria for a single family
if they have evidence that the emissions are different over the useful
life. The agencies received comments from engine and truck
manufacturers which indicated the useful life provisions applicable to
criteria pollutants seemed appropriate for GHG emissions. For that
reason, the agencies are retaining many of the same provisions for GHG
certification for family useful life provisions as developed for
criteria pollutants.
EPA utilizes a 12-digit naming convention for all mobile-source
engine families (and test groups for light-duty vehicles). This
convention is also shared by the California Air Resources Board which
allows manufacturers to potentially use a single family name for both
EPA and California ARB certification. Of the 12 digits, 9 are EPA-
defined and provide identifying characteristics of the engine family.
The first digit represents the model year, through use of a predefined
code. For example, the code ``A'' corresponds to the 2010 model year
and ``B'' corresponds to the 2011 model year. The 5th position
corresponds to the industry sector code, which includes such examples
as light-duty vehicle (V) and heavy-duty diesel engines (H). The next
three digits are a unique alphanumeric code assigned to each
manufacturer by EPA. The next four digits describe the displacement of
the engine; the units of which are dependent on the industry segment
and a decimal may be used when the displacement is in liters. For
engine families with multiple displacements, the largest displacement
is used for the family name. For on-highway vehicles and engines, the
tenth character is reserved for use by California ARB. The final
characters (including the 10th character in absence of California ARB
guidance) left to the manufacturer to determine, such that the family
name forms a unique identifying characteristic of the engine family.
This convention is well understood by the regulated industries,
provides sufficient detail, and is flexible enough to be used across a
wide spectrum of vehicle and engine categories. In addition, the
current harmonization with other regulatory bodies reduces
complications for affected manufacturers. For these reasons, we are not
finalizing any major changes to this naming convention for this
rulemaking. There may be additional categories defined for the 5th
character to address heavy-duty vehicle families, however that will be
discussed later.
As with criteria pollutant standards, the heavy-duty diesel
regulatory category is subdivided into three regulatory subcategories,
depending on the GVW of the vehicle in which the engine will be used.
These regulatory subcategories are defined as light-heavy-duty (LHD)
diesel, medium heavy-duty (MHD) diesel, and heavy heavy-duty (HHD)
diesel engines. All heavy-duty gasoline engines are grouped into a
single subcategory. Each of these regulatory subcategories are expected
to be in service for varying amounts of time, so they each carry
different regulatory useful lives. For this reason, expectations for
demonstrating useful life compliance differ by subcategory,
particularly as related to deterioration factors.
Light heavy-duty diesel engines (and all gasoline heavy-duty
engines) have the same regulatory useful life as a light-duty vehicle
(110,000 miles), which is significantly shorter than the other heavy-
duty regulatory subcategories. Therefore, we believe it is appropriate
to maintain commonality with the light-duty vehicle rule. During the
light-duty vehicle rulemaking, the conclusion was reached that no
significant deterioration would occur over the useful life. Therefore,
EPA is recommending that manufacturers use assigned DFs for
CO2. For this final action, we believe appropriate values
are zero (for additive DFs) and one (for multiplicative DFs). EPA will
continue to collect data regarding deterioration of CO2
emissions and may revisit these assigned values if necessary.
For the medium heavy-duty and heavy heavy-duty diesel engine
segments, the regulatory useful lives are significantly longer (185,000
and 435,000 miles, respectively). For this reason, the EPA cannot rule
out the possibility that engine/aftertreatment wear will have a
negative impact on GHG emissions. To address useful life compliance for
MHD and HHD diesel engines certified to GHG standards, EPA therefore
believes that the criteria pollutant approach for developing DFs is
appropriate. Using CO2 as an example, many types of engine
deterioration will affect CO2 emissions. Reduced
compression, as a result of wear, will cause higher fuel consumption
and increase CO2 production. In addition, as aftertreatment
devices age (primarily particulate traps), regeneration events may
become more frequent and take longer to complete. Since regeneration
commonly requires an increase in fuel rate, CO2 emissions
would likely increase as well. Finally, any changes in EGR levels will
affect heat release rates, peak combustion temperatures, and
completeness of combustion. Since these factors could reasonably be
expected to change fuel consumption, CO2 emissions would be
expected to change accordingly. However, we expect engine manufacturers
to consider performance degradation in the design of engine and
aftertreatment systems given the market incentive to reduce fuel
consumption and related CO2 emissions. For these reasons,
EPA is not eliminating the DF from this program, but will allow for an
assigned DF of zero.
HHD diesel engines may also require some degree of aftertreatment
maintenance throughout their useful life. For example, one major heavy-
duty engine manufacturer specifies that their diesel particulate
filters be removed and cleaned at intervals between 200,000 and 400,000
miles, depending on the severity of service. Another major engine
manufacturer requires servicing diesel particulate filters at 300,000
miles. This maintenance or lack thereof if service is neglected, could
have serious negative implications to CO2 emissions. In
addition, there may be emissions-related warranty implications for
manufacturers to ensure that if rebuilding or specific emissions
related maintenance is necessary, it will occur at the prescribed
intervals. Therefore, it is imperative that manufacturers provide
detailed maintenance instructions. Lean-NOX aftertreatment
devices may also facilitate GHG reductions by allowing engines to run
with higher engine-out NOX levels in exchange for more
efficient calibrations. In most cases, these aftertreatment devices
require a consumable reductant,
[[Page 57265]]
such as diesel exhaust fluid, which requires periodic maintenance by
the vehicle operator. Without such maintenance, the emission control
system may be compromised and compliance with emission standards may be
jeopardized. Such maintenance is considered to be critical emission
related maintenance and manufacturers must therefore demonstrate that
it is likely to be completed at the required intervals. One example of
such a demonstration is an engine power de-rating strategy that will
limit engine power or vehicle speed in absence of this required
maintenance.
If the manufacturer determines that maintenance is necessary on
critical emission-related components within the useful life period, it
must have a reasonable basis for ensuring that this maintenance will be
completed as scheduled. This includes any adjustment, cleaning, repair,
or replacement of critical emission-related components. Typically, EPA
has only allowed manufacturers to schedule such maintenance if the
manufacturer can demonstrate that the maintenance is reasonably likely
to be done at the recommended intervals. This demonstration may be in
the form of survey data showing at least 80 percent of in-use engines
get the prescribed maintenance at the correct intervals. Another
possibility is to provide the maintenance free of charge. We see no
reason to depart from this approach for GHG-related critical emission-
related components. For reasons stated previously regarding the useful
life provisions, EPA is retaining many of the same provisions for GHG
certification for family useful life provisions as developed for
criteria pollutants.
(b) Demonstrating Compliance with the Standards
(i) CO2 Standards
The final test results (adjusted for deterioration, if applicable)
form the basis for the Family Certification Limit (FCL), which the
manufacturer must specify to be at or above the certification test
results. This FCL becomes the emission standard for the family and any
certification or confirmatory testing must show compliance with this
limit. In addition, manufacturers may choose an FCL at any level above
their certified emission level to provide a larger compliance margin.
If subsequent certification or confirmatory testing reveals emissions
above the FCL, the new, higher result becomes the FCL.
As proposed, the FCL is also used to determine the Family Emission
Limit (FEL), which serves as the emission limit for any subsequent
field testing conducted after the time of certification. This would
primarily include selective enforcement audits, but also may include
in-use testing for GHGs. The FEL differs from the FCL in that it
includes an EPA-defined compliance margin; which has been defined at 3
percent for the final rule. Our proposal included a two percent margin
based on round-robin testing of the same engine at several
laboratories. Since that time, additional confidential data provided by
manufacturers has indicated that it may be more appropriate to use a
three percent margin to also account for production variability between
engines.\312\ Under this final action, the FEL will always be three
percent higher than the FCL.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\312\ See discussion in RIA 3.1.2.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engine Emission Testing
Under current non-GHG engine emissions regulations, manufacturers
are required to demonstrate compliance using two test methods: the
heavy-duty transient cycle and the heavy-duty steady state test. Each
test is an engine speed versus engine torque schedule intended to be
run on an engine dynamometer. Over each test, emissions are sampled
using the equipment and procedures outlined in 40 CFR part 1065, which
includes provisions for measuring CO2, N2O, and
CH4. Emissions may be sampled continuously or in a batch
configuration (commonly known as ``bag sampling'') and the total mass
of emissions over each cycle are normalized by the engine power
required to complete the cycle. Following each test, a validation check
is made comparing actual engine speed and torque over the cycle to the
commanded values. If these values do not align well, the test is deemed
invalid.
The transient Heavy-duty FTP cycle is characteristic of typical
urban stop-and-go driving. Also included is a period of more steady
state operation that would be typical of short cruise intervals at 45
to 55 miles per hour. Each transient test consists of two 20 minute
tests separated by a ``soak'' period of 20 minutes. The first test is
run with the engine in a ``cold'' state, which involves letting the
engine cool to ambient conditions either by sitting overnight or by
forced cooling provisions outlined in Sec. 86.1335-90 (or 40 CFR part
1036). This portion of the test is meant to assess the ability of the
engine to control emissions during the period prior to reaching normal
operating temperature. This is commonly a challenging area in criteria
pollutant emission control, as cold combustion chamber surfaces tend to
inhibit mixing and vaporization of fuel and aftertreatment devices do
not tend to function well at low temperatures.
Following the first test, the engine is shut off for a period of 20
minutes, during which emission analyzer checks are performed and
preparations are made for the second test (also known as the ``hot''
test). After completion of the second test, the results from the cold
and hot tests are weighted and a single composite result is calculated
for each pollutant. Based on typical in-use duty cycles, the cold test
results are given a \1/7\ weighting and the hot test results are given
a \6/7\ weighting. Deterioration factors are applied to the final
weighted results and the results are then compared to the emission
standards.
Prior to 2007, compliance only needed to be demonstrated over the
Heavy-duty FTP. However, a number of events brought to light the fact
that this transient cycle may not be as well suited for engines which
spend much of their duty cycle at steady cruise conditions, such as
those used in line-haul semi-trucks. As a result, the steady-state SET
procedure was added, consisting of 13 steady-state modes. During each
mode, emissions were sampled for a period of five minutes. Weighting
factors were then applied to each mode and the final weighted results
were compared to the emission standards (including deterioration
factors). In addition, emissions at each mode could not exceed the NTE
emission limits. Alternatively, manufacturers could run the test as a
ramped-modal cycle. In this case, the cycle still consists of the same
speed/torque modes, however linear progressions between points are
added and instead of weighting factors, each mode is sampled for
various amounts of time. The result is a continuous cycle lasting
approximately 40 minutes. With the implementation of part 1065 test
procedures in 2010, manufacturers are now required to run the modal
test as a ramped-modal cycle. In addition, the order of the speed/
torque modes in the ramped-modal cycle have changed for 2010 and later
engines.
It is well known that fuel consumption, and therefore
CO2 emissions, are highly dependent on the drive cycle over
which they are measured. Steady cruise conditions, such as highway
driving, tend to be more efficient, having lower fuel consumption and
CO2 emissions. In contrast, highly transient operation, such
as city driving, tends to lead to lower efficiency and therefore higher
fuel consumption and CO2 emissions. One example of this is
the difference
[[Page 57266]]
between EPA-measured city and highway fuel economy ratings assigned to
all new light-duty passenger vehicles.
For this heavy-duty engine and vehicle rule, we believe it is
important to assess CO2 emissions and fuel consumption over
both transient and steady state test cycles, as all vehicles will
operate in conditions typical of each cycle at some point in their
useful life. However, due to the drive cycle dependence of
CO2 emissions, we do not believe it is reasonable to have a
single CO2 standard which must be met for both cycles. As we
discussed at proposal, a single CO2 standard would likely
prove to be too lax for steady-state conditions while being too strict
for transient conditions. Therefore, the agencies are finalizing that
all heavy-duty engines be tested over both transient and steady-state
tests. However, only the results from either the transient or steady-
state test cycles will be used to assess compliance with GHG standards,
depending on the type of vehicle in which the engine will be used.
Engines that will be used in Class 7 and 8 combination tractors will
use the ramped-modal cycle for GHG certification, and engines used in
vocational vehicles will use the Heavy-duty FTP cycle. In both cases,
results from the other test cycle will be reported but not used for a
compliance decision. Engines will continue to be required to show
criteria pollutant compliance over both cycles, in addition to NTE
requirements.
The agencies proposed that manufacturers submit both data sets from
the transient test at the time of certification. This includes
providing both cold start and hot start transient heavy-duty FTP
emissions results, as well as the composite emissions at the time of
certification. The proposed rules also required that manufacturers
submit modal data from the ramped-modal cycle test. This was proposed
in an effort to improve the accuracy of the simulation model being used
for assessing CO2 and fuel consumption performance and
overall engine emissions performance.
However several commenters were concerned that modal data was non-
discernable when batch sampling was used for certification testing.
Thus, an additional certification test (or tests) would need to be done
using either continuous analyzers or batch sampling at each mode; each
option raising the cost and complexity of certification testing. The
agencies agree that (at this time) this raises practical issues for
certification testing, however we also believe that manufacturers have
significant data from these modal points which could be used to satisfy
our model refinement goals.
The agencies also recognize that even minor variations in test fuel
properties can have an impact on measured CO2 emissions.
Therefore, measured CO2 results are to be corrected using a
reference energy content, which is defined in the regulations. This
correction must be performed for each test and each batch of test fuel.
However, manufacturers may develop robust testing procedures that
reduce the variation in test fuel properties to within the level of
measurement uncertainty of the fuel properties themselves. If this is
the case, an annual review is still necessary to confirm the validity
of this constant value.
As explained above in Section II, the agencies are finalizing an
alternative standard whereby manufacturers may elect that certain of
their engine families meet an alternative percent reduction standard,
measured from the engine family's 2011 baseline, instead of the main
2014 MY standard. As part of the certification process, manufacturers
electing this standard would not only have to notify the agency of the
election but also demonstrate the derivation of the 2011 baseline
CO2 emission level for the engine family. Manufacturers
would also have to demonstrate that they have exhausted all credit
opportunities.
Durability testing
Another element of the current certification process is the
requirement to complete durability testing to establish DFs. As
previously mentioned, manufacturers are required to demonstrate that
their engines comply with emission standards throughout the regulatory
compliance period of the engine. This demonstration is commonly made
through the combination of low-hour test results and testing based
deterioration factors.
For engines without aftertreatment devices, deterioration factors
primarily account for engine wear as service is accumulated. This
commonly includes wear of valves, valve seats, and piston rings, all of
which reduce in-cylinder pressure. Oil control seals and gaskets also
deteriorate with age, leading to higher lubricating oil consumption.
Additionally, flow properties of EGR systems may change as deposits
accumulate and therefore alter the mass of EGR inducted into the
combustion chamber. These factors, amongst others, may serve to reduce
power, increase fuel consumption, and change combustion properties; all
of which affect pollutant emissions.
For engines equipped with aftertreatment devices, DFs take into
account engine deterioration, as described above, in addition to aging
affects on the aftertreatment devices. Oxidation catalysts and other
catalytic devices rely on active precious metals to effectively convert
and reduce harmful pollutants. These metals may become less active with
age and therefore pollutant conversion efficiencies may decrease.
Particulate filters may also experience reduced trapping efficiency
with age due to ash accumulation and/or degradation of the filter
substrate, which may lead to higher tailpipe PM measurements and/or
increased regeneration frequency. If a pollutant is predominantly
controlled by aftertreatment, deterioration of emission control depends
on the continued operation of the aftertreatment device much more so
than on consistent engine-out emissions.
At this time, we anticipate that most engine component wear will
not have a significant negative impact on CO2 emissions.
However, wear and aging of aftertreatment devices may or may not have a
significant negative impact on CO2 emissions. In addition,
future engine or aftertreatment technologies may experience significant
deterioration in CO2 emissions performance over the useful
life of the engine. For these reasons, we believe that the use of DFs
for CO2 emissions is both appropriate and necessary. As with
criteria pollutant emissions, these DFs are preferably developed
through testing the engine over a representative duty cycle for an
extended period of time. This is typically either half or full useful
life, depending on the regulatory category. The DFs are then calculated
by comparing the high-hour to low-hour emission levels, either by
division or subtraction (for multiplicative & additive DFs,
respectively).
This testing process may be a significant cost to an engine
manufacturer, mainly due to the amount of time and resources required
to run the engine out to half or full useful life. For this reason,
durability testing for the determination of DFs is not commonly
repeated from model year to model year. In addition, some DFs may be
allowed to carry over between families sharing a common architecture
and aftertreatment system. EPA prefers to have manufacturers develop
testing-based DFs for their products. However, we do understand that
for the reasons stated above, it may be impractical to expect
manufacturers to have testing-based deterioration factors available for
these final rules. Therefore, we are allowing manufacturers to use EPA-
assigned DFs for CO2. However, we also understand that
CO2 is traditionally measured as
[[Page 57267]]
part of normal engine dynamometer testing. Therefore, we are requiring
that manufacturers include CO2 data over their criteria
pollutant durability demonstrations (if available), which will aid the
agency in developing more accurate assigned DFs. This action is being
taken in the context of engine manufacturers' concerns regarding the
impact of deterioration of emissions components relative to the GHG
standards. Engine manufacturers commented that there would be no
deterioration of components used to reduce GHG emissions in Phase 1. As
part of the Clean Air Act responsibility to demonstrate compliance
throughout the useful life, manufacturer will need to provide data
already collected during traditional criteria pollutant testing for
full useful life performance.
IRAFs/Regeneration Impacts on CO2
Heavy-duty engines may be equipped with exhaust aftertreatment
devices which require periodic ``regeneration'' to return the device to
a nominal state. A common example is a diesel particulate filter, which
accumulates PM as the engine is operated. When the PM accumulation
reaches a threshold such that exhaust backpressure is significantly
increased, exhaust temperature is actively increased to oxidize the
stored PM. The increase in exhaust temperature is commonly facilitated
through late combustion phasing and/or raw fuel injection into the
exhaust system upstream of the filter. Both methods impact emissions
and therefore must be accounted for at the time of certification. In
accordance with Sec. 86.004-28(i), this type of event would be
considered infrequent because in most cases they only occur once every
30 to 50 hours of engine operation (rather than once per transient test
cycle), and therefore adjustment factors must be applied at
certification to account for these effects.
Similar to DFs, these adjustment factors are based off of
manufacturer testing; however this testing is far less time consuming.
Emission results are measured from two test cycles: With and without
regeneration occurring. The differences in emission results are used,
along with the frequency at which regeneration is expected to occur, to
develop upward and downward adjustment factors. Upward adjustment
factors are added to all emission results derived from a test cycle in
which regeneration did not occur. Similarly, downward adjustment
factors are subtracted from results based on a cycle which did
experience a regeneration event. Each pollutant will have a unique set
of adjustment factors and additionally, separate factors are commonly
developed for transient and steady-state test cycles.
The impact of regeneration events on criteria pollutants varies by
pollutant and the aftertreatment device(s) used. In general, the
adjustment factor can have a very significant impact on compliance with
the NOX standard. For this reason, heavy-duty vehicle and
engine manufacturers are already very well motivated to extend the
regeneration frequency to as long an interval as possible and to reduce
the duration of the regeneration as much as possible. Both of these
actions significantly reduce the impact of regeneration on
CO2 emissions and fuel consumption. We do not believe that
adding an adjustment factor for infrequent regeneration to the
CO2 or fuel efficiency standards would provide a significant
additional motivation for manufacturers to reduce regenerations.
Moreover, doing so would add significant and unnecessary uncertainty to
our projections of CO2 and fuel consumption performance in
2014 and beyond. In addressing that uncertainty, the agencies would
have to set less stringent fuel efficiency and CO2 standards
for heavy-duty trucks and engines. Therefore, we are not requiring the
use of infrequent regeneration adjustment factors for CO2 or
fuel efficiency in this program. This is consistent with comments
received from engine manufacturers.
Auxiliary Emission Control Devices
As part of the engine control strategy, there may be devices or
algorithms which reduce the effectiveness of emission control systems
under certain limited circumstances. These strategies are referred to
as Auxiliary Emission Control Devices (AECDs). One example would be the
reduced use of EGR during cold engine operation. In this case, low
coolant temperatures may cause the electronic control unit to reduce
EGR flow to improve combustion stability. Once the engine warms up,
normal EGR rates are resumed and full NOX control is
achieved.
At the time of certification, manufacturers are required to
disclose all AECDs and provide a full explanation of when the AECD is
active, which sensor inputs effect AECD activation, and what aspect of
the emission control system is affected by the AECD. Manufacturers are
further required to attest that their AECDs are not ``defeat-devices,''
which are intentionally targeted at reducing emission control
effectiveness.
Several common AECDs disclosed for criteria pollutant certification
will have a similarly negative influence on GHG emissions as well. One
such example is cold-start enrichment, which provides additional
fueling to stabilize combustion shortly after initially starting the
engine. From a criteria pollutant perspective, HC emissions can
reasonably be expected to increase as a result. From a GHG perspective,
the extra fuel does not result in a similar increase in power output
and therefore the efficiency of the engine is reduced, which has a
negative impact on CO2 emissions. In addition, there may be
AECDs that uniquely reduce GHG emission control effectiveness.
Therefore, consistent with today's certification procedures, we are
finalizing that a comprehensive list of AECDs covering both criteria
pollutant, as well as GHG emissions is required at the time of
certification.
(ii) EPA's N2O and CH4 Standards
In 2009, EPA issued rules requiring manufacturers of mobile-source
engines to report the emissions of CO2, N2O, and
CH4 (74 FR 56260, October 30, 2009). Although CO2
is commonly measured during certification testing, CH4 and
N2O are not. CH4 has traditionally not been
included in criteria pollutant regulations because it is a relatively
stable molecule and does not contribute significantly to ground-level
ozone formation. In addition, N2O is commonly a byproduct of
lean-NOX aftertreatment systems. Until recently, these types
of systems were not widely used on heavy-duty engines and therefore
N2O emissions were insignificant. As noted in section II
above, both species, while emitted in small quantities relative to
CO2, have much higher global warming potential than
CO2 and therefore must be considered as part of a
comprehensive GHG regulation.
EPA is requiring that CH4 and N2O be reported
at the time of certification, however we will allow manufacturers to
submit a compliance statement based on good engineering judgment for
the first year of the program in lieu of direct measurement of
N2O. However, beginning in the 2015 model year, the agency
is requiring the direct measurement of N2O for
certification. The intent of the CH4 and N2O
standards are more focused on prevention of future increases in these
compounds, rather than forcing technologies that reduce these
pollutants. As one example, we envision manufacturers satisfying this
requirement by continuing to use catalyst designs and formulations that
appropriately control N2O emissions rather than pursuing a
catalyst that may
[[Page 57268]]
increase N2O. In many ways this becomes a design-based
criterion in that the decision of one catalyst over another will
effectively determine compliance with N2O standards over the
useful life of the engine. As discussed above, in cases where
N2O emissions directly tradeoff with CO2
emissions, EPA is allowing manufacturers to exploit this relationship
to produce engines with the lowest overall GHG emissions. Direct
measurement of N2O emissions is required in the case of
engines utilizing this temporary credit program.
Since catalytic activity generally changes with age and service
accumulation, it is not unreasonable to expect changes in
N2O and CH4 emissions over the useful life of the
engine. We also believe that low-hour test results coupled with
deterioration factors provides an adequate representation of end-of-
life emission levels for these pollutants. However, the requirement to
measure N2O and CH4 during testing is relatively
new and we do not expect that manufacturers have consistent durability
data to formulate deterioration factors for today's action. We also do
not believe it is appropriate to require all new durability testing to
satisfy this requirement, as this would result in a nontrivial burden
to engine manufacturers. Instead we will be assigning deterioration
factors for N2O and CH4 for this action. If the
use of assigned deterioration factors jeopardizes compliance with the
emission standards, we will also allow manufacturers to propose unique
testing-based deterioration factors for these pollutants. In response
to comments received from engine manufacturers regarding the timing
needed to generate deterioration factors the agencies are taking this
approach.
Concerns had also been raised by engine manufacturers regarding
measurement techniques for quantifying N2O emissions. In an
effort to expand testing options, we are adding an allowance to use
laser infrared analyzers for N2O measurement in 40 CFR part
1065.275. This is to reflect the recent development of this technology
for N2O measurement. We would also like to serve notice that
in an upcoming rulemaking, we will be tightening the interference
tolerance (both positive and negative) for engines and vehicles that
are required to certify to an N2O standard. This will
consist of an interference limit based on interference as a percentage
of the flow weighted mean concentration of N2O expected at
the standard. For example we may set the interference limit at 10 percent of the flow weighted mean concentration of
N2O expected at the standard and strongly recommend a lower
interference that is within 5 percent.
(c) Additional Compliance Provisions
(i) Warranty & Defect Reporting
Under section 207 of the CAA, engine manufacturers are required to
warrant that their product is free from defects that would cause the
engine to not comply with emission standards. This warranty must be
applicable from when the engine is introduced into commerce through a
period generally defined as half of the regulatory useful life
(specified in hours and years, whichever comes first). The exact time
of this warranty is dependent on the regulatory category of the engine.
In addition, components that are considered ``high cost'' are required
to have an extended warranty. Examples of such components would be
exhaust aftertreatment devices and electronic control units.
Current warranty provisions in 40 CFR part 86 define the warranty
periods and covered components for heavy-duty engines. The current list
of components is comprised of any device or system whose failure would
result in an increase in criteria pollutant emissions. We remain
convinced that this list is adequate for addressing GHG emissions as
well, based on comments received from the proposed rules. The following
list identifies items commonly defined as critical emission-related
components:
Electronic control units.
Aftertreatment devices.
Fuel metering components.
EGR-System components.
Crankcase-ventilation valves.
All components related to charge-air compression and cooling.
All sensors and actuators associated with any of these components.
When a manufacturer experiences an elevated rate of failure of an
emission control device, they are required to submit defect reports to
the EPA. These reports will generally have an explanation of what is
failing, the rate of failure, and any possible corrections taken by the
manufacturer. Based on how successful EPA believes the manufacturer to
be in addressing these failures, the manufacturer may need to conduct a
product recall. In such an instance, the manufacturer is responsible
for contacting all customers with affected units and repairing the
defect at no cost to them. We believe this structure for the reporting
of criteria pollutant defects, and recalls, is appropriate for
components related to complying with GHG emissions as well.
(ii) Maintenance
Engine manufacturers are required to outline maintenance schedules
that ensure their product will remain in compliance with emission
standards throughout the useful life of the engine. This schedule is
required to be submitted as part of the application for certification.
Maintenance that is deemed to be critical to ensuring compliance with
emission standards is classified as ``critical emission-related
maintenance.'' Generally, manufacturers are discouraged from specifying
that critical emission-related maintenance is needed within the
regulatory useful life of the engine. However, if such maintenance is
unavoidable, manufacturers must have a reasonable basis for ensuring it
is performed at the correct time. This may be demonstrated through
several methods including survey data indicating that at least 80
percent of engines receive the required maintenance in-use or
manufacturers may provide the maintenance at no charge to the user.
During durability testing of the engine, manufacturers are required to
follow their specified maintenance schedule.
Maintenance relating to components relating to reduction of GHG
emissions is not expected to present unique challenges. Therefore, we
are not finalizing any changes to the provisions for the specification
of emission-related maintenance as outlined in 40 CFR part 86.
(2) Enforcement Provisions
(a) Emission Control Information Labels
Current provisions for engine certification require manufacturers
to equip their product with permanent emission control information
labels. These labels list important characteristics, parameters, and
specifications related to the emissions performance of the engine.
These include, but are not limited to, the manufacturer, model,
displacement, emission control systems, and tune-up specifications. In
addition, this label also provides a means for identifying the engine
family name, which can then be referenced back to certification
documents. This label provides essential information for field
inspectors to determine that an engine is in fact in the certified
configuration.
We do not anticipate any major changes needing to be made to
emission control information labels as a result of new GHG standards
and a single label is appropriate for both criteria pollutant and GHG
emissions purposes. Perhaps the most significant addition will be the
inclusion of Family Certification Levels or Family Emission Limits for
GHG pollutants, if the manufacturer is participating in averaging,
banking, and
[[Page 57269]]
trading. In addition, the label will need to indicate whether the
engine is certified for use in vocational vehicles, tractors, or both.
Finally, if an engine family is uniquely certified for use in hybrid
powertrain applications, a compliance statement indicating this will
need to be included on the emission control label.
In response to comments from engine and truck manufacturers that
tractors should be allowed to obtain engines certified for vocational
use and likewise a limited number of engines certified for tractor use
should be available for the appropriate vocational applications, the
agencies are allowing limited use of engines certified in other
categories. To address compliance needs and to discourage abuse of the
provisions, proper labeling of the engines is essential.
(b) In-Use Standards
In-use testing of engines provides a number of benefits for
ensuring useful life compliance. In addition to verifying compliance
with emission standards at any given point in the useful life, it can
be used along with manufacturer defect reporting, to indentify
components failing at a higher than normal rate. In this case, a
product recall or other service campaign can be initiated and the
problem can be rectified. Another key benefit of in-use testing is the
discouragement of control strategies catered to the certification test
cycles. In the past, engine manufacturers were found to be producing
engines that performed acceptably over the certification test cycle,
while changing to alternate operating strategies ``off-cycle'' which
caused increases in criteria pollutant emissions. While these
strategies are clearly considered defeat devices, in-use testing
provides a meaningful way of ensuring that such strategies are not
active under normal engine operation.
Currently, manufacturers of certified heavy-duty engines are
required to conduct in-use testing programs. The intent of these
programs is to ensure that their products are continuing to meet
criteria pollutant emission standards at various points within the
useful life of the engine. Since initial certification is based on
engine dynamometer testing, and removing in-use engines from their
respective vehicles is often impractical, a unique testing procedure
was developed. This includes using portable emission measurement
systems (PEMS) and testing the engine over typical in-situ drive routes
rather than a prescribed test cycle. To assess compliance, emission
results from a well defined area of the speed/torque map of the engine,
known as the NTE zone, are compared to the emission standards. To
account for potential increases in measurement and operational
variability, certain allowances are applied to the standard which
results in the standard for NTE measurements (NTE limit) to be at or
above the duty cycle emission standards.
In addition, EPA conducts an annual in-use testing program of
heavy-duty engines. Testing procured vehicles with specific engines
over well-defined drive routes using a constant trailer load allows for
a consistent comparison of in-use emissions performance. If potential
problems are identified in-situ, the engine may be removed from the
vehicle and tested using an engine dynamometer over the certification
test cycles. If deficiencies are confirmed the agency will either work
with the manufacturer to take corrective action, possibly involving a
product recall, or proceed with enforcement action against the
manufacturer.
The GHG reporting rule requires manufacturers to submit
CO2 data from all engine testing (beginning in the 2011
model year), which we believe is equally applicable to in-use
measurements. Methods of CO2 in-situ measurement are well
established and most, if not all, PEMS devices measure and record
CO2 along with criteria pollutants. CH4 and
N2O present in-situ measurement challenges that may be
impractical to overcome for this testing, and therefore they are not
included in in-use testing requirements at this time. While measurement
of CO2 may be practical and important, implementing an NTE
emission standard for CO2 is challenging. As previously
discussed, CO2 emissions are highly dependent on the drive
cycle of the vehicle, which does not lend itself well to the NTE-based
test procedure. Therefore, we proposed and are adopting that
manufacturers be required to submit CO2 data from in-situ
testing, in both g/bhp-hr and g/ton-mile, but these data will be used
for reference purposes only (there would be no NTE limit/standard for
CO2). For the purposes of calculating the g/ton-mile metric,
we prefer that manufacturers use the measured vehicle weight. However
it has been brought to our attention that this may not always be
available, in which case an estimated vehicle weight can be used along
with a written justification for the basis of the estimation. For
engine-based (dynamometer) in-use testing, compliance with
CO2 emission standards will be judged off of the FCL of the
engine family.
(3) Other Certification Provisions
(a) Carryover/Carry Across Certification Test Data
EPA's current certification program for heavy-duty engines allows
manufacturers to carry certification test data over and across
certification testing from one model year to the next, when no
significant changes to models are made. EPA will also apply this policy
to CO2, N2O and CH4 certification test
data.
(b) Certification Fees
The CAA allows EPA to collect fees to cover the costs of issuing
certificates of conformity for the classes of engines covered by this
rulemaking. On May 11, 2004, EPA updated its fees regulation based on a
study of the costs associated with its motor vehicle and engine
compliance program (69 FR 51402). At the time that cost study was
conducted, the current rulemaking was not considered. At this time the
extent of any added costs to EPA as a result of this program is not
known. EPA will assess its compliance testing and other activities
associated with the rules and may amend its fees regulations in the
future to include any justifiable new costs.
(c) Onboard Diagnostics
(a) Onboard Diagnostics
Beginning with the 2010 model year, manufacturers have been phasing
in on-board diagnostic (OBD) systems on heavy-duty engines pursuant to
the heavy-duty OBD rulemaking finalized by the EPA in 2009.\313\ These
systems monitor the activity of the emission control system and issue
alerts when faults are detected. These diagnostic systems are currently
being developed based around components and systems that influence
criteria pollutant emissions. Consistent with the light-duty 2012-2016
MY vehicle rulemaking, we believe that monitoring of these components
and systems for criteria pollutant emissions will have an equally
beneficial effect on CO2 emissions.\314\ Therefore, we have
not finalized any additional unique onboard diagnostic provisions for
heavy-duty GHG emissions. In the NPRM, EPA did
[[Page 57270]]
not propose new or different diagnostic requirements from those
finalized in the 2009 heavy-duty OBD rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\313\ U.S. EPA, ``Control of Air Pollution from New Motor
Vehicles and New Motor Vehicles Engines; Final Rule Regulations
Requiring Onboard Diagnostic Systems on 2010 and Later Heavy-Duty
Engines Used in Highway Applications Over 14,000 Pounds; Revisions
to Onboard Diagnostic Requirements for Diesel Highway Heavy-Duty
Vehicles Under 14,000 Pounds,'' published February 24, 2009.
Available here: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/im/obd/regtech/hd-obd-frm-02-24-09-notice-74-fr-8310.pdf.
\314\ See the Light-Duty 2012-2016 Vehicle Rule, Note 5, above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agencies received comments from engine manufacturers, hybrid
system manufacturers, and related trade groups which broached concerns
regarding the feasibility of applying on-board diagnostics to hybrid
applications starting in 2013. The commenters stated that engine
manufacturers would need several years to adapt their engine OBD
systems to hybrids, and therefore requested a delay of OBD requirements
for hybrid applications until 2020 with a phase-in of enforcement
liability starting that same year. Details, which the agencies believe
have merit, are set out below. In response, EPA is taking an approach
that is consistent with certain provisions of the existing final action
for heavy-duty OBD, finalized in 2009. To that end, manufacturers who
certify hybrid systems will continue to have the responsibility of
implementing compliant diagnostic systems, however, we are extending
the OBD phase-in for engines with hybrid systems to allow time for
manufacturers to be able to address communication protocol development
concerns (e.g. SAE J1939, communication with diagnostic scantools),
component development concerns (e.g. hardware and software), and to
address the availability of heavy-duty OBD compliant engines with
sufficient lead-time for additional hybrid diagnostic system
development given resource constraints as engine manufacturers are
focused on meeting the 2013 requirements for conventional products at
this time.
Since publication of the NPRM, the EPA has undertaken extensive
outreach to hybrid manufacturers, engine manufacturers, and related
industry groups to further understand the technical issues involved
with the implementation of full OBD on engine-hybrid systems.\315\
Hybrid manufacturers have indicated that the interaction between hybrid
systems and OBD compliant engines is not well understood at this time,
for example, if the system shuts down the vehicle at idle (as is
common), the OBD idle diagnostics cannot run. In addition, there are
many different hybrid systems being developed which make much of this
technology both immature and low volume, and engine manufacturers are
concerned that this will result in high costs due to frequent design
changes that could occur as this technology develops and have asked for
flexibility for unique hybrid applications. Consistent with the goal to
incentivize the development of hybrid designs (systems designed to
capture wasted energy and reduce fuel consumption) the EPA is allowing
hybrid manufacturers time to develop their systems while simultaneously
developing the capability to meet HD OBD requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\315\ See EPA Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162 for memos describing
meetings held as a part of this outreach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Communication protocol development is an integral part of
developing hybrid OBD capability for the heavy-duty industry which is
not vertically integrated. There are different protocols required to be
used for OBD communication in a vehicle depending on the type of engine
(gasoline or diesel). These protocols are developed in part to
standardize the transmission of electronic signals and control
information among vehicle components. The J1939 communication protocol
is developed by committee through SAE and is required for use with
diesel engines. J1939 defines communications messages, diagnostic
messages for communications between a module and diagnostic scantool,
and fault codes. Messages sent through a J1939 network contain a series
of information (e.g. an identifier, message priority, data, etc.) and
these parameters must be agreed upon through the SAE committee and
tailored to work for all manufacturers. The development of this
communication protocol includes developing criteria for the messages,
and determining a single set of fault codes that can work for all
manufacturers and all hybrid system configurations; this is expected to
take a substantial amount of time and collaboration. OBD cannot exist
without fault codes to report, therefore development of this protocol
is critical. Hybrid manufacturers have stated that until such time as a
`plug and play scheme' is available, hybrid volumes will not be able to
increase significantly. At this time, there are only a few such
messages that have been developed for use in hybrid systems, and there
is much additional development that needs to take place. The type of
messages needed must first be identified once 2013 HD OBD compliant
engines are available for use in HD hybrid OBD system development.
After needed messages are identified, the content of each message must
be developed and agreed upon through a ballot process. Manufacturers
have stated that this will be an iterative process and will likely take
at least two years to develop the protocol for use with different
variations of hybrid systems and architectures, different types of
energy storage systems, and for systems used in the wide variety of
applications in the heavy-duty market, and we agree with this
assessment. While a level of communication exists today between engines
and transmissions for this industry, the level of control and impact on
engine system operation becomes much more significant once hybrid
technology is introduced. The purpose of the hybrid energy system is to
supplement overall vehicle power demands. As such, the methods used for
integrating the energy from the hybrid system into overall vehicle
operation vary from allowing additional internal combustion engine
lower power operation to potentially decreasing the amount of engine
``on'' time. This range of performance impacts will serve to reduce GHG
emissions by reducing demands on the engine. Conventional transmission
systems and other powertrain components do not exercise the level of
control the hybrid will need to exercise to effectively reduce GHG
emissions and improve fuel consumption performance for internal
combustion engines; therefore, hybrid OBD systems can reasonably be
expected to be more complicated as well.
Component development concerns raised by hybrid manufacturers
include both changes that may be required to software and/or hardware
systems on both existing hybrid products and on hybrid systems
currently under development. Software systems in existing products have
been developed that provide proprietary diagnostic capability (as no
standardized system such as J1939 had been developed for these
systems), however, these software systems are not OBD compliant. These
products will likely require entirely new software systems developed
for them which may result in hardware changes as well. Manufacturers
have stated that a complete software system can take up to 2 years to
develop and validate. Hardware may also need to be changed to
accommodate OBD on hybrid systems. In particular, hardware changes
would affect current production systems which may not have controllers
that can support full OBD. The low volume sales and high cost of a
controller program (which can reach into the millions of dollars) means
that most companies cannot justify the cost of a hardware change for
hybrids alone, rather, existing hybrid systems will have to wait until
such a hardware upgrade is planned for other reasons. In addition, new
hardware programs, such as developing a new Electronic Control Unit,
can take 3-4 years to complete.
[[Page 57271]]
While it is possible for some of this work to be done concurrently, how
much can be done this way is dependent on the configuration of each
individual system. Finally, manufacturers may have contractual
agreements with hardware and software suppliers that will have to be
reconfigured to address a complete OBD program.
Hybrid manufacturers have stated that they will be unable to
produce hybrid systems that will be OBD compliant in 2013. Given the
concerns discussed above and the general lack of availability of OBD
compliant engines until the completion of the HD OBD phase-in, to
require manufacturers of systems that depend on the availability of
those OBD complaint engines to then be able to immediately implement
additional requirements may be impractical or infeasible in many
instances. Given the phase-in of HD OBD requirements that already
exists however, we do not believe a delay to 2019 or 2020 is warranted.
While not all of the engines that would potentially have hybrid systems
incorporated into their design are available in their final OBD
configuration at the time of this action, it is clear that some engine
systems will be available. Additionally, there is an expectation that
engine manufacturers, their suppliers and customers will have to
continue to work cooperatively to deliver products for the market. This
cooperation must include a level of concurrent engineering prior to
products being brought to market. At this time we believe a delay to
2016 for the phase-in of OBD for heavy-duty engines equipped with
hybrid systems should provide the requisite lead time from the date of
this action to the date of implementation for development of components
and protocols necessary for successful integration of complete OBD
systems for engines equipped with hybrid systems.
Manufacturers will be required to implement feasible controls for
these hybrid systems that do not adversely impact emissions performance
in 2013 and by 2016-17, all systems must be fully compliant with OBD
requirements. The phase in period takes into account that current
production systems are likely to be smaller in terms of sales volumes
than newly developed systems, and may require more hardware and
software development as some of these systems have been in production
for nearly a decade and have developed a proprietary system diagnostic
capability that does not meet OBD requirements. Therefore, this
extended phase-in provides them an additional year of time to comply
with the heavy-duty OBD regulations. Hybrid systems put into production
after January 1, 2013 will be required to meet the 2009 heavy-duty OBD
requirements in 2016 consistent with the next phase-in date for heavy-
duty OBD, while those hybrid systems released prior to January 1, 2013
have until 2017 to be compliant with these OBD requirements.
If a manufacturer certifies an engine-hybrid system with CARB OBD
in California prior to the required phase-in date (2016 or 2017), and
its diagnostics meet or exceed the requirements for full 2013 OBD, the
manufacturer must either use the CARB certified package for Federal
release or phase in the package and certify it with full EPA OBD.
In the interim, engine system diagnostics must show that they meet
or exceed CARB's Engine Manufacturer Diagnostic Systems Requirements
(EMD) including system monitoring requirements for NOX
aftertreatment, fuel systems, exhaust gas recirculation, particulate
matter traps, and emission-related electronic components.\316\ Specific
EMD requirements will be considered met if they are redundant due to
the installed engine's fully functioning OBD content. Most
manufacturers have already certified their engines with EMD for the
2011 model year, and full OBD as required in 2013 exceeds EMD
requirements, therefore no new cost burden is expected as a result of
this provision. In addition, new engines may be introduced in 2013 for
hybrid-only use and, in lieu of meeting full OBD, meeting EMD would
result in cost savings because of the flexibility in scan-tool
reporting and diagnostic content.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\316\ California Air Resources Board, Final Regulation Order for
EMD, Section 1971 of Title 13, California Code of Regulations,
effective December 30, 2004. Available here; http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/emd2004/fro.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the engine-hybrid system must maintain existing OBD
capability for engines where the same or equivalent engine (e.g.
displacement) has been OBD certified. An equivalent engine is one
produced by the same engine manufacturer with the same fundamental
design, but that may have no more than minor hardware or calibration
differences, such as slightly different displacement, rated power, or
fuel system. Though the OBD capability must be maintained, it does not
have to meet detection thresholds and in-use performance frequency
requirements; for example, a manufacturer may modify detection
thresholds to prevent false detection.
As stated earlier, existing hybrid systems sold today have
proprietary diagnostic capability that is non-OBD compliant, but
nonetheless will notify the driver of potential problems with the
system. Hybrid manufacturers must also continue to maintain this
existing diagnostic capability to ensure proper function consistent
with the performance for which the hybrid system is certified as well
as, safe operation of the hybrid system.
Finally, during the interim part of the phase-in, manufacturers
that are not fully-OBD compliant must also submit an annual pre-
compliance report to the EPA for model years 2013 and later. The engine
manufacturers must submit this report with their engine certification
information. Hybrid manufacturers that are not certifying the engine-
hybrid systems must also submit an annual pre-compliance report to the
EPA. The report must include a description of the engine-hybrid system
being certified and related product plans, information as to activities
undertaken and progress made by the manufacturer in achieving full OBD
certification including monitoring, diagnostics, and standardization;
and deviations from an originally certified full-OBD package with
engineering justification.
(d) Applicability of Current High Altitude Provisions to Greenhouse
Gases
EPA is requiring that engines covered by this program must meet
CO2, N2O and CH4 standards at elevated
altitudes. The CAA requires emission standards under section 202 for
heavy-duty engines to apply at all altitudes. EPA does not expect
engine CO2, CH4, or N2O emissions to
be significantly different at high altitudes based on engine
calibrations commonly used at all altitudes. Therefore, EPA will retain
its current high altitude regulations so manufacturers will not
normally be required to submit engine CO2 test data for high
altitude. Instead, they will be required to submit an engineering
evaluation indicating that common calibration approaches will be
utilized at high altitude. Any deviation in emission control practices
employed only at altitude will need to be included in the AECD
descriptions submitted by manufacturers at certification. In addition,
any AECD specific to high altitude will be required to include
emissions data to allow EPA to evaluate and quantify any emission
impact and validity of the AECD.
(e) Emission-Related Installation Instructions
Engine manufacturers are currently required to provide detailed
installation instructions to vehicle manufacturers.
[[Page 57272]]
These instructions outline how to properly install the engine,
aftertreatment, and other supporting systems, such that the engine will
operate in its certified configuration. At the time of certification,
manufacturers may be required to submit these instructions to EPA to
verify that sufficient detail has been provided to the vehicle
manufacturer.
We do not anticipate any major changes to this documentation as a
result of regulating GHG emissions. The most significant impact will be
the addition of language prohibiting vehicle manufacturers from
installing engines into vehicle categories in which they are not
certified for. An example would be a tractor manufacturer installing an
engine certified for only vocational vehicle use. Explicit instructions
on behalf of the engine manufacturer that such acts are prohibited will
serve as sufficient notice to the vehicle manufacturers and failure to
follow such instructions will result in the vehicle manufacturer being
in non-compliance.
(f) Alternate CO2 Emission and Fuel Consumption Standards
Under the final rules, engine manufacturers have the option of
certifying to alternate CO2 emission and fuel consumption
standards for model years 2014 through 2016. These alternate standards
are defined as a certain percentage below a baseline value established
from their corresponding 2011 model-year products. For instance, the
alternate emission standard for light and medium heavy duty FTP-
certified (vocational) engines is equal to 0.975 times the baseline
value. If a manufacturer elects to participate in this program it must
indicate this on its certification application. In addition, sufficient
details must be submitted regarding the baseline engine such that the
agency can verify that the correct optional CO2 emission and
fuel consumption standards have been calculated. These data will need
to include the engine family name of the baseline engine, so references
to the original certification application can be made, as well as test
data showing the CO2 emissions and fuel consumption of the
baseline engine.
(4) Compliance Reports
(a) Early Model Year Data
NHTSA's regulatory text in the NPRM included specifications for
manufacturers to submit pre-certification compliance reports for heavy-
duty engines. The pre-certification reports included requirements for
manufacturers to submit information to identify the types of engines,
expected test results, production volumes and credits. The reporting
requirements were general in nature despite there being an existing
emissions program for heavy-duty engines. The existing ABT program for
NOX and PM emissions for heavy-duty engines has existed
since 2001 (see 66 FR 5002 signed on January 18, 2001) but does not
require reporting early model year compliance information. The agencies
sought comments on the report provisions in the NPRM but commenters
failed to offer recommendations on what content should be required. As
a result, the agencies have decided to eliminate the pre-certification
report because engine manufacturers have no experience in providing GHG
information and the proposed information may not be available until
subsequent model years. For the next phase of this GHG program, the
agencies may adopt a pre-model year report for engines.
As an alternative to receiving early compliance model year
information in the precertification reports, the agencies have decided
to use manufacturer's application for certificates of conformity to
obtain early model estimates. Currently, the applications for
certificates are not required to include the fuel consumption
information required by NHTSA. Therefore, the agencies are adopting
provisions in the final rules for manufacturers to provide emission and
equivalent fuel consumption estimates in the manufacturer's
applications for certification. The agencies will treat information
submitted in the applications as a manufacturer's demonstration of
providing early compliance information, similar to the pre-model year
report submitted for heavy-duty pick-up trucks and vans. The final
rules establish a harmonized approach by which manufacturers will
submit applications through the EPA Verify database system as the
single point of entry for all information required for this national
program and both agencies will have access to the information. If by
model year 2012, the agencies are not prepared to receive information
through the EPA Verify database system, manufacturers are expected to
submit written applications to the agencies. This approach should
streamline this process and reduce industry burden and provide
sufficient information for the agencies to carry out their early
compliance activities.
(b) Final Reports
For engines, the agencies proposed that manufacturers would submit
EOY reports and final reports. An EOY report for manufacturers using
the ABT program was required to be submitted no later than 90 days
after the calendar year and final report no later than 270 days after
the calendar year.\317\ Manufacturers not participating in the ABT
program were required to provide an EOY report within 45 days after the
calendar year but no final reports were required. The final ABT report
due date was established coinciding with EPA's existing criteria
pollutant report for heavy-duty engines complying with NOX
and PM standards. Similar to that program, the proposed EOY and final
reports required receiving engine type designation, engine family and
credit plans for engine manufacturers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\317\ Corresponding to the compliance model year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There were no comments received on the final reports for engines.
For the final rules, the agencies will retain the provisions as
proposed for the EOY and final reports. However, the agencies will
consolidate the reporting as done for other vehicle categories and will
require emissions and equivalent fuel consumption information to be
submitted to EPA. The final rules establish a harmonized approach by
which manufacturers will submit applications to EPA as the single point
of entry for all information required for this national program and
both agencies will have access to the appropriate information. If by
model year 2012, the agencies are not prepared to receive information
through a database system, manufacturers are expected to submit written
applications to the agencies. The agencies are also combining the EOY
reports for manufacturers not using ABT to provide a product volume
report due 90 days after the end of the model year and the ABT report
required 90 days after the model year. A summary of the required
information in the final rules for EOY and final reports is as follows:
Engine family designation and averaging set.
Engine emissions and fuel consumption standards including
any alternative standards used.
Engine family FCLs.
Final production volumes.
Certified test cycles.
Useful life values for engine families.
A credit plan identifying the manufacturers actual credit
balances, credit flexibilities, credit trades and a credit deficit plan
if needed demonstrating how it plans to resolve
[[Page 57273]]
any credit deficits that might occur for a model year within a period
of up to three model years after that deficit has occurred.
(c) Additional Required Information
Throughout the model year, manufacturers may be required to submit
various reports to the agencies to comply with various aspects of the
program. These reports have differing criteria for submission and
approval.
Table V-1 below provides a summary of the types of submission,
required submission dates and the EPA and NHTSA regulations that apply
for engines and engine manufacturers.
The agencies will review and grant any appropriate requests
considering the timeliness of the submissions and the completeness of
the requests.
Table V-1--Summary of Required Information for HD Engine Compliance
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA
Submission Applies to Required submissions EPA regulation regulation
date reference reference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small business exemptions......... Engine manufacturers Before introducing Sec. Sec. 535.8
meeting the Small any excluded vehicle 1036.150
Business into U.S. for
Administration (SBA) commerce.
size criteria of a
small business as
described in 13 CFR
121.201.
Incentives for early introduction. The provisions apply EPA must be notified Sec. Sec. 535.8
with respect to before the 1036.150
tractors and manufacturer submits
vocational vehicles it applications for
produced in model certificates of
years before 2014. conformity.
Voluntary compliance for NHTSA Engine manufacturers NHSAT must be NA Sec. 535.8
standards. seeking early notified before the
compliance in model manufacturer submits
years 2014 to 2016. it applications for
certificates of
conformity.
Model year 2014 N2O standards..... Manufacturers that EPA must be notified Sec. NA
choose to show before the 1036.150
compliance with the manufacturer submits
MY 2014 N2O it applications for
standards requesting certificates of
to use an conformity.
engineering analysis.
Exemption from EOY reports........ Manufacturers with 90-days after the Sec. Sec. 535.8
surplus credits at calendar year ends. 1036.730
the end of the model
year.
Alternative engine standards...... Engine manufacturers EPA and NHTSA must be Sec. Sec. 535.8
not able to comply notified before the 1036.150
with 1036.104 and manufacturer submits
wanting to use the it applications for
alternative engine certificates of
standard. conformity.
Alternate phase-in................ Engine manufacturers EPA and NHTSA must be Sec. Sec. 535.8
want to comply with notified before the 1036.150
alternate phase in manufacturer submits
standards. it applications for
certificates of
conformity.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Class 7 and 8 Combination Tractors
(1) Compliance Approach
In addition to requiring engine manufacturers to certify their
engines, manufacturers of Class 7 and 8 combination tractors must also
certify that their vehicles meet the CO2 emission and fuel
consumption standards. This vehicle certification will ensure that
efforts beyond just engine efficiency improvements are undertaken to
reduce GHG emissions and fuel consumption. Some examples include
aerodynamic improvements, rolling resistance reduction, idle reduction
technologies, and vehicle speed limiting systems.
Unlike engine certification however, this certification will be
based on a load-specific basis (g/ton-mile or gal/1,000 ton-mile as
opposed to work-based, or g/bhp-hr). This would take into account the
anticipated vehicle loading that would be experienced in use and the
associated affects on fuel consumption and CO2 emissions.
Vehicle manufacturers will also be required to warrant their products
against emission control system defects, and demonstrate that a service
network is in place to correct any such conditions. The vehicle
manufacturer also bears responsibility in the event that an emission-
related recall is necessary.
(a) Certification Process
In order to obtain a certificate of conformity for the tractor, the
tractor manufacturer will complete a compliance demonstration, showing
that their product meets emission standards as well as other regulatory
requirements. For purposes of this demonstration, vehicles with similar
emission characteristics throughout their useful life are grouped
together in vehicle families, which are defined primarily by the
regulatory subclass of the vehicle. Manufacturers may further classify
vehicles together into sub-families within a given vehicle family for a
given regulatory subcategory. Examples of characteristics that would
define a vehicle sub-family for heavy-duty vehicles are wheel and tire
package, aerodynamic profile, tire rolling resistance, and vehicle
speed limiting system. Compliance with the emission standards (or FEL)
will be determined at the sub-family level.
Under this system, the worst-case vehicle configuration would be
selected based on having the highest fuel consumption, and all other
configurations within the family or sub-family are assumed to have
emissions and fuel consumption at or below the parent model and
therefore in compliance with CO2 emission and fuel
consumption standards. Any vehicle within the family can be subject to
selective enforcement auditing in addition to confirmatory or other
administrator testing.
Vehicle families for Class 7 and 8 combination tractors will
utilize the standardized 12-digit naming convention, as described along
with the engine certification process in Section V.C.1.a, above. As
with engines, each certifying vehicle manufacturer will have a unique
three digit code assigned to them. Currently, there is no 5th digit
(industry sector) code for this class of vehicles, for which we
proposed to use the next available character, ``2.'' The agencies
originally proposed that engine displacement be included in the vehicle
[[Page 57274]]
family name, however the wide range of engines available across most
regulatory subcategories makes this requirement irrelevant and
unnecessary at the time of this rulemaking. Therefore, we are reserving
the remaining characters for California ARB and/or manufacturer use,
such that the result is a unique vehicle family name.
Class 7 and 8 tractors share several common traits, such as the
trailer attachment provisions, number of wheels, and general
construction. However, further inspection reveals key differences
related to GHG emissions. Payloads hauled by Class 7 tractors are
significantly less than Class 8 tractors. In addition, Class 8 vehicles
may have provisions for hoteling (``sleeper cabs''), which results in
an increase in size as well as the addition of comfort features like
power and climate control for use while the truck is parked. Both
segments may have various degrees of roof fairing to provide better
aerodynamic matching to the trailer being pulled. This is a feature
which can help reduce CO2 emissions significantly when
properly matched to the trailer, but can also increase CO2
emissions if improperly matched. Based on these differences, it is
reasonable to expect differences in CO2 emissions, and
therefore these properties form the basis for the final combination
tractor regulatory subcategories.
The various combinations of payload, cab size, and roof profile
result in nine final regulatory subcategories for Class 7 and 8
tractors. Class 7 tractors are divided into three regulatory
subcategories: one for low, one for mid roof height profiles, and one
for high roof profiles. The Class 7 tractors are subject to a 10 year,
185,000 regulatory useful life. Class 8 tractors are split into six
regulatory subcategories reflecting two cab sizes (day and sleeper) and
three roof height profiles (low, mid, and high). All Class 8 tractors
are subject to a 10 year, 435,000 mile regulatory useful life.
(b) Demonstrating Compliance With the Final Standards
(i) CO2 and Fuel Consumption Standards
As discussed at proposal, although whole-vehicle certification may
be ultimately desirable for these vehicles, it is essentially
infeasible to require it now. See 75 FR at 74270-71. Most commenters
agreed, as did the NAS Report. Accordingly, again consistent with the
NAS Report, the agencies have developed a predictive model for
demonstrating compliance with these initial standards for combination
tractors. The agencies will continue to work toward improved methods
for whole vehicle performance characterization, as suggested by some
commenters.
Model
Vehicle modeling will be conducted using the agencies' simulation
model, the GEM, which is described in detail in Chapter 4 of the RIA
with responses to comments in the Summary and Analysis of Comments
Document Section 7. Basically, this model functions by defining a
vehicle configuration and then exercises the model over various drive
cycles. Several initialization files are needed to define a vehicle,
which include mechanical attributes, control algorithms, and driver
inputs. The majority of these inputs will be predetermined by EPA and
NHTSA for the purposes of vehicle certification. The net results from
the GEM are weighted CO2 emissions and fuel consumption
values over the drive cycles. The CO2 emission result will
be used for demonstrating compliance with vehicle CO2
standards while the fuel consumption result will be used for
demonstrating compliance with the fuel consumption standards.
The vehicle manufacturer will be responsible for entering up to
seven inputs relating to the GHG performance of a vehicle configuration
although, depending on the regulatory category, fewer inputs may be
required. These inputs include the regulatory category, coefficient of
drag, steer tire rolling resistance, drive tire rolling resistance,
vehicle speed limit, vehicle weight reduction, and idle reduction
credit. For the GEM inputs relating to aerodynamics, the agencies have
finalized lookup tables for frontal area and coefficient of drag based
on typical performance levels across the industry. Manufacturers are
responsible for assessing the aerodynamic performance of their vehicles
through testing or a combination of testing and modeling. This test
data is then used to select the most appropriate agency-defined bin for
entry into the GEM.
Tire rolling resistance is simply the measured rolling resistance
of the tire in kg per metric ton as described in ISO 28580:2009. This
measured value is expected to be the result of three repeat
measurements of three different tires of a given design, giving a total
of nine data points. It is the average of these nine results that will
be entered into the GEM. Tire rolling resistance may be determined by
either the vehicle or tire manufacturer. In the latter case, a signed
statement from the tire manufacturer confirming testing was conducted
in accordance with this part is required.
As previously described, limiting vehicle speed can have a
significant effect on fuel consumption and we believe that
manufacturers should be recognized for including technology that
facilitates these limits. Also as described, these vehicle speed
limiters are not likely to be a simple device with a fixed top speed.
``Soft top'' limits based on driver behavior and limit expiration dates
(or mileage) are two of the most common scenarios. To properly assess
the GHG and fuel consumption benefits in light of these features, we
are defining the proper methodology for entering the vehicle speed
limit into the GEM. This is based on an equation including terms for
VSL expiration (expiration factor) and VSL soft-top (soft-top factor
and soft-top VSL). The result will be an effective vehicle speed limit
reflecting the expected mileage and time that the limit will be used
for. Additional details regarding this equation and its derivation can
be found in RIA Chapter 2.
For vehicle weight reduction, the agencies are primarily addressing
the reduction of weight and perhaps number of wheels. This reduction is
assessed relative to a standard combination tractor configuration with
dual-wide rear tires with conventional steel wheels. Manufacturers may
elect to use single-wide tires/wheels and/or aluminum (or light-weight
aluminum) wheels or other components to reduce the weight of their
vehicles. The agencies have defined standard weight reduction levels
associated with each weight reduction technology for entry into the
GEM. These reductions are listed in pounds per component, so
manufacturers will need to multiply this reduction by the number of
affected components for their total weight reduction entry into the
GEM.
Manufacturers of sleeper cabs electing to limit idle time to 300
seconds or less can claim a GHG benefit of 5 g/ton-mile and should be
entered into the GEM as such. This benefit cannot be scaled to reflect
shorter or longer allowed idle times, but can be scaled based upon
expiration date.
The agencies will utilize the appropriate engine map reflecting use
of a certified engine in the truck (and will enter the same value even
if an engine family is certified to the temporary percent reduction
alternative standard, in order to evaluate vehicle performance
independently of engine performance.) We believe this approach reduces
the testing burden placed upon manufacturers, yet adequately assesses
[[Page 57275]]
improvements associated with select technologies. The model will be
publicly available and will be found on EPA's Web site.
The agencies reserve the right to independently evaluate the inputs
to the model by way of Administrator testing to validate those model
inputs. The agencies also reserve the right to evaluate vehicle
performance using the inputs to the model provided by the manufacturer
to confirm the performance of the system using GEM. This could include
generating emissions results using the GEM and the inputs as provided
by the manufacturer based on the agency's own runs. This could also
include conducting comparable testing to verify the inputs provided by
the manufacturer. In the event of such testing or evaluation, the
Administrator's results become the official certification results, the
exception being that the manufacturer may continue to use their data as
initially submitted, provided it represents a worst-case condition over
the Administrator's results.
To better facilitate the entry of only the appropriate parameters,
the agencies will provide a graphical user interface in the model for
entering data specific to each vehicle. In addition, EPA will provide a
template that facilitates batch processing of multiple vehicle
configurations within a given family. It is expected that this template
will be submitted to EPA as part of the certification process for each
certified vehicle family or subfamily.
For certification, the model will exercise the vehicle over three
test cycles; one transient and two steady-state. For the transient
test, we are using the heavy heavy-duty diesel truck (HHDDT) transient
test cycle, which was developed by the California Air Resources Board
and West Virginia University to evaluate heavy-duty vehicles. The
transient mode simulates urban, start-stop driving, featuring 1.8 stops
per mile over the 2.9 mile duration. The two steady state test points
are reflective of the tendency for some of these vehicles to operate
for extended periods at highway speeds. Based on data from the EPA's
MOVES database, and common highway speed limits, we are finalizing
these two points to be 55 and 65 mph.
The model will predict the total emissions results from each
configuration using the unique properties entered for each vehicle.
These results are then normalized to the payload and distance covered,
so as to yield a gram/ton-mile result, as well as a fuel consumption
(gal/1,000 ton-mile) result for each test cycle. As with engine and
vehicle testing, certification will be based on the worst-case
configuration within a vehicle family.
The results from all three tests are then combined using weighting
factors, which reflect typical usage patterns. The typical usage
characteristics of Class 7 and 8 tractors with day cabs differ
significantly from Class 8 tractors with sleeper cabs. The trucks with
day cabs tend to operate in more urban areas, have a limited travel
range, and tend to return to a common depot at the end of each shift.
Class 8 sleeper cabs, however, are typically used for long distance
trips which consist of mostly highway driving in an effort to cover the
highest mileage in the shortest time. For these reasons, we proposed
that the cycles are weighted differently for these two groups of
vehicles. For Class 7 and 8 trucks with day cabs, we propose weights of
64%, 17%, and 19% (65 mph, 55 mph, and transient, resp.). For Class 8
with sleeper cabs, the high speed cruise tendency results in final
weights of 86%, 9%, and 5% (65 mph, 55 mph, and transient,
respectively). These final, weighted emission results are compared to
the emission standard to assess compliance. The agencies received
comments regarding the duty cycles and the weighting factors used for
assessing emissions compliance. In making final determination for the
cycle weighting factors, the agencies considered those comments, as
well as the agencies' own data in determining the final weighting
factors and duty cycles to be used for determining emissions
compliance. Demonstration of compliance is also available through the
use of credits generated as part of the Averaging, Banking, and Trading
Program (ABT) as described earlier in this Preamble. Additionally,
compliance may be demonstrated through the use of a Vehicle Speed
Limiter (VSL) and the application of the VSL is accounted for as
another input to the GEM for assessing GHG and fuel consumption
emissions performance.
Durability Testing
As with engine certification, a manufacturer must provide evidence
of compliance through the regulatory useful life of the vehicle.
Factors influencing vehicle-level GHG performance over the life of the
vehicle fall into two basic categories: vehicle attributes and
maintenance items. Each category merits different treatment from the
perspective of assessing useful life compliance, as each has varying
degrees of manufacturer versus owner/operator responsibility.
The category of vehicle attributes generally refers to aerodynamic
features, such as fairings, side-skirts, air dams, air foils, etc.,
which are installed by the manufacturer to reduce aerodynamic drag on
the vehicle. These features have a significant impact on GHG emissions
and their emission reduction properties are assessed early in the
useful life (at the time of certification). These features are expected
to last the full life of the vehicle without becoming detached,
cracked/broken, misaligned, or otherwise not in a state which provides
the original GHG emissions reduction. In the absence of the
aforementioned failure modes, the performance of these features is not
expected to degrade over time and the benefit to reducing GHG emissions
is expected to last for the life of the vehicle with no special
maintenance requirements. To assess useful life compliance, we are
following a design-based approach which will ensure that the
manufacturer has robustly designed these features so they can
reasonably be expected to last the useful life of the vehicle.
The category of maintenance items refers to items that are
replaced, renewed, cleaned, inspected, or otherwise addressed in the
preventative maintenance schedule specified by the vehicle
manufacturer. Replacement items that have a direct influence on GHG
emissions are primarily tires and lubricants. Synthetic engine oil may
be used by vehicle manufacturers to reduce the GHG emissions of their
vehicles. Manufacturers may specify that these fluids be changed
throughout the useful life of the vehicle. If this is the case, the
manufacturer should have a reasonable basis that the owner/operator
will use fluids having the same properties. This may be accomplished by
requiring (in service documentation, labeling, etc.) that only these
fluids can be used as replacements.
If the vehicle remains in its original certified condition
throughout its useful life, it is not believed that GHG emissions would
increase as a result of service accumulation. This is based on the
assumption that as components such as tires wear, the rolling
resistance due to friction is likely to stay the same or decrease. With
all other components remaining equal (tires, aerodynamics, etc), the
overall drag force would stay the same or decrease, thus not
significantly changing GHG emissions at the end of useful life. It is
important to remember however, that this vehicle assessment does not
take into account any engine-related wear affects, which may in fact
increase GHG emissions over time. The agencies received comments from
engine and tractor manufacturers requesting an assigned deterioration
factor of zero for GHG
[[Page 57276]]
emissions. As discussed previously, the agencies will allow the use of
an assigned deterioration factor of zero where appropriate in Phase 1,
however this does not negate the responsibility of the manufacturer to
ensure compliance with the emissions standards throughout the useful
life.
For the reasons explained above, we believe that for the first
phase of this program, it is most important to ensure that the vehicle
remain in its certified configuration throughout the useful life. This
can most effectively be accomplished through engineering analysis and
specific maintenance instructions provided by the vehicle manufacturer.
The vehicle manufacturer would be primarily responsible for providing
engineering analysis demonstrating that vehicle attributes will last
for the full useful life of the vehicle. We anticipate this
demonstration will show that components are constructed of sufficiently
robust materials and design practices so as not to become dysfunctional
under normal operating conditions. For instance, we expect aerodynamic
fairings to be constructed of materials similar to that of the main
body of the vehicle (fiberglass, steel, aluminum, etc) and have
sufficient support and attachment mechanisms so as not to become
detached or broken under normal, on-highway driving.
(ii) EPA's Air Conditioning Leakage Standards
Heavy-duty vehicle air conditioning systems contribute to GHG
emissions in two ways. First, operation of the air conditioning unit
places an accessory load on the engine, which increases fuel
consumption. Second, most modern refrigerants are HFC-based, which have
significant global warming potential (GWP=1430). For heavy-duty
vehicles, the load added by the air conditioning system is
comparatively small compared to other power requirements of the
vehicle. Therefore, we are not targeting any GHG reduction due to
decreased air conditioning usage or higher efficiency A/C units for
this final action. However, refrigerant leakage, even in very small
quantities, can have significant adverse effects on GHG emissions.
Refrigerant leakage is a concern for heavy-duty vehicles, similar
to light-duty vehicles. To address this, EPA is finalizing a design-
based standard for reducing refrigerant leakage from heavy-duty pickups
and vans and combination tractors. This standard is based off using the
best practices for material selection and interface sealing, as
outlined in SAE publication J2727. Based on design criteria in this
publication, a leakage ``score'' can be assessed and an estimated
annual leak rate can be made for the A/C system based on the
refrigerant capacity. (There is no requirement for vocational vehicle
AC leakage for reasons explained at 75 FR 74211.)
At the time of certification, manufacturers will be required to
outline the design of their system, including the specification of
materials and construction methods. They will also need to supply the
leakage score developed using SAE J2727 and the refrigerant volume of
their system to determine the leakage rate per year. If the certifying
manufacturer does not complete installation of the air conditioning
unit, detailed instructions must be provided to the final installer who
ensures that the A/C system is assembled to meet the low-leakage
standards. These instructions will also need to be provided at the time
of certification, and manufacturers must retain all records relating to
auditing of the final assembler.
(c) In-Use Standards
As previously addressed, the drive-cycle dependence of
CO2 emissions makes NTE-based in-use testing impractical. In
addition, we believe the reporting of CO2 data from the
criteria pollutant in-use testing program will be helpful in future
rulemaking efforts. For these reasons, we are not finalizing an NTE-
based in-use testing program for Class 7 and 8 combination tractors for
this program.
In the absence of NTE-based in-use testing, provisions are
necessary for verifying that production vehicles are in the certified
configuration, and remain so throughout the useful life. Perhaps the
easiest method for doing this is to verify the presence of installed
emission-related components. This would basically consist of a vehicle
audit against what is claimed in the certification application. This
includes verifying the presence of aerodynamic components, such as
fairings, side-skirts, and gap-reducers. In addition, the presence of
idle-reduction and speed limiting devices would be verified. The
presence of LRR tires could be verified at the point of initial sale;
however verification at other points throughout the useful life would
be non-enforceable for the reasons mentioned previously.
The category of wear items primarily relates to tires. It is
expected that vehicle manufacturers will equip their trucks with LRR
tires, as they may provide a reduction in GHG emissions. The tire
replacement intervals for this class of vehicle is normally in the
range of 50,000 to 100,000 miles, which means the owner/operator will
be replacing the tires at several points within the useful life of the
vehicle. We believe that as LRR tires become more common on new
equipment, the aftermarket prices of these tires will also decrease.
The primary barrier to the introduction of more fuel efficient tire
designs into the truck market is the upfront costs of tire development
and upfront capital costs for new production machinery (e.g., new tire
molds). Once manufacturers have sunk these costs into new tire designs
and production facilities in order to meet our vehicle standards, there
is little barrier for bringing these better products into the
replacement tire market as well. Our regulations will effectively force
OEMs to make these investments in tire designs and, having done so,
should lead to better tires not only for new vehicles but in the
replacement tire market as well. Along with decreasing tire prices, the
fuel savings realized through use of LRR tires will ideally provide
enough incentive for owner/operators to continue purchasing these
tires. Thus, the inventory modeling in this final action reflects the
continued use of LRR tires through the life of the vehicle.
(2) Enforcement Provisions
As identified above, a significant amount of vehicle-level GHG
reduction is anticipated to come from the use of components
specifically designed to reduce GHG emissions. Examples of such
components include LRR tires, aerodynamic fairings, idle reduction
systems, and vehicle speed limiters. At the time of certification,
vehicle manufacturers will specify which components will be on their
vehicle when introduced into commerce. Based on this list of installed
components, GHG emissions performance of the vehicle will be assessed
using the GEM, and compliance with the family (or subfamily) emissions
limit will need to be shown. Given the ability of manufacturers to
demonstrate compliance through the use of flexibility provisions, as
previously described, that will be taken into account when assessing
the performance for purposes of enforcement. Additionally, should
enforcement action be necessary against systems certified using the
flexibility provisions, credit balances generated through the use of
the provisions may be reduced as a consequence of enforcement activity.
As described in the in-use testing section, it is important to have the
ability to determine if the vehicle is in the certified configuration
at the time of sale.
[[Page 57277]]
Perhaps the most practical and basic method of verifying that a
vehicle is in its certified configuration is through a vehicle
emissions control information label, similar to that used for engines
and light-duty vehicles. We proposed that this label list identifying
features of the vehicle, including model year, vehicle model, certified
engine family, vehicle manufacturer, test group, and GHG emissions
category. In addition, this label would list emission-related
components that an inspector could reference in the event of a field
inspection. Possible examples may include LRR (for LRR tires), ARF
(aerodynamic roof fairing), and ARM (aerodynamic rearview mirrors).
With this information, inspectors could verify the presence and
condition of attributes listed as part of the certified configuration.
Several comments were received voicing concern that the large
number of vehicle permutations within a given vehicle family (and
perhaps vehicle subfamily) would lead to a large number of unique
labels, at significant cost and labor burden to the manufacturer. In
addition, including generic emission control system (EC) identifiers
for vehicles would add a significant burden while providing little
usable information for inspectors. A common example given in the
comments was that simply identifying ``ARF'' for a roof fairing would
not be sufficiently detailed for an inspector to know whether the
correct roof fairing is present. As a result of these concerns,
commenters suggested that vehicle labels only include a minimal amount
of information such as a compliance statement, vehicle family name, and
date of manufacture.
The agencies generally agree with the concerns raised by the
commenters and do not wish to add burdensome and arbitrary labeling
requirements. Concurrently, we also remain committed to giving agency
inspectors adequate tools to ensure a vehicle is in its certification
at least at the time of sale. Therefore, we are finalizing a vehicle
label requirement that includes:
--Compliance statement.
--Vehicle manufacturer.
--Vehicle family (and subfamily).
--Date of manufacture.
--Regulatory subcategory.
--Emission control system identifiers.
To address the concerns from vehicle manufacturers identified
above, particularly related to emission control (EC) identifiers, we
believe a combination of selectable information on the label as well as
a set of EPA-defined EC identifiers will provide a useful, but not
overly burdensome labeling scheme. Since the intent of these
identifiers is to provide inspectors with a means for simply verifying
the presence of a component, we do not believe overly detailed
identifiers are necessary, particularly for tires and aerodynamic
components. For instance, current engine regulations require that
three-way catalysts be identified on engine labels as ``TWC.'' However,
unique details such as catalyst size, loading, location, and even the
number of catalysts are not on the label. In similar fashion, we
believe that identifying tires and aerodynamic components in a general
sense will prove similarly effective in determining if a vehicle has
been built as intended or if it has been modified prior to being
offered for sale.
EPA is requiring that components for which vehicle certification is
dependent upon be identified on the label. This includes limited
aerodynamic components (roof fairings, side skirts, & gap reducers),
vehicle speed limiters, LRR tires, and idle reduction components. If
vehicle certification also depends on the use of innovative or advanced
technologies, this too must be included on the label. The following
identifiers must be used for the emission control label:
Vehicle Speed Limiters
--VSL--Vehicle speed limiter.
--VSLS--``Soft-top'' vehicle speed limiter.
--VSLE--Expiring vehicle speed limiter.
--VSLD--Vehicle speed limiter with both ``soft-top'' and expiration.
Idle Reduction Technology
--IRT5--Engine shutoff after 5 minutes or less of idling.
--IRTE--Expiring engine shutoff.
Tires
--LRRD--Low rolling resistance tires--Drive (CRR of 8.2 kg/metric ton
or less).
--LRRS--Low rolling resistance tires--Steer (CRR of 7.8 kg/metric ton
or less).
--LRRA--Low rolling resistance tires--All (meeting appropriate criteria
for steer & drive).
Aerodynamic Components
--ATS--Aerodynamic side skirt and/or fuel tank fairing.
--ARF--Aerodynamic roof fairing.
--ARFR--Adjustable height aerodynamic roof fairing.
--TGR--Gap reducing fairing (tractor to trailer gap).
Other Components
--ADV--Vehicle includes advanced technology components.
--ADVH--Vehicle includes hybrid powertrain.
--INV--Vehicle includes innovative technology components.
On the vehicle label, several (if not all), available EC
identifiers available in a given subfamily can be listed and the
appropriate selections can be made at the time of assembly based on
each unique vehicle configuration. This practice is common on engine
ECI labels (normally for month/year of manufacture) and selections are
made using a punch, stamp, check mark or other permanent method. This
provides inspectors with the information they need while still
affording flexibility to manufacturers with several unique vehicle
configurations.
At the time of certification, manufacturers will be required to
submit an example of their vehicle emission control label such that EPA
can verify that all critical elements mentioned above are present. In
addition to the label, manufacturers will also need to describe where
the unique vehicle identification number and date of production can be
found on the vehicle (if the date is not present on the label).
The agencies received several comments requesting the inclusion of
consumer-focused labels for heavy-duty vehicles. These requests mainly
involved labels similar to those found on passenger vehicles, allowing
consumers to easily determine and compare fuel efficiency between
vehicles. While we agree that such labels proven to be valuable to
consumers in the light-duty market when shopping and comparing
vehicles, the vast array of in-use drive cycles for heavy-duty vehicles
and significant impact on GHG emissions reduce the intrinsic value of
such fuel efficiency data to consumers. Additionally, many heavy-duty
vehicles are unique and purpose-built which prevents direct comparison
to other vehicles. The agencies may revisit this topic for future
rulemaking activities, however there is no consumer label requirement
in this final action.
(3) Other Certification Provisions
(a) Warranty
Section 207 of the CAA requires manufacturers to warrant their
products to be free from defects that would otherwise cause non-
compliance with emission standards. For purposes of this regulation,
vehicle manufacturers must warrant all components which form the
[[Page 57278]]
basis of the certification to the GHG emission standards. The emission-
related warranty covers vehicle speed limiters, idle shutdown systems,
fairings, hybrid system components, and other components to the extent
such components are included in the certified emission controls. The
emission-related warranty also covers tires and all components whose
failure would increase a vehicle's evaporative emissions (for vehicles
subject to evaporative emission standards, which could include
components which received innovative or advanced technology credits).
In addition, the manufacturer must ensure these components and systems
remain functional for the warranty period defined in 40 CFR part 86 for
the engine used in the vehicle, generally defined as half of the
regulatory useful life. As with heavy-duty engines, manufacturers may
offer a more generous warranty, however the emissions related warranty
may not be shorter than any other warranty offered without charge for
the vehicle. If aftermarket components are installed (unrelated to
emissions performance) which offer a longer warranty, this will not
impact emission related warranty obligations of the vehicle
manufacturer. NHTSA, for this phase of the program, is not finalizing
any warranty requirements relating to its fuel consumption rule.
Several comments were received from vehicle manufacturers voicing
concern that tire warranties should be the responsibility of the tire
manufacturer, not the vehicle manufacturer. It has been, and remains,
EPA policy to hold the certifying entities responsible for warranty
obligations. In this case, tire manufacturers are not certificate
holders and therefore we do not believe it is appropriate for them to
independently warrant their products. The agencies see this as no
different than requiring turbocharger or fuel injector manufacturers to
provide warranties related to heavy-duty engines. However, we do
believe that vehicle manufacturers can and should hold tire
manufacturers responsible for warranty of their products as part of
their sourcing and purchasing agreements. As proposed, tires are only
required to be warranted for the first life of the tires (vehicle
manufacturers are not expected to cover replacement tires). For heavy-
duty pickups and vans and combination tractors, the vehicle
manufacturer is also required to warrant the A/C system against design
or manufacturing defects causing refrigerant leakage in excess of the
standard. The warranty period for the A/C system is identical to the
vehicle warranty period as described above.
At the time of certification, manufacturers must supply a copy of
the warranty statement that will be supplied to the end customer. This
document should outline what is covered under the GHG emissions related
warranty as well as the length of coverage. Customers must also have
clear access to the terms of the warranty, the repair network, and the
process for obtaining warranty service.
(b) Maintenance
Vehicle manufacturers are required to outline maintenance schedules
that ensure their product will remain in compliance with emission
standards throughout the useful life of the vehicle. For heavy-duty
vehicles, such maintenance may include fluid/lubricant service, fairing
adjustments, or service to the GHG emission control system. This
schedule is required to be submitted as part of the application for
certification. Maintenance that is deemed to be critical to ensuring
compliance with emission standards is classified as ``critical
emission-related maintenance.'' Generally, manufacturers are
discouraged from specifying that critical emission-related maintenance
is needed within the regulatory useful life of the engine. However, if
such maintenance is unavoidable, manufacturers must have a reasonable
basis for ensuring it is performed at the correct time. This may be
demonstrated through several methods including survey data indicating
that at least 80 percent of engines receive the required maintenance
in-use or manufacturers may provide the maintenance at no charge to the
user.
Manufacturers will be required to submit the recommended emission-
related maintenance schedule (and other service related documentation)
at the time of certification. This documentation should provide
sufficient detail to allow the owner/operator of the vehicle to
maintain the emission control system in a way that will ensure
functionality as intended. This would include items such as periodic
inspection of aerodynamic components and maintenance unique to advanced
or innovative technologies. In addition, these instructions should
provide the owner/operator with adequate information to replace
consumable components (such as tires) with comparable replacements.
Since low rolling resistance tires are key emission control
components under this program, and will likely require replacement at
multiple points within the life of a vehicle, it is logical to clarify
how this fits into the emission-related maintenance requirements. While
the agencies encourage the exclusive use of LRR tires throughout the
life of heavy-duty vehicles, we recognize that it is inappropriate at
this time to hold vehicle manufacturers responsible for ensuring that
this occurs. Additionally, we believe that owner/operators have a
legitimate financial motivation for ensuring their vehicles are as fuel
efficient as possible, which includes purchasing LRR replacement tires.
However owner/operators may not have a sound knowledge of which
replacement tires to purchase to retain the as-certified fuel
efficiency of their vehicle. To address this concern and in response to
comments from vehicle manufacturers, we are requiring that vehicle
manufacturers supply adequate information in the owner's manual to
allow the owner/operator of the vehicle to purchase tires meeting or
exceeding the rolling resistance performance of the original equipment
tires. We expect that these instructions will be submitted to EPA as
part of the application for certification.
(c) Certification Fees
Similar to engine certification, the agency will assess
certification fees for heavy-duty vehicles. The proceeds from these
fees are used to fund the compliance and certification activities
related to GHG regulation for this regulatory category. In addition to
the certification process, other activities funded by certification
fees include EPA-administered in-use testing, selective enforcement
audits, and confirmatory testing. At this point, the exact costs
associated with the heavy-duty vehicle GHG compliance are not well
known. EPA will assess its compliance program cost associated with this
program and assess the appropriate level of fees. We anticipate that
fees will be applied based on vehicle families, following the light-
duty vehicle approach.
(d) Requirements for Conducting Aerodynamic Assessment Using the
Modified Coastdown Reference Method and Alternative Aerodynamic Methods
The requirements for conducting aerodynamic assessment using the
modified coastdown reference method and alternative aerodynamic methods
includes two key components: adherence to a minimum set of standardized
criteria for each allowed method and submittal of aerodynamic values
and supporting information on an annual basis for the purposes of
certifying vehicles to a particular
[[Page 57279]]
aerodynamic bin as discussed in Section II.
First, we are finalizing requirements for conducting the modified
coastdown reference method and each of the alternative aerodynamic
assessment methods. We will cite approved and published standards and
practices, where feasible, but will define criteria where none exists
or where more current research indicates otherwise. A description of
the requirements for each method is discussed later in this section.
The manufacturer will be required to provide performance data on its
vehicles and attest to the accuracy of the information provided.
Second, to ensure continued compliance, manufacturers will be
required to provide a minimum set of information on an annual basis at
certification time 1) to support continued use of an aerodynamic
assessment method and 2) to assign an aerodynamic value based on the
applicable aerodynamic bins. The information supplied to the agencies
should be based on an approved aerodynamic assessment method and adhere
to the requirements for conducting aerodynamic assessment mentioned
above.
The annual submission may be based on coastdown testing conducted
consistent with the modified protocol detailed in this rulemaking or
with an approved alternative method. The coastdown testing must be
conducted using the Modified Protocol which uses SAE J1263 as a basis
with some elements of SAE J2263 (e.g., post-processing and analysis
techniques), in addition to the modifications developed in response to
industry comments which raised concerns regarding test to test
variability.
In addition to 8 valid coastdown runs in each direction,
manufacturers using in-house test methods should provide an adjustment
factor for relating their drag coefficient based on their in-house
method to the reference method, modified coastdown. The basis for the
adjustment factor is:
Adjustment Factor = Cd coastdown / Cd in-house
For the test article used for certification that differs from the
test article used for reference method testing, determine Cd to use for
aerodynamics bin determination as described below.
Cd certification BIN = Adjustment Factor x
Cdin-house measured
The specific requirements for the test article used in reference
method testing using the coastdown procedures should meet the
requirements listed in Table V-2 through Table V-5, below.
Table V-2--Reference Method Test Vehicle Specifications
------------------------------------------------------------------------
53' air ride dry vans
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Length............................... 53 feet (636 inches) +/- 1 inch.
Width................................ 102 inches +/- 0.5 inches.
Height............................... 102 inches (162 inches or 13
feet, 6 inches (+ 0.0 inch/ -1
inch) from the ground).
Capacity............................. 3800 cubic feet.
Assumed trailer load/capacity........ 45,000 lbs.
Suspension........................... Any (see ``trailer ride height''
below).
Corners.............................. Rounded with a radius of 5.5
inches +/- 0.5 inches.
Bogie/Rear Axle Position............. Tandem axle (std), 146 inches +/-
3.0 inches from rear axle
centerline to rear of trailer.
Set to California position.
Skin................................. Generally smooth with flush
rivets.
Scuff band........................... Generally smooth, flush with
sides (protruding <= \1/8\
inch).
Wheels............................... 22.5 inches. Duals. Std mudflaps.
Doors................................ Swing doors.
Undercarriage/Landing Gear........... Std landing gear, no storage
boxes, no tire storage, 105
inches +/- 4.0 inches from
centerline of king pin to
centerline of landing gear.
Underride Guard...................... Equipped in accordance with 49
CFR 393.86.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tires for the Standard Trailer and the Tractor:
a. Size: 295/75R22.5 or 275/80R22.5.
b. CRR <5.1 kg/metric ton (In addition, the CRR for trailer tires in
GEM should be updated to 5.0 kg/metric ton.).
c. Broken in per section 8.1 of SAE J1263.
d. Pressure per section 8.5 of SAE J1263.
e. No uneven wear.
f. No re-treads.
g. Should these tires or appropriate Smart Way tires not be
available, the Administrator testing may include tires used by the
manufacturer for certification.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Test Conditions:
1. Tractor-trailer gap: 45 inches +/- 2.0 inches.
2. King pin setting: 36 inches +/- 0.5 inches from front of trailer
to king pin center line.
3. Trailer ride height: 115 inches +/- 1.0 inches from top of
trailer to fifth wheel plate, measured at the front of the trailer,
and set within trailer height boundary from ground as described
above.
4. Mudflaps: Positioned immediately following wheels of last axle.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table V-3--Reference Method Coastdown Test Track Condition
Specifications
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parameter Range
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coastdown speed range.................. 70 mph to 15 mph.
Average wind speed at the test site <10 mph.
(for each run in each direction).
Maximum wind speed (for each run in <12.3 mph.
each direction).
Average cross wind speed (for each run <5 mph.
in each direction at the site).
All valid coastdown runs in one Within 2 standard deviations of
direction. the other valid coastdown runs
in that same direction.
[[Page 57280]]
Grade of the test track................ <0.02% or account for the
impact of gravity as described
in SAE J2263 Equation 6.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table V-4--Standard Tanker Trailer for Special Testing
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tanker
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Length............................... 42 feet 1 foot,
overall.
40 feet 1 foot,
tank.
Width................................ 96 inches 2.
Height............................... 140 inches (overall, from
ground).
Capacity............................. 7,000 gallons.
Suspension........................... Any (see ``trailer ride height''
below).
Tank................................. Generally cylindrical with
rounded ends.
Bogie................................ Tandem axle (std). Set to
furthest rear position.
Skin................................. Generally smooth.
Structures........................... (1) Centered, manhole (20 inch
opening), (1) ladder generally
centered on side, (1) walkway
(extends lengthwise).
Wheels............................... 24.5 inches. Duals.
Tanker Operation..................... Empty.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table V-5--Standard Flatbed Reference Trailer for Special Testing
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flatbed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Length............................... 53 feet.
Width................................ 102 inches.
Flatbed Deck Heights................. Front: 60 inches \1/
2\ inch.
Rear: 55 inches \1/
2\ inch.
Wheels/Tires......................... 22.5 inch diameter tire with
steel or aluminum wheels.
Bogie................................ Tandem axles, may be in
``spread'' configuration up to
10 feet 2 inches.
Air suspension.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Load Profile: 25 inches from the centerline to either side of the load;
Mounted 4.5 inches above the deck.
Load height 31.5 inches above the load support.
Regardless of the method, all testing using high-roof sleepers
should be performed with a tractor-trailer combination to mimic real
world usage. Accordingly, it is important to match the type of tractor
with the correct trailer. Although, as discussed elsewhere in this
rulemaking, the correct tractor-trailer combination is not always
present or tractor-only operation may occur, the majority of operation
in the real world involves correctly matched tractor-trailer
combinations and we will attempt to reflect that here. Therefore, when
performing an aerodynamic assessment for a Class 7 and 8 tractor with a
high roof, a standard box trailer must be used.
The definitions of the standard trailer are further detailed in
Sec. 1037.501(g). This ensures consistency and continuity in the
aerodynamic assessments, and maintains the overlap with real world
operation. As mid-roof and low-roof coastdown testing will be conducted
without the trailer if the aerodynamic bin is not extrapolated from a
high-roof version, then testing using other methods should also be
conducted based on the tractor alone.
(e) Standardized Criteria for Aerodynamic Assessment Methods
(i) Coastdown Procedure Requirements
For coastdown testing, the test runs should be conducted in a
manner consistent with SAE J1263 with additional modifications as
described in the 40 CFR part 1066, subpart C, and in Chapter 3 of the
RIA using the mixed model analysis method. Since the coastdown
procedure is the primary aerodynamic assessment method, the
manufacturer would be required to conduct the coastdown procedure
according to the requirements in this final action and supply the
following information to the agency for approval:
Facility information: name and location, description and/
or background/history, equipment and capability, track and facility
elevation, track grade and track size/length;
Test conditions for each test result including date and
time, wind speed and direction, ambient temperature and humidity,
vehicle speed, driving distance, manufacturer name, test vehicle/model
type, model year, applicable model engine family, tire type and rolling
resistance, test weight and driver name(s) and/or ID(s);
Average Cd result as calculated in 40 CFR
1037.520(b) from valid tests including, at a minimum, ten valid test
results, with no maximum number, standard deviation, calculated error
and error bands, and total number of tests, including number of voided
or invalid tests.
(ii) Wind Tunnel Testing Requirements
Wind tunnel testing would conform to the following procedures and
modifications, where applicable, including:
SAE J1252, ``SAE WIND TUNNEL TEST PROCEDURE FOR TRUCKS AND
BUSES'' (July 1981) shall be followed with the following exceptions:
section 5.2 is modified to specify a minimum Reynold's number
(Remin) of 1.0x10\6\ and your model frontal area at zero yaw
angle may exceed the recommended 5 percent of the active test section
area, provided it does not exceed 25 percent;
[[Page 57281]]
section 6.0 is modified to add the requirement that, for reduced-scale
wind tunnel testing, a one-eighth (\1/8\th) or larger scale model of a
heavy-duty tractor and trailer must be used; for reduced-scale wind
tunnel testing, section 6.1 is modified to add the requirement that the
model be of sufficient design to simulate airflow through the radiator
inlet grill and across an engine geometry representative of those
commonly in your test vehicle.;
J1594, ``VEHICLE AERODYNAMICS TERMINOLOGY'' (December
1994); and
J2071, ``AERODYNAMIC TESTING OF ROAD VEHICLES--OPEN THROAT
WIND TUNNEL ADJUSTMENT'' (June 1994).
In addition, the wind tunnel used for aerodynamic assessment would
be a recognized facility by the Subsonic Aerodynamic Testing
Association. If your wind tunnel is not capable of testing in
accordance with these EPA modified SAE procedures, you may request EPA
approval to use this wind tunnel and must demonstrate that your
alternate test procedures produce data sufficiently accurate for
compliance. This must be approved by EPA prior to method validation and
correlation factor development. We are finalizing the provisions that
manufacturers that perform wind tunnel testing do so based on the
requirements detailed in this action. The wind tunnel tests should be
conducted at a zero yaw angle and, if so equipped, utilizing the
moving/rolling floor (i.e., the moving/rolling floor should be on
during the test as opposed to static) for comparison to the coastdown
procedure, which corrects to a zero yaw angle for the oncoming wind.
However, manufacturers may be required to test at yaw angles other than
zero (e.g., positive and negative six) if they voluntarily seek to
improve their GHG emissions score for a given model using additional
yaw sweep.
The manufacturer is required to supply the following:
Facility information: Name and location, description and
background/history, layout, wind tunnel type, diagram of wind tunnel
layout, structural and material construction;
Wind tunnel design details: Corner turning vane type and
material, air settling, mesh screen specification, air straightening
method, tunnel volume, surface area, average duct area, and circuit
length;
Wind tunnel flow quality: Temperature control and
uniformity, airflow quality, minimum airflow velocity, flow uniformity,
angularity and stability, static pressure variation, turbulence
intensity, airflow acceleration and deceleration times, test duration
flow quality, and overall airflow quality achievement;
Test/Working section information: Test section type (e.g.,
open, closed, adaptive wall) and shape (e.g., circular, square, oval),
length, contraction ratio, maximum air velocity, maximum dynamic
pressure, nozzle width and height, plenum dimensions and net volume,
maximum allowed model scale, maximum model height above road, strut
movement rate (if applicable), model support, primary boundary layer
slot, boundary layer elimination method and photos and diagrams of the
test section;
Fan section description: Fan type, diameter, power,
maximum rotational speed, maximum top speed, support type, mechanical
drive, sectional total weight;
Data acquisition and control (where applicable):
Acquisition type, motor control, tunnel control, model balance, model
pressure measurement, wheel drag balances, wing/body panel balances,
and model exhaust simulation;
Moving ground plane or Rolling Road (if applicable):
Construction and material, yaw table and range, moving ground length
and width, belt type, maximum belt speed, belt suction mechanism,
platen instrumentation, temperature control, and steering; and
Facility correction factors and purpose.
(iii) CFD Requirements
Currently, there is no existing standard, protocol or methodology
governing the use of CFD. Therefore, we are establishing a minimum set
of criteria based on today's practices and coupling the use of CFD with
empirical measurements from coastdown and, for gaining innovative
technology credits, wind tunnel procedures. Since there are primarily
two-types of CFD software code, Navier-Stokes based and Lattice-
Boltzman based, we are outlining two sets of criteria to address both
types. Therefore, the agencies are requiring that manufacturers use
commercially-available CFD software code with a turbulence model
included or available. Further details and criteria for each type of
commercially-available CFD software code follows immediately and
general criteria for all CFD analysis are subsequently described.
For Navier-Stokes based CFD code, manufacturers must perform an
unstructured, time-accurate analysis using a mesh grid size with total
volume element count of at least fifty million cells of hexahedral and/
or polyhedral mesh cell shape, surface elements representing the
geometry consisting of no less than six million elements and a near
wall cell size corresponding to a y+ value of less than three hundred
with the smallest cell sizes applied to local regions of the tractor
and trailer in areas of high flow gradients and smaller geometry
features. Navier-Stokes-based analysis should be performed with a
turbulence model (e.g., k-epsilon (k-[egr]), shear stress transport k-
omega (SST k-[ohgr]) or other commercially-accepted method) and mesh
deformation (if applicable) enabled with boundary layer resolution of
+/- 95 percent. Finally, Navier-Stokes based CFD analysis for the
purposes of determining the Cd should be performed once result
convergence is achieved. Manufacturers should demonstrate convergence
by supplying multiple, successive convergence values.
For Lattice-Boltzman based CFD code, manufacturers must perform an
unstructured, time-accurate analysis using a mesh grid size with total
number of volume elements of at least fifty million with a near wall
cell size of no greater than six millimeters on local regions of the
tractor and trailer in areas of high flow gradients and smaller
geometry features, with cell sizes in other areas of the mesh grid
starting at twelve millimeters and increasing in size from this value
as the distance from the tractor-trailer model increases.
In general for CFD, all analysis should be conducted using the
following conditions: A tractor-trailer combination using the
manufacturer's tractor and the trailer according to the trailer
specifications in this regulation, an environment with a blockage ratio
of less than or equal to 0.2 percent to simulate open road conditions,
a zero degree yaw angle between the oncoming wind and the tractor-
trailer combination, ambient conditions consistent with the modified
coastdown test procedures outlined in this regulation, open grill with
representative back pressures based on data from the tractor model,
turbulence model and mesh deformation enabled (if applicable), and
tires and ground plane in motion consistent with and simulating a
vehicle moving in the forward direction of travel. For any CFD
analysis, the smallest cell size should be applied to local regions on
the tractor and trailer in areas of high flow gradients and smaller
geometry features (e.g., the a-pillar, mirror, visor, grille and
accessories, trailer leading and trailing edges, rear bogey, tires,
tractor-trailer gap).
Finally, with administrator approval, a manufacturer may request
and
[[Page 57282]]
perform CFD analysis using parameters and criteria other than stated
above if the manufacturer can demonstrate that the conditions above are
not feasible (e.g., insufficient computing power to conduct such
analysis, inordinate length of time to conduct analysis, equivalent
flow characteristics with more feasible criteria/parameters) or
improved criteria may yield better results (e.g., different mesh cell
shape and size). A manufacturer must provide data and information that
demonstrates that their parameters/criteria will provide a sufficient
level of detail to yield an accurate analysis including comparison of
key characteristics between the manufacturer's criteria/parameters and
those stated above (e.g., pressure profiles, drag build-up, and/or
turbulent/laminar flow at key points on the front of the tractor and/or
over the length of the tractor-trailer combination).
Alternative Aerodynamic Method Comparison to the Coastdown Test
Procedure Reference Method
If a manufacturer uses any alternative aerodynamic method, or any
method other than the coastdown reference method, the manufacturer
would have to provide a comparison to the coastdown test procedure
reference method. The manufacturer would be required to perform the
alternative aerodynamic method and the coastdown test procedure
reference method on the same model and compare the Cd results. The
alternative aerodynamic method, or any other method using good
engineering judgment, and the coastdown test procedure reference method
must be conducted under similar test conditions and adhere to the
criteria discussed above for each aerodynamic assessment method.
This demonstration would be performed in the initial year of rule
implementation and would require agency review and approval prior to
use of the alternative aerodynamic method in future years and for other
models.
The comparison would occur on one model of the manufacturer's
highest sales volume, Class 8, high roof, sleeper cab family with a
full aerodynamics package, either equipped at the factory or sold
through a dealer specifically for that model as an OEM part. If the
manufacturer does not have such a model, the manufacturer may select a
comparable model in that family or a model from another highest sales
volume family in the manufacturer's fleet.
For the comparison, the manufacturer would be required to provide
information on the test conditions for each test result including but
not limited to: test date and time, wind speed (if applicable),
temperature, humidity, manufacturer and model, model year, applicable
model engine family, tire type and rolling resistance for actual model,
model test weight, equivalent vehicle test weight, actual and simulated
or equivalent vehicle speed, Reynolds number (if applicable), yaw angle
(if applicable), blockage ratio, either calculated or measured (if
applicable), model mounting (if applicable), model geometry, body axis
force and moments (if applicable), total test duration, test vehicle
and type and operator name(s) and/or ID(s). In addition, the
manufacturer must provide the Cd results from valid tests.
Once the comparison is performed in the initial year, the
manufacturer is required to perform this comparison every three years
on the highest sales volume, Class 8, high roof, sleeper cab family
equipped with a full aerodynamics package unless any or all of the
following occurs: the Class 8, high roof, sleeper cab family/model used
for the original comparison is no longer commercially available, and/or
significantly redesigned, with the meaning of ``significantly'' based
on good engineering judgment, a fundamental change is made to the
current alternative aerodynamic method (e.g., change from facility A to
facility B as a source), and/or the alternative aerodynamic method is
changed to something other than the coastdown test procedure reference
method (e.g., switch to wind tunnel testing from coastdown, change wind
tunnel testing facilities or CFD software code). However, the agency
reserves the right and has the authority under the Clean Air Act (CAA)
to request and have the manufacturer perform a comparison in any year
and on any model that the manufacturer has certified.
Finally, the data generated for the purpose of this comparison can
be used in annual certification for that model, also called the base
model, and for determining Cd for other models and/or sub-families in
the base model family, or other families in the manufacturer's fleet.
Annual Certification Data Submittal for Aerodynamic Assessment
For each model in the manufacturer's fleet, the manufacturer is
required to supply aerodynamic information on an annual basis to the
agencies in their certification application. Once the manufacturer has
performed the coastdown test procedure or the comparison for an
alternative aerodynamic method, the aerodynamic assessment method can
be used to generate Cd values for all models the
manufacturer plans to certify and introduce into commerce. For each
model, the manufacturer would determine a predicted aerodynamic drag
(Cd times the frontal area, A). This reduces burden on the
manufacturer to perform aerodynamic assessment but provides data for
all the models in a manufacturer's fleet. If a manufacturer has
previously performed aerodynamic assessment on the other models, the
manufacturer may submit an experimental Cd in lieu of a
predicted Cd.
The aerodynamic assessment data will be used in one of two ways:
the manufacturer will use the Cd (times A) values to
determine the correct GEM input according to agency-defined tables, or
the agencies will use the manufacturer's input data into the model and
assign a GHG value/score.
Since the agencies may input the data into the model, manufacturers
are required to provide the information from the coastdown test
procedure, alternative aerodynamic method or the method comparison
described above for annual certification. In addition, the manufacturer
would supply manufacturer fleet information to the agency for annual
certification purposes along with the acceptance demonstration
parameters: manufacturer name, model year, model line (if different
than manufacturer name), model name, engine family, engine
displacement, transmission name and type, number of axles, axle ratio,
vehicle dimensions, including frontal area, predicted or measured
coefficient of drag, assumptions used in developing the predicted or
measured Cd, justification for carry-across of aerodynamic
assessment data, photos of the model line-up, if available, and model
applications and usage options.
Finally, the agencies reserve the right to request that a
manufacturer generate or provide additional data, prior to
certification, to support and receive annual certification approval.
(f) Aerodynamic Validation and Compliance Audit
The agencies reserve the right to perform aerodynamic validation
and compliance audit of the manufacturer's aerodynamic results. The
agencies may conduct a vehicle confirmatory evaluation using a vehicle
recruited from the in-use fleet and performing the reference method,
coastdown test procedures, either at the manufacturer's facility or an
independent facility using the agencies equipment and tools. If there
is a discrepancy between the
[[Page 57283]]
manufacturer's data submitted for certification and the agencies'
validation results, the agency may perform a full audit of the
manufacturer's source data and aerodynamic assessment methods and tools
used by the manufacturer to produce the data. The manufacturer would be
required to make all equipment and tools available to the agencies to
conduct the full audit.
Based on this audit, the agencies may require the manufacturer to
make changes to their aerodynamic assessment methods ranging from minor
adjustments to method criteria to switching allowed aerodynamic
assessment methods. For the purposes of aerodynamic validation and
compliance audit, manufacturers will be allowed an additional
compliance margin of one bin from the certified bin for the model
evaluated (e.g., if a manufacturer certifies a model to Bin IV, the
results of the aerodynamic valid/compliance audit must fall within the
next highest bin, in this case Bin III). In addition, the agencies may
select any model from the manufacturer's fleet/vehicle family to
perform the aerodynamic validation and compliance.
(g) Aerodynamic Bin Category Adjustment Using Yaw Sweep Information
As discussed in Section II.B.2, the agencies are finalizing
aerodynamic drag values which represent zero degree yaw (i.e.,
representing wind from directly in front of the vehicle, not from the
side). We recognize that wind conditions, most notably wind direction,
have a greater impact on real world CO2 emissions and fuel
consumption of heavy-duty trucks than of light-duty vehicles. To
provide additional incentive for manufacturers using aerodynamic
techniques (i.e., techniques that use assessment at yaw angles more or
less than zero degrees to capture the influence of side winds and
calculate wind average drag coefficient), the agencies are defining an
approach to allow manufacturers to account for improved aerodynamic
performance in crosswind conditions similar to those experienced by
vehicles in use. If a manufacturer can benefit from having a model that
performs in regimes or conditions other than the scope of the test
parameters in this rulemaking, this creates an incentive for the entire
industry. As a result, we are allowing manufacturers to use the
coefficient of drag values at positive six, negative six, and zero
degrees yaw to improve their GHG score.
The Yaw Sweep Adjustment would be determined using the following
steps and equations:
Step 1: Determine your aero method adjustment factor as
described above in paragraph (d) of this section and using the
equation;
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15SE11.005
Step 2: Apply the aerodynamic method adjustment factor to
the positive six, negative six and zero degrees yaw Cd values for that
model using the equation;
Cd Adjusted = Adjustment Factor x
Cd(+6 degrees/-6 degrees/0 degrees, model)
Step 3: Calculate your Adjusted zero yaw Cd*A
Adjusted Zero Yaw Cd*A(model) = adjusted +/- Six Yaw
Cd(average,model) *A(model) x Zero Yaw Cd*A(industry
average) +/-Six Yaw Cd(average)*A(industry average)
Step 4: Use the adjusted zero yaw Cd*A for the model to
determine appropriate bin and the associated Cd input for the GEM to
determine your Yaw Sweep Adjusted GHG score.
Essentially, this equation becomes y = x * C where y is the
adjusted zero yaw Cd, x is the corrected average of the +/- six degree
yaw Cds for the manufacturer's model, and C is a constant value based
on the ratio of the zero yaw Cd and WACd ratio for the industry. The
current default value for this industry baseline ratio for this is
rulemaking is 0.8065 based on the Cd values of current Class 8, high-
roof, aero sleeper cab models in the fleet. The agencies may
periodically review this industry baseline ratio and adjust it, if
necessary, with notification to the industry.
The yaw sweep adjustment described above only applies to Class 7,
high-roof day cab and Class 8 high-roof day or sleeper cab tractors and
a manufacturer seeking yaw sweep adjustment must use an approved,
alternative aerodynamic method to generate the yaw sweep data.
Manufacturers may use a more yaw sweep angles (e.g., zero, +/- 1, 3, 6,
9) for their yaw sweep adjustment and, in this case, must calculate the
wind-average Cd (WACd) according to SAE J1252 and use this value in
lieu of the average of the +/- six degree yaw Cds in the equations
above.
As stated elsewhere in this regulation, the Agencies reserve the
right to review a manufacturer's proposed adjustment and discuss the
proposed adjustment with the manufacturer. The Agencies will notify the
manufacturer of the need for a review and the manufacturer must provide
all information requested by the Agencies to support the review and
subsequent discussion(s). The agencies also reserve the right to deny
aerodynamic bin category adjustment independent or as a result of the
review/discussions with the manufacturer. In such case, the Agencies
will notify the manufacturer of denial prior to certification to ensure
the proper inputs to the GEM are used.
(4) Compliance Reports
(a) Early Model Year Data
The regulatory text of the NPRM included specifications for
manufacturers to submit pre-certification compliance reports for each
of a manufacturer's fleet of heavy-duty tractors. Navistar and Volvo
commented that the requirements specified in the NHTSA pre-
certification reports are overbroad and should be eliminated. The pre-
certification reports included requirements for manufactures to submit
a wide variety of information on these vehicles. The variety of
information was believed to be necessary given that these vehicles had
no previous compliance information for meeting fuel efficiency and
emission standards and the agencies wanted to ensure that enough
information was obtain to ensure sufficient compliance with the
program. The agencies have since reviewed the level of detail required
in the precertification reports and are in agreement with commenters
that the required information may be overly broad for compliance
purposes and given that this is the first time these manufacturers have
been regulated, the level of information required may not be available
until subsequent model years. Therefore, as discussed previously for
pickup trucks and vans, the agencies have removed the requirement for
[[Page 57284]]
manufactures to submit pre-certification compliances reports for these
classes of vehicles.
As an alternative to receiving early compliance model year
information in the precertification reports, the agencies have decided
to use manufacturer's application for certificates of conformity to
obtain early model estimates. Currently, the applications for
certificates are not required to include the fuel consumption
information required by NHTSA. Therefore, the agencies are adopting
provisions in the final rules for manufacturers to provide emission and
equivalent fuel consumption estimates in the manufacturer's
applications for certification. The agencies will treat information
submitted in the applications as a manufacturer's demonstration of
providing early compliance information, similar to the pre-model year
report submitted for heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans. The final rule
establishes a harmonized approach by which manufacturers will submit
applications through an EPA-administered database, such as the Verify
system, as the single point of entry for all information required for
this national program and both agencies will have access to the
information. If by model year 2012, the agencies are not prepared to
receive information through the EPA Verify database system,
manufacturers are expected to submit written applications to the
agencies. This approach should streamline this process and reduce
industry burden and provide sufficient information for the agencies to
carry out their early compliance activities.
(b) Final Reports
The NPRM proposed for manufacturers participating in the ABT
program to provide EOY and final reports. The EOY reports for the ABT
program were required to be submitted by manufacturers no later than 90
days after the calendar year and final report no later than 270 days
after the calendar year.\318\ Manufacturers not participating in the
ABT program were required to provide an EOY report within 45 days after
the calendar year but no final reports were required. The final ABT
report due was established coinciding with EPA's existing criteria
pollutant report for heavy-duty engines. The EOY report was required in
order to receive preliminary final estimates and identifies
manufacturers that might have a credit deficit for the given model
year. Manufacturers with a credit surplus at the end of each model
could receive a waiver from providing EOY reports. As proposed, the
remaining manufacturers were required to submit reports to EPA and send
copies of those reports to NHTSA with equivalent fuel consumption
values.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\318\ Corresponding to the compliance model year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the NPRM, commenters recommended collecting
additional data. One commenter requested collecting information to
develop and refine test cycles that more accurately reflect actual
driving cycles for medium- and heavy-duty trucks. Several other
commenters (ACEE, Eaton, CALSTART, NRDC and UCS) recommended collecting
advanced data on in-service vehicles and that the collected data be
analyzed and characterized for each vocational application, especially
for hybrid vehicles, in a cooperative government and industry effort.
Commenters (ACEE, DTNA, NRGDC, UCS and Volvo) also requested that the
agency's data collection ensure to include information on actual
vehicle configurations sold in the fleet.
Many commenters argued against the burden placed upon the industry
in meeting the agencies' proposed required reporting provisions. One
commenter argued against providing actual production information due to
the variability that exists in building heavy-duty vehicles and in the
influence of changing fleet interest each year indicating that only
estimated information should have to be provided. Commenters (Volvo and
Navistar) generally objected stating that the agency requirements in
its reports are both unnecessary and overly burdensome. Comments in
response to the NPRM requested that for manufacturers not using ABT
provisions, the EOY report due 45 days after the end of the calendar
year should be combined with the ABT report due 90 days after the same
model year. Commenters also requested that the exempted off-road
vehicle report be consolidated with the EOY report. Other concerns
raised by commenters were for the agencies to remove any differences in
reporting provisions and implement a single uniform reporting template
that manufacturers can submit to both agencies.
One commenter (Volvo) requested that the agencies simplify the
reporting requirements for vehicle configurations in both the EOY and
final reports, commenting that the proposal as outlined was extremely
burdensome to vehicle manufacturers. The NPRM regulation stated that
the manufacturer must identify each distinguishable vehicle
configuration in the vehicle family or sub-family and identification of
FELs for each subfamily. The regulation calls for reporting of results
and modeling inputs for each subfamily. The commenter believed that the
burden of meeting these requirements for the vast number of families/
subfamilies is substantial and unjustified. For this commenter, there
is a potential for almost 45 million sub-families in the vocational and
tractor categories. This approach should reduce the number of vehicle
families to an amount that is suitable for reporting. The BlueGreen
Alliance and ACEEE also requested the agencies to implement a program
as part of the final rule to collect data, actual vehicle
configurations sold and their performance as estimated by simulation
modeling, which will provide information required to develop a full-
vehicle program in the future.
For the final rules, the agencies are requiring EOY and final
reports, as proposed. However, the agencies will consolidate the
reporting as requested by comments and is requiring equivalent fuel
consumption information for all reports submitted to EPA. The final
rules establish a harmonized approach by which manufacturers will
submit reports through an EPA-administered database, such as the Verify
system, as the single point of entry for all information required for
this national program and both agencies will have access to the
information. If by model year 2012, the agencies are not prepared to
receive information through the EPA Verify database system,
manufacturers are expected to submit written reports to the agencies.
The agencies are also combining the EOY reports for manufacturers not
using ABT provisions with other EOY reports and are requiring a
submission date 90 days after the calendar year. The agencies view the
adopted requirements in the final rules for EOY and final reports will
provide sufficient data requests to satisfy these requests. The
agencies also agree with Volvo's concerns and have adopted a new
classification system for selecting vehicle families as described
elsewhere in this section. A summary of the required information in the
final rules for EOY and final reports is as follows:
Vehicle family designation and averaging set.
Vehicle emissions and fuel consumption standards including
any alternative standards used.
Vehicle family FELs.
Final production volumes.
Certified test cycles.
Useful life values for vehicle families.
[[Page 57285]]
A credit plan identifying the manufacturers actual credit
balances, credit flexibilities, credit trades and a credit deficit plan
if needed demonstrating how it plans to resolve any credit deficits
that might occur for a model year within a period of up to three model
years after that deficit has occurred.
A plan describing the vehicles that were exempted such as
for off-road or small business purposes.
A plan describing any alternative fueled vehicles that
were produced for the model year identifying the approaches used to
determinate compliance and the production volumes.
(c) Additional Required Information
Throughout the model year, manufacturers may be required to report
various submissions to the agencies to comply with various aspects of
the rules. These requests have differing criteria for submission and
approval. Table V-6 below provides a summary of the types of
submission, required submission dates and the EPA and NHTSA regulations
that apply. The agencies will review and grant requests considering the
timeliness of the submissions and the completeness of the requests.
Table V-6--Summary of Required Information for Compliance
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA
Submission Applies to Required submissions EPA regulation regulation
date reference reference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small business exemptions......... Vehicle manufacturers Before introducing Sec. Sec. 535.8
meeting the Small any excluded vehicle 1037.150
Business into U.S. commerce.
Administration (SBA)
size criteria of a
small business as
described in 13 CFR
121.201.
Incentives for early introduction. The provisions apply EPA must be notified Sec. Sec. 535.8
with respect to before the 1037.150
tractors and manufacturer submits
vocational vehicles its applications for
produced in model certificates of
years before 2014. conformity.
Voluntary compliance for NHTSA Vehicle manufacturers NHSAT must be NA Sec. 535.8
standards. seeking early notified before the
compliance in model manufacturer submits
years 2014 to 2016. its applications for
certificates of
conformity.
Approval of alternate methods to Tractors meeting Sec. EPA must be notified Sec. Sec. 535.8
determine drag coefficients. 1037.106. before the 1037.150
manufacturer submits
its applications for
certificates of
conformity.
Off-road exemption................ Manufacturers wanting EPA must be notified Sec. Sec. 535.8
to exclude tractors before the 1037.150
from vehicle manufacturer submits
standards. its applications for
certificates of
conformity.
Vocational Tractor................ Manufacturers wanting EPA must be notified Sec. Sec. 535.8
to reclassify before the 1037.150
tractor as manufacturer submits
vocational tractors it applications for
making them certificates of
applicable to conformity.
vocational vehicle
standards.
Exemption from EOY reports........ Manufactures with 90-days after the Sec. Sec. 535.8
surplus credits at calendar year ends. 1037.730
the end of the model
year.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Class 2b-8 Vocational Vehicles
(1) Final Compliance Approach
Like Class 7 and 8 combination tractors, heavy-duty vocational
vehicles will be required to have both engine and chassis certificates
of conformity. As discussed in the engine certification section,
engines that will be used in vocational vehicles would need to be
certified using the heavy-duty FTP cycle for GHG pollutants and show
compliance through the useful life of the engine. This certification is
in addition to the current requirements for obtaining a certificate of
conformity for criteria pollutant emissions.
For this final action, the majority of the GHG reduction for
vocational vehicles is expected to come from the use of LRR tires as
well as increased utilization of hybrid powertrain systems. Other
technologies such as aerodynamic improvements and vehicle speed
limiting systems are not as relevant for this class of vehicles, since
the typical duty cycle is much more urban, consisting of lower speeds
and frequent stopping. Idle reduction strategies are expected to be
encompassed by hybrid technology, which we anticipate will ultimately
handle PTO operation as well. Therefore, for this final action,
certification of heavy-duty vocational vehicles with conventional
powertrains will focus on quantifying GHG benefits due to the use of
LRR tires through the GEM.
(a) Certification Process
Vehicles will be divided into vehicle families for purposes of
certification. As with Class 7 and 8 combination tractors, these are
groups of vehicles within a given regulatory subcategory that are
expected to share common emission characteristics. Vocational vehicle
regulatory subcategories share the same structure as those used for
heavy-duty engine criteria pollutant certification and are based on
GVWR. This includes light-heavy (LHD) with a GVWR at or below 19,500
pounds, medium-heavy (MHD) with a GVWR above 19,500 pounds and at or
below 33,000 pounds, and heavy-heavy (HHD) with a GVWR above 33,000
pounds. We anticipate manufacturers will have one vehicle family per
regulatory subcategory, however hybrid vehicles will need to be
separated into additional unique vehicle families. Manufacturers may
also subdivide families into sub-families if GHG emissions performance
is expected to change significantly within the vehicle family. As with
Class 7 and 8 combination tractors, we anticipate using the
standardized 12-digit naming convention to identify vocational vehicle
families. As with engines and Class 7 and 8 combination tractors, each
certifying vehicle manufacturer would have a unique three digit code
assigned to them. Currently, there is no 5th digit (industry sector)
code for this class of vehicles and EPA will issue an update to the
current guidance explaining which character(s) should be used for
vocational vehicles. The agencies originally proposed that engine
displacement be included in the vehicle family name, however the wide
range of engines available across most regulatory
[[Page 57286]]
subcategories makes this requirement irrelevant and unnecessary at the
time of this rulemaking. Therefore, we are reserving the remaining
characters for California ARB and/or manufacturer use, such that the
result is a unique vehicle family name.
Each vehicle family must demonstrate compliance with emission
standards using the GEM. GEM inputs for conventional (i.e. non-hybrid)
vocational vehicles primarily involves entering tire rolling resistance
information. Additional provisions are available for certification of
hybrid vehicles or vehicles using other advanced or innovative
technologies, as detailed in Section IV. If the vehicle family consists
of multiple configurations, only results from the worst-case
configuration are necessary for certification in addition to an
engineering evaluation demonstrating that the modeled configuration
indeed reflects the worst-case configuration. If the vehicle family is
divided into subfamilies, unique GEM results are required for at least
one configuration per subfamily.
The agencies have received comments from engine manufacturers,
truck manufacturers, and hybrid system manufacturers raising concerns
regarding the duty cycles and the weighting factors proposed for
evaluating transient applications. The agencies proposed three methods
for evaluating hybrid system performance in an effort to generate
credits. The proposed duty cycles considered for the proposal will
continue to be used with this final action. The Agencies proposed a
transient duty cycle, a 55 mile-per-hour steady state cruise and a 65
mile per hour steady state cruise. The transient duty cycle, is
essentially the same transient cycle proposed in the NPRM with the
exception that it minimizes inappropriate shift events. Additionally,
the steady state cycles proposed by the Agencies remain essentially
unchanged. In response to concerns raised by engine manufacturers and
hybrid system manufacturers regarding the operation of vehicles most
likely to be hybridized in the near term, we are modifying the
weighting factors for each cycle to address the distribution of the
emissions impact associated with each duty cycle. The weighting factors
will be changed such that a greater emphasis on the type of transient
activity seen as more characteristic of hybrid applications will be
evident. The new weighting factors between duty cycles for hybrid
certification will be 75 percent for the transient, 9 percent for the
55 mph cruise cycle, and 16 percent for the 65 mph cruise cycle. The
basis for this change may be seen in the memorandum to Docket EPA-HQ-
OAR-2010-0162, which describes the data set used to describe real world
vehicle performance. In addition to this modification, the Power-Take-
Off (PTO) operation will be characterized for vehicles utilizing a PTO
system for which there is a benefit for use of the hybrid technology.
The testing provisions for the comparison in the A to B testing for
complete vehicle or post-transmission powerpack testing may be seen in
40 CFR 1037.525. The testing provisions for work-specific pre-
transmission evaluation using an engine based approach may be seen in
40 CFR 1036.525.
(b) Demonstrating Compliance With the Final Standards
(i) CO2 and Fuel Consumption Standards
Model
As stated above, the technology basis for the final standards for
vocational vehicles is use of LRR tires. Similar to Class 7 and 8
combination tractors, compliance with the standards will be
demonstrated using the GEM predictive model. However, the input
parameters entered by the vehicle manufacturer would be limited to the
properties of the tires. The GEM will use the tire data, along with
inputs reflecting a baseline truck and engine, to generate a complete
vehicle model. The test weight used in the model will be based on the
vehicle class, as identified above. Light-heavy-duty vehicles will have
a test weight of 16,000 pounds; 25,150 pounds for medium heavy-duty
vehicles; and heavy heavy-duty vocational vehicles will use a test
weight of 67,000 pounds. The model would then be exercised over the
HHDDT transient cycle as well as 55 and 65 mph steady-state cruise
conditions. The results of each of the three tests would be weighted at
16%, 9%, and 75% for 65 mph, 55 mph, and transient tests, respectively.
Innovative technology credits may be used to demonstrate compliance,
however because the technology would not be an input into GEM,
alternative procedures would be needed to determine the value of the
credit as described in Preamble Section IV.
It may seem more expedient and just as accurate to require
manufacturers use tires meeting certain industry standards for
qualifying tires as having LRR. In addition, CO2 and fuel
consumption benefits could be quantified for different ranges of
coefficients of rolling resistance to provide a means for comparison to
the standard. However, we believe that as technology advances, other
aspects of vocational vehicles may warrant inclusion in future
rulemakings. For this reason, we remain committed to having the
certification framework in place to accommodate such additions. While
the modeling approach may seem to be overly complicated for this phase
of the rules, it also serves to create a certification pathway for
future rulemakings and therefore we believe this is the best approach.
Moreover, a design standard would discourage use of alternative
technologies to meet the standard, and otherwise impede desirable
flexibility.
In-use Standards
The category of wear items primarily relates to tires. It is
expected that vehicle manufacturers will equip their trucks with LRR
tires, since the final vehicle standard is predicated on LRR tire
performance. The tire replacement intervals for this class of vehicle
is normally in the range of 50,000 to 100,000 miles, which means the
owner/operator will be replacing the tires at several points within the
useful life of the vehicle. We believe that as LRR tires become more
common on new equipment, the aftermarket prices of these tires will
also decrease. Along with decreasing tire prices, the fuel savings
realized through use of LRR tires will ideally provide enough incentive
for owner/operators to continue purchasing these tires. The inventory
modeling in this rulemaking package reflects the continued use of LRR
tires through the life of the vehicle.
(ii) Evaporative Emission Standards
Evaporative and refueling emissions from heavy-duty highway engines
and vehicles are currently regulated under 40 CFR part 86. Even though
these emission standards apply to the same engines and vehicles that
must meet exhaust emission standards, we require a separate certificate
for complying with evaporative and refueling emission standards. An
important related point to note is that the evaporative and refueling
emission standards always apply to the vehicle, while the exhaust
emission standards may apply to either the engine or the vehicle. For
vehicles other than pickups and vans, the standards in this program to
address greenhouse gas emissions apply separately to engines and to
vehicles. Since we will be applying both greenhouse gas standards and
evaporative/refueling emission standards to vehicle manufacturers, we
believe it will be advantageous to have the regulations related to
their certification requirements written
[[Page 57287]]
together as much as possible. EPA regards these final changes as
discrete, minimal, and for the most part clarifications to the existing
standards. We have not finalized any changes to the evaporative or
refueling emission standards, but we have come across several
provisions that warrant clarification or correction:
When adopting the most recent evaporative emission change we
did not carry through the changes to the regulatory text applying
evaporative emission standards for methanol-fueled compression-ignition
engine. The final regulations correct this by applying the new
standards to all fuels that are subject to standards.
We are finalizing provisions to address which standards apply
when an auxiliary (nonroad) engine is installed in a motor vehicle,
which is currently not directly addressed in the highway regulation.
The final approach requires testing complete vehicles with any
auxiliary engines (and the corresponding fuel-system components).
Incomplete vehicles must be tested without the auxiliary engines, but
any such engines and the corresponding fuel system components will need
to meet the standards that apply under our nonroad program as specified
in 40 CFR part 1060.
We have removed the option for secondary vehicle manufacturers
to use a larger fuel tank capacity than is specified by the certifying
manufacturer without re-certifying the vehicle. Secondary vehicle
manufacturers needing a greater fuel tank capacity will need to either
work with the certifying manufacturer to include the larger tank, or go
through the effort to re-certify the vehicle itself. Our understanding
is that this provision has not been used and would be better handled as
part of certification rather than managing a separate process. We are
also finalizing corresponding changes to the emission control
information label.
Rewriting the regulations in a new part in conjunction with
the greenhouse gas standards allows for some occasions of improved
organization and clarity, as well as updating various provisions. For
example, we have finalized a leaner description of evaporative emission
families that does not reference sealing methods for carburetors or air
cleaners. We have also clarified how evaporative emission standards
affect engine manufacturers and are finalizing more descriptive
provisions related to certifying vehicles above 26,000 pounds GVWR
using engineering analysis.
Since we adopted evaporative emission standards for gaseous-
fuel vehicles, we have developed new approaches for design-based
certification (see, for example, 40 CFR 1060.240). We request comment
on changing the requirements related to certifying gaseous-fuel
vehicles to design-based certification. This would allow for a simpler
assessment for certifying these vehicles without changing the standards
that apply.
(2) Final Labeling Provisions
It is crucial that a means exist for allowing field inspectors to
identify whether a vehicle is certified, and if so, whether it is in
the certified configuration. As with engines and tractors, we believe
an emission control information label is a logical first step in
facilitating this identification. For vocational vehicles, the engine
will have a label that is permanently affixed to the engine and
identify the engine as certified for use in a certain regulatory
subcategory of vehicle (i.e., MHD, etc).
The vehicle will also have a label listing the manufacturer of the
vehicle, vehicle family (and subfamily, if applicable), regulatory
subcategory, date of manufacture, compliance statement, FEL, and
emission control system identifiers. The required content of this label
is consistent with the label description provided earlier for Class 7
and 8 tractors. Since LRR tires are expected to be the primary means
for vehicles to comply, it is expected that LRR tires will be the only
component identified as part of the emission control system on the
label. For tires to qualify as low rolling resistance (for purposes of
this vocational vehicle label), they need to have a coefficient of
rolling resistance at or below 7.7 kg/metric ton. In addition, if any
other emission related components are present, such as hybrid
powertrains, key components will also need to be specified on the
label. Like the engine label, this will need to be permanently affixed
to the vehicle in an area that is clearly visible to the owner/
operator. At the time of certification, manufacturers will be required
to submit an example of their vehicle emission control label such that
EPA can verify that all critical elements are present. In addition to
the label, manufacturers will also need to describe where the unique
vehicle identification number and date of production can be found on
the vehicle.
(3) Other Certification Issues
Warranty
As with other heavy-duty engine and vehicle regulatory categories,
vocational vehicle chassis manufacturers would be required to warrant
their product to be free from defects that would result in
noncompliance with emission standards. This warranty also covers the
failure of emission related components for the warranty period of the
vehicle. For vocational vehicles, this primarily applies to tires.
Manufacturers of chassis for vocational vehicles would be required
to warrant tires to be free from defects at the time of initial sale.
As with Class 7 and 8 combination tractors, we expect the chassis
manufacturer to only warrant the original tires against manufacturing
or design-related defects. This tire warranty would not cover
replacement tires or damage from road hazards or improper inflation.
As with Class 7 and 8 combination tractors, all warranty
documentation would be submitted to EPA at the time of certification.
This should include the warranty statement provided to the owner/
operator, description of the service repair network, list of covered
components (both conventional and high-cost), and length of coverage.
EPA Certification Fees
Similar to engine and tractor-trailer vehicle certification, the
agency will assess certification fees for vocational vehicles. The
proceeds from these fees are used to fund the compliance and
certification activities related to GHG regulation for this industry
segment. In addition to the certification process, other activities
funded by certification fees include EPA-administered in-use testing,
selective enforcement audits, and confirmatory testing. At this point,
the exact costs associated with the heavy-duty vehicle GHG compliance
are not well known. EPA will assess its compliance program associated
with this program and assess the appropriate level of fees. We
anticipate that fees will be applied based on certification families,
following the light-duty vehicle approach.
Maintenance
Vehicle manufacturers are required to outline a maintenance
schedule that ensures the emission control system remains functional
throughout the useful life of the vehicle. For vocational vehicles,
this largely involves ensuring that customers have sufficient
information to purchase replacement tires that meet or exceed original
equipment specifications. As with Class
[[Page 57288]]
7 and 8 tractors, we believe that this information should be included
in the owner's manual to the vehicle. This statement must be submitted
to EPA at the time of certification to verify that the customer indeed
has enough information to purchase the correct replacement tires.
F. General Regulatory Provisions
(1) Statutory Prohibited Acts
Section 203 of the CAA describes acts that are prohibited by law.
This section and associated regulations apply equally to the greenhouse
gas standards as to any other regulated emission. Acts that are
prohibited by section 203 of the CAA include the introduction into
commerce or the sale of an engine or vehicle without a certificate of
conformity, removing or otherwise defeating emission control equipment,
the sale or installation of devices designed to defeat emission
controls, and other actions. In addition, vehicle manufacturers, or any
other party, may not make changes to the certified engine that would
result in it not being in the certified configuration.
EPA will apply Sec. 86.1854-12 to heavy-duty vehicles and engines;
this codifies the prohibited acts spelled out in the statute. Although
it is not legally necessary to repeat what is in the CAA, EPA believes
that including this language in the regulations provides clarity and
improves the ease of use and completeness of the regulations. Since
this change merely codifies provisions that already apply, there is no
burden associated with the change.
(2) Regulatory Amendments Related to Heavy-Duty Engine Certification
We are adopting the new engine-based greenhouse gas emissions
standards in 40 CFR part 1036 and the new vehicle-based standards in 40
CFR part 1037. We are continuing to rely on 40 CFR parts 85 and 86 for
conventional certification and compliance provisions related to
criteria pollutants, but the final regulations include a variety of
amendments that will affect the provisions that apply with respect to
criteria pollutants. We are not intending to change the stringency of,
or otherwise substantively change any existing standards.
The introduction of new parts in the CFR is part of a long-term
plan to migrate all the regulatory provisions related to highway and
nonroad engine and vehicle emissions to a portion of the CFR called
Subchapter U, which consists of 40 CFR parts 1000 through 1299. We have
already adopted emission standards, test procedures, and compliance
provisions for several types of engines in 40 CFR parts 1033 through
1074. We intend eventually to capture all the regulatory requirements
related to heavy-duty highway engines and vehicles in these new parts.
Moving regulatory provisions to the new parts allows us to publish the
regulations in a way that is better organized, reflects updates to
various certification and compliance procedures, provides consistency
with other engine programs, and is written in plain language. We have
already taken steps in this direction for heavy-duty highway engines by
adopting the engine-testing procedures in 40 CFR part 1065 and the
provisions for selective enforcement audits in 40 CFR part 1068.
EPA sought comment on drafting changes and additions. This
solicitation related solely to the appropriate migration, translation,
and enhancement of existing provisions. EPA did not solicit comment on
the substance of these existing rules, and did not amend, reconsider,
or otherwise re-examine these provisions' substantive effect.
The rest of this section describes the most significant of these
final redrafting changes. The proposal includes several changes to the
certification and compliance procedures, including the following:
We are requiring that engine manufacturers provide
installation instructions to vehicle manufacturers (see Sec.
1036.130). We expect this is already commonly done; however, the
regulatory language spells out a complete list of information we
believe is necessary to properly ensure that vehicle manufacturers
install engines in a way that is consistent with the engine's
certificate of conformity.
Sec. 1036.30, Sec. 1036.250, and Sec. 1036.825 spell
out several detailed provisions related to keeping records and
submitting information to us.
We wrote the greenhouse gas regulations to divide heavy-
duty engines into ``spark-ignition'' and ``compression-ignition''
engines, rather than ``Otto-cycle'' and ``diesel'' engines, to align
with our terminology in all our nonroad programs. This will likely
involve no effective change in categorizing engines except for natural
gas engines. To address this concern, we are including a provision in
Sec. 1036.150 to allow manufacturers to meet standards for spark-
ignition engines if they were regulated as Otto-cycle engines in 40 CFR
part 86, and vice versa.
Sec. 1036.205 describes a new requirement for imported
engines to describe the general approach to importation (such as
identifying authorized agents and ports of entry), and identifying a
test lab in the United States where EPA can perform testing on
certified engines. These steps are part of our ongoing effort to ensure
that we have a compliance and enforcement program that is as effective
for imported engines as for domestically produced engines. We have
already adopted these same provisions for several types of nonroad
engines.
Sec. 1036.210 specifies a process by which manufacturers
are able to get preliminary approval for EPA decisions for questions
that require lead time for preparing an application for certification.
This might involve, for example, preparing a plan for durability
testing, establishing engine families, identifying adjustable
parameters, and creating a list of scheduled maintenance items.
Sec. 1036.225 describes how to amend an application for
certification.
We are revising 40 CFR 85.1701 to apply the exemption
provisions described in 40 CFR part 1068 to heavy-duty highway engines
starting in 2014. Manufacturers may optionally use the exemption
provisions from part 1068 earlier. This involves only very minor
changes in the terms and conditions associated with the various types
of exemptions. This change will help us to implement a consistent
compliance program for all engine and vehicle categories. We are
similarly revising 40 CFR 85.1511 to reference the importation-related
exemptions in part 1068 for all motor vehicles and motor vehicle
engines.
We are finalizing a provision allowing manufacturers to
use the defect reporting provisions of 40 CFR part 1068 instead of
those in 40 CFR part 85. This involves setting thresholds for
investigating and reporting defects based on defect rates rather than
absolute numbers of defects. Once we gain more experience with applying
the defect-reporting provisions in 40 CFR part 1068 for motor vehicles,
we will consider making those provisions mandatory, including any
appropriate adjustments.
In addition, we are revising 40 CFR 1068.210 and 1068.325 to
address a concern raised by engine manufacturers. The provisions for
importing engines under a temporary exemption disallow selling exempted
engines even though some of the situations addressed depend on engine
sales (such as delegated assembly). We have added clarifying language
to the individual exemptions to describe whether or how engines may be
sold or leased. In the case of the testing exemption in Sec. 1068.210,
this involves a further change to specify how
[[Page 57289]]
a manufacturer must track the status and final disposition of exempted
engines or equipment. We are also making a small change to the testing
exemption to remove the administrative step of requiring an exchange of
signed documents for the exemption to be effective. This will
streamline the process for the testing exemption and make it more like
that for other types of exemptions.
(3) Test Procedures for Measuring Emissions From Heavy-Duty Vehicles
We are finalizing a new part 1066 that contains general chassis-
based test procedures for measuring emissions from a variety of
vehicles, including vehicles over 14,000 pounds GVWR. However, we are
not finalizing application of these procedures broadly at this time.
The test procedures in 40 CFR part 86 continue to apply for vehicles
under 14,000 pounds GVWR. The final part 1066 procedures applies only
for any testing that would be required for larger vehicles. This could
include ``A to B'' hybrid vehicle testing, coastdown testing, and
potentially limited innovative technology testing. Nevertheless, we
will likely consider in the future applying these procedures also for
other heavy-duty vehicle testing and for light-duty vehicles, highway
motorcycles, and/or nonroad recreational vehicles that rely on chassis-
based testing.
As noted above, engine manufacturers are already using the test
procedures in 40 CFR part 1065 instead of those originally adopted in
40 CFR part 86. The new procedures are written to apply generically for
any type of engine and include the current state of technology for
measurement instruments, calibration procedures, and other practices.
We are finalizing the chassis-based test procedures in part 1066 to
have a similar structure.
The final procedures in part 1066 reference large portions of part
1065 to align test specifications that apply equally to engine-based
and vehicle-based testing, such as CVS and analyzer specifications and
calibrations, test fuels, calculations, and definitions of many terms.
Since several highway engine manufacturers were involved in developing
the full range of specified procedures in part 1065, we are confident
that many of these provisions are appropriate without modification for
vehicle testing.
The remaining test specifications needed in part 1066 are mostly
related to setting up, calibrating, and operating a chassis
dynamometer. This also includes the coastdown procedures that are
required for establishing the dynamometer load settings to ensure that
the dynamometer accurately simulates in-use driving.
Current testing requirements related to dynamometer specifications
rely on a combination of regulatory provisions, EPA guidance documents,
and extensive know-how from industry experience that has led to a good
understanding of best practices for operating a vehicle in the
laboratory to measure emissions. We attempted in this rulemaking to
capture this range of material, organizing these specifications and
verification and calibration procedures to include a complete set of
provisions to ensure that a dynamometer meeting these specifications
would allow for carefully controlled vehicle operation such that
emission measurements are accurate and repeatable.
The procedures are written with the understanding that heavy-duty
highway manufacturers have, and need to have, single-roll electric
dynamometers for testing. We are aware that this is not the case for
other applications, such as all-terrain vehicles. We are not adopting
specific provisions for testing with hydrokinetic dynamometers, we are
already including a provision acknowledging that we may approve the use
of dynamometers meeting alternative specifications if that is
appropriate for the type of vehicle being tested and for the level of
stringency represented by the corresponding emission standards.
Drafting a full set of test specifications highlights the mixed use
of units for testing. Some chassis-based standards and procedures are
written based largely on the International System of Units (SI), such
as gram per kilometer (g/km) standards and kilometers per hour (kph)
driving, while others are written based largely on English units (g/
mile standards and miles per hour driving). The proposal includes a mix
of SI and English units with instructions about converting units
appropriately. However, most of the specifications and examples are
written in English units. While this seems to be the prevailing
practice for testing in the United States, we understand that vehicle
testing outside the United States is almost universally done in SI
units. In any case, dynamometers are produced with the capability of
operating in either English or SI units. We believe there would be a
substantial advantage toward the goal of achieving globally harmonized
test procedures if we would write the test procedures based on SI
units. This would also in several cases allow for more straightforward
calculations, and reduced risk of rounding errors. For comparison, part
1065 is written almost exclusively in SI units. We sought comment on
the use of units throughout part 1066. At this time we are not
finalizing changes from our current approach.
A fundamental obstacle toward using SI units is the fact that some
duty cycles are specified based on speeds in miles per hour. To address
this, it would be appropriate to convert the applicable driving
schedules to meter-per-second (m/s) values. Converting speeds to the
nearest 0.01 m/s would ensure that the prescribed driving cycle does
not change with respect to driving schedules that are specified to the
nearest 0.1 mph. The regulations would include the appropriate mph (or
kph) speeds to allow for a ready understanding of speed values (see 40
CFR part 1037, Appendix I). This would, for example, allow for drivers
to continue to follow a mph-based speed trace. The 2 mph
tolerance on driving speeds could be converted to 1.0 m/s,
which corresponds to an effective speed tolerance of 2.2
mph. This may involve a tightening or loosening of the existing speed
tolerance, depending on whether manufacturers used the full degree of
flexibility allowed for a mph tolerance value that is specified without
a decimal place. Similarly, the Cruise cycles for heavy-duty vehicles
could be specified as 24.50.5 m/s (54.81.1 mph)
and 29.00.5 m/s (64.91.1 mph).
(4) Compliance Reports
(a) Early Model Year Data
This information is the same as for tractors early model year data
in Section V.D(4)(a).
(b) Final Reports
This information is the same as for tractors final reports in
Section V.D(4)(b).
(c) Additional Required Information
Table V-7 below provides a summary of the types of requests,
required application submission dates and the EPA and NHTSA regulations
that apply.
[[Page 57290]]
Table V-7--Summary of Required Information for Compliance
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA
Submission Applies to Required submissions EPA regulation regulation
date reference reference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small business exemptions......... Vehicle or engine Before introducing Sec. Sec. 535.8
manufacturers any excluded vehicle 1037.150
meeting the Small into U.S. commerce.
Business
Administration (SBA)
size criteria of a
small business as
described in 13 CFR
121.201.
Incentives for early introduction. The provisions apply EPA must be notified Sec. Sec. 535.8
with respect to before the 1037.150
tractors and manufacturer submits
vocational vehicles it applications for
produced in model certificates of
years before 2014. conformity.
Air condition leakage exemption Vocational Vehicles EPA must be notified Sec. Sec. 535.8
for vocational vehicles. excluded from Sec. before the 1037.150
1037.115. manufacturer submits
it applications for
certificates of
conformity.
Model year 2014 N2O standards..... Manufacturers that EPA must be notified Sec. Sec. 535.8
choose to show before the 1037.150
compliance with the manufacturer submits
MY 2014 N2O it applications for
standards requesting certificates of
to use an conformity.
engineering analysis.
Exemption for electric vehicles... All electric vehicles End of December prior Sec. Sec. 535.8
are deemed to have to model year. 1037.150
zero exhaust
emissions of CO2,
CH4, and N2O.
Off-road exemption................ Manufacturers wanting EPA must be notified Sec. Sec. 535.8
to exclude before the 1037.150
vocational vehicles manufacturer submits
from vehicle it applications for
standards. certificates of
conformity.
Exemption from EOY reports........ Manufactures with 90-days after the Sec. Sec. 535.8
surplus credits at calendar year ends. 1037.730
the end of the model
year.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
G. Penalties
(1) Overview
In the NPRM, NHTSA proposed to assess civil penalties for non-
compliance with fuel consumption standards. NHTSA's authority under
EISA, as codified at 49 U.S.C. 32902(k), requires the agency to
determine appropriate measurement metrics, test procedures, standards,
and compliance and enforcement protocols for HD vehicles. NHTSA
interprets its authority to develop an enforcement program to include
the authority to determine and assess civil penalties for noncompliance
that would impose penalties based on the following discussions.
In cases of noncompliance, the agency explained in the NPRM that it
would establish civil penalties based on consideration of the following
factors:
Gravity of the violation.
Size of the violator's business.
Violator's history of compliance with applicable fuel
consumption standards.
Actual fuel consumption performance related to the applicable
standard.
Estimated cost to comply with the regulation and applicable
standard.
Quantity of vehicles or engines not complying.
Civil penalties paid under CAA section 205 (42 U.S.C. 7524)
for non-compliance for the same vehicles or engines.
NHTSA proposed to consider these factors in determining civil
penalties in order to help ensure, given the agency's wide discretion,
that penalties would be fair and appropriate, and not duplicative of
EPA penalties. The NPRM expressly stated that neither agency intended
to impose duplicative civil penalties, and that both agencies would
give consideration to civil penalties imposed by the other in the case
of non-compliance with its own regulations. See NPRM at 74280.
EMA, Volvo, the Truck Renting and Leasing Association (TRALA), and
Navistar nevertheless commented that a dual enforcement scheme with
separate NHTSA and EPA penalties could result in duplicative penalties,
as manufacturers could be assessed penalties twice for the same
violation.
The possibility of more than one prosecution or enforcement action
arising from the same overall body of facts does not present a novel
issue. It commonly arises where there is overlapping jurisdiction, such
as where the federal government and a state government have
jurisdiction. The issue of multiple or sequential prosecutions may be
addressed as a matter of administrative policy and discretion.\319\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\319\ A well-known example is the Department of Justice's petite
policy, an internal guide on whether to pursue federal prosecution
after a state prosecution. The petite policy is considered ``merely
a housekeeping provision,'' and prosecution remains entirely within
the Department's discretion. U.S. v. Barrett, 496 F.3d 1079, 1120
(10th Cir. 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Both NHTSA and EPA are charged with regulating medium-duty and
heavy-duty trucks; NHTSA regulates them under EISA and EPA regulates
them under the CAA. Both agencies also have compliance review and
enforcement responsibilities for their respective regulatory
requirements. The same set of underlying facts may result in a
violation of EISA and a violation of the CAA. The agencies recognize
the above concerns, and intend to address them through appropriate
consultation. The details of the consultation and coordination between
the agencies regarding enforcement will be set forth in a memorandum of
understanding to be developed by EPA and NHTSA.
NHTSA believes that the above description adequately describes the
process by which civil penalties may be assessed by both agencies.
Therefore, for the final action, penalties for a violation of a fuel
consumption standard will be based on the gravity of the violation, the
size of the violator's business, the violator's history of compliance
with applicable fuel consumption standards, the actual fuel consumption
performance related to the applicable standard, the estimated cost to
comply with the regulation and applicable standard, and the quantity of
vehicles or engines not complying. The collaborative enforcement
process will ensure that the total penalties assessed will not be
duplicative or excessive.
NHTSA would also like to clarify that the ``estimated cost to
comply with the regulation and applicable standard,'' will be used to
ensure that penalties for non-compliance will not be less than the cost
of compliance. It would be contrary to the purpose of the regulation
[[Page 57291]]
for the penalty scheme to incentivize noncompliance.
The final civil penalty amount NHTSA could impose would not exceed
the limit that EPA is authorized to impose under the CAA. The potential
maximum civil penalty for a manufacturer would be calculated as follows
in Equation V-1:
Equation V-1: Aggregate Maximum Civil Penalty
Aggregate Maximum Civil Penalty for a Non-Compliant Regulatory Category
= (CAA Limit) x (production volume within the regulatory category)
EPA has occasionally in the past conducted rulemakings to provide
for nonconformance penalties-- monetary penalties that allow a
manufacturer to sell engines or vehicles that do not meet an emissions
standard. Nonconformance penalties are authorized for heavy-duty
engines and vehicles under section 206(g) of the CAA. Three basic
criteria have been established by rulemaking for determining the
eligibility of emissions standards for nonconformance penalties in any
given model year: (1) The emissions standard in question must become
more difficult to meet, (2) substantial work must be required in order
to meet the standard, and (3) a technological laggard must be likely to
develop (40 CFR 86.1103-87). A technological laggard is a manufacturer
who cannot meet a particular emissions standard due to technological
(not economic) difficulties and who, in the absence of nonconformance
penalties, might be forced from the marketplace. The process to
determine if these criteria are met and to establish penalty amounts
and conditions is carried out via rulemaking, as required by the CAA.
The CAA (in section 205) also lays out requirements for the assessment
of civil penalties for noncompliance with emissions standards.
As discussed in detail in Section III, the agencies have determined
that the final GHG and fuel consumption standards are readily feasible,
and we do not believe a technological laggard will emerge in any sector
covered by these final standards. In addition to the standards being
premised on use of already-existing, cost-effective technologies, there
are a number of flexibilities and alternative standards built into the
proposal. However, in the case of potential non-conformance, civil
penalties will ensure that adequate deterrence for non-conformance
exists.
(2) NHTSA's Penalty Process
NHTSA proposed a detailed enforcement process in the NPRM. As
proposed, enforcement would begin with a notice of violation, after
which the respondent may either pay the penalty proposed in the notice
of violation or dispute it by requesting an agency hearing. For a party
that did not pay the proposed penalty or request a hearing within 30
days of the notice of violation, a finding of default would be entered
and the penalty set forth in the notice of violation assessed. If a
hearing is timely requested, the respondent would receive written
notice of the time, date and location of the hearing. The respondent
would have the right to counsel and to examine, respond to and rebut
evidence presented by the Chief Counsel. If civil penalties greater
than $250,000,000 were assessed in the Hearing Officer's final order,
that order would contain a statement advising the party of the right to
appeal to the NHTSA Administrator. In the event of a timely appeal, the
decision of the Administrator would be a final agency action. This
structure was intended to ensure that a party was afforded ample
opportunity to be heard.
Several manufacturers commented that NHTSA's penalty procedures
should be more formal than was proposed in the NPRM. EMA, Volvo and
Navistar commented that the penalty procedures should be subject to the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) review requirements. EMA, Volvo and
Navistar, and TRALA commented that the penalty procedures violated due
process requirements. EMA argued that NHTSA must expressly grant a
right to judicial review, and EMA and Navistar argued that the absence
of an administrative appeals process for penalties under $250,000,000
would violate due process. Volvo faulted NHTSA for not classifying the
hearing officer's decision as a final agency action, and stated that
specifications regarding who could be a hearing officer should align
with those specified for the light-duty program, which was laid out in
49 CFR 511.3.
As noted in the NPRM, the APA administrative hearing requirements
of Sections 554, 556, and 557 are not required where formal procedures
are not required by statute (generally, the organic statute must
provide that the administrative proceeding must be an adjudication,
determined on the record after the opportunity for an agency hearing,
sometimes referenced as an opportunity for hearing on the record). See
e.g., 5 U.S.C. Section 554. Where a formal adjudication is not required
by statute, in general, agencies adopt and apply informal processes.
While the compliance, civil penalty and appeals provisions of 49 U.S.C.
Sections 32911 and 32914 require formal adjudication in accordance with
APA requirements, those sections only apply to the light-duty fuel
economy program. In contrast, for the heavy-duty program of Section
32902(k), the Congress did not require formal adjudication in
accordance with the APA. Therefore, informal adjudication procedures
may be applied. NHTSA will not adopt the procedures of by 5 U.S.C.
Sections 554, 556, or 557 for the final rule.
While the APA requirements for formal hearing procedures do not
apply to NHTSA's enforcement under Section 32902(k), due process
requirements do apply. NHTSA believes that formal procedures are
neither required by statute nor necessary for this enforcement process
to meet due process requirements. NHTSA expects that the cases will not
be complex. In general, there will be one or two issues: (1) Compliance
with the regulations and, if not, (2) the appropriate civil penalty.
Compliance likely will involve narrow technical questions under the
regulations being adopted today. Non-compliance with applicable fuel
consumption standards will be determined by utilizing the certified and
reported CO2 emissions and fuel consumption data provided by
EPA as described in this part, and after considering all the
flexibilities available under Section 535.7. Much of the evidence will
be materials developed by the respondent. There likely will not be wide
ranging issues. The parties will have ample opportunity to present
their positions. A hearing officer can readily address the sorts of
questions that are likely to arise. Second, if there is a
noncompliance, there will be the question of the appropriate penalty.
NHTSA's regulations contain factors to be considered in assessing
penalties. Again, the parties will have ample opportunity to present
their positions. Ultimately, the agency's final decision must be
sufficiently reasoned to withstand judicial review, based on the
arbitrary and capricious standard.
To address commenters' concerns about the process provided, NHTSA
made several adjustments and clarifications in the final rule. The
final rule provides that there will be a written decision of the
Hearing Officer, and the assessment of a civil penalty by a hearing
officer shall be set forth in an accompanying final order. Together,
these constitute the final agency action. NHTSA has also revisited the
minimum penalty level for an administrative appeal to the NHTSA
Administrator and decided to lower the level significantly, to
$1,000,000. This provides a second level of review. NHTSA believes this
[[Page 57292]]
will promote an efficient use of administrative remedies and a further
opportunity to be heard at the administrative level. Of course, if a
party files an appeal with the NHTSA Administrator, the Hearing
Officer's decision and order at that juncture shall no longer be final
agency action.
NHTSA has considered the specifications of the Hearing Officer and
determined that they are adequate for informal agency hearings of this
nature. However, the agency will add a clarification to the final rule
that specifies that the Hearing Officer will be appointed by the
Administrator. Further, in addition to having no prior connection with
the case and no responsibility, direct or supervisory, for the
investigation of cases referred for the assessment of civil penalties,
the Hearing Officer will have no duties related to the light-duty fuel
economy or medium- and heavy-duty fuel efficiency programs.
NHTSA has also considered EMA's comment that a right to judicial
review must be specified in the regulatory text. The agency does not
agree with this concern. Parties, of course, cannot confer
jurisdiction; only Congress can do so. Whitman v. Department of
Transportation, 547 U.S. 512, 514 (2006); Weinberger v. Bentex
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 412 U.S. 645, 652 (1973). Moreover, judicial
review of a final agency action is presumed. United States v. Fausto,
484 U.S. 439, 452 (1998), citing Abbot Laboratories v. Gardner, 387
U.S. 136, 140 (1967). See generally, 28 U.S.C. Section 1331. Therefore,
NHTSA has determined that the right to judicial review does not need to
be specified in the regulatory text.
VI. How will this program impact fuel consumption, GHG emissions, and
climate change?
A. What methodologies did the agencies use to project GHG emissions and
fuel consumption impacts?
EPA and NHTSA used EPA's official mobile source emissions inventory
model named Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES2010),\320\ to
estimate emission and fuel consumption impacts of these final rules.
MOVES has the capability to take in user inputs to modify default data
to better estimate emissions for different scenarios, such as different
regulatory alternatives, state implementation plans (SIPs), geographic
locations, vehicle activity, and microscale projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\320\ MOVES homepage: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/moves/index.htm. Version MOVES2010 was used for emissions impacts analysis
for this action. Current version as of September 14, 2010 is an
updated version named MOVES2010a, available directly from the MOVES
homepage. To replicate results from this action, MOVES2010 must be
used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agencies performed multiple MOVES runs to establish reference
case and control case emission inventories and fuel consumption values.
The agencies ran MOVES with user input databases that reflected
characteristics of the final rules, such as emissions improvements and
recent sales projections. Some post-processing of the model output was
required to ensure proper results. The agencies ran MOVES for non-GHGs,
CO2, CH4, and N2O for calendar years
2005, 2018, 2030, and 2050. Additional runs were performed for just the
three greenhouse gases and for fuel consumption for every calendar year
from 2014 to 2050, inclusive, which fed the economy-wide modeling,
monetized greenhouse gas benefits estimation, and climate impacts
analyses.
The agencies also used MOVES to estimate emissions and fuel
consumption impacts for the other alternatives considered and described
in Section IX.
B. MOVES Analysis
(i) Inputs and Assumptions
The analysis performed for the final action mirrors what was done
for the proposal. The methods and models are the same, with differences
lying primarily in the inputs, as a result of updates in the program,
standards, and baseline data.
(a) Reference Run Updates
Since MOVES2010a vehicle sales and activity data were developed
from AEO2009, EPA first updated these data using sales and activity
estimates from AEO2011. MOVES2010a defaults were used for all other
parameters to estimate the reference case emissions inventories.
(b) Control Run Updates
EPA developed additional user input data for MOVES runs to estimate
control case inventories. To account for improvements of engine and
vehicle efficiency, EPA developed several user inputs to run the
control case in MOVES. As explained at proposal, since MOVES does not
operate based on Heavy-duty FTP cycle results, EPA used the percent
reduction in engine CO2 emissions expected due to the final
rules to develop energy inputs for the control case runs. 75 FR at
74280. Also, EPA used the percent reduction in aerodynamic drag and
tire rolling resistance coefficients and reduction in average total
running weight (gross combined weight) expected from the final rules to
develop road load input for the control case. The sales and activity
data updates used in the reference case were used in the control case.
Details of all the MOVES runs, input data tables, and post-processing
steps are available in the docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162).
Table VI-1 and Table VI-2 describe the estimated expected
reductions from these final rules, which were input into MOVES for
estimating control case emissions inventories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\321\ Section II of this preamble discusses an alternative
engine standard for the HD diesel engines in the 2014, 2015, and
2016 model years. To the extent that engines using this alternative
are expected to have baseline emissions greater than the industry
average, the reduction from the industry average projected in this
program would be reduced.
Table VI-1--Estimated Reductions in Engine CO2 Emission Rates \321\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 reduction
GVWR class Fuel Model years from 2010 MY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HHD (Class 8a-8b)............................. Diesel.......................... 2014-2016 3%
2017+ 6%
MHD (Class 6-7) and LHD (Class 4-5)........... Diesel.......................... 2014-2016 5%
2017+ 9%
Gasoline........................ 2016+ 5%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 57293]]
Table VI-2--Estimated Reductions in Rolling Resistance Coefficient, Aerodynamic Drag Coefficient, and Gross
Combined Weight
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reduction in
tire CRR from Reduction in Cd Weight reduction
Truck type baseline from baseline (lbs.)
(percent) (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Combination long-haul..................................... 9.6 12.1 400
Combination short-haul.................................... 7.0 5.9 321
Straight trucks, refuse trucks, motor homes, transit 5.0 0 0
buses, and other vocational vehicles.....................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since nearly all HD pickup trucks and vans will be certified on a
chassis dynamometer, the CO2 reductions for these vehicles
will not be represented as engine and road load reduction components,
but rather as total vehicle CO2 reductions. These estimated
reductions are described in Table VI-3.
Table VI-3--Estimated Total Vehicle CO2 Reductions for HD Pickup Trucks and Vans
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 reduction
GVWR Class Fuel Model year from baseline
(percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HD Pickup Trucks and Vans................... Gasoline...................... 2014 1.5
2015 2
2016 4
2017 6
2018+ 10
Diesel........................ 2014 2.3
2015 3
2016 6
2017 9
2018+ 15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. What are the projected reductions in fuel consumption and GHG
emissions?
EPA and NHTSA expect significant reductions in GHG emissions and
fuel consumption from these final rules--emission reductions from both
downstream (tailpipe) and upstream (fuel production and distribution)
sources, and fuel consumption reductions from more efficient vehicles.
Increased vehicle efficiency and reduced vehicle fuel consumption will
also reduce GHG emissions from upstream sources. The following
subsections summarize the GHG emissions and fuel consumption reductions
expected from these final rules.
(1) Downstream (Tailpipe)
Consistent with the proposal, EPA used MOVES to estimate downstream
GHG inventories from these final rules. We expect reductions in
CO2 from all heavy-duty vehicle categories. The reductions
come from engine and vehicle improvements. EPA expects N2O
emissions to increase very slightly because of a rebound in vehicle
miles traveled (VMT) and because significant vehicle emissions
reductions are not expected from these final rules. In the proposal, we
did not account for differences in methane emissions from use of
auxiliary power units (APUs) during extended idling from sleeper cab
combination tractors. After accounting for these differences, EPA
expects methane emissions to decrease primarily due to differences in
hydrocarbon emission characteristics between on-road diesel engines and
APUs. The amount of methane emitted as a fraction of total hydrocarbons
is significantly less for APUs than for diesel engines equipped with
diesel particulate filters. Overall, downstream GHG emissions will be
reduced significantly and are described in the following subsections.
For CO2 and fuel consumption, the total energy
consumption ``pollutant'' was run in MOVES rather than CO2
itself. The energy was converted to fuel consumption based on fuel
heating values assumed in the Renewable Fuels Standard and used in the
development of MOVES emission and energy rates. These values are
117,250 kJ/gallon for gasoline blended with ten percent ethanol (E10)
\322\ and 138,451 kJ/gallon for diesel.\323\ To calculate
CO2, the agencies assumed a CO2 content of 8,576
g/gallon for E10 and 10,180 g/gallon for diesel. Table VI-4 shows the
fleet-wide GHG reductions and fuel savings from reference case to
control case through the lifetime of model year 2014 through 2018
heavy-duty vehicles. Table VI-5 shows the downstream GHG emissions
reductions and fuel savings in 2018, 2030, and 2050. The analysis
follows what was done for the proposal. We did not receive comments
indicating that this analysis was inappropriate or insufficient for
estimating downstream emissions impacts of this program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\322\ Renewable Fuels Standards assumptions of 115,000 BTU/
gallon gasoline (E0) and 76,330 BTU/gallon ethanol (E100) weighted
90% and 10%, respectively, and converted to kJ at 1.055 kJ/BTU.
\323\ MOVES2004 Energy and Emission Inputs. EPA420-P-05-003,
March 2005. http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/ngm/420p05003.pdf.
[[Page 57294]]
Table VI-4--Model Year 2014 Through 2018 Lifetime GHG Reductions and
Fuel Savings by Heavy-Duty Truck Category
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Downstream GHG
reductions (MMT Fuel Savings
CO2eq) (billion gallons)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HD pickups/vans............. 18 1.9
Vocational.................. 24 2.4
Combination short-haul (Day 50 4.9
cabs)......................
Combination long-haul 135 12.9
(Sleeper cabs).............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table VI-5--Annual Downstream GHG Emissions Reductions and Fuel Savings in 2018, 2030, and 2050
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Downstream GHG
reductions (MMT Diesel Savings Gasoline Savings
CO2eq) (million gallons) (million gallons)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2018.......................................... 22 2,123 59
2030.......................................... 61 5,670 349
2050.......................................... 89 8,158 522
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Upstream (Fuel Production and Distribution)
Using the same approach as used in the NPRM, the upstream GHG
emission reductions associated with the production and distribution of
fuel were projected using emission factors from DOE's ``Greenhouse
Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy Use in Transportation''
(GREET1.8) model, with some modifications consistent with the Light-
Duty 2012-2016 MY vehicle rule. More information regarding these
modifications can be found in the RIA Chapter 5. These estimates
include both international and domestic emission reductions, since
reductions in foreign exports of finished gasoline and/or crude make up
a significant share of the fuel savings resulting from the GHG
standards. Thus, significant portions of the upstream GHG emission
reductions will occur outside of the United States; a breakdown and
discussion of projected international versus domestic reductions is
included in the RIA Chapter 5. GHG emission reductions from upstream
sources can be found in Table VI-6.
Table VI-6--Annual Upstream GHG Emissions Reductions in 2018, 2030, and 2050
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total GHG (MMT
CO2 (MMT) CH4 (MMT CO2eq) N2O (MMT CO2eq) CO2eq)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2018.................................... 5.1 0.9 0.02 6.0
2030.................................... 12.2 1.9 0.06 14.2
2050.................................... 16.4 2.5 0.08 19.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) HFC Emissions
Based on projected HFC emission reductions due to the final AC
leakage standards, EPA estimates the HFC reductions to be 120,000
metric tons of CO2eq in 2018, 440,000 metric tons of
CO2eq emissions in 2030 and 600,000 metric tons
CO2eq in 2050, as detailed in RIA Chapter 5.3.4.
(4) Total (Upstream + Downstream + HFC)
Table VI-7 combines downstream results from Table VI-5, upstream
results Table VI-6, and HFC results to show total GHG reductions for
calendar years 2018, 2030, and 2050.
Table VI-7--Annual Total GHG Emissions Reductions in 2018, 2030, and
2050
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GHG reductions
(MMT CO2eq)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2018.................................................. 29
2030.................................................. 76
2050.................................................. 108
------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Overview of Climate Change Impacts From GHG Emissions
Once emitted, GHGs that are the subject of this regulation can
remain in the atmosphere for decades to millennia, meaning that 1)
their concentrations become well-mixed throughout the global atmosphere
regardless of emission origin, and 2) their effects on climate are long
lasting. GHG emissions come mainly from the combustion of fossil fuels
(coal, oil, and gas), with additional contributions from the clearing
of forests and agricultural activities. Transportation activities, in
aggregate, are the second largest contributor to total U.S. GHG
emissions (27 percent of total emissions) despite a decline in
emissions from this sector during 2008.\324\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\324\ U.S. EPA (2010) Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
and Sinks: 1990-2007. EPA-430-R-10-006, Washington, DC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This section provides a summary of observed and projected changes
in GHG emissions and associated climate change impacts. The source
document for the section below is the Technical Support Document (TSD)
\325\ for EPA's Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings Under the
Clean Air Act (74 FR 66496, December 15, 2009). Below is the Executive
Summary of the TSD which provides technical support for the
endangerment and cause or contribute analyses concerning GHG emissions
under section 202(a) of the CAA. The TSD reviews observed and
[[Page 57295]]
projected changes in climate based on current and projected atmospheric
GHG concentrations and emissions, as well as the related impacts and
risks from climate change that are projected in the absence of GHG
mitigation actions, including this program and other U.S. and global
actions. The TSD was updated and revised based on expert technical
review and public comment as part of EPA's rulemaking process for the
final Endangerment Findings. The key findings synthesized here and the
information throughout the TSD are primarily drawn from the assessment
reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the
U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP), the U.S. Global Change
Research Program (USGCRP), and NRC.\326\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\325\ See Endangerment TSD, Note 10 above.
\326\ For a complete list of core references from IPCC, USGCRP/
CCSP, NRC and others relied upon for development of the TSD for
EPA's Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings See section
1(b), specifically, Table 1.1 of the TSD Docket: EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-
0171-11645.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In May 2010, the NRC published its comprehensive assessment,
``Advancing the Science of Climate Change.'' \327\ It concluded that
``climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities,
and poses significant risks for--and in many cases is already
affecting--a broad range of human and natural systems.'' Furthermore,
the NRC stated that this conclusion is based on findings that are
``consistent with the conclusions of recent assessments by the U.S.
Global Change Research Program, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change's Fourth Assessment Report, and other assessments of the state
of scientific knowledge on climate change.'' These are the same
assessments that served as the primary scientific references underlying
the Administrator's Endangerment Finding. Importantly, this recent NRC
assessment represents another independent and critical inquiry of the
state of climate change science, separate and apart from the previous
IPCC and USGCRP assessments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\327\ National Research Council (NRC) (2010). Advancing the
Science of Climate Change. National Academy Press. Washington, DC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Observed Trends in Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Concentrations
The primary long-lived GHGs directly emitted by human activities
include CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and
SF6. Greenhouse gases have a warming effect by trapping heat
in the atmosphere that would otherwise escape to space. In 2007, U.S.
GHG emissions were 7,150 teragrams \328\ of CO2 equivalent
\329\ (TgCO2eq). The dominant gas emitted is CO2,
mostly from fossil fuel combustion. Methane is the second largest
component of U.S. emissions, followed by N2O and the
fluorinated gases (HFCs, PFCs, and SF6). Electricity
generation is the largest emitting sector (34 percent of total U.S. GHG
emissions), followed by transportation (27 percent) and industry (19
percent).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\328\ One teragram (Tg) = 1 million metric tons. 1 metric ton =
1,000 kilograms = 1.102 short tons = 2,205 pounds.
\329\ Long-lived GHGs are compared and summed together on a
CO2-equivalent basis by multiplying each gas by its
global warming potential (GWP), as estimated by IPCC. In accordance
with United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
reporting procedures, the U.S. quantifies GHG emissions in the
official U.S. greenhouse gas inventory submission to the UNFCCC
using the 100-year time frame values for GWPs established in the
1996 IPCC Second Assessment Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transportation sources under section 202(a) \330\ of the CAA
(passenger cars, light-duty trucks, other trucks and buses,
motorcycles, and passenger cooling) emitted 1,649 TgCO2eq in
2007, representing 23 percent of total U.S. GHG emissions. U.S.
transportation sources under section 202(a) made up 4.3 percent of
total global GHG emissions in 2005,\331\ which, in addition to the
United States as a whole, ranked only behind total GHG emissions from
China, Russia, and India but ahead of Japan, Brazil, Germany, and the
rest of the world's countries. In 2005, total U.S. GHG emissions were
responsible for 18 percent of global emissions, ranking only behind
China, which was responsible for 19 percent of global GHG emissions.
The scope of this final action focuses on GHG emissions under section
202(a) from heavy-duty source categories (see Section II).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\330\ Source categories under Section 202(a) of the CAA are a
subset of source categories considered in the transportation sector
and do not include emissions from non-highway sources such as boats,
rail, aircraft, agricultural equipment, construction/mining
equipment, and other off-road equipment.
\331\ More recent emission data are available for the United
States and other individual countries, but 2005 is the most recent
year for which data for all countries and all gases are available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The global atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased
about 38 percent from pre-industrial levels to 2009, and almost all of
the increase is due to anthropogenic emissions. The global atmospheric
concentration of CH4 has increased by 149 percent since pre-
industrial levels (through 2007); and the N2O concentration
has increased by 23 percent (through 2007). The observed concentration
increase in these gases can also be attributed primarily to
anthropogenic emissions. The industrial fluorinated gases, HFCs, PFCs,
and SF6, have relatively low atmospheric concentrations but
the total radiative forcing due to these gases is increasing rapidly;
these gases are almost entirely anthropogenic in origin.
Historic data show that current atmospheric concentrations of the
two most important directly emitted, long-lived GHGs (CO2
and CH4) are well above the natural range of atmospheric
concentrations compared to at least the last 650,000 years. Atmospheric
GHG concentrations have been increasing because anthropogenic emissions
have been outpacing the rate at which GHGs are removed from the
atmosphere by natural processes over timescales of decades to
centuries.
(2) Observed Effects Associated With Global Elevated Concentrations of
GHGs
Greenhouse gases, at current (and projected) atmospheric
concentrations, remain well below published exposure thresholds for any
direct adverse health effects and are not expected to pose exposure
risks (i.e., from breathing/inhalation).
The global average net effect of the increase in atmospheric GHG
concentrations, plus other human activities (e.g., land-use change and
aerosol emissions), on the global energy balance since 1750 has been
one of warming. This total net heating effect, referred to as forcing,
is estimated to be +1.6 (+0.6 to +2.4) watts per square meter (W/m\2\),
with much of the range surrounding this estimate due to uncertainties
about the cooling and warming effects of aerosols. However, as aerosol
forcing has more regional variability than the well-mixed, long-lived
GHGs, the global average might not capture some regional effects. The
combined radiative forcing due to the cumulative (i.e., 1750 to 2005)
increase in atmospheric concentrations of CO2,
CH4, and N2O is estimated to be +2.30 (+2.07 to
+2.53) W/m\2\. The rate of increase in positive radiative forcing due
to these three GHGs during the industrial era is very likely to have
been unprecedented in more than 10,000 years.
Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident
from observations of increases in global average air and ocean
temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global
average sea level. Global mean surface temperatures have risen by 1.3
0.32 [deg]F (0.74 [deg]C 0.18 [deg]C) over
the last 100 years. Nine of the 10 warmest years on record have
occurred since 2001. Global mean surface temperature was higher during
the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable
period during the preceding four centuries.
[[Page 57296]]
Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since
the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in
anthropogenic GHG concentrations. Climate model simulations suggest
natural forcing alone (i.e., changes in solar irradiance) cannot
explain the observed warming.
U.S. temperatures also warmed during the 20th and into the 21st
century; temperatures are now approximately 1.3 [deg]F (0.7 [deg]C)
warmer than at the start of the 20th century, with an increased rate of
warming over the past 30 years. Both the IPCC \332\ and the CCSP
reports attributed recent North American warming to elevated GHG
concentrations. In the CCSP (2008) report,\333\ the authors find that
for North America, ``more than half of this warming [for the period
1951-2006] is likely the result of human-caused greenhouse gas forcing
of climate change.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\332\ Hegerl, G.C. et al. (2007) Understanding and Attributing
Climate Change. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis.
Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin,
M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor, and H.L.
Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United
Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
\333\ CCSP (2008) Reanalysis of Historical Climate Data for Key
Atmospheric Features: Implications for Attribution of Causes of
Observed Change. A Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program
and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research [Randall Dole, Martin
Hoerling, and Siegfried Schubert (eds.)]. National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, National Climatic Data Center,
Asheville, NC, 156 pp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Observations show that changes are occurring in the amount,
intensity, frequency and type of precipitation. Over the contiguous
United States, total annual precipitation increased by 6.1 percent from
1901 to 2008. It is likely that there have been increases in the number
of heavy precipitation events within many land regions, even in those
where there has been a reduction in total precipitation amount,
consistent with a warming climate.
There is strong evidence that global sea level gradually rose in
the 20th century and is currently rising at an increased rate. It is
not clear whether the increasing rate of sea level rise is a reflection
of short-term variability or an increase in the longer-term trend.
Nearly all of the Atlantic Ocean shows sea level rise during the last
50 years with the rate of rise reaching a maximum (over 2 millimeters
[mm] per year) in a band along the U.S. east coast running east-
northeast.
Satellite data since 1979 show that annual average Arctic sea ice
extent has shrunk by 4.1 percent per decade. The size and speed of
recent Arctic summer sea ice loss is highly anomalous relative to the
previous few thousands of years.
Widespread changes in extreme temperatures have been observed in
the last 50 years across all world regions, including the United
States. Cold days, cold nights, and frost have become less frequent,
while hot days, hot nights, and heat waves have become more frequent.
Observational evidence from all continents and most oceans shows
that many natural systems are being affected by regional climate
changes, particularly temperature increases. However, directly
attributing specific regional changes in climate to emissions of GHGs
from human activities is difficult, especially for precipitation.
Ocean CO2 uptake has lowered the average ocean pH
(increased acidity) level by approximately 0.1 since 1750. Consequences
for marine ecosystems can include reduced calcification by shell-
forming organisms, and in the longer term, the dissolution of carbonate
sediments.
Observations show that climate change is currently affecting U.S.
physical and biological systems in significant ways. The consistency of
these observed changes in physical and biological systems and the
observed significant warming likely cannot be explained entirely due to
natural variability or other confounding non-climate factors.
(3) Projections of Future Climate Change With Continued Increases in
Elevated GHG Concentrations
Most future scenarios that assume no explicit GHG mitigation
actions (beyond those already enacted) project increasing global GHG
emissions over the century, with climbing GHG concentrations. Carbon
dioxide is expected to remain the dominant anthropogenic GHG over the
course of the 21st century. The radiative forcing associated with the
non-CO2 GHGs is still significant and increasing over time.
Future warming over the course of the 21st century, even under
scenarios of low-emission growth, is very likely to be greater than
observed warming over the past century. According to climate model
simulations summarized by the IPCC,\334\ through about 2030, the global
warming rate is affected little by the choice of different future
emissions scenarios. By the end of the 21st century, projected average
global warming (compared to average temperature around 1990) varies
significantly depending on the emission scenario and climate
sensitivity assumptions, ranging from 3.2 to 7.2 [deg]F (1.8 to 4.0
[deg]C), with an uncertainty range of 2.0 to 11.5 [deg]F (1.1 to 6.4
[deg]C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\334\ Meehl, G.A. et al. (2007) Global Climate Projections. In:
Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of
Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M.
Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller
(eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and
New York, NY, USA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
All of the United States is very likely to warm during this
century, and most areas of the United States are expected to warm by
more than the global average. The largest warming is projected to occur
in winter over northern parts of Alaska. In western, central and
eastern regions of North America, the projected warming has less
seasonal variation and is not as large, especially near the coast,
consistent with less warming over the oceans.
It is very likely that heat waves will become more intense, more
frequent, and longer lasting in a future warm climate, whereas cold
episodes are projected to decrease significantly.
Increases in the amount of precipitation are very likely in higher
latitudes, while decreases are likely in most subtropical latitudes and
the southwestern United States, continuing observed patterns. The mid-
continental area is expected to experience drying during summer,
indicating a greater risk of drought.
Intensity of precipitation events is projected to increase in the
United States and other regions of the world. More intense
precipitation is expected to increase the risk of flooding and result
in greater runoff and erosion that has the potential for adverse water
quality effects.
It is likely that hurricanes will become more intense, with
stronger peak winds and more heavy precipitation associated with
ongoing increases of tropical sea surface temperatures. Frequency
changes in hurricanes are currently too uncertain for confident
projections.
By the end of the century, global average sea level is projected by
IPCC \335\ to rise between 7.1 and 23 inches (18 and 59 centimeter
[cm]), relative to around 1990, in the absence of increased dynamic ice
sheet loss. Recent rapid changes at the edges of the Greenland and West
Antarctic ice sheets
[[Page 57297]]
show acceleration of flow and thinning. While an understanding of these
ice sheet processes is incomplete, their inclusion in models would
likely lead to increased sea level projections for the end of the 21st
century.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\335\ IPCC (2007) Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change
2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to
the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M.
Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sea ice extent is projected to shrink in the Arctic under all IPCC
emissions scenarios.
(4) Projected Risks and Impacts Associated With Future Climate Change
Risk to society, ecosystems, and many natural Earth processes
increases with increases in both the rate and magnitude of climate
change. Climate warming may increase the possibility of large, abrupt
regional or global climatic events (e.g., disintegration of the
Greenland Ice Sheet or collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet). The
partial deglaciation of Greenland (and possibly West Antarctica) could
be triggered by a sustained temperature increase of 2 to 7 [deg]F (1 to
4 [deg]C) above 1990 levels. Such warming would cause a 13 to 20 feet
(4 to 6 meter) rise in sea level, which would occur over a time period
of centuries to millennia.
The CCSP \336\ reports that climate change has the potential to
accentuate the disparities already evident in the American health care
system, as many of the expected health effects are likely to fall
disproportionately on the poor, the elderly, the disabled, and the
uninsured. The IPCC \337\ states with very high confidence that climate
change impacts on human health in U.S. cities will be compounded by
population growth and an aging population.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\336\ Ebi, K.L., J. Balbus, P.L. Kinney, E. Lipp, D. Mills, M.S.
O'Neill, and M. Wilson (2008) Effects of Global Change on Human
Health. In: Analyses of the effects of global change on human health
and welfare and human systems. A Report by the U.S. Climate Change
Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research.
[Gamble, J.L. (ed.), K.L. Ebi, F.G. Sussman, T.J. Wilbanks,
(Authors)]. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC,
USA, pp. 2-1 to 2-78.
\337\ Field, C.B. et al. (2007) North America. In: Climate
Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of
Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [M.L. Parry, O.F.
Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson
(eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and
New York, NY, USA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Severe heat waves are projected to intensify in magnitude and
duration over the portions of the United States where these events
already occur, with potential increases in mortality and morbidity,
especially among the elderly, young, and frail.
Some reduction in the risk of death related to extreme cold is
expected. It is not clear whether reduced mortality from cold will be
greater or less than increased heat-related mortality in the United
States due to climate change.
Increases in regional ozone pollution relative to ozone levels
without climate change are expected due to higher temperatures and
weaker circulation in the United States and other world cities relative
to air quality levels without climate change. Climate change is
expected to increase regional ozone pollution, with associated risks in
respiratory illnesses and premature death. In addition to human health
effects, tropospheric ozone has significant adverse effects on crop
yields, pasture and forest growth, and species composition. The
directional effect of climate change on ambient particulate matter
levels remains uncertain.
Within settlements experiencing climate change, certain parts of
the population may be especially vulnerable; these include the poor,
the elderly, those already in poor health, the disabled, those living
alone, and/or indigenous populations dependent on one or a few
resources. Thus, the potential impacts of climate change raise
environmental justice issues.
The CCSP \338\ concludes that, with increased CO2 and
temperature, the life cycle of grain and oilseed crops will likely
progress more rapidly. But, as temperature rises, these crops will
increasingly begin to experience failure, especially if climate
variability increases and precipitation lessens or becomes more
variable. Furthermore, the marketable yield of many horticultural crops
(e.g., tomatoes, onions, fruits) is very likely to be more sensitive to
climate change than grain and oilseed crops.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\338\ Backlund, P., A. Janetos, D.S. Schimel, J. Hatfield, M.G.
Ryan, S.R. Archer, and D. Lettenmaier (2008) Executive Summary. In:
The Effects of Climate Change on Agriculture, Land Resources, Water
Resources, and Biodiversity in the United States. A Report by the
U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global
Change Research. Washington, DC., USA, 362 pp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Higher temperatures will very likely reduce livestock production
during the summer season in some areas, but these losses will very
likely be partially offset by warmer temperatures during the winter
season.
Cold-water fisheries will likely be negatively affected; warm-water
fisheries will generally benefit; and the results for cool-water
fisheries will be mixed, with gains in the northern and losses in the
southern portions of ranges.
Climate change has very likely increased the size and number of
forest fires, insect outbreaks, and tree mortality in the interior
West, the Southwest, and Alaska, and will continue to do so. Over North
America, forest growth and productivity have been observed to increase
since the middle of the 20th century, in part due to observed climate
change. Rising CO2 will very likely increase photosynthesis
for forests, but the increased photosynthesis will likely only increase
wood production in young forests on fertile soils. The combined effects
of expected increased temperature, CO2, nitrogen deposition,
ozone, and forest disturbance on soil processes and soil carbon storage
remain unclear.
Coastal communities and habitats will be increasingly stressed by
climate change impacts interacting with development and pollution. Sea
level is rising along much of the U.S. coast, and the rate of change
will very likely increase in the future, exacerbating the impacts of
progressive inundation, storm-surge flooding, and shoreline erosion.
Storm impacts are likely to be more severe, especially along the Gulf
and Atlantic coasts. Salt marshes, other coastal habitats, and
dependent species are threatened by sea level rise, fixed structures
blocking landward migration, and changes in vegetation. Population
growth and rising value of infrastructure in coastal areas increases
vulnerability to climate variability and future climate change.
Climate change will likely further constrain already over-allocated
water resources in some regions of the United States, increasing
competition among agricultural, municipal, industrial, and ecological
uses. Although water management practices in the United States are
generally advanced, particularly in the West, the reliance on past
conditions as the basis for current and future planning may no longer
be appropriate, as climate change increasingly creates conditions well
outside of historical observations. Rising temperatures will diminish
snowpack and increase evaporation, affecting seasonal availability of
water. In the Great Lakes and major river systems, lower water levels
are likely to exacerbate challenges relating to water quality,
navigation, recreation, hydropower generation, water transfers, and
binational relationships. Decreased water supply and lower water levels
are likely to exacerbate challenges relating to aquatic navigation in
the United States.
Higher water temperatures, increased precipitation intensity, and
longer periods of low flows will exacerbate many forms of water
pollution, potentially making attainment of water quality goals more
difficult. As waters become warmer, the aquatic life they
[[Page 57298]]
now support will be replaced by other species better adapted to warmer
water. In the long term, warmer water and changing flow may result in
deterioration of aquatic ecosystems.
Ocean acidification is projected to continue, resulting in the
reduced biological production of marine calcifiers, including corals.
Climate change is likely to affect U.S. energy use and energy
production and physical and institutional infrastructures. It will also
likely interact with and possibly exacerbate ongoing environmental
change and environmental pressures in settlements, particularly in
Alaska where indigenous communities are facing major environmental and
cultural impacts. The U.S. energy sector, which relies heavily on water
for hydropower and cooling capacity, may be adversely impacted by
changes to water supply and quality in reservoirs and other water
bodies. Water infrastructure, including drinking water and wastewater
treatment plants, and sewer and stormwater management systems, will be
at greater risk of flooding, sea level rise and storm surge, low flows,
and other factors that could impair performance.
Disturbances such as wildfires and insect outbreaks are increasing
in the United States and are likely to intensify in a warmer future
with warmer winters, drier soils, and longer growing seasons. Although
recent climate trends have increased vegetation growth, continuing
increases in disturbances are likely to limit carbon storage,
facilitate invasive species, and disrupt ecosystem services.
Over the 21st century, changes in climate will cause species to
shift north and to higher elevations and fundamentally rearrange U.S.
ecosystems. Differential capacities for range shifts and constraints
from development, habitat fragmentation, invasive species, and broken
ecological connections will alter ecosystem structure, function, and
services.
(5) Present and Projected U.S. Regional Climate Change Impacts
Climate change impacts will vary in nature and magnitude across
different regions of the United States.
Sustained high summer temperatures, heat waves, and declining air
quality are projected in the Northeast,\339\ Southeast,\340\
Southwest,\341\ and Midwest.\342\ Projected climate change would
continue to cause loss of sea ice, glacier retreat, permafrost thawing,
and coastal erosion in Alaska.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\339\ Northeast includes West Virginia, Maryland, Delaware,
Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island,
Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine.
\340\ Southeast includes Kentucky, Virginia, Arkansas,
Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, southeast Texas,
Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and Florida.
\341\ Southwest includes California, Nevada, Utah, western
Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico (except the extreme eastern section),
and southwest Texas.
\342\ The Midwest includes Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Iowa,
Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and Missouri.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reduced snowpack, earlier spring snowmelt, and increased likelihood
of seasonal summer droughts are projected in the Northeast,
Northwest,\343\ and Alaska. More severe, sustained droughts and water
scarcity are projected in the Southeast, Great Plains,\344\ and
Southwest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\343\ The Northwest includes Washington, Idaho, western Montana,
and Oregon.
\344\ The Great Plains includes central and eastern Montana,
North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Nebraska, eastern Colorado,
Kansas, extreme eastern New Mexico, central Texas, and Oklahoma.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Southeast, Midwest, and Northwest in particular are expected to
be impacted by an increased frequency of heavy downpours and greater
flood risk.
Ecosystems of the Southeast, Midwest, Great Plains, Southwest,
Northwest, and Alaska are expected to experience altered distribution
of native species (including local extinctions), more frequent and
intense wildfires, and an increase in insect pest outbreaks and
invasive species.
Sea level rise is expected to increase storm surge height and
strength, flooding, erosion, and wetland loss along the coasts,
particularly in the Northeast, Southeast, and islands.
Warmer water temperatures and ocean acidification are expected to
degrade important aquatic resources of islands and coasts such as coral
reefs and fisheries.
A longer growing season, low levels of warming, and fertilization
effects of carbon dioxide may benefit certain crop species and forests,
particularly in the Northeast and Alaska. Projected summer rainfall
increases in the Pacific islands may augment limited freshwater
supplies. Cold-related mortality is projected to decrease, especially
in the Southeast. In the Midwest in particular, heating oil demand and
snow-related traffic accidents are expected to decrease.
Climate change impacts in certain regions of the world may
exacerbate problems that raise humanitarian, trade, and national
security issues for the United States. The IPCC \345\ identifies the
most vulnerable world regions as the Arctic, because of the effects of
high rates of projected warming on natural systems; Africa, especially
the sub-Saharan region, because of current low adaptive capacity as
well as climate change; small islands, due to high exposure of
population and infrastructure to risk of sea level rise and increased
storm surge; and Asian mega-deltas, such as the Ganges-Brahmaputra and
the Zhujiang, due to large populations and high exposure to sea level
rise, storm surge and river flooding. Climate change has been described
as a potential threat multiplier with regard to national security
issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\345\ Parry, M.L. et al. (2007) Technical Summary. In: Climate
Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of
Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [M.L. Parry, O.F.
Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden, and C.E. Hanson
(eds.)], Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, pp.
23S78.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Changes in Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations, Global Mean
Temperature, Sea Level Rise, and Ocean pH Associated With the Program's
GHG Emissions Reductions
EPA examined \346\ the reductions in CO2 and other GHGs
associated with this rulemaking and analyzed the projected effects on
atmospheric CO2 concentrations, global mean surface
temperature, sea level rise, and ocean pH which are common variables
used as indicators of climate change. The analysis projects that the
preferred alternative of this program will reduce atmospheric
concentrations of CO2, global climate warming and sea level
rise relative to the reference case. Although the projected reductions
and improvements are small in comparison to the total projected climate
change, they are quantifiable, directionally consistent, and will
contribute to reducing the risks associated with climate change.
Climate change is a global phenomenon and EPA recognizes that this one
national action alone will not prevent it: EPA notes this would be true
for any given GHG mitigation action when taken alone. EPA also notes
that a substantial portion of CO2 emitted into the
atmosphere is not removed by natural processes for millennia, and
therefore each unit of CO2 not emitted into the atmosphere
due to this program
[[Page 57299]]
avoids essentially permanent climate change on centennial time scales.
The heavy-duty program makes a significant contribution towards
addressing the challenge by producing substantial reductions in
greenhouse gas emissions from a particularly large and important source
of emissions. As the Supreme Court recognized in State of Massachusetts
v. EPA, [A]agencies, like legislatures, do not generally resolve
massive problems like climate change in one fell regulatory swoop. 549
U.S. 497, 524 (2008). They instead whittle away at them over time. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\346\ Using the Model for the Assessment of Greenhouse Gas
Induced Climate Change (MAGICC) 5.3v2, http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/wigley/magicc/), EPA estimated the effects of this rulemaking's
greenhouse gas emissions reductions on global mean temperature and
sea level. Please refer to Chapter 8.4 of the RIA for additional
information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA determines that the projected reductions in atmospheric
CO2, global mean temperature and sea level rise are
meaningful in the context of this final action. In addition, EPA has
conducted an analysis to evaluate the projected changes in ocean pH in
the context of the changes in emissions from this rulemaking. The
results of the analysis demonstrate that relative to the reference
case, projected atmospheric CO2 concentrations are estimated
to be reduced by 0.691 to 0.787 part per million by volume (ppmv),
global mean temperature is estimated to be reduced by 0.0017 to
0.0042[deg]C, and sea-level rise is projected to be reduced by
approximately 0.017-0.040 cm by 2100, based on a range of climate
sensitivities. The analysis also demonstrates that ocean pH will
increase by 0.0003 pH units by 2100 relative to the reference case.
(1) Estimated Projected Reductions in Atmospheric CO2
Concentration, Global Mean Surface Temperatures, Sea Level Rise, and
Ocean pH
EPA estimated changes in the atmospheric CO2
concentration, global mean temperature, and sea level rise out to 2100
resulting from the emissions reductions in this rulemaking using the
GCAM (Global Change Assessment Model, formerly MiniCAM), integrated
assessment model \347\ coupled with the Model for the Assessment of
Greenhouse Gas Induced Climate Change (MAGICC, version 5.3v2).\348\
GCAM was used to create the globally and temporally consistent set of
climate relevant variables required for running MAGICC. MAGICC was then
used to estimate the projected change in these variables over time.
Given the magnitude of the estimated emissions reductions associated
with this action, a simple climate model such as MAGICC is reasonable
for estimating the atmospheric and climate response. This widely-used,
peer reviewed modeling tool was also used to project temperature and
sea level rise under different emissions scenarios in the Third and
Fourth Assessments of the IPCC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\347\ GCAM is a long-term, global integrated assessment model of
energy, economy, agriculture and land use, that considers the
sources of emissions of a suite of GHG's, emitted in 14 globally
disaggregated regions, the fate of emissions to the atmosphere, and
the consequences of changing concentrations of greenhouse related
gases for climate change. GCAM begins with a representation of
demographic and economic developments in each region and combines
these with assumptions about technology development to describe an
internally consistent representation of energy, agriculture, land-
use, and economic developments that in turn shape global emissions.
Brenkert A, S. Smith, S. Kim, and H. Pitcher, 2003: Model
Documentation for the MiniCAM. PNNL-14337, Pacific Northwest
National Laboratory, Richland, Washington.
\348\ Wigley, T.M.L. 2008. MAGICC 5.3.v2 User Manual. UCAR--
Climate and Global Dynamics Division, Boulder, Colorado. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/wigley/magicc/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The integrated impact of the following pollutant and greenhouse gas
emissions changes are considered: CO2, CH4,
N2O, HFC-134a, NOX, CO2 and
SO2, and volatile organic compounds (VOC). For
CO2, CH4, HFC-134a, and N2O an annual
time-series of (upstream + downstream) emissions reductions estimated
from the rulemaking were input directly. The GHG emissions reductions,
from Section VI.C, were applied as net reductions to a global reference
case (or baseline) emissions scenario in GCAM to generate an emissions
scenario specific to this rulemaking. For CO, VOCs, SO2, and
NOX, emissions reductions were estimated for 2018, 2030, and
2050 (provided in Section VII.A). EPA then linearly scaled emissions
reductions for these gases between a zero input value in 2013 and the
value supplied for 2018 to produce the reductions for 2014-2018. A
similar scaling was used for 2019-2029 and 2031-2050. The emissions
reductions past 2050 for all gases were scaled with total U.S. road
transportation fuel consumption from the GCAM reference scenario. Road
transport fuel consumption past 2050 does not change significantly and
thus emissions reductions remain relatively constant from 2050 through
2100. Specific details about the GCAM reference case scenario can be
found in Chapter 8.4 of the RIA that accompanies this preamble.
MAGICC calculates the forcing response at the global scale from
changes in atmospheric concentrations of CO2,
CH4, N2O, HFCs, and tropospheric ozone. It also
includes the effects of temperature changes on stratospheric ozone and
the effects of CH4 emissions on stratospheric water vapor.
Changes in CH4, NOX, VOC, and CO emissions affect
both O3 concentrations and CH4 concentrations.
MAGICC includes the relative climate forcing effects of changes in
sulfate concentrations due to changing SO2 emissions,
including both the direct effect of sulfate particles and the indirect
effects related to cloud interactions. However, MAGICC does not
calculate the effect of changes in concentrations of other aerosols
such as nitrates, black carbon, or organic carbon, making the
assumption that the sulfate cooling effect is a proxy for the sum of
all the aerosol effects. Therefore, the climate effects of changes in
PM2.5 emissions and precursors (besides SO2)
which are presented in the RIA Chapter 5 were not included in the
calculations in this section. MAGICC also calculates all climate
effects at the global scale. This global scale captures the climate
effects of the long-lived, well-mixed greenhouse gases, but does not
address the fact that short-lived climate forcers such as aerosols and
ozone can have effects that vary with location and timing of emissions.
Black carbon in particular is known to cause a positive forcing or
warming effect by absorbing incoming solar radiation, but there are
uncertainties about the magnitude of that warming effect and the
interaction of black carbon (and other co-emitted aerosol species) with
clouds. While black carbon is likely to be an important contributor to
climate change, it would be premature to include quantification of
black carbon climate impacts in an analysis of the final standards at
this time.
Changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration, global mean
temperature, and sea level rise for both the reference case and the
emissions scenarios associated with this action were computed using
MAGICC. To calculate the reductions in the atmospheric CO2
concentrations as well as in temperature and sea level resulting from
this action, the output from the policy scenario associated with the
preferred approach of this action was subtracted from an existing
Global Change Assessment Model (GCAM, formerly MiniCAM) reference
emission scenario. To capture some key uncertainties in the climate
system with the MAGICC model, changes in atmospheric CO2,
global mean temperature and sea level rise were projected across the
most current IPCC range of climate sensitivities, from 1.5 [deg]C to
6.0 [deg]C.\349\ This range reflects
[[Page 57300]]
the uncertainty for equilibrium climate sensitivity for how much global
mean temperature would rise if the concentration of carbon dioxide in
the atmosphere were to double. The information for this range come from
constraints from past climate change on various time scales, and the
spread of results for climate sensitivity from ensembles of
models.\350\ Details about this modeling analysis can be found in the
RIA Chapter 8.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\349\ In IPCC reports, equilibrium climate sensitivity refers to
the equilibrium change in the annual mean global surface temperature
following a doubling of the atmospheric equivalent carbon dioxide
concentration. The IPCC states that climate sensitivity is
``likely'' to be in the range of 2 [deg]C to 4.5 [deg]C, ``very
unlikely'' to be less than 1.5 [deg]C, and ``values substantially
higher than 4.5 [deg]C cannot be excluded.'' IPCC WGI, 2007, Climate
Change 2007--The Physical Science Basis, Contribution of Working
Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC, http://www.ipcc.ch/.
\350\ Meehl, G.A. et al. (2007) Global Climate Projections. In:
Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of
Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M.
Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller
(eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and
New York, NY, USA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The results of this modeling, summarized in Table VI-8, show small,
but quantifiable, reductions in atmospheric CO2
concentrations, projected global mean temperature and sea level
resulting from this action, across all climate sensitivities. As a
result of the emission reductions from the final standards for this
action, relative to the reference case the atmospheric CO2
concentration is projected to be reduced by 0.691-0.787 ppmv, the
global mean temperature is projected to be reduced by approximately
0.0017-0.0042 [deg]C by 2100, and global mean sea level rise is
projected to be reduced by approximately 0.017-0.040 cm by 2100. The
range of reductions in global mean temperature and sea level rise is
larger than that for CO2 concentrations because
CO2 concentrations are only weakly coupled to climate
sensitivity through the dependence on temperature of the rate of ocean
absorption of CO2, whereas the magnitude of temperature
change response to CO2 changes (and therefore sea level
rise) is more tightly coupled to climate sensitivity in the MAGICC
model.
Table VI-8--Impact of GHG Emissions Reductions on Projected Changes in Global Climate Associated With the Final
Rulemaking (Based on a Range of Climate Sensitivities From 1.5-6 [deg]C)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Variable Units Year Projected change
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atmospheric CO2 Concentration........... ppmv 2100 -0.691 to -0.787.
Global Mean Surface Temperature......... [deg]C 2100 -0.0017 to -0.0042.
Sea Level Rise.......................... cm 2100 -0.017 to -0.040.
Ocean pH................................ pH units 2100 0.0003 \a\.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:
\a\ The value for projected change in ocean pH is based on a climate sensitivity of 3.0.
The projected reductions are small relative to the change in
temperature (1.8-4.8 [deg]C), sea level rise (27--51 cm), and ocean
acidity (-0.30 pH units) from 1990 to 2100 from the MAGICC simulations
for the GCAM reference case. However, this is to be expected given the
magnitude of emissions reductions expected from the program in the
context of global emissions. This uncertainty range does not include
the effects of uncertainty in future emissions. It should also be noted
that the calculations in MAGICC do not include the possible effects of
accelerated ice flow in Greenland and/or Antarctica: the recent NRC
report estimated a likely sea level increase for the A1B SRES scenario
of 0.5 to 1.0 meters.\351\ Further discussion of EPA's modeling
analysis is found in the RIA, Chapter 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\351\ National Research Council, 2011. Climate Stabilization
Targets: Emissions, Concentrations, and Impacts over Decades to
Millenia. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA used the Program CO2SYS,\352\ version 1.05 to estimate
projected changes in ocean pH for tropical waters based on the
atmospheric CO2 concentration change (reduction) resulting
from this action. The program performs calculations relating parameters
of the CO2 system in seawater. EPA used the program to
calculate ocean pH as a function of atmospheric CO2
concentrations, among other specified input conditions. Based on the
projected atmospheric CO2 concentration reductions resulting
from this action, the program calculates an increase in ocean pH of
0.0003 pH units in 2100 relative to the reference case (compared to a
decrease of 0.3 pH units from 1990 to 2100 in the reference case).
Thus, this analysis indicates the projected decrease in atmospheric
CO2 concentrations from the program will result in an
increase in ocean pH. For additional validation, results were generated
using different known constants from the literature. A comprehensive
discussion of the modeling analysis associated with ocean pH is
provided in the RIA, Chapter 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\352\ Lewis, E., and D. W. R. Wallace. 1998. Program Developed
for CO2 System Calculations. ORNL/CDIAC-105. Carbon
Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory,
U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Program's Effect on Climate
As a substantial portion of CO2 emitted into the
atmosphere is not removed by natural processes for millennia, each unit
of CO2 not emitted into the atmosphere avoids essentially
permanent climate change on centennial time scales. Reductions in
emissions in the near-term are important in determining long-term
climate stabilization and associated impacts experienced not just over
the next decades but in the coming centuries and millennia.\353\ Though
the magnitude of the avoided climate change projected here is small in
comparison to the total projected changes, these reductions represent a
reduction in the adverse risks associated with climate change (though
these risks were not formally estimated for this action) across a range
of equilibrium climate sensitivities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\353\ See NRC 2011, Note 351.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's analysis of the program's impact on global climate conditions
is intended to quantify these potential reductions using the best
available science. EPA's modeling results show repeatable, consistent
reductions relative to the reference case in changes of CO2
concentration, temperature, sea-level rise, and ocean pH over the next
century.
VII. How will this final action impact non-GHG emissions and their
associated effects?
A. Emissions Inventory Impacts
(1) Upstream Impacts of the Program
Increasing efficiency in heavy-duty vehicles will result in reduced
fuel demand and therefore reductions in the emissions associated with
all processes involved in getting petroleum to the pump. These
projected upstream emission impacts on criteria pollutants
[[Page 57301]]
are summarized in Table VII-1. Table VII-2 shows the corresponding
projected impacts on upstream air toxic emissions in 2030.
Table VII-1--Overall Estimated Upstream Impacts on Criteria Pollutants for Calendar Years 2018, 2030, and 2050
[Short tons]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calendar year NOX VOC CO PM2.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2018.................................... -6,475 -1,765 -2,217 -971
2030.................................... -9,975 -4,367 -3,331 -1,379
2050.................................... -14,243 -6,379 -4,785 -1,998
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table VII-2--Overall Estimated Upstream Impacts on AIR TOXICS for Calendar Years 2018, 2030, and 2050
[Short tons]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calendar year Benzene 1,3-butadiene Formaldehyde Acetaldehyde Acrolein
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2018.......................................................... -12 -0.6 -12 -1 -0.2
2030.......................................................... -19 -0.9 -26 -3 -0.5
2050.......................................................... -28 -1.2 -35 -5 -0.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To project these impacts, EPA estimated the impact of reduced
petroleum volumes on the extraction and transportation of crude oil as
well as the production and distribution of finished gasoline and
diesel. For the purpose of assessing domestic-only emission reductions
it was necessary to estimate the fraction of fuel savings attributable
to domestic finished gasoline and diesel, and of this fuel what
fraction is produced from domestic crude. For this analysis EPA
estimated that 50 percent of fuel savings is attributable to domestic
finished gasoline and diesel and that 90 percent of this gasoline and
diesel originated from imported crude. Emission factors for most
upstream emission sources are based on the GREET1.8 model, developed by
DOE's Argonne National Laboratory but in some cases the GREET values
were modified or updated by EPA to be consistent with the National
Emission Inventory. These updates are consistent with those used for
the upstream analysis included in the Light-Duty GHG rulemaking. More
information on the development of the emission factors used in this
analysis can be found in RIA chapter 5.
(2) Downstream Impacts of the Program
While these final rules do not regulate non-GHG pollutants, EPA
expects reductions in downstream emissions of most non-GHG pollutants.
These pollutants include NOX, SO2, VOC, CO, and
PM. The primary reasons for this are the improvements in road load
(aerodynamics and tire rolling resistance) under the program and the
agency's anticipation of increased use of APUs in combination tractors
for GHG reduction purposes during extended idling. APUs exhibit
different non-GHG emissions characteristics compared to the on-road
engines they would replace during extended idling. Another reason is
that emissions from certain pollutants (e.g., SO2) are
proportional to fuel consumption. For vehicle types not affected by
road load improvements, non-GHG emissions may increase very slightly
due to VMT rebound. EPA used MOVES to determine non-GHG emissions
inventories for baseline and control cases. Further information about
the MOVES analysis is available in Section VI and RIA chapter 5. The
improvements in road load, use of APUs, and VMT rebound were included
in the MOVES runs and post-processing. Table VII-3 summarizes the
downstream criteria pollutant impacts of this program. Most of the
impacts shown are through projected increased APU use. Because APUs are
required to meet much less stringent PM standards than on-road engines,
the projected widespread use of APUs leads to higher PM2.5.
Table VII-4 summarizes the downstream air toxics impacts of this
program.
Table VII-3--Overall Estimated Downstream Impacts on Criteria Pollutants
[Short tons]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Downstream PM2.5
Calendar year Downstream NOX Downstream VOC Downstream SO2 Downstream CO a
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2018.......................................................... -107,135 -12,951 -145 -25,614 803
2030.......................................................... -235,046 -25,502 -423 -52,212 1,751
2050.......................................................... -326,413 -35,126 -614 -72,049 2,441
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:
a Positive number means emissions would increase from baseline to control case. PM2.5 from tire wear and brake wear is included.
Table VII-4--Overall Estimated Downstream Impacts on Air Toxics
[Short tons]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calendar year Benzene 1,3-butadiene Formaldehyde Acetaldehyde Acrolein
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2018.......................................................... -158 -0.3 -2,853 -871 -120
2030.......................................................... -341 0.4 -6,255 -1,908 -263
[[Page 57302]]
2050.......................................................... -472 0.8 -8,689 -2,650 -365
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) Total Impacts of the Program
As shown in Table VII-5 and Table VII-6, the agencies estimate that
this program would result in reductions of NOX, VOC, CO, PM,
and air toxics. For NOX, VOC, and CO, much of the net
reductions are realized through the use of APUs, which emit these
pollutants at a lower rate than on-road engines during extended idle
operation. Additional reductions are achieved in all pollutants through
reduced road load (improved aerodynamics and tire rolling resistance),
which reduces the amount of work required to travel a given distance.
For SOX, downstream emissions are roughly proportional to
fuel consumption; therefore a decrease is seen in both upstream and
downstream sources. The downstream increase in PM2.5 due to
APU use is mostly negated by upstream PM2.5 reductions,
though our calculations show a slight net increase in 2030 and
2050.\354\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\354\ Although the net impact is small when aggregated to the
national level, it is unlikely that the geographic location of
increases in downstream PM2.5 emissions will coincide
with the location of decreases in upstream PM2.5
emissions. Impacts of the emissions changes are included in the air
quality modeling, discussed in Section VII.D of this preamble and in
Chapter 8 of the RIA.
Table VII-5--Overall Estimated Total Impacts (Upstream Plus Downstream) on Criteria Pollutants
[Results are shown in both short tons and percent change from baseline to control case.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX VOC SO2 CO PM2.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CY short short short short
short tons % tons % tons % tons % tons %
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2018................................. -113,610 -6.2 -14,715 -5.6 -4,566 -4.5 -27,832 -1.0 -167 -0.2
2030................................. -245,129 -21.0 -29,932 -16.0 -6,888 -10.1 -55,579 -2.1 356 10.1
2050................................. -340,656 -23.7 -41,506 -18.3 -9,857 -11.0 -76,834 -2.2 443 10.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table VII-6--Overall Estimated Total Impacts on Air Toxics (Upstream Plus Downstream)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benzene 1,3-butadiene Formaldehyde Acetaldehyde Acrolein
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CY short short short short short
tons % tons % tons % tons % tons %
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2018...................................... -170 -4.8 -0.9 -0.1 -2,865 -18.3 -873 -13.9 -120.0 -12.4
2030...................................... -359 -15.0 -0.5 -0.1 -6,282 -46.2 -1,912 -40.2 -263.0 -40.0
2050...................................... -500 -17.4 -0.4 -0.1 -8,725 -49.5 -2,655 -44.2 -365.4 -44.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Health Effects of Non-GHG Pollutants
In this section we discuss health effects associated with exposure
to some of the criteria and air toxic pollutants impacted by the final
heavy-duty vehicle standards.
(1) Particulate Matter
(a) Background
Particulate matter is a generic term for a broad class of
chemically and physically diverse substances. It can be principally
characterized as discrete particles that exist in the condensed (liquid
or solid) phase spanning several orders of magnitude in size. Since
1987, EPA has delineated that subset of inhalable particles small
enough to penetrate to the thoracic region (including the
tracheobronchial and alveolar regions) of the respiratory tract
(referred to as thoracic particles). Current National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) use PM2.5 as the indicator for
fine particles (with PM2.5 referring to particles with a
nominal mean aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 2.5 [mu]m), and
use PM10 as the indicator for purposes of regulating the
coarse fraction of PM10 (referred to as thoracic coarse
particles or coarse-fraction particles; generally including particles
with a nominal mean aerodynamic diameter greater than 2.5 [mu]m and
less than or equal to 10 [mu]m, or PM10-2.5). Ultrafine
particles are a subset of fine particles, generally less than 100
nanometers (0.1 [mu]m) in aerodynamic diameter.
Fine particles are produced primarily by combustion processes and
by transformations of gaseous emissions (e.g., SOX,
NOX, and VOC) in the atmosphere. The chemical and physical
properties of PM2.5 may vary greatly with time, region,
meteorology, and source category. Thus, PM2.5 may include a
complex mixture of different pollutants including sulfates, nitrates,
organic compounds, elemental carbon and metal compounds. These
particles can remain in the atmosphere for days to weeks and travel
hundreds to thousands of kilometers.
(b) Health Effects of PM
Scientific studies show ambient PM is associated with a series of
adverse health effects. These health effects are discussed in detail in
EPA's Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (ISA).\355\
Further discussion of health effects associated with PM can also be
found in the RIA for this final action. The ISA summarizes evidence
associated with PM2.5, PM10-2.5, and ultrafine
particles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\355\ U.S. EPA (2009) Integrated Science Assessment for
Particulate Matter (Final Report). U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-08/139F, Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-
0162.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ISA concludes that health effects associated with short-term
exposures (hours to days) to ambient PM2.5 include
mortality, cardiovascular effects, such as
[[Page 57303]]
altered vasomotor function and hospital admissions and emergency
department visits for ischemic heart disease and congestive heart
failure, and respiratory effects, such as exacerbation of asthma
symptoms in children and hospital admissions and emergency department
visits for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and respiratory
infections.\356\ The ISA notes that long-term exposure to
PM2.5 (months to years) is associated with the development/
progression of cardiovascular disease, premature mortality, and
respiratory effects, including reduced lung function growth, increased
respiratory symptoms, and asthma development.\357\ The ISA concludes
that the currently available scientific evidence from epidemiologic,
controlled human exposure, and toxicological studies supports a causal
association between short- and long-term exposures to PM2.5
and cardiovascular effects and mortality. Furthermore, the ISA
concludes that the collective evidence supports likely causal
associations between short- and long-term PM2.5 exposures
and respiratory effects. The ISA also concludes that the scientific
evidence is suggestive of a causal association for reproductive and
developmental effects and cancer, mutagenicity, and genotoxicity and
long-term exposure to PM2.5.\358\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\356\ See U.S. EPA, 2009 Final PM ISA, Note 355, at Section
2.3.1.1.
\357\ See U.S. EPA 2009 Final PM ISA, Note 355, at page 2-12,
Sections 7.3.1.1 and 7.3.2.1.
\358\ See U.S. EPA 2009 Final PM ISA, Note 355, at Section
2.3.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For PM10-2.5, the ISA concludes that the current
evidence is suggestive of a causal relationship between short-term
exposures and cardiovascular effects, such as hospitalization for
ischemic heart disease. There is also suggestive evidence of a causal
relationship between short-term PM10-2.5 exposure and
mortality and respiratory effects. Data are inadequate to draw
conclusions regarding the health effects associated with long-term
exposure to PM10-2.5.\359\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\359\ See U.S. EPA 2009 Final PM ISA, Note 355, at Section
2.3.4, Table 2-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For ultrafine particles, the ISA concludes that there is suggestive
evidence of a causal relationship between short-term exposures and
cardiovascular effects, such as changes in heart rhythm and blood
vessel function. It also concludes that there is suggestive evidence of
association between short-term exposure to ultrafine particles and
respiratory effects. Data are inadequate to draw conclusions regarding
the health effects associated with long-term exposure to ultrafine
particles.\360\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\360\ See U.S. EPA 2009 Final PM ISA, Note 355, at Section
2.3.5, Table 2-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Ozone
(a) Background
Ground-level ozone pollution is typically formed by the reaction of
VOC and NOX in the lower atmosphere in the presence of
sunlight. These pollutants, often referred to as ozone precursors, are
emitted by many types of pollution sources, such as highway and nonroad
motor vehicles and engines, power plants, chemical plants, refineries,
makers of consumer and commercial products, industrial facilities, and
smaller area sources.
The science of ozone formation, transport, and accumulation is
complex. Ground-level ozone is produced and destroyed in a cyclical set
of chemical reactions, many of which are sensitive to temperature and
sunlight. When ambient temperatures and sunlight levels remain high for
several days and the air is relatively stagnant, ozone and its
precursors can build up and result in more ozone than typically occurs
on a single high-temperature day. Ozone can be transported hundreds of
miles downwind from precursor emissions, resulting in elevated ozone
levels even in areas with low local VOC or NOX emissions.
(b) Health Effects of Ozone
The health and welfare effects of ozone are well documented and are
assessed in EPA's 2006 Air Quality Criteria Document and 2007 Staff
Paper.361 362 People who are more susceptible to effects
associated with exposure to ozone can include children, the elderly,
and individuals with respiratory disease such as asthma. Those with
greater exposures to ozone, for instance due to time spent outdoors
(e.g., children and outdoor workers), are of particular concern. Ozone
can irritate the respiratory system, causing coughing, throat
irritation, and breathing discomfort. Ozone can reduce lung function
and cause pulmonary inflammation in healthy individuals. Ozone can also
aggravate asthma, leading to more asthma attacks that require medical
attention and/or the use of additional medication. Thus, ambient ozone
may cause both healthy and asthmatic individuals to limit their outdoor
activities. In addition, there is suggestive evidence of a contribution
of ozone to cardiovascular-related morbidity and highly suggestive
evidence that short-term ozone exposure directly or indirectly
contributes to non-accidental and cardiopulmonary-related mortality,
but additional research is needed to clarify the underlying mechanisms
causing these effects. In a recent report on the estimation of ozone-
related premature mortality published by NRC, a panel of experts and
reviewers concluded that short-term exposure to ambient ozone is likely
to contribute to premature deaths and that ozone-related mortality
should be included in estimates of the health benefits of reducing
ozone exposure.\363\ Animal toxicological evidence indicates that with
repeated exposure, ozone can inflame and damage the lining of the
lungs, which may lead to permanent changes in lung tissue and
irreversible reductions in lung function. The respiratory effects
observed in controlled human exposure studies and animal studies are
coherent with the evidence from epidemiologic studies supporting a
causal relationship between acute ambient ozone exposures and increased
respiratory-related emergency room visits and hospitalizations in the
warm season. In addition, there is suggestive evidence of a
contribution of ozone to cardiovascular-related morbidity and non-
accidental and cardiopulmonary mortality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\361\ U.S. EPA. (2006). Air Quality Criteria for Ozone and
Related Photochemical Oxidants (Final). EPA/600/R-05/004aF-cF.
Washington, DC: U.S. EPA. Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162.
\362\ U.S. EPA. (2007). Review of the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards for Ozone: Policy Assessment of Scientific and
Technical Information, OAQPS Staff Paper. EPA-452/R-07-003.
Washington, DC, U.S. EPA. Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162.
\363\ National Research Council (NRC), 2008. Estimating
Mortality Risk Reduction and Economic Benefits from Controlling
Ozone Air Pollution. The National Academies Press: Washington, DC
Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) Nitrogen Oxides and Sulfur Oxides
(a) Background
Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) is a member of the NOX
family of gases. Most NO2 is formed in the air through the
oxidation of nitric oxide (NO) emitted when fuel is burned at a high
temperature. SO2, a member of the sulfur oxide
(SOX) family of gases, is formed from burning fuels
containing sulfur (e.g., coal or oil derived), extracting gasoline from
oil, or extracting metals from ore.
SO2 and NO2 can dissolve in water droplets
and further oxidize to form sulfuric and nitric acid which react with
ammonia to form sulfates and nitrates, both of which are important
components of ambient PM. The health effects of ambient PM are
discussed in Section 0 of this preamble. NOX and NMHC are
the two major precursors of
[[Page 57304]]
ozone. The health effects of ozone are covered in Section 0.
(b) Health Effects of NO2
Information on the health effects of NO2 can be found in
the EPA Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for Nitrogen Oxides.\364\
The EPA has concluded that the findings of epidemiologic, controlled
human exposure, and animal toxicological studies provide evidence that
is sufficient to infer a likely causal relationship between respiratory
effects and short-term NO2 exposure. The ISA concludes that
the strongest evidence for such a relationship comes from epidemiologic
studies of respiratory effects including symptoms, emergency department
visits, and hospital admissions. The ISA also draws two broad
conclusions regarding airway responsiveness following NO2
exposure. First, the ISA concludes that NO2 exposure may
enhance the sensitivity to allergen-induced decrements in lung function
and increase the allergen-induced airway inflammatory response
following 30-minute exposures of asthmatics to NO2
concentrations as low as 0.26 ppm. In addition, small but significant
increases in non-specific airway hyperresponsiveness were reported
following 1-hour exposures of asthmatics to 0.1 ppm NO2.
Second, exposure to NO2 has been found to enhance the
inherent responsiveness of the airway to subsequent nonspecific
challenges in controlled human exposure studies of asthmatic subjects.
Enhanced airway responsiveness could have important clinical
implications for asthmatics since transient increases in airway
responsiveness following NO2 exposure have the potential to
increase symptoms and worsen asthma control. Together, the
epidemiologic and experimental data sets form a plausible, consistent,
and coherent description of a relationship between NO2
exposures and an array of adverse health effects that range from the
onset of respiratory symptoms to hospital admission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\364\ U.S. EPA (2008). Integrated Science Assessment for Oxides
of Nitrogen--Health Criteria (Final Report). EPA/600/R-08/071.
Washington, DC: U.S.EPA. Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the weight of evidence supporting a causal relationship is
somewhat less certain than that associated with respiratory morbidity,
NO2 has also been linked to other health endpoints. These
include all-cause (nonaccidental) mortality, hospital admissions or
emergency department visits for cardiovascular disease, and decrements
in lung function growth associated with chronic exposure.
(c) Health Effects of SO2
Information on the health effects of SO2 can be found in
the EPA Integrated Science Assessment for Sulfur Oxides.\365\
SO2 has long been known to cause adverse respiratory health
effects, particularly among individuals with asthma. Other potentially
sensitive groups include children and the elderly. During periods of
elevated ventilation, asthmatics may experience symptomatic
bronchoconstriction within minutes of exposure. Following an extensive
evaluation of health evidence from epidemiologic and laboratory
studies, the EPA has concluded that there is a causal relationship
between respiratory health effects and short-term exposure to
SO2. Separately, based on an evaluation of the epidemiologic
evidence of associations between short-term exposure to SO2
and mortality, the EPA has concluded that the overall evidence is
suggestive of a causal relationship between short-term exposure to
SO2 and mortality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\365\ U.S. EPA. (2008). Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for
Sulfur Oxides--Health Criteria (Final Report). EPA/600/R-08/047F.
Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Docket EPA-HQ-
OAR-2010-0162.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(4) Carbon Monoxide
Information on the health effects of CO can be found in the EPA
Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for Carbon Monoxide.\366\ The ISA
concludes that ambient concentrations of CO are associated with a
number of adverse health effects.\367\ This section provides a summary
of the health effects associated with exposure to ambient
concentrations of CO.\368\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\366\ 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. Available at http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=218686. Docket EPA-HQ-
OAR-2010-0162
\367\ 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.
\368\ Personal exposure includes contributions from many
sources, and in many different environments. Total personal exposure
to CO includes both ambient and nonambient components; and both
components may contribute to adverse health effects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Human clinical 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 show 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 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 inconsistent neural
and behavioral effects following low-level CO exposures. The ISA
concludes 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 epidemiologic and animal toxicological studies cited in
the ISA have evaluated associations between CO exposure and birth
outcomes such as preterm birth or cardiac birth defects. The
epidemiologic studies provide limited 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 associations
between perinatal CO exposure and decrements in birth weight, as well
as other developmental outcomes. The ISA concludes these studies are
suggestive of a causal relationship between long-term exposures to CO
and developmental effects and birth outcomes.
Epidemiologic studies provide evidence of effects on respiratory
morbidity such as changes in pulmonary function, respiratory symptoms,
and hospital admissions associated with ambient CO concentrations. 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
[[Page 57305]]
oxidative injury. The 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 ISA concludes that the epidemiologic evidence is
suggestive of a causal relationship between short-term exposures to CO
and mortality. Epidemiologic studies provide evidence of an association
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 ISA also concludes that there
is not likely to be a causal relationship between relevant long-term
exposures to CO and mortality.
(5) Air Toxics
Heavy-duty vehicle emissions contribute to ambient levels of air
toxics known or suspected as human or animal carcinogens, or that have
noncancer health effects. The population experiences an elevated risk
of cancer and other noncancer health effects from exposure to the class
of pollutants known collectively as ``air toxics.'' \369\ These
compounds include, but are not limited to, benzene, 1,3-butadiene,
formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acrolein, diesel particulate matter and
exhaust organic gases, polycyclic organic matter, and naphthalene.
These compounds were identified as national or regional risk drivers or
contributors in the 2005 National-scale Air Toxics Assessment and have
significant inventory contributions from mobile sources.\370\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\369\ U.S. EPA. 2002 National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment.
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata12002/risksum.html Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-
2010-0162.
\370\ U.S. EPA 2009. National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment for
2002. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata2002/ Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-
0162.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Diesel Exhaust
Heavy-duty diesel engines emit diesel exhaust, a complex mixture
composed of 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 [micro]m),
including a significant fraction of ultrafine particles (< 0.1
[micro]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, accelerate, decelerate), and fuel
formulations (high/low sulfur fuel). Also, there are emissions
differences between on-road 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 lifetime for some of the
compounds present in diesel exhaust ranges from hours to days.\371\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\371\ 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. Docket EPA-HQ-
OAR-2010-0162.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Diesel Exhaust: Potential Cancer Effects
In EPA's 2002 Diesel Health Assessment Document (Diesel HAD),\372\
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 cancer guidelines. 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) have made similar classifications. However, EPA also
concluded in the Diesel HAD that it is not possible currently to
calculate a cancer unit risk for diesel exhaust due to a variety of
factors that limit the current studies, such as limited quantitative
exposure histories in occupational groups investigated for lung cancer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\372\ See U.S. EPA (2002) Diesel HAD, Note 371, at pp. 1-1, 1-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the Diesel HAD, EPA reviewed 22 epidemiologic studies on the
subject of the carcinogenicity of workers exposed to diesel exhaust in
various occupations, finding increased lung cancer risk, although not
always statistically significant, in 8 out of 10 cohort studies and 10
out of 12 case-control studies within several industries. Relative risk
for lung cancer associated with exposure ranged from 1.2 to 1.5,
although a few studies show relative risks as high as 2.6.
Additionally, the Diesel HAD also relied on two independent meta-
analyses, which examined 23 and 30 occupational studies respectively,
which found statistically significant increases in smoking-adjusted
relative lung cancer risk associated with exposure to diesel exhaust of
1.33 to 1.47. These meta-analyses demonstrate the effect of pooling
many studies and in this case show the positive relationship between
diesel exhaust exposure and lung cancer across a variety of diesel
exhaust-exposed occupations.373 374
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\373\ Bhatia, R., Lopipero, P., Smith, A. (1998). Diesel
exposure and lung cancer. Epidemiology, 9(1), 84-91. Docket EPA-HQ-
OAR-2010-0162.
\374\ Lipsett, M. Campleman, S. (1999). Occupational exposure to
diesel exhaust and lung cancer: a meta-analysis. Am J Public Health,
80(7), 1009-1017. Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 possible risk range by comparing a typical environmental
exposure level for highway diesel sources to a selected range of
occupational exposure levels. The occupationally observed risks were
then proportionally scaled according to the exposure ratios to obtain
an estimate of the possible environmental risk. A number of
calculations are needed to accomplish this, and these can be seen in
the EPA Diesel HAD. The outcome was that environmental risks from
diesel exhaust exposure could range from a low of 10-4 to
10-5 to as high as 10\3\, reflecting the range of
occupational exposures that could be associated with the relative and
absolute risk levels observed in the occupational studies. Because of
uncertainties, the analysis acknowledged that the risks could be lower
than 10-4 or 10-5, and a zero risk from diesel
exhaust exposure was not ruled out.
(ii) Diesel Exhaust: Other Health Effects
Noncancer health effects of acute and chronic exposure to diesel
exhaust emissions are also of concern to the EPA. EPA derived a diesel
exhaust reference concentration (RfC) from
[[Page 57306]]
consideration of four well-conducted chronic rat inhalation studies
showing adverse pulmonary effects.375 376 377 378 The RfC is
5 [micro]g/m\3\ for diesel exhaust as measured by diesel particulate
matter. This RfC does not consider allergenic effects such as those
associated with asthma or immunologic effects. There is growing
evidence, discussed in the Diesel HAD, that exposure to diesel exhaust
can exacerbate these effects, but the exposure-response data are
presently lacking to derive an RfC. The EPA 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.'' (p. 9-19). The Diesel HAD
concludes ``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.'' \379\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\375\ Ishinishi, N. Kuwabara, N. Takaki, Y., et al. (1988).
Long-term inhalation experiments on diesel exhaust. In: Diesel
exhaust and health risks. Results of the HERP studies. Ibaraki,
Japan: Research Committee for HERP Studies; pp.11-84. Docket EPA-HQ-
OAR-2010-0162.
\376\ Heinrich, U., Fuhst, R., Rittinghausen, S., et al. (1995).
Chronic inhalation exposure of Wistar rats and two different strains
of mice to diesel engine exhaust, carbon black, and titanium
dioxide. Inhal Toxicol, 7, 553-556. Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162.
\377\ Mauderly, J.L., Jones, R.K., Griffith, W.C., et al.
(1987). Diesel exhaust is a pulmonary carcinogen in rats exposed
chronically by inhalation. Fundam. Appl. Toxicol., 9, 208-221.
Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162.
\378\ Nikula, K.J., Snipes, M.B., Barr, E.B., et al. (1995).
Comparative pulmonary toxicities and carcinogenicities of
chronically inhaled diesel exhaust and carbon black in F344 rats.
Fundam. Appl. Toxicol, 25, 80-94. Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162.
\379\ See U.S. EPA (2002), Diesel HAD at Note 371, at p. 9-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(iii) Ambient PM2.5 Levels and Exposure to Diesel Exhaust PM
The Diesel HAD also briefly summarizes health effects associated
with ambient PM and discusses the EPA's annual PM2.5 NAAQS
of 15 [micro]g/m\3\. There is a much more 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 and premature mortality effects of PM2.5
as a whole.
(iv) Diesel Exhaust PM Exposures
Exposure of people to diesel exhaust depends on their various
activities, the time spent in those activities, the locations where
these activities occur, and the levels of diesel exhaust pollutants in
those locations. The major difference between ambient levels of diesel
particulate and exposure levels for diesel particulate is that exposure
accounts for a person moving from location to location, proximity to
the emission source, and whether the exposure occurs in an enclosed
environment.
Occupational Exposures
Occupational exposures to diesel exhaust from mobile sources can be
several orders of magnitude greater than typical exposures in the non-
occupationally exposed population.
Over the years, diesel particulate exposures have been measured for
a number of occupational groups. A wide range of exposures has been
reported, from 2 [mu]g/m\3\ to 1,280 [mu]g/m\3\, for a variety of
occupations. As discussed in the Diesel HAD, the National Institute of
Occupational Safety and Health has estimated a total of 1,400,000
workers are occupationally exposed to diesel exhaust from on-road and
nonroad vehicles.
Elevated Concentrations and Ambient Exposures in Mobile Source-Impacted
Areas
Regions immediately downwind of highways or truck stops may
experience elevated ambient concentrations of directly-emitted
PM2.5 from diesel engines. Due to the unique nature of
highways and truck stops, emissions from a large number of diesel
engines are concentrated in a small area. Studies near roadways with
high truck traffic indicate higher concentrations of components of
diesel PM than other locations.380, 381, 382 High ambient
particle concentrations have also been reported near trucking
terminals, truck stops, and bus garages.383, 384, 385
Additional discussion of exposure and health effects associated with
traffic is included below in Section 0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\380\ Zhu, Y.; Hinds, W.C.; Kim, S.; Shen, S.; Sioutas, C.
(2002) Study of ultrafine particles near a major highway with heavy-
duty diesel traffic. Atmospheric Environment 36: 4323-4335. Docket
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162.
\381\ Lena, T.S; Ochieng, V.; Holgu[iacute]n-Veras, J.; Kinney,
P.L. (2002) Elemental carbon and PM2.5 levels in an urban
community heavily impacted by truck traffic. Environ Health Perspect
110: 1009-1015. Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162.
\382\ Soliman, A.S.M.; Jacko, J.B.; Palmer, G.M. (2006)
Development of an empirical model to estimate real-world fine
particulate matter emission factors: the Traffic Air Quality model.
J Air & Waste Manage Assoc 56: 1540-1549. Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-
0162.
\383\ Davis, M.E.; Smith, T.J.; Laden, F.; Hart, J.E.; Ryan,
L.M.; Garshick, E. (2006) Modeling particle exposure in U.S.
trucking terminals. Environ Sci Techol 40: 4226-4232. Docket EPA-HQ-
OAR-2010-0162.
\384\ Miller, T.L.; Fu, J.S.; Hromis, B.; Storey, J.M. (2007)
Diesel truck idling emissions--measurements at a PM2.5
hot spot. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Transportation
Research Board, paper no. 07-2609. Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162.
\385\ Ramachandran, G.; Paulsen, D.; Watts, W.; Kittelson, D.
(2005) Mass, surface area, and number metrics in diesel occupational
exposure assessment. J Environ Monit 7: 728-735. Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-
2010-0162.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Benzene
The 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.386, 387, 388 EPA states in its IRIS database that data
indicate a causal relationship between benzene exposure and acute
lymphocytic leukemia and suggest a relationship between benzene
exposure and chronic non-lymphocytic leukemia and chronic lymphocytic
leukemia. The International Agency for Research on Carcinogens (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.389, 390
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\386\ U.S. EPA. 2000. Integrated Risk Information System File
for Benzene. This material is available electronically at http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0276.htm. Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162.
\387\ International Agency for Research on Cancer. 1982.
Monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risk of chemicals to
humans, Volume 29. Some industrial chemicals and dyestuffs, World
Health Organization, Lyon, France, p. 345-389. Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-
2010-0162.
\388\ 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. Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162.
\389\ See IARC, Note 387, above.
\390\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services National
Toxicology Program 11th Report on Carcinogens available at: http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/16183. Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.391, 392
[[Page 57307]]
The most sensitive noncancer effect observed in humans, based on
current data, is the depression of the absolute lymphocyte count in
blood.393, 394 In addition, recent work, including studies
sponsored by the Health Effects Institute (HEI), provides evidence that
biochemical responses are occurring at lower levels of benzene exposure
than previously known.395, 396, 397, 398 EPA's IRIS program
has not yet evaluated these new data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\391\ Aksoy, M. (1989). Hematotoxicity and carcinogenicity of
benzene. Environ. Health Perspect. 82: 193-197. Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-
2010-0162.
\392\ Goldstein, B.D. (1988). Benzene toxicity. Occupational
medicine. State of the Art Reviews. 3: 541-554. Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-
2010-0162.
\393\ 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. Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162.
\394\ U.S. EPA (2002) Toxicological Review of Benzene (Noncancer
Effects). Environmental Protection Agency, Integrated Risk
Information System, Research and Development, National Center for
Environmental Assessment, Washington DC. This material is available
electronically at http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0276.htm. Docket
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162.
\395\ 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. Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162.
\396\ 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. Docket
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162.
\397\ Lan, Qing, Zhang, L., Li, G., Vermeulen, R., et al. (2004)
Hematotoxically in Workers Exposed to Low Levels of Benzene. Science
306: 1774-1776. Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162.
\398\ 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. Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-
0162.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) 1,3-Butadiene
EPA has characterized 1,3-butadiene as carcinogenic to humans by
inhalation.399 400 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.401 402 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. 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.\403\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\399\ 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 http://www.epa.gov/iris/supdocs/buta-sup.pdf. Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162.
\400\ 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 http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0139.htm. Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162.
\401\ International Agency for Research on Cancer (1999)
Monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risk of chemicals to
humans, Volume 71, Re-evaluation of some organic chemicals,
hydrazine and hydrogen peroxide and Volume 97 (in preparation),
World Health Organization, Lyon, France. Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-
0162.
\402\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2005)
National Toxicology Program 11th Report on Carcinogens available at:
ntp.niehs.nih.gov/index.cfm?objectid=32BA9724-F1F6-975E-7FCE50709CB4C932. Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162
\403\ 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. Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-
0162.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(d) Formaldehyde
Since 1987, EPA has classified formaldehyde as a probable human
carcinogen based on evidence in humans and in rats, mice, hamsters, and
monkeys.\404\ EPA is currently reviewing recently published
epidemiological data. For instance, research conducted by the National
Cancer Institute found an increased risk of nasopharyngeal cancer and
lymphohematopoietic malignancies such as leukemia among workers exposed
to formaldehyde.405 406 In an analysis of the
lymphohematopoietic cancer mortality from an extended follow-up of
these workers, the National Cancer Institute confirmed an association
between lymphohematopoietic cancer risk and peak exposures.\407\ A
recent National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health study of
garment workers also found increased risk of death due to leukemia
among workers exposed to formaldehyde.\408\ Extended follow-up of a
cohort of British chemical workers did not find evidence of an increase
in nasopharyngeal or lymphohematopoietic cancers, but a continuing
statistically significant excess in lung cancers was reported.\409\
Recently, the IARC re-classified formaldehyde as a human carcinogen
(Group 1).\410\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\404\ U.S. EPA (1987) Assessment of Health Risks to Garment
Workers and Certain Home Residents from Exposure to Formaldehyde,
Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, April 1987. Docket EPA-
HQ-OAR-2010-0162.
\405\ 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. Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162.
\406\ 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. Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162.
\407\ 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. Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162.
\408\ Pinkerton, L. E. 2004. Mortality among a cohort of garment
workers exposed to formaldehyde: an update. Occup. Environ. Med. 61:
193-200. Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162.
\409\ 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. Docket EPA-HQ-
OAR-2010-0162.
\410\ International Agency for Research on Cancer. 2006.
Formaldehyde, 2-Butoxyethanol and 1-tert-Butoxypropan-2-ol. Volume
88. (in preparation), World Health Organization, Lyon, France.
Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Formaldehyde exposure also causes a range of noncancer health
effects, including irritation of the eyes (burning and watering of the
eyes), nose and throat. Effects from repeated exposure in humans
include respiratory tract irritation, chronic bronchitis and nasal
epithelial lesions such as metaplasia and loss of cilia. Animal studies
suggest that formaldehyde may also cause airway inflammation--including
eosinophil infiltration into the airways. There are several studies
that suggest that formaldehyde may increase the risk of asthma--
particularly in the young.411 412
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\411\ Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR).
1999. Toxicological profile for Formaldehyde. Atlanta, GA: U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service.
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp111.html Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-
2010-0162.
\412\ WHO (2002) Concise International Chemical Assessment
Document 40: Formaldehyde. Published under the joint sponsorship of
the United Nations Environment Programme, the International Labour
Organization, and the World Health Organization, and produced within
the framework of the Inter-Organization Programme for the Sound
Management of Chemicals. Geneva. Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(e) 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 57308]]
routes.\413\ Acetaldehyde is reasonably anticipated to be a human
carcinogen by the U.S. DHHS in the 11th Report on Carcinogens and is
classified as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B) by the
IARC.414 415 EPA is currently conducting a reassessment of
cancer risk from inhalation exposure to acetaldehyde.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\413\ U.S. EPA. 1991. Integrated Risk Information System File of
Acetaldehyde. Research and Development, National Center for
Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC. Available at http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0290.htm. Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162.
\414\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services National
Toxicology Program 11th Report on Carcinogens available at:
ntp.niehs.nih.gov/index.cfm?objectid=32BA9724-F1F6-975E-7FCE50709CB4C932. Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162.
\415\ International Agency for Research on Cancer. 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. Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-
0162.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The primary noncancer effects of exposure to acetaldehyde vapors
include irritation of the eyes, skin, and respiratory tract.\416\ In
short-term (4 week) rat studies, degeneration of olfactory epithelium
was observed at various concentration levels of acetaldehyde
exposure.417 418 Data from these studies were used by EPA to
develop an inhalation reference concentration. Some asthmatics have
been shown to be a sensitive subpopulation to decrements in functional
expiratory volume (FEV1 test) and bronchoconstriction upon acetaldehyde
inhalation.\419\ The agency is currently conducting a reassessment of
the health hazards from inhalation exposure to acetaldehyde.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\416\ See Integrated Risk Information System File of
Acetaldehyde, Note 413, above.
\417\ Appleman, L. M., R. A. Woutersen, V. J. Feron, R. N.
Hooftman, and W. R. F. Notten. 1986. Effects of the variable versus
fixed exposure levels on the toxicity of acetaldehyde in rats. J.
Appl. Toxicol. 6: 331-336. Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162.
\418\ 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. Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162.
\419\ 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):
940-3. Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(f) Acrolein
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.\420\ 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.\421\ Evidence available from 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.\422\
Lesions to the lungs and upper respiratory tract of rats, rabbits, and
hamsters have been observed after subchronic exposure to acrolein.\423\
Acute exposure effects in animal studies report bronchial hyper-
responsiveness.\424\ In a recent study, the acute respiratory irritant
effects of exposure to 1.1 ppm acrolein were more pronounced in mice
with allergic airway disease by comparison to non-diseased mice which
also showed decreases in respiratory rate.\425\ Based on these animal
data 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\420\ U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). (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. Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162.
\421\ See U.S. EPA 2003 Toxicological review of acrolein, Note
420, above.
\422\ See U.S. EPA 2003 Toxicological review of acrolein, Note
420, at p. 11.
\423\ 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 Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-
0162.
\424\ See U.S. 2003 Toxicological review of acrolein, Note 420,
at p. 15.
\425\ 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.
Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA determined in 2003 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.\426\ The IARC determined in 1995 that acrolein was not
classifiable as to its carcinogenicity in humans.\427\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\426\ 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 Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-
0162.
\427\ International Agency for Research on Cancer. 1995.
Monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risk of chemicals to
humans, Volume 63. Dry cleaning, some chlorinated solvents and other
industrial chemicals, World Health Organization, Lyon, France.
Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(g) Polycyclic Organic Matter
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
below. POM compounds are formed primarily from combustion and are
present in the atmosphere in gas and particulate form. Cancer is the
major concern from exposure to POM. 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.\428,429\ Animal studies have
reported respiratory tract tumors from inhalation exposure to
benzo[a]pyrene and alimentary tract and liver tumors from oral exposure
to benzo[a]pyrene. EPA has classified seven PAHs (benzo[a]pyrene,
benz[a]anthracene, chrysene, benzo[b]fluoranthene,
benzo[k]fluoranthene, dibenz[a,h]anthracene, and indeno[1,2,3-
cd]pyrene) as Group B2, probable human carcinogens.\430\ Recent studies
have found that maternal exposures to PAHs in a population of pregnant
women were associated with several adverse birth outcomes, including
low birth weight and reduced length at birth, as well as impaired
cognitive development in preschool children (3 years of
age).\431,432\EPA has not yet evaluated these recent studies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\428\ 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.
\429\ 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. Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162.
\430\ U.S. EPA (1997). Integrated Risk Information System File
of indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene. Research and Development, National Center
for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC. This material is
available electronically at http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/subst/0457.htm.
\431\ Perera, F.P.; Rauh, V.; Tsai, W-Y.; et al. (2002) Effect
of transplacental exposure to environmental pollutants on birth
outcomes in a multiethnic population. Environ Health Perspect. 111:
201-205.
\432\ Perera, F.P.; Rauh, V.; Whyatt, R.M.; Tsai, W.Y.; Tang,
D.; Diaz, D.; Hoepner, L.; Barr, D.; Tu, Y.H.; Camann, D.; Kinney,
P. (2006) Effect of prenatal exposure to airborne polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons on neurodevelopment in the first 3 years of
life among inner-city children. Environ Health Perspect 114: 1287-
1292.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 57309]]
(h) 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. EPA released an external review draft of a reassessment of
the inhalation carcinogenicity of naphthalene based on a number of
recent animal carcinogenicity studies.\433\ The draft reassessment
completed external peer review.\434\ Based on external peer review
comments received, additional analyses are being undertaken. This
external review draft does not represent official agency opinion and
was released solely for the purposes of external peer review and public
comment. The National Toxicology Program 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.\435\ 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.\436\ Naphthalene also causes a number of
chronic non-cancer effects in animals, including abnormal cell changes
and growth in respiratory and nasal tissues.\437\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\433\ U. S. EPA. 2004. 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 http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0436.htm. Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162.
\434\ 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 Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162.
\435\ National Toxicology Program (NTP). (2004). 11th Report on
Carcinogens. Public Health Service, U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, Research Triangle Park, NC. Available from: http://ntp-server.niehs.nih.gov. Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162.
\436\ International Agency for Research on Cancer. (2002).
Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals
for Humans. Vol. 82. Lyon, France. Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162.
\437\ 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 http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0436.htm Docket EPA-
HQ-OAR-2010-0162.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Other Air Toxics
In addition to the compounds described above, other compounds in
gaseous hydrocarbon and PM emissions from heavy-duty vehicles will be
affected by this final action. Mobile source air toxic compounds that
would potentially be impacted include ethylbenzene, propionaldehyde,
toluene, and xylene. Information regarding the health effects of these
compounds can be found in EPA's IRIS database.\438\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\438\ U.S. EPA Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)
database is available at: http://www.epa.gov/iris.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(j) Exposure and Health Effects Associated with Traffic
Populations who live, work, or attend school near major roads
experience elevated exposure concentrations to a wide range of air
pollutants, as well as higher risks for a number of adverse health
effects. While the previous sections of this preamble have focused on
the health effects associated with individual criteria pollutants or
air toxics, this section discusses the mixture of different exposures
near major roadways, rather than the effects of any single pollutant.
As such, this section emphasizes traffic-related air pollution, in
general, as the relevant indicator of exposure rather than any
particular pollutant.
Concentrations of many traffic-generated air pollutants are
elevated for up to 300-500 meters downwind of roads with high traffic
volumes.\439\ Numerous sources on roads contribute to elevated roadside
concentrations, including exhaust and evaporative emissions, and
resuspension of road dust and tire and brake wear. Concentrations of
several criteria and hazardous air pollutants are elevated near major
roads. Furthermore, different semi-volatile organic compounds and
chemical components of particulate matter, including elemental carbon,
organic material, and trace metals, have been reported at higher
concentrations near major roads.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\439\ Zhou, Y.; Levy, J.I. (2007) Factors influencing the
spatial extent of mobile source air pollution impacts: A meta-
analysis. BMC Public Health 7:89. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-7-89 Docket
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Populations near major roads experience greater risk of certain
adverse health effects. The Health Effects Institute published a report
on the health effects of traffic-related air pollution.\440\ It
concluded that evidence is ``sufficient to infer the presence of a
causal association'' between traffic exposure and exacerbation of
childhood asthma symptoms. The HEI report also concludes that the
evidence is either ``sufficient'' or ``suggestive but not sufficient''
for a causal association between traffic exposure and new childhood
asthma cases. A review of asthma studies by Salam et al. (2008) reaches
similar conclusions.\441\ The HEI report also concludes that there is
``suggestive'' evidence for pulmonary function deficits associated with
traffic exposure, but concluded that there is ``inadequate and
insufficient'' evidence for causal associations with respiratory health
care utilization, adult-onset asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary
disease symptoms, and allergy. A review by Holguin (2008) notes that
the effects of traffic on asthma may be modified by nutrition status,
medication use, and genetic factors.\442\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\440\ HEI Panel on the Health Effects of Air Pollution. (2010)
Traffic-related air pollution: a critical review of the literature
on emissions, exposure, and health effects. [Online at http://www.healtheffects.org] Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162.
\441\ Salam, M.T.; Islam, T.; Gilliland, F.D. (2008) Recent
evidence for adverse effects of residential proximity to traffic
sources on asthma. Current Opin Pulm Med 14: 3-8. Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-
2010-0162.
\442\ Holguin, F. (2008) Traffic, outdoor air pollution, and
asthma. Immunol Allergy Clinics North Am 28: 577-588. Docket EPA-HQ-
OAR-2010-0162.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The HEI report also concludes that evidence is ``suggestive'' of a
causal association between traffic exposure and all-cause and
cardiovascular mortality. There is also evidence of an association
between traffic-related air pollutants and cardiovascular effects such
as changes in heart rhythm, heart attack, and cardiovascular disease.
The HEI report characterizes this evidence as ``suggestive'' of a
causal association, and an independent epidemiological literature
review by Adar and Kaufman (2007) concludes that there is ``consistent
evidence'' linking traffic-related pollution and adverse cardiovascular
health outcomes.\443\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\443\ Adar, S.D.; Kaufman, J.D. (2007) Cardiovascular disease
and air pollutants: evaluating and improving epidemiological data
implicating traffic exposure. Inhal Toxicol 19: 135-149. Docket EPA-
HQ-OAR-2010-0162.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some studies have reported associations between traffic exposure
and other health effects, such as birth outcomes (e.g., low birth
weight) and childhood cancer. The HEI report concludes that there is
currently ``inadequate and insufficient'' evidence for a causal
association between these effects and traffic exposure. A review by
Raaschou-Nielsen and Reynolds (2006) concluded that evidence of an
association between childhood cancer and traffic-related air pollutants
is weak,
[[Page 57310]]
but noted the inability to draw firm conclusions based on limited
evidence.\444\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\444\ Raaschou-Nielsen, O.; Reynolds, P. (2006) Air pollution
and childhood cancer: a review of the epidemiological literature.
Int J Cancer 118: 2920-2929. Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is a large population in the United States living in close
proximity of major roads. According to the Census Bureau's American
Housing Survey for 2007, approximately 20 million residences in the
United States, 15.6 percent of all homes, are located within 300 feet
(91 m) of a highway with 4+ lanes, a railroad, or an airport.\445\
Therefore, at current population of approximately 309 million, assuming
that population and housing are similarly distributed, there are over
48 million people in the United States living near such sources. The
HEI report also notes that in two North American cities, Los Angeles
and Toronto, over 40 percent of each city's population live within 500
meters of a highway or 100 meters of a major road. It also notes that
about 33 percent of each city's population resides within 50 meters of
major roads. Together, the evidence suggests that a large U.S.
population lives in areas with elevated traffic-related air pollution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\445\ U.S. Census Bureau (2008) American Housing Survey for the
United States in 2007. Series H-150 (National Data), Table 1A-7.
[Accessed at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/ahs/ahs07/ahs07.html on January 22, 2009] Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
People living near roads are often socioeconomically disadvantaged.
According to the 2007 American Housing Survey, a renter-occupied
property is over twice as likely as an owner-occupied property to be
located near a highway with 4+ lanes, railroad or airport. In the same
survey, the median household income of rental housing occupants was
less than half that of owner-occupants ($28,921/$59,886). Numerous
studies in individual urban areas report higher levels of traffic-
related air pollutants in areas with high minority or poor
populations.446 447 448
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\446\ Lena, T.S.; Ochieng, V.; Carter, M.; Holgu[iacute]n-Veras,
J.; Kinney, P.L. (2002) Elemental carbon and PM2.5 levels
in an urban community heavily impacted by truck traffic. Environ
Health Perspect 110: 1009-1015. Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162.
\447\ Wier, M.; Sciammas, C.; Seto, E.; Bhatia, R.; Rivard, T.
(2009) Health, traffic, and environmental justice: collaborative
research and community action in San Francisco, California. Am J
Public Health 99: S499-S504. Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162.
\448\ Forkenbrock, D.J. and L.A. Schweitzer, Environmental
Justice and Transportation Investment Policy. Iowa City: University
of Iowa, 1997. Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Students may also be exposed in situations where schools are
located near major roads. In a study of nine metropolitan areas across
the United States, Appatova et al. (2008) found that on average greater
than 33 percent of schools were located within 400 m of an Interstate,
U.S., or state highway, while 12 percent were located within 100
m.\449\ The study also found that among the metropolitan areas studied,
schools in the Eastern United States were more often sited near major
roadways than schools in the Western United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\449\ Appatova, A.S.; Ryan, P.H.; LeMasters, G.K.; Grinshpun,
S.A. (2008) Proximal exposure of public schools and students to
major roadways: a nationwide U.S. survey. J Environ Plan Mgmt Docket
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Demographic studies of students in schools near major roadways
suggest that this population is more likely than the general student
population to be of non-white race or Hispanic ethnicity, and more
often live in low socioeconomic status locations.450 451 452
There is some inconsistency in the evidence, which may be due to
different local development patterns and measures of traffic and
geographic scale used in the studies.\449\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\450\ 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. Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-
0162.
\451\ Houston, D.; Ong, P.; Wu, J.; Winer, A. (2006) Proximity
of licensed child care facilities to near-roadway vehicle pollution.
Am J Public Health 96: 1611-1617. Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162.
\452\ Wu, Y.; Batterman, S. (2006) Proximity of schools in
Detroit, Michigan to automobile and truck traffic. J Exposure Sci
Environ Epidemiol 16: 457-470. Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Environmental Effects of Non-GHG Pollutants
In this section we discuss some of the environmental effects of PM
and its precursors such as visibility impairment, atmospheric
deposition, and materials damage and soiling, as well as environmental
effects associated with the presence of ozone in the ambient air, such
as impacts on plants, including trees, agronomic crops and urban
ornamentals, and environmental effects associated with air toxics.
(1) Visibility
Visibility can be defined as the degree to which the atmosphere is
transparent to visible light.\453\ Visibility impairment is caused by
light scattering and absorption by suspended particles and gases.
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 2009 PM ISA.\454\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\453\ 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. Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162. This
book can be viewed on the National Academy Press Web site at http://www.nap.edu/books/0309048443/html/.
\454\ See U.S. EPA 2009 Final PM ISA, Note 355.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is pursuing a two-part strategy to address visibility
impairment. First, EPA developed the regional haze program (64 FR
35714) which was put in place in July 1999 to protect the visibility in
Mandatory Class I Federal areas. There are 156 national parks, forests
and wilderness areas categorized as Mandatory Class I Federal areas (62
FR 38680-38681, July 18, 1997). 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. Second, EPA has concluded that
PM2.5 causes adverse effects on visibility in other areas
that are not protected by the Regional Haze Rule, depending on
PM2.5 concentrations and other factors that control their
visibility impact effectiveness such as dry chemical composition and
relative humidity (i.e., an indicator of the water composition of the
particles), and has set secondary PM2.5 standards to address
these areas. The existing annual primary and secondary PM2.5
standards have been remanded by the DC Circuit (see American Farm
Bureau v. EPA, 559 F. 3d 512 (DC Cir. 2009) and are being addressed in
the currently ongoing PM NAAQS review.
(2) Plant and Ecosystem Effects of Ozone
Elevated ozone levels contribute to environmental effects, with
impacts to plants and ecosystems being of most concern. Ozone can
produce both acute and chronic injury in sensitive species depending on
the concentration level and the duration of the exposure. Ozone effects
also tend to accumulate over the growing season of the plant, so that
even low concentrations experienced for a longer duration have the
potential to create chronic stress on vegetation. Ozone damage to
plants includes visible injury to leaves and impaired photosynthesis,
both of which can lead to reduced plant growth and reproduction,
resulting in reduced crop yields, forestry production, and use of
[[Page 57311]]
sensitive ornamentals in landscaping. In addition, the impairment of
photosynthesis, the process by which the plant makes carbohydrates (its
source of energy and food), can lead to a subsequent reduction in root
growth and carbohydrate storage below ground, resulting in other, more
subtle plant and ecosystems impacts.
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 forest
and other natural vegetation can potentially lead to species shifts and
loss from the affected ecosystems, resulting in a loss or reduction in
associated ecosystem goods and services. Lastly, 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. The final
2006 Ozone Air Quality Criteria Document presents more detailed
information on ozone effects on vegetation and ecosystems.
(3) Atmospheric Deposition
Wet and dry deposition of ambient particulate matter delivers a
complex mixture of metals (e.g., mercury, zinc, lead, nickel, aluminum,
cadmium), organic compounds (e.g., polycyclic organic matter, dioxins,
furans) and inorganic compounds (e.g., nitrate, sulfate) to terrestrial
and aquatic ecosystems. The chemical form of the compounds deposited
depends on a variety of factors including ambient conditions (e.g.,
temperature, humidity, oxidant levels) and the sources of the material.
Chemical and physical transformations of the compounds occur in the
atmosphere as well as the media onto which they deposit. These
transformations in turn influence the fate, bioavailability and
potential toxicity of these compounds. Atmospheric deposition has been
identified as a key component of the environmental and human health
hazard posed by several pollutants including mercury, dioxin and
PCBs.\455\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\455\ U.S. EPA (2000) Deposition of Air Pollutants to the Great
Waters: Third Report to Congress. Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards. EPA-453/R-00-0005. Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adverse impacts on water quality can occur when atmospheric
contaminants deposit to the water surface or when material deposited on
the land enters a waterbody through runoff. Potential impacts of
atmospheric deposition to waterbodies include those related to both
nutrient and toxic inputs. Adverse effects to human health and welfare
can occur from the addition of excess nitrogen via atmospheric
deposition. The nitrogen-nutrient enrichment contributes to toxic algae
blooms and zones of depleted oxygen, which can lead to fish kills,
frequently in coastal waters. Deposition of heavy metals or other
toxics may lead to the human ingestion of contaminated fish, impairment
of drinking water, damage to the marine ecology, and limits to
recreational uses. Several studies have been conducted in U.S. coastal
waters and in the Great Lakes Region in which the role of ambient PM
deposition and runoff is investigated.456 457 458 459 460
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\456\ U.S. EPA (2004) National Coastal Condition Report II.
Office of Research and Development/Office of Water. EPA-620/R-03/
002. Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162.
\457\ Gao, Y., E.D. Nelson, M.P. Field, et al. 2002.
Characterization of atmospheric trace elements on PM2.5
particulate matter over the New York-New Jersey harbor estuary.
Atmos. Environ. 36: 1077-1086. Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162.
\458\ Kim, G., N. Hussain, J.R. Scudlark, and T.M. Church. 2000.
Factors influencing the atmospheric depositional fluxes of stable
Pb, 210Pb, and 7Be into Chesapeake Bay. J. Atmos. Chem. 36: 65-79.
Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162.
\459\ Lu, R., R.P. Turco, K. Stolzenbach, et al. 2003. Dry
deposition of airborne trace metals on the Los Angeles Basin and
adjacent coastal waters. J. Geophys. Res. 108(D2, 4074): AAC 11-1 to
11-24. Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162.
\460\ Marvin, C.H., M.N. Charlton, E.J. Reiner, et al. 2002.
Surficial sediment contamination in Lakes Erie and Ontario: A
comparative analysis. J. Great Lakes Res. 28(3): 437-450. Docket
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atmospheric deposition of nitrogen and sulfur contributes to
acidification, altering biogeochemistry and affecting animal and plant
life in terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems across the United States.
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 nutritional value of preferred prey species,
threatening biodiversity 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 include a
decline in sensitive forest tree species, such as red spruce (Picea
rubens) and sugar maple (Acer saccharum), and a loss of biodiversity of
fishes, zooplankton, and macro invertebrates.
In addition to the role nitrogen deposition plays in acidification,
nitrogen deposition also leads to nutrient enrichment and altered
biogeochemical cycling. 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
Section 7.1.2 of the RIA.
Adverse impacts on soil chemistry and plant life have been observed
for areas heavily influenced by atmospheric deposition of nutrients,
metals and acid species, resulting in species shifts, loss of
biodiversity, forest decline and damage to forest productivity.
Potential impacts also include adverse effects to human health through
ingestion of contaminated vegetation or livestock (as in the case for
dioxin deposition), reduction in crop yield, and limited use of land
due to contamination.
Atmospheric deposition of pollutants can reduce the aesthetic
appeal of buildings and culturally important articles through soiling,
and can contribute directly (or in conjunction with other pollutants)
to structural damage by means of corrosion or erosion. Atmospheric
deposition may affect materials principally by promoting and
accelerating the corrosion of metals, by degrading paints, and by
deteriorating building materials such as concrete and limestone.
Particles contribute to these effects because of their electrolytic,
hygroscopic, and acidic properties, and their ability to adsorb
corrosive gases (principally sulfur dioxide).
(4) Environmental Effects of Air Toxics
Emissions from producing, transporting and combusting fuel
contribute to ambient levels of pollutants that contribute to adverse
effects on vegetation. Volatile organic compounds, some of which are
considered air toxics, have long been suspected to play a role in
vegetation damage.\461\ In laboratory experiments, a wide range of
tolerance to VOCs has been observed.\462\ 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
[[Page 57312]]
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.\463\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\461\ U.S. EPA. 1991. Effects of organic chemicals in the
atmosphere on terrestrial plants. EPA/600/3-91/001. Docket EPA-HQ-
OAR-2010-0162.
\462\ 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. Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162.
\463\ 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. Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 nitrogen oxides.464 465 466 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\464\ Viskari E-L. 2000. Epicuticular wax of Norway spruce
needles as indicator of traffic pollutant deposition. Water, Air,
and Soil Pollut. 121:327-337. Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162.
\465\ Ugrekhelidze D, F Korte, G Kvesitadze. 1997. Uptake and
transformation of benzene and toluene by plant leaves. Ecotox.
Environ. Safety 37:24-29. Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162.
\466\ 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. Docket EPA-
HQ-OAR-2010-0162.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Air Quality Impacts of Non-GHG Pollutants
Air quality modeling was performed to assess the impact of the
heavy-duty vehicle standards on criteria and air toxic pollutants. In
this section, we present information on current modeled levels of
pollution as well as projections for 2030, with respect to ambient
PM2.5, ozone, selected air toxics, visibility levels and
nitrogen and sulfur deposition. The results are discussed in more
detail in Section 8.2 of the RIA.
We used the Community Multi-scale Air Quality (CMAQ) photochemical
model, version 4.7.1, for our analysis. This version of CMAQ includes a
number of improvements to previous versions of the model. These
improvements are discussed in Section 8.2.2 of the RIA.
(1) Ozone
(a) Current Levels
8-hour ozone concentrations exceeding the level of the ozone NAAQS
occur in many parts of the country. In 2008, the EPA amended the ozone
NAAQS (73 FR 16436, March 27, 2008). The final 2008 ozone NAAQS rule
set forth revisions to the previous 1997 NAAQS for ozone to provide
increased protection of public health and welfare. On January 6, 2010,
EPA proposed to reconsider the 2008 ozone NAAQS to ensure that they are
requisite to protect public health with an ample margin of safety, and
requisite to protect public welfare (75 FR 2938, January 19, 2010). EPA
intends to complete the reconsideration by July 31, 2011. If, as a
result of the reconsideration, EPA promulgates different ozone
standards, the new 2011 ozone standards would replace the 2008 ozone
standards and the requirement to designate areas for the replaced 2008
standards would no longer apply.
As of April 21, 2011 there are 44 areas designated as nonattainment
for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, comprising 242 full or partial
counties with a total population of over 118 million people. These
numbers do not include the people living in areas where there is a
future risk of failing to maintain or attain the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. The numbers above likely underestimate the number of counties
that are not meeting the ozone NAAQS because the nonattainment areas
associated with the more stringent 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS have not yet
been designated. Table VII-7 provides an estimate, based on 2006-08 air
quality data, of the counties with design values greater than the 2008
8-hour ozone NAAQS of 0.075 ppm.
Table VII-7--Counties With Design Values Greater Than the Ozone NAAQS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Standard counties Population \a\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997 Ozone Standard: counties within the 266 122,343,799
54 areas currently designated as
nonattainment (as of 1/6/10)...........
2008 Ozone Standard: additional counties 156 36,678,478
that would not meet the 2008 NAAQS
(based on 2006-2008 air quality data)
\b\....................................
Total............................... 422 159,022,277
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
\a\ Population numbers are from 2000 census data.
\b\ Area designations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS have not yet been made.
Nonattainment for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS would be based on three years
of air quality data from later years. Also, the county numbers in this
row include only the counties with monitors violating the 2008 Ozone
NAAQS. The numbers in this table may be an underestimate of the number
of counties and populations that will eventually be included in areas
with multiple counties designated nonattainment.
(b) Projected Levels Without This Final Action
States with 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas are required to take
action to bring those areas into compliance in the future. Based on the
final rule designating and classifying 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas
for the 1997 standard (69 FR 23951, April 30, 2004), most 8-hour ozone
nonattainment areas will be required to attain the ozone NAAQS in the
2007 to 2013 time frame and then maintain the NAAQS thereafter. As
noted, EPA is reconsidering the 2008 ozone NAAQS. If EPA promulgates
different ozone NAAQS in 2011 as a result of the reconsideration, these
standards would replace the 2008 ozone NAAQS and there would no longer
be a requirement to designate areas for the 2008 NAAQS. Attainment
dates for any 2011 ozone NAAQS would range from 3 to 20 years from
designation, depending on the area's classification.
EPA has already adopted many emission control programs that are
expected to reduce ambient ozone levels and assist in reducing the
number of areas that fail to achieve the ozone NAAQS. Even so, our air
quality modeling projects that in 2030, with all current controls but
excluding the impacts of the heavy-duty standards, up to 10 counties
with a population of over 30 million may not attain the 2008 ozone
standard of 0.075 ppm (75 ppb). These numbers do not account for those
[[Page 57313]]
areas that are close to (e.g., within 10 percent of) the 2008 ozone
standard. These areas, although not violating the standards, will also
be impacted by changes in ozone as they work to ensure long-term
maintenance of the ozone NAAQS.
(c) Projected Levels With This Final Action
Our modeling indicates ozone design value concentrations will
decrease in many areas of the country due to this action. The decreases
in ozone design values are likely due to projected tailpipe reductions
in NOX and projected upstream emissions decreases in
NOX and VOCs from reduced gasoline production. The majority
of the ozone design value decreases are less than 1 ppb. The maximum
projected decrease in an 8-hour ozone design value is 1.57 ppb in
Jefferson County, Tennessee. On a population-weighted basis, the
average modeled 8-hour ozone design values are projected to decrease by
0.39 ppb in 2030 and the design values for those counties that are
projected to be above the 2008 ozone standard in 2030 will see
population-weighted decreases of 0.16 ppb due to the heavy-duty
standards.
(2) Particulate Matter
(a) Current Levels
PM2.5 concentrations exceeding the level of the
PM2.5 NAAQS occur in many parts of the country. In 2005, EPA
designated 39 nonattainment areas for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS
(70 FR 943, January 5, 2005). These areas are composed of 208 full or
partial counties with a total population exceeding 88 million. The 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS was revised in 2006 and the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS became effective on December 18, 2006. On
October 8, 2009, the EPA issued final nonattainment area designations
for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS (74 FR 58688, November 13,
2009). These designations include 32 areas composed of 121 full or
partial counties with a population of over 70 million. In total, there
are 54 PM2.5 nonattainment areas composed of 243 counties
with a population of almost 102 million people.
(b) Projected Levels Without This Final Action
States with PM2.5 nonattainment areas are required to
take action to bring those areas into compliance in the future. Areas
designated as not attaining the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS will need
to attain the 1997 standards in the 2010 to 2015 time frame, and then
maintain them thereafter. The 2006 24-hour PM2.5
nonattainment areas will be required to attain the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS in the 2014 to 2019 time frame and then be
required to maintain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
thereafter. The heavy-duty standards finalized in this action become
effective in 2012 and therefore may be useful to states in attaining or
maintaining the PM2.5 NAAQS.
EPA has already adopted many emission control programs that are
expected to reduce ambient PM2.5 levels and which will
assist in reducing the number of areas that fail to achieve the
PM2.5 NAAQS. Even so, our air quality modeling projects that
in 2030, with all current controls but excluding the impacts of the
heavy-duty standards adopted here, at least 4 counties with a
population of almost 7 million may not attain the 1997 annual
PM2.5 standard of 15 [micro]g/m\3\ and 22 counties with a
population of over 33 million may not attain the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 standard of 35 [micro]g/m\3\. These numbers do not
account for those areas that are close to (e.g., within 10 percent of)
the PM2.5 standards. These areas, although not violating the
standards, will also benefit from any reductions in PM2.5
ensuring long-term maintenance of the PM2.5 NAAQS.
(c) Projected Levels With This Final Action
Air quality modeling performed for this final action shows that in
2030 the majority of the modeled counties will see decreases of less
than 0.01 [micro]g/m\3\ in their annual PM2.5 design values.
The decreases in annual PM2.5 design values that we see in
some counties are likely due to emission reductions related to lower
fuel production at existing oil refineries and/or reductions in
PM2.5 precursor emissions (NOX, SOX,
and VOCs) due to improvements in road load. The maximum projected
decrease in an annual PM2.5 design value is 0.03 [micro]g/
m\3\ in Allen County, Indiana and Canyon County, Idaho. On a
population-weighted basis, the average modeled 2030 annual
PM2.5 design value is projected to decrease by 0.01
[micro]g/m\3\ due to this final action.
In addition to looking at annual PM2.5 design values, we
also modeled the impact of the standards on 24-hour PM2.5
design values. Air quality modeling performed for this final action
shows that in 2030 the majority of the modeled counties will see
changes of between -0.05 [micro]g/m\3\ and 0 [micro]g/m\3\ in their 24-
hour PM2.5 design values. The decreases in annual
PM2.5 design values that we see in some counties are likely
due to emission reductions related to lower fuel production at existing
oil refineries and/or reductions in PM2.5 precursor
emissions (NOX, SOX, and VOCs) due to
improvements in road load. The maximum projected decrease in a 24-hour
PM2.5 design value is 0.27 [micro]g/m\3\ in Canyon County,
ID. There are also some counties that are projected to see increases of
less than 0.1 [micro]g/m\3\ in their 24-hour PM2.5 design
values. These small increases in 24-hour PM2.5 design values
are likely related to downstream emission increases from APUs. On a
population-weighted basis, the average modeled 2030 24-hour
PM2.5 design value is projected to decrease by 0.03
[micro]g/m\3\ due to this final action. Those counties that are
projected to be above the 24-hour PM2.5 standard in 2030
will see slightly smaller population-weighted decreases of 0.01
[micro]g/m\3\ in their design values due to this final action.
(3) Air Toxics
(a) Current Levels
The majority of Americans continue to be exposed to ambient
concentrations of air toxics at levels which have the potential to
cause adverse health effects.\467\ 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
U.S. EPA's most recent Mobile Source Air Toxics Rule.\468\ According to
the National Air Toxic Assessment (NATA) for 2005,\469\ mobile sources
were responsible for 43 percent of outdoor toxic emissions and over 50
percent of the cancer risk and noncancer hazard. Benzene is the largest
contributor to cancer risk of all 124 pollutants quantitatively
assessed in the 2002 NATA and mobile sources were responsible for 59
percent of benzene emissions in 2002. Over the years, EPA has
implemented a number of mobile source and fuel controls resulting in
VOC reductions, which also reduce benzene and other air toxic
emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\467\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2007). Control of
Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources; Final Rule. 72 FR
8434, February 26, 2007.
\468\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2007). Control of
Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources; Final Rule. 72 FR
8434, February 26, 2007.
\469\ U.S. EPA. (2011) 2005 National-Scale Air Toxics
Assessment. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata2005/. Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-
2010-0162.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Projected Levels
Our modeling indicates that the heavy-duty standards have
relatively little impact on national average ambient concentrations of
the modeled air toxics. Additional detail on the air toxics results can
be found in Section 8.2.3.3 of the RIA.
[[Page 57314]]
(4) Nitrogen and Sulfur Deposition
(a) Current Levels
Over the past two decades, the EPA has undertaken numerous efforts
to reduce nitrogen and sulfur deposition across the U.S. Analyses of
long-term monitoring data for the U.S. show that deposition of both
nitrogen and sulfur compounds has decreased over the last 17 years
although many areas continue to be negatively impacted by deposition.
Deposition of inorganic nitrogen and sulfur species routinely measured
in the U.S. between 2005 and 2007 were as high as 9.6 kilograms of
nitrogen per hectare (kg N/ha) averaged over three years and 20.8
kilograms of sulfur per hectare (kg S/ha) averaged over three
years.\470\ The data show that reductions were more substantial for
sulfur compounds than for nitrogen compounds. These numbers are
generated by the U.S. national monitoring network and they likely
underestimate nitrogen deposition because neither ammonia nor organic
nitrogen is measured. In the eastern U.S., where data are most
abundant, total sulfur deposition decreased by about 44 percent between
1990 and 2007, while total nitrogen deposition decreased by 25 percent
over the same timeframe.\471\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\470\ U.S. EPA. U.S. EPA's Report on the Environment (Final
Report). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/
600/R-07/045F (NTIS PB2008-112484). Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162.
Updated data available online at: http://cfpub.epa.gov/eroe/index.cfm?fuseaction=detail.viewInd&ch=46&subtop=341&lv=list.listByChapter&r=201744.
\471\ U.S. EPA. U.S. EPA's 2008 Report on the Environment (Final
Report). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/
600/R-07/045F (NTIS PB2008-112484). Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162.
Updated data available online at: http://cfpub.epa.gov/eroe/index.cfm?fuseaction=detail.viewInd&ch=46&subtop=341&lv=list.listByChapter&r=201744.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Projected Levels
Our air quality modeling projects decreases in nitrogen deposition,
especially in the Midwest, as a result of the heavy-duty standards
required by this final action. The heavy-duty standards will result in
annual percent decreases of 0.5 percent to more than 2 percent in some
cities in the Midwest, Phoenix, Albuquerque, and some areas in Texas.
The remainder of the country will see only minimal changes in nitrogen
deposition, ranging from decreases of less than 0.5 percent to
increases of less than 0.5 percent. For a map of 2030 nitrogen
deposition impacts and additional information on these impacts, see
Section 8.2.3.4 of the RIA. The impacts of the heavy-duty standards on
sulfur deposition are minimal, ranging from decreases of up to 0.5
percent to increases of up to 0.5 percent.
(5) Visibility
(a) Current Levels
As mentioned in Section VII.D(1)(a), millions of people live in
nonattainment areas for the PM2.5 NAAQS. These populations,
as well as large numbers of individuals who travel to these areas, are
likely to experience visibility impairment. In addition, while
visibility trends have improved in mandatory class I federal areas, the
most recent data show that these areas continue to suffer from
visibility impairment. In summary, visibility impairment is experienced
throughout the U.S., in multi-state regions, urban areas, and remote
mandatory class I federal areas.
(b) Projected Levels
Air quality modeling conducted for this final action was used to
project visibility conditions in 138 mandatory class I federal areas
across the U.S. in 2030. The results show that all the modeled areas
will continue to have annual average deciview levels above background
in 2030.\472\ The results also indicate that the majority of the
modeled mandatory class I federal areas will see very little change in
their visibility, but some mandatory class I federal areas will see
improvements in visibility due to the heavy-duty standards and a few
mandatory class I federal areas will see visibility decreases. The
average visibility at all modeled mandatory class I federal areas on
the 20 percent worst days is projected to improve by 0.01 deciviews, or
0.06 percent, in 2030. Section 8.2.3.5 of the RIA contains more detail
on the visibility portion of the air quality modeling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\472\ The level of visibility impairment in an area is based on
the light-extinction coefficient and a unitless visibility index,
called a ``deciview,'' which is used in the valuation of visibility.
The deciview metric provides a scale for perceived visual changes
over the entire range of conditions, from clear to hazy. Under many
scenic conditions, the average person can generally perceive a
change of one deciview. The higher the deciview value, the worse the
visibility. Thus, an improvement in visibility is a decrease in
deciview value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VIII. What are the agencies' estimated cost, economic, and other
impacts of the final program?
In this section, we present the costs and impacts of the final HD
National Program. It is important to note that NHTSA's final fuel
consumption standards and EPA's final GHG emissions standards will both
be in effect, and each will lead to average fuel efficiency increases
and GHG emission reductions. The two agencies' final standards comprise
the HD National Program.
The net benefits of the final HD National Program consist of the
effects of the program on:
The vehicle program costs (costs of complying with the vehicle
CO2 standards),
Fuel savings associated with reduced fuel usage resulting from
the program,
Reductions in greenhouse gas emissions,
The reductions in other (non-GHG) pollutants,
Costs associated with increases in noise, congestion, and
accidents resulting from increased vehicle use,
Improvements in U.S. energy security impacts,
Benefits associated with increased vehicle use due to the
``rebound'' effect.
We also present the cost-effectiveness of the standards, or the
cost per ton of emissions reduced. Where possible, we identify the
uncertain aspects of these economic impacts and attempt to quantify
them when and if possible (e.g., sensitivity ranges associated with
quantified and monetized GHG impacts; probabilistic uncertainty
associated with non-GHG health benefits). For some impacts, however,
there is a lack of adequate information to inform a probabilistic
assessment of uncertainty. EPA continues to work toward developing a
comprehensive strategy for characterizing the aggregate impact of
uncertainty in key elements of its analyses and we will continue to
work to refine these uncertainty analyses in the future as time and
resources permit.
The program may have other effects that are not included here. The
agencies sought comment on whether any costs or benefits were omitted
from this analysis, so that they could be explicitly recognized in the
final rules. In particular, as discussed in Section III and in Chapter
2 of the RIA, the technology cost estimates developed here take into
account the costs to hold other vehicle attributes, such as size and
performance, constant. In addition, the analysis assumes that the full
technology costs are passed along to vehicle buyers. With these
assumptions, because welfare losses are monetary estimates of how much
buyers would have to be compensated to be made as well off as in the
absence of the change,\473\ the price increase measures
[[Page 57315]]
the loss to the buyer.\474\ Assuming that the full technology cost gets
passed along to the buyer as an increase in price, the technology cost
thus measures the welfare loss to the buyer. Increasing fuel efficiency
would have to lead to other changes in the vehicles that buyers find
undesirable for there to be additional losses not included in the
technology costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\473\ This approach describes the economic concept of
compensating variation, a payment of money after a change that would
make a consumer as well off after the change as before it. A related
concept, equivalent variation, estimates the income change that
would be an alternative to the change taking place. The difference
between them is whether the consumer's point of reference is her
welfare before the change (compensating variation) or after the
change (equivalent variation). In practice, these two measures are
typically very close together.
\474\ Indeed, it is likely to be an overestimate of the loss to
the buyer, because the buyer has choices other than buying the same
vehicle with a higher price; she could choose a different vehicle,
or decide not to buy a new vehicle. The buyer would choose one of
those options only if the alternative involves less loss than paying
the higher price. Thus, the increase in price that the buyer faces
would be the upper bound of loss of consumer welfare, unless there
are other changes to the vehicle due to the fuel economy
improvements that make the vehicle less desirable to buyers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agencies sought comments, including supporting data and
quantitative analyses, of any additional impacts of the final standards
on vehicle attributes and performance, and other potential aspects that
could positively or negatively affect the welfare implications of this
final rulemaking, not addressed in this analysis.
The comments received by the agencies did not provide any clear
insights into this question. Some comments noted the diversity of the
trucking industry and expressed a request that the program continue the
great variety of options for the industry, because of the variation in
needs for different customers. Additional comments noted that the
separate engine and vehicle programs support the maintenance of variety
and current market structure. Though a few commenters raised concerns,
no information was offered to indicate that choice will in fact be
limited by the program, or that other vehicle attributes are adversely
affected.
The total monetized benefits (excluding fuel savings) under the
program are projected to be $4.3 to $11.1 billion in 2030, depending on
the value used for the social cost of carbon. These benefits are
summarized below in Table 0-31. The costs of the program in 2030,
presented in Table 0-29 are estimated to be approximately $2.2 billion
for new engine and truck technology. The program is also estimated to
provide $20.6 billion in savings realized by trucking operations
through fewer fuel expenditures (calculated using pre-tax fuel prices),
as shown in Table 0-30. The present value of the total monetized
benefits (excluding fuel savings) under the program is expected to
range from $48.7 billion to $180.1 billion with a 3 percent discount
rate; with a 7 percent discount rate, the total monetized benefits are
expected to range from $24.3 billion to $155.7 billion. These values,
summarized in Table 0-31, depend on the value used for the social cost
of carbon. The present value of costs of the program for new engine and
truck technology, in Table 0-32, are expected to be $47.4 billion using
a 3 percent discount rate, and $24.7 billion with a 7 percent discount
rate. The present value of fuel savings (calculated using pre-tax fuel
prices) is estimated at $375.3 billion with a 3 percent discount rate,
and $166.5 billion with a 7 percent discount rate, as shown in Table 0-
32. Total net present benefits (in Table 0-32) are thus expected to
range from $376.6 billion to $508 billion with a 3 percent discount
rate, and $166.1 billion to $297.5 billion with a 7 percent discount
rate.
The estimates developed here are measured against a baseline fuel
efficiency associated with MY 2010 vehicles. The agencies also
considered an alternate baseline associated with AEO 2011 projections,
which is further discussed in Section IX. All calculations presented in
Section VIII use the constant 2010 vehicle baseline. The extent to
which fuel efficiency improvements may have occurred in the absence of
the rules affects the net benefits associated with the program. If
trucks were to install technologies to achieve the fuel savings and
reduced GHG emissions in the absence of this program, then both the
costs and benefits of these fuel savings could be attributed to market
forces, not the rules. As a baseline for estimates of the extent of
fuel-saving technologies that might have been adopted in the absence of
the program, the proposal used the level of these technologies in MY
2010 vehicles. We sought comment on whether the agencies should use an
alternative baseline based on data provided by commenters to estimate
the degree to which the technologies discussed in the proposal would
have been adopted in the absence of these rules. No comments were
received on this issue. One comment cites the EPA draft RIA as noting a
historic 1 percent per year improvement in fuel efficiency, and argues
that the rules are therefore not needed; the actual figure in the draft
RIA, however, was a 0.09 percent per year improvement.
EPA has undertaken an analysis of the economy-wide impacts of the
final heavy-duty truck fuel efficiency and GHG standards as an
exploratory exercise that EPA believes could provide additional
insights into the potential impacts of the program.\475\ These results
were not a factor regarding the appropriateness of the final standards.
It is important to note that the results of this modeling exercise are
dependent on the assumptions associated with how manufacturers would
make fuel efficiency improvements and how trucking operations would
respond to increases in higher vehicle costs and improved vehicle fuel
efficiency as a result of the final program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\475\ See Memorandum to Docket, ``Economy-Wide Impacts of Heavy-
Duty Truck Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards'',
May 20, 2011. Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further information on these and other aspects of the economic
impacts of our rules are summarized in the following sections and are
presented in more detail in the RIA for this final rulemaking.
A. Conceptual Framework for Evaluating Impacts
This regulation is motivated primarily by the goals of reducing
emissions of greenhouse gases and promoting U.S. energy security by
reducing consumption and imports of petroleum-based fuels. These
motivations involve classic externalities, meaning that private
decisions do not incorporate all of the costs associated with these
problems; these costs are not borne completely by the households or
businesses whose actions are responsible for them. In the absence of
some mechanism to ``internalize'' these costs--that is, to transfer
their burden to individuals or firms whose decisions impose them--
individuals and firms will consume more petroleum-based fuels than is
socially optimal. Externalities are a classic motivation for government
intervention in markets. These externalities, as well as effects due to
changes in emissions of other pollutants and other impacts, are
discussed in Sections VIII.H--VIII.K.
In some cases, these classic externalities are by themselves enough
to justify the costs of imposing fuel efficiency standards. For some
discount rates and some projected social costs of carbon, however, the
reductions in these external costs are less than the costs of new fuel
saving technologies needed to meet the standards. (See Tables 9-24 and
9-25 in the RIA.) Nevertheless, this regulation reduces trucking
companies' fuel costs; according to our estimates, these savings in
fuel costs are by themselves sufficient to pay for the
[[Page 57316]]
technologies over periods of time considerably shorter than vehicles'
expected lifetimes under the assumptions used for this analysis (e.g.,
AEO 2011 projected fuel prices). If these estimates are correct, then
the entire value of the reductions in external costs represents
additional net benefits of the program, beyond those resulting from the
fact that the value of fuel savings exceeds the costs of technologies
necessary to achieve them.
It is often asserted that there are cost-effective fuel-saving
technologies that markets do not take advantage of. This is commonly
known as the ``energy gap'' or ``energy paradox.'' Standard economic
theory suggests that in normally functioning competitive markets,
interactions between vehicle buyers and producers would lead producers
to incorporate all cost-effective technology into the vehicles that
they offer, without government intervention. Unlike in the light-duty
vehicle market, the vast majority of vehicles in the medium- and heavy-
duty truck market are purchased and operated by businesses with narrow
profit margins, and for which fuel costs represent a substantial
operating expense.
Even in the presence of uncertainty and imperfect information--
conditions that hold to some degree in every market--we generally
expect firms to attempt to minimize their costs in an effort to survive
in a competitive marketplace, and therefore to make decisions that are
in the best interest of the company and its owners and/or shareholders.
In this case, the benefits of the rules would be due exclusively to
reducing the economic costs of externalities resulting from fuel
production and consumption. However, as discussed below in Section
VIII.E, the agencies have estimated that the application of fuel-saving
technologies in response to the final standards would, on average,
yield significant private returns to truck owners (see Tables VIII-9
through VIII-11, below). The agencies have also estimated that the
application of these technologies would be significantly lower in the
absence of the final standards (i.e., under the ``no action''
regulatory alternative), meaning that truck buyers and operators ignore
opportunities to make investments in higher fuel efficiency that appear
to offer significant cost savings.
As discussed in the NPRM, there are several possible explanations
in the economics literature for why trucking companies do not adopt
technologies that would be expected to increase their profits: there
could be a classic market failure in the trucking industry--market
power, externalities, or asymmetric or incomplete (i.e., missing
market) information; there could be institutional or behavioral
rigidities in the industry (union rules, standard operating procedures,
statutory requirements, loss aversion, etc.), whereby participants
collectively do not minimize costs; or the engineering estimates of
fuel savings and costs for these technologies might overstate their
benefits or understate their costs in real-world applications. See 75
FR at 74303-307.
To try to understand why trucking companies have not adopted these
seemingly cost-effective fuel-saving technologies, the agencies
surveyed published literature about the energy paradox, and held
discussions with numerous truck market participants. The proposal
discussed five categories of possible explanations derived from these
sources. Collectively, these five hypotheses may explain the apparent
inconsistency between the engineering analysis, which finds a number of
cost-effective methods of improving fuel efficiency, and the
observation that many of these technologies are not widely adopted.
These hypotheses include imperfect information in the original and
resale markets, split incentives, uncertainty about future fuel prices,
and adjustment and transactions costs. As the discussion indicated,
some of these explanations suggest failures in the private market for
fuel-saving technology in addition to the externalities caused by
producing and consuming fuel that are the primary motivation for the
rules. Other explanations suggest market-based behaviors that may imply
additional costs of regulating truck fuel efficiency that are not
accounted for in this analysis. As noted above, an additional
explanation--adverse effects on other vehicle attributes--did not
elicit supporting information in the public comments. Anecdotal
evidence from various segments of the trucking industry suggests that
many of the hypotheses discussed here may play a role in explaining the
puzzle of why truck purchasers appear to under-invest in fuel
efficiency, although different explanations may apply to different
segments, or even different companies. The published literature does
not appear to include empirical analysis or data related to this
question.
The agencies invited comment on these explanations, and on any data
or information that could be used to investigate the role of any or all
of these five hypotheses in explaining this energy paradox as it
applies specifically to trucks. Some comments expressed dissatisfaction
about the explanations presented; they argued that these arguments were
not sufficient to explain the phenomenon. These comments argued that
the truck owners and operators are better judges of the appropriate
amount of fuel efficiency than are government agencies; they choose not
to invest because of warranted skepticism about these technologies. The
agencies also requested comment and information regarding any other
hypotheses that could explain the appearance that cost-effective fuel-
saving technologies have not been widely incorporated into trucks. The
following discussion summarizes the fuller discussion provided in the
NPRM and includes discussion of the comments received.
(1) Information Issues in the Original Sale Markets
One potential hypothesis for why the trucking industry does not
adopt what appear to be inexpensive fuel saving technologies is that
there is inadequate or unreliable information available about the
effectiveness of many fuel-saving technologies for new vehicles. If
reliable information on the effectiveness of many new technologies is
absent, truck buyers will understandably be reluctant to spend
additional money to purchase vehicles equipped with unproven
technologies.
This lack of information can manifest itself in multiple ways. For
instance, the problem may arise purely because collecting reliable
information on technologies is costly (also see Section VIII.A.5 below
on transaction costs). Moreover, information has aspects of a public
good, in that no single firm has the incentive to do the costly
experimentation to determine whether or not particular technologies are
cost-effective, while all firms benefit from the knowledge that would
be gained from that experimentation. Similarly, if multiple firms must
conduct the same tests to get the same information, costs could be
reduced by some form of coordination of information gathering.
While its effect on information is indirect, we expect the
requirement for the use of new technologies included in this program
will circumvent these information issues, resulting in their adoption,
thus providing more readily available information about their benefits.
The agencies appreciate, however, that the diversity of truck uses,
driving situations, and driver behavior will lead to variation in the
fuel savings that individual trucks or fleets experience from using
specific technologies.
[[Page 57317]]
One commenter noted that the SmartWay program targets combination
tractor owners and thus should have the largest impact on that sector,
rather than vocational or medium-duty trucks. However, the gap between
actual investment in fuel efficiency and the agencies' estimates of
optimal investment is largest for combination tractors. Some of the
difference in magnitude is likely to be due to the higher vehicle miles
traveled for combination tractors compared to medium-duty and
vocational vehicles: more driving means more fuel savings.
Additionally, not even a majority of semi-trucks are owned by
participants in SmartWay; non-participants are unlikely to get all the
benefits of participants. Other explanations, noted below, are also
likely to play a role. This observation may also suggest some
limitations of improved information provision as a means of addressing
the ``efficiency gap.''
(2) Information Issues in the Resale Market
In addition to issues in the new vehicle market, a second
hypothesis for why trucking companies may not adopt what appear to be
cost-effective technologies to save fuel is that the resale market may
not adequately reward the addition of fuel-saving technology to
vehicles to ensure their original purchase by new truck buyers. This
inadequate payback for users beyond the original owner may contribute
to the short payback period that new purchasers appear to expect.\476\
The agencies requested data and information on the extent to which
costs of fuel saving equipment can be recovered in the resale truck
market. No data were received. One reviewer disputed this theory on the
basis that people are willing to pay more for better vehicles, new or
used. It is not clear, however, whether buyers of used vehicles can
tell which are the better vehicles.\477\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\476\ See NAS 2010, Note 197, at p. 188.
\477\ Akerlof, George A. ``The Market for `Lemons' Quality
Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism,'' Quarterly Journal of
Economics 84(3) (1970): 488-500 points out that asymmetric
information--the seller has better information than the buyer--can
potentially lead to complete failure of a market, even when both
buyers and sellers would benefit from trade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some of this unwillingness to pay for fuel-saving technology may be
due to the extension of the information problems in the new vehicle
market into resale markets. Buyers in the resale market have no more
reason to trust information on fuel-saving technologies than buyers in
the original market. Because actual fuel efficiency of trucks on the
road depends on many factors, including geography and driving styles or
habits, even objective sources such as logs of truck performance for
used vehicles may not provide reliable information about the fuel
efficiency that potential purchasers of used trucks will experience.
A related possibility is that vehicles will be used for different
purposes by their second owners than those for which they were
originally designed, and the fuel-saving technology is therefore of
less value.
It is possible, though, that the fuel savings experienced by the
secondary purchasers may not match those experienced by their original
owners if the optimal secondary new use of the vehicle does not earn as
many benefits from the technologies. One commenter asks whether the
fuel-saving technology is unvalued because it is unproven or overrated.
In that case, the premium for fuel-saving technology in the secondary
market should accurately reflect its value to potential buyers
participating in that market, even if it is lower than its value in the
original market, and the market has not failed. Because the information
necessary to optimize use in the secondary market may not be readily
available or reliable, however, buyers in the resale market may have
less ability than purchasers of new vehicles to identify and gain the
advantages of new fuel-saving technologies, and may thus be even less
likely to pay a premium for them.
For these reasons, purchasers' willingness to pay for fuel
efficiency technologies may be even lower in the resale market than in
the original equipment market. Even when fuel-saving technologies will
provide benefits in the resale markets, purchasers of used vehicles may
not be willing to compensate their original owners fully for their
remaining value. As a result, the purchasers of original equipment may
expect the resale market to provide inadequate appropriate compensation
for the new technologies, even when those technologies would reduce
costs for the new buyers. This information issue may partially explain
what appears to be the very short payback periods required for new
technologies in the new vehicle market.
(3) Split Incentives in the Medium- and Heavy-Duty Truck Industry
A third hypothesis explaining the energy paradox as applied to
trucking involves split incentives. When markets work effectively,
signals provided by transactions in one market are quickly transmitted
to related markets and influence the decisions of buyers and sellers in
those related markets. For instance, in a well-functioning market
system, changes in the expected future price of fuel should be
transmitted rapidly to those who purchase trucks, who will then
reevaluate the amount of fuel-saving technology to purchase for new
vehicles. If for some reason a truck purchaser will not be directly
responsible for future fuel costs, or the individual who will be
responsible for fuel costs does not decide which truck characteristics
to purchase, then those price signals may not be transmitted
effectively, and incentives can be described as ``split.''
One place where such a split may occur is between the owners and
operators of trucks. Because they are generally responsible for
purchasing fuel, truck operators have strong incentives to economize on
its use, and are thus likely to support the use of fuel-saving
technology. However, the owners of trucks or trailers are often
different from operators, and may be more concerned about their
longevity or maintenance costs than about their fuel efficiency, when
purchasing vehicles. As a result, capital investments by truck owners
may be channeled into equipment that improves vehicles' durability or
reduces their maintenance costs, rather than into fuel-saving
technology. If operators can choose freely among the trucks they drive,
competition among truck owners to employ operators would encourage
owners to invest in fuel-saving technology. However, if truck owners
have more ability to choose among operators, then market signals for
improved fuel savings that would normally be transmitted to truck
owners may be muted. Truck fleets that rent their vehicles may provide
an example: renters may observe the cost of renting the truck, but not
its fuel efficiency; if so, then the purchasers will aim for vehicles
with lower costs, to lower the cost of the rental. It might be possible
to test this theory by comparing the fuel efficiency of trucks by
owner-operators with those that are leased by operators. The agencies
have not had the data to conduct such a test.
One commenter noted that there are always tradeoffs in an
investment decision: a purchaser may prefer to invest in other vehicle
attributes than fuel efficiency. In an efficient market, however, a
purchaser should invest in fuel-saving technology as long as the
increase in fuel-saving technology costs less than the expected fuel
savings. This result should hold regardless of the level of investment
in other attributes, unless there are constraints on a
[[Page 57318]]
purchaser's access to investment capital. The agencies believe that
truck fleets do have an incentive to make investments in fuel
efficiency, and that this assumption is reflected in the regulatory
analysis. The agencies also believe, however, that sufficient evidence
suggests that truck fleets are not availing themselves of all the
opportunities for efficiency improvements.
In addition, the NAS report notes that split incentives can arise
between tractor and trailer operators.\478\ Trailers affect the fuel
efficiency of shipping, but trailer owners do not face strong
incentives to coordinate with truck owners. EPA and NHTSA are not
regulating trailers in this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\478\ See NAS 2010, Note 197, at p. 182.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By itself, information provision may be inadequate to address the
potential underinvestment in fuel efficiency resulting from such split
incentives. In this setting, regulation may contribute to fuel savings
that otherwise may be difficult to achieve.
(4) Uncertainty About Future Cost Savings
Another hypothesis for the lack of adoption of seemingly fuel
saving technologies may be uncertainty about future fuel prices or
truck maintenance costs. When purchasers have less than perfect
foresight about future operating expenses, they may implicitly discount
future savings in those costs due to uncertainty about potential
returns from investments that reduce future costs. In contrast, the
immediate costs of the fuel-saving or maintenance-reducing technologies
are certain and immediate, and thus not subject to discounting. In this
situation, both the expected return on capital investments in higher
fuel efficiency and potential variance about its expected rate may play
a role in a firm's calculation of its payback period on such
investments.
In the context of energy efficiency investments for the home,
Metcalf and Rosenthal (1995) and Metcalf and Hassett (1995) observe
that households weigh known, up-front costs that are essentially
irreversible against an unknown stream of future fuel savings.\479\
Notably, in this situation, requiring households to adopt technologies
more quickly may make them worse off by imposing additional risk on
them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\479\ Metcalf, G., and D. Rosenthal (1995). ``The `New' View of
Investment Decisions and Public Policy Analysis: An Application to
Green Lights and Cold Refrigerators,'' Journal of Policy Analysis
and Management 14: 517-531. Hassett and Metcalf (1995). ``Energy Tax
Credits and Residential Conservation Investment: Evidence from Panel
Data'' Journal of Public Economics 57 (1995): 201-217. Metcalf, G.,
and K. Hassett (1999). ``Measuring the Energy Savings from Home
Improvement Investments: Evidence from Monthly Billing Data.'' The
Review of Economics and Statistics 81(3): 516-528.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greene et al (2009) also finds support for this explanation in the
context of light-duty fuel economy decisions: a loss-averse consumer's
expected net present value of increasing the fuel economy of a
passenger car can be very close to zero, even if a risk-neutral
expected value calculation shows that its buyer can expect significant
net benefits from purchasing a more fuel-efficient car.\480\ Supporting
this hypothesis is a finding by Dasgupta et al. (2007) that consumers
are more likely to lease than buy a vehicle with higher maintenance
costs because it provides them with the option to return it before
those costs become too high.\481\ However, the agencies know of no
studies that have estimated the impact of uncertainty on perceived
future savings for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\480\ Greene, D., J. German, and M. Delucchi (2009). ``Fuel
Economy: The Case for Market Failure'' in Reducing Climate Impacts
in the Transportation Sector, Sperling, D., and J. Cannon, eds.
Springer Science.
\481\ Dasgupta, S., S. Siddarth, and J. Silva-Risso (2007). ``To
Lease or to Buy? A Structural Model of a Consumer's Vehicle and
Contract Choice Decisions.'' Journal of Marketing Research 44: 490-
502.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Purchasers' uncertainty about future fuel prices implies that
mandating improvements in fuel efficiency can reduce the expected
utility associated with truck purchases. This is because adopting such
regulation requires purchasers to assume a greater level of risk than
they would in its absence, even if the future fuel savings predicted by
a risk-neutral calculation actually materialize. One commenter
expressed support for this argument. Thus the mere existence of
uncertainty about future savings in fuel costs does not by itself
assure that regulations requiring improved fuel efficiency will
necessarily provide economic benefits for truck purchasers and
operators. On the other hand, because risk aversion reduces expected
returns for businesses, competitive pressures can reduce risk aversion:
risk-neutral companies can make higher average profits over time. Thus,
significant risk aversion is unlikely to survive competitive pressures.
(5) Adjustment and Transactions Costs
Another hypothesis is that transactions costs of changing to new
technologies (how easily drivers will adapt to the changes, e.g.) may
slow or prevent their adoption. Because of the diversity in the
trucking industry, truck owners and fleets may like to see how a new
technology works in the field, when applied to their specific
operations, before they adopt it. One commenter expressed support for
this argument. If a conservative approach to new technologies leads
truck buyers to adopt new technologies slowly, then successful new
technologies are likely to be adopted over time without market
intervention, but with potentially significant delays in achieving fuel
saving, environment, and energy security benefits.
In addition, there may be costs associated with training drivers to
realize the potential fuel savings enabled by new technologies, or with
accelerating fleet operators' scheduled fleet turnover and replacement
to hasten their acquisition of vehicles equipped with new fuel-saving
technologies. Here, again, there may be no market failure; requiring
the widespread use of these technologies may impose adjustment and
transactions costs not included in this analysis. As in the discussion
of the role of risk, these adjustment and transactions costs are
typically immediate and undiscounted, while their benefits are future
and uncertain; risk or loss aversion may further discourage companies
from adopting new technologies.
To the extent that there may be transactions costs associated with
the new technologies, then regulation gives all new truck purchasers a
level playing field, because it will require all of them to adjust on
approximately the same time schedule. If experience with the new
technologies serves to reduce uncertainty and risk, the industry as a
whole may become more accepting of new technologies. This could
increase demand for future new technologies and induce additional
benefits in the legacy fleet through complementary efforts such as
SmartWay.
(6) Additional Hypotheses
In the public comments, two additional ideas were raised for the
lack of adoption of what appears to be cost-effective fuel-saving
technology. The first suggestion is that tighter diesel emissions
standards caused engine manufacturers to invest heavily (both
financially and with personnel) in emissions reduction technologies,
and hence, were unable to invest in fuel efficiency technologies. A
second suggestion is that a truck may be a ``positional good''--that
is, a good whose value depends on how it compares to the goods owned by
others. If trucks confer status on their owners or operators, and if
that status depends on easily observable characteristics,
[[Page 57319]]
then owners may invest disproportionately in status-granting
characteristics rather than less visible characteristics, such as fuel
efficiency. Because status depends on comparisons to others, an ``arms
race'' may develop in which all parties spend additional money on
visible characteristics but may not manage to make themselves better
off. In this case, regulation may improve welfare: by increasing the
requirements for non-positional fuel efficiency, regulation could
reduce expenditures made purely for competition rather than actual
increase in welfare. In a competitive business, cost reduction provides
a major opportunity cost to investing in status rather than in fuel-
saving technology; thus, this argument may play less of a role in the
heavy-duty market than in the consumer market for vehicles.
Both these hypotheses leave open the question, though, why
additional investments were not made in fuel efficiency if they would
provide rapid payback. Truck purchasers should, in principle, be
willing to buy additional fuel-saving technology as long as it is cost-
effective, regardless of other vehicle attributes. Limited access to
capital, if it is a problem in this sector, might provide some reason
for the ``crowding out'' of the purchase of fuel-saving technology. The
agencies received no evidence indicating that constrained access to
capital might explain the efficiency gap in this market.
(7) Summary
On the one hand, commercial vehicle operators are under competitive
pressure to reduce operating costs, and thus their purchasers would be
expected to pursue and rapidly adopt cost-effective fuel-saving
technologies. On the other hand, the short payback period required by
buyers of new trucks is a symptom that suggests some combination of
uncertainty about future cost savings, transactions costs, and
imperfectly functioning markets. In addition, widespread use of
tractor-trailer combinations introduces the possibility that owners of
trailers may have weaker incentives than truck owners or operators to
adopt fuel-saving technology for their trailers. The market for medium-
and heavy-duty trucks may face these problems, both in the new vehicle
market and in the resale market.
Provision of information about fuel-saving technologies through
voluntary programs such as SmartWay will assist in the adoption of new
cost-saving technologies, but diffusion of new technologies can still
be obstructed. Those who are willing to experiment with new
technologies expect to find cost savings, but those may be difficult to
prove. As noted above, because individual results of new technologies
vary, new truck purchasers may find it difficult to identify or verify
the effects of fuel-saving technologies. Those who are risk-averse are
likely to avoid new technologies out of concerns over the possibility
of inadequate returns on the investment, or with other adverse impacts.
Competitive pressures in the freight transport industry can provide a
strong incentive to reduce fuel consumption and improve environmental
performance. However, not every driver or trucking fleet operating
today has the requisite ability or interest to access the technical
information, some of which is already provided by SmartWay, nor the
resources necessary to evaluate this information within the context of
his or her own freight operation.
It is unclear, as discussed above, whether some or many of the
technologies would be adopted in the absence of the program. To the
extent that they would have been adopted, the costs and the benefits
attributed to those technologies may not in fact be due to the program
and may therefore be overstated. Both baselines used project
substantially less adoption than the agencies consider to be cost-
effective. The agencies will continue to explore reasons for this slow
adoption of cost-effective technologies.
B. Costs Associated With the Final Program
In this section, the agencies present the estimated costs
associated with the final program. The presentation here summarizes the
costs associated with new technology expected to be added to meet the
new GHG and fuel consumption standards. The analysis summarized here
provides the estimate of incremental costs on a per truck basis and on
an annual total basis.
The presentation here summarizes the best estimate by EPA and NHTSA
staff as to the technology mix expected to be employed for compliance.
For details behind the cost estimates associated with individual
technologies, the reader is directed to Section III of this preamble
and to Chapter 2 of the RIA.
With respect to the cost estimates presented here, the agencies
note that, because these estimates relate to technologies which are in
most cases already available, these cost estimates are technically
robust.
(1) Costs per Truck
For the heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans, the agencies have used a
methodology consistent with that used for our recent light-duty joint
rulemaking since most of the technologies expected for heavy-duty
pickup trucks and vans is consistent with that expected for the larger
light-duty trucks. The cost estimates presented in the recent light-
duty joint rulemaking were then scaled upward to account for the larger
weight, towing capacity, and work demands of the trucks in these
heavier classes. For details on that scaling process and the resultant
costs for individual technologies, the reader is directed to Section
III of this preamble and to Chapter 2 of the RIA. Note also that all
cost estimates have been updated to 2009 dollars for this analysis
while the heavy-duty GHG emissions and fuel efficiency proposal was
presented in 2008 dollars and the light-duty rule was presented in 2007
dollars.
For the loose heavy-duty gasoline engines, we have generally used
engine-related costs from the heavy-duty pickup truck and van estimates
since the loose heavy-duty gasoline engines are essentially the same
engines as those sold into the heavy-duty pickup truck and van market.
For heavy-duty diesel engines, the agencies have estimated costs
using a different methodology than that employed in the recent light-
duty joint rulemaking. In the light-duty 2012-2016 MY vehicle rule, the
fixed costs were included in the hardware costs via an indirect cost
multiplier. As such, the hardware costs presented in that analysis, and
in the cost estimates for Class 2b and 3 trucks, included both the
actual hardware and the associated fixed costs. For this analysis, some
of the fixed costs are estimated separately for HD diesel engines and
are presented separately from the hardware costs. For details, the
reader is directed to Chapter 2 of the RIA. Importantly, both
methodologies after the figures are totaled account for all the costs
associated with the program. As noted above, all costs are presented in
2009 dollars.
The estimates of vehicle compliance costs cover the years leading
up to--2012 and 2013--and including implementation of the program--2014
through 2018. Also presented are costs for the years following
implementation to shed light on the long term (2022 and later) cost
impacts of the program. The year 2022 was chosen here consistent with
the light-duty 2012-2016 MY vehicle rule. That year was considered long
term in that analysis because the short-term and long-term markup
factors described shortly below are applied in five year increments
with the 2012 through 2016 implementation span and
[[Page 57320]]
the 2017 through 2021 span both representing the short-term. Since many
of the costs used in this analysis are based on costs in the light-duty
rule analysis, consistency with that analysis seems appropriate.
Some of the individual technology cost estimates are presented in
brief in Section III, and account for both the direct and indirect
costs incurred in the manufacturing and dealer industries (for a
complete presentation of technology costs, please refer to Chapter 2 of
the RIA). To account for the indirect costs on Class 2b and 3 pickup
trucks and vans, the agencies have applied an ICM factor to all of the
direct costs to arrive at the estimated technology cost. The ICM factor
used was 1.24 in the short-term (2014 through 2021) to account for
differences in the levels of R&D, tooling, and other indirect costs
that will be incurred. Once the program has been fully implemented,
some of the indirect costs will no longer be attributable to these
standards and, as such, a lower ICM factor is applied to direct costs
in 2022 and later. The agencies have also applied ICM factors to Class
4 through 8 trucks and to heavy-duty diesel engine technologies. Markup
factors in these categories range from 1.15 to 1.30 in the short term
(2014 through 2021) depending on the complexity of the given
technology. We have modified the manner in which ICMs are applied in
that they are no longer applied as a simple multiplicative factor on
top of the direct manufacturing costs. Instead, we have broken out the
warranty cost portion of the ICM and apply it in a multiplicative
manner then add the non-warranty cost portion of the ICM to that. The
latter portion, that for non-warranty costs, is determined for a given
year and held constant rather than decreasing year-over-year. This new
approach, which responds to criticisms from some that the
multiplicative approach used in the past essentially double counts
learning effects, is discussed in Section VIII.C and is detailed in
chapter 2 of the RIA. Note that, for the HD diesel engines, the
agencies have applied the ICMs to ensure that our estimates are
conservative since we have estimated fixed costs separately for
technologies applied to these categories--effectively making the use of
markups a double counting of indirect costs. For the details on the
background and the concept behind our use of ICMs to calculate indirect
costs, please refer to the report that has been placed in the docket
for this final action.\482\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\482\ RTI International. Heavy-duty Truck Retail Price
Equivalent and Indirect Cost Multipliers. July 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agencies have also considered the impacts of manufacturer
learning on the technology cost estimates by reflecting the phenomenon
of volume-based learning curve cost reductions in our modeling using
two algorithms depending on where in the learning cycle (i.e., on what
portion of the learning curve) we consider a technology to be--
``steep'' portion of the curve for newer technologies and ``flat''
portion of the curve for mature technologies. The observed phenomenon
in the economic literature which supports manufacturer learning cost
reductions are based on reductions in costs as production volumes
increase, and the economic literature suggests these cost reductions
occur indefinitely, though the absolute magnitude of the cost
reductions decrease as production volumes increase (with the highest
absolute cost reduction occurring with the first doubling of
production). The agencies use the terminology ``steep'' and ``flat''
portion of the curve to distinguish among newer technologies and more
mature technologies, respectively, and how learning cost reductions are
applied in cost analyses. The steep learning algorithm applies for the
early, steep portion of the learning curve and is estimated to result
in 20 percent lower costs after two full years of implementation (i.e.,
a 2016 MY cost would be 20 percent lower than the 2014 and 2015 model
year costs for a new technology being implemented in 2014). The flat
learning algorithm applies for the flatter portion of the learning
curve and is estimated to result in 3 percent lower costs in each of
the five years following first introduction of a mature technology
added in response to this final action. Once two steep learning steps
have occurred (for technologies having steep learning applied), flat
learning would begin. For technologies to which flat learning is
applied, learning would begin in year 2 at 3 percent per year for 5
years. Beyond 5 years of flat learning at 3 percent per year, 5 years
of flat learning at 2 percent per year, then 5 at 1 percent per year
become effective.
Learning impacts have been considered on most but not all of the
technologies expected to be used because some of the expected
technologies are already used rather widely in the industry and,
presumably, learning impacts have already occurred. The agencies have
applied the steep learning algorithm for only a handful of technologies
considered to be new or emerging technologies such as energy recovery
systems and thermal storage units which might one day be used on big
trucks. For most technologies, the agencies have considered them to be
more established and, hence, the agencies have applied the lower flat
learning algorithm. For more discussion of the learning approach and
the technologies to which each type of learning has been applied the
reader is directed to chapter 2 of the RIA.
The technology cost estimates discussed in Section III and detailed
in Chapter 2 of the RIA are used to build up technology package cost
estimates. For each engine and truck class, a single package for each
was developed capable of complying with the final standards and the
costs for each package was generated. The technology packages and
package costs are discussed in more detail in Chapter 2 of the RIA. The
compliance cost estimates take into account all credits and trading
programs and include costs associated with air conditioning controls.
Table VIII-1 presents the average incremental costs per truck for this
final action. For HD pickup trucks and vans (Class 2b and 3), costs
increase as the standards become more stringent in 2014 through 2018.
Following 2018, costs then decrease going forward as learning effects
result in decreased costs for individual technologies. By 2022, the
long term ICMs take effect and costs decrease yet again. For vocational
vehicles, cost trends are more difficult to discern as diesel engines
begin adding technology in 2014, gasoline engines begin adding
technology in 2016, and the trucks themselves begin adding technology
in 2014. With learning effects the costs, in general, decrease each
year except for the heavy-duty gasoline engine changes in 2016. Long
term ICMs take effect in 2022 to provide more cost reductions.
[[Page 57321]]
For combination tractors, costs generally decrease each year due to
learning effects with the exception of 2017 when the engines placed in
sleeper cab tractors add turbo compounding. Following that, learning
impacts result in cost reductions and the long term ICMs take effect in
2022 for further cost reductions. By 2030 and later, cost-per-truck
estimates remain constant for all classes. Regarding the long term ICMs
taking effect in 2022, the agencies consider this the point at which
some indirect costs decrease or are no longer considered attributable
to the program (e.g., warranty costs go down). Costs per truck remain
essentially constant thereafter.
Table VIII-1--Estimated Cost per Truck
[2009 dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HD Pickups &
vans Vocational Combination
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014...................................................... $165 $329 $6,019
2015...................................................... 215 320 5,871
2016...................................................... 422 397 5,677
2017...................................................... 631 387 6,413
2018...................................................... 1,048 378 6,215
2020...................................................... 985 366 6,004
2030...................................................... 977 311 5,075
2040...................................................... 977 305 5,075
2050...................................................... 977 304 5,075
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These costs would, presumably, have some impact on new truck
prices, although the agencies make no attempt at determining what the
impact of increased costs would be on new truck prices. Nonetheless, on
a percentage basis, the costs shown in Table VIII-1 for 2018 MY trucks
(when all final requirements are fully implemented) would be roughly
three percent for a typical HD pickup truck or van, less than one
percent for a typical vocational vehicle, and roughly six percent for a
typical combination truck/tractor using new truck prices of $40,000,
$100,000 and $100,000, respectively. The costs would represent lower or
higher percentages of new truck prices for new trucks with higher or
lower prices, respectively. Given the wide range of new truck prices in
these categories--a Class 4 vocational work truck might be $40,000 when
new while a Class 8 refuse truck (i.e., a large vocational vehicle)
might be as much as $200,000 when new--it is very difficult to reflect
incremental costs as percentages of new truck prices for all trucks.
What is presented here is the average cost (Table VIII-1) compared with
typical new truck prices.
As noted above, the fixed costs were estimated separately from the
hardware costs for HD diesel engines that are placed in vocational
vehicles and combination tractors. Those fixed costs are not included
in Table VIII-1. The agencies have estimated the R&D costs at $6.8
million per manufacturer per year for five years and the new test cell
costs (to accommodate measurement of N2O emissions) at
$63,087 per manufacturer. The test cell costs of N2O
emissions measurement has been adjusted for the final rulemaking to
reflect comments which stated approximately 75 percent of manufacturers
would be required to update existing equipment while the other 25
percent would require new equipment. These costs apply individually for
LHD, MHD and HHD engines. Given the 14 manufacturers impacted by the
final standards, 11 of which are estimated to sell both MHD and HHD
engines and 3 of which are estimated to sell LHD engines, we have
estimated a five year annual R&D cost of $170.3 million dollars (2 x 11
x $6.8 million plus 3 x $7.75 million for each year 2012-2016) and a
one-time test cell cost of $1.6 million dollars (2 x 11 x $63,087 plus
3 x $63,087 in 2013). Estimating annual sales of HD diesel engines at
roughly 600,000 units results in roughly $284 per engine per year for
five years beginning in 2012 and ending in 2016. Again, these costs are
not reflected in Table VIII-1, but are included in Table VIII-2 as
``Other Engineering Costs.''
The certification and compliance program costs, for all engine and
truck types, are estimated at $6.5 million in the first year dropping
to $2.3 million in each year thereafter and continuing indefinitely.
These costs are detailed in the ``Draft Supporting Statement for
Information Collection Request'' which is contained in the docket for
this final action.\483\ The costs are higher in the first year due to
capital expenses required to comply with new reporting burdens
(facility upgrade costs are included in engineering costs as described
above). Estimating annual sales of heavy-duty trucks at roughly 1.5
million units would result in just over $4 per engine/truck in the
first year and less than $2 per engine/truck per year thereafter. These
costs are not reflected in Table VIII-1, but are included in Table
VIII-2 below as ``Compliance Program'' costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\483\ ``Draft Supporting Statement for Information Collection
Request,'' Control of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New Motor
Vehicles: Proposed Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards, EPA ICR
Tracking Number 2394.01.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Annual Costs of the HD National Program
The costs presented here represent the incremental costs for newly
added technology to comply with the program. Together with the
projected increases in truck sales, the increases in per-truck average
costs shown in Table VIII-1, above result in the total annual costs
presented in Table VIII-2 below. Note that the costs presented in Table
VIII-2 do not include the savings that will occur as a result of the
improvements to fuel consumption. Those impacts are presented in
Section 0. Note also that the costs presented here represent costs
estimated to occur presuming that the final standards will continue in
perpetuity. Any changes to the final standards would be considered as
part of a future rulemaking. In other words, the final standards do not
apply only to 2014-2018 model year trucks--they do, in fact, apply to
all 2014 and later model year trucks. We present more detail regarding
the 2014-2018 model year trucks in Sections VIII.L, where we summarize
all monetized costs and benefits.
[[Page 57322]]
Table VIII-2--Annual Costs Associated With the Program
[$Millions, 2009$]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other
Year HD Pickup and Vocational Combination engineering Compliance Annual costs
vans vehicles tractors costs program costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012 \a\................................................ $0 $0 $0 $170 $0 $170
2013.................................................... 0 0 0 172 0 172
2014.................................................... 130 185 1,078 170 6.5 1,569
2015.................................................... 157 170 922 170 2.3 1,422
2016.................................................... 300 202 820 170 2.3 1,495
2017.................................................... 447 198 951 0 2.3 1,598
2018.................................................... 751 201 1,000 0 2.3 1,955
2020.................................................... 754 202 1,001 0 2.3 1,959
2030.................................................... 918 216 1,076 0 2.3 2,212
2040.................................................... 1,024 281 1,372 0 2.3 2,679
2050.................................................... 1,156 354 1,777 0 2.3 3,290
NPV, 3%................................................. 17,070 4,950 24,487 793 52 47,352
NPV, 7%................................................. 8,467 2,588 12,855 724 30 24,665
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:
\a\ As explained in the text, ``Other Engineering Costs'' are estimated for years 2012 through 2016. These costs represent facility related costs and
engineering development costs, much of which will have to begin prior to implementation of the new standards.
C. Indirect Cost Multipliers
(1) Markup Factors To Estimate Indirect Costs
For all segments in this analysis, indirect costs are estimated by
applying indirect cost multipliers (ICM) to direct cost estimates. ICMs
were calculated by EPA as a basis for estimating the impact on indirect
costs of individual vehicle technology changes that would result from
regulatory actions. Separate ICMs were derived for low, medium, and
high complexity technologies, thus enabling estimates of indirect costs
that reflect the variation in research, overhead, and other indirect
costs that can occur among different technologies. ICMs were also
applied in the light-duty rule.
Prior to developing the ICM methodology, EPA and NHTSA both applied
a retail price equivalent (RPE) factor to estimate indirect costs. RPEs
are estimated by dividing the total revenue of a manufacturer by the
direct manufacturing costs. As such, it includes all forms of indirect
costs for a manufacturer and assumes that the ratio applies equally for
all technologies. ICMs are based on RPE estimates that are then
modified to reflect only those elements of indirect costs that would be
expected to change in response to a regulatory-induced technology
change. For example, warranty costs would be reflected in both RPE and
ICM estimates, while marketing costs might only be reflected in an RPE
estimate but not an ICM estimate for a particular technology, if the
new regulatory-induced technology change is not one expected to be
marketed to consumers. Because ICMs calculated by EPA are for
individual technologies, many of which are small in scale, they often
reflect a subset of RPE costs; as a result, the RPE is typically higher
than an ICM. This is not always the case, as ICM estimates for complex
technologies may reflect higher than average indirect costs, with the
resulting ICM larger than the averaged RPE for the industry.
There is some level of uncertainty surrounding both the ICM and RPE
markup factors. The ICM estimates used in this final action group all
technologies into three broad categories and treat them as if
individual technologies within each of the three categories (low,
medium, and high complexity) will have the same ratio of indirect costs
to direct costs. This simplification means it is likely that the direct
cost for some technologies within a category will be higher and some
lower than the estimate for the category in general. More importantly,
the ICM estimates have not been validated through a direct accounting
of actual indirect costs for individual technologies. Rather, the ICM
estimates were developed using adjustment factors developed in two
separate occasions: the first, a consensus process, was reported in the
RTI report; the second, a modified Delphi method, was conducted
separately and reported in an EPA memo.\484\ Both these panels were
composed of EPA staff members with previous background in the
automobile industry; the memberships of the two panels overlapped but
were not the same.\485\ The panels evaluated each element of the
industry's RPE estimates and estimated the degree to which those
elements would be expected to change in proportion to changes in direct
manufacturing costs. The method and estimates in the RTI report were
peer reviewed by three industry experts and subsequently by reviewers
for the International Journal of Production Economics.\486\ RPEs
themselves are inherently difficult to estimate because the accounting
statements of manufacturers do not neatly categorize all cost elements
as either direct or indirect costs. Hence, each researcher developing
an RPE estimate must apply a certain amount of judgment to the
allocation of the costs. Moreover, RPEs for heavy- and medium-duty
trucks and for engine manufacturers are not as well studied as they are
for the light-duty automobile industry. Since empirical estimates of
ICMs are ultimately derived from the same data used to measure RPEs,
this affects both measures. However, the value of RPE has not been
measured for specific technologies, or for groups of specific
technologies. Thus applying a single average RPE to any given
technology by definition overstates costs for very simple technologies,
or understates them for advanced technologies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\484\ Helfand, Gloria, and Sherwood, Todd. ``Documentation of
the Development of Indirect Cost Multipliers for Three Automotive
Technologies.'' Memorandum, Assessment and Standards Division,
Office of Transportation and Air Quality, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, August 2009.
\485\ NHTSA staff participated in the development of the process
for the second, modified Delphi panel, and reviewed the results as
they were developed, but did not serve on the panel.
\486\ The results of the RTI report were published in Alex
Rogozhin, Michael Gallaher, Gloria Helfand, and Walter McManus,
``Using Indirect Cost Multipliers to Estimate the Total Cost of
Adding New Technology in the Automobile Industry.'' International
Journal of Production Economics 124 (2010): 360-368.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the proposal, we requested comment on our ICM factors and
whether it was most appropriate to use ICMs or RPEs. We received no
comment on the issue specifically, other than
[[Page 57323]]
basic comments that perhaps our ICM factors were low. In response, for
this final action, we have adjusted our ICM factors such that they are
slightly higher and, importantly, we have changed the way in which the
factors are applied. The first change--increased ICM factors--has been
done as a result of further thought among the EPA and NHTSA team that
the ICM factors presented in the original RTI report \487\ for low and
medium complexity technologies should no longer be used and that we
should rely solely on the modified-Delphi values for these complexity
levels.\488\ For that reason, we have eliminated the averaging of
original RTI values with modified-Delphi values and instead are relying
solely on the modified-Delphi values for low and medium complexity
technologies. The second change--the way the factors are applied--
results in the warranty portion of the indirect costs being applied as
a multiplicative factor (thereby decreasing going forward as direct
manufacturing costs decrease due to learning), and the remainder of the
indirect costs being applied as an additive factor (thereby remaining
constant year-over-year and not being reduced due to learning). This
second change has a comparatively large impact on the resultant
technology costs and, we believe, more appropriately estimates costs
over time. In addition to these changes, a secondary-level change was
also made as part of this ICM recalculation to the light-duty ICMs and,
therefore, to the ICMs used in this analysis for heavy-duty pickups and
vans. That change was to revise upward the RPE level reported in the
original RTI report from an original value of 1.46 to 1.5 to reflect
the long term average RPE. The original RTI study was based on 2008
data. However, an analysis of historical RPE data indicates that,
although there is year to year variation, the average RPE has remained
constant at roughly 1.5. ICMs will be applied to future year's data and
therefore NHTSA and EPA staff believe that it would be appropriate to
base ICMs on the historical average rather than a single year's result.
Therefore, ICMs were adjusted to reflect this average level since the
original value excluded net income. As a result, even the High 1 and
High 2 ICMs used for heavy-duty pickups and vans have also changed.
These changes to our ICMs and the methodology are described in greater
detail in Chapter 2 of the final RIA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\487\ Rogozhin, Alex, Michael Gallaher, and Walter McManus.
``Automobile Industry Retail Price Equivalent and Indirect Cost
Multipliers.'' Report prepared for EPA by RTI International. EPA
Report EPA-420-R-09-003, February 2009.
\488\ Helfand, Gloria, and Sherwood, Todd. ``Documentation of
the Development of Indirect Cost Multipliers for Three Automotive
Technologies.'' Memorandum, Assessment and Standards Division,
Office of Transportation and Air Quality, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, August 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Cost per Ton of Emissions Reductions
The agencies have calculated the cost per ton of GHG reductions
associated with this program on a CO2eq basis using the
above costs and the emissions reductions described in Sections VI and
VII. These values are presented in Table VIII-3 through Table VIII-5
for HD pickups & vans, vocational vehicles and combination trucks/
tractors, respectively. The cost per metric ton of GHG emissions
reductions has been calculated in the years 2020, 2030, 2040, and 2050
using the annual vehicle compliance costs and emission reductions for
each of those years. The value in 2050 represents the long-term cost
per ton of the emissions reduced. The agencies have also calculated the
cost per metric ton of GHG emission reductions including the savings
associated with reduced fuel consumption (presented below in Section
0). This latter calculation does not include the other benefits
associated with this program such as those associated with energy
security benefits as discussed later in Section VIII.I. By including
the fuel savings, the cost per ton is generally less than $0 since the
estimated value of fuel savings outweighs the program costs. The
results for CO2eq costs per ton under the HD National
Program across all regulated categories are shown in Table VIII-6.
Table VIII-3--Annual Cost per Metric Ton of CO2eq Reduced--HD Pickup Trucks & Vans
[2009 dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost per ton Cost per ton
Year Program cost Fuel savings CO2eq Reduced (without fuel (with fuel
(pre-tax) Savings) savings)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020............................ $800 $900 3 $240 -$30
2030............................ 900 3,000 10 90 -200
2040............................ 1,000 4,300 14 70 -240
2050............................ 1,200 5,500 16 80 -270
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table VIII-4--Annual Cost per Metric Ton of CO2eq Reduced--Vocational Vehicles a
[2009 dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost per ton Cost per ton
Year Program cost Fuel savings CO2eq reduced (without fuel (with fuel
(pre-tax) savings) savings)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020............................ $200 $1,100 4 $50 -$210
2030............................ 200 2,400 9 20 -250
2040............................ 300 3,500 12 30 -270
2050............................ 400 4,700 14 30 -310
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:
\a\ The program costs, fuel savings, and CO2eq reductions of the engines installed in vocational vehicles are
embedded in the vehicle standards and analysis.
[[Page 57324]]
Table VIII-5--Annual Cost per Metric Ton of CO2eq Reduced--Combination Tractors \a\
[2009 dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost per ton Cost per ton
Year Program cost Fuel savings CO2eq reduced (without fuel (with fuel
(pre-tax) savings) savings)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020............................ $1,000 $7,700 32 $30 -$210
2030............................ 1,100 15,300 57 20 -250
2040............................ 1,400 20,200 68 20 -280
2050............................ 1,800 26,400 78 20 -320
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:
\a\ The program costs, fuel savings, and CO2eq reductions of the engines installed in tractors are embedded in
the tractor standards and analysis.
Table VIII-6--Annual Cost per Metric Ton of CO2eq Reduced--Final
[2009 dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost per ton Cost per ton
Year Program cost Fuel savings CO2eq reduced (without fuel (with fuel
(pre-tax) savings) savings)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020............................ $2,000 $9,600 39 $50 -$190
2030............................ 2,200 20,600 76 30 -240
2040............................ 2,700 28,000 94 30 -270
2050............................ 3,300 36,500 108 30 -310
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Impacts of Reduction in Fuel Consumption
(1) What are the projected changes in fuel consumption?
The new CO2 standards will result in significant
improvements in the fuel efficiency of affected trucks. Drivers of
those trucks will see corresponding savings associated with reduced
fuel expenditures. The agencies have estimated the impacts on fuel
consumption for the tailpipe CO2 standards. To do this, fuel
consumption is calculated using both current CO2 emission
levels and the new CO2 standards. The difference between
these estimates represents the net savings from the CO2
standards. Note that the total number of miles that vehicles are driven
each year is different under the control case scenario than in the
reference case due to the ``rebound effect,'' which is discussed in
Section 0. EPA also notes that drivers who drive more than our average
estimates for vehicle miles traveled (VMT) will experience more fuel
savings; drivers who drive less than our average VMT estimates will
experience less fuel savings.
The expected impacts on fuel consumption are shown in Table VIII-7.
The gallons shown in the tables reflect impacts from the new fuel
consumption and CO2 standards and include increased
consumption resulting from the rebound effect.
Table VIII-7--Fuel Consumption Reductions of the Program
[Million gallons]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Gasoline Diesel
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014.............................................. 1 473
2015.............................................. 3 846
2016.............................................. 14 1,171
2017.............................................. 31 1,643
2018.............................................. 58 2,123
2020.............................................. 114 2,986
2030.............................................. 348 5,670
2040.............................................. 453 7,046
2050.............................................. 522 8,158
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Potential Impacts on Global Fuel Use and Emissions
EPA's quantified reductions in fuel consumption focus on the gains
from reducing fuel used by heavy-duty vehicles within the United
States. However, as discussed in Section VIII.I, EPA also recognizes
that this regulation will lower the world price of oil (the
``monopsony'' effect). Lowering oil prices could lead to an uptick in
oil consumption globally, leading to a corresponding increase in GHG
emissions in other countries. This global increase in emissions could
slightly offset some of the emission reductions achieved domestically
as a result of the regulation.
(3) What are the monetized fuel savings?
Using the fuel consumption estimates presented in Table VIII-7, the
agencies can calculate the monetized fuel savings associated with the
final standards. To do this, reduced fuel consumption is multiplied in
each year by the corresponding estimated average fuel price in that
year, using the reference case taken from the AEO 2011. These estimates
do not account for the significant uncertainty in future fuel prices;
the monetized fuel savings will be understated if actual fuel prices
are higher (or overstated if fuel prices are lower) than estimated. AEO
is a standard reference used by NHTSA and EPA and many other government
agencies to estimate the projected price of fuel. This has been done
using both the pre-tax and post-tax fuel prices. Since the post-tax
fuel prices are the prices paid at fuel pumps, the fuel savings
calculated using these prices represent the savings consumers would
see. The pre-tax fuel savings are those savings that society would see.
Assuming no change in fuel tax rates, the difference between these two
columns represents the reduction in fuel tax revenues that will be
received by state and federal governments--about $200 million in 2014
and $3 billion by 2050. These results are shown in Table VIII-8. Note
that in Section VIII.L, the overall benefits and costs of the rules are
presented and, for that reason, only the pre-tax fuel savings are
presented there.
Table VIII-8--Estimated Monetized Fuel Savings
[Millions, 2009$]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuel Fuel
Year savings savings
(pre-tax) (post-tax)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014.......................................... $1,200 $1,400
[[Page 57325]]
2015.......................................... 2,200 2,600
2016.......................................... 3,300 3,800
2017.......................................... 4,800 5,500
2018.......................................... 6,400 7,400
2020.......................................... 9,600 10,900
2030.......................................... 20,600 23,000
2040.......................................... 28,000 30,600
2050.......................................... 36,500 39,500
NPV, 3%....................................... 375,300 415,300
NPV, 7%....................................... 166,500 185,400
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As shown in Table VIII-8, the agencies are projecting that truck
consumers would realize very large fuel savings as a result of the
final standards. As discussed further in the introductory paragraphs of
Section VIII, it is a conundrum from an economic perspective that these
large fuel savings have not been provided by manufacturers and
purchased by consumers of these products. Unlike in the light-duty
vehicle market, the vast majority of vehicles in the medium- and heavy-
duty truck market are purchased and operated by businesses; for them,
fuel costs may represent substantial operating expenses. Even in the
presence of uncertainty and imperfect information--conditions that hold
to some degree in every market--we generally expect firms to be cost-
minimizing to survive in a competitive marketplace and to make
decisions that are therefore in the best interest of the company and
its owners and/or shareholders.
A number of behavioral and market phenomena may lead to a
disconnect between how businesses account for fuel savings in their
decisions and the way in which we account for the full stream of fuel
savings for these rules, including imperfect information in the
original and resale markets, split incentives, uncertainty in future
fuel prices, and adjustment or transactions costs (see Section VIII.A
for a more detailed discussion). As discussed below in the context of
rebound in Section VIII.E.5, the nature of the explanation for this gap
may influence the actual magnitude of the fuel savings.
(4) Payback Period and Lifetime Savings on New Truck Purchases
Another factor of interest is the payback period on the purchase of
a new truck that complies with the new standards. In other words, how
long would it take for the expected fuel savings to outweigh the
increased cost of a new vehicle? For example, a new 2018 MY HD pickup
truck and van is estimated to cost $1,048 more, a vocational vehicle
$378 more, and a combination tractor $6,215 more (all values are on
average, and relative to the reference case vehicle) due to the
addition of new GHG reducing technology. This new technology will
result in lower fuel consumption and, therefore, savings in fuel
expenditures. But how many months or years would pass before the fuel
savings exceed the upfront costs? Table VIII-9 shows the payback period
analysis for HD pickup trucks and vans. The table shows fuel consumed
under the reference case and fuel consumed by a 2018 model year truck
under the program, inclusive of fuel consumed due to rebound miles. The
decrease in fuel consumed under the program is then monetized by
multiplying by the fuel price reported by AEO (reference case) for 2018
and later. This value represents the fuel savings expected under the
program for a HD pickup or van. These savings are then discounted each
year since future savings are considered to be of less value than
current savings. Shown next are estimated increased costs (costs do not
necessarily reflect increased prices which may be higher or lower than
costs) for the new truck (refer to Table VIII-1). The next columns of
Table VIII-9 show the period required for the fuel savings to exceed
the new truck costs. As seen in the table, in the second year of
ownership, the discounted fuel savings (at both 3 and 7 percent
discount rates) have begun to outweigh the increased cost of the truck.
As shown in the table, the full life savings using 3 percent
discounting would be $6,138 and at 7 percent discounting would be
$4,459.
Table VIII-9--Payback Period for a 2018 Model Year HD Pickup or Van
[2009$]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reduced fuel use Fuel savings \a\ Cumulative savings
(gallons) \b\ -------------------------- Increased -------------------------
Year of ownership -------------------------- cost
Gasoline Diesel 3% discount 7% discount 3% discount 7% discount
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................................................ 67 122 $627 $616 -$1,048 -$421 -$433
2............................................................ 67 122 617 583 ........... 196 151
3............................................................ 66 120 600 546 ........... 796 696
4............................................................ 64 117 570 499 ........... 1,366 1,196
5............................................................ 62 113 544 458 ........... 1,910 1,654
6............................................................ 59 108 507 411 ........... 2,417 2,065
7............................................................ 56 102 474 370 ........... 2,890 2,435
Full Life.................................................... 894 1,617 7,187 5,507 -1,048 6,138 4,459
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
\a\ Fuel savings calculated using the AEO 2011 reference case fuel prices through 2035. Fuel prices beyond 2035 were extrapolated from an average growth
rate for the years 2017 to 2035. Gasoline and diesel fuel prices have been weighted by gasoline and diesel fuel reductions estimated for all 2018 MY
heavy-duty trucks during their lifetimes. These estimates assume no changes in fuel tax rates. If fuel taxes are increased to offset lost revenues,
the post-tax savings will increase.
\b\ Gallons under the control case include gallons consumed during rebound driving.
The story is somewhat different for vocational vehicles and
combination tractors. These cases are shown in Table VIII-10 and Table
VIII-11, respectively. Since these trucks travel more miles in a given
year, their payback periods are shorter and are expected to occur
within the second year of ownership under both the 3 and 7 percent
discounting cases. As can be seen in Table VIII-10 and Table VIII-11,
the lifetime fuel savings are estimated to be considerable with savings
of $5,494 (3%) and $4,268 (7%) for the vocational vehicles and $72,875
(3%) and $58,162 (7%) for the combination tractors.
[[Page 57326]]
Table VIII-10--Payback Period for a 2018 Model Year Vocational Vehicle
[2009$]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reduced fuel use Fuel savings \a\ Cumulative savings
(gallons) \b\ -------------------------- Increased -------------------------
Year of ownership -------------------------- cost
Gasoline Diesel 3% discount 7% discount 3% discount 7% discount
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................................................ 51 161 $702 $690 -$378 $325 $312
2............................................................ 47 146 637 602 ........... 962 914
3............................................................ 44 134 576 524 ........... 1,538 1,438
4............................................................ 41 122 516 452 ........... 2,054 1,889
5............................................................ 38 110 463 390 ........... 2,516 2,279
6............................................................ 34 98 404 328 ........... 2,921 2,607
7............................................................ 31 87 359 280 ........... 3,279 2,887
Full Life.................................................... 550 1,458 5,872 4,646 -378 5,494 4,268
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
\a\ Fuel savings calculated using the AEO 2011 reference case fuel prices through 2035. Fuel prices beyond 2035 were extrapolated from an average growth
rate for the years 2017 to 2035. Gasoline and diesel fuel prices have been weighted by gasoline and diesel fuel reductions estimated for all 2018 MY
heavy-duty trucks during their lifetimes. These estimates assume no changes in fuel tax rates. If fuel taxes are increased to offset lost revenues,
the post-tax savings will increase.
\b\ Gallons under the control case include gallons consumed during rebound driving.
Table VIII-11--Payback Period for a 2018 Model Year Combination Tractor
[2009$]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reduced fuel use Fuel savings \a\ Cumulative savings
(gallons) \b\ -------------------------- Increased -------------------------
Year of ownership -------------------------- cost
Gasoline Diesel 3% discount 7% discount 3% discount 7% discount
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................................................ 0 3,223 $10,736 $10,539 -$6,215 $4,522 $4,324
2............................................................ 0 2,897 9,619 9,089 ........... 14,141 13,413
3............................................................ 0 2,619 8,564 7,790 ........... 22,705 21,203
4............................................................ 0 2,359 7,532 6,595 ........... 30,237 27,797
5............................................................ 0 2,096 6,626 5,585 ........... 36,863 33,382
6............................................................ 0 1,842 5,684 4,611 ........... 42,546 37,993
7............................................................ 0 1,617 4,951 3,867 ........... 47,497 41,860
Full Life.................................................... 0 26,148 79,089 64,376 -6,215 72,875 58,162
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
\a\ Fuel savings calculated using the AEO 2011 reference case fuel prices through 2035. Fuel prices beyond 2035 were extrapolated from an average growth
rate for the years 2017 to 2035. Gasoline and diesel fuel prices have been weighted by gasoline and diesel fuel reductions estimated for all 2018 MY
heavy-duty trucks during their lifetimes. These estimates assume no changes in fuel tax rates. If fuel taxes are increased to offset lost revenues,
the post-tax savings will increase.
\b\ Gallons under the control case include gallons consumed during rebound driving.
All of these payback analyses include fuel consumed during rebound
VMT in the control case but not in the reference case, consistent with
other parts of the analysis. Further, this analysis does not include
other societal impacts such as reduced time spent refueling or noise,
congestion and accidents since the focus is meant to be on those
factors buyers think about most while considering a new truck purchase.
Note also that operators that drive more miles per year than the
average would realize greater fuel savings than estimated here, and
those that drive fewer miles per year would realize lesser savings. The
same holds true for operators that keep their vehicles longer (i.e.,
more years) than average in that they would realize greater lifetime
fuel savings than operators that keep their vehicles for fewer years
than average. Likewise, should fuel prices be higher than the AEO 2011
reference case, operators will realize greater fuel savings than
estimated here while they would realize lesser fuel savings were fuel
prices to be lower than the AEO 2011 reference case.
(5) Rebound Effect
The VMT rebound effect refers to the fraction of fuel savings
expected to result from an increase in fuel efficiency that is offset
by additional vehicle use. If truck shipping costs decrease as a result
of lower fuel costs, an increase in truck VMT may occur. Unlike the
light-duty rebound effect, the heavy-duty (HD) rebound effect has not
been extensively studied. Because the factors influencing the HD
rebound effect are generally different from those affecting the light-
duty rebound effect, much of the research on the light-duty rebound
effect is not likely to apply to the HD sectors. One of the major
differences between the HD rebound effect and the light-duty rebound
effect is that HD vehicles are used primarily for business purposes.
Since these businesses are profit driven, decision makers are highly
likely to be aware of the costs and benefits of different shipping
decisions, both in the near term and long term. Therefore, shippers are
much more likely to take into account changes in the overall operating
costs per mile when making shipping decisions that affect VMT.
Another difference from the light-duty case is that, as discussed
in the recent NAS Report,\489\ when calculating the percentage change
in trucking costs to determine the rebound effect, all changes in the
operating costs should be considered. The cost of labor and fuel
generally constitute the top two shares of truck operating costs,
depending on the price of petroleum,\490\ distance traveled, type of
truck, and
[[Page 57327]]
commodity.\491\ Finally, the equipment costs associated with the
purchase or lease of the truck is also a significant component of total
operating costs. Even though vehicle costs are lump-sum purchases, they
can be considered operating costs for trucking firms, and these costs
are, in many cases, expected to be passed onto the final consumers of
shipping services on a variable basis. This shipping cost increase
could help temper the rebound effect relative to the case of light-duty
vehicles, in which vehicle costs are not considered an operating cost
by vehicle owners.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\489\ See NAS Report, Note 197.
\490\ American Transportation Research Institute, An Analysis of
the Operational Costs of Trucking, December 2008 (Docket ID: EPA-HQ-
OAR-2010-0162-0007).
\491\ Transport Canada, Operating Cost of Trucks, 2005. See
http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/policy/report-acg-operatingcost2005-2005-e-2-1727.htm, accessed on July 16, 2010 (Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-
0162-0006). See also ATRI, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When calculating the net change in operating costs, both the
increase in new vehicle costs and the decrease in fuel costs per mile
should be taken into consideration. The higher the net cost savings,
the higher the expected rebound effect. Conversely, if the upfront
vehicle costs outweighed future cost savings and total costs increased,
shipping costs would rise, which would likely result in a decrease in
truck VMT. In theory, other changes such as maintenance costs and
insurance rates would also be taken into account, although information
on these potential cost changes is extremely limited. In the proposal,
we invited comments on the most appropriate methodology for factoring
new vehicle purchase or leasing costs into the per-mile operating
costs. We also invited comment or data on how these regulations could
affect maintenance, insurance, or other operating costs. We did not
receive any comments on these assumptions.
The following sections describe the factors affecting the rebound
effect, different methodologies for estimating the rebound effect, and
examples of different estimates of the rebound effect to date.
According to the NAS study, it is ``not possible to provide a confident
measure of the rebound effect,'' yet NAS concluded that a rebound
effect likely exists and that ``estimates of fuel savings from
regulatory standards will be somewhat misestimated if the rebound
effect is not considered.'' While we believe the HD rebound effect
needs to be studied in more detail, we have attempted to capture the
potential impact of the rebound effect in our analysis. In the
proposal, we solicited data on the rebound effect and input on the most
appropriate estimates to use for the rebound effect. However, we did
not receive any new data or substantive comments. Therefore, for this
final action, we continue to use a rebound effect for vocational
vehicles of 15 percent, a rebound effect for HD pickup trucks and vans
of 10 percent, and a rebound effect for combination tractors of 5
percent. These VMT impacts are reflected in the estimates of total GHG
and other air pollution reductions presented in Chapter 5 of the RIA.
(a) Factors Affecting the Magnitude of the Rebound Effect
The HD vehicle rebound effect is driven by the interaction of
several different factors. In the short-run, decreasing the fuel cost
per mile of driving could lead to a decrease in end product prices.
Lower prices could stimulate additional demand for those products,
which would then result in an increase in VMT. In the long run,
shippers could reorganize their logistics and distribution networks to
take advantage of lower truck shipping costs. For example, shippers may
shift away from other modes of shipping such as rail, barge, or air. In
addition, shippers may also choose to reduce the number of warehouses,
reduce load rates, and make smaller, more frequent shipments, all of
which could also lead to an increase in HD VMT. Finally, the benefits
of the fuel savings could ripple through the economy, which could in
turn increase overall demand for goods and services shipped by trucks,
and therefore increase HD VMT.
Conversely, if a fuel efficiency regulation leads to net increases
in the cost of trucking because fuel savings do not fully offset the
increase in upfront vehicle costs, then the price of trucking services
could rise, spurring a decrease in HD VMT and a shift to alternative
shipping modes. These effects would also ripple through the economy.
(b) Options for Quantifying the Rebound Effect
As described in the previous section, the fuel efficiency rebound
effect for HD vehicles has not been studied as extensively as the
rebound effect for light-duty vehicles, and virtually no research has
been conducted on the HD pickup truck and van rebound effect. In the
proposal, we discussed four options for quantifying the rebound effect
and requested comments. We did not receive any substantive comments on
the described methodologies.
(i) Aggregate Estimates
The aggregate approximation approach quantifies the overall change
in truck VMT as a result of a percentage change in freight rates. It is
important to note that most of the aggregate estimates measure the
change in freight demanded (tons or ton-miles), rather than a change in
fuel consumption or VMT. The change in tons or ton-miles is more
accurately characterized as a freight elasticity. Therefore, it may not
be entirely appropriate to interpret these freight elasticities as
measures of the rebound effect, although these terms are sometimes used
interchangeably in the literature.\492\ Given these caveats, freight
elasticity estimates rely on estimates of aggregate price elasticity of
demand for trucking services, given a percentage change in trucking
prices, which is generally referred to as an ``own-price elasticity.''
Estimates of trucking own-price elasticities vary widely from positive
1.72 to negative 7.92), and there is no general consensus on the most
appropriate values to use, though a 2004 literature survey found
aggregate elasticity estimates generally fall in the range of -0.5 to -
1.5.\493\ In other words, given an own-price elasticity of -1.5, a 10
percent decrease in trucking prices leads to a 15 percent increase in
truck shipping demand.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\492\ Memo from Energy and Environmental Research Associates,
LLC Regarding HDV Rebound Effect, dated June 8, 2011.
\493\ Graham and Glaister, ``Road Traffic Demand Elasticity
Estimates: A Review,'' Transport Reviews Volume 24, 3, pp. 261-274,
2004 (Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162-0005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another challenge of estimating the rebound effect using freight
elasticities is that these values appear to vary substantially based on
the demand elasticity measure (e.g., ton or ton-mile), the model
specification (e.g., linear functional form or log linear), the length
of the trip, and the type of cargo. In general, elasticity estimates of
longer trips tend to be larger than elasticity estimates for shorter
trips. In addition, elasticities tend to be larger for lower-value
commodities compared to higher-value commodities. Although these
factors explain some of the differences in estimates, much of the
observed variation cannot be explained quantitatively. For example, a
recent study that controlled for these variables only accounted for
about half of the observed variation.\494\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\494\ Li, Z., D.A. Hensher, and J.M. Rose, Identifying sources
of systematic variation in direct price elasticities from revealed
preference studies of inter-city freight demand. Transport Policy,
2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another important variable influencing freight elasticity estimates
is whether potential mode shifting is taken into account. Although the
total demand for freight transport is generally determined by economic
activity, there is often the choice of shipping freight on modes other
than truck. This is because the United States has extensive rail,
waterway and air transport networks in addition to an extensive highway
network; these networks closely parallel
[[Page 57328]]
each other and are often both viable choices for freight transport for
long-distance routes within the continent. If rates go down for one
mode, there will be an increase in demand for that mode and some demand
will be shifted from other modes. This ``cross-price elasticity'' is a
measure of the percentage change in demand for shipping by another mode
(e.g., rail) given a percentage change in the price of trucking.
Aggregate estimates of cross-price elasticities also vary widely, and
there is no general consensus on the most appropriate value to use for
analytical purposes. The NAS report cites values ranging from 0.35 to
0.59.\495\ Other reports provide significantly different cross-price
elasticities, ranging from 0.1 \496\ to 2.0.\497\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\495\ See 2010 NAS Report, Note 197. See also 2009 Cambridge
Systematics, Inc., Draft Final Paper commissioned by the NAS in
support of the medium-duty and heavy-duty report. Assessment of Fuel
Economy Technologies for Medium and Heavy-duty Vehicles:
Commissioned Paper on Indirect Costs and Alternative Approaches
Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162-0009).
\496\ Friedlaender, A. and Spady, R. (1980) A derived demand
function for freight transportation, Review of Economics and
Statistics, 62, pp. 432-441 (Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162-0004).
\497\ Christidis and Leduc, ``Longer and Heavier Vehicles for
freight transport,'' European Commission Joint Research Center's
Institute for Prospective Technology Studies, 2009 (Docket ID: EPA-
HQ-OAR-2010-0162-0010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When considering intermodal shift, the most relevant kinds of
shipments are those that are competitive between rail and truck modes.
These trips generally include long-haul shipments greater than 500
miles, which weigh between 50,000 and 80,000 pounds (the legal road
limit in many states). Special kinds of cargo like coal and short-haul
deliveries are of less interest because they are generally not
economically transferable between truck and rail modes, and they would
not be expected to shift modes except under an extreme price change.
However, the total amount of freight that could potentially be subject
to mode shifting has also not been studied extensively.
(ii) Sector-Specific Estimates
Given the limited data available regarding the HD rebound effect,
the aggregate approach greatly simplifies many of the assumptions
associated with calculations of the rebound effect. In reality,
however, responses to changes in fuel efficiency and new vehicle costs
will vary significantly based on the commodities affected. A detailed,
sector-specific approach would be expected to more accurately reflect
changes in the trucking market in response to the standards in this
program. For example, input-output tables could be used to determine
the trucking cost share of the total delivered price of a commodity.
Using the change in trucking prices described in the aggregate
approach, the product-specific demand elasticities could be used to
calculate the change in sales and shipments for each product. The
change in shipment increases could then be weighted by the share of the
trucking industry total, and then summed to get the total increase in
trucking output. A simplifying assumption could then be made that the
increase in output results in an increase in VMT. To the best of our
knowledge, this type of data has not yet been collected. We did not
receive any new information in response to our request for comments in
the proposal, therefore we were unable to use this methodology for
estimating the rebound effect for this final action.
(iii) Econometric Estimates
Similar to the methodology used to estimate the light-duty rebound
effect, the HD rebound effect could be modeled econometrically by
estimating truck demand as a function of economic activity (e.g., GDP)
and different input prices (e.g., vehicle prices, driver wages, and
fuel costs per mile). This type of econometric model could be estimated
for either truck VMT or ton-miles as a measure of demand. The resulting
elasticity estimates could then be used to determine the change in
trucking demand, given the change in fuel cost and truck prices per
mile from these standards. One of the challenges associated with an
econometric analysis is the potential for omitted variable bias, which
could either overstate or understate the potential rebound effect if
the omitted variable is correlated with the controlled variables.
(iv) Other Modeling Approaches
Regulation of the heavy-duty industry has been studied in more
detail in Europe, as the European Commission (EC) has considered
allowing longer and heavier trucks for freight transport. Part of the
analysis considered by the EC relies on country-specific modeling of
changes in the freight sector that would result from changes in
regulations.\498\ This approach attempts to explicitly calculate modal
shift decisions and impacts on GHG emissions. Although similar types of
analysis have not been conducted extensively in the United States,
research is currently underway that explores the potential for
intermodal shifting in the United States. For example, Winebrake and
Corbett have developed the Geospatial Intermodal Freight Transportation
model, which evaluates the potential for GHG emissions reductions based
on mode shifting, given existing limitations of infrastructure and
other route characteristics in the United States.\499\ This model
connects multiple road, rail, and waterway transportation networks and
embeds activity-based calculations in the model. Within this intermodal
network, the model assigns various economic, time-of-delivery, energy,
and environmental attributes to real-world goods movement routes. The
model can then calculate different network optimization scenarios,
based on changes in prices and policies.\500\ However, more work is
needed in this area to determine whether this type of methodology is
appropriate for the purposes of capturing the rebound effect.
Therefore, we have not been able to use this methodology for estimating
the rebound effect for this final action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\498\ Christidis and Leduc, ``Longer and Heavier Vehicles for
freight transport,'' European Commission Joint Research Center's
Institute for Prospective Technology Studies, 2009.
\499\ Winebrake, James and Corbett, James J. (2010). ``Improving
the Energy Efficiency and Environmental Performance of Goods
Movement,'' in Sperling, Daniel and James S. Cannon (2010) Climate
and Transportation Solutions: Findings from the 2009 Asilomar
Conference on Transportation and Energy Policy. See http://www.its.ucdavis.edu/events/2009book/Chapter13.pdf (Docket ID: EPA-
HQ-OAR-2010-0162-0011)
\500\ Winebrake, J. J.; Corbett, J. J.; Falzarano, A.; Hawker,
J. S.; Korfmacher, K.; Ketha, S.; Zilora, S., Assessing Energy,
Environmental, and Economic Tradeoffs in Intermodal Freight
Transportation, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association,
58(8), 2008 (Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162-0008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) Estimates of the Rebound Effect
The aggregate methodology was used by Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
(CSI) to show several examples of the magnitude of the rebound
effect.\501\ In their paper commissioned by the NAS in support of the
recent HD report, CSI calculated an effective rebound effect for two
different technology cost and fuel savings scenarios associated with an
example Class 8 truck. Scenario 1 increased average fuel economy from
5.59 mpg to 6.8 mpg, with an additional cost of $22,930. Scenario 2
increased the average fuel economy to 9.1 mpg, at an incremental cost
of $71,630 per vehicle. The CSI examples provided estimates using a
range of own-price elasticities (-0.5 to -1.5) and cross-price
elasticities (0.35 to 0.59) from the literature. Based on these two
scenarios and a number of simplifying assumptions to aid the
calculations, CSI found a rebound effect of 11-31 percent for Scenario
1 and 5-16 percent for
[[Page 57329]]
Scenario 2 when the fuel savings from reduced rail usage were not taken
into account (``First rebound effect''). When the fuel savings from
reduced rail usage were included in the calculations, the overall
rebound effect was between 9-13 percent for Scenario 1 and 3-15 percent
for Scenario 2 (``Second Rebound Effect''). See Table VIII-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\501\ Cambridge Systematics, Inc., 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CSI included a number of caveats associated with these
calculations. Namely, the elasticity estimates derived from the
literature are ``heavily reliant on factors including the type of
demand measures analyzed (vehicle-miles of travel, ton-miles, or tons),
analysis geography, trip lengths, markets served, and commodities
transported.'' Furthermore, the CSI example only focused on Class 8
combination tractors and did not attempt to quantify the potential
rebound effect for any other truck classes. Finally, these scenarios
were characterized as ``sketches'' and were not included in the final
NAS report. In fact, the NAS report asserted that it is ``not possible
to provide a confident measure of the rebound effect,'' yet concluded
that a rebound effect likely exists and that ``estimates of fuel
savings from regulatory standards will be somewhat misestimated if the
rebound effect is not considered.''
Table VIII-12--Range of Rebound Effect Estimates From Cambridge
Systematics Aggregate Assessment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scenario 1 Scenario 2
(6.8 mpg, (9.1 mpg,
$22,930) $71,630)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
``First Rebound Effect'' (increase in 11-31% 5-16%
truck VMT resulting from decrease in
operating costs).......................
``Second Rebound Effect'' (net fuel 9-13% 3-15%
savings when decreases from rail are
taken into account)....................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As an alternative, using the econometric approach, NHTSA has
estimated the rebound effect in the short run and long run for single
unit (Class 4-7) and (Class 8) combination tractors. As shown in Table
VIII-13, the estimates for the long-run rebound effect are larger than
the estimates in the short run, which is consistent with the theory
that shippers have more flexibility to change their behavior (e.g.,
restructure contracts or logistics) when they are given more time. In
addition, the estimates derived from the national data also showed
larger rebound effects compared to the state data.\502\ One possible
explanation for the difference in the estimates is that the national
rebound estimates are capturing some of the impacts of changes in
economic activity. Historically, large increases in fuel prices are
highly correlated with economic downturns, and there may not be enough
variation in the national data to differentiate the impact of fuel
price changes from changes in economic activity. In contrast, some
states may see an increase in output when energy prices increase (e.g.,
large oil producing states such as Texas and Alaska); therefore, the
state data may be more accurately isolating the individual impact of
fuel price changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\502\ NHTSA's estimates of the rebound effect are derived from
econometric analysis of national and state VMT data reported in
Federal Highway Administration, Highway Statistics, various
editions, Tables VM-1 and VM-4. Specifically, the estimates of the
rebound effect reported in Table VIII-10 are ranges of the estimated
short-run and long-run elasticities of annual VMT by single-unit and
combination trucks with respect to fuel cost per mile driven. (Fuel
cost per mile driven during each year is equal to average fuel price
per gallon during that year divided by average fuel economy of the
truck fleet during that same year.) These estimates are derived from
time-series regression of annual national aggregate VMT for the
period 1970-2008 on measures of nationwide economic activity,
including aggregate GDP, the value of durable and nondurable goods
production, and the volume of U.S. exports and imports of goods, and
variables affecting the price of trucking services (driver wage
rates, truck purchase prices, and fuel costs), and from regression
of VMT for each individual state over the period 1994-2008 on
similar variables measured at the state level.
Table VIII-13--Range of Rebound Effect Estimates From NHTSA Econometric
Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
National data State data
Truck type ---------------------------------------------------------
Short run Long run Short run Long run
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Single Unit 13-22% 28-45% 3-8% 12-21%
Combination N/A 12-14% N/A 4-5%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed throughout this section, there are multiple
methodologies for quantifying the rebound effect, and these different
methodologies produce a large range of potential values of the rebound
effect. However, for the purposes of quantifying the rebound effect for
this program, we have used a rebound effect with respect to changes in
fuel costs per mile on the lower range of the long-run estimates. Given
the fact that the long-run state estimates are generally more
consistent with the aggregate estimates, for this program we have
chosen a rebound effect for vocational vehicles (single unit trucks) of
15 percent that is within the range of estimates from both
methodologies. Similarly, we have chosen a rebound effect for
combination tractors of 5 percent.
To date, no estimates of the HD pickup truck and van rebound effect
have been cited in the literature. Since these vehicles are used for
very different purposes than heavy-duty vehicles, it does not
necessarily seem appropriate to apply one of the heavy-duty estimates
to the HD pickup trucks and vans. These vehicles are more similar in
use to large light-duty vehicles, so for the purposes of our analysis,
we have chosen to apply the light-duty rebound effect of 10 percent to
this class of vehicles.
For the purposes of this program, we have not taken into account
any potential fuel savings or GHG emission reductions from the rail
sector due to mode shifting. We requested comments on this assumption
in the proposal, but we did not receive any new data or input.
Furthermore, we have made a number of simplifying assumptions in
our calculations, which are discussed in more detail in the RIA.
Specifically, we have not attempted to capture how current market
failures might impact the rebound effect. The direction and magnitude
of the rebound effect in the HD market are expected to vary depending
on the existence and types of market failures affecting the fuel
efficiency of the trucking fleet. If firms
[[Page 57330]]
are already accurately accounting for the costs and benefits of these
technologies and fuel savings, then these regulations would increase
their net costs, because trucks would already include all the cost-
effective technologies. As a result, the rebound effect would actually
be negative and truck VMT would decrease as a result of these final
regulations. However, if firms are not optimizing their behavior today
due to factors such as lack of reliable information (see Section
VIII.A. for further discussion), it is more likely that truck VMT would
increase. If firms recognize their lower net costs as a result of these
regulations and pass those costs along to their customers, then the
rebound effect would increase truck VMT. This response assumes that
trucking rates include both truck purchase costs and fuel costs, and
that the truck purchase costs included in the rates spread those costs
over the full expected lifetime of the trucks. If those costs are
spread over a shorter period, as the expected short payback period
implies, then those purchase costs will inhibit reduction of freight
rates, and the rebound effect will be smaller.
As discussed in more detail in Section VIII.A, if there are market
failures such as split incentives, estimating the rebound effect may
depend on the nature of the failures. For example, if the original
purchaser cannot fully recoup the higher upfront costs through fuel
savings before selling the vehicle nor pass those costs onto the resale
buyer, the firm would be expected to raise shipping rates. A firm
purchasing the truck second-hand might lower shipping rates if the firm
recognizes the cost savings after operating the vehicle, leading to an
increase in VMT. Similarly, if there are split incentives and the
vehicle buyer isn't the same entity that purchases the fuel, than there
would theoretically be a positive rebound effect. In this scenario,
fuel savings would lower the net costs to the fuel purchaser, which
would result in a larger increase in truck VMT.
If all of these scenarios occur in the marketplace, the net effect
will depend on the extent and magnitude of their relative effects,
which are also likely to vary across truck classes (for instance, split
incentives may be a much larger problem for Class 7 and 8 tractors than
they are for HD pickup trucks). Additional details on the rebound
effect are included in the RIA.
F. Class Shifting and Fleet Turnover Impacts
The agencies considered two additional potential indirect costs,
benefits, effects, and externalities which may lead to unintended
consequences of the program to improve the fuel efficiency and reduce
GHG emissions from HD trucks. The next sections cover the agencies'
qualitative discussions on potential class shifting and fleet turnover
effects.
(1) Class Shifting
Heavy-duty vehicles are typically configured and purchased to
perform a function. For example, a concrete mixer truck is purchased to
transport concrete, a combination tractor is purchased to move freight
with the use of a trailer, and a Class 3 pickup truck could be
purchased by a landscape company to pull a trailer carrying lawnmowers.
The purchaser makes decisions based on many attributes of the vehicle,
including the gross vehicle weight rating of the vehicle which in part
determines the amount of freight or equipment that can be carried. If
the final HD National Program impacts either the performance of the
vehicle or the marginal cost of the vehicle relative to the other
vehicle classes, then consumers may choose to purchase a different
vehicle, resulting in the unintended consequence of increased fuel
consumption and GHG emissions in-use.
The agencies, along with the NAS panel, found that there is little
or no literature which evaluates class shifting between trucks.\503\
NHTSA and EPA qualitatively evaluated the final rules in light of
potential class shifting. The agencies looked at four potential cases
of shifting:--from light-duty pickup trucks to heavy-duty pickup
trucks; from sleeper cabs to day cabs; from combination tractors to
vocational vehicles; and within vocational vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\503\ See 2010 NAS Report, Note 197, page 152.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Light-duty pickup trucks, those with a GVWR of less than 8,500
pounds, are currently regulated under the existing CAFE program and
will meet GHG emissions standards beginning in 2012. The increased
stringency of the light-duty 2012-2016 MY vehicle rule has led some to
speculate that vehicle consumers may choose to purchase heavy-duty
pickup trucks that are currently unregulated if the cost of the light-
duty regulation is high relative to the cost to buy the larger heavy-
duty pickup trucks. Since fuel consumption and GHG emissions rise
significantly with vehicle mass, a shift from light-duty trucks to
heavy-duty trucks would likely lead to higher fuel consumption and GHG
emissions, an untended consequence of the regulations. Given the
significant price premium of a heavy-duty truck (often five to ten
thousand dollars more than a light-duty pickup), we believe that such a
class shift would be unlikely even absent this program. With these
final regulations, any incentive for such a class shift is
significantly diminished. The final regulations for the HD pickup
trucks, and similarly for vans, are based on similar technologies and
therefore reflect a similar expected increase in cost when compared to
the light-duty GHG regulation. Hence, the combination of the two
regulations provides little incentive for a shift from light-duty
trucks to HD trucks. To the extent that our final regulation of heavy-
duty pickups and vans could conceivably encourage a class shift towards
lighter pickups, this unintended consequence would in fact be expected
to lead to lower fuel consumption and GHG emissions as the smaller
light-duty pickups are significantly more efficient than heavy-duty
pickup trucks.
The projected cost increases for this final action differ
significantly between Class 8 day cabs and Class 8 sleeper cabs,
reflecting our expectation that compliance with the final standards
will lead truck consumers to specify sleeper cabs equipped with APUs
while day cab consumers will not. Since Class 8 day cab and sleeper cab
trucks perform essentially the same function when hauling a trailer,
this raises the possibility that the higher cost for an APU equipped
sleeper cab could lead to a shift from sleeper cab to day cab trucks.
We do not believe that such an intended consequence will occur for the
following reasons. The addition of a sleeper berth to a tractor cab is
not a consumer-selectable attribute in quite the same way as other
vehicle features. The sleeper cab provides a utility that long-distance
trucking fleets need to conduct their operations--an on-board sleeping
berth that lets a driver comply with federally-mandated rest periods,
as required by the Department of Transportation Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration's hours-of-service regulations. The cost of
sleeper trucks is already higher than the cost of day cabs, yet the
fleets that need this utility purchase them.\504\ A day cab simply
cannot provide this utility. The need for this utility would not be
changed even if the marginal costs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
from sleeper cabs exceed the marginal costs to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions from day
[[Page 57331]]
cabs.\505\ A trucking fleet could decide to put its drivers in hotels
in lieu of using sleeper berths, and switch to day cabs. However, this
is unlikely to occur in any great number, since the added cost for the
hotel stays would far overwhelm differences in the marginal cost
between day and sleeper cabs. Even if some fleets do opt to buy hotel
rooms and switch to day cabs, they would be highly unlikely to purchase
a day cab that was aerodynamically worse than the sleeper cab they
replaced, since the need for features optimized for long-distance
hauling would not have changed. So in practice, there would likely be
little difference to the environment for any switching that might
occur. Further, while our projected costs assume the purchase of an APU
for compliance, in fact our regulatory structure would allow compliance
using a near zero cost software utility that eliminates tractor idling
after five minutes. Using this compliance approach, the cost difference
between a Class 8 sleeper cab and day cab due to our final regulations
is small. We are providing this alternative compliance approach
reflecting that some sleeper cabs are used in team driving situations
where one driver sleeps while the other drives. In that situation, an
APU is unnecessary since the tractor is continually being driven when
occupied. When it is parked, it will automatically eliminate any
additional idling through the shutdown software. If trucking companies
choose this option, then costs based on purchase of APUs may
overestimate the costs of this program to this sector.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\504\ A baseline tractor price of a new day cab is $89,500
versus $113,000 for a new sleeper cab based on information gathered
by ICF in the ``Investigation of Costs for Strategies to Reduce
Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Heavy-Duty On-Road Vehicles'', July
2010. Page 3. Docket Identification Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162-
0044.
\505\ The average marginal cost difference between sleeper cabs
and day cabs in the proposal is nearly $6,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class shifting from combination tractors to vocational vehicles may
occur if a customer deems the additional marginal cost of tractors due
to the regulation to be greater than the utility provided by the
tractor. The agencies initially considered this issue when deciding
whether to include Class 7 tractors with the Class 8 tractors or
regulate them as vocational vehicles. The agencies' evaluation of the
combined vehicle weight rating of the Class 7 shows that if these
vehicles were treated significantly differently from the Class 8
tractors, then they could be easily substituted for Class 8 tractors.
Therefore, the agencies are finalizing to include both classes in the
tractor category. The agencies believe that a shift from tractors to
vocational vehicles would be limited because of the ability of tractors
to pick up and drop off trailers at locations which cannot be done by
vocational vehicles.
The agencies do not envision that the final regulatory program will
cause class shifting within the vocational class. The marginal cost
difference due to the regulation of vocational vehicles is minimal. The
cost of LRR tires on a per tire basis is the same for all vocational
vehicles so the only difference in marginal cost of the vehicles is due
to the number of axles. The agencies believe that the utility gained
from the additional load carrying capability of the additional axle
will outweigh the additional cost for heavier vehicles.\506\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\506\ The final rule projects the difference in costs between
the HHD and MHD vocational vehicle technologies is approximately
$30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In conclusion, NHTSA and EPA believe that the final regulatory
structure for HD trucks does not significantly change the current
competitive and market factors that determine purchaser preferences
among truck types. Furthermore, even if a small amount of shifting does
occur, any resulting GHG impacts are likely to be negligible because
any vehicle class that sees an uptick in sales is also being regulated
for fuel efficiency. Therefore, the agencies did not include an impact
of class shifting on the vehicle populations used to assess the
benefits of the program.
(2) Fleet Turnover Effect
A regulation that increases the cost to purchase and/or operate
trucks could impact whether a consumer decides to purchase a new truck
and the timing of that purchase. The term pre-buy refers to the idea
that truck purchases may occur earlier than otherwise planned to avoid
the additional costs associated with a new regulatory requirement.
Slower fleet turnover, or low-buys, may occur when owners opt to keep
their existing truck rather than purchase a new truck due to the
incremental cost of the regulation.
The NAS panel discusses the topics associated with HD truck fleet
turnover. NAS noted that there is some empirical evidence of pre-buy
behavior in response to the 2004 and 2007 heavy-duty engine emission
standards, with larger impacts occurring in response to higher
costs.\507\ However, those regulations increased upfront costs to firms
without any offsetting future cost savings from reduced fuel purchases.
In summary, NAS stated that
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\507\ See NAS Report, Note 197, pp. 150-151
* * * during periods of stable or growing demand in the freight
sector, pre-buy behavior may have significant impact on purchase
patterns, especially for larger fleets with better access to capital
and financing. Under these same conditions, smaller operators may
simply elect to keep their current equipment on the road longer, all
the more likely given continued improvements in diesel engine
durability over time. On the other hand, to the extent that fuel
economy improvements can offset incremental purchase costs, these
impacts will be lessened. Nevertheless, when it comes to efficiency
investments, most heavy-duty fleet operators require relatively
quick payback periods, on the order of two to three years.\508\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\508\ See NAS Report, Note 197, page 151.
The final regulations are projected to return fuel savings to the
truck owners that offset the cost of the regulation within a few years
for vocational vehicles and Class 7 and 8 tractors, the categories
where the potential for prebuy and delayed fleet turnover are concerns.
In the case of vocational vehicles, the added cost is small enough that
it is unlikely to have a substantial effect on purchasing behavior. In
the case of Class 7 and 8 trucks, the effects of the regulation on
purchasing behavior will depend on the nature of the market failures
and the extent to which firms consider the projected future fuel
savings in their purchasing decisions.
If trucking firms account for the rapid payback, they are unlikely
to strategically accelerate or delay their purchase plans at additional
cost in capital to avoid a regulation that will lower their overall
operating costs. As discussed in Section VIII.A, this scenario may
occur if this final program reduces uncertainty about fuel-saving
technologies. More reliable information about ways to reduce fuel
consumption allows truck purchasers to evaluate better the benefits and
costs of additional fuel savings, primarily in the original vehicle
market, but possibly in the resale market as well.
Other market failures may leave open the possibility of some pre-
buy or delayed purchasing behavior. Firms may not consider the full
value of the future fuel savings for several reasons. For instance,
truck purchasers may not want to invest in fuel efficiency because of
uncertainty about fuel prices. Another explanation is that the resale
market may not fully recognize the value of fuel savings, due to lack
of trust of new technologies or changes in the uses of the vehicles.
Lack of coordination (also called split incentives--see Section VIII.A)
between truck purchasers (who emphasize the up-front costs of the
trucks) and truck operators, who would like the fuel savings, can also
lead to pre-buy or delayed purchasing behavior. If these market
failures prevent firms from fully internalizing fuel savings when
[[Page 57332]]
deciding on vehicle purchases, then pre-buy and delayed purchase could
occur and could result in a slight decrease in the GHG benefits of the
regulation.
Thus, whether pre-buy or delayed purchase is likely to play a
significant role in the truck market depends on the specific behaviors
of purchasers in that market. Without additional information about
which scenario is more likely to be prevalent, the Agencies are not
projecting a change in fleet turnover characteristics due to this
regulation.
G. Benefits of Reducing CO2 Emissions
(1) Social Cost of Carbon
EPA has assigned a dollar value to reductions in CO2
emissions using recent estimates of the social cost of carbon (SCC).
The SCC is an estimate of the monetized damages associated with an
incremental increase in carbon emissions in a given year. It is
intended to include (but is not limited to) changes in net agricultural
productivity, human health, property damages from increased flood risk,
and the value of ecosystem services due to climate change. The SCC
estimates used in this analysis were developed through an interagency
process that included EPA, DOT/NHTSA, and other executive branch
entities, and concluded in February 2010. We first used these SCC
estimates in the benefits analysis for the light-duty 2012-2016 MY
vehicle rule; see that rule's preamble for a discussion of application
of the SCC.\509\ The SCC Technical Support Document (SCC TSD) provides
a complete discussion of the methods used to develop these SCC
estimates.\510\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\509\ See 2010 Light-Duty Final Rule, Note 5, docket ID EPA-HQ-
OAR-2009-0472-11424.
\510\ Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0472-114577, Technical Support
Document: Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under
Executive Order 12866, Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of
Carbon, with participation by Council of Economic Advisers, Council
on Environmental Quality, Department of Agriculture, Department of
Commerce, Department of Energy, Department of Transportation,
Environmental Protection Agency, National Economic Council, Office
of Energy and Climate Change, Office of Management and Budget,
Office of Science and Technology Policy, and Department of Treasury
(February 2010). Also available at http://epa.gov/otaq/climate/regulations.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The interagency group selected four SCC values for use in
regulatory analyses, which we have applied in this analysis: $5, $22,
$36, and $67 per metric ton of CO2 emissions in 2010, in
2009 dollars.511 512 The first three values are based on the
average SCC from three integrated assessment models, at discount rates
of 5, 3, and 2.5 percent, respectively. SCCs at several discount rates
are included because the literature shows that the SCC is quite
sensitive to assumptions about the discount rate, and because no
consensus exists on the appropriate rate to use in an intergenerational
context. The fourth value is the 95th percentile of the SCC from all
three models at a 3 percent discount rate. It is included to represent
higher-than-expected impacts from temperature change further out in the
tails of the SCC distribution. Low probability, high impact events are
incorporated into all of the SCC values through explicit consideration
of their effects in two of the three models as well as the use of a
probability density function for equilibrium climate sensitivity.
Treating climate sensitivity probabilistically results in more high
temperature outcomes, which in turn lead to higher projections of
damages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\511\ The interagency group decided that these estimates apply
only to CO2 emissions. Given that warming profiles and
impacts other than temperature change (e.g., ocean acidification)
vary across GHGs, the group concluded ``transforming gases into
CO2-equivalents using GWP, and then multiplying the
carbon-equivalents by the SCC, would not result in accurate
estimates of the social costs of non-CO2 gases'' (SCC
TSD, pg 13).
\512\ The SCC estimates were converted from 2007 dollars to 2008
dollars using a GDP price deflator (1.021) and again to 2009 dollars
using a GDP price deflator (1.009) obtained from the Bureau of
Economic Analysis, National Income and Product Accounts Table 1.1.4,
Prices Indexes for Gross Domestic Product.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The SCC increases over time because future emissions are expected
to produce larger incremental damages as physical and economic systems
become more stressed in response to greater climatic change. Note that
the interagency group estimated the growth rate of the SCC directly
using the three integrated assessment models rather than assuming a
constant annual growth rate. This helps to ensure that the estimates
are internally consistent with other modeling assumptions. Table VIII-
14 presents the SCC estimates used in this analysis.
When attempting to assess the incremental economic impacts of
carbon dioxide emissions, the analyst faces a number of serious
challenges. A recent report from the National Academies of Science
points out that any assessment will suffer from uncertainty,
speculation, and lack of information about (1) future emissions of
greenhouse gases, (2) the effects of past and future emissions on the
climate system, (3) the impact of changes in climate on the physical
and biological environment, and (4) the translation of these
environmental impacts into economic damages.\513\ As a result, any
effort to quantify and monetize the harms associated with climate
change will raise serious questions of science, economics, and ethics
and should be viewed as provisional.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\513\ National Research Council (2009). Hidden Costs of Energy:
Unpriced Consequences of Energy Production and Use. National
Academies Press. See docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0472-11486.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The interagency group noted a number of limitations to the SCC
analysis, including the incomplete way in which the integrated
assessment models capture catastrophic and non-catastrophic impacts,
their incomplete treatment of adaptation and technological change,
uncertainty in the extrapolation of damages to high temperatures, and
assumptions regarding risk aversion. The limited amount of research
linking climate impacts to economic damages makes the interagency
modeling exercise even more difficult. The interagency group hopes that
over time researchers and modelers will work to fill these gaps and
that the SCC estimates used for regulatory analysis by the Federal
government will continue to evolve with improvements in modeling.
Additional details on these limitations are discussed in the SCC TSD.
We received several comments regarding the SCC estimates used to
analyze the proposed standards. In particular, these commenters
discussed the incomplete treatment of impacts as well as discount rate
selection. EPA has reviewed these comments in detail and responded to
them in the EPA Response to Comments Document for the Joint Rulemaking.
As noted in that document, the U.S. government intends to revise these
estimates, taking into account new research findings that were not
included in the first round, and has set a preliminary goal of
revisiting the SCC values in the next few years or at such time as
substantially updated models become available, and to continue to
support research in this area. The EPA Response to Comments Document
for the Joint Rulemaking discusses ongoing research in greater detail.
Applying the global SCC estimates, shown in Table VIII-14, to the
estimated domestic reductions in CO2 emissions under this
final program, we estimate the dollar value of the climate related
benefits for each analysis year. For internal consistency, the annual
benefits are discounted back to net present value terms using the same
discount rate as each SCC estimate (i.e., 5%, 3%, and 2.5%) rather than
3% and 7%.\514\ These estimates are provided in Table VIII-15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\514\ It is possible that other benefits or costs of final
regulations unrelated to CO2 emissions will be discounted
at rates that differ from those used to develop the SCC estimates.
[[Page 57333]]
Table VIII-14--Social Cost of CO2, 2012--2050 a
[in 2009 dollars per metric ton]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discount rate and statistic
---------------------------------------------------
Year 2.5% 3% 95th
5% Average 3% Average Average percentile
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012........................................................ $5.28 $23.06 $37.53 $70.14
2015........................................................ 5.93 24.58 39.57 75.03
2020........................................................ 7.01 27.10 42.98 83.17
2025........................................................ 8.53 30.43 47.28 93.11
2030........................................................ 10.05 33.75 51.58 103.06
2035........................................................ 11.57 37.08 55.88 113.00
2040........................................................ 13.09 40.40 60.19 122.95
2045........................................................ 14.63 43.34 63.59 131.66
2050........................................................ 16.18 46.27 66.99 140.37
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:
\a\ The SCC values are dollar-year and emissions-year specific.
Table VIII-15--Monetized CO2 Benefits of Vehicle Program, CO2 Emissions a
[Millions, 2009$]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits
---------------------------------------------------
CO2 95th
Year Emissions Avg SCC at Avg SCC at Avg SCC at percentile
reduction 5% ($5-$16) 3% ($23- 2.5% ($38- SCC at 3%
(MMT) a $46) a $67) a ($70-$140)
a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020........................................... 37.7 $264 $1,021 $1,619 $3,133
2030........................................... 73.1 734 2,467 3,770 7,532
2040........................................... 90.3 1,182 3,650 5,437 11,108
2050........................................... 103.9 1,682 4,810 6,963 14,590
----------------------------------------------------------------
Net Present Valueb......................... ........... 9,045 46,070 78,037 140,432
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
\a\ Except for the last row (net present value), the SCC values are dollar-year and emissions-year specific.
\b\ Net present value of reduced CO2 emissions is calculated differently from other benefits. The same discount
rate used to discount the value of damages from future emissions (SCC at 5, 3, 2.5 percent) is used to
calculate net present value of SCC for internal consistency. Refer to the SCC TSD for more detail.
H. Non-GHG Health and Environmental Impacts
This section presents EPA's analysis of the non-GHG health and
environmental impacts that can be expected to occur as a result of the
HD National Program. GHG emissions are predominantly the byproduct of
fossil fuel combustion processes that also produce criteria and
hazardous air pollutants. The vehicles that are subject to the
standards are also significant sources of mobile source air pollution
such as direct PM, NOX, VOCs and air toxics. The standards
will affect exhaust emissions of these pollutants from vehicles. They
will also affect emissions from upstream sources related to changes in
fuel consumption. Changes in ambient ozone, PM2.5, and air
toxics that will result from the standards are expected to affect human
health in the form of premature deaths and other serious human health
effects, as well as other important public health and welfare effects.
As many commenters noted, it is important to quantify the health
and environmental impacts associated with the final rules because a
failure to adequately consider these ancillary co-pollutant impacts
could lead to an incorrect assessment of their net costs and benefits.
Moreover, co-pollutant impacts tend to accrue in the near term, while
any effects from reduced climate change mostly accrue over a time frame
of several decades or longer.
This section is organized as follows: the first presents the PM-
and ozone-related health and environmental impacts associated with the
final program in calendar year (CY) 2030; the second discusses the
related co-benefits associated with the model year (MY) analysis of the
program.\515\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\515\ EPA typically analyzes rule impacts (emissions, air
quality, costs and benefits) in the year in which they occur; for
this analysis, we selected 2030 as a representative future year. We
refer to this analysis as the ``Calendar Year'' (CY) analysis. EPA
also conducted a separate analysis of the impacts over the model
year lifetimes of the 2012 through 2016 model year vehicles. We
refer to this analysis as the ``Model Year'' (MY) analysis. In
contrast to the CY analysis, the MY lifetime analysis shows the
lifetime impacts of the program on each of these MY fleets over the
course of its lifetime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Quantified and Monetized Non-GHG Human Health Benefits of the 2030
Calendar Year Analysis
This analysis reflects the impact of the HD National Program in
2030 compared to a future-year reference scenario without the program
in place.\516\ Overall, we estimate that the final rules will lead to a
net decrease in PM2.5-related health impacts. See Section
VII.D of this preamble for more
[[Page 57334]]
information about the air quality modeling results. While the PM-
related air quality impacts are relatively small, the decrease in
population-weighted national average PM2.5 exposure results
in a net decrease in adverse PM-related human health impacts (the
decrease in national population-weighted annual average
PM2.5 is 0.005 [mu]g/m\3\).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\516\ The future-year reference scenario to which the program
impacts are compared in this section assumes no future gains in mpg
(a ``flat'' scenario). For the final rulemaking, the agencies have
also conducted a sensitivity analysis relative to the baseline
assumptions. The alternative baseline assumes annual mpg
projections, in the absence of the program, which were developed by
the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) for the Annual
Energy Outlook (AEO). A description of the alternative baseline can
be found in RIA Chapter 6. Due to time and resource constraints, EPA
was unable to conduct full-scale photochemical air quality modeling
to reflect the final rule impacts relative to this alternative
baseline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The air quality modeling also projects decreases in ozone
concentrations in many areas. While the ozone-related impacts are
relatively small, the decrease in population-weighted national average
ozone exposure results in a net decrease in ozone-related health
impacts (population-weighted maximum 8-hour average ozone decreases by
0.164 ppb).
We base our analysis of the program's impact on human health in
2030 on peer-reviewed studies of air quality and human health
effects.517 518 These methods are described in more detail
in the RIA that accompanies this action. Our benefits methods are also
consistent with recent rulemaking analyses such as the final Transport
Rule,\519\ the light-duty 2012-2016 MY vehicle rule,\520\ and the final
Portland Cement National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) RIA.\521\ To model the ozone and PM air quality
impacts of this final action, we used the Community Multiscale Air
Quality (CMAQ) model (see Chapter 8.2.2 of the RIA that accompanies
this preamble). The modeled ambient air quality data serves as an input
to the Environmental Benefits Mapping and Analysis Program version 4.0
(BenMAP).\522\ BenMAP is a computer program developed by the U.S. EPA
that integrates a number of the modeling elements used in previous
analyses (e.g., interpolation functions, population projections, health
impact functions, valuation functions, analysis and pooling methods) to
translate modeled air concentration estimates into health effects
incidence estimates and monetized benefits estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\517\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2006). Final
Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for the Proposed National Ambient
Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter. Prepared by: Office of
Air and Radiation. Retrieved March 26, 2009 at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/ria.html
\518\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2008). Final Ozone
NAAQS Regulatory Impact Analysis. Prepared by: Office of Air and
Radiation, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Retrieved
March 26, 2009 at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/ria.html.
\519\ Final Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate
Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone. Signed July 6, 2011.
Available at http://epa.gov/airtransport/.
\520\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2010). Regulatory
Impact Analysis: Final Rulemaking to Establish Light-Duty Vehicle
Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy
Standards, EPA-420-R-10-009, April 2010. Available on the Internet:
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/regulations/420r10009.pdf.
\521\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2010.
Regulatory Impact Analysis: National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Portland Cement Manufacturing
Industry. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research
Triangle Park, NC. Augues. Available on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/portlandcementfinalria.pdf. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2009-0472-0241.
\522\ Information on BenMAP, including downloads of the
software, can be found at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/benmodels.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The range of total monetized ozone- and PM-related health impacts
is presented in Table VIII-16. We present total benefits based on the
PM- and ozone-related premature mortality function used. The benefits
ranges therefore reflect the addition of each estimate of ozone-related
premature mortality (each with its own row in Table VIII-16) to
estimates of PM-related premature mortality. These estimates represent
EPA's preferred approach to characterizing a best estimate of benefits.
As is the nature of Regulatory Impact Analyses (RIAs), the assumptions
and methods used to estimate air quality benefits evolve to reflect the
agency's most current interpretation of the scientific and economic
literature.
Table VIII-16--Estimated 2030 Monetized PM- and Ozone-Related Health Benefits a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2030 Total ozone and PM benefits--PM mortality derived from American Cancer Society analysis and Six-Cities
Analysis a
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total benefits Total Benefits
Premature ozone mortality function Reference (billions, 2009$, 3% (billions, 2009$, 7%
discount rate) b,c discount rate) b,c
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Multi-city analyses.................. Bell et al., 2004...... Total: $1.3-$2.4....... Total: $1.2-$2.2.
PM: $0.74-$1.8......... PM: $0.67-$1.6.
Ozone: $0.55........... Ozone: $0.55.
Huang et al., 2005..... Total: $1.6-$2.7....... Total: $1.6-$2.5.
PM: $0.74-$1.8......... PM: $0.67-$1.6
Ozone: $0.91........... Ozone: $0.91.
Schwartz, 2005......... Total: $1.6-$2.6....... Total: $1.5-$2.5.
PM: $0.74-$1.8......... PM: $0.67-$1.6.
Ozone: $0.83........... Ozone: $0.83.
Meta-analyses........................ Bell et al., 2005...... Total: $2.4-$3.5....... Total: $2.4-$3.3.
PM: $0.74-$1.8......... PM: $0.67-$1.6.
Ozone: $1.7............ Ozone: $1.7.
Ito et al., 2005....... Total: $3.1-$4.2....... Total: $3.0-$4.0.
PM: $0.74-$1.8......... PM: $0.67-$1.6.
Ozone: $2.4............ Ozone: $2.4.
Levy et al., 2005...... Total: $3.1-$4.2....... Total: $3.1-$4.0.
PM: $0.74-$1.8......... PM: $0.67-$1.6.
Ozone: $2.4............ Ozone: $2.4.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
\a\ Total includes premature mortality-related and morbidity-related ozone and PM2.5 benefits. Range was
developed by adding the estimate from the ozone premature mortality function to the estimate of PM2.5-related
premature mortality derived from either the ACS study (Pope et al., 2002) or the Six-Cities study (Laden et
al., 2006).
\b\ Note that total benefits presented here do not include a number of unquantified benefits categories. A
detailed listing of unquantified health and welfare effects is provided in Table VIII-17.
\c\ Results reflect the use of both a 3 and 7 percent discount rate, as recommended by EPA's Guidelines for
Preparing Economic Analyses and OMB Circular A-4. Results are rounded to two significant digits for ease of
presentation and computation.
[[Page 57335]]
The benefits in Table VIII-16 include all of the human health
impacts we are able to quantify and monetize at this time. However, the
full complement of human health and welfare effects associated with PM
and ozone remain unquantified because of current limitations in methods
or available data. We have not quantified a number of known or
suspected health effects linked with ozone and PM for which appropriate
health impact functions are not available or which do not provide
easily interpretable outcomes (e.g., changes in heart rate
variability). Additionally, we are unable to quantify a number of known
welfare effects, including reduced acid and particulate deposition
damage to cultural monuments and other materials, and environmental
benefits due to reductions of impacts of eutrophication in coastal
areas. These are listed in Table VIII-17. As a result, the health
benefits quantified in this section are likely underestimates of the
total benefits attributable to this final action.
Table VIII-17--Unquantified and Non-Monetized Potential Effects
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effects not included in analysis--
Pollutant/effects Changes in:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ozone Health \a\..................... Chronic respiratory damage \b\.
Premature aging of the lungs \b\.
Non-asthma respiratory emergency
room visits.
Exposure to UVb (+/-) \e\.
Ozone Welfare........................ Yields for:
--commercial forests.
--some fruits and vegetables.
--non-commercial crops.
Damage to urban ornamental
plants.
Impacts on recreational demand
from damaged forest aesthetics.
Ecosystem functions.
Exposure to UVb (+/-) \e\.
PM Health \c\........................ Premature mortality--short term
exposures.\d\
Low birth weight.
Pulmonary function.
Chronic respiratory diseases
other than chronic bronchitis.
Non-asthma respiratory emergency
room visits.
Exposure to UVb (+/-) \e\.
PM Welfare........................... Residential and recreational
visibility in non-Class I areas.
Soiling and materials damage.
Damage to ecosystem functions.
Exposure to UVb (+/-) \e\.
Nitrogen and Sulfate Deposition Commercial forests due to acidic
Welfare. sulfate and nitrate deposition.
Commercial freshwater fishing due
to acidic deposition.
Recreation in terrestrial
ecosystems due to acidic
deposition.
Existence values for currently
healthy ecosystems.
Commercial fishing, agriculture,
and forests due to nitrogen
deposition.
Recreation in estuarine
ecosystems due to nitrogen
deposition.
Ecosystem functions.
Passive fertilization.
CO Health............................ Behavioral effects.
HC/Toxics Health \f\................. Cancer (benzene, 1,3-butadiene,
formaldehyde, acetaldehyde).
Anemia (benzene).
Disruption of production of blood
components (benzene).
Reduction in the number of blood
platelets (benzene).
Excessive bone marrow formation
(benzene).
Depression of lymphocyte counts
(benzene).
Reproductive and developmental
effects (1,3-butadiene).
Irritation of eyes and mucus
membranes (formaldehyde).
Respiratory irritation
(formaldehyde).
Asthma attacks in asthmatics
(formaldehyde).
Asthma-like symptoms in non-
asthmatics (formaldehyde).
Irritation of the eyes, skin, and
respiratory tract
(acetaldehyde).
Upper respiratory tract
irritation and congestion
(acrolein).
HC/Toxics Welfare.................... Direct toxic effects to animals.
Bioaccumulation in the food
chain.
Damage to ecosystem function.
Odor.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
\a\ The public health impact of biological responses such as increased
airway responsiveness to stimuli, inflammation in the lung, acute
inflammation and respiratory cell damage, and increased susceptibility
to respiratory infection are likely partially represented by our
quantified endpoints.
\b\ The public health impact of effects such as chronic respiratory
damage and premature aging of the lungs may be partially represented
by quantified endpoints such as hospital admissions or premature
mortality, but a number of other related health impacts, such as
doctor visits and decreased athletic performance, remain unquantified.
\c\ In addition to primary economic endpoints, there are a number of
biological responses that have been associated with PM health effects
including morphological changes and altered host defense mechanisms.
The public health impact of these biological responses may be partly
represented by our quantified endpoints.
\d\ While some of the effects of short-term exposures are likely to be
captured in the estimates, there may be premature mortality due to
short-term exposure to PM not captured in the cohort studies used in
this analysis. However, the PM mortality results derived from the
expert elicitation do take into account premature mortality effects of
short term exposures.
[[Page 57336]]
\e\ May result in benefits or disbenefits.
\f\ Many of the key hydrocarbons related to this action are also
hazardous air pollutants listed in the CAA.
While there will be impacts associated with air toxic pollutant
emission changes that result from this final action, we do not attempt
to monetize those impacts. This is primarily because currently
available tools and methods to assess air toxics risk from mobile
sources at the national scale are not adequate for extrapolation to
incidence estimations or benefits assessment. The best suite of tools
and methods currently available for assessment at the national scale
are those used in the National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment (NATA). The
EPA Science Advisory Board specifically commented in their review of
the 1996 NATA that these tools were not yet ready for use in a
national-scale benefits analysis, because they did not consider the
full distribution of exposure and risk, or address sub-chronic health
effects.\523\ While EPA has since improved these tools, there remain
critical limitations for estimating incidence and assessing benefits of
reducing mobile source air toxics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\523\ Science Advisory Board. 2001. NATA--Evaluating the
National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment for 1996--an SAB Advisory.
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/sab/sabrev.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As part of the second prospective analysis of the benefits and
costs of the Clean Air Act,\524\ EPA conducted a case study analysis of
the health effects associated with reducing exposure to benzene in
Houston from implementation of the Clean Air Act. While reviewing the
draft report, EPA's Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis
concluded that ``the challenges for assessing progress in health
improvement as a result of reductions in emissions of hazardous air
pollutants (HAPs) are daunting...due to a lack of exposure-response
functions, uncertainties in emissions inventories and background
levels, the difficulty of extrapolating risk estimates to low doses and
the challenges of tracking health progress for diseases, such as
cancer, that have long latency periods.'' \525\ EPA continues to work
to address these limitations; however, we did not have the methods and
tools available for national-scale application in time for the analysis
of the final action.\526\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\524\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2011. The
Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act from 1990 to 2020. Office of
Air and Radiation, Washington, DC. March. Available on the Internet
at http://www.epa.gov/air/sect812/feb11/fullreport.pdf.
\525\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency--Science Advisory
Board (U.S. EPA-SAB). 2008. Benefits of Reducing Benzene Emissions
in Houston, 1990-2020. EPA-COUNCIL-08-001. July. Available at http:/
/yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/
D4D7EC9DAEDA8A548525748600728A83/$File/EPA-COUNCIL-08-001-
unsigned.pdf.
\526\ In April 2009, EPA hosted a workshop on estimating the
benefits or reducing hazardous air pollutants. This workshop built
upon the work accomplished in the June 2000 Science Advisory Board/
EPA Workshop on the Benefits of Reductions in Exposure to Hazardous
Air Pollutants, which generated thoughtful discussion on approaches
to estimating human health benefits from reductions in air toxics
exposure, but no consensus was reached on methods that could be
implemented in the near term for a broad selection of air toxics.
Please visit http://epa.gov/air/toxicair/2009workshop.html for more
information about the workshop and its associated materials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is also unaware of specific information identifying any effects
on listed endangered species from the small fluctuations in pollutant
concentrations associated with this program (see Section VII.D).
Furthermore, our current modeling tools are not designed to trace
fluctuations in ambient concentration levels to potential impacts on
particular endangered species.
(a) Quantified Human Health Impacts
Table VIII-18 and Table VIII-19 present the annual PM2.5
and ozone health impacts, respectively, in the 48 contiguous U.S.
states associated with the HD National Program for 2030. For each
endpoint presented in Table VIII-18 and Table VIII-19, we provide both
the mean estimate and the 90 percent confidence interval.
Using EPA's preferred estimates, based on the American Cancer
Society (ACS) and Six-Cities studies and no threshold assumption in the
model of mortality, we estimate that the final rules will result in
between 78 and 200 cases of avoided PM2.5-related premature
mortalities annually in 2030. As a sensitivity analysis, when the range
of expert opinion is used, we estimate between 26 and 260 fewer
premature mortalities in 2030 (see Table 8-14 in the RIA that
accompanies this action). For ozone-related premature mortality in
2030, we estimate a range of between 54 to 240 fewer premature
mortalities.
Table VIII-18--Estimated PM2.5-Related Health Impacts a
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2030 Annual
reduction in
Health effect incidence (5th-
95th
percentile)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Premature Mortality--Derived from epidemiology
literature \b\
Adult, age 30+, ACS Cohort Study (Pope et al., 2002) 78 (30-130)
Adult, age 25+, Six-Cities Study (Laden et al., 200 (110-290)
2006)..............................................
Infant, age <1 year (Woodruff et al., 1997)......... 0 (0-1)
Chronic bronchitis (adult, age 26 and over)............. 53 (10-97)
Non-fatal myocardial infarction (adult, age 18 and over) 150 (54-240)
Hospital admissions-respiratory (all ages) \c\.......... 20 (10-30)
Hospital admissions-cardiovascular (adults, age >18) \d\ 45 (32-52)
Emergency room visits for asthma (age 18 years and 81 (48-120)
younger)...............................................
Acute bronchitis, (children, age 8-12).................. 130 (0-270)
Lower respiratory symptoms (children, age 7-14)......... 1,600 (750-
2,400)
Upper respiratory symptoms (asthmatic children, age 9- 1,200 (370-
18).................................................... 2,000)
Asthma exacerbation (asthmatic children, age 6-18)...... 1,400 (160-
4,000)
Work loss days.......................................... 9,700 (8,500-
11,000)
Minor restricted activity days (adults age 18-65)....... 57,000 (48,000-
66,000)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
\a\ Incidence is rounded to two significant digits. Estimates represent
incidence within the 48 contiguous United States.
\b\ PM-related adult mortality based upon the American Cancer Society
(ACS) Cohort Study (Pope et al., 2002) and the Six-Cities Study (Laden
et al., 2006). Note that these are two alternative estimates of adult
mortality and should not be summed. PM-related infant mortality based
upon a study by Woodruff, Grillo, and Schoendorf, (1997).\527\
\c\ Respiratory hospital admissions for PM include admissions for
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), pneumonia and asthma.
\d\ Cardiovascular hospital admissions for PM include total
cardiovascular and subcategories for ischemic heart disease,
dysrhythmias, and heart failure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\527\ Woodruff, T.J., J. Grillo, and K.C. Schoendorf. 1997.
``The Relationship Between Selected Causes of Postneonatal Infant
Mortality and Particulate Air Pollution in the United States.''
Environmental Health Perspectives 105(6):608-612.
[[Page 57337]]
Table VIII-19--Estimated Ozone-Related Health Impacts a
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2030 Annual
reduction in
Health effect incidence
(5th-95th
percentile)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Premature Mortality, All ages \b\ Multi-City Analyses:
Bell et al. (2004)--Non-accidental.................. 54 (23-84)
Huang et al. (2005)--Cardiopulmonary................ 90 (43-140)
Schwartz (2005)--Non-accidental..................... 82 (34-130)
Meta-analyses:
Bell et al. (2005)--All cause....................... 170 (96-250)
Ito et al. (2005)--Non-accidental................... 240 (160-320)
Levy et al. (2005)--All cause....................... 240 (180-310)
Hospital admissions--respiratory causes (adult, 65 and 510 (69-870)
older) \c\.............................................
Hospital admissions--respiratory causes (children, under 320 (160-470)
2).....................................................
Emergency room visit for asthma (all ages).............. 230 (0-630)
Minor restricted activity days (adults, age 18-65)...... 300,000
(150,000-450,0
00)
School absence days..................................... 120,000
(52,000-170,00
0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
\a\ Incidence is rounded to two significant digits. Estimates represent
incidence within the 48 contiguous U.S.
\b\ Estimates of ozone-related premature mortality are based upon
incidence estimates derived from several alternative studies: Bell et
al. (2004); Huang et al. (2005); Schwartz (2005); Bell et al. (2005);
Ito et al. (2005); Levy et al. (2005). The estimates of ozone-related
premature mortality should therefore not be summed.
\c\ Respiratory hospital admissions for ozone include admissions for all
respiratory causes and subcategories for COPD and pneumonia.
(b) Monetized Benefits
Table VIII-20 presents the estimated monetary value of changes in
the incidence of ozone and PM2.5-related health effects. All
monetized estimates are stated in 2009$. These estimates account for
growth in real gross domestic product (GDP) per capita between the
present and 2030. Our estimate of total monetized benefits in 2030 for
the program, using the ACS and Six-Cities PM mortality studies and the
range of ozone mortality assumptions, is between $1.3 and $4.2 billion,
assuming a 3 percent discount rate, or between $1.2 and $4.0 billion,
assuming a 7 percent discount rate.
Table VIII-20--Estimated Monetary Value of Changes in Incidence of
Health and Welfare Effects in 2030
[Millions, 2009$] a b
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5-Related health effect (5th and 95th Percentile)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Premature Mortality--Derived from
Epidemiology Studies:c d
Adult, age 30+--ACS study
(Pope et al., 2002):
3% discount rate......... $680 ($87-$1,800)
7% discount rate......... $620 ($79-$1,600)
Adult, age 25+--Six-Cities
study (Laden et al., 2006):
3% discount rate......... $1,800 ($250-$4,300)
7% discount rate......... $1,600 ($220-$3,900)
Infant Mortality, <1 year- $2.5 ($0-$9.4)
(Woodruff et al. 1997).
Chronic bronchitis (adults, 26 $29 ($2.4-$96)
and over).
Non-fatal acute myocardial
infarctions:
3% discount rate............. $16 ($3.7-$38)
7% discount rate............. $16 ($3.4-$38)
Hospital admissions for $0.31 ($0.15-$0.45)
respiratory causes.
Hospital admissions for $1.3 ($0.83-$1.8)
cardiovascular causes.
Emergency room visits for asthma. $0.03 ($0.02-$0.05)
Acute bronchitis (children, age 8- $0.01 ($0-$0.03)
12).
Lower respiratory symptoms $0.03 ($0.01-$0.06)
(children, 7-14).
Upper respiratory symptoms $0.04 ($0.01-$0.08)
(asthma, 9-11).
Asthma exacerbations............. $0.08 ($0.009-$0.23)
Work loss days................... $1.6 ($1.4-$1.8)
Minor restricted-activity days $3.6 ($2.1-$5.2)
(MRADs).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ozone-related Health Effect
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Premature Mortality, All ages--
Derived from Multi-city
analyses:
Bell et al., 2004............ $520 ($69-$1,300)
Huang et al., 2005........... $880 ($120-$2,200)
Schwartz, 2005............... $800 ($100-$2,000)
Premature Mortality, All ages--
Derived from Meta-analyses:
Bell et al., 2005............ $1,700 ($240-$4,100)
Ito et al., 2005............. $2,300 ($350-$5,500)
Levy et al., 2005............ $2,400 ($350-$5,500)
Hospital admissions--respiratory $13 ($1.7-$22)
causes (adult, 65 and older).
Hospital admissions--respiratory $3.4 ($1.8-$5.0)
causes (children, under 2).
Emergency room visit for asthma $0.09 ($0-$0.23)
(all ages).
Minor restricted activity days $19 ($8.6-$32)
(adults, age 18-65).
[[Page 57338]]
School absence days.............. $11 ($5.0-$16)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
\a\ Monetary benefits are rounded to two significant digits for ease of
presentation and computation. PM and ozone benefits are nationwide.
\b\ Monetary benefits adjusted to account for growth in real GDP per
capita between 1990 and the analysis year (2030).
\c\ Valuation assumes discounting over the SAB recommended 20 year
segmented lag structure. Results reflect the use of 3 percent and 7
percent discount rates consistent with EPA and OMB guidelines for
preparing economic analyses.
(c) What are the limitations of the benefits analysis?
Every benefit-cost analysis examining the potential effects of a
change in environmental protection requirements is limited to some
extent by data gaps, limitations in model capabilities (such as
geographic coverage), and uncertainties in the underlying scientific
and economic studies used to configure the benefit and cost models.
Limitations of the scientific literature often result in the inability
to estimate quantitative changes in health and environmental effects,
such as potential decreases in premature mortality associated with
decreased exposure to carbon monoxide. Deficiencies in the economics
literature often result in the inability to assign economic values even
to those health and environmental outcomes which can be quantified.
These general uncertainties in the underlying scientific and economics
literature, which can lead to valuations that are higher or lower, are
discussed in detail in the RIA and its supporting references. Key
uncertainties that have a bearing on the results of the benefit-cost
analysis of the final rules include the following:
The exclusion of potentially significant and unquantified
benefit categories (such as health, odor, and ecological benefits of
reduction in air toxics, ozone, and PM);
Errors in measurement and projection for variables such as
population growth;
Uncertainties in the estimation of future year emissions
inventories and air quality;
Uncertainty in the estimated relationships of health and
welfare effects to changes in pollutant concentrations including the
shape of the C-R function, the size of the effect estimates, and the
relative toxicity of the many components of the PM mixture;
Uncertainties in exposure estimation; and
Uncertainties associated with the effect of potential
future actions to limit emissions.
As Table VIII-20 indicates, total benefits are driven primarily by
the reduction in premature mortalities each year. Some key assumptions
underlying the premature mortality estimates include the following,
which may also contribute to uncertainty:
Inhalation of fine particles is causally associated with
premature death at concentrations near those experienced by most
Americans on a daily basis. Although biological mechanisms for this
effect have not yet been completely established, the weight of the
available epidemiological, toxicological, and experimental evidence
supports an assumption of causality. The impacts of including a
probabilistic representation of causality were explored in the expert
elicitation-based results of the PM NAAQS RIA.
All fine particles, regardless of their chemical
composition, are equally potent in causing premature mortality. This is
an important assumption, because PM produced via transported precursors
emitted from heavy-duty engines may differ significantly from PM
precursors released from electric generating units and other industrial
sources. However, no clear scientific grounds exist for supporting
differential effects estimates by particle type.
The C-R function for fine particles is approximately
linear within the range of ambient concentrations under consideration.
Thus, the estimates include health benefits from reducing fine
particles in areas with varied concentrations of PM, including both
regions that may be in attainment with PM2.5 standards and
those that are at risk of not meeting the standards.
There is uncertainty in the magnitude of the association
between ozone and premature mortality. The range of ozone benefits
associated with the coordinated strategy is estimated based on the risk
of several sources of ozone-related mortality effect estimates. In a
report on the estimation of ozone-related premature mortality published
by the National Research Council, a panel of experts and reviewers
concluded that short-term exposure to ambient ozone is likely to
contribute to premature deaths and that ozone-related mortality should
be included in estimates of the health benefits of reducing ozone
exposure.\528\ EPA has requested advice from the National Academy of
Sciences on how best to quantify uncertainty in the relationship
between ozone exposure and premature mortality in the context of
quantifying benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\528\ National Research Council (NRC), 2008. Estimating
Mortality Risk Reduction and Economic Benefits from Controlling
Ozone Air Pollution. The National Academies Press: Washington, DC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite the uncertainties described above, we believe this analysis
provides a conservative estimate of the estimated non-GHG health and
environmental benefits of the standards in future years because of the
exclusion of potentially significant benefit categories that are not
quantifiable at this time. Acknowledging benefits omissions and
uncertainties, we present a best estimate of the total benefits based
on our interpretation of the best available scientific literature and
methods supported by EPA's technical peer review panel, the Science
Advisory Board's Health Effects Subcommittee (SAB-HES). The National
Academies of Science (NRC, 2002) has also reviewed EPA's methodology
for analyzing the health benefits of measures taken to reduce air
pollution. EPA addressed many of these comments in the analysis of the
final PM NAAQS.529 530 This analysis incorporates this work
to the extent possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\529\ National Research Council (NRC). 2002. Estimating the
Public Health Benefits of Proposed Air Pollution Regulations. The
National Academies Press: Washington, DC.
\530\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. October 2006. Final
Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for the Proposed National Ambient
Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter. Prepared by: Office of
Air and Radiation. Available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/ria.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Non-GHG Human Health Benefits of the Model Year (MY) Analysis
As described in Section VII, the final standards will reduce
emissions of several criteria and toxic pollutants and precursors. EPA
typically analyzes rule
[[Page 57339]]
impacts (emissions, air quality, costs and benefits) in the year in
which they occur; for the analysis of non-GHG ambient air quality and
health impacts, we selected 2030 as a representative future year since
resource and time constraints precluded EPA from considering multiple
calendar years. We refer to this analysis as the ``Calendar Year'' (CY)
analysis because the benefits of the program reflect impacts across all
regulated vehicles in a calendar year.
EPA also conducted a separate analysis of the impacts over the
model year lifetimes of the 2014 through 2018 model year vehicles. We
refer to this analysis as the ``Model Year'' (MY) analysis (See Chapter
6 of the RIA that accompanies this preamble). In contrast to the CY
analysis, the MY analysis estimates the impacts of the program on each
MY fleet over the course of its lifetime. Due to analytical and
resource limitations, however, MY non-GHG emissions (direct PM, VOCs,
NO2 and SO2) were not estimated for this
analysis. Because MY impacts are measured in relation to only the
lifetime of a particular vehicle model year (2014, 2015, 2016, 2017,
and 2018), and assumes no additional controls to model year vehicles
beyond 2018, the impacts are smaller than if the impacts of all
regulated vehicles were considered. We therefore expect that the non-
GHG health-related benefits associated with the MY analysis will be
smaller than those estimated for the CY analysis, both in a given year
(such as 2030) and in present value terms across a given time period
(such as 2014-2050).
I. Energy Security Impacts
The HD National Program is designed to reduce fuel consumption and
GHG emissions in medium and heavy-duty (HD) vehicles, which will result
in improved fuel efficiency and, in turn, help to reduce U.S. petroleum
imports. A reduction of U.S. petroleum imports reduces both financial
and strategic risks caused by potential sudden disruptions in the
supply of imported petroleum to the U.S. This reduction in risk is a
measure of improved U.S. energy security. This section summarizes the
agencies' estimates of U.S. oil import reductions and energy security
benefits of the final HD National Program. Additional discussion of
this issue can be found in Chapter 9.7 of the RIA.
(1) Implications of Reduced Petroleum Use on U.S. Imports
In 2008, U.S. petroleum import expenditures represented 21 percent
of total U.S. imports of all goods and services.\531\ In 2008, the
United States imported 66 percent of the petroleum it consumed, and the
transportation sector accounted for 70 percent of total U.S. petroleum
consumption. This compares to approximately 37 percent of petroleum
from imports and 55 percent of consumption from petroleum in the
transportation sector in 1975.\532\ It is clear that petroleum imports
have a significant impact on the U.S. economy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\531\ Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S.
International Transactions Accounts Data, as shown on June 24, 2009.
\532\ Source: U.S. Department of Energy, Annual Energy Review
2008, Report No. DOE/EIA-0384(2008), Tables 5.1 and 5.13c, June 26,
2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Requiring lower GHG vehicle technology and fuel efficient
technology in HD vehicles in the U.S. is expected to lower U.S. oil
imports. EPA used the MOVES model to estimate the fuel savings due to
this program. A detailed explanation of the MOVES model can be found in
Chapter 5 of the RIA.
Based on a detailed analysis of differences in fuel consumption,
petroleum imports, and imports of refined petroleum products and crude
oil using the Reference Case presented in the Energy Information
Administration's Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) 2011 Early Release, EPA
and NHTSA estimate that approximately 50 percent of the reduction in
fuel consumption resulting from adopting improved GHG emissions
standards and fuel efficiency standards is likely to be reflected in
reduced U.S. imports of refined fuel, while the remaining 50 percent is
expected to be reflected in reduced domestic fuel refining. Of this
latter figure, 90 percent is anticipated to reduce U.S. imports of
crude petroleum for use as a refinery feedstock, while the remaining 10
percent is expected to reduce U.S. domestic production of crude
petroleum. Thus, on balance, each gallon of fuel saved as a consequence
of the HD GHG and fuel efficiency standards is anticipated to reduce
total U.S. imports of petroleum by 0.95 gallons.\533\ The agencies'
estimates of the reduction in U.S. oil imports from this program for
selected years, in millions of barrels per day, are presented in Table
VIII-21 below. These estimates assume that the fuel efficiency of HD
vehicles remains constant in the baseline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\533\ This figure is calculated as 0.50 + 0.50*0.9 = 0.50 + 0.45
= 0.95.
Table VIII-21--U.S. Oil Import Reductions From the HD National Program
for Selected Years
[Millions of barrels per day, mmbd]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year mmbd
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020......................................................... 0.202
2030......................................................... 0.393
2040......................................................... 0.489
2050......................................................... 0.566
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Energy Security Implications
In order to understand the energy security implications of reducing
U.S. petroleum imports, EPA worked with Oak Ridge National Laboratory
(ORNL), which has developed approaches for evaluating the economic
costs and energy security implications of oil use. The energy security
estimates provided below are based upon a methodology developed in a
peer-reviewed study entitled ``The Energy Security Benefits of Reduced
Oil Use, 2006-2015, '' completed in March 2008. This study is included
as part of the docket for this final action.534 535
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\534\ Leiby, Paul N., ``Estimating the Energy Security Benefits
of Reduced U.S. Oil Imports'' Oak Ridge National Laboratory, ORNL/
TM-2007/028, Final Report, 2008. (Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162).
\535\ The ORNL study ``The Energy Security Benefits of Reduced
Oil Use, 2006-2015,'' completed in March 2008, is an update version
of the approach used for estimating the energy security benefits of
U.S. oil import reductions developed in an ORNL 1997 Report by
Leiby, Paul N., Donald W. Jones, T. Randall Curlee, and Russell Lee,
entitled ``Oil Imports: An Assessment of Benefits and Costs.''
(Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When conducting this analysis, ORNL considered the full economic
cost of importing petroleum into the United States. The economic cost
of importing petroleum into the U.S. is defined to include two
components in addition to the purchase price of petroleum itself. These
are: (1) The higher costs for oil imports resulting from the effect of
increasing U.S. import demand on the world oil price and on the market
power of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (i.e.,
the ``demand'' or ``monopsony'' costs); and (2) the risk of reductions
in U.S. economic output and disruption of the U.S. economy caused by
sudden disruptions in the supply of imported petroleum to the U.S.
(i.e., macroeconomic disruption/adjustment costs). Maintaining a U.S.
military presence to help secure stable oil supply from potentially
vulnerable regions of the world was not included in this analysis
because its attribution to particular missions or activities is hard to
quantify.
[[Page 57340]]
For this action, ORNL estimated energy security premiums by
incorporating the most recent available AEO 2011 Early Release oil
price forecasts and market trends. Energy security premiums for the
years 2020, 2030, 2040, and 2050 are presented in Table VIII-22, as
well as a breakdown of the components of the energy security premiums
for each of these years.\536\ The components of the energy security
premiums and their values are discussed in detail in Chapter 9.7 of the
RIA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\536\ AEO 2011 forecasts energy market trends and values only to
2035. The energy security premium estimates post-2035 were assumed
to be the 2035 estimate.
Table VIII-22--Energy Security Premiums in Selected Years
[2009$/Barrel]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Macroeconomic disruption/
Year (range) Monopsony adjustment costs Total mid-point
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020.............................. $11.29 $7.11 $18.41
($3.86-$21.32) ($3.50-$11.40) ($9.70-$28.94)
2030.............................. $11.17 $8.32 $19.49
($3.92-$20.58) ($4.04-$13.33) ($10.49-$29.63)
2035.............................. $10.56 $8.71 $19.27
($3.69-$19.62) ($3.86-$14.35) ($10.32-$29.13)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The literature on the energy security for the last two decades has
routinely combined the monopsony and the macroeconomic disruption
components when calculating the total value of the energy security
premium. However, in the context of using a global SCC value, the
question arises: how should the energy security premium be determined
when a global perspective is taken? Monopsony benefits represent
avoided payments by the United States to oil producers in foreign
countries that result from a decrease in the world oil price as the
U.S. decreases its consumption of imported oil.
Several commenters commented on the agencies' energy security
analysis of this program. The Conservative Law Foundation, Interfaith
Care for Creation, Environmental Defense Fund and American Lung
Association (EDF/ALA) and R. Desjardin noted that the standards in this
program will increase our national security by decreasing U.S.
dependence on foreign oil imports. The Competitive Enterprise Institute
(CEI) felt that there is no relationship between reduced U.S. oil
imports and U.S. energy security; the commenter sees no relationship
between reduced oil imports and, for example, the number of hijackings,
bombings, and other terrorist-related activities that have occurred
through time. CBD commented that the benefit of the reduction of
military costs associated with maintaining a secure oil supply should
be fully accounted for, and EDF recommended a more extensive analysis
of the external security costs of oil dependence.
The agencies recognize that potential national and energy security
risks exist due to the possibility of tension over oil supplies. Much
of the world's oil and gas supplies are located in countries facing
social, economic, and demographic challenges, thus making them even
more vulnerable to potential local instability. For example, in 2010
just over 40 percent of world oil supply came from OPEC nations, and
this share is not expected to decline in the AEO 2011 projections
through 2030. Approximately 28 percent of global supply is from Persian
Gulf countries alone. As another measure of concentration, of the 137
countries/principalities that export either crude oil or refined
petroleum product, the top 12 have recently accounted for over 55
percent of exports.\537\ Eight of these countries are members of OPEC,
and a 9th is Russia.\538\ In a market where even a 1-2 percent supply
loss raises prices noticeably, and where a 10 percent supply loss could
lead to a significant price shock, this regional concentration is of
concern. Historically, the countries of the Middle East have been the
source of eight of the ten major world oil disruptions \539\ with the
9th originating in Venezuela, an OPEC member.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\537\ Based on data from the CIA, combining various recent
years, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2176rank.html.
\538\ The other three are Norway, Canada, and the EU, an
exporter of product.
\539\ IEA 2011 ``IEA Response System for Oil Supply
Emergencies''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because of U.S. dependence on oil, the military could be called on
to protect energy resources through such measures as securing shipping
lanes from foreign oil fields. To maintain such military effectiveness
and flexibility, the Department of Defense identified in the
Quadrennial Defense Review that it is ``increasing its use of renewable
energy supplies and reducing energy demand to improve operational
effectiveness, reduce greenhouse gas emissions in support of U.S.
climate change initiatives, and protect the Department from energy
price fluctuations.'' \540\ The Department of the Navy has also stated
that the Navy and Marine Corps rely far too much on petroleum, which
``degrades the strategic position of our country and the tactical
performance of our forces. The global supply of oil is finite, it is
becoming increasingly difficult to find and exploit, and over time cost
continues to rise.'' \541\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\540\ U.S. Department of Defense. 2010. Quadrennial Defense
Review Report. Secretary of Defense: Washington, DC 128 pages.
\541\ The Department of the Navy's Energy Goals (http://www.navy.mil/features/Navy_EnergySecurity.pdf) (Last accessed May
31, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In remarks given to the White House Energy Security Summit on April
26, 2011, Deputy Security of Defense William J. Lynn, III noted the
direct impact of energy security on military readiness and flexibility.
According to Deputy Security Lynn, ``Today, energy technology remains a
critical element of our military superiority. Addressing energy needs
must be a fundamental part of our military planning.'' \542\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\542\ U.S. Department of Defense, Speech: Remarks at the White
House Energy Security Summit. Tuesday, April 26, 2011. (http://www.defense.gov/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=1556) (Last accessed
May 31, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, to the degree to which the final rules reduce reliance upon
imported energy supplies or promotes the development of technologies
that can be deployed by either consumers or the nation's defense
forces, the United States could expect benefits related to national
security, reduced energy costs, and increased energy supply. These
benefits are why President Obama has identified this program as a key
component for improving energy efficiency and putting America on a
[[Page 57341]]
path to reducing oil imports in the Blueprint for a Secure Energy
Future.\543\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\543\ The White House, Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future
(March 30, 2011) (http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/blueprint_secure_energy_future.pdf) (Last accessed May 27, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the agencies recognize that there clearly is a benefit to
the United States from reducing dependence on foreign oil, the agencies
have been unable to calculate the monetary benefit that the United
States will receive from the improvements in national security expected
to result from this program. In contrast, the other portion of the
energy security premium, the U.S. macroeconomic disruption and
adjustment cost that arises from U.S. petroleum imports, is included in
the energy security benefits estimated for this program. To summarize,
the agencies have included only the macroeconomic disruption portion of
the energy security benefits to estimate the monetary value of the
total energy security benefits of this program. The agencies have
calculated energy security in very specific terms, as the reduction of
both financial and strategic risks caused by potential sudden
disruptions in the supply of imported petroleum to the U.S. Reducing
the amount of oil imported reduces those risks, and thus increases the
nation's energy security.
Another commenter, citing Administration guidelines (OMB Circular
A-4) for conducting economic analyses, felt that the agency should
include the monopsony benefit as part of its overall costs and benefits
analysis. After reviewing the guidelines cited by the commenter, the
agencies have concluded that excluding the monopsony benefit from its
overall costs and benefits analysis continues to be appropriate when a
global perspective is taken. However, the agencies recognize that the
monopsony benefit has distributional impacts for the U.S., and continue
to describe and discuss the monopsony benefit in this section of the
Preamble.
The total annual energy security benefits for the final HD National
Program are reported in Table VIII-23 for the years 2020, 2030, 2040
and 2050.
Table VIII-23--Total Annual Energy Security Benefits From the HD
National Program in 2020, 2030, 2040 and 2050
[Millions, 2009$]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020.................................................. $499
2030.................................................. 1,132
2040.................................................. 1,477
2050.................................................. 1,710
------------------------------------------------------------------------
J. Other Impacts
(i) Noise, Congestion and Accidents
Increased vehicle use associated with a positive rebound effect
also contributes to increased traffic congestion, motor vehicle
accidents, and highway noise. Depending on how the additional travel is
distributed throughout the day and on where it takes place, additional
vehicle use can contribute to traffic congestion and delays by
increasing traffic volumes on facilities that are already heavily
traveled during peak periods. These added delays impose higher costs on
drivers and other vehicle occupants in the form of increased travel
time and operating expenses, increased costs associated with traffic
accidents, and increased traffic noise. Because drivers do not take
these added costs into account in deciding when and where to travel,
they must be accounted for separately as a cost of the added driving
associated with the rebound effect.
EPA and NHTSA rely on estimates of congestion, accident, and noise
costs caused by pickup trucks and vans, single unit trucks, buses, and
combination tractors developed by the Federal Highway Administration to
estimate the increased external costs caused by added driving due to
the rebound effect.\544\ The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
estimates are intended to measure the increases in costs from added
congestion, property damages and injuries in traffic accidents, and
noise levels caused by various types of trucks that are borne by
persons other than their drivers (or ``marginal'' external costs). EPA
and NHTSA employed estimates from this source previously in the
analysis accompanying the light-Duty 2012-16 MY vehicle rule. The
agencies continue to find them appropriate for this analysis after
reviewing the procedures used by FHWA to develop them and considering
other available estimates of these values.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\544\ These estimates were developed by FHWA for use in its 1997
Federal Highway Cost Allocation Study; See http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/hcas/final/index.htm (last accessed July 21, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA's congestion cost estimates for trucks, which are weighted
averages based on the estimated fractions of peak and off-peak freeway
travel for each class of trucks, already account for the fact that
trucks make up a smaller fraction of peak period traffic on congested
roads because they try to avoid peak periods when possible. FHWA's
congestion cost estimates focus on freeways because non-freeway effects
are less serious due to lower traffic volumes and opportunities to re-
route around the congestion. The agencies, however, applied the
congestion cost to the overall VMT increase, though the fraction of VMT
on each road type used in MOVES range from 27 to 29 percent of the
vehicle miles on freeways for vocational vehicles and 53 percent for
combination tractors. The results of this analysis potentially
overestimate the costs and provide a conservative estimate.
The agencies are using FHWA's ``Middle'' estimates for marginal
congestion, accident, and noise costs caused by increased travel from
trucks. This approach is consistent with the current methodology used
in the Light-Duty GHG rulemaking analysis. These costs are multiplied
by the annual increases in vehicle miles travelled from the positive
rebound effect to yield the estimated cost increases resulting from
increased congestion, accidents, and noise during each future year. The
values the agencies used to calculate these increased costs are
included in Table VIII-24.
Table VIII-24--Noise, Accident, and Congestion Costs per Mile
[2009$]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pickup trucks Vocational Combination
External costs and vans ($/ vehicles ($/ tractors ($/
VMT) VMT) VMT)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congestion................................................ $0.049 $0.111 $0.108
[[Page 57342]]
Accidents................................................. 0.027 0.019 0.022
Noise..................................................... 0.001 0.009 0.020
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In aggregate, the increased costs due to noise, accidents, and
congestion from the additional truck driving are presented in Table
VIII-25.
Table VIII-25: Accident, Noise, and Congestion Costs
[Millions, 2009$]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pickup trucks Vocational Combination
Year and vans vehicles tractors Total costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012.................................... $0 $0 $0 $0
2013.................................... 0 0 0 0
2014.................................... 8 21 18 46
2015.................................... 15 38 31 84
2016.................................... 22 55 43 120
2017.................................... 29 71 54 153
2018.................................... 36 85 64 186
2020.................................... 51 112 83 246
2030.................................... 105 195 138 437
2040.................................... 130 256 166 551
2050.................................... 148 298 191 638
NPV, 3%................................. 1,818 3,620 2,492 7,929
NPV, 7%................................. 832 1,680 1,184 3,695
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Savings Due to Reduced Refueling Time
Reducing the fuel consumption of heavy-duty trucks may either
increase their driving range before they require refueling, or motivate
truck purchasers to buy, and manufacturers to offer, smaller fuel
tanks. Keeping the fuel tank the same size allows truck operators to
reduce the frequency with which drivers typically refuel their
vehicles; it thus extends the upper limit of the range they can travel
before requiring refueling. Alternatively, if purchasers and
manufacturers respond to improved fuel efficiency by reducing the size
of fuel tanks to maintain a constant driving range, the smaller tank
will require less time in actual refueling.
Because refueling time represents a time cost of truck operation,
these time savings should be incorporated into truck purchasers'
decisions over how much fuel-saving technology they want in their
vehicles. The savings calculated here thus raise the same questions
discussed in Preamble VIII.A and RIA Section 9.1 does the apparent
existence of these savings reflect failures in the market for fuel
efficiency, or does it reflect costs not addressed in this analysis?
The response to these questions could vary across truck segment. See
those sections for further analysis of this question.
This analysis estimates the reduction in the annual time spent
filling the fuel tank; this reduced time could come either from fewer
refueling events, if the fuel tank stays the same size, or less time
spent during each refueling event, if the fuel tank is made
proportionately smaller. The refueling savings are calculated as the
savings in the amount of time that would have been necessary to pump
the fuel. The calculation does not include time spent searching for a
fuel station or other time spent at the station; it is assumed that the
time savings occur only during refueling. The value of the time saved
is estimated at the hourly rate recommended for truck operators ($22.36
in 2009 dollars) in DOT guidance for valuing time savings.\545\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\545\ U.S. Department of Transportation, ``Revised Departmental
Guidance for Valuation of Travel Time in Economic Analysis,''
February 11, 2003, Table 4 (which shows a value of $18.10 in 2000
dollars); available at http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/policy/Data/VOTrevision1_2-11-03.pdf (last accessed September 9, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The refueling savings include the increased fuel consumption
resulting from additional mileage associated with the rebound effect.
However, the estimate of the rebound effect does not account for any
reduction in net operating costs from lower refueling time. As
discussed earlier, the rebound effect should be a measure of the change
in VMT with respect to the net change in overall operating costs.
Ideally, changes in refueling time would factor into this calculation,
although the effect is expected to be minor because refueling time
savings are small relative to the value of reduced fuel expenditures.
The details of this calculation are discussed in the RIA Chapter
9.3.2. The savings associated with reduced refueling time for a truck
of each type throughout its lifetime are shown in Table VIII-26. The
aggregate savings associated with reduced refueling time are shown in
Table VIII-27 for vehicles sold in 2014 through 2050.
[[Page 57343]]
Table VIII-26--Lifetime Refueling Savings for a 2018 MY Truck of Each Type
[2009$]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pickup trucks Vocational Combination
and vans vehicles tractor
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3% Discount Rate.......................................... $31 $34 $341
7% Discount Rate.......................................... 19 22 223
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table VIII-27--Annual Refueling Savings
[Millions, 2009$]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pickup trucks Vocational Combination
Year and vans vehicles tractor Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012.................................... $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
2013.................................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2014.................................... 0.2 1.4 8.0 9.6
2015.................................... 0.5 2.6 14.3 17.3
2016.................................... 1.3 3.8 19.6 24.6
2017.................................... 2.7 6.2 26.7 35.6
2018.................................... 5.2 8.5 33.8 47.5
2020.................................... 10.5 12.7 46.2 69.3
2030.................................... 32.6 25.8 82.9 141
2040.................................... 43.4 35.1 100.5 179
2050.................................... 50.1 41.3 116.1 207
NPV, 3%................................. 541 468 1,467 2,476
NPV, 7%................................. 231 210 685 1,126
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
K. The Effect of Safety Standards and Voluntary Safety Improvements on
Vehicle Weight
Safety standards developed by NHTSA in previous rulemakings may
make compliance with the fuel efficiency and CO2 emissions
standards more difficult or may reduce the projected benefits of the
program. The primary way that safety regulations can impact fuel
efficiency and CO2 emissions is through increased vehicle
weight, which reduces the fuel efficiency (and thus increases the
CO2 emissions) of the vehicle. Using MY 2010 as a baseline,
this section discusses the effects of other government regulations on
MYs 2014-2016 medium and heavy-duty vehicle fuel efficiency and
CO2 emissions. At this time, no known safety standards will
affect new models in MY 2017 or 2018. NHTSA's estimates are based on
cost and weight tear-down studies of a few vehicles and cannot possibly
cover all the variations in the manufacturers' fleets. NHTSA also
requested, and various manufacturers provided, confidential estimates
of increases in weight resulting from safety improvements. Those
increases are shown in subsequent tables.
We have broken down our analysis of the impact of safety standards
that might affect the MYs 2014-2016 fleets into three parts: (1) Those
NHTSA final rules with known effective dates, (2) proposed rules or
soon-to-be proposed rules by NHTSA with or without final effective
dates, and (3) currently voluntary safety improvements planned by the
manufacturers.
(1) Weight Impacts of Required Safety Standards
NHTSA has undertaken several rulemakings in which several standards
would become effective for medium- and heavy-duty (MD/HD) vehicles
between MY 2014 and MY 2016. We will examine the potential impact on
MD/HD vehicle weights for MYs 2014-2016 using MY 2010 as a baseline.
FMVSS 119, Heavy Truck Tires Endurance and High Speed Tests.
FMVSS 121, Air Brake Systems Stopping Distance.
FMVSS 214, Motor Coach Lap/Shoulder Belts.
MD/HD Vehicle Electronic Stability Control Systems.
(a) FMVSS 119, Heavy Truck Tires Endurance and High Speed Tests
NHTSA tentatively determined that the FMVSS No. 119 performance
tests developed in 1973 should be updated to reflect the increased
operational speeds and duration of truck tires in commercial service. A
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) was issued December 7, 2010 (75 FR
60036). It proposed to increase significantly the stringency of the
endurance test and to add a new high speed test. The data in the large
truck crash causation study (LTCCS) that preceded that NPRM found that
J and L load range tires were having proportionately more problems than
the other sizes and the agency's test results indicate that H, J, and L
load range tires are more likely to fail the proposed requirements
among the targeted F, G, H, J and L load range tires.\546\ To address
these problems, the H and J load range tires could potentially use
improved rubber compounds, which would add no weight to the tires, to
reduce heat retention and improve the durability of the tires. The L
load range tires, in contrast, appear to need to use high tensile
strength steel chords in the tire bead, carcass and belt areas, which
would enable a weight reduction with no strength penalties. Thus, if
the update to FMVSS No. 119 was finalized, we anticipate no change in
weight for H and J load range tires and a small reduction in weight for
L load range tires. This proposal could become a final rule with an
effective date of MY 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\546\ ``Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis, FMVSS No. 119,
New Pneumatic Tires for Motor Vehicles with a GVWR of More Than
4,536 kg (10,000 pounds), June 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) FMVSS No. 121, Airbrake Systems Stopping Distance
FMVSS No. 121 contains performance and equipment requirements for
braking systems on vehicles with air brake systems. The most recent
major final rule affecting FMVSS No. 121 was published on July 27,
2009, and became effective on November 24, 2009 (MY 2009). The final
rule requires the vast
[[Page 57344]]
majority of new heavy truck tractors (approximately 99 percent of the
fleet) to achieve a 30 percent reduction in stopping distance compared
to currently required levels. Three-axle tractors with a gross vehicle
weight rating (GVWR) of 59,600 pounds or less must meet the reduced
stopping distance requirements by August 1, 2011 (MY 2011), while two-
axle tractors and tractors with a GVWR above 59,600 pounds must meet
the reduced stopping distance requirements by the later date of August
1, 2013 (MY 2013). NHTSA determined that there are several brake
systems that can meet the requirements established in the final rule,
including installation of larger S-cam drum brakes or disc brake
systems at all positions, or hybrid disc and larger rear S-cam drum
brake systems.
According to data provided by a manufacturer (Bendix) in response
to the NPRM, the heaviest drum brakes weigh more than the lightest disc
brakes, while the heaviest disc brakes weigh more than the lightest
drum brakes. For a three-axle tractor equipped with all disc brakes,
then, the total weight could increase by 212 pounds or could decrease
by 134 pounds compared to an all-drum-braked tractor, depending on
which disc or drum brakes are used for comparison. The improved brakes
may add a small amount of weight to the affected vehicles for MYs 2014-
2016, resulting in a slight increase in fuel consumption.
(c) FMVSS No. 208, Motorcoach Lap/Shoulder Belts
NHTSA is proposing lap/shoulder belts for all motorcoach seats.
About 2,000 motorcoaches are sold per year in the United States. Based
on preliminary results from the agency's cost/weight teardown studies
of motor coach seats,\547\ NHTSA estimates that the weight added by 3-
point lap/shoulder belts ranges from 5.96 to 9.95 pounds per 2-person
seat. This is the weight only of the seat belt assembly itself, and
does not include changing the design of the seat, reinforcing the
floor, walls or other areas of the motor coach. Few current production
motor coaches have been installed with lap/shoulder belts on their
seats, and the number of vehicles with these belts already installed
could be negligible. Assuming a 54 passenger motor coach, the added
weight for the 3-point lap/shoulder belt assembly would be in the range
of 161 to 269 pounds (27 * (5.96 to 9.95)) per vehicle. This proposal
could become a final rule with an effective date of MY 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\547\ Cost and Weight Analysis of Two Motorcoach Seating
Systems: One With and One Without Three-Point Lap/Shoulder Belt
Restraints, Ludtke and Associates, July 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(d) Electronic Stability Control Systems (ESC) for Medium- and Heavy-
Duty (MD/HD) Vehicles
The purpose of an ESC system for MD/HD vehicles is to reduce
crashes caused by rollover or by directional loss-of-control. ESC
monitors a vehicle's rollover threshold and lateral stability using
vehicle speed, wheel speed, steering wheel angle, lateral acceleration,
side slip and yaw rate data and upon sensing an impending rollover or
loss of directional control situation automatically reduces engine
throttle and applies braking forces to individual wheels or sets of
wheel to slow the vehicle down and regain directional control. ESC is
not currently required in MD/HD vehicles, but could be proposed to be
required in these vehicles by NHTSA. FMVSS No. 105, Hydraulic and
electric brake systems, requires multipurpose passenger vehicles,
trucks and buses with a GVWR greater than 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) to
be equipped with an antilock brake system (ABS). All MD/HD vehicles
having a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds, are required to have ABS
installed by that standard.
In addition to the existing ABS functionality, ESC requires sensors
including a yaw rate sensor, lateral acceleration sensor, steering
angle sensor and brake pressure sensor along with a brake solenoid
valve. According to data provided by Meritor WABCO, the weight of an
ESC system for the model 4S4M tractor is estimated to be around 55.5
pounds, and the weight of the ABS only is estimated to be 45.5 pounds.
Thus, we estimate the added weight for the ESC for the vehicle to be 10
(55.5-45.5) pounds.
(2) Summary--Overview of Anticipated Weight Increases
Table VIII-28 summarizes estimates made by NHTSA regarding the
weight added by the above discussed standards or likely rulemakings.
NHTSA estimates that weight additions required by final rules and
likely NHTSA regulations effective in MY 2016 compared to the MY 2010
fleet will increase motor coach vehicle weight by 171 to 279 pounds and
will increase other heavy-duty truck weights by 10 pounds.
Table VIII-28--Weight Additions Due to Final Rules or Likely NHTSA
Regulations: Comparing MY 2016 to the MY 2010 Baseline Fleet
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Added weight in Added weight in
Standard No. pounds MD/HD kilograms MD/HD
vehicle vehicle
------------------------------------------------------------------------
119................................. 0 0
121................................. \a\ 0 \a\ 0
208 Motor coaches only.............. 161-269 73-122
MD/HD Vehicle Electronic Stability 10 4.5
Control Systems....................
Total Motor coaches................. 171-279 77.5-126.5
Total All other MD/HD vehicles...... 10 4.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:
\a\ NHTSA's final rule on Air Brakes, docket NHTSA-2009-0083, dated July
27, 2009, concluded that a small amount of weight would be added to
the brake systems but a weight value was not provided.
[[Page 57345]]
(3) Effects of Vehicle Mass Reduction on Safety
NHTSA and EPA have been considering the effect of vehicle weight on
vehicle safety for the past several years in the context of our joint
rulemaking for light-duty vehicle CAFE and GHG standards, consistent
with NHTSA's long-standing consideration of safety effects in setting
CAFE standards. Combining all modes of impact, the latest analysis by
NHTSA for the light-duty 2012-2016 MY vehicle rule \548\ found that
reducing the weight of the heavier light trucks (LT > 3,870) had a
positive overall effect on safety, reducing societal fatalities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\548\ ``Final Regulatory Impact Analysis, Corporate Average Fuel
Economy for MY 2012--MY 2016 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks'',
NHTSA, March 2010, (Docket No. NHTSA-2009-0059-0344.1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the context of the current rulemaking for HD fuel consumption
and GHG standards, one would expect that reducing the weight of medium-
duty trucks similarly would, if anything, have a positive impact on
safety. However, given the large difference in weight between light-
duty vehicles and medium-duty trucks, and even larger difference
between light-duty vehicles and heavy-duty vehicles with loads, the
agencies believe that the impact of weight reductions of medium- and
heavy-duty trucks would not have a noticeable impact on safety for any
of these classes of vehicles.
However, the agencies recognize that it is important to conduct
further study and research into the interaction of mass, size and
safety to assist future rulemakings, and we expect that the
collaborative interagency work currently on-going to address this issue
for the light-duty vehicle context may also be able to inform our
evaluation of safety effects for the final HD program. We intend to
continue monitoring this issue going forward, and may take steps in a
future rulemaking if it appears that the MD/HD fuel efficiency and GHG
standards have unforeseen safety consequences. The American Chemistry
Council stated in comments to the agencies that plastics and plastic
composite materials provide a new way to lighten vehicles while
maintaining passenger safety. They added that properties of plastics
including strength to weight ratio, energy absorption, and flexible
design make these materials well suited for the manufacture of medium-
and heavy-duty vehicles. They submitted supporting analyses with their
comments. The National School Transportation Association stated that
added structural integrity requirements increase weight of school
buses, and thus decrease fuel economy. They asked that if there are
safety and fuel economy trade-offs, manufacturers should be able to
receive a waiver from the regulation's requirements. Since no weight
reduction is required for school buses--or any other vocational
vehicle--the agencies do not believe this is an issue with the current
regulation.
L. Summary of Costs and Benefits
In this section, the agencies present a summary of costs, benefits,
and net benefits of the HD National program.
Table VIII-29 shows the estimated annual monetized costs of the
final program for the indicated calendar years. The table also shows
the net present values of those costs for the calendar years 2012-2050
using both 3 percent and 7 percent discount rates.\549\ Table VIII-30
shows the estimated annual monetized fuel savings of the final program.
The table also shows the net present values of those fuel savings for
the same calendar years using both 3 percent and 7 percent discount
rates. In this table, the aggregate value of fuel savings is calculated
using pre-tax fuel prices since savings in fuel taxes do not represent
a reduction in the value of economic resources utilized in producing
and consuming fuel. Note that fuel savings shown here result from
reductions in fleet-wide fuel use. Thus, they grow over time as an
increasing fraction of the fleet meets the 2018 standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\549\ For the estimation of the stream of costs and benefits, we
assume that after implementation of the final MY 2014-2017
standards, the 2017 standards apply to each year out to 2050.
Table VIII-29--Estimated Monetized Costs of the Final Program
[Millions, 2009$] a
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPV, Years 2012- NPV, Years 2012-
2020 2030 2040 2050 2050, 3% discount 2050, 7% discount
rate rate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technology Costs.................................................. $2,000 $2,200 $2,700 $3,300 $47,400 $24,700
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:
\a\ Technology costs for separate truck segments can be found in Section VIII.B.1.
Table VIII-30--Estimated Fuel Savings of the Final Program
[Millions, 2009$] a
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPV, Years 2012- NPV, Years 2012-
2020 2030 2040 2050 2050, 3% discount 2050, 7% discount
rate rate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuel Savings (pre-tax)............................................ $9,600 $20,600 $28,000 $36,500 $375,300 $166,500
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:
\a\ Fuel savings for separate truck segments can be found in Section VIII.B.1.
Table VIII-31 presents estimated annual monetized benefits for the
indicated calendar years. The table also shows the net present values
of those benefits for the calendar years 2012-2050 using both 3 percent
and 7 percent discount rates. The table shows the benefits of reduced
CO2 emissions--and consequently the annual quantified
benefits (i.e., total benefits)--for each of four SCC values estimated
by the interagency working group. As discussed in the RIA Section 9.4,
there are some limitations to the SCC analysis, including the
incomplete way in which the integrated assessment models capture
catastrophic and non-catastrophic impacts, their incomplete
[[Page 57346]]
treatment of adaptation and technological change, uncertainty in the
extrapolation of damages to high temperatures, and assumptions
regarding risk aversion.
In addition, these monetized GHG benefits exclude the value of net
reductions in non-CO2 GHG emissions (CH4,
N2O, HFC) expected under this action. Although EPA has not
monetized the benefits of reductions in non-CO2 GHGs, the
value of these reductions should not be interpreted as zero. Rather,
the net reductions in non-CO2 GHGs will contribute to this
program's climate benefits, as explained in Section VI.D.
Table VIII-31--Monetized Benefits Associated With the Final Program
[Millions, 2009$]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPV, Years 2012- NPV, Years 2012-
2050, 3% 2050, 7%
2020 2030 2040 2050 discount rate discount rate
\a\ \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reduced CO2 Emissions at each assumed SCC value \b\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5% (avg SCC).................... $300 $700 $1,200 $1,700 $9,000 $9,000
3% (avg SCC).................... 1,000 2,500 3,600 4,800 46,100 46,100
2.5% (avg SCC).................. 1,600 3,800 5,400 7,000 78,000 78,000
3% (95th percentile)............ 3,100 7,500 11,100 14,600 140,400 140,400
Energy Security Impacts (price 500 1,100 1,500 1,700 19,800 8,800
shock).........................
Accidents, Congestion, Noise \f\ -200 -400 -600 -600 -7,900 -3,700
Refueling Savings............... 100 100 200 200 2,500 1,100
Non-GHG Impacts c d............. B 2,800 2,800 2,800 25,300 9,100
Non-CO2 GHG Impacts \e\......... n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Annual Benefits at each assumed SCC value \b\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5% (avg SCC).................... 700 4,300 5,100 5,800 48,700 24,300
3% (avg SCC).................... 1,400 6,100 7,500 8,900 85,800 61,400
2.5% (avg SCC).................. 2,000 7,400 9,300 11,100 117,700 93,300
3% (95th percentile)............ 3,500 11,100 15,000 18,700 180,100 155,700
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
\a\ Net present value of reduced CO2 emissions is calculated differently than other benefits. The same discount
rate used to discount the value of damages from future emissions (SCC at 5, 3, 2.5 percent) is used to
calculate net present value of SCC for internal consistency. Refer to the SCC TSD for more detail.
\b\ Section VIII.G notes that SCC increases over time. Corresponding to the years in this table, the SCC
estimates range as follows: for Average SCC at 5%: $5-$16; for Average SCC at 3%: $22-$46; for Average SCC at
2.5%: $36-$66; and for 95th percentile SCC at 3%: $66-$139. See Section VIII.F.
\c\ Note that ``B'' indicates unquantified criteria pollutant benefits in the year 2020. For the analysis of the
final program, we only modeled the rule's PM2.5- and ozone-related impacts in the calendar year 2030. For the
purposes of estimating a stream of future-year criteria pollutant benefits, we assume that the benefits out to
2050 are equal to, and no less than, those modeled in 2030 as reflected by the stream of estimated future
emission reductions. The NPV of criteria pollutant-related benefits should therefore be considered a
conservative estimate of the potential benefits associated with the final program.
\d\ Non-GHG-related health and welfare impacts (related to PM2.5 and ozone exposure) range between $1,300 and
$4,200 million in 2030, 2040, and 2050. $2,800 was chosen as the mid-point of this range for the purposes of
estimating total benefits across all monetized categories.
\e\ The monetized GHG benefits presented in this analysis exclude the value of changes in non-CO2 GHG emissions
expected under this program (See RIA Chapter 5). Although EPA has not monetized changes in non-CO2 GHGs, the
value of any increases or reductions should not be interpreted as zero.
\f\ Negative sign represents an increase in Accidents, Congestion, and Noise.
Table VIII-32 presents estimated annual net benefits for the
indicated calendar years. The table also shows the net present values
of those net benefits for the calendar years 2012-2050 using both 3
percent and 7 percent discount rates. The table includes the benefits
of reduced CO2 emissions (and consequently the annual net
benefits) for each of four SCC values considered by EPA.
Table VIII-32--Monetized Net Benefits Associated With the Final Program
[Millions, 2009$]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020 2030 2040 2050 NPV, 3% \a\ NPV, 7% \a\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technology Costs........................................ $2,000 $2,200 $2,700 $3,300 $47,400 $24,700
Fuel Savings............................................ 9,600 20,600 28,000 36,500 375,300 166,500
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Annual Benefits at each assumed SCC value \b\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5% (avg SCC)............................................ 700 4,300 5,100 5,800 48,700 24,300
3% (avg SCC)............................................ 1,400 6,100 7,500 8,900 85,800 61,400
2.5% (avg SCC).......................................... 2,000 7,400 9,300 11,100 117,700 93,300
3% (95th percentile).................................... 3,500 11,100 15,000 18,700 180,100 155,700
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monetized Net Benefits at each assumed SCC value \c\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5% (avg SCC)............................................ 8,300 22,700 30,400 39,000 376,600 166,100
3% (avg SCC)............................................ 9,000 24,500 32,800 42,100 413,700 203,200
[[Page 57347]]
2.5% (avg SCC).......................................... 9,600 25,800 34,600 44,300 445,600 235,100
3% (95th percentile).................................... 11,100 29,500 40,300 51,900 508,000 297,500
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
\a\ Net present value of reduced CO2 emissions is calculated differently than other benefits. The same discount rate used to discount the value of
damages from future emissions (SCC at 5, 3, 2.5 percent) is used to calculate net present value of SCC for internal consistency. Refer to the SCC TSD
for more detail.
\b\ Section VIII.G notes that SCC increases over time. Corresponding to the years in this table, the SCC estimates range as follows: for Average SCC at
5%: $5-$16; for Average SCC at 3%: $22-$46; for Average SCC at 2.5%: $36-$66; and for 95th percentile SCC at 3%: $66-$139. Section VIII.G also
presents these SCC estimates.
\c\ Net Benefits equal Fuel Savings minus Technology Costs plus Benefits.
EPA also conducted a separate analysis of the total benefits over
the model year lifetimes of the 2014 through 2018 model year trucks. In
contrast to the calendar year analysis presented above in Table VIII-29
through Table VIII-32, the model year lifetime analysis below shows the
impacts of the final program on vehicles produced during each of the
model years 2014 through 2018 over the course of their expected
lifetimes. The net societal benefits over the full lifetimes of
vehicles produced during each of the five model years from 2014 through
2018 are shown in Table VIII-33 and Table VIII-34 at both 3 percent and
7 percent discount rates, respectively.
Table VIII-33--Monetized Technology Costs, Fuel Savings, Benefits, and Net Benefits Associated With the Lifetimes of 2014-2018 Model Year Trucks
[Millions, 2009$; 3% Discount Rate]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014 MY 2015 MY 2016 MY 2017 MY 2018 MY Sum
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technology Costs................................................... $1,600 $1,400 $1,500 $1,600 $2,000 $8,
100
Fuel Savings (pre-tax)............................................. 9,300 8,300 8,100 11,500 12,900 50,
100
Energy Security Impacts (price shock).............................. 500 400 400 600 700 2,7
00
Accidents, Congestion, Noise \e\................................... -300 -300 -300 -300 -300 -1,
500
Refueling Savings.................................................. 60 60 60 80 100 400
Non-CO2 GHG Impacts and Non-GHG Impactsc d......................... n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reduced CO2 Emissions at each assumed SCC value a b
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5% (avg SCC)....................................................... 200 200 200 300 300 1,2
00
3% (avg SCC)....................................................... 1,100 900 900 1,300 1,500 5,7
00
2.5% (avg SCC)..................................................... 1,800 1,600 1,500 2,100 2,400 9,4
00
3% (95th percentile)............................................... 3,300 2,900 2,800 4,000 4,500 17,
000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monetized Net Benefits at each assumed SCC value a,b
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5% (avg SCC)....................................................... 8,200 7,300 7,000 10,600 11,700 44,
800
3% (avg SCC)....................................................... 9,100 8,000 7,700 11,600 12,900 49,
300
2.5% (avg SCC)..................................................... 9,800 8,700 8,300 12,400 13,800 53,
000
3% (95th percentile)............................................... 11,300 10,000 9,600 14,300 15,900 60,
600
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
\a\ Net present value of reduced CO2 emissions is calculated differently than other benefits. The same discount rate used to discount the value of
damages from future emissions (SCC at 5, 3, 2.5 percent) is used to calculate net present value of SCC for internal consistency. Refer to the SCC TSD
for more detail.
\b\ Section VIII.G notes that SCC increases over time. Corresponding to the years in this table, the SCC estimates range as follows: for Average SCC at
5%: $5-$16; for Average SCC at 3%: $22-$46; for Average SCC at 2.5%: $36-$66; and for 95th percentile SCC at 3%: $66-$139. Section VIII.G also
presents these SCC estimates.
\c\ The monetized GHG benefits presented in this analysis exclude the value of changes in non-CO2 GHG emissions expected under this action (See RIA
Chapter 5). Although EPA has not monetized changes in non-CO2 GHGs, the value of any increases or reductions should not be interpreted as zero.
\d\ Due to analytical and resource limitations, MY non-GHG emissions (direct PM, VOCs, NO2 and SO2) were not estimated for this analysis.
\e\ Negative sign represents an increase in Accidents, Congestion, and Noise.
Table VIII-34--Monetized Technology Costs, Fuel Savings, Benefits, and Net Benefits Associated With the Lifetimes of 2014-2018 Model Year Trucks
[Millions, 2009$; 7% Discount Rate]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014 MY 2015 MY 2016 MY 2017 MY 2018 MY Sum
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technology Costs........................................ $1,600 $1,400 $1,500 $1,600 $2,000 $8,100
Fuel Savings (pre-tax).................................. 6,900 5,900 5,600 7,600 8,300 34,400
Energy Security Impacts (price shock)................... 400 300 300 400 400 1,800
Accidents, Congestion, Noise \e\........................ -200 -200 -200 -200 -200 -1,000
[[Page 57348]]
Refueling Savings....................................... 50 40 40 60 60 200
Non-CO2 GHG Impacts and Non-GHG Impacts c d............. n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reduced CO2 Emissions at each assumed SCC value a b
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5% (avg SCC)............................................ 200 200 200 300 300 1,200
3% (avg SCC)............................................ 1,100 900 900 1,300 1,500 5,700
2.5% (avg SCC).......................................... 1,800 1,600 1,500 2,100 2,400 9,400
3% (95th percentile).................................... 3,300 2,900 2,800 4,000 4,500 17,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monetized Net Benefits at each assumed SCC valuea b
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5% (avg SCC)............................................ 5,800 4,800 4,400 6,600 6,900 28,500
3% (avg SCC)............................................ 6,700 5,500 5,100 7,600 8,100 33,000
2.5% (avg SCC).......................................... 7,400 6,200 5,700 8,400 9,000 36,700
3% (95th percentile).................................... 8,900 7,500 7,000 10,300 11,100 44,300
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
\a\ Net present value of reduced CO2 emissions is calculated differently than other benefits. The same discount rate used to discount the value of
damages from future emissions (SCC at 5, 3, 2.5 percent) is used to calculate net present value of SCC for internal consistency. Refer to the SCC TSD
for more detail.
\b\ Section VIII.G notes that SCC increases over time. Corresponding to the years in this table, the SCC estimates range as follows: for Average SCC at
5%: $5-$16; for Average SCC at 3%: $22-$46; for Average SCC at 2.5%: $36-$66; and for 95th percentile SCC at 3%: $66-$139. Section VIII.G also
presents these SCC estimates.
\c\ The monetized GHG benefits presented in this analysis exclude the value of changes in non-CO2 GHG emissions expected under this action (See RIA
chapter 5). Although EPA has not monetized changes in non-CO2 GHGs, the value of any increases or reductions should not be interpreted as zero.
\d\ Due to analytical and resource limitations, MY non-GHG emissions (direct PM, VOCs, NO2 and SO2) were not estimated for this analysis.
\e\ Negative sign represents an increase in Accidents, Congestion, and Noise.
Table VIII-35 and Table VIII-36 show similar model year estimates
to those provided above in Table VIII-33 and Table VIII-34, but reflect
specific differences in the NHTSA HD program over the 3 mandatory model
years of that program. These include no HD diesel engine impacts prior
to MY 2017, assumption of the NHTSA phase-in schedule for HD pickup
trucks and vans which achieves 3 year phase-in stability (67%-67%-67%-
100% in MY 2016-2019 respectively), the inclusion of combination
tractors from MY 2016 forward, and the exclusion of RVs, which are not
regulated by NHTSA.
Table VIII-35--Monetized Technology Costs, Fuel Savings, Benefits, and Net Benefits Associated With the
Lifetimes of 2016-2018 Model Year Trucks
[Millions, 2009$; 3% Discount Rate]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2016 MY 2017 MY 2018 MY Sum
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technology Costs................................ $1,500 $1,600 $1,700 $5,200
Fuel Savings (pre-tax).......................... 5,500 10,900 11,500 27,900
Energy Security Impacts (price shock)........... 300 600 600 1,500
Accidents, Congestion, Noise \e\................ -300 -300 -300 -900
Refueling Savings............................... 40 80 80 200
Non-CO2 GHG Impacts and Non-GHG Impacts c d..... n/a n/a n/a n/a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reduced CO2 Emissions at each assumed SCC value a b
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5% (avg SCC).................................... 100 300 300 700
3% (avg SCC).................................... 600 1,200 1,300 3,100
2.5% (avg SCC).................................. 1,000 2,000 2,200 5,200
3% (95th percentile)............................ 1,900 3,800 4,000 9,700
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monetized Net Benefits at each assumed SCC value a b
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5% (avg SCC).................................... 4,100 10,000 10,500 24,200
3% (avg SCC).................................... 4,600 10,900 11,500 26,600
2.5% (avg SCC).................................. 5,000 11,700 12,400 28,700
3% (95th percentile)............................ 5,900 13,500 14,200 33,200
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
\a\ Net present value of reduced CO2 emissions is calculated differently than other benefits. The same discount
rate used to discount the value of damages from future emissions (SCC at 5, 3, 2.5 percent) is used to
calculate net present value of SCC for internal consistency. Refer to the SCC TSD for more detail.
[[Page 57349]]
\b\ Section VIII.G notes that SCC increases over time. Corresponding to the years in this table, the SCC
estimates range as follows: for Average SCC at 5%: $5-$16; for Average SCC at 3%: $22-$46; for Average SCC at
2.5%: $36-$66; and for 95th percentile SCC at 3%: $66-$139. Section VIII.G also presents these SCC estimates.
\c\ The monetized GHG benefits presented in this analysis exclude the value of changes in non-CO2 GHG emissions
expected under this program (See RIA Chapter 5). Although EPA has not monetized changes in non-CO2 GHGs, the
value of any increases or reductions should not be interpreted as zero.
\d\ Due to analytical and resource limitations, MY non-GHG emissions (direct PM, VOCs, NO2 and SO2) were not
estimated for this analysis.
\e\ Negative sign represents an increase in Accidents, Congestion, and Noise.
Table VIII-36--Monetized Technology Costs, Fuel Savings, Benefits, and Net Benefits Associated With the
Lifetimes of 2016-2018 Model Year Trucks
[Millions, 2009$; 7% Discount Rate]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2016 MY 2017 MY 2018 MY Sum
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technology Costs................................ $1,500 $1,600 $1,700 $5,200
Fuel Savings (pre-tax).......................... 3,800 7,200 7,300 18,300
Energy Security Impacts (price shock)........... 200 400 400 1,000
Accidents, Congestion, Noise \e\................ -200 -200 -200 -600
Refueling Savings............................... 30 50 50 130
Non-CO2 GHG Impacts and Non-GHG Impacts c d..... n/a n/a n/a n/a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reduced CO2 Emissions at each assumed SCC value a b
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5% (avg SCC).................................... 100 300 300 700
3% (avg SCC).................................... 600 1,200 1,300 3,100
2.5% (avg SCC).................................. 1,000 2,000 2,200 5,200
3% (95th percentile)............................ 1,900 3,800 4,000 9,700
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monetized Net Benefits at each assumed SCC value a b
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5% (avg SCC).................................... 2,400 6,200 6,200 14,300
3% (avg SCC).................................... 2,900 7,100 7,200 16,700
2.5% (avg SCC).................................. 3,300 7,900 8,100 18,800
3% (95th percentile)............................ 4,200 9,700 9,900 23,300
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
\a\ Net present value of reduced CO2 emissions is calculated differently than other benefits. The same discount
rate used to discount the value of damages from future emissions (SCC at 5, 3, 2.5 percent) is used to
calculate net present value of SCC for internal consistency. Refer to the SCC TSD for more detail.
\b\ Section VIII.G notes that SCC increases over time. Corresponding to the years in this table, the SCC
estimates range as follows: for Average SCC at 5%: $5-$16; for Average SCC at 3%: $22-$46; for Average SCC at
2.5%: $36-$66; and for 95th percentile SCC at 3%: $66-$139. Section VIII.G also presents these SCC estimates.
\c\ The monetized GHG benefits presented in this analysis exclude the value of changes in non-CO2 GHG emissions
expected under this program (See RIA Chapter 5). Although EPA has not monetized changes in non-CO2 GHGs, the
value of any increases or reductions should not be interpreted as zero.
\d\ Due to analytical and resource limitations, MY non-GHG emissions (direct PM, VOCs, NO2 and SO2) were not
estimated for this analysis.
\e\ Negative sign represents an increase in Accidents, Congestion, and Noise.
M. Employment Impacts
(1) Introduction
Although analysis of employment impacts is not part of a cost-
benefit analysis (except to the extent that labor costs contribute to
costs), employment impacts of federal rules are of particular concern
in the current economic climate of sizeable unemployment. The recently
issued Executive Order 13563, ``Improving Regulation and Regulatory
Review'' (January 18, 2011), states, ``Our regulatory system must
protect public health, welfare, safety, and our environment while
promoting economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job
creation'' (emphasis added). Although EPA and NHTSA did not undertake
an employment analysis of the proposed rules, several commenters
suggested that we undertake an employment analysis for the final
rulemaking. Consistent with Executive order 13563, we have provided a
discussion of the potential employment impacts of the Heavy-Duty
National Program.
In recent rulemakings, EPA has generally focused its employment
analysis on the regulated sector and the suppliers of pollution
abatement equipment. However, in this action, the agencies are offering
qualitative assessment for related industries of interest. For the
regulated sector, the agencies rely on Morgenstern et al. for
guidance.\550\ Our general conclusion is that employment impacts in the
regulated sector (truck and engine manufacturing) and the parts sectors
depend on a combination of factors, some of which are positive, and
some of which can be positive or negative. In the related industries,
the analysis concludes that effects on employment in the transport and
shipping sectors are ambiguous; the fuel supplying sectors may face
reduced employment; and there may be increased general employment due
to reduction in costs that may be passed along to the transport
industry and thus to the public. Because measuring employment effects
depends on a variety of inputs and assumptions, some of which are known
with more certainty than others, and because we did not include an
employment analysis in the NPRM and provide opportunity for public
comment on the methods, we here present a qualitative discussion.
Because the discussion is qualitative, we do not sum the net effects on
employment. We also note that the employment effects may be different
in the immediate implementation phase than in the ongoing compliance
phase; this analysis
[[Page 57350]]
focuses on the longer-term effects rather than the immediate effects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\550\ Morgenstern, Richard D., William A. Pizer, and Jhih-Shyang
Shih. ``Jobs Versus the Environment: An Industry-Level
Perspective.'' Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 43
(2002): 412-436.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When the economy is at full employment, an environmental regulation
is unlikely to have much impact on net overall U.S. employment;
instead, labor would primarily be shifted from one sector to another.
These shifts in employment impose an opportunity cost on society,
approximated by the wages of the employees, as regulation diverts
workers from other activities in the economy.\551\ In this situation,
any effects on net employment are likely to be transitory as workers
change jobs. (For example, some workers may need to be retrained or
require time to search for new jobs, while shortages in some sectors or
regions could bid up wages to attract workers).\552\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\551\ Schmalensee, Richard, and Robert N. Stavins. ``A Guide to
Economic and Policy Analysis of EPA's Transport Rule.'' White paper
commissioned by Excelon Corporation, March 2011.
\552\ Although the employment level would not change
substantially, there would be costs to the workers associated with
shifting from one activity to another. Jacobson, Louis S., Robert J.
LaLonde, and Daniel G. Sullivan, ``Earnings Losses of Displaced
Workers.'' American Economic Review 83(4) (1993): 685-709.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is also true that, if a regulation comes into effect during a
period of high unemployment, a change in labor demand due to regulation
may affect net overall U.S. employment because the labor market is not
in equilibrium. Either negative or positive effects are possible.
Schmalansee and Stavins \553\ point out that net positive employment
effects are possible in the near term when the economy is at less than
full employment due to the potential hiring of idle labor resources by
the regulated sector to meet new requirements (e.g., to install new
equipment) and new economic activity in sectors related to the
regulated sector. In the longer run, the net effect on employment is
more difficult to predict and will depend on the way in which the
related industries respond to the regulatory requirements. As
Schmalansee and Stavins note, it is possible that the magnitude of the
effect on employment could vary over time, region, and sector, and
positive effects on employment in some regions or sectors could be
offset by negative effects in other regions or sectors. For this
reason, they urge caution in reporting partial employment effects since
it can ``paint an inaccurate picture of net employment impacts if not
placed in the broader economic context.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\553\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This rulemaking is expected to have a relatively small effect on
net employment in the United States through the regulated sector--the
truck and engine manufacturer industry--and several related sectors,
specifically, industries that supply the truck and engine manufacturing
industry (e.g., truck parts), the trucking industry itself, other
industries involved in transporting goods (e.g., rail and shipping),
the petroleum refining sector, and the retail sector. According to the
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, about 1.25 million people were
employed in the truck transportation industry and about 675,000 people
were employed in the motor vehicle parts industry between 2010 and
2011.\554\ Although heavy-duty vehicles (HD) account for approximately
4 percent of the vehicles on the road, these vehicles consume more than
20 percent of on-road gasoline and diesel fuel use. As discussed in
Chapter 5 of the RIA, this rulemaking is predicted to reduce the amount
of fuel these vehicles use, and thus affect the petroleum refinery
industry. The petroleum refinery industry employed about 65,000 people
in the U.S. in 2009, the most recent year that employment estimates are
available for this sector.\555\ Finally, since the net reduction in
cost associated with these rules is expected to lead to lower
transportation and shipping costs, in a competitive market a
substantial portion of those cost savings will be passed along to
consumers, who then will have additional discretionary income (how much
of the cost is passed along to consumers depends on market structure
and the relative price elasticities).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\554\ U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics seasonally-adjusted
Current Employment Statistics Survey for the Truck Transportation
Industry (NAICS 484) and the Motor Vehicle Parts Manufacturing
Industry (NAICS 3363).
\555\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2009 Annual Survey of Manufactures,
Published December 3, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several commenters suggested that the HD vehicle rules would lead
to an increase in employment in affected sectors by offering the
potential for new employment opportunities in the design and production
of new vehicle technologies. Also, these commenters suggested that
since the U.S. manufacturers and suppliers are leaders in certain
advanced truck technologies, this program has the potential to help
them consolidate their leadership and thrive in a global market. In
this context, several commenters referred to an assessment by the Union
of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and CalStart of the economic and
employment benefits of the improved efficiency in HD vehicles.\556\ The
study predicts an increase in tens of thousands of jobs between 2020
and 2030, as result of higher fuel efficiency for HD vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\556\ Union of Concerned Scientists and CalStart, Delivering
Jobs: The Economic Costs and Benefits of Improving Fuel Economy of
Heavy Duty Vehicles, July, 2010. http://www.ucsusa.org/deliveringjobs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the commenters find unambiguous employment increases as a
result of this program, we find employment impacts to involve some
complexity, as the discussion that follows shows. In addition, these
quantitative estimates were derived using a standard input-output
model, though the estimates themselves have not yet been peer reviewed.
Input-output (I/O) models do not account for opportunity costs of
labor--that is, all employment needs due to the regulatory change will
be met by unemployed workers. In addition, I/O models assume no changes
in the average use of labor per dollar of output in the affected
sectors. For these and other reasons, these may at best be considered
an imprecise upper bound on actual employment impacts.\557\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\557\ Berck, Peter, and Sandra Hoffman. ``Assessing the
Employment Impacts of Environmental and Natural Resource Policy.''
Environmental and Resource Economics 22 (2002): 133-156.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other commenters suggested that the rulemaking could have a
negative impact on jobs if the rule was not appropriate, cost
effective, and technologically feasible. These comments focused on the
commenter's concern that the desirability, and therefore sales, of
certain vehicles could be diminished by a poorly designed rule, or that
customers of RVs in particular would not value fuel savings
technologies. The preceding discussion of the conceptual framework
suggests some potential reasons why consumers may not value fuel
savings technologies. If vehicle sales decrease as the comments suggest
such an impact could lead to job losses. Such comments were submitted
by the National RV Dealers Association (RVDA) and the National
Automobile Dealers Association (NADA).
Determining the direction of employment effects even in the
regulated industry may be difficult due to the presence of competing
effects that lead to an ambiguous adjustment in employment as a result
of environmental regulation. Morgenstern, Pizer and Shih identify three
separate ways that employment levels may change in the regulated
industry in response to a new (or more stringent) regulation.\558\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\558\ See Morgenstern et al (2002), Note 550, above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Demand effect: Higher production costs due to the
regulation will lead to higher market prices; higher prices in turn
reduce demand for the good, reducing the demand for labor to make
[[Page 57351]]
that good. In the authors' words, the ``extent of this effect depends
on the cost increase passed on to consumers as well as the demand
elasticity of industry output''.
Cost effect: As costs go up, plants add more capital and
labor (holding other factors constant), with potentially positive
effects on employment; in the authors' words, as ``production costs
rise, more inputs, including labor, are used to produce the same amount
of output''.
Factor-shift effect: Post-regulation production
technologies may be more or less labor-intensive (i.e., more/less labor
is required per dollar of output) (``factor-shift effect''). In the
authors' words, ``environmental activities may be more labor intensive
than conventional production,'' meaning that ``the amount of labor per
dollar of output will rise,'' though it is also possible that ``cleaner
operations could involve automation and less employment, for example''.
The ``demand effect'' is expected to have a negative effect on
employment, the ``cost effect'' to have a positive effect on
employment, and the ``factor-shift effect'' has an ambiguous effect on
employment. Without more information with respect to the magnitudes of
these competing effects, it is not possible to predict the total effect
environmental regulation will have on employment levels in a regulated
sector.
Morgenstern et al. estimated the effects on employment of spending
on pollution abatement for four highly polluting/regulated industries
(pulp and paper, plastics, steel, and petroleum refining). They
conclude that increased abatement expenditures generally have not
caused a significant change in employment in those sectors. More
specifically, their results show that, on average across the industries
studied, each additional $1 million spent on pollution abatement
results in a (statistically insignificant) net increase of 1.5 jobs.
While the specific sectors Morgenstern et al. examined are different
than the sectors considered here, the methodology that Morgenstern et
al. developed is still useful in this context.
(2) Overview of Affected Sectors
The above discussion focuses on employment changes in the regulated
sector, but the regulated sector is not the only source of changes in
employment. In these rules, the regulated sectors are truck and engine
manufacturers; they are responsible for meeting the standards set in
these rules. The effects of these rules are also likely to have impacts
beyond the directly regulated sector. Some of the related sectors which
these rules are also likely to impact include: motor vehicle parts
producers, to the extent that the truck and engine industries purchase
components rather than manufacture them in-house; shipping and
transport, because many companies in this sector purchase trucks and
their operating costs will be affected by both higher truck prices and
fuel savings; oil refineries due to reduced demand for petroleum-based
fuels; and the final retail market, which is where any net cost
reductions due to fuel savings are ultimately expected to be
experienced. We acknowledge that there may be impacts in other sectors
that are not discussed here, but we have sought to include the sectors
where we think the impacts are most direct. The following discussion
describes the direction of impacts on employment in these industries.
The effects of the HD National Program on net U.S. employment depend,
not only on their relative magnitudes, but also on employment levels in
the overall economy. As previously discussed, in a full-employment
economy these sector-specific impacts will be mostly offset by
employment changes elsewhere in the economy and would not be expected
to result in a net change in jobs. However, in an economy with
significant unemployment these changes may affect net employment in the
U.S.
(a) Truck and Engine Manufacturers
The regulated sector consists of truck and engine manufacturers.
Employment associated with manufacturing trucks and engines may be
affected by the demand, cost, and factor-shift effects.
Demand Effect
The demand effect depends on the effects of this rulemaking on HD
vehicle sales. If vehicle sales increase, then more people will be
required to assemble trucks and their components. If vehicle sales
decrease, employment associated with these activities will
unambiguously decrease. The effects of this rulemaking on HD vehicle
sales depend on the perceived desirability of the new vehicles. Unlike
in Morgenstern et al.'s study, where the demand effect decreased
employment, there are countervailing possibilities in the HD market due
to the fuel savings resulting from this program. On one hand, this
rulemaking will increase vehicle costs; by itself, this effect would
reduce vehicle sales. In addition, while decreases in vehicle
performance would also decrease sales, this program is not expected to
have any negative effect on vehicle performance. On the other hand,
this rulemaking will reduce the fuel costs of operating the vehicle; by
itself, this effect would increase vehicle sales, especially if
potential buyers have an expectation of higher fuel prices. The
agencies have not made an estimate of the potential change in vehicle
sales. However as discussed in Preamble Section VIII.E.5 the agencies
have estimated an increase in vehicle miles traveled (i.e., VMT
rebound) due to the reduced operating costs of trucks meeting these new
standards. Since increased VMT is most likely to be met with more
drivers and more trucks, our projection of VMT rebound is suggestive of
an increase in vehicle sales and truck driver employment (recognizing
that these increases may be partially offset by a decrease in
manufacturing and sales for equipment of other modes of transportation
such as rail cars or barges).
As discussed above in Section VIII.A, the agencies find that the
reduction in fuel costs associated with this rulemaking outweigh the
increase in vehicle cost. This finding is puzzling: market forces
should lead truck manufacturers and buyers to install all cost-
effective fuel-saving technology, but the agencies find that they have
not. Section VIII.A discusses various hypotheses that have been
suggested to explain this phenomenon. Some of the explanations suggest
that vehicle manufacturers and buyers will benefit from the rulemaking,
and vehicle sales will increase; others suggest that the opposite might
occur. The agencies do not have strong evidence supporting one specific
explanation over another. However, some in the heavy-duty industry
indicate the potential for an increase in jobs. As stated by Tom
Linebarger (President and Chief Operating Officer of Cummins) and Fred
Krupp (President of the Environmental Defense Fund), ``Finally, strong
environmental standards play a crucial role in getting innovations to
market that will create economic opportunity for American companies and
jobs for American workers. * * * It helps that Cummins and other
forward-thinking businesses view this as an opportunity to innovate and
increase international market share.'' \559\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\559\ Tom Linebarger (President and Chief Operating Officer of
Cummins) and Fred Krupp (President of the Environmental Defense
Fund), ``Clear rules can create better engines, clean air,''
Indianapolis Star, October 28, 2010, p. 19; included as part of
Cummins' comments on the rule, Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162-
1765.1[1].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One commenter raised the issue of whether there could be a loss of
recreation vehicle (RV) industry jobs due to a reduction in the sales
of motor homes and towable RVs. As mentioned
[[Page 57352]]
above, the effects of this rulemaking on HD vehicle sales depend on the
desirability of the new vehicles.
Cost Effect
The truck and engine manufacturing sector has great flexibility in
how to respond to the requirement for reduced greenhouse gases and
increasing fuel efficiency, with a broad suite of technologies being
available to achieve the standards. These technologies are described in
detail in Chapter 2 of the RIA. Among these technologies, a distinction
can be made between technologies that can be ``added on'' to
conventional trucks versus those that replace features of a
conventional truck. ``Added on'' features, such as auxiliary power
units, require additional labor to install the technologies on trucks,
thus clearly increasing labor demand (the ``cost effect''). The pure
cost effect always increases employment, though the net effect on the
regulated industry depends on its effects in combination with the
demand and factor-shift effects.
Factor-Shift Effect
For ``replacement'' technologies, the predicted impact on labor
demand from regulation depends on the change in the amount of labor
used to build and install one type of technology compared to another.
In some cases, the new technologies are predicted to be more complex
than the existing technologies and may therefore require additional
labor installation inputs. In other cases, the opposite may be true:
labor intensity may be lower for some replacement technologies.
Most of the technologies that are expected to be used to meet these
standards are replacement technologies. For example, almost all of the
engine improvements involve replacement technologies that are not
expected to significantly change the labor requirements. Similarly,
regulations of the chassis on vocational vehicles will only require the
installation of a different type of tire, which is also not expected to
have large labor intensity impacts. Therefore, the potential magnitude
of the factor shift effect is expected to be relatively small, though
slightly positive due to the additional labor needed to install more
complex technologies.
Summary for the Truck and Engine Manufacturing Sector
For the truck and engine manufacturing sector, the demand effect
may result in either increased or decreased employment; the cost effect
is expected to increase employment; and the factor-shift effect is
expected to have a small, possibly slightly positive effect on
employment in this sector. The net effect on employment in this sector
depends on the sum of these factors.
(b) Motor Vehicle Parts Manufacturing Sector
Some vehicle parts are made in-house and would be included directly
in the regulated sector. Others are made by independent suppliers and
are not directly regulated, but they will be affected by the rules as
well. The parts manufacturing sector will be involved primarily in
providing ``add-on'' parts, or components for replacement parts built
internally. If demand for these parts increases due to the increased
use of these parts, employment effects in this sector are expected to
be positive. If the demand effect in the regulated sectors is
significantly negative enough, it is possible that demand for other
parts may decrease. As noted, the agencies do not predict a direction
for the demand effect.
(c) Transport and Shipping Sectors
Although not directly regulated by these rules, employment effects
in the transport and shipping sector are likely to result from these
regulations. If the overall cost of shipping a ton of freight decreases
because of increased fuel efficiency (taking into account the increase
in upfront purchasing costs), in a perfectly competitive industry these
costs savings will be passed along to customers. With lower prices,
demand for shipping would lead to an increase in demand for truck
shipping services (consistent with the VMT rebound effect analysis) and
therefore an increase in employment in the truck shipping sector. In
addition, if the relative cost of shipping freight via trucks becomes
cheaper than shipping by other modes (e.g., rail or barge), then
employment in the truck transport industry is likely to increase. If
the trucking industry is more labor intensive than other modes, we
would expect this effect to lead to an overall increase in employment
in the transport and shipping sectors.560 561 Such a shift
would, however, be at the expense of employment in the sectors that are
losing business to trucking. The first effect--a gain due to lower
shipping costs--is likely to lead to a net increase in employment. The
second effect, due to mode-shifting, may increase employment in
trucking, but decreases in other shipping sectors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\560\ American Transportation Research Institute, ``An Analysis
of the Operational Costs of Trucking: 2011 Update.'' See http://www.atri-online.org/research/results/Op_Costs_2011_Update_one_page_summary.pdf.
\561\ Association of American Railroads, ``All Inclusive Index
and Rail Adjustment Factor.'' June 3, 2011. See http://www.aar.org/
~/media/aar/RailCostIndexes/AAR-RCAF-2011-Q3.ashx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(d) Fuel Suppliers
In addition to the effects on the trucking industry and related
truck parts sector, these rules will result in reductions in fuel use
that lower GHG emissions. Fuel saving, principally reductions in liquid
fuels such as diesel and gasoline, will affect employment in the fuel
suppliers industry sectors, principally the Petroleum Refinery
sector.\562\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\562\ North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code
32411.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Expected fuel consumption reductions by fuel type, and by heavy-
duty vehicle type, can be found in Table VIII-7. These reductions
reflect impacts from the new fuel efficiency and GHG standards and
include increased consumption from the rebound effect. These fuel
savings are monetized in Table VIII-8 by multiplying the reduced fuel
consumption in each year by the corresponding estimated average fuel
price in that year, using the Reference Case from the AEO 2011. In
2014, the pre-tax fuel savings is $1.2 billion (2009$). While these
figures represent a level of fuel savings for purchasers of fuel, it
also represents a loss in value of output for the petroleum refinery
industry. Since 50 percent of the fuel would have been refined in the
U.S., the loss in output to the U.S. Petroleum Refinery sector is $600
million (2009$), which will result in reduced sectoral employment.\563\
Because this sector is very capital-intensive, the employment effect is
not expected to be large.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\563\ EPA and NHTSA estimate that approximately 50 percent of
the reduction in fuel consumption resulting from adopting improved
fuel GHG standards and fuel efficiency standards is likely to be
reflected in reduced U.S. imports of refined fuel, while the
remaining 50 percent is expected to be reflected in reduced domestic
fuel refining. Of this latter figure, 90 percent is anticipated to
reduce U.S. imports of crude petroleum for use as a refinery
feedstock, while the remaining 10 percent is expected to reduce U.S.
domestic production of crude petroleum. Because we do not expect to
see a significant reduction in crude oil production in the U.S., we
do not expect this rule to have a significant impact on the Oil and
Gas Extraction industry sector in the U.S. (NAICS 211000). For more
information, refer to Section VIII-I on the energy security impacts
from the program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(e) Fuel Savings
As a result of this rulemaking, it is anticipated that trucking
firms will experience fuel savings. Fuel savings lower the costs of
transportation goods and services. In a competitive market, the fuel
savings that initially accrue to trucking firms are likely to be passed
along as lower transportation costs that, in turn, could result in
lower prices for
[[Page 57353]]
final goods and services. Alternatively, the savings could be kept
internally in firms for investments or for returns to firm owners. In
either case, the savings will accrue to some segment of consumers:
either owners of trucking firms or the general public. In both cases,
the effect will be increased spending by consumers in other sectors of
the economy, creating jobs in a diverse set of sectors, including
retail and service industries.
As mentioned above, the value of fuel savings from this rulemaking
is projected to be $1.2 billion (2009$) in 2014, according to Table
VIII-8. If all those savings are spent, the fuel savings will stimulate
increased employment in the economy through those expenditures. If the
fuel savings accrue primarily to firm owners, they may either reinvest
the money or take it as profit. Reinvesting the money in firm
operations would increase employment directly. If they take the money
as profit, to the extent that these owners are wealthier than the
general public, they may spend less of the savings, and the resulting
employment impacts would be smaller than if the savings went to the
public. Thus, while fuel savings are expected to decrease employment in
the refinery sector, they are expected to increase employment through
increased consumer expenditures.
(3) Summary of Employment Impacts
The net employment effects of this rulemaking are expected to be
found throughout several key sectors: truck and engine manufacturers,
the trucking industry, truck parts manufacturing, fuel production, and
consumers. For the regulated sector, the demand effect may result in
either increased or decreased employment, depending on the net effect
on HD vehicle sales; the cost effect is expected to increase employment
in the regulated sector; and the factor-shift effect is expected to
have a small, possibly slightly positive effect on employment, though
we cannot definitively say this is the case without quantification. The
net effect depends on the combination of these effects. Increased
expenditures by truck and engine parts manufacturers are expected to
require increased labor to build parts, though this effect also depends
on any changes in overall demand and on the labor intensity of
production of new parts; increased complexity of technologies may imply
increased labor inputs for some parts, though others might be less
labor-intensive. It is possible, if access to capital markets is
limited, that this rule might displace other HD sector investment,
which would reduce employment associated with those activities. Lower
prices for shipping are expected to lead to an increase in demand for
truck shipping services and, therefore, an increase in employment in
that sector, though this effect may be offset somewhat by changes in
employment in other shipping sectors. Reduced fuel production implies
less employment in the fuel provision sectors. Finally, any net cost
savings would be expected to be passed along to some segment of
consumers: either the general public or the owners of trucking firms,
who are expected then to increase employment through their
expenditures. Given the job creation as a result of the $1.2B (2009$)
in fuel savings in 2014 and the possible employment increases in the
manufacturing and parts sectors, we find it highly unlikely that there
would be significant net job losses related to this policy. Given the
current level of unemployment, net positive employment effects are
possible, especially in the near term, due to the potential hiring of
idle labor resources by the regulated sector to plan for and meet new
requirements. In the future, when full employment is expected to
return, any changes in employment levels in the regulated sector due to
this program are mostly expected to be offset by changes in employment
in other sectors.
IX. Analysis of the Alternatives
The heavy-duty truck segment is very complex. The sector consists
of a diverse group of impacted parties, including engine manufacturers,
chassis manufacturers, truck manufacturers, trailer manufacturers,
truck fleet owners and the public. The final standards that the
agencies have adopted today maximize the environmental and fuel savings
benefits of the program while taking into consideration the unique and
varied nature of the regulated industries. In developing this final
rulemaking, we considered a number of alternatives that could have
resulted in potentially fewer or greater GHG and fuel consumption
reductions than the program we are finalizing. This section summarizes
the alternatives we considered and presents assessments of technology
costs, CO2 reductions, and fuel savings associated with each
alternative. The agencies reduced the number of alternatives analyzed
in this final rulemaking compared to the proposal because we did not
receive any comments supporting standard setting for a smaller subset
than HD pickup trucks, combination tractors, and vocational vehicles
(as well as engines installed in vocational vehicles and combination
tractors). As discussed below, the agencies have also refined some of
the alternatives analyzed in response to the comments received.
A. What are the alternatives that the agencies considered?
In developing alternatives, NHTSA must consider EISA's requirement
for the MD/HD fuel efficiency program noted above. 49 U.S.C.
32902(k)(2) and (3) contain the following three requirements specific
to the MD/HD vehicle fuel efficiency improvement program: (1) The
program must be ``designed to achieve the maximum feasible
improvement''; (2) the various required aspects of the program must be
appropriate, cost-effective, and technologically feasible for MD/HD
vehicles; and (3) the standards adopted under the program must provide
not less than four model years of lead time and three model years of
regulatory stability. In considering these various requirements, NHTSA
will also account for relevant environmental and safety considerations.
The alternatives below represent a broad range of approaches for a
HD vehicle fuel efficiency and GHG emissions program. Details regarding
the modeling of each alternative are included in RIA Chapter 6. The
alternatives in order of increasing fuel efficiency and GHG emissions
reductions are:
(1) Alternative 1: No Action
A ``no action'' alternative assumes that the agencies would not
issue rules regarding a MD/HD fuel efficiency improvement program. This
alternative is presented in order for NHTSA to comply with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and to provide an analytical baseline
against which to compare environmental impacts of the other regulatory
alternatives.\564\ The agencies refer to this as the ``No Action
Alternative'' or as a ``no increase'' or ``baseline'' alternative. As
described in RIA Chapter 5, this no-
[[Page 57354]]
action alternative is considered the reference case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\564\ NEPA requires agencies to consider a ``no action''
alternative in their NEPA analyses and to compare the effects of not
taking action with the effects of the reasonable action alternatives
to demonstrate the different environmental effects of the action
alternatives. See 40 CFR 1502.2(e), 1502.14(d).CEQ has explained
that ``[T]he regulations require the analysis of the no action
alternative even if the agency is under a court order or legislative
command to act. This analysis provides a benchmark, enabling
decision makers to compare the magnitude of environmental effects of
the action alternatives. [See 40 CFR 1502.14(c).] * * * Inclusion of
such an analysis in the EIS is necessary to inform Congress, the
public, and the President as intended by NEPA. [See 40 CFR
1500.1(a).]'' Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ's National
Environmental Policy Act Regulations, 46 FR 18026 (1981) (emphasis
added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The no action alternative first presented in this final action is
based on the assumption that the new vehicle fleet continues to perform
at the same level as new 2010 vehicles. In this way, it provides a
comparison between today's new trucks and the increased cost and
reduced fuel consumption of future compliant vehicles.
The agencies recognize that there is substantial uncertainty in
determining an appropriate baseline against which to compare the
effects of the proposed action. The lack of prior regulation of HD fuel
efficiency means that there is a lack of historic data regarding trends
in this sector. Therefore, in this final action, the agencies have also
included an analysis using a baseline derived from annual projections
developed by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) for the
Annual Energy Outlook (AEO). For this alternative baseline, the
agencies analyzed the new truck fuel economy projections for the Light
Commercial Trucks, along with the Medium- and Heavy-Duty Freight
Vehicles developed in AEO 2011.\565\ The agencies converted the fuel
economy improvements into CO2 emissions reductions relative
to a 2010 model year (See RIA Chapter 6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\565\ U.S. Energy Information Administration. Annual Energy
Outlook 2011 Early Release. Last viewed on March 29, 2011 at http://www.eia.doe.gov/forecasts/aeo/. See Supplemental Tables 7, 63, and
68.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The baseline derived from the AEO forecast provides a comparison
between the impacts of the proposed standards and EIA's projection of
future new truck performance absent regulation. This alternative
baseline is informative in showing one possible projection of future
vehicle performance based on other factors beyond the regulation the
agencies are finalizing today. The AEO forecast makes a number of
assumptions that should be noted. AEO 2011 assumes improved fuel
efficiency for 8,500-10,000 lb. GVWR heavy-duty pickups due to the
light-duty 2012-2016 MY regulations. We project a similar capability
for fuel economy improvement as AEO does for this class of vehicles;
however, the agencies recognize that absent regulation manufacturers
may decline to add the necessary technologies to reach the level of our
proposed standards. For medium- and heavy-duty vocational vehicles, AEO
2011 projects a small reduction in fuel efficiency over time (an
increase in fuel consumption), similar to that achieved under the MY
2010 baseline. For Class 8 combination tractors, the AEO 2011 baseline
projects an annual improvement of approximately 0.3 percent.
We are not able to make an estimate of the cost of the AEO 2011
alternative baseline because we are not able to accurately determine
the technology mix used in the AEO 2011 analysis to achieve the
projected improvements in fuel efficiency. We do know they differ
significantly from our own analysis as the EIA projections do not
include the full range of technologies considered by the agencies
(e.g., EIA's analysis does not consider the use of idle reduction
technologies and diesel auxiliary power units to reduce fuel
consumption associated with vehicle hoteling). If one were to assume
that the cost of the AEO2011 baseline was proportional to projected
improvement relative to our preferred alternative, the total AEO2011
baseline cost estimate would be approximately equal to the total cost
of the preferred case, but would vary by category.
(2) Alternative 2: 12 Percent Less Stringent Than the Preferred
Alternative
Alternative 2 represents an alternative stringency level to the
agencies' preferred approach. Alternative 2 represents a stringency
level which is approximately 12 percent less stringent than the
preferred approach. The agencies calculated the Alternative 2
stringency level in order to meet two goals. First, we sought to create
an alternative that regulated the same engine and vehicle categories as
the preferred alternative, but at lower stringency (10-20 percent
lower) than the preferred alternative. Second we wanted an alternative
that reflected removal of the least cost effective technology that we
believed manufacturers would add last in order to meet the preferred
alternative. In other words, we wanted an alternative that as closely
as possible reflected the last increment in stringency prior to
reaching our preferred alternative. Please see Table 2-39 in RIA
Chapter 2 for a list of all of the technologies, as well as their cost
and relative effectiveness. The resulting Alternative 2 is based on the
same technologies used in Alternative 3 except as follows for each of
the three categories.
The combination tractor standard would be based on the removal of
the Advanced SmartWay aerodynamic package and weight reduction
technologies, which decreases the average combination tractor GHG
emissions and fuel consumption reduction by approximately 1 percent.
The HD pickup truck and van standard would be based on removal of
the 5 percent mass reduction technology, which decreases the average
truck reduction of fuel consumption and GHG emissions by approximately
1.6 percent.
The vocational vehicle standard would be based on removal of low
rolling resistance tires--in essence meaning that there would be no
expected improvement in performance from vocational vehicles, only from
engines used to power them. This alternative would also reduce the
amount of technologies applied to diesel engines used in vocational
vehicles such that the engines achieve a 3 percent reduction in 2014
model year and a 5 percent reduction in 2017 model year, both compared
to a 2010 model year baseline,
The agencies have decided not to finalize Alternative 2, because as
shown below, Alternative 3 is more stringent, is technically feasible,
highly cost effective, and results in a greater net benefit to society.
(3) Alternative 3: Preferred Alternative and Final Standards
Alternative 3 represents the agencies' preferred approach. This
alternative consists of the finalized fuel efficiency and GHG standards
for HD engines, HD pickup trucks and vans, Class 2b through Class 8
vocational vehicles, and Class 7 and 8 combination tractors. Details
regarding modeling of this alternative are included in RIA Chapter 5 as
the control case.
The agencies selected Alternative 3 over Alternatives 4 and 5
described below because the agencies concluded that alternatives 4 and
5 were not technically feasible to achieve given the leadtime provided
in these final rules. Hence, we have concluded that Alternative 3
represents the maximum feasible improvement. Section II of this
preamble provides an explanation of the consideration that agencies
gave to setting more stringent standards based on the application of
additional technologies and our reasons for concluding that the
identified technologies for each of the vehicle and engine standards
that constitute Alternative 3 represented the maximum feasible
improvement based on technological feasibility. In general, for
advanced technologies, we reached this conclusion for one of two
reasons. For some technologies such as Rankine Waste Heat Recovery
engine technologies, the agencies have concluded that the technology is
still in the research phase and will not be developed fully for new
engine production in the time frame of this first regulatory action. In
other cases, the agencies concluded that the
[[Page 57355]]
manufacturing capacity for technologies such as advanced battery
systems for heavy-duty hybrid drivetrains could not be expanded quickly
enough to allow for significant vehicle production volume in the time
frame of this program. Section III also details the agencies' reasons
for not basing standard stringencies on other technologies.
(4) Alternative 4: 20 Percent More Stringent Than the Preferred
Alternative
Alternative 4 represents a modeled alternative which is 20 percent
more stringent than the preferred approach. The agencies derived the
stringency level based on similar goals as for Alternative 2.
Specifically, we wanted an alternative that would reflect an
incremental improvement over the preferred alternative based on adding
the next most cost effective technology in each of the categories. We
believed these were the technologies most likely to be attempted by
manufacturers if a more stringent standard were established. As
discussed above and in the feasibility discussion in Section III, we
are not finalizing Alternative 4 because we do not believe that the
technologies used in this alternative can be developed and introduced
in the time frame of this rulemaking. We note that the estimated costs
for this alternative are denoted as `+c.' The +c is intended to make
clear that the cost estimates we are showing do not include additional
costs related to pulling ahead the development and expanding
manufacturing base for the additional technologies (for example,
building new factories in the next few years). The resulting
Alternative 4 is based on the same technologies used in Alternative 3
except as follows for each of the three categories.
The combination tractor standard would be based on the addition of
Rankine waste heat recovery systems and 100 percent application of
advanced aerodynamic technologies, such as underbody airflow treatment,
advanced gap reduction, rearview cameras to replace mirrors, and wheel
system streamlining, to high roof sleeper cab combination tractors. The
agencies do not believe that either advanced aerodynamic technologies
or Rankine waste heat recovery systems should be used to set the
standard for HD engines in 2017 MY because this technology is still in
the research phase. The agencies assumed 59 percent of all combination
tractors are sleeper cabs and of those, 80 percent are high roof
sleeper cabs. The agencies assumed a 12 kWh waste heat recovery system
would reduce CO2 emissions by 6 percent at a cost of $8,400
per truck.\566\ The estimated reduction in CO2 emissions
from the engine for this alternative is included in RIA Chapter 6. The
impact of 100 percent application of the advanced aerodynamic
technology package would lead to a total 20.7 percent reduction in Cd
values for high roof sleeper cabs over a 2010 MY baseline tractor. The
incremental cost of this technology over the preferred case is $1,027
per vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\566\ TIAX. 2009. Note 198, Page 4-20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The HD pickup truck and van standard would be based on the addition
of the turbocharged, downsized technology to gasoline engines which
would bring the total reduction for gasoline HD pickup trucks and vans
to 15 percent and match the level of reduction for the diesel pickup
trucks. The agencies do not consider this to be a technology from which
the 2017MY gasoline HD pickup truck standards should be premised on
because we are not yet convinced that turbocharged downsized gasoline
engines can be applied to heavy-duty truck applications in a durable
manner. We are aware that manufacturers are testing such engines and
that in pickup trucks with a duty cycle representing a mix of passenger
vehicle and work applications the engines can be durable. However, we
are unable to conclude today that such engines will be durable and
hence technically feasible when applied in heavy-duty truck
applications with an expected higher average load factor. The estimated
incremental cost increase to HD pickup trucks and vans to replace a
stoichiometric gasoline direct injected V8 engine with coupled cam
phasing used in Alternative 3 with a V6 stoichiometric gasoline direct
injection DOHC with dual cam phasing, discrete valve lift, and twin
turbochargers is estimated to be $1,743.\567\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\567\ See RIA chapter 2, Table 2.35.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The vocational vehicle standard would be based on the addition
hybrid powertrains to 6 percent of the vehicles. The agencies assumed a
32 percent per vehicle reduction in GHG emissions and fuel consumption
due to the hybrid with a cost of $26,667 per vehicle based on the
average effectiveness and costs developed in the NAS report for box
trucks, bucket trucks, and refuse haulers.\568\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\568\ Committee to Assess Fuel Economy Technologies for Medium-
and Heavy-Duty Vehicles; National Research Council; Transportation
Research Board (2010). ``Technologies and Approaches to Reducing the
Fuel Consumption of Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles,'' (``NAS
Report''). Washington, DC The National Academies Press. Available
electronically from the National Academies Press Web site at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12845. Page 146.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(5) Alternative 5: Trailers Plus Accelerated Hybrid
Alternative 5 builds on Alternative 4 through additional hybrid
powertrain application rates in the HD sector and by adding a
performance standard for fuel efficiency and GHG emissions to
commercial trailers. This alternative includes all elements of
Alternative 4 (some of which we already regard as infeasible in the
model years covered by the final rules), plus the application of
additional hybrid powertrains to the pickup trucks, vans, vocational
vehicles, and tractors. In addition, the agencies applied aerodynamic
technologies to commercial box trailers, along with tire technologies
for all commercial trailers.
The agencies set the hybrid penetration for each category such that
it represents 50 percent of the HD pickup truck and van segment, 50
percent of vocational vehicles, and 5 percent of tractors in 2017 model
year. The agencies have concluded that it is not feasible to achieve
hybrid technology penetration rates at or even near these levels in the
time frame of this rulemaking. As with Alternative 4, we include a +c
in our cost estimates for this alternative to reflect additional costs
not estimated by the agencies. The agencies assumed that a hybrid
powertrain would provide a 32 percent reduction in CO2
emissions and fuel consumption of a vocational vehicle at a projected
cost of $26,667 per vehicle, based on the average of the NAS report
findings for box trucks, bucket trucks, and refuse vehicles.\569\ The
agencies are projecting a cost of $9,000 per vehicle for the HD pickup
trucks and vans with an effectiveness of 18 percent, again based on the
NAS report.\570\ Lastly, the effectiveness of hybrid powertrains
installed in tractors was assumed to be 10 percent at a cost of $25,000
based on the NAS report.\571\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\569\ NAS Report. Page 146.
\570\ NAS Report. Page 146.
\571\ NAS Report. Page 146.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The combination tractor technology package for Alternative 5
includes the preferred alternative technologies, waste heat recovery
and Advanced SmartWay aerodynamic package used in Alternative 4, and
application of hybrid powertrains discussed above, in addition to a
regulation for commercial trailers pulled by combination tractors. The
agencies assumed a box trailer program would mirror the SmartWay
program and include tire and aerodynamic requirements. The agencies
added low rolling resistance tires to all commercial trailers, which
are assumed to have 15 percent lower rolling resistance than the
baseline
[[Page 57356]]
trailer tire which is equivalent to the target value required by
SmartWay. The aerodynamics of the box trailers were assumed to improve
the coefficient of drag for the combination tractor-trailer by 10
percent through the application of technologies such as trailer skirts
and gap reducers.\572\ These technologies would result in further
reductions in drag coefficient and rolling resistance coefficient from
the MY 2010 baseline. As stated above for hybrids, the agencies do not
believe that it is possible to achieve technology penetration rates at
or even near these levels in the time frame of this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\572\ The Cd improvement of 10 percent for trailer improvements
was derived from the TIAX report, Table 4-26 on page 4-50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The combination tractor costs for this alternative are equal to the
costs in Alternative 4, plus $25,000 for hybrid powertrains in ten
percent of tractors, plus the costs of trailers. The costs for the
trailer program of Alternative 5 were derived based on the assumption
that trailer aerodynamic improvements would cost $2,150 per trailer.
This cost assumes side fairings and gap reducers and is based on the
ICF cost estimate.\573\ The agencies applied the aerodynamic
improvement to only box trailers, which represent approximately 60
percent of the trailer sales. The agencies used $528 per trailer (2014
MY cost) for low rolling resistance based on the agencies' estimate of
$66 per tire in the tractor program. Lastly, the agencies assumed the
trailer volume is equal to three times the tractor volume based on the
3:1 ratio of trailers to tractors in the market today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\573\ Assumed retail prices of $1,300 for side skirts and $850
for gap reducers based on the ICF Cost Report, page 90.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. How Do These Alternatives Compare in Overall GHG Emissions
Reductions and Fuel Efficiency and Cost?
The agencies analyzed all five alternatives through the MOVES model
to evaluate the impact of each alternative, as shown in Table IX-1. The
table contains the annual CO2 and fuel savings in 2030 and
2050 for each alternative (relative to the reference scenario of
Alternative 1), presenting both the total savings across all regulatory
categories, and for each regulatory category.
Table IX-2 presents the annual technology costs associated with
each alternative (relative to the reference scenario of Alternative 1)
in 2030 and 2050 for each regulatory category. In addition, the total
annual downstream impacts of NOX, CO, PM, and VOC emissions
in 2030 for each of the alternatives are included in Table IX-3.
Lastly, the agencies project the monetized net benefits associated
with each alternative in 2030 and 2050 as shown in Table IX-4 and Table
IX-5.
Table IX-1--Annual CO2 and Oil Reductions Relative to Alternative 1 in 2030 and 2050
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Downstream CO2 Reductions Oil reductions (billion
(MMT) gallons)
---------------------------------------------------------------
2030 2050 2030 2050
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alt. 1 Baseline................................. 0 0 0 0
Alt. 1a AEO 2011 Baseline--Total................ 39 90 3.9 9.0
Tractors........................................ 29 73 2.9 7.1
HD Pickup Trucks................................ 9 16 0.9 1.7
Vocational Vehicles............................. 1 2 0.1 0.2
Alt. 2 Less Stringent--Total.................... 54 78 5.4 7.7
Tractors........................................ 42 59 4.2 5.8
HD Pickup Trucks................................ 7 11 0.8 1.2
Vocational Vehicles............................. 5 7 0.4 0.7
Alt. 3 Preferred--Total......................... 61 88 6.0 8.7
Tractors........................................ 45 63 4.4 6.2
HD Pickup Trucks................................ 8 13 0.9 1.3
Vocational Vehicles............................. 7 11 0.7 1.1
Alt. 4 More Stringent--Total.................... 74 107 7.4 10.7
Tractors........................................ 53 74 5.2 7.3
HD Pickup Trucks................................ 10 15 1.0 1.6
Vocational Vehicles............................. 11 18 1.1 1.8
Alt. 5 Max Technology--Total.................... 99 146 9.8 14.5
Tractors........................................ 61 85 6.0 8.3
HD Pickup Trucks................................ 15 24 1.6 2.5
Vocational Vehicles............................. 23 37 2.2 3.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table IX-2--Technology Cost Projections Relative to Alternative 1 for
Each Alternative
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technology costs \a\
(Millions, 2009$)
-------------------------------
2030 2050
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alt. 1 Baseline......................... $0 $0
Alt. 1a AEO 2011 Baseline--Total \b\.... -- --
Tractors................................ -- --
HD Pickup Trucks........................ -- --
Vocational Vehicles..................... -- --
Alt. 2 Less Stringent--Total............ $1,676 $2,440
Tractors................................ 743 1,227
HD Pickup Trucks........................ 817 1,029
Vocational Vehicles..................... 117 185
Alt. 3 Preferred--Total................. 2,210 3,287
[[Page 57357]]
Tractors................................ 1,076 1,777
HD Pickup Trucks........................ 918 1,156
Vocational Vehicles..................... 216 354
Alt. 4 More Stringent--Total............ 5,211+c 6,996+c
Tractors................................ 1,953+c 3,225+c
HD Pickup Trucks........................ 1,442+c 1,816+c
Vocational Vehicles..................... 1,816+c 1,954+c
17,909+c 27,306+c
Alt. 5 Max Technology--Total............ 2,747+c 4,292+c
Tractors................................ 5,669+c 7,142+c
HD Pickup Trucks........................ 9,493+c 15,873+c
Vocational Vehicles..................... 5,211+c 6,996+c
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
\a\ The +c is intended to make clear that the cost estimates we are
showing do not include additional costs related to pulling ahead the
development and expanding manufacturing base for these technologies.
\b\ The agencies did not conduct a cost analysis for the AEO2011
baseline.
Table IX-3--Downstream Impacts Relative to Alternative 1 of Key Non-GHGs for Each Alternative in 2030
[In percent]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX CO PM2.5 VOC
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alt. 1 Baseline................................. 0 0 0 0
Alt. 1a AEO 2011 Baseline....................... 8.8 1.0 -3.8 7.2
Alt. 2 Less Stringent........................... -21.9 -2.0 8.4 -19.0
Alt. 3 Preferred................................ -22.0 -2.0 8.5 -19.1
Alt. 4 More Stringent........................... -22.5 -2.0 8.7 -19.5
Alt. 5 Max Technology........................... -22.9 -2.1 8.4 -20.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table IX-4--Monetized Net Benefits Associated With Each Alternative Relative to Alternative 1 for Lifetime of
2014 Through 2018 Model Year Vehicles
[3% Discount rate, millions, 2009$]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alt. 1 Alt. 2 less Alt. 3 Alt. 4 more Alt. 5 max
baseline stringent preferred stringent technology
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Truck Program Costs \d\......... $0 $5,900 $8,100 $20,700+c $37,200+c
Fuel Savings (pre-tax).......... 0 45,000 50,100 63,900 79,100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reduced CO2 Emissions at Each Assumed SCC Value a b
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5% (avg SCC).................... 0 1,100 1,200 1,600 1,900
3% (avg SCC).................... 0 5,100 5,700 7,200 9,000
2.5% (avg SCC).................. 0 8,400 9,400 12,000 15,000
3% (95th percentile)............ 0 16,000 17,000 22,000 27,000
Energy Security Impacts (price 0 2,400 2,700 3,400 4,200
shock).........................
Accidents, Congestion, Noise \e\ 0 -1,300 -1,500 -1,600 -1,600
Refueling Savings............... 0 300 400 500 600
Non-CO2 GHG Impacts and Non-GHG N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Impacts \c\....................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monetized Net Benefits at Each Assumed SCC Value a b
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5% (avg SCC).................... 0 41,600 44,800 47,100+c 47,000+c
3% (avg SCC).................... 0 45,600 49,300 52,700+c 54,100+c
2.5% (avg SCC).................. 0 48,900 53,000 57,500+c 60,100+c
3% (95th percentile)............ 0 56,500 60,600 67,500+c 72,100+c
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
\a\ Net present value of reduced CO2 emissions is calculated differently than other benefits. The same discount
rate used to discount the value of damages from future emissions (SCC at 5, 3, and 2.5 percent) is used to
calculate net present value of SCC for internal consistency. Refer to the SCC TSD for more detail.
\b\ Section VIII.G notes that SCC increases over time. Corresponding to the years in this table, the SCC
estimates range as follows: for Average SCC at 5%: 5-$16; for Average SCC at 3%: $22-$46; for Average SCC at
2.5%: $36-$66; and for 95th percentile SCC at 3%: $66-$139. Section VIII.G also presents these SCC estimates.
\c\ The monetized GHG benefits presented in this analysis exclude the value of changes in non-CO2 GHG emissions
expected under this rulemaking (See RIA Chapter 5). Although EPA has not monetized changes in non-CO2 GHGs,
the value of any increases or reductions should not be interpreted as zero.
\d\ ``+c'' indicates additional costs not estimated in this rulemaking.
\e\ Negative sign represents an increase in Accidents, Congestion, and Noise.
[[Page 57358]]
Table IX-5--Monetized Net Benefits Associated With Each Alternative Relative to Alternative 1 for Lifetime of
2014 Through 2018 Model Year Vehicles
[7% Discount rate, millions, 2009$]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alt. 1 Alt. 2 less Alt. 3 Alt. 4 more Alt. 5 max
baseline stringent preferred stringent technology
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Truck Program Costs \d\......... $0 $5,900 $8,100 $20,700+c $37,200+c
Fuel Savings (pre-tax).......... 0 30,900 34,400 43,800 53,900
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reduced CO2 Emissions at Each Assumed SCC Value \a\ \b\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5% (avg SCC).................... 0 1,100 1,200 1,600 1,900
3% (avg SCC).................... 0 5,100 5,700 7,200 9,000
2.5% (avg SCC).................. 0 8,400 9,400 12,000 15,000
3% (95th percentile)............ 0 16,000 17,000 22,000 27,000
Energy Security Impacts (price 0 1,600 1,800 2,300 2,900
shock).........................
Accidents, Congestion, Noise \e\ 0 -900 -1,000 -1,100 -1,100
Refueling Savings............... 0 200 200 300 400
Non-CO2 GHG Impacts and Non-GHG N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Impacts \c\....................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monetized Net Benefits at Each Assumed SCC Value \a\ \b\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5% (avg SCC).................... 0 27,000 28,500 26,200+c 20,800+c
3% (avg SCC).................... 0 31,000 33,000 31,800+c 27,900+c
2.5% (avg SCC).................. 0 34,300 36,700 36,600+c 33,900+c
3% (95th percentile)............ 0 41,900 44,300 46,600+c 45,900+c
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
\a\ Net present value of reduced CO2 emissions is calculated differently than other benefits. The same discount
rate used to discount the value of damages from future emissions (SCC at 5, 3, and 2.5 percent) is used to
calculate net present value of SCC for internal consistency. Refer to the SCC TSD for more detail.
\b\ Section VIII.G notes that SCC increases over time. Corresponding to the years in this table, the SCC
estimates range as follows: for Average SCC at 5%: $5-$16; for Average SCC at 3%: $22-$46; for Average SCC at
2.5%: $36-$66; and for 95th percentile SCC at 3%: $66-$139. Section VIII.G also presents these SCC estimates.
\c\ The monetized GHG benefits presented in this analysis exclude the value of changes in non-CO2 GHG emissions
expected under this rulemaking (See RIA chapter 5). Although EPA has not monetized changes in non-CO2 GHGs,
the value of any increases or reductions should not be interpreted as zero.
\d\ ``+c'' indicates additional costs not estimated in this rulemaking.
\e\ Negative sign represents an increase in Accidents, Congestion, and Noise.
The agencies also project the monetized net benefits associated
with each alternative by vehicle class for the 2014 through 2018 MY
vehicles over their lifetimes as shown in Table IX-6 through Table IX-8
at a three percent discount rate for HD pickup trucks & vans,
vocational vehicles and combination tractors, respectively, and in
Table IX-9 through Table IX-11 at a seven percent discount rate for HD
pickup trucks and vans, vocational vehicles and combination tractors,
respectively.
Table IX-6--Monetized Net Benefits Associated With Each Alternative Relative to Alternative 1 for Lifetime of
2014 Through 2018 Model Year HD Pickup Trucks & Vans
[3% Discount rate, millions, 2009$]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alt. 1 Alt. 2 less Alt. 3 Alt. 4 more Alt. 5 max
baseline stringent preferred stringent technology
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Truck Program Costs \d\......... $0 $1,780 $1,970 $3,220+c $9,890+c
Fuel Savings (pre-tax).......... 0 3,480 4,060 4,910 7,700
Energy Security Impacts (price 0 190 220 270 420
shock).........................
Accidents, Congestion, Noise \e\ 0 -330 -350 -370 -350
Refueling Savings............... 0 40 50 60 90
Non-CO2 GHG Impacts and Non-GHG N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Impacts \c\....................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reduced CO2 Emissions at Each Assumed SCC Value a b
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5% (avg SCC).................... 0 100 100 100 200
3% (avg SCC).................... 0 500 500 600 900
2.5% (avg SCC).................. 0 800 900 1,100 1,500
3% (95th percentile)............ 0 1,400 1,600 1,900 2,800
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monetized Net Benefits at Each Assumed SCC Value a b
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5% (avg SCC).................... 0 1,700 2,110 1,750+c -1,830+c
3% (avg SCC).................... 0 2,100 2,510 2,250+c -1,130+c
2.5% (avg SCC).................. 0 2,400 2,910 2,750+c -530+c
[[Page 57359]]
3% (95th percentile)............ 0 3,000 3,610 3,550+c 770+c
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
\a\ Net present value of reduced CO2 emissions is calculated differently than other benefits. The same discount
rate used to discount the value of damages from future emissions (SCC at 5, 3, and 2.5 percent) is used to
calculate net present value of SCC for internal consistency. Refer to the SCC TSD for more detail.
\b\ Section VIII.G notes that SCC increases over time. Corresponding to the years in this table, the SCC
estimates range as follows: for Average SCC at 5%: $5-$16; for Average SCC at 3%: $22-$46; for Average SCC at
2.5%: $36-$66; and for 95th percentile SCC at 3%: $66-$139. Section VIII.G also presents these SCC estimates.
\c\ Due to analytical and resource limitations, MY non-GHG emissions (direct PM, VOCs, NO2 and SO2) were not
estimated for this analysis. Although EPA has not monetized changes in non-CO2 GHGs, the value of any
increases or reductions should not be interpreted as zero.
\d\ ``+c'' indicates additional costs not estimated in this rulemaking.
\e\ Negative sign represents an increase in Accidents, Congestion, and Noise.
Table IX-7 Monetized Net Benefits Associated With Each Alternative Relative to Alternative 1 for Lifetime of
2014 Through 2018 Model Year Vocational Vehicles
[3% Discount rate, millions, 2009$]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alt. 1 Alt. 2 less Alt. 3 Alt. 4 more Alt. 5 max
baseline stringent preferred stringent technology
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Truck Program Costs \d\......... $0 $670 $1,140 $9,140+c $15,840+c
Fuel Savings (pre-tax).......... 0 3,420 5,420 8,930 14,270
Energy Security Impacts (price 0 180 290 480 760
shock).........................
Accidents, Congestion, Noise \e\ 0 -540 -650 -670 -500
Refueling Savings............... 0 40 60 110 170
Non-CO2 GHG Impacts and Non-GHG N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Impacts \c\....................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reduced CO2 Emissions at Each Assumed SCC Value a b
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5% (avg SCC).................... 0 100 100 200 300
3% (avg SCC).................... 0 400 600 1,000 1,500
2.5% (avg SCC).................. 0 700 1,100 1,700 2,600
3% (95th percentile)............ 0 1,300 1,900 3,100 4,700
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monetized Net Benefits at Each Assumed SCC Value a b
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5% (avg SCC).................... 0 2,530 4,080 -90+c -840+c
3% (avg SCC).................... 0 2,830 4,580 710+c 360+c
2.5% (avg SCC).................. 0 3,130 5,080 1,410+c 1,460+c
3% (95th percentile)............ 0 3,730 5,880 2,810+c 3,560+c
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
\a\ Net present value of reduced CO2 emissions is calculated differently than other benefits. The same discount
rate used to discount the value of damages from future emissions (SCC at 5, 3, and 2.5 percent) is used to
calculate net present value of SCC for internal consistency. Refer to the SCC TSD for more detail.
\b\ Section VIII.G notes that SCC increases over time. Corresponding to the years in this table, the SCC
estimates range as follows: for Average SCC at 5%: $5-$16; for Average SCC at 3%: $22-$46; for Average SCC at
2.5%: $36-$66; and for 95th percentile SCC at 3%: $66-$139. Section VIII.G also presents these SCC estimates.
\c\ Due to analytical and resource limitations, MY non-GHG emissions (direct PM, VOCs, NO2 and SO2) were not
estimated for this analysis. Although EPA has not monetized changes in non-CO2 GHGs, the value of any
increases or reductions should not be interpreted as zero.
\d\ ``+c'' indicates additional costs not estimated in this rulemaking.
\e\ Negative sign represents an increase in Accidents, Congestion, and Noise.
Table IX-8--Monetized Net Benefits Associated With Each Alternative Relative to Alternative 1 for Lifetime of
2014 through 2018 Model Year Combination Tractors
[3% Discount rate, millions, 2009$]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alt. 1 Alt. 2 less Alt. 3 Alt. 4 more Alt. 5 max
baseline stringent preferred stringent technology
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Truck Program Costs \d\......... $0 $3,300 $4,950 $8,430+c $11,540+c
Fuel Savings (pre-tax).......... 0 38,140 40,650 50,030 57,190
Energy Security Impacts (price 0 2,030 2,160 2,660 3,040
shock).........................
Accidents, Congestion, Noise \e\ 0 -450 -480 -590 -770
Refueling Savings............... 0 230 250 300 350
Non-CO2 GHG Impacts and Non-GHG N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Impacts \c\....................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 57360]]
Reduced CO2 Emissions at Each Assumed SCC Value a b
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5% (avg SCC).................... 0 900 1,000 1,200 1,400
3% (avg SCC).................... 0 4,200 4,500 5,600 6,500
2.5% (avg SCC).................. 0 7,000 7,500 9,300 11,000
3% (95th percentile)............ 0 13,000 14,000 17,000 20,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monetized Net Benefits at Each Assumed SCC Value a b
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5% (avg SCC).................... 0 37,550 38,630 45,170+c 49,670+c
3% (avg SCC).................... 0 40,850 42,130 49,570+c 54,770+c
2.5% (avg SCC).................. 0 43,650 45,130 53,270+c 59,270+c
3% (95th percentile)............ 0 49,650 51,630 60,970+c 68,270+c
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
\a\ Net present value of reduced CO2 emissions is calculated differently than other benefits. The same discount
rate used to discount the value of damages from future emissions (SCC at 5, 3, and 2.5 percent) is used to
calculate net present value of SCC for internal consistency. Refer to the SCC TSD for more detail.
\b\ Section VIII.G notes that SCC increases over time. Corresponding to the years in this table, the SCC
estimates range as follows: for Average SCC at 5%: $5-$16; for Average SCC at 3%: $22-$46; for Average SCC at
2.5%: $36-$66; and for 95th percentile SCC at 3%: $66-$139. Section VIII.G also presents these SCC estimates.
\c\ Due to analytical and resource limitations, MY non-GHG emissions (direct PM, VOCs, NO2 and SO2) were not
estimated for this analysis. Although EPA has not monetized changes in non-CO2 GHGs, the value of any
increases or reductions should not be interpreted as zero.
\d\ ``+c'' indicates additional costs not estimated in this rulemaking.
\e\ Negative sign represents an increase in Accidents, Congestion, and Noise.
Table IX-9: Monetized Net Benefits Associated With Each Alternative Relative to Alternative 1 for Lifetime of
2014 Through 2018 Model Year HD Pickup Trucks & Vans
[7% Discount rate, millions, 2009$]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alt. 1 Alt. 2 less Alt. 3 Alt. 4 more Alt. 5 max
baseline stringent preferred stringent technology
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Truck Program Costs \d\......... $0 $1,780 $1,970 $3,220+c $9,890+c
Fuel Savings (pre-tax).......... 0 2,180 2,550 3,090 4,830
Energy Security Impacts (price 0 120 140 170 260
shock).........................
Accidents, Congestion, Noise \e\ 0 -220 -230 -250 -230
Refueling Savings............... 0 30 30 40 60
Non-CO2 GHG Impacts and Non-GHG N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Impacts \c\....................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reduced CO2 Emissions at Each Assumed SCC Value a b
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5% (avg SCC).................... 0 100 100 100 200
3% (avg SCC).................... 0 500 500 600 900
2.5% (avg SCC).................. 0 800 900 1,100 1,500
3% (95th percentile)............ 0 1,400 1,600 1,900 2,800
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monetized Net Benefits at Each Assumed SCC Value a b
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5% (avg SCC).................... 0 430 620 -70+c -4,770+c
3% (avg SCC).................... 0 830 1,020 430+c -4,070+c
2.5% (avg SCC).................. 0 1,130 1,420 930+c -3,470+c
3% (95th percentile)............ 0 1,730 2,120 1,730+c -2,170+c
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
\a\ Net present value of reduced CO2 emissions is calculated differently than other benefits. The same discount
rate used to discount the value of damages from future emissions (SCC at 5, 3, and 2.5 percent) is used to
calculate net present value of SCC for internal consistency. Refer to the SCC TSD for more detail.
\b\ Section VIII.G notes that SCC increases over time. Corresponding to the years in this table, the SCC
estimates range as follows: for Average SCC at 5%: $5-$16; for Average SCC at 3%: $22-$46; for Average SCC at
2.5%: $36-$66; and for 95th percentile SCC at 3%: $66-$139. Section VIII.G also presents these SCC estimates.
\c\ Due to analytical and resource limitations, MY non-GHG emissions (direct PM, VOCs, NO2 and SO2) were not
estimated for this analysis. Although EPA has not monetized changes in non-CO2 GHGs, the value of any
increases or reductions should not be interpreted as zero.
\d\ ``+c'' indicates additional costs not estimated in this rulemaking.
\e\ Negative sign represents an increase in Accidents, Congestion, and Noise.
[[Page 57361]]
Table 1X-10--Monetized Net Benefits Associated With Each Alternative Relative to Alternative 1 for Lifetime of
2014 Through 2018 Model Year Vocational Vehicles
[7% Discount rate, millions, 2009$]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alt. 1 Alt. 2 less Alt. 3 Alt. 4 more Alt. 5 max
baseline stringent preferred stringent technology
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Truck Program Costs \d\......... $0 $670 $1,140 $9,140+c $15,840+c
Fuel Savings (pre-tax).......... 0 2,280 3,630 5,970 9,410
Energy Security Impacts (price 0 120 190 320 500
shock).........................
Accidents, Congestion, Noise \e\ 0 -380 -450 -460 -350
Refueling Savings............... 0 30 40 70 110
Non-CO2 GHG Impacts and Non-GHG N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Impacts \c\....................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reduced CO2 Emissions at Each Assumed SCC Value \a\ \b\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5% (avg SCC).................... 0 100 100 200 300
3% (avg SCC).................... 0 400 600 1,000 1,500
2.5% (avg SCC).................. 0 700 1,100 1,700 2,600
3% (95th percentile)............ 0 1,300 1,900 3,100 4,700
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monetized Net Benefits at Each Assumed SCC Value \a\ \b\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5% (avg SCC).................... 0 1,480 2,370 -3,040+c -5,870+c
3% (avg SCC).................... 0 1,780 2,870 -2,240+c -4,670+c
2.5% (avg SCC).................. 0 2,080 3,370 -1,540+c -3,570+c
3% (95th percentile)............ 0 2,680 4,170 -140+c -1,470+c
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
\a\ Net present value of reduced CO2 emissions is calculated differently than other benefits. The same discount
rate used to discount the value of damages from future emissions (SCC at 5, 3, and 2.5 percent) is used to
calculate net present value of SCC for internal consistency. Refer to the SCC TSD for more detail.
\b\ Section VIII.G notes that SCC increases over time. Corresponding to the years in this table, the SCC
estimates range as follows: for Average SCC at 5%: $5-$16; for Average SCC at 3%: $22-$46; for Average SCC at
2.5%: $36-$66; and for 95th percentile SCC at 3%: $66-$139. Section VIII.G also presents these SCC estimates.
\c\ Due to analytical and resource limitations, MY non-GHG emissions (direct PM, VOCs, NO2 and SO2) were not
estimated for this analysis. Although EPA has not monetized changes in non-CO2 GHGs, the value of any
increases or reductions should not be interpreted as zero.
\d\ ``+c'' indicates additional costs not estimated in this rulemaking.
\e\ Negative sign represents an increase in Accidents, Congestion, and Noise.
Table 1X-11 Monetized Net Benefits Associated With Each Alternative Relative to Alternative 1 for Lifetime of
2014 Through 2018 Model Year Combination Tractors
[7% Discount rate, millions, 2009]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alt. 1 Alt. 2 less Alt. 3 Alt. 4 more Alt. 5 max
baseline stringent preferred stringent technology
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Truck Program Costs \d\......... 0 3,300 4,950 8,430+c 11,540+c
Fuel Savings (pre-tax).......... 0 26,420 28,170 34,710 39,680
Energy Security Impacts (price 0 1,410 1,500 1,850 2,110
shock).........................
Accidents, Congestion, Noise \e\ 0 -320 -340 -420 -550
Refueling Savings............... 0 160 170 210 240
Non-CO2 GHG Impacts and Non-GHG N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Impacts \c\....................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reduced CO2 Emissions at Each Assumed SCC Value \a\ \b\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5% (avg SCC).................... 0 900 1,000 1,200 1,400
3% (avg SCC).................... 0 4,200 4,500 5,600 6,500
2.5% (avg SCC).................. 0 7,000 7,500 9,300 11,000
3% (95th percentile)............ 0 13,000 14,000 17,000 20,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monetized Net Benefits at Each Assumed SCC Value \a\ \b\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5% (avg SCC).................... 0 25,270 25,550 29,120+c 31,340+c
3% (avg SCC).................... 0 28,570 29,050 33,520+c 36,440+c
2.5% (avg SCC).................. 0 31,370 32,050 37,220+c 40,940+c
3% (95th percentile)............ 0 37,370 38,550 44,920+c 49,940+c
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
\a\ Net present value of reduced CO2 emissions is calculated differently than other benefits. The same discount
rate used to discount the value of damages from future emissions (SCC at 5, 3, and 2.5 percent) is used to
calculate net present value of SCC for internal consistency. Refer to the SCC TSD for more detail.
\b\ Section VIII.G notes that SCC increases over time. Corresponding to the years in this table, the SCC
estimates range as follows: for Average SCC at 5%: $5-$16; for Average SCC at 3%: $22-$46; for Average SCC at
2.5%: $36-$66; and for 95th percentile SCC at 3%: $66-$139. Section VIII.G also presents these SCC estimates.
\c\ Due to analytical and resource limitations, MY non-GHG emissions (direct PM, VOCs, NO2 and SO2) were not
estimated for this analysis. Although EPA has not monetized changes in non-CO2 GHGs, the value of any
increases or reductions should not be interpreted as zero.
\d\ ``+c'' indicates additional costs not estimated in this rulemaking.
[[Page 57362]]
\e\ Negative sign represents an increase in Accidents, Congestion, and Noise.
C. What is the agencies' decision regarding trailer standards?
A central theme throughout our HD Program is the recognition of the
diversity and complexity of the heavy-duty vehicle segment. Trailers
are an important part of this segment and are no less diverse in the
range of functions and applications they serve. They are the primary
vehicle for moving freight in the United States. The type of freight
varies from retail products to be sold in stores, to bulk goods such as
stones, to industrial liquids such as chemicals, to equipment such as
bulldozers. Semi-trailers come in a large variety of styles--box,
refrigerated box, flatbed, tankers, bulk, dump, grain, and many others.
The most common type of trailer is the box trailer, but even box
trailers come in many different lengths ranging from 28 feet to 53 feet
or greater, and in different widths, heights, depths, materials (wood,
composites, and/or aluminum), construction (curtain side or hard side),
axle configuration (sliding tandem or fixed tandem), and multiple other
distinct features. NHTSA and EPA believe trailers impact the fuel
consumption and CO2 emissions from combination tractors and
the agencies see opportunities for reductions. Unlike our experience
with trucks and engines, the agencies have very limited experience
related to regulating trailers for fuel efficiency or emissions.
Likewise, the trailer manufacturing industry has only the most limited
experience complying with regulations related to emissions and none
with regard to EPA or NHTSA certification and compliance procedures.
The agencies broadly solicited comments on controlling fuel
efficiency and GHG emissions through eventual trailer regulations as we
described in the notice of proposed rulemaking which could set the
foundation of a future rulemaking for trailers. 75 FR at 74345-351
(although this was a solicitation for comment regarding future action
outside the present rulemaking).
The general theme of the comments received was that technologies
exist today that can improve trailer efficiency. We received several
comments from stakeholders which encouraged the agencies to set fuel
efficiency and GHG emissions standards for trailers in this rulemaking.
The agencies also received comments supporting a delay in trailer
regulations. Specifically, IPI commented that the agencies should
regulate trailers at least to some degree, arguing that the agencies'
reasoning for not doing so was insufficient and requesting a plan and
schedule in the final rule for the future regulation of trailers. One
commenter recognized that there are well over 100 trailer manufacturers
in the U.S., with almost all being small businesses. They stressed the
need for the agencies to reach out to the trailer industry and
associations prior to developing a regulatory program for this
industry. In addition, they stated that time is needed to develop
sufficient research into the area. None of the commenters that
supported trailer regulation in this action addressed the complexities
of the trailer industry, nor a method to measure trailer aerodynamic
improvements.
In the NPRM, the agencies discussed relatively conceptual
approaches to how a future trailer regulation could be developed;
however, we did not provide a proposed test procedure or proposed
standard. The agencies proposed to delay the regulation of trailers, as
the inclusion would not be feasible at this time due to the lack of a
test procedure and the myriad of technical and policy issues not teed
up in the NPRM or addressed in comments. Additionally, since a number
of trailer manufacturing entities are small businesses, EPA and NHTSA
need to allow sufficient time to convene a SBREFA panel to conduct the
proper outreach to the potentially impacted stakeholders. As noted
earlier, the agencies do not believe it warranted to delay the
combination tractor and vocational vehicle standards for the years it
will take to resolve these issues. NHTSA and EPA agree that the
regulation of trailers, when appropriate, is likely to provide fuel
efficiency benefits. We continue to believe that both agencies must
perform a more comprehensive assessment of the trailer industry, and
therefore that their inclusion at this time is not feasible. Until that
time, the SmartWay Transport Partnership Program will continue to
encourage the development and use of technologies to reduce fuel
consumption and CO2 emissions from trailers.
X. Public Participation
The agencies proposed their respective rules on November 30, 2010
(75 FR 74152). Two public hearings were held to provide interested
parties the opportunity to present data, views, or arguments concerning
the proposal; the first hearing was held in Chicago, IL on November 15,
2010, and the second in Cambridge, MA on November 18, 2010. The public
was invited to submit written comments on the proposal during the
formal comment period, which ended on January 31, 2011. The agencies
received over 41,000 comments--over 3,000 of them unique--from
industry, environmental organizations, states, and individuals.
The vast majority of commenters supported the central tenets of the
proposed HD National Program. That is, there was broad support for a
national program which would reduce fuel consumption and GHG emissions
from the three heavy-duty regulatory categories--heavy-duty pickup
trucks and vans, vocational vehicles, and combination tractors. The
agencies received specific comments on many aspects of the proposal.
Throughout this notice, the agencies discuss many of the key issues
arising from the public comments and the agencies' responses. In
addition, the agencies have addressed all of the public comments in the
Response to Comments document associated with this final action and
located in the docket (Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162, or NHTSA-2010-
0079).
XI. NHTSA's Record of Decision
On May 21, 2010, President Obama issued a memorandum entitled
``Improving Energy Security, American Competitiveness and Job Creation,
and Environmental Protection through a Transformation of our Nation's
Fleet of Cars and Trucks'' to the Secretary of Transportation, the
Administrator of NHTSA, the Administrator of EPA, and the Secretary of
Energy.\574\ The memorandum requested that the Administrators of EPA
and NHTSA begin work on a Joint Rulemaking under EISA and the Clean Air
Act and establish fuel efficiency and GHG emission standards for
commercial medium- and heavy-duty vehicles beginning with MY 2014. The
President requested that NHTSA implement fuel efficiency standards and
EPA implement GHG emission standards that take into account the market
structure of the trucking industry and the unique demands of heavy-duty
vehicle applications; seek harmonization with applicable State
standards; consider the findings and recommendations published in the
National Academy of
[[Page 57363]]
Sciences (NAS) report on medium- and heavy-duty truck regulation;
strengthen the industry and enhance job creation in the United States;
and seek input from all stakeholders, while recognizing the continued
leadership role of California and other States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\574\ The White House, Office of the Press Secretary,
Presidential Memorandum Regarding Fuel Efficiency Standards (May 21,
2010); The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, President
Obama Directs Administration to Create First-Ever National
Efficiency and Emissions Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Trucks
(May 21, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with this policy, this Final Rule promulgates fuel
efficiency standards for HD vehicles built in MYs 2014-2018. This Final
Rule constitutes the Record of Decision (ROD) for NHTSA's HD vehicle
Fuel Efficiency Improvement Program, pursuant to the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Council on Environmental
Quality's (CEQ) implementing regulations.\575\ See 40 CFR1505.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\575\ NEPA is codified at 42 U.S.C. 4321-47. CEQ NEPA
implementing regulations are codified at 40 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) Parts 1500-08.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As required by CEQ regulations, this Final Rule and ROD sets forth
the following: (1) the agency's decision; (2) alternatives considered
by NHTSA in reaching its decision, including the environmentally
preferable alternative; (3) the factors balanced by NHTSA in making its
decision, including considerations of national policy; (4) how these
factors and considerations entered into its decision; and (5) the
agency's preferences among alternatives based on relevant factors,
including economic and technical considerations and agency statutory
missions. This Final Rule also briefly addresses mitigation.
A. The Agency's Decision
In the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and the Final
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), the agency identified a
Preferred Alternative which would set overall fuel consumption
standards for HD vehicles and engines. The Preferred Alternative,
identified as Alternative 3 in the FEIS, would include standards for
engines used in Classes 2b-8 vocational vehicles (except engines in HD
pickups and vans, which are regulated as complete vehicles), fuel
consumption standards for HD pickups and vans by work factor, overall
vehicle fuel consumption standards for Classes 2b-8 vocational vehicles
(in gal/1,000 ton-miles), and overall fuel consumption standards for
Classes 7 and 8 tractors.
The Preferred Alternative identified in the NPRM, DEIS, and FEIS
assumed that the vocational vehicle standards would lead to a 10
percent reduction in the tire rolling resistance levels of the tires
installed in vocational vehicles. After carefully reviewing and
analyzing all of the information in the public record including
technical support documents, the FEIS, and public and agency comments
submitted on the DEIS, the FEIS, and the NPRM, NHTSA has decided to
finalize a standard that includes slightly more stringent requirements
for vocational vehicles than those included in the Preferred
Alternative analyzed in the FEIS. Subsequent to issuing the proposed
rule, NHTSA and EPA conducted a tire testing program to evaluate the
tire rolling resistance of 156 different tires across a wide range of
truck applications. The results of the study indicate that the baseline
tire rolling resistance of this segment of vehicles was better than the
level assumed during the proposal. In the final action, therefore, the
agencies made the vocational truck standards slightly more stringent
than those included as part of the Preferred Alternative for the FEIS,
reflecting the better overall performance of tires in this segment. In
addition, the agencies have reduced the projected improvement in
average tire performance from 10 percent to 5 percent, reflecting the
better than expected baseline performance. NHTSA's analysis indicates
that the Agency's Decision will result in slightly less fuel savings
and CO2 emissions reductions than those noted in the
EIS.\576\ For environmental impacts associated with the final rule, see
Sections VI.C and VII of this Final Rule.\577\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\576\ The agencies' analysis indicates that the change results
in a decrease in total 2014-2050 fuel savings of about 1.05% percent
compared to the Preferred Alternative modeled in the EIS and a
corresponding increase in CO2 emissions.
\577\ The environmental impacts of this decision fall within the
spectrum of impacts analyzed in the DEIS and the FEIS. There are no
``substantial changes to the proposed action'' and there are no
``significant new circumstances or information relevant to
environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its
impacts.'' Therefore, consistent with 40 CFR 1502.9(c), no
supplement to the EIS is required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Alternatives Considered by NHTSA in Reaching Its Decision, Including
the Environmentally Preferable Alternative
When preparing an EIS, NEPA requires an agency to compare the
potential environmental impacts of its proposed action and a reasonable
range of alternatives. In the FEIS, NHTSA identified alternatives that
represent the spectrum of potential actions the agency could take. The
environmental impacts of these alternatives, in turn, represent the
spectrum of potential environmental impacts that could result from
NHTSA's chosen action in setting fuel efficiency standards for HD
vehicles.
The FEIS analyzed the impacts of four ``action'' alternatives, each
of which would separately regulate segments of the HD vehicle
fleet.\578\ Three of the action alternatives (Alternatives 2, 3 and 4)
would regulate the same vehicle categories, but at increasing levels of
stringency, with Alternative 2 being the least stringent alternative
and Alternative 4 being the most stringent. Alternatives 2 and 4 were
constructed by starting with the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 3)
and either removing the least cost effective technology in each of the
vehicle categories or adding the next most cost effective technology in
each of the vehicle categories.\579\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\578\ In the DEIS, NHTSA analyzed several alternatives that
applied only to specific components and/or segments of the HD
vehicle fleet. Many commenters urged the agency to consider
alternatives that applied to the entire HD vehicle fleet, reasoning
that such an approach would be more consistent with EISA
requirements. After careful consideration, NHTSA decided that those
alternatives that would set standards for the whole fleet--that is,
the engine as well as the entire vehicle for pickup trucks and vans,
vocational vehicles, and tractors--best met the purpose and need for
this action. It also allows for the achievement of the ``maximum
feasible improvement'' in HD fuel efficiency. Therefore, the FEIS
examined impacts associated with four of the action alternatives
analyzed in the DEIS.
\579\ See Section 2.3.2 of the FEIS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternative 5 built on the Preferred Alternative by adding a
performance standard for the commercial trailers pulled by tractors and
by specifying more stringent standards based on accelerated adoption of
hybrid powertrains for HD vehicles. The DEIS and FEIS also analyzed the
impacts that would be expected if NHTSA adopted no HD vehicle standards
(the No Action Alternative). For a discussion of the environmental
impacts associated with each of the alternatives, see Chapters 3 and 4
of the FEIS.
Along with the FEIS, the agency conducted a national-scale
photochemical air quality modeling and health risk assessment for a
subset of the DEIS alternatives to support and confirm the health
effects and health-related economic estimates of the EIS. The
photochemical air quality study is included as Appendix F to the FEIS.
The study used air quality modeling and health benefits analysis tools
to quantify the air quality and health-related benefits associated with
the alternative HD standards.
NHTSA's environmental analysis indicates that Alternative 5
(Trailers and Accelerated Hybrid) is the overall Environmentally
Preferable Alternative because it would result in the largest
reductions in fuel use and GHG emissions among the alternatives
[[Page 57364]]
considered. Under each action alternative the agency considered, the
reduction in fuel consumption resulting from higher fuel efficiency
causes emissions that occur during fuel refining and distribution to
decline. For most pollutants, this decline is more than sufficient to
offset the increase in tailpipe emissions that results from increased
driving due to the fuel efficiency rebound effect, leading to a net
reduction in total emissions from fuel production, distribution, and
use. Because it leads to the largest reductions in fuel refining,
distribution, and consumption among the alternatives considered,
Alternative 5 would also lead to the lowest total emissions of
CO2 and other GHGs, as well as most criteria air pollutants
and mobile source air toxics (MSATs).\580\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\580\ Emissions of fine particulate matter (PM2.5)
and diesel particulate matter (DPM) for Alternative 5 are forecast
to be lower than under other action alternatives under all analysis
years, but slightly higher than under the No Action Alternative in
analysis years 2030 and 2050. See FEIS Tables 3.5.2-1 and 3.5.2-5.
This anomaly results from the agencies' assumptions regarding the
percent of all long-haul tractors that use an APU rather than the
truck's engine as a power source during extended idling (discussed
further in FEIS Section 3.2.4.1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA's environmental analysis indicates that emissions of carbon
monoxide (CO), acrolein, acetaldehyde, and formaldehyde are slightly
(less than one percent) higher under Alternative 5 than under some
other action alternatives and analysis years. This occurs when
increased tailpipe emissions are forecast to exceed the reductions in
emissions due to reduced fuel refining and distribution. Thus, while
Alternative 5 is the environmentally preferable alternative on the
basis of CO2 and other GHGs, and on the basis of most
criteria air pollutants and MSATs, other alternatives are
environmentally preferable from the standpoint of some criteria air
pollutants and MSATs in some years. Overall, NHTSA considers
Alternative 5 to be the Environmentally Preferable Alternative.
For additional discussion regarding the alternatives considered by
the agency in reaching its decision, including the Environmentally
Preferable Alternative, see Section IX of this Final Rule. For a
discussion of the environmental impacts associated with each
alternative, see Chapters 3 and 4 of the FEIS.
C. Factors Balanced by NHTSA in Making Its Decision
For discussion of the factors balanced by NHTSA in making its
decision, see Sections III, VIII and IX of this Final Rule.
D. How the Factors and Considerations Balanced by NHTSA Entered Into
Its Decision
For discussion of how the factors and considerations balanced by
the agency entered into NHTSA's Decision, see Sections III, VIII and IX
of this Final Rule.
E. The Agency's Preferences among Alternatives Based on Relevant
Factors, Including Economic and Technical Considerations and Agency
Statutory Missions
For discussion of the agency's preferences among alternatives based
on relevant factors, including economic and technical considerations,
see Section VIII and IX of this Final Rule.
F. Mitigation
The CEQ regulations specify that a ROD must ``state whether all
practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm from the
alternative selected have been adopted, and if not, why they were
not.'' 49 CFR 1505.2(c). The majority of the environmental effects of
NHTSA's action are positive, i.e., beneficial environmental impacts,
and would not raise issues of mitigation. Emissions of criteria and
toxic air pollutants are generally projected to decrease under the
final standards under all analysis years as compared to their levels
under the No Action Alternative. Analysis of the environmental trends
reported in the FEIS indicates that the only exceptions to this decline
are emissions of PM2.5, DPM, and 1,3-butadiene in some
analysis years. See Chapter 5 of the FEIS. The agency forecasts these
emissions increases because, under all the alternatives analyzed in the
EIS, increase in vehicle use due to improved fuel efficiency is
projected to result in growth in total miles traveled by HD vehicles.
The growth in travel outpaces emissions reductions for some pollutants,
resulting in projected increases for these pollutants. In addition,
NHTSA's NEPA analysis predicted increases in emissions of air toxic and
criteria pollutants to occur under certain alternatives based on
assumptions about the use of Auxiliary Power Units (APUs). For example,
NHTSA's NEPA analysis assumes that some manufacturers will install
anti-idling technologies (including APUs) on some vehicle classes to
meet the requirements of the rule and that drivers' subsequent use of
those APUs will result in an increase in emissions of some criteria and
toxic air pollutants.
NHTSA's authority to promulgate new fuel efficiency standards for
HD vehicles is limited and does not allow regulation of vehicle
emissions or of factors affecting vehicle emissions, including driving
habits and APU usage. Consequently, under the HD Fuel Efficiency
Improvement Program, NHTSA must set standards but is unable to take
steps to mitigate the impacts of these standards. Chapter 5 of the FEIS
outlines a number of other initiatives across government that could
ameliorate the environmental impacts of motor vehicle use, including
the use of HD vehicles.
XII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
(1) Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
Under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993), this action is an ``economically significant
regulatory action'' because it is likely to have an annual effect on
the economy of $100 million or more. Accordingly, the agencies
submitted this action to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for
review under Executive Order 12866 and any changes made in response to
OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket for this action.
The agencies are also subject to Executive Order 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011) and NHTSA is subject to the Department of
Transportation's Regulatory Policies and Procedures. These final rules
are also significant within the meaning of the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures. Executive Order 12866 additionally requires NHTSA to
submit this action to OMB for review and document any changes made in
response to OMB recommendations.
In addition, the agencies prepared an analysis of the potential
costs, fuel savings, and benefits associated with this action. This
analysis is contained in the Regulatory Impact Analysis, which is
available in the docket for these rules and at the docket Internet
address listed under ADDRESSES above and is briefly summarized in Table
XII-1.
[[Page 57365]]
Table XII-1--Estimated Lifetime Discounted Costs, Benefits, and Net
Benefits for 2014-2018 Model Year HD Vehicles a, b
[Billion 2009$]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lifetime Present Value \c\--3% Discount Rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program Costs........................................ $8.1
Fuel Savings......................................... 50
Benefits............................................. 7.3
Net Benefits \d\..................................... 49
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized Value \e\--3% Discount Rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized Costs..................................... 0.4
Fuel Savings......................................... 2.2
Annualized Benefits.................................. 0.4
Net Benefits \d\..................................... 2.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lifetime Present Value \c\--7% Discount Rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program Costs........................................ 8.1
Fuel Savings......................................... 34
Benefits............................................. 6.7
Net Benefits \d\..................................... $33
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized Value \e\--7% Discount Rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized Costs..................................... 0.6
Fuel Savings......................................... 2.6
Annualized Benefits.................................. 0.5
Net Benefits \d\..................................... 2.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
\a\ The agencies estimated the benefits associated with four different
values of a one ton CO2 reduction (model average at 2.5% discount
rate, 3%, and 5%; 95th percentile at 3%), which each increase over
time. For the purposes of this overview presentation of estimated
costs and benefits, however, we are showing the benefits associated
with the marginal value deemed to be central by the interagency
working group on this topic: the model average at 3% discount rate, in
2009 dollars. Section VIII.F provides a complete list of values for
the 4 estimates.
\b\ Note that net 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 (SCC at 5, 3, and
2.5 percent) is used to calculate net present value of SCC for
internal consistency. Refer to Section VIII.F for more detail.
\c\ Present value is the total, aggregated amount that a series of
monetized costs or benefits that occur over time is worth now (in year
2009 dollar terms), discounting future values to the present.
\d\ Net benefits reflect the fuel savings plus benefits minus costs.
\e\ The annualized value is the constant annual value through a given
time period (2012 through 2050 in this analysis) whose summed present
value equals the present value from which it was derived.
(2) National Environmental Policy Act
Under NEPA, a Federal agency must prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) on proposed actions that could significantly impact the
quality of the human environment. The requirement is designed to serve
three major functions: (1) To provide the decisionmaker(s) with a
detailed description of the potential environmental impacts of a
proposed action prior to its adoption, (2) to rigorously explore and
evaluate all reasonable alternatives, and (3) to inform the public of,
and allow comment on, such efforts.
In addition, the CEQ regulations emphasize agency cooperation early
in the NEPA process and allow a lead agency (in this case, NHTSA) to
request the assistance of other agencies that either have jurisdiction
by law or have special expertise regarding issues considered in an
EIS.\581\ At NHTSA's request, both EPA and the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration (FMCSA) agreed to act as cooperating agencies in
the preparation of the EIS. EPA has special expertise in climate change
and air quality, and FMCSA has special expertise regarding HD vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\581\ 40 CFR 1501.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA, in cooperation with EPA and FMCSA, prepared a DEIS,
solicited public comments in writing and in public hearings, and
prepared an FEIS responding to those comments. Specifically, in June
2010, NHTSA published a Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS for proposed
HD fuel efficiency standards.\582\ See 40 CFR 1501.7. On October 29,
2010, EPA issued its Notice of Availability of the DEIS,\583\
triggering a public comment period. See 40 CFR 1506.10. The public was
invited to submit written comments on the DEIS until January 3, 2011.
NHTSA mailed (both electronically and through regular U.S. mail) copies
of the DEIS to interested parties, including federal, state, and local
officials and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public
interest groups; Native American tribes; and other interested
individuals. NHTSA and EPA held two hearings on the proposed rules and
the EIS, the first on November 15, 2010 in Chicago, Illinois, and the
second on November 18, 2010 in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\582\ See Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement for New Medium- and Heavy-Duty Fuel Efficiency Improvement
Program, 75 FR 33565 (June 14, 2010).
\583\ Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability,
75 FR 66756 (Oct. 29, 2010); NHTSA also published a separate Notice
of Availability describing the program in greater detail, 75 FR
68312 (Nov. 5, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA received 3,048 written comments to the DEIS and the NPRM. The
transcript from the public hearing and written comments submitted to
NHTSA are part of the administrative record and are available on the
Federal Docket, which can be found online at http://www.regulations.gov, Reference Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0079. NHTSA
reviewed and analyzed all comments received during the public comment
period and revised the FEIS in response
[[Page 57366]]
to comments on the EIS where appropriate.\584\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\584\ The agency also changed the FEIS as a result of updated
information that became available after issuance of the DEIS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 20, 2011, NHTSA submitted the FEIS to EPA. NHTSA also
mailed (both electronically and through regular U.S. mail) the FEIS to
interested parties and posted the FEIS on its Web site, http://www.nhtsa.gov/fuel-economy. On June 24, 2011, EPA published a Notice of
Availability of the FEIS in the Federal Register.\585\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\585\ 76 FR 37111 (June 24, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FEIS analyzes and discloses the potential environmental impacts
of the proposed HD fuel efficiency standards pursuant to the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the CEQ regulations implementing NEPA,
DOT Order 5610.1C, and NHTSA regulations.\586\ The FEIS compares the
potential environmental impacts of alternative standards considered by
NHTSA for the final rule. It also analyzes direct, indirect, and
cumulative impacts and analyzes impacts in proportion to their
significance. See the FEIS and the FEIS Summary for a discussion of the
environmental impacts analyzed. Docket No. NHTSA-2011-0079.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\586\ NEPA is codified at 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347. CEQ NEPA
implementing regulations are codified at 40 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) Parts 1500-1508. NHTSA NEPA implementing
regulations are codified at 49 CFR part 520.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The standards adopted in this Final Rule have been informed by
analyses contained in the Medium- and Heavy-Duty Fuel Efficiency
Improvement Program, Final Environmental Impact Statement, Docket No.
NHTSA-2010-0079 (FEIS). For purposes of this rulemaking, the agency
referred to an extensive compilation of technical and policy documents
available in NHTSA's EIS/Rulemaking docket and EPA's docket. NHTSA's
EIS and rulemaking docket and EPA's rulemaking docket can be found
online at http://www.regulations.gov, Reference Docket Nos.: NHTSA-
2010-0079 (EIS and Rulemaking) and EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162 (EPA
Rulemaking).
Based on the foregoing, the agency concludes that the environmental
analysis and public involvement process complies with NEPA implementing
regulations issued by CEQ, DOT Order 5610.1C, and NHTSA regulations.
(a) Clean Air Act (CAA)
The CAA (42 U.S.C. Sec. 7401) is the primary Federal legislation
that addresses air quality. Under the authority of the CAA and
subsequent amendments, the EPA has established National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) for six criteria pollutants, which are
relatively commonplace pollutants that can accumulate in the atmosphere
as a result of normal levels of human activity. The EPA is required to
review each NAAQS every five years and to change the standards if
warranted by new scientific information.
The air quality of a geographic region is usually assessed by
comparing the levels of criteria air pollutants found in the atmosphere
to the applicable NAAQS. Concentrations of criteria pollutants within
the air mass of a region are measured in parts of a pollutant per
million parts of air (ppm) or in micrograms of a pollutant per cubic
meter ([mu]g/m3) of air present in repeated air samples taken at
designated monitoring locations. These ambient concentrations of each
criteria pollutant are compared to the permissible levels specified by
the NAAQS in order to assess whether the region's air quality attains
the standard.
When the measured concentrations of a criteria pollutant within a
geographic region are below those permitted by the NAAQS, the region is
designated by the EPA as an attainment area for that pollutant, while
regions where concentrations of criteria pollutants exceed the NAAQS
are called nonattainment areas (NAAs). Former NAAs that have attained
the NAAQS are designated as maintenance areas. Each NAA is required to
develop and implement a State Implementation Plan (SIP), which
documents how the region will reach attainment levels within time
periods specified in the CAA. In maintenance areas, the SIP documents
how the State intends to maintain compliance with the NAAQS. When EPA
changes a NAAQS, States must revise their SIPs to address how they will
attain the new standard.
Section 176(c) of the CAA prohibits Federal agencies from taking
actions in nonattainment or maintenance areas that do not ``conform''
to the State Implementation Plan (SIP). The purpose of this conformity
requirement is to ensure that Federal activities do not interfere with
meeting the emissions targets in the SIPs, do not cause or contribute
to new violations of the NAAQS, and do not impede the ability to attain
or maintain the NAAQS. The EPA has issued two sets of regulations to
implement CAA Section 176(c):
The Transportation Conformity Rules (40 CFR part 93,
subpart A), which apply to transportation plans, programs, and projects
funded or approved under U.S.C. Title 23 or the Federal Transit Laws
(49 U.S.C. chapter 53). Projects funded by the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) or the Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
usually are subject to transportation conformity. See 40 CFR 93.102.
The General Conformity Rules (40 CFR part 93, subpart B)
apply to all other federal actions not covered under transportation
conformity. The General Conformity Rule established emissions
thresholds, or de minimis levels, for use in evaluating the conformity
of a project. If the net emissions increases attributable to the
project are less than these thresholds, then the project is presumed to
conform and no further conformity evaluation is required. If the
emissions increases exceed any of these thresholds, then a conformity
determination is required. The conformity determination can entail air
quality modeling studies, consultation with EPA and state air quality
agencies, and commitments to revise the SIP or to implement measures to
mitigate air quality impacts.
The final fuel consumption standards and associated program
activities are not funded or approved under U.S.C. Title 23 or the
Federal Transit Act. Further, NHTSA's HD Fuel Efficiency Improvement
Program is not a highway or transit project funded or approved by FHWA
or FTA. Accordingly, the standards and associated rulemakings are not
subject to transportation conformity.
Under the General Conformity Rule, a conformity determination is
required where a Federal action would result in total direct and
indirect emissions of a criteria pollutant or precursor equaling or
exceeding the rates specified in 40 CFR 93.153(b)(1) and (2) for
nonattainment and maintenance areas. As explained below, NHTSA's action
results in neither direct nor indirect emissions as defined in 40 CFR
93.152.
The General Conformity Rule defines direct emissions as those of
``a criteria pollutant or its precursors that are caused or initiated
by the Federal action and originate in a nonattainment or maintenance
area and occur at the same time and place as the action and are
reasonably foreseeable.'' 40 CFR 93.152. Because NHTSA's action only
sets fuel consumption standards for HD vehicles, it causes no direct
emissions within the meaning of the General Conformity Rule.
Indirect emissions under the General Conformity Rule include
emissions or precursors: (1) That are caused or initiated by the
Federal action and originate in the same nonattainment or maintenance
area but occur at a different time or place than the action; (2) that
are reasonably foreseeable; (3)
[[Page 57367]]
that the agency can practically control; and (4) for which the agency
has continuing program responsibility. 40 CFR 93.152. Each element of
the definition must be met to qualify as an indirect emission. NHTSA
has determined that, for the purposes of general conformity, emissions
that occur as a result of the fuel consumption standards are not caused
by NHTSA's action, but rather occur due to subsequent activities that
the agency cannot practically control. ``[E]ven if a Federal licensing,
rulemaking, or other approving action is a required initial step for a
subsequent activity that causes emissions, such initial steps do not
mean that a Federal agency can practically control any resulting
emissions'' (75 FR 17254, 17260; 40 CFR 93.152). NHTSA cannot control
vehicle manufacturers' production of HD vehicles and consumer
purchasing and driving behavior. For the purposes of analyzing the
environmental impacts of this action under NEPA, NHTSA has made
assumptions regarding the technologies manufacturers will install and
how companies will react to increased fuel efficiency standards.
Specifically, NHTSA's NEPA analysis predicted increases in air toxic
and criteria pollutants to occur in some nonattainment areas under
certain alternatives based on assumptions about the use of APUs and the
rebound effect. For example, NHTSA's NEPA analysis assumes that some
manufacturers will install anti-idling technologies (including APUs) on
some vehicle classes to meet the requirements of the program and that
drivers' subsequent use of those APUs will result in an increase in
some criteria pollutants. However, neither NHTSA's nor EPA's rules
mandate this specific manufacturer decision or driver behavior--the
program does not require that manufacturers install APUs to meet the
requirements of the rule, and it does not require drivers to use anti-
idling technologies instead of, for example, shutting off all power
when parked. Similarly, NHTSA's NEPA analysis assumes a rebound effect,
wherein the standards could create an incentive for additional vehicle
use by reducing the cost of fuel consumed per mile driven. This rebound
effect is an estimate of how NHTSA assumes some drivers will react to
the rule and is useful for estimating the costs and benefits of the
rule, but the agency does not have the statutory authority, or the
program responsibility, to control, among other items discussed above,
the actual vehicle miles traveled by drivers. Accordingly, changes in
any emissions that result from NHTSA's HD vehicle Fuel Efficiency
Improvement Program are not changes that the agency can practically
control; therefore, this action causes no indirect emissions and a
general conformity determination is not required.
(b) National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)
The NHPA (16 U.S.C. 470) sets forth government policy and
procedures regarding ``historic properties''--that is, districts,
sites, buildings, structures, and objects included in or eligible for
the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). See also 36 CFR part
800. Section 106 of the NHPA requires federal agencies to ``take into
account'' the effects of their actions on historic properties. The
agency concludes that the NHPA is not applicable to NHTSA's Decision
because it does not directly involve historic properties. The agency
has, however, conducted a qualitative review of the related direct,
indirect, and cumulative impacts, positive or negative, of the
alternatives on potentially affected resources, including historic and
cultural resources. See Section 4.5 of the FEIS.
(c) Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice)
Under Executive Order 12898, Federal agencies are required to
identify and address any disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and
activities on minority populations and low-income populations. NHTSA
complied with this order by identifying and addressing the potential
effects of the alternatives on minority and low-income populations in
Sections 3.6 and 4.6 of the FEIS, where the agency set forth a
qualitative analysis of the cumulative effects of the alternatives on
these populations.
(d) Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act (FWCA)
The FWCA (16 U.S.C. Sec. 2900) provides financial and technical
assistance to States for the development, revision, and implementation
of conservation plans and programs for nongame fish and wildlife. In
addition, the Act encourages all Federal agencies and departments to
utilize their authority to conserve and to promote conservation of
nongame fish and wildlife and their habitats. The agency concludes that
the FWCA is not applicable to NHTSA's Decision because it does not
directly involve fish and wildlife.
(e) Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)
The Coastal Zone Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1450) provides for the
preservation, protection, development, and (where possible) restoration
and enhancement of the nation's coastal zone resources. Under the
statute, States are provided with funds and technical assistance in
developing coastal zone management programs. Each participating State
must submit its program to the Secretary of Commerce for approval. Once
the program has been approved, any activity of a Federal agency, either
within or outside of the coastal zone, that affects any land or water
use or natural resource of the coastal zone must be carried out in a
manner that is consistent, to the maximum extent practicable, with the
enforceable policies of the State's program.
The agency concludes that the CZMA is not applicable to NHTSA's
Decision because it does not involve an activity within, or outside of,
the nation's coastal zones. The agency has, however, conducted a
qualitative review of the related direct, indirect, and cumulative
impacts, positive or negative, of the alternatives on potentially
affected resources, including coastal zones. See Section 4.5 of the
FEIS.
(f) Endangered Species Act (ESA)
Under Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) federal
agencies must ensure that actions they authorize, fund, or carry out
are ``not likely to jeopardize'' federally listed threatened or
endangered species or result in the destruction or adverse modification
of the designated critical habitat of these species. 16 U.S.C.
1536(a)(2). If a federal agency determines that an agency action may
affect a listed species or designated critical habitat, it must
initiate consultation with the appropriate Service--the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) of the Department of the Interior and/or
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Marine
Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries Service) of the Department of
Commerce, depending on the species involved--in order to ensure that
the action is not likely to jeopardize the species or destroy or
adversely modify designated critical habitat. See 50 CFR 402.14. Under
this standard, the federal agency taking action evaluates the possible
effects of its action and determines whether to initiate consultation.
See 51 FR 19926, 19949 (Jun. 3, 1986).
[[Page 57368]]
NHTSA received one comment to the Scoping notice for the HD program
indicating that the agency should engage in consultation under Section
7 of the ESA when analyzing the overall impact of GHG emissions and
other air pollutants. NHTSA has reviewed applicable ESA regulations,
case law, guidance, and rulings in assessing the potential for impacts
to threatened and endangered species from the HD fuel efficiency
standards. Consistent with NHTSA's determination under the agency's
most recent light-duty fuel economy rule, NHTSA believes that the
agency's action, which will result in nationwide fuel savings and,
consequently, emissions reductions from what would otherwise occur in
the absence of the agency's action, does not require consultation with
NOAA Fisheries Service or the FWS under Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA. For
discussion of the agency's rationale in the context of the CAFE
program, see Appendix G of the FEIS for MYs 2012-2016, available at:
http://www.nhtsa.gov/fuel-economy. Accordingly, NHTSA has concluded its
review of this action under Section 7 of the ESA.
(g) Floodplain Management (Executive Order 11988 & DOT Order 5650.2)
These Orders require Federal agencies to avoid the long- and short-
term adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of
floodplains, and to restore and preserve the natural and beneficial
values served by floodplains. Executive Order 11988 also directs
agencies to minimize the impact of floods on human safety, health and
welfare, and to restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values
served by floodplains through evaluating the potential effects of any
actions the agency may take in a floodplain and ensuring that its
program planning and budget requests reflect consideration of flood
hazards and floodplain management. DOT Order 5650.2 sets forth DOT
policies and procedures for implementing Executive Order 11988. The DOT
Order requires that the agency determine if a proposed action is within
the limits of a base floodplain, meaning it is encroaching on the
floodplain, and whether this encroachment is significant. If
significant, the agency is required to conduct further analysis of the
proposed action and any practicable alternatives. If a practicable
alternative avoids floodplain encroachment, then the agency is required
to implement it.
In this rulemaking, the agency is not occupying, modifying and/or
encroaching on floodplains. The agency, therefore, concludes that the
Orders are not applicable to NHTSA's Decision. The agency has, however,
conducted a review of the alternatives on potentially affected
resources, including floodplains. See Section 4.5 of the FEIS.
(h) Preservation of the Nation's Wetlands (Executive Order 11990 & DOT
Order 5660.1a)
These Orders require Federal agencies to avoid, to the extent
possible, undertaking or providing assistance for new construction
located in wetlands unless the agency head finds that there is no
practicable alternative to such construction and that the proposed
action includes all practicable measures to minimize harms to wetlands
that may result from such use. Executive Order 11990 also directs
agencies to take action to minimize the destruction, loss or
degradation of wetlands in ``conducting Federal activities and programs
affecting land use, including but not limited to water and related land
resources planning, regulating, and licensing activities.'' DOT Order
5660.1a sets forth DOT policy for interpreting Executive Order 11990
and requires that transportation projects ``located in or having an
impact on wetlands'' should be conducted to assure protection of the
Nation's wetlands. If a project does have a significant impact on
wetlands, an EIS must be prepared.
The agency is not undertaking or providing assistance for new
construction located in wetlands. The agency, therefore, concludes that
these Orders do not apply to NHTSA's Decision. The agency has, however,
conducted a review of the alternatives on potentially affected
resources, including wetlands. See Section 4.5 of the FEIS.
(i) Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), Bald and Golden Eagle Protection
Act (BGEPA), Executive Order 13186
The MBTA provides for the protection of migratory birds that are
native to the United States by making it illegal for anyone to pursue,
hunt, take, attempt to take, kill, capture, collect, possess, buy,
sell, trade, ship, import, or export any migratory bird covered under
the statute. The statute prohibits both intentional and unintentional
acts. Therefore, the statute is violated if an agency acts in a manner
that harms a migratory bird, whether it was intended or not. See, e.g.,
United States v. FMC Corp., 572 F.2d 902 (2nd Cir. 1978).
The BGEPA (16 U.S.C. 668) prohibits any form of possession or
taking of both bald and golden eagles. Under the BGEPA, violators are
subject to criminal and civil sanctions as well as an enhanced penalty
provision for subsequent offenses.
Executive Order 13186, ``Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to
Protect Migratory Birds,'' helps to further the purposes of the MBTA by
requiring a Federal agency to develop a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) with the Fish and Wildlife Service when it is taking an action
that has (or is likely to have) a measurable negative impact on
migratory bird populations.
The agency concludes that the MBTA, BGEPA, and Executive Order
13186 do not apply to NHTSA's Decision because there is no disturbance
and/or take involved in NHTSA's Decision.
(j) Department of Transportation Act (Section 4(f))
Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (49
U.S.C. 303), as amended by Public Law 109-59, is designed to preserve
publicly owned parklands, waterfowl and wildlife refuges, and
significant historic sites. Specifically, Section 4(f) of the
Department of Transportation Act provides that DOT agencies cannot
approve a transportation program or project that requires the use of
any publicly owned land from a significant public park, recreation
area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or any land from a significant
historic site, unless a determination is made that:
There is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of
land, and
The program or project includes all possible planning to
minimize harm to the property resulting from use, or
A transportation use of Section 4(f) property results in a
de minimis impact.
The agency concludes that the Section 4(f) is not applicable to
NHTSA's Decision because this rulemaking does not require the use of
any publicly owned land. For a more detailed discussion, please see
Section 3.1 of the FEIS.
(3) Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in these rules have been
submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The information collection requirements are not
enforceable until OMB approves them.
The agencies propose to collect information to ensure compliance
with the provisions in these rules. This includes a variety of testing,
reporting and recordkeeping 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
[[Page 57369]]
regulations; submission of the information is therefore mandatory. We
will consider confidential all information meeting the requirements of
section 208(c) of the CAA.
It is estimated that this collection affects approximately 34
engine and vehicle manufacturers. The information that is subject to
this collection is collected whenever a manufacturer applies for a
certificate of conformity. Under section 206 of the CAA (42 U.S.C.
7521), a manufacturer must have a certificate of conformity before a
vehicle or engine can be introduced into commerce.
The burden to the manufacturers affected by these rules has a range
based on the number of engines and vehicles a manufacturer produces.
The total estimated burden associated with these rules is 58,064 hours
annually (See Table XII-2). This estimated burden for engine and
vehicle manufacturers is a total estimate for new reporting
requirements. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
Table XII-2--Burden for Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Affected Manufacturers...................... 34
Annual Labor Hours for Each Manufacturer to Prepare Varies
and Submit Required Information......................
Total Annual Information Collection Burden............ 58,064 Hours
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When this ICR is approved by
OMB, the agency will publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 in
the Federal Register to display the OMB control number for the approved
information collection requirements contained in this final action.
(4) Regulatory Flexibility Act
(a) Overview
The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice
and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure
Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations,
and small governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of these rules on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined
by SBA regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental
jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school
district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and
(3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
(b) Summary of Potentially Affected Small Entities
The agencies have not conducted a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
for this action because the agencies are certifying that these rules
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. As proposed, the agencies are deferring standards for
manufacturers meeting SBA's definition of small business as described
in 13 CFR 121.201 due to the extremely small fuel savings and emissions
contribution of these entities, and the short lead time to develop
these rules, especially with our expectation that the program would
need to be structured differently for them (which would require more
time). The agencies are instead envisioning fuel consumption and GHG
emissions standards for these entities as part of a future regulatory
action. This includes small entities in several distinct categories of
businesses for heavy-duty engines and vehicles: chassis manufacturers,
combination tractor manufacturers, and alternative fuel engine
converters.
Based on a preliminary assessment, the agencies have identified a
total of about 17 engine manufacturers, 3 complete pickup truck and van
manufacturers, 11 combination tractor manufacturers and 43 heavy-duty
chassis manufacturers. Notably, several of these manufacturers produce
vehicles in more than just one regulatory category (HD pickup trucks/
vans, combination tractors, or vocational vehicles (i.e. heavy-duty
chassis manufacturers)). Based on the types of vehicles they
manufacture, these companies, however, would be subject to slightly
different testing and reporting requirements. Taking this feature of
the heavy-duty trucking sector into account, the agencies estimate that
although there are fewer than 30 manufacturers covered by the program,
there are close to 60 divisions within these companies that will be
subject to the final regulations. Of these, about 15 entities fit the
SBA criteria of a small business. There are approximately three engine
converters, two tractor manufacturers, and ten heavy-duty chassis
manufacturers in the heavy-duty engine and vehicle market that are
small businesses. (No major heavy-duty engine manufacturers, heavy-duty
chassis manufacturers, or tractor manufacturers meet the small-entity
criteria as defined by SBA). The agencies estimate that these small
entities comprise less than 0.35 percent of the total heavy-duty
vehicle sales in the United States, and therefore the deferment will
have a negligible impact on the fuel consumption and GHG emissions
reductions from the final standards.
To ensure that the agencies are aware of which companies are being
deferred, the agencies are requiring that such entities submit a
declaration to the agencies containing a detailed written description
of how that manufacturer qualifies as a small entity under the
provisions of 13 CFR 121.201. Some small entities, such as heavy-duty
tractor and chassis manufacturers, are not currently covered under
criteria pollutant motor vehicle emissions regulations. Small engine
entities are currently covered by a number of EPA motor vehicle
emission regulations, and they routinely submit information and data on
an annual basis as part of their compliance responsibilities. Because
such entities are not automatically exempted from other EPA regulations
for heavy-duty engines and vehicles, absent such a declaration, EPA
would assume that the entity was subject to the greenhouse gas control
requirements in this program. The declaration to the agencies will need
to be submitted at the time of either engine or vehicle emissions
certification under the HD highway engine program for criteria
pollutants. The agencies expect that the additional paperwork burden
associated with completing and submitting a small entity declaration to
gain deferral from the final GHG and fuel consumption standards will be
negligible and easily done in the context of other routine submittals
to the agencies. However, the
[[Page 57370]]
agencies have accounted for this cost with a nominal estimate included
in the Information Collection Request completed under the Paperwork
Reduction Act. Additional information can be found in the Paperwork
Reduction Act discussion in Section 0Paperwork Reduction Act. Based on
this, the agencies are certifying that the rules will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
(5) Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, the
agencies generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-
benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal
mandates'' that may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100
million or more in any one year. Before promulgating a rule for which a
written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires
the agencies to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory
alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective or least
burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The
provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with
applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows the agencies to adopt an
alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective or least
burdensome alternative if the Administrator (of either agency)
publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was
not adopted.
Before the agencies establish any regulatory requirements that may
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal
governments, they must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a
small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying
potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected
small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the
development of EPA and NHTSA regulations with significant Federal
intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising
small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
These rules contain no Federal mandates (under the regulatory
provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, or tribal
governments. The rules impose no enforceable duty on any State, local
or tribal governments. The agencies have determined that these rules
contain no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely
affect small governments. The agencies have determined that these rules
contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $134
million or more for the private sector in any one year. The agencies
believe that the program represents the least costly, most cost-
effective approach to achieve the statutory requirements of the rules.
Section VIII.L, above, explains why the agencies believe that the fuel
savings that will result from these rules will lead to lower prices
economy-wide, improving U.S. international competitiveness. The costs
and benefits associated with the program are discussed in more detail
above in Section VIII and in the Regulatory Impact Analysis, as
required by the UMRA.
Table XII-1, above, presents the rule-related benefits, fuel
savings, costs and net benefits in both present value terms and in
annualized terms. In both cases, the discounted values are based on an
underlying time varying stream of cost and benefit values that extend
into the future (2012 through 2050). The distribution of each monetized
economic impact over time can be viewed in the RIA that accompanies
these rules.
Present values represent the total amount that a stream of
monetized costs/benefits/net benefits that occur over time are worth
now (in year 2009 dollar terms for this analysis), accounting for the
time value of money by discounting future values using either a 3 or 7
percent discount rate, per OMB Circular A-4 guidance. An annualized
value takes the present value and converts it into a constant stream of
annual values through a given time period (2012 through 2050 in this
analysis) and thus averages (in present value terms) the annual values.
The present value of the constant stream of annualized values equals
the present value of the underlying time varying stream of values. The
ratio of benefits to costs is identical whether it is measured with
present values or annualized values.
It is important to note that annualized values cannot simply be
summed over time to reflect total costs/benefits/net benefits; they
must be discounted and summed. Additionally, the annualized value can
vary substantially from the time varying stream of cost/benefit/net
benefit values that occur in any given year.
(6) 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, as
specified in Executive Order 13132. These rules will apply to
manufacturers of motor vehicles and not to state or local governments.
Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action. Although
section 6 of Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action, the
agencies did consult with representatives of state governments in
developing this action.
NHTSA notes that EPCA contains a provision (49 U.S.C. 32919(a))
that expressly preempts any State or local government from adopting or
enforcing a law or regulation related to fuel economy standards or
average fuel economy standards for automobiles covered by an average
fuel economy standard under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 329. However, commercial
medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicles and work trucks are not
``automobiles,'' as defined in 49 U.S.C. 32901(a)(3). Accordingly,
NHTSA has tentatively concluded that EPCA's express preemption
provision would not reach the fuel efficiency standards to be
established in this rulemaking.
NHTSA also considered the issue of implied or conflict preemption.
The possibility of such preemption is dependent upon there being an
actual conflict between a standard established by NHTSA in this
rulemaking and a State or local law or regulation. See Spriestma v.
Mercury Marine, 537 U.S. 51, 64-65 (2002). At present, NHTSA has no
knowledge of any State or local law or regulation that would actually
conflict with one of the fuel efficiency standards being established in
this rulemaking.
(7) Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments)
These final rules do not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). These rules will
be implemented at the Federal level and impose compliance costs only on
vehicle manufacturers. Tribal governments would be affected only to the
extent they purchase and use regulated vehicles. Thus, Executive Order
13175 does not apply to these rules.
[[Page 57371]]
(8) Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks''
This action is subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April
23, 1997) because it is an economically significant regulatory action
as defined by Executive Order 12866, and the agencies believe that the
environmental health or safety risk addressed by this action may have a
disproportionate effect on children. A synthesis of the science and
research regarding how climate change may affect children and other
vulnerable subpopulations is contained in the Technical Support
Document for Endangerment or Cause or Contribute Findings for
Greenhouse Gases under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act, which can
be found in the public docket for these rules.\587\ A summary of the
analysis is presented below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\587\ See Endangerment TSD, Note 10, above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to GHG emissions, the effects of climate change
observed to date and projected to occur in the future include the
increased likelihood of more frequent and intense heat waves.
Specifically, EPA's analysis of the scientific assessment literature
has determined that severe heat waves are projected to intensify in
magnitude, frequency, and duration over the portions of the United
States where these events already occur, with potential increases in
mortality and morbidity, especially among the young, elderly, and
frail. EPA has estimated reductions in projected global mean surface
temperatures as a result of reductions in GHG emissions associated with
the final standards in this action (Section II). Children may receive
benefits from reductions in GHG emissions because they are included in
the segment of the population that is most vulnerable to extreme
temperatures.
For non-GHG pollutants, EPA has determined that climate change is
expected to increase regional ozone pollution, with associated risks in
respiratory infection, aggravation of asthma, and premature death. The
directional effect of climate change on ambient PM levels remains
uncertain. However, disturbances such as wildfires are increasing in
the United States and are likely to intensify in a warmer future with
drier soils and longer growing seasons. PM emissions from forest fires
can contribute to acute and chronic illnesses of the respiratory
system, particularly in children, including pneumonia, upper
respiratory diseases, asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary
diseases.
(9) Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)
This rulemaking is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined
in Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not likely to have a significant
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. In fact,
these rules have a positive effect on energy supply and use. Because
the final GHG emission and fuel consumption standards will result in
significant fuel savings, these rules encourage more efficient use of
fuels. Therefore, we have concluded that these rules are not likely to
have any adverse energy effects. Our energy effects analysis is
described above in Section VIII.I.
(10) National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs the agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials, specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs the
agencies to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the
agencies decide not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus
standards.
For CO2, N2O, and CH4 emissions
and fuel consumption from heavy-duty engines, the agencies will collect
data over the same tests that are used for the heavy-duty highway
engine program for criteria pollutants. This will minimize the amount
of testing done by manufacturers, since manufacturers are already
required to run these tests.
For CO2, N2O, and CH4 emissions
and fuel consumption from complete pickup trucks and vans, the agencies
will collect data over the same tests that are used for EPA's heavy-
duty highway engine program for criteria pollutants and for the
California Air Resources Board. This will minimize the amount of
testing done by manufacturers, since manufacturers are already required
to run these tests.
For CO2 emissions and fuel consumption from heavy-duty
combination tractors and vocational vehicles, the agencies will collect
data through the use of a simulation model instead of a full-vehicle
chassis dynamometer testing. This will minimize the amount of testing
done by manufacturers. EPA's compliance assessment tool is based upon
well-established engineering and physics principals that are the basis
of general academic understanding in this area, and the foundation of
any dynamic vehicle simulation model, including the models cited by
ICCT in its study.\588\ Therefore, the EPA's compliance assessment tool
satisfies the description of a consensus. For the evaluation of tire
rolling resistance input to the model, EPA is finalizing to use the ISO
28580 test, a voluntary consensus methodology. EPA is adopting several
alternatives for the evaluation of aerodynamics which allows the
industry to continue to use their own evaluation tools because EPA does
not know of a single consensus standard available for heavy-duty truck
aerodynamic evaluation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\588\ ICCT. ICCT Evaluation of Vehicle Simulation Tools. 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For air conditioning standards, EPA is finalizing a consensus
methodology developed by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE).
(11) 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) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
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 and low-income
populations in the United States.
With respect to GHG emissions, EPA has determined that these final
rules will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because
they increase the level of environmental protection for all affected
populations without having any disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects on any population, including any
minority or low-income population. The reductions in CO2 and
other GHGs associated with the standards will affect climate change
[[Page 57372]]
projections, and EPA has estimated reductions in projected global mean
surface temperatures (Section VI). Within communities experiencing
climate change, certain parts of the population may be especially
vulnerable; these include the poor, the elderly, those already in poor
health, the disabled, those living alone, and/or indigenous populations
dependent on one or a few resources.\589\ In addition, the U.S. Climate
Change Science Program stated as one of its conclusions: ``The United
States is certainly capable of adapting to the collective impacts of
climate change. However, there will still be certain individuals and
locations where the adaptive capacity is less and these individuals and
their communities will be disproportionally impacted by climate
change.'' \590\ Therefore, these specific sub-populations may receive
benefits from reductions in GHGs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\589\ See Endangerment TSD, Note 10, above.
\590\ CCSP (2008) Analyses of the effects of global change on
human health and welfare and human systems. A Report by the U.S.
Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change
Research. [Gamble, J.L. (ed.), K.L. Ebi, F.G. Sussman, T.J.
Wilbanks, (Authors)]. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC, USA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For non-GHG co-pollutants such as ozone, PM2.5, and
toxics, EPA has concluded that it is not practicable to determine
whether there would be disproportionately high and adverse human health
or environmental effects on minority and/or low income populations from
these rules.
(12) Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The agencies will submit a report containing these rules
and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rules in the Federal Register. A Major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2). These rules will be effective November 14, 2011, sixty days
after date of publication in the Federal Register.
(13) Privacy Act
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an organization, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act statement in the Federal Register (65 FR 19477-78,
April 11, 2000) or you may visit http://www.dot.gov/privacy.html.
XIII. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority
A. EPA
Statutory authority for the vehicle controls in these rules is
found in CAA section 202(a) (which requires EPA to establish standards
for emissions of pollutants from new motor vehicles and engines which
emissions cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be
anticipated to endanger public health or welfare), sections 202(d),
203-209, 216, and 301 of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7521 (a), 7521 (d), 7522,
7523, 7524, 7525, 7541, 7542, 7543, 7550, and 7601.
B. NHTSA
Statutory authority for the fuel consumption standards in these
rules is found in EISA section 103 (which authorizes a fuel efficiency
improvement program, designed to achieve the maximum feasible
improvement to be created for commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-
highway vehicles and work trucks, to include appropriate test methods,
measurement metrics, standards, and compliance and enforcement
protocols that are appropriate, cost-effective and technologically
feasible) of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, 49
U.S.C. 32902(k).
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 85
Confidential business information, Imports, Labeling, Motor vehicle
pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Research,
Warranties.
40 CFR Part 86
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business
information, Incorporation by reference, Labeling, Motor vehicle
pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR Part 600
Administrative practice and procedure, Electric power, Fuel
economy, Incorporation by reference, Labeling, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR Part 1033
Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control.
40 CFR Parts 1036 and 1037
Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control,
Confidential business information, Environmental protection,
Incorporation by reference, Labeling, Motor vehicle pollution,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Warranties.
40 CFR Part 1039
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Confidential business information, Imports,
Labeling, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Warranties.
40 CFR Parts 1065 and 1066
Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control,
Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Research.
40 CFR Part 1068
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Confidential business information, Imports, Incorporation by reference,
Motor vehicle pollution, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Warranties.
49 CFR Parts 523, 534, and 535
Fuel economy.
Environmental Protection Agency
40 CFR Chapter I
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Environmental
Protection Agency is amending 40 CFR chapter I of the Code of Federal
Regulations as follows:
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.
Subpart F--[Amended]
0
2. Section 85.525 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 85.525 Applicable standards.
To qualify for an exemption from the tampering prohibition,
vehicles/engines that have been converted to operate on a different
fuel must meet emission standards and related requirements as follows:
(a) The modified vehicle/engine must meet the requirements that
applied for
[[Page 57373]]
the OEM vehicle/engine, or the most stringent OEM vehicle/engine
standards in any allowable grouping. Fleet average standards do not
apply unless clean alternative fuel conversions are specifically listed
as subject to the standards.
(1) If the vehicle/engine was certified with a Family Emission
Limit for NOX, NOX+HC, or particulate matter, as
noted on the vehicle/engine emission control information label, the
modified vehicle/engine may not exceed this Family Emission Limit.
(2) Compliance with greenhouse gas emission standards is
demonstrated as follows:
(i) Subject to the following exceptions and special provisions,
compliance with light-duty vehicle greenhouse gas emission standards is
demonstrated by complying with the N2O and CH4
standards and provisions set forth in 40 CFR 86.1818-12(f)(1) and the
in-use CO2 exhaust emission standard set forth in 40 CFR
86.1818-12(d) as determined by the OEM for the subconfiguration that is
identical to the fuel conversion emission data vehicle (EDV).
(A) If the OEM complied with the light-duty greenhouse gas
standards using the fleet averaging option for N2O and
CH4, as allowed under 40 CFR 86.1818-12(f)(2), the
calculations of the carbon-related exhaust emissions require the input
of grams/mile values for N2O and CH4, and you are
not required to demonstrate compliance with the standalone
CH4 and N2O standards.
(B) If the OEM complied with alternate standards for N2O
and/or CH4, as allowed under 40 CFR 86.1818-12(f)(3), you
may demonstrate compliance with the same alternate standards.
(C) If the OEM complied with the nitrous oxide (N2O) and
methane (CH4) standards and provisions set forth in 40 CFR
86.1818-12(f)(1) or 86.1818-12(f)(3), and the fuel conversion
CO2 measured value is lower than the in-use CO2
exhaust emission standard, you also have the option to convert the
difference between the in-use CO2 exhaust emission standard
and the fuel conversion CO2 measured value into GHG
equivalents of CH4 and/or N2O, using 298 g
CO2 to represent 1 g N2O and 25 g CO2
to represent 1 g CH4. You may then subtract the applicable
converted values from the fuel conversion measured values of
CH4 and/or N2O to demonstrate compliance with the
CH4 and/or N2O standards.
(ii) Compliance with heavy-duty engine greenhouse gas emission
standards is demonstrated by complying with the CO2,
N2O, and CH4 standards (or FELs, as applicable)
and provisions set forth in 40 CFR 1036.108 for the engine family that
is represented by the fuel conversion emission data engine (EDE). If
the fuel conversion CO2 measured value is lower than the
CO2 standard (or FEL, as applicable), you have the option to
convert the difference between the CO2 standard (or FEL, as
applicable) and the fuel conversion CO2 measured value into
GHG equivalents of CH4 and/or N2O, using 298 g/
hp-hr CO2 to represent 1 g/hp-hr N2O and 25 g/hp-
hr CO2 to represent 1 g/hp-hr CH4. You may then
subtract the applicable converted values from the fuel conversion
measured values of CH4 and/or N2O to demonstrate
compliance with the CH4 and/or N2O standards (or
FEL, as applicable).
(3) Conversion systems for engines that would have qualified for
chassis certification at the time of OEM certification may use those
procedures, even if the OEM did not. Conversion manufacturers choosing
this option must designate test groups using the appropriate criteria
as described in this subpart and meet all vehicle chassis certification
requirements set forth in 40 CFR part 86, subpart S.
(b) [Reserved]
Subpart P--[Amended]
0
3. Section 85.1511 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 85.1511 Exemptions and exclusions.
(a) Individuals, as well as certificate holders, shall be eligible
for importing vehicles into the United States under the provisions of
this section, unless otherwise specified.
(b) Notwithstanding any other requirements of this subpart, a motor
vehicle or motor vehicle engine entitled to a temporary exemption under
this paragraph (b) may be conditionally admitted into the United States
if prior written approval for such conditional admission is obtained
from the Administrator. Conditional admission shall be under bond. A
written request for approval from the Administrator shall contain the
identification required in Sec. 85.1504(a)(1) (except for Sec.
85.1504(a)(1)(v)) and information that indicates that the importer is
entitled to the exemption. Noncompliance with provisions of this
section may result in the forfeiture of the total amount of the bond or
exportation of the vehicle or engine. The following temporary
exemptions apply:
(1) Exemption for repairs or alterations. Vehicles and engines may
qualify for a temporary exemption under the provisions of 40 CFR
1068.325(a). Such vehicles or engines may not be registered or licensed
in the United States for use on public roads and highways.
(2) Testing exemption. Vehicles and engines may qualify for a
temporary exemption under the provisions of 40 CFR 1068.325(b). Test
vehicles or engines may be operated on and registered for use on public
roads or highways provided that the operation is an integral part of
the test.
(3) Precertification exemption. Prototype vehicles for use in
applying to EPA for certification may be imported by independent
commercial importers subject to applicable provisions of Sec. 85.1706
and the following requirements:
(i) No more than one prototype vehicle for each engine family for
which an independent commercial importer is seeking certification shall
be imported by each independent commercial importer.
(ii) Unless a certificate of conformity is issued for the prototype
vehicle, the total amount of the bond shall be forfeited or the vehicle
must be exported within 180 days from the date of entry.
(4) Display exemptions. Vehicles and engines may qualify for a
temporary exemption under the provisions of 40 CFR 1068.325(c). Display
vehicles or engines may not be registered or licensed for use or
operated on public roads or highways in the United States, unless an
applicable certificate of conformity has been received.
(c) Notwithstanding any other requirements of this subpart, a motor
vehicle or motor vehicle engine may be finally admitted into the United
States under this paragraph (c) if prior written approval for such
final admission is obtained from the Administrator. Conditional
admission of these vehicles is not permitted for the purpose of
obtaining written approval from the Administrator. A request for
approval shall contain the identification information required in Sec.
85.1504(a)(1) (except for Sec. 85.1504(a)(1)(v)) and information that
indicates that the importer is entitled to the exemption or exclusion.
The following exemptions or exclusions apply:
(1) National security exemption. Vehicles may be imported under the
national security exemption found at 40 CFR 1068.315(a). Only persons
who are manufacturers may import a vehicle under a national security
exemption.
(2) Hardship exemption. The Administrator may exempt on a case-by-
case basis certain motor vehicles from Federal emission requirements to
accommodate unforeseen cases of extreme hardship or extraordinary
[[Page 57374]]
circumstances. Some examples are as follows:
(i) Handicapped individuals who need a special vehicle unavailable
in a certified configuration;
(ii) Individuals who purchase a vehicle in a foreign country where
resale is prohibited upon the departure of such an individual;
(iii) Individuals emigrating from a foreign country to the U.S. in
circumstances of severe hardship.
(d) Foreign diplomatic and military personnel may import
nonconforming vehicles without bond. At the time of admission, the
importer shall submit to the Administrator the written report required
in Sec. 85.1504(a)(1) (except for information required by Sec.
85.1504(a)(1)(v)). Such vehicles may not be sold in the United States.
(e) Racing vehicles may be imported by any person provided the
vehicles meet one or more of the exclusion criteria specified in Sec.
85.1703. Racing vehicles may not be registered or licensed for use on
or operated on public roads and highways in the United States.
(f) The following exclusions and exemptions apply based on date of
original manufacture:
(1) Notwithstanding any other requirements of this subpart, the
following motor vehicles or motor vehicle engines are excluded from the
requirements of the Act in accordance with section 216(3) of the Act
and may be imported by any person:
(i) Gasoline-fueled light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks
originally manufactured prior to January 1, 1968.
(ii) Diesel-fueled light-duty vehicles originally manufactured
prior to January 1, 1975.
(iii) Diesel-fueled light-duty trucks originally manufactured prior
to January 1, 1976.
(iv) Motorcycles originally manufactured prior to January 1, 1978.
(v) Gasoline-fueled and diesel-fueled heavy-duty engines originally
manufactured prior to January 1, 1970.
(2) Notwithstanding any other requirements of this subpart, a motor
vehicle or motor vehicle engine not subject to an exclusion under
paragraph (f)(1) of this section but greater than twenty OP years old
is entitled to an exemption from the requirements of the Act, provided
that it is imported into the United States by a certificate holder. At
the time of admission, the certificate holder shall submit to the
Administrator the written report required in Sec. 85.1504(a)(1)
(except for information required by Sec. 85.1504(a)(1)(v)).
(g) Applications for exemptions and exclusions provided for in
paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section shall be mailed to the
Designated Compliance Officer (see 40 CFR 1068.30).
(h) Vehicles conditionally or finally admitted under this section
must still comply with all applicable requirements, if any, of the
Energy Tax Act of 1978, the Energy Policy and Conservation Act and any
other Federal or state requirements.
Subpart R--[Amended]
0
4. Section 85.1701 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 85.1701 General applicability.
(a) The provisions of this subpart regarding exemptions are
applicable to new and in-use motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines,
except as follows:
(1) Beginning January 1, 2014, the exemption provisions of 40 CFR
part 1068, subpart C, apply for heavy-duty motor vehicles and engines,
except that the competition exemption of 40 CFR 1068.235 and the
hardship exemption provisions of 40 CFR 1068.245, 1068.250, and
1068.255 do not apply for motor vehicle engines.
(2) Prior to January 1, 2014, the provisions of Sec. Sec. 85.1706
through 85.1709 apply for heavy-duty motor vehicle engines.
(b) The provisions of this subpart regarding exclusion are
applicable after the effective date of these regulations.
(c) References in this subpart to engine families and emission
control systems shall be deemed to apply to durability groups and test
groups as applicable for manufacturers certifying new light-duty
vehicles, light-duty trucks, and Otto-cycle complete heavy-duty
vehicles under the provisions of 40 CFR part 86, subpart S.
(d) In a given model year, manufacturers of motor vehicles and
motor vehicle engines may ask us to approve the use of administrative
or compliance procedures specified in 40 CFR part 1068 instead of the
comparable procedures that apply for vehicles or engines certified
under this part or 40 CFR part 86.
Subpart T--[Amended]
0
5. Section 85.1901 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 85.1901 Applicability.
Except as specified in this section, the requirements of this
subpart shall be applicable to all 1972 and later model year vehicles
and engines. The requirement to report emission-related defects
affecting a given class or category of vehicles or engines shall remain
applicable for five years from the end of the model year in which such
vehicles or engines were manufactured. Manufacturers of heavy-duty
motor vehicle engines may comply with the defect reporting requirements
of 40 CFR 1068.501 instead of the requirements of this subpart.
PART 86--CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM NEW AND IN-USE HIGHWAY VEHICLES
AND ENGINES
0
6. The authority citation for part 86 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
0
7. Section 86.1 is amended by adding paragraphs (b)(2)(xli) and
(b)(2)(xlii) and removing and reserving paragraph (b)(4)(i)(A) to read
as follows:
Sec. 86.1 Reference materials.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(xli) SAE J1711, Recommended Practice for Measuring the Exhaust
Emissions and Fuel Economy of Hybrid-Electric Vehicles, Including Plug-
In Hybrid Vehicles, June 2010, IBR approved for Sec. 86.1811-04(n).
(xlii) SAE J1634, Electric Vehicle Energy Consumption and Range
Test Procedure, Cancelled October 2002, IBR approved for Sec. 86.1811-
04(n).
* * * * *
(4) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) [Reserved]
* * * * *
Subpart A--[Amended]
0
8. Section 86.010-18 is amended by adding paragraphs (j)(1)(ii)(E) and
(q) to read as follows:
Sec. 86.010-18 On-board Diagnostics for engines used in applications
greater than 14,000 pounds GVWR.
* * * * *
(j) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) * * *
(E) For hybrid engine families with projected U.S.-directed
production volume of less than 5,000 engines, the manufacturers are
only required to test one engine-hybrid combination per family.
* * * * *
(q) Optional phase-in for hybrid vehicles. This paragraph (q)
applies for model year 2013 through 2015 engines when used with hybrid
powertrain systems. It also applies for model year 2016 engines used
with hybrid powertrain systems that were offered for
[[Page 57375]]
sale prior to January 1, 2013, as specified in paragraph (q)(4) of this
section. Manufacturers choosing to use the provisions of this paragraph
(q) must submit an annual pre-compliance report to EPA for model years
2013 and later, as specified in paragraph (q)(5) of this section. Note
that all hybrid powertrain systems must be fully compliant with the OBD
requirements of this section no later than model year 2017.
(1) If an engine-hybrid system has been certified by the California
Air Resources Board with respect to its OBD requirements and it
effectively meets the full OBD requirements of this section, all
equivalent systems must meet those same requirements and may not be
certified under this paragraph (q). For purposes of this paragraph
(q)(1), an engine-hybrid system is considered to be equivalent to the
certified system if it uses the same basic design (e.g. displacement)
for the engine and primary hybrid components (see paragraph (q)(4) of
this section). Equivalent systems may have minor hardware or
calibration differences.
(2) As of 2013, if an engine-hybrid system has not been certified
to meet the full OBD requirements of this section, it must comply with
the following requirements:
(i) The engine in its installed configuration must meet the EMD and
EMD+ requirements in 13 CCR Sec. 1971.1(d)(7.1.4) of the California
Code of Regulations. For purposes of this paragraph (q), a given EMD
requirement is deemed to be met if the engine's OBD system addresses
the same function. This allowance does not apply for OBD monitors or
diagnostics that have been modified under paragraph (q)(2)(ii) of this
section.
(ii) The engine-hybrid system must maintain existing OBD capability
for engines where the same or equivalent engine has been OBD certified.
An equivalent engine is one produced by the same engine manufacturer
with the same fundamental design, but that may have hardware or
calibration differences that do not impact OBD functionality, such as
slightly different displacement, rated power, or fuel system. (Note
that engines with the same fundamental design will be presumed to be
equivalent unless the manufacturer demonstrates that the differences
effectively preclude applying equivalent OBD systems.) Though the OBD
capability must be maintained, it does not have to meet detection
thresholds (as described in Tables 1 and 2 of this section) and in-use
performance frequency requirements (as described in paragraph (d) of
this section). A manufacturer may modify detection thresholds to
prevent false detection, and must indicate all deviations from the
originally certified package with engineering justification in the
certification documentation.
(iii) This paragraph (q)(2)(iii) applies for derivatives of hybrid
powertrain system designs that were offered for sale prior to January
1, 2013. Until these systems achieve full OBD certification, they must
at a minimum maintain all fault-detection and diagnostic capability
included on similar systems offered for sale prior to 2013.
Manufacturers choosing to use the provisions of this paragraph (q)(2)
must keep copies of the service manuals (and similar documents) for
these previous model years to show the technical description of the
system's fault detection and diagnostic capabilities.
(iv) You must submit an annual pre-compliance report to EPA for
model years 2013 and later, as specified in paragraph (q)(5) of this
section.
(3) Engine-hybrid systems may be certified to the requirements of
paragraph (q)(2) of this section by the engine manufacturer, the hybrid
system manufacturer, or the vehicle manufacturer. If engine
manufacturers certify the engine hybrid system, they must provide
detailed installation instructions. Where the engine manufacturer does
not specifically certify its engines for use in hybrid vehicles under
this paragraph (q), the hybrid system manufacturer and vehicle
manufacturer must install the engine to conform to the requirements of
this section (i.e., full OBD) or recertify under paragraph (q)(2) of
this section.
(4) The provisions of this paragraph (q) apply for model year 2016
engines where you demonstrate that the hybrid powertrain system used is
a derivative of a design that was offered for sale prior to January 1,
2013. In this case, you may ask us to consider the original system and
the later system to be the same model for purposes of this paragraph
(q), unless the systems are fundamentally different. In determining
whether such systems are derivative or fundamentally different, we will
consider factors such as the similarity of the following:
(i) Transmissions.
(ii) Hybrid machines (where ``hybrid machine'' means any system
that is the part of a hybrid vehicle system that captures energy from
and returns energy to the powertrain).
(iii) Hybrid architecture (such as parallel or series).
(iv) Motor/generator size, controller/CPU (memory or inputs/
outputs), control algorithm, and batteries. This paragraph (q)(4)(iv)
applies only if all of these are modified simultaneously.
(5) Manufacturers choosing to use the provisions of this paragraph
(q) must submit an annual pre-compliance report to EPA for model years
2013 and later. Engine manufacturers must submit this report with their
engine certification information. Hybrid manufacturers that are not
certifying the engine-hybrid system must submit their report by June 1
of the model year, or at the time of certification if they choose to
certify. Include the following in the report:
(i) A description of the manufacturer's product plans and of the
engine-hybrid systems being certified.
(ii) A description of activities undertaken and progress made by
the manufacturer towards achieving full OBD certification, including
monitoring, diagnostics, and standardization.
(iii) For model year 2016 engines, a description of your basis for
applying the provision of this paragraph (q) to the engines.
0
9. A new Sec. 86.012-2 is added to subpart A to read as follows:
Sec. 86.012-2 Definitions.
The definitions of Sec. 86.010-2 continue to apply to model year
2010 and later model year vehicles. The definitions listed in this
section apply beginning with model year 2012. Urban bus means a
passenger-carrying vehicle with a load capacity of fifteen or more
passengers and intended primarily for intracity operation, i.e., within
the confines of a city or greater metropolitan area. Urban bus
operation is characterized by short rides and frequent stops. To
facilitate this type of operation, more than one set of quick-operating
entrance and exit doors would normally be installed. Since fares are
usually paid in cash or tokens, rather than purchased in advance in the
form of tickets, urban buses would normally have equipment installed
for collection of fares. Urban buses are also typically characterized
by the absence of equipment and facilities for long distance travel,
e.g., rest rooms, large luggage compartments, and facilities for
stowing carry-on luggage.
0
10. A new Sec. 86.016-1 is added to subpart A to read as follows:
Sec. 86.016-1 General applicability.
(a) Applicability. The provisions of this subpart generally apply
to 2005 and later model year new Otto-cycle heavy-duty engines used in
incomplete vehicles and vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR and 2005 and
later model year new diesel-cycle heavy-duty engines. In cases where a
provision
[[Page 57376]]
applies only to a certain vehicle group based on its model year,
vehicle class, motor fuel, engine type, or other distinguishing
characteristics, the limited applicability is cited in the appropriate
section or paragraph. The provisions of this subpart continue to
generally apply to 2000 and earlier model year new Otto-cycle and
diesel-cycle light-duty vehicles, 2000 and earlier model year new Otto-
cycle and diesel-cycle light-duty trucks, and 2004 and earlier model
year new Otto-cycle complete heavy-duty vehicles at or below 14,000
pounds GVWR. Provisions generally applicable to 2001 and later model
year new Otto-cycle and diesel-cycle light-duty vehicles, 2001 and
later model year new Otto-cycle and diesel-cycle light-duty trucks, and
2005 and later model year Otto-cycle complete heavy-duty vehicles at or
below 14,000 pounds GVWR are located in subpart S of this part.
(b) Optional applicability. A manufacturer may request to certify
any incomplete Otto-cycle heavy-duty vehicle of 14,000 pounds Gross
Vehicle Weight Rating or less in accordance with the provisions for
Otto-cycle complete heavy-duty vehicles located in subpart S of this
part. Heavy-duty engine or heavy-duty vehicle provisions of this
subpart A do not apply to such a vehicle.
(c) Otto-cycle heavy-duty engines and vehicles. The following
requirements apply to Otto-cycle heavy-duty engines and vehicles:
(1) Exhaust emission standards according to the provisions of Sec.
86.008-10 or Sec. 86.1816, as applicable.
(2) On-board diagnostics requirements according to the provisions
of Sec. 86.007-17 or Sec. 86.1806, as applicable.
(3) Evaporative emission standards as follows:
(i) Evaporative emission standards for complete vehicles according
to the provisions of Sec. Sec. 86.1810 and 86.1816.
(ii) For 2013 and earlier model years, evaporative emission
standards for incomplete vehicles according to the provisions of Sec.
86.008-10, or Sec. Sec. 86.1810 and 86.1816, as applicable.
(iii) For 2014 and later model years, evaporative emission
standards for incomplete vehicles according to the provisions of
Sec. Sec. 86.1810 and 86.1816, or 40 CFR part 1037, as applicable.
(4) Refueling emission requirements for Otto-cycle complete
vehicles according to the provisions of Sec. Sec. 86.1810 and 86.1816.
(d) Non-petroleum fueled vehicles. The standards and requirements
of this part apply to model year 2016 and later non-petroleum fueled
motor vehicles as follows:
(1) The standards and requirements of this part apply as specified
for vehicles fueled with methanol, natural gas, and LPG.
(2) The standards and requirements of subpart S of this part apply
as specified for light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks.
(3) The standards and requirements of this part applicable to
methanol-fueled heavy-duty vehicles and engines (including flexible
fuel vehicles and engines) apply to heavy-duty vehicles and engines
fueled with any oxygenated fuel (including flexible fuel vehicles and
engines). Most significantly, this means that the hydrocarbon standards
apply as NMHCE and the vehicles and engines must be tested using the
applicable oxygenated fuel according to the test procedures in 40 CFR
part 1065 applicable for oxygenated fuels. For purposes of this
paragraph (d), oxygenated fuel means any fuel containing at least 50
volume percent oxygenated compounds. For example, a fuel mixture of 85
gallons of ethanol and 15 gallons of gasoline is an oxygenated fuel,
while a fuel mixture of 15 gallons of ethanol and 85 gallons of
gasoline is not an oxygenated fuel.
(4) The standards and requirements of subpart S of this part
applicable to heavy-duty vehicles under 14,000 pounds GVWR apply to all
heavy-duty vehicles powered solely by electricity, including plug-in
electric vehicles and solar-powered vehicles. Use good engineering
judgment to apply these requirements to these vehicles, including
applying these provisions to vehicles over 14,000 pounds GVWR. Electric
heavy-duty vehicles may not generate NOX or PM emission
credits. Heavy-duty vehicles powered solely by electricity are deemed
to have zero emissions of regulated pollutants.
(5) The standards and requirements of this part applicable to
diesel-fueled heavy-duty vehicles and engines apply to all other heavy-
duty vehicles and engines not otherwise addressed in this paragraph
(d).
(6) See 40 CFR parts 1036 and 1037 for requirements related to
greenhouse gas emissions.
(7) Manufacturers may voluntarily certify to the standards of
paragraphs (d)(3) through (5) of this section before model year 2016.
Note that other provisions in this part require compliance with the
standards described in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section for
model years before 2016.
(e) Small volume manufacturers. Special certification procedures
are available for any manufacturer whose projected combined U.S. sales
of light-duty vehicles, light-duty trucks, heavy-duty vehicles, and
heavy-duty engines in its product line (including all vehicles and
engines imported under the provisions of 40 CFR 85.1505 and 85.1509)
are fewer than 10,000 units for the model year in which the
manufacturer seeks certification. To certify its product line under
these optional procedures, the small-volume manufacturer must first
obtain the Administrator's approval. The manufacturer must meet the
eligibility criteria specified in Sec. 86.098-14(b) before the
Administrator's approval will be granted. The small-volume
manufacturer's certification procedures are described in Sec. 86.098-
14.
(f) Optional procedures for determining exhaust opacity. (1) The
provisions of subpart I of this part apply to tests which are performed
by the Administrator, and optionally, by the manufacturer.
(2) Measurement procedures, other than those described in subpart I
of this part, may be used by the manufacturer provided the manufacturer
satisfies the requirements of Sec. 86.007-23(f).
(3) When a manufacturer chooses to use an alternative measurement
procedure, it has the responsibility to determine whether the results
obtained by the procedure will correlate with the results which would
be obtained from the measurement procedure in subpart I of this part.
Consequently, the Administrator will not routinely approve or
disapprove any alternative opacity measurement procedure or any
associated correlation data which the manufacturer elects to use to
satisfy the data requirements for subpart I of this part.
(4) If a confirmatory test is performed and the results indicate
there is a systematic problem suggesting that the data generated under
an optional alternative measurement procedure do not adequately
correlate with data obtained in accordance with the procedures
described in subpart I of this part, EPA may require that all
certificates of conformity not already issued be based on data obtained
from procedures described in subpart I of this part.
0
11. Section 86.090-2 is amended by revising the definition of ``primary
intended service class'' to read as follows:
Sec. 86.090-2 Definitions.
* * * * *
Primary intended service class has the meaning given in 40 CFR
1036.140.
* * * * *
[[Page 57377]]
Subpart B--[Amended]
0
12. Section 86.144-94 is amended by adding paragraphs (b)(11) and
(c)(10) to read as follows:
Sec. 86.144-94 Calculations; exhaust emissions.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(11) Nitrous Oxide Mass: Vmix x DensityN2O x
(N2Oconc/1,000,000)
(c) * * *
(10)(i) N2Omass = Nitrous oxide emissions, in
grams per test phase.
(ii) DensityN2O = Density of nitrous oxide is 51.81 g/
ft\3\ (1.83 kg/m\3\), at 68 [deg]F (20 [deg]C) and 760 mm Hg (101.3kPa)
pressure.
(iii)(A) N2Oconc = Nitrous oxide
concentration of the dilute exhaust sample corrected for background, in
ppm.
(B) N2Oconc = N2Oe -
N2Od(1 - (1/DF)).
Where:
N2Oe = Nitrous oxide concentration of the
dilute exhaust sample as measured, in ppm.
N2Od = Nitrous oxide concentration of the
dilution air as measured, in ppm.
* * * * *
Subpart F--[Amended]
0
13. Section 86.544-90 is amended by adding paragraphs (b)(8) and (c)(8)
to read as follows:
Sec. 86.544-90 Calculations; exhaust emissions.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(8) Nitrous Oxide Mass: Vmix x DensityN2O x
(N2Oconc/1,000,000)
(c) * * *
(8)(i) N2Omass = Nitrous oxide emissions, in
grams per test phase.
(ii) Density N2O = Density of nitrous oxide is 51.81 g/ft\3\ (1.83
kg/m\3\), at 68 [deg]F (20 [deg]C) and 760 mm Hg (101.3kPa) pressure.
(iii)(A) N2Oconc = Nitrous oxide
concentration of the dilute exhaust sample corrected for background, in
ppm.
(B) N2Oconc = N2Oe-
N2Od(1-(1/DF)).
Where:
N2Oe = Nitrous oxide concentration of the
dilute exhaust sample as measured, in ppm.
N2Od = Nitrous oxide concentration of the
dilution air as measured, in ppm.
* * * * *
Subpart N--[Amended]
0
14. Section 86.1305-2010 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read
as follows:
Sec. 86.1305-2010 Introduction; structure of subpart.
* * * * *
(b) Use the applicable equipment and procedures for spark-ignition
or compression-ignition engines in 40 CFR part 1065 to determine
whether engines meet the duty-cycle emission standards in subpart A of
this part. Measure the emissions of all regulated pollutants as
specified in 40 CFR part 1065. Use the duty cycles and procedures
specified in Sec. Sec. 86.1333-2010, 86.1360-2007, and 86.1362-2010.
Adjust emission results from engines using aftertreatment technology
with infrequent regeneration events as described in Sec. 86.004-28.
* * * * *
Subpart S--[Amended]
Sec. 86.1806-01--[Amended]
0
15. Section 86.1806-01 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph
(b)(8)(ii).
Sec. 86.1806-05--[Amended]
0
16. Section 86.1806-05 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph
(b)(8)(ii).
0
17. Section 86.1811-04 is amended by revising paragraph (n) to read as
follows:
Sec. 86.1811-04 Emission standards for light-duty vehicles, light-
duty trucks and medium-duty passenger vehicles.
* * * * *
(n) Hybrid electric vehicle (HEV) and Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV)
requirements. For FTP and SFTP exhaust emissions, manufacturers must
measure emissions from all HEVs and ZEVs according to the procedures
specified in SAE J1711 and SAE J1634, respectively (incorporated by
reference in Sec. 86.1).
* * * * *
0
18. Section 86.1818-12 is amended by revising paragraph (f) to read as
follows:
Sec. 86.1818-12 Greenhouse gas emission standards for light-duty
vehicles, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles.
* * * * *
(f) Nitrous oxide (N2O) and methane (CH4)
exhaust emission standards for passenger automobiles and light trucks.
Each manufacturer's fleet of combined passenger automobile and light
trucks must comply with N2O and CH4 standards
using either the provisions of paragraph (f)(1), (f)(2), or (f)(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) of this section 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 in the same model year. Use of the provisions in paragraph
(f)(3) of this section is limited to the 2012 through 2016 model years.
(1) Standards applicable to each test group. (i) Exhaust emissions
of nitrous oxide (N2O) shall not exceed 0.010 grams per mile
at full useful life, as measured according to the Federal Test
Procedure (FTP) described in subpart B of this part. Manufacturers may
optionally determine an alternative N2O standard under
paragraph (f)(3) of this section. (ii) Exhaust emissions of methane
(CH4) shall not exceed 0.030 grams per mile at full useful
life, as measured according to the Federal Test Procedure (FTP)
described in subpart B of this part. Manufacturers may optionally
determine an alternative CH4 standard under paragraph (f)(3)
of this section.
(2) Include N 2O and CH4 in fleet averaging
program. Manufacturers may elect to not meet the emission standards in
paragraph (f)(1) of this section. Manufacturers making this election
shall include N2O and CH4 emissions in the
determination of their fleet average carbon-related exhaust emissions,
as calculated in 40 CFR part 600, subpart F. Manufacturers using this
option must include both N2O and CH4 full useful
life values in the fleet average calculations for passenger automobiles
and light trucks. Use of this option will account for N2O
and CH4 emissions within the carbon-related exhaust emission
value determined for each model type according to the provisions of 40
CFR part 600. This option requires the determination of full useful
life emission values for both the Federal Test Procedure and the
Highway Fuel Economy Test. Manufacturers selecting this option are not
required to demonstrate compliance with the standards in paragraph
(f)(1) of this section.
(3) Optional use of alternative N2O and/or
CH4 standards. Manufacturers may select an alternative
standard applicable to a test group, for either N2O,
CH4, or both. For example, a manufacturer may choose to meet
the N2O standard in paragraph (f)(1)(i) of this section and
an alternative CH4
[[Page 57378]]
standard in lieu of the standard in paragraph (f)(1)(ii) of this
section. The alternative standard for each pollutant must be greater
than the applicable exhaust emission standard specified in paragraph
(f)(1) of this section. Alternative N2O and CH4
standards apply to emissions measured according to the Federal Test
Procedure (FTP) described in Subpart B of this part for the full useful
life, and become the applicable certification and in-use emission
standard(s) for the test group. Manufacturers using an alternative
standard for N2O and/or CH4 must calculate
emission debits according to the provisions of paragraph (f)(4) of this
section for each test group/alternative standard combination. Debits
must be included in the calculation of total credits or debits
generated in a model year as required under Sec. 86.1865-12(k)(5). For
flexible fuel vehicles (or other vehicles certified for multiple fuels)
you must meet these alternative standards when tested on any applicable
test fuel type.
(4) CO2-equivalent debits. CO2-equivalent
debits for test groups using an alternative N2Oand/or
CH4 standard as determined under paragraph (f)(3) of this
section shall be calculated according to the following equation and
rounded to the nearest megagram:
Debits = [GWP x (Production) x (AltStd--Std) x VLM]/1,000,000
Where:
Debits = N2O or CH4 CO2-equivalent
debits for a test group using an alternative N2O or
CH4 standard;
GWP = 25 if calculating CH4 debits and 298 if calculating
N2O debits;
Production = The number of vehicles of that test group domestically
produced plus those imported as defined in Sec. 600.511 of this
chapter;
AltStd = The alternative standard (N2O or CH4)
selected by the manufacturer under paragraph (f)(3) of this section;
Std = The exhaust emission standard for N2O or
CH4 specified in paragraph (f)(1) of this section; and
VLM = 195,264 for passenger automobiles and 225,865 for light
trucks.
0
19. Section 86.1823-08 is amended by revising paragraph (m) to read as
follows:
Sec. 86.1823-08 Durability demonstration procedures for exhaust
emissions.
* * * * *
(m) Durability demonstration procedures for vehicles subject to the
greenhouse gas exhaust emission standards specified in Sec. 86.1818.
(1) CO2. (i) Unless otherwise specified under paragraph
(m)(1)(ii) of this section, manufacturers may use a multiplicative
CO2 deterioration factor of one or an additive deterioration
factor of zero to determine full useful life emissions for the FTP and
HFET tests.
(ii) Based on an analysis of industry-wide data, EPA may
periodically establish and/or update the deterioration factor for
CO2 emissions, including air conditioning and other credit-
related emissions. Deterioration factors established and/or updated
under this paragraph (m)(1)(ii) will provide adequate lead time for
manufacturers to plan for the change.
(iii) Alternatively, manufacturers may use the whole-vehicle
mileage accumulation procedures in Sec. 86.1823-08 (c) or (d)(1) to
determine CO2 deterioration factors. In this case, each FTP
test performed on the durability data vehicle selected under Sec.
86.1822 must also be accompanied by an HFET test, and combined FTP/HFET
CO2 results determined by averaging the city (FTP) and
highway (HFET) CO2 values, weighted 0.55 and 0.45
respectively. The deterioration factor will be determined for this
combined CO2 value. Calculated multiplicative deterioration
factors that are less than one shall be set to equal one, and
calculated additive deterioration factors that are less than zero shall
be set to zero.
(iv) If, in the good engineering judgment of the manufacturer, the
deterioration factors determined according to paragraphs (m)(1)(i),
(m)(1)(ii), or (m)(1)(iii) of this section do not adequately account
for the expected CO2 emission deterioration over the
vehicle's useful life, the manufacturer may petition EPA to request a
more appropriate deterioration factor.
(2) N2O and CH4. (i) For manufacturers
complying with the FTP emission standards for N2O and
CH4 specified in Sec. 86.1818-12(f)(1) or determined under
Sec. 86.1818-12(f)(3), FTP-based deterioration factors for
N2O and CH4 shall be determined according to the
provisions of paragraphs (a) through (l) of this section.
(ii) For manufacturers complying with the fleet averaging option
for N2O and CH4 as allowed under Sec. 86.1818-
12(f)(2), deterioration factors based on FTP testing shall be
determined and may be used to determine full useful life emissions for
the FTP and HFET tests. The manufacturer may at its option determine
separate deterioration factors for the FTP and HFET test cycles, in
which case each FTP test performed on the durability data vehicle
selected under Sec. 86.1822 of this part must also be accompanied by
an HFET test.
(iii) For the 2012 through 2014 model years only, manufacturers may
use alternative deterioration factors. For N2O, the
alternative deterioration factor to be used to adjust FTP and HFET
emissions is the deterioration factor determined for NOX
emissions according to the provisions of this section. For
CH4, the alternative deterioration factor to be used to
adjust FTP and HFET emissions is the deterioration factor determined
for NMOG or NMHC emissions according to the provisions of this section.
(3) Other carbon-related exhaust emissions. FTP-based deterioration
factors shall be determined for carbon-related exhaust emissions
(CREE), hydrocarbons, and CO according to the provisions of paragraphs
(a) through (l) of this section. The FTP-based deterioration factor
shall be used to determine full useful life emissions for both the FTP
(city) and HFET (highway) test cycles. The manufacturer may at its
option determine separate deterioration factors for the FTP and HFET
test cycles, in which case each FTP test performed on the durability
data vehicle selected under Sec. 86.1822 must also be accompanied by
an HFET test. In lieu of determining emission-specific deterioration
factors for the specific hydrocarbons of CH3OH (methanol),
HCHO (formaldehyde), C2H5OH (ethanol), and
C2H4O (acetaldehyde) as may be required for some
alternative fuel vehicles, manufacturers may use the additive or
multiplicative deterioration factor determined for (or derived from,
using good engineering judgment) NMOG or NMHC emissions according to
the provisions of this section.
(4) Air Conditioning leakage and efficiency or other emission
credit requirements to comply with exhaust CO2 standards.
Manufactures will attest to the durability of components and systems
used to meet the CO2 standards. Manufacturers may submit
engineering data to provide durability demonstration. Deterioration
factors do not apply to emission-related components and systems used to
generate air conditioning leakage and/or efficiency credits.
0
20. Section 86.1844-01 is amended by revising paragraph (d)(15) to read
as follows:
Sec. 86.1844-01 Information requirements: Application for
certification and submittal of information upon request.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(15)(i) For HEVs and EVs, describe the recharging procedures and
methods for determining battery performance, such as state of charge
and charging capacity.
(ii) For vehicles with fuel-fired heaters, include the information
specified in this paragraph (d)(15)(ii).
[[Page 57379]]
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. Describe the testing used to establish the exhaust
emission rate.
* * * * *
0
21. Section 86.1863-07 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 86.1863-07 Chassis certification for diesel vehicles.
(a) A manufacturer may optionally certify heavy-duty diesel
vehicles 14,000 pounds GVWR or less to the standards specified in Sec.
86.1816. Such vehicles must meet all the requirements of this subpart S
that are applicable to Otto-cycle vehicles, except for evaporative,
refueling, and OBD requirements where the diesel-specific OBD
requirements would apply.
(b) For OBD, diesel vehicles optionally certified under this
section are subject to the OBD requirements of Sec. 86.1806.
(c) Diesel vehicles certified under this section may be tested
using the test fuels, sampling systems, or analytical systems specified
for diesel engines in subpart N of this part or in 40 CFR part 1065.
(d) Diesel vehicles optionally certified under this section to the
standards of this subpart may not be included in any averaging,
banking, or trading program for criteria emissions under this part.
(e) The provisions of Sec. 86.004-40 apply to the engines in
vehicles certified under this section.
(f) Diesel vehicles may be certified under this section to the
standards applicable to model year 2008 in earlier model years.
(g) Diesel vehicles optionally certified under this section in
model years 2007, 2008, or 2009 shall be included in phase-in
calculations specified in Sec. 86.007-11(g).
(h) Diesel vehicles subject to the standards of 40 CFR 1037.104 are
subject to the provisions of this subpart as specified in 40 CFR
1037.104.
(i) Non-petroleum fueled complete vehicles subject to the standards
and requirements of this part under Sec. 86.016-01(d)(5) are subject
to the provisions of this section applicable to diesel-fueled heavy-
duty vehicles.
0
22. Section 86.1865-12 is amended by adding paragraph (k)(5)(iv) and by
revising paragraphs (l)(1)(ii)(F) and (l)(2)(i) to read as follows:
Sec. 86.1865-12 How to comply with the fleet average CO2
standards.
* * * * *
(k) * * *
(5) * * *
(iv) N2O and/or CH4 CO2-equivalent
debits accumulated according to the provisions of Sec. 86.1818-
12(f)(4).
* * * * *
(l) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) * * *
(F) Carbon-related exhaust emission standard, N2O
emission standard, and CH4 emission standard to which the
passenger car or light truck is certified.
* * * * *
(2) * * *
(i) Each manufacturer must submit an annual report. The annual
report must contain for each applicable CO2 standard, the
calculated fleet average CO2 value, all values required to
calculate the CO2 emissions value, the number of credits
generated or debits incurred, all the values required to calculate the
credits or debits, and the resulting balance of credits or debits. For
each applicable alternative N2O and/or CH4
standard selected under the provisions of Sec. 86.1818-12(f)(3), the
report must contain the N2O and/or CH4
CO2-equivalent debits calculated according to Sec. 86.1818-
12(f)(4) for each test group and all values required to calculate the
number of debits incurred.
* * * * *
PART 600--FUEL ECONOMY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EXHAUST EMISSIONS OF
MOTOR VEHICLES
0
23. The authority citation for part 600 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 32901--23919q, Pub. L. 109-58.
Subpart A--[Amended]
0
24. Section 600.011 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(3) to read as
follows:
Sec. 600.011 Incorporation by reference.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(3) SAE J1711, Recommended Practice for Measuring the Exhaust
Emissions and Fuel Economy of Hybrid-Electric Vehicles, Including Plug-
In Hybrid Vehicles, June 2010, IBR approved for Sec. Sec. 600.114-
12(c) and (f), 600.116-12(b), and 600.311-12(d), (j), and (k).
* * * * *
Subpart B--[Amended]
0
25. Section 600.114-12 is amended by revising the introductory text of
paragraph (c), paragraph (e)(2)(ii), and the introductory text of
paragraph (f), to read as follows:
Sec. 600.114-12 Vehicle-specific 5-cycle fuel economy and carbon-
related exhaust emission calculations.
* * * * *
(c) Fuel economy calculations for hybrid electric vehicles. Test
hybrid electric vehicles as described in SAE J1711 (incorporated by
reference in Sec. 600.011). For FTP testing, this generally involves
emission sampling over four phases (bags) of the UDDS (cold-start,
transient, warm-start, transient); however, these four phases may be
combined into two phases (phases 1 + 2 and phases 3 + 4). Calculations
for these sampling methods follow:
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) Determine the 5-cycle highway carbon-related exhaust emissions
according to the following formula:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15SE11.064
Where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15SE11.065
[[Page 57380]]
Start CREE75 = 3.6 x (Bag 1CREE75 - Bag
3CREE75)
Running CREE = 1.007 x [(0.79 x US06 Highway CREE) + (0.21 x HFET
CREE)] + [0.377 x 0.133 x ((0.00540 x A) + (0.1357 x US06 CREE))]
* * * * *
(f) CO2 and carbon-related exhaust emissions
calculations for hybrid electric vehicles. Test hybrid electric
vehicles as described in SAE J1711 (incorporated by reference in Sec.
600.011). For FTP testing, this generally involves emission sampling
over four phases (bags) of the UDDS (cold-start, transient, warm-start,
transient); however, these four phases may be combined into two phases
(phases 1 + 2 and phases 3 + 4). Calculations for these sampling
methods follow:
* * * * *
0
26. Section 600.115-11 is amended by revising the introductory text to
read as follows:
Sec. 600.115-11 Criteria for determining the fuel economy label
calculation method.
This section provides the criteria to determine if the derived 5-
cycle method for determining fuel economy label values, as specified in
Sec. 600.210-08(a)(2) or (b)(2) or Sec. 600.210-12(a)(2) or (b)(2),
as applicable, may be used to determine label values. Separate criteria
apply to city and highway fuel economy for each test group. The
provisions of this section are optional. If this option is not chosen,
or if the criteria provided in this section are not met, fuel economy
label values must be determined according to the vehicle-specific 5-
cycle method specified in Sec. 600.210-08(a)(1) or (b)(1) or Sec.
600.210-12(a)(1) or (b)(1), as applicable. However, dedicated
alternative-fuel vehicles, dual fuel vehicles when operating on the
alternative fuel, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles while operating in
charge-depleting mode, MDPVs, and vehicles imported by Independent
Commercial Importers may use the derived 5-cycle method for determining
fuel economy label values whether or not the criteria provided in this
section are met. Manufacturers may alternatively account for this
effect by multiplying 2-cycle fuel economy values by 0.7 and dividing
2-cycle CO2 emission values by 0.7.
* * * * *
0
27. Section 600.116-12 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(6) and
revising the equation for UFi in paragraph (b)(4) to read as
follows:
Sec. 600.116-12 Special procedures related to electric vehicles and
plug-in hybrid electric vehicles.
(a) * * *
(6) All label values related to fuel economy, energy consumption,
and range must be based on 5-cycle testing or on values adjusted to be
equivalent to 5-cycle results.
(b) * * *
(4) * * *
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15SE11.066
* * * * *
Subpart C--[Amended]
0
28. Section 600.210-12 is amended by revising paragraph (d)(3)(ii) to
read as follows:
Sec. 600.210-12 Calculation of fuel economy and CO2
emission values for labeling.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(3) * * *
(ii) Multiply 2-cycle fuel economy values by 0.7 and divide 2-cycle
CO2 emission values by 0.7.
* * * * *
Subpart D--[Amended]
0
29. Section 600.302-12 is amended by revising paragraph (e)(4) to read
as follows:
Sec. 600.302-12 Fuel economy label--general provisions.
(e) * * *
(4) Insert a slider bar in the right portion of the field to
characterize the vehicle's level of emission control for ozone-related
air pollutants relative to that of all vehicles. Position a box with a
downward-pointing wedge above the slider bar positioned to show where
that vehicle's emission rating falls relative to the total range.
Include the vehicle's emission rating (as described in Sec. 600.311)
inside the box. Include the number 1 in the border at the left end of
the slider bar; include the number 10 in the border at the right end of
the slider bar and add the term ``Best'' below the slider bar, directly
under the number. EPA will periodically calculate and publish updated
range values as described in Sec. 600.311. Add color to the slider bar
such that it is blue at the left end of the range, white at the right
end of the range, and shaded continuously across the range.
* * * * *
0
30. Section 600.311-12 is amended by revising paragraph (f) to read as
follows:
Sec. 600.311-12 Determination of values for fuel economy labels.
* * * * *
(f) Fuel savings. Calculate an estimated five-year cost increment
relative to an average vehicle by multiplying the annual fuel cost from
paragraph (e) of this section by 5 and subtracting this value from the
average five-year fuel cost. We will calculate the average five-year
fuel cost from the annual fuel cost equation in paragraph (e) of this
section based on a gasoline-fueled vehicle with a mean fuel economy
value, consistent with the value dividing the 5 and 6 ratings under
paragraph (d) of this section. The average five-year fuel cost for
model year 2012 is $12,600 for a 22-mpg vehicle that drives 15,000
miles per year with gasoline priced at $3.70 per gallon. We may
periodically update this five year reference fuel cost for later model
years to better characterize the fuel economy for an average vehicle.
Round the calculated five-year cost increment to the nearest $50.
Negative values represent a cost increase compared to the average
vehicle.
PART 1033--CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM LOCOMOTIVES
0
31. The authority citation for part 1033 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Subpart G--[Amended]
0
32. Section 1033.625 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1033.625 Special certification provisions for non-locomotive-
specific engines.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(2) The engines were certified to PM, NOX, and
hydrocarbon standards that are numerically lower than the applicable
locomotive standards of this part.
* * * * *
[[Page 57381]]
0
33. A new part 1036 is added to subchapter U to read as follows:
PART 1036--CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM NEW AND IN-USE HEAVY-DUTY
HIGHWAY ENGINES
Subpart A--Overview and Applicability
Sec.
1036.1 Does this part apply for my engines?
1036.2 Who is responsible for compliance?
1036.5 Which engines are excluded from this part's requirements?
1036.10 How is this part organized?
1036.15 Do any other regulation parts apply to me?
1036.30 Submission of information.
Subpart B--Emission Standards and Related Requirements
1036.100 Overview of exhaust emission standards.
1036.108 Greenhouse gas emission standards.
1036.115 Other requirements.
1036.130 Installation instructions for vehicle manufacturers.
1036.135 Labeling.
1036.140 Primary intended service class.
1036.150 Interim provisions.
Subpart C--Certifying Engine Families
1036.205 What must I include in my application?
1036.210 Preliminary approval before certification.
1036.225 Amending my application for certification.
1036.230 Selecting engine families.
1036.235 Testing requirements for certification.
1036.241 Demonstrating compliance with greenhouse gas pollutant
standards.
1036.250 Reporting and recordkeeping for certification.
1036.255 What decisions may EPA make regarding my certificate of
conformity?
Subpart D--[Reserved]
Subpart E--In-use Testing
1036.401 In-use testing.
Subpart F--Test Procedures
1036.501 How do I run a valid emission test?
1036.525 Hybrid engines.
1036.530 Calculating greenhouse gas emission rates.
Subpart G--Special Compliance Provisions
1036.601 What compliance provisions apply to these engines?
1036.610 Innovative technology credits and adjustments for reducing
greenhouse gas emissions.
1036.615 Engines with Rankine cycle waste heat recovery and hybrid
powertrains.
1036.620 Alternate CO2 standards based on model year 2011
compression-ignition engines.
1036.625 In-use compliance with family emission limits (FELs).
Subpart H--Averaging, Banking, and Trading for Certification
1036.701 General provisions.
1036.705 Generating and calculating emission credits.
1036.710 Averaging.
1036.715 Banking.
1036.720 Trading.
1036.725 What must I include in my application for certification?
1036.730 ABT reports.
1036.735 Recordkeeping.
1036.740 Restrictions for using emission credits.
1036.745 End-of-year CO2 credit deficits.
1036.750 What can happen if I do not comply with the provisions of
this subpart?
1036.755 Information provided to the Department of Transportation.
Subpart I--Definitions and Other Reference Information
1036.801 Definitions.
1036.805 Symbols, acronyms, and abbreviations.
1036.810 Incorporation by reference.
1036.815 Confidential information.
1036.820 Requesting a hearing.
1036.825 Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Subpart A--Overview and Applicability
Sec. 1036.1 Does this part apply for my engines?
(a) Except as specified in Sec. 1036.5, the provisions of this
part apply to all new 2014 model year and later heavy-duty engines.
This includes engines fueled by conventional and alternative fuels.
(b) This part does not apply with respect to exhaust emission
standards for HC, CO, NOX, or PM except that the provisions
of Sec. 1036.601 apply.
Sec. 1036.2 Who is responsible for compliance?
The regulations in this part 1036 contain provisions that affect
both engine manufacturers and others. However, the requirements of this
part are generally addressed to the engine manufacturer. The term
``you'' generally means the engine manufacturer, especially for issues
related to certification.
Sec. 1036.5 Which engines are excluded from this part's requirements?
(a) The provisions of this part do not apply to engines used in
medium-duty passenger vehicles that are subject to regulation under 40
CFR part 86, subpart S, except as specified in 40 CFR part 86, subpart
S, and Sec. 1036.108(a)(4). For example, this exclusion applies for
engines used in vehicles certified to the standards of 40 CFR 1037.104.
(b) Engines installed in heavy-duty vehicles that do not provide
motive power are nonroad engines. The provisions of this part therefore
do not apply to these engines. See 40 CFR parts 1039, 1048, or 1054 for
other requirements that apply for these auxiliary engines. See 40 CFR
part 1037 for requirements that may apply for vehicles using these
engines, such as the evaporative emission requirements of 40 CFR
1037.103.
(c) The provisions of this part do not apply to aircraft or
aircraft engines. Standards apply separately to certain aircraft
engines, as described in 40 CFR part 87.
(d) The provisions of this part do not apply to engines that are
not internal combustion engines. For example, the provisions of this
part do not apply to fuel cells.
(e) The provisions of this part do not apply to engines used in
heavy-duty vehicles that are subject to light-duty greenhouse gas
standards under 40 CFR part 86, subpart S, except as specified in 40
CFR part 86, subpart S, and Sec. 1036.108(a)(4).
Sec. 1036.10 How is this part organized?
This part 1036 is divided into the following subparts:
(a) Subpart A of this part defines the applicability of this part
1036 and gives an overview of regulatory requirements.
(b) Subpart B of this part describes the emission standards and
other requirements that must be met to certify engines under this part.
Note that Sec. 1036.150 describes certain interim requirements and
compliance provisions that apply only for a limited time.
(c) Subpart C of this part describes how to apply for a certificate
of conformity.
(d) [Reserved]
(e) Subpart E of this part describes provisions for testing in-use
engines.
(f) Subpart F of this part describes how to test your engines
(including references to other parts of the Code of Federal
Regulations).
(g) Subpart G of this part describes requirements, prohibitions,
and other provisions that apply to engine manufacturers, vehicle
manufacturers, owners, operators, rebuilders, and all others.
(h) Subpart H of this part describes how you may generate and use
emission credits to certify your engines.
(i) Subpart I of this part contains definitions and other reference
information.
Sec. 1036.15 Do any other regulation parts apply to me?
(a) Part 86 of this chapter describes additional requirements that
apply to
[[Page 57382]]
engines that are subject to this part 1036. This part extensively
references portions of 40 CFR part 86. For example, the regulations of
part 86 specify emission standards and certification procedures related
to criteria pollutants.
(b) Part 1037 of this chapter describes requirements for
controlling evaporative emissions and greenhouse gas emissions from
heavy-duty vehicles, whether or not they use engines certified under
this part. It also includes standards and requirements that apply
instead of the standards and requirements of this part in some cases.
(c) Part 1065 of this chapter describes procedures and equipment
specifications for testing engines to measure exhaust emissions.
Subpart F of this part 1036 describes how to apply the provisions of
part 1065 of this chapter to determine whether engines meet the exhaust
emission standards in this part.
(d) Certain provisions of part 1068 of this chapter apply as
specified in Sec. 1036.601 to everyone, including anyone who
manufactures, imports, installs, owns, operates, or rebuilds any of the
engines subject to this part 1036, or vehicles containing these
engines. Part 1068 of this chapter describes general provisions that
apply broadly, but do not necessarily apply for all engines or all
persons. The issues addressed by these provisions include these seven
areas:
(1) Prohibited acts and penalties for engine manufacturers, vehicle
manufacturers, and others.
(2) Rebuilding and other aftermarket changes.
(3) Exclusions and exemptions for certain engines.
(4) Importing engines.
(5) Selective enforcement audits of your production.
(6) Recall.
(7) Procedures for hearings.
(e) Other parts of this chapter apply if referenced in this part.
Sec. 1036.30 Submission of information.
Send all reports and requests for approval to the Designated
Compliance Officer (see Sec. 1036.801). See Sec. 1036.825 for
additional reporting and recordkeeping provisions.
Subpart B--Emission Standards and Related Requirements
Sec. 1036.100 Overview of exhaust emission standards.
Engines used in vehicles certified to the applicable chassis
standards for greenhouse gas pollutants described in 40 CFR 1037.104
are not subject to the standards specified in this part. All other
engines subject to this part must meet the greenhouse gas standards in
Sec. 1036.108 in addition to the criteria pollutant standards of 40
CFR part 86.
Sec. 1036.108 Greenhouse gas emission standards.
This section 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, perflurocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. This
section describes the applicable CO2, N2O, and
CH4 standards for engines. Except as specified in paragraph
(a)(4) of this section, these standards do not apply for engines used
in vehicles subject to (or voluntarily certified to) the
CO2, N2O, and CH4 standards for
vehicles specified in 40 CFR 1037.104.
(a) Emission standards. Emission standards apply for engines
measured using the test procedures specified in subpart F of this part
as follows:
(1) CO2 emission standards apply as specified in this
paragraph (a)(1). The applicable test cycle for measuring
CO2 emissions differs depending on the engine family's
primary intended service class and the extent to which the engines will
be (or were designed to be) used in tractors. For medium and heavy
heavy-duty engines certified as tractor engines, measure CO2
emissions using the steady-state duty cycle specified in 40 CFR 86.1362
(referred to as the SET cycle). This is intended for engines designed
to be used primarily in tractors and other line-haul applications. Note
that the use of some SET-certified tractor engines in vocational
applications does not affect your certification obligation under this
paragraph (a)(1); see other provisions of this part and 40 CFR part
1037 for limits on using engines certified to only one cycle. For
medium and heavy heavy-duty engines certified as both tractor and
vocational engines, measure CO2 emissions using the steady-
state duty cycle and the transient duty cycle (sometimes referred to as
the FTP engine cycle), both of which are specified in 40 CFR part 86,
subpart N. This is intended for engines that are designed for use in
both tractor and vocational applications. For all other engines
(including all spark-ignition engines), measure CO2
emissions using the transient duty cycle specified in 40 CFR part 86,
subpart N.
(i) The CO2 standard for model year 2016 and later
spark-ignition engines is 627 g/hp-hr.
(ii) The following CO2 standards apply for compression-
ignition engines and all other engines (in g/hp-hr):
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Medium Medium
Light heavy- heavy-duty-- Heavy heavy- heavy-duty-- Heavy heavy-
Model years duty vocational duty-- tractor duty--
vocational tractor
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014-2016...................................... 600 600 567 502 475
2017 and later................................. 576 576 555 487 460
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) The CH4 emission standard is 0.10 g/hp-hr when
measured over the transient duty cycle specified in 40 CFR part 86,
subpart N. This standard begins in model year 2014 for compression
ignition engines and in model year 2016 for spark-ignition engines.
Note that this standard applies for all fuel types just as the other
standards of this section do.
(3) The N2O emission standard for all model year 2014
and later engines is 0.10 g/hp-hr when measured over the transient duty
cycle specified in 40 CFR part 86, subpart N. This standard begins in
model year 2014 for compression ignition engines and in model year 2016
for spark-ignition engines.
(4) This paragraph (a)(4) describes alternate emission standards
for engines certified under 40 CFR 1037.150(m). The standards of
paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section do not apply for these
engines. The standards in this paragraph (a)(4) apply for emissions
measured with the engine installed in a complete vehicle consistent
with the provisions of 40 CFR 1037.150(m)(6). The CO2
standard for the engines equals the test result specified in 40 CFR
1037.150(m)(6) multiplied by 1.10 and rounded to the nearest 0.1 g/
mile. The N2O and CH4 standards are both 0.05 g/
mile (or any alternate standards that apply to the corresponding
vehicle test group). The only requirements of this part that apply to
these engines are those in this paragraph (a)(4) and those in
Sec. Sec. 1036.115 through 1036.135.
[[Page 57383]]
(b) Family certification levels. You must specify a CO2
Family Certification Level (FCL) for each engine family. The FCL may
not be less than the certified emission level for the engine family.
The CO2 Family Emission Limit (FEL) for the engine family is
equal to the FCL multiplied by 1.03.
(c) Averaging, banking, and trading. You may generate or use
emission credits under the averaging, banking, and trading (ABT)
program described in subpart H of this part for demonstrating
compliance with CO2 emission standards. Credits (positive
and negative) are calculated from the difference between the FCL and
the applicable emission standard. As described in Sec. 1036.705, you
may use CO2 credits to certify your engine families to FELs
for N2O and/or CH4, instead of the
N2O/CH4 standards of this section that otherwise
apply. Except as specified in Sec. Sec. 1036.150 and 1036.705, you may
not generate or use credits for N2O or CH4
emissions.
(d) Useful life. Your engines must meet the exhaust emission
standards of this section throughout their full useful life, expressed
in service miles or calendar years, whichever comes first. The useful
life values applicable to the criteria pollutant standards of 40 CFR
part 86 apply for the standards of this section.
(e) Applicability for testing. The emission standards in this
subpart apply as specified in this paragraph (e) to all duty-cycle
testing (according to the applicable test cycles) of testable
configurations, including certification, selective enforcement audits,
and in-use testing. The CO2 FCLs serve as the CO2
emission standards for the engine family with respect to certification
and confirmatory testing instead of the standards specified in
paragraph (a)(1) of this section. The FELs serve as the emission
standards for the engine family with respect to all other testing. See
Sec. Sec. 1036.235 and 1036.241 to determine which engine
configurations within the engine family are subject to testing.
(f) Multi-fuel engines. For dual-fuel, multi-fuel, and flexible-
fuel engines, perform exhaust testing on each fuel type (for example,
gasoline and E85).
(1) This paragraph (f)(1) applies where you demonstrate the
relative amount of each fuel type that your engines consume in actual
use. Based on your demonstration, we will specify a weighting factor
and allow you to submit the weighted average of your emission results.
For example, if you certify an E85 flexible-fuel engine and we
determine the engine will produce one-half of its work from E85 and
one-half of its work from gasoline, you may average your E85 and
gasoline emission results.
(2) If you certify your engine family to N2O and/or
CH4 FELs the FELs apply for testing on all fuel types for
which your engine is designed, to the same extent as criteria emission
standards apply.
Sec. 1036.115 Other requirements.
(a) The warranty and maintenance requirements, adjustable parameter
provisions, and defeat device prohibition of 40 CFR part 86 apply with
respect to the standards of this part.
(b) [Reserved]
Sec. 1036.130 Installation instructions for vehicle manufacturers.
(a) If you sell an engine for someone else to install in a vehicle,
give the engine installer instructions for installing it consistent
with the requirements of this part. Include all information necessary
to ensure that an engine will be installed in its certified
configuration.
(b) Make sure these instructions have the following information:
(1) Include the heading: ``Emission-related installation
instructions''.
(2) State: ``Failing to follow these instructions when installing a
certified engine in a heavy-duty motor vehicle violates federal law,
subject to fines or other penalties as described in the Clean Air
Act.''
(3) Provide all instructions needed to properly install the exhaust
system and any other components.
(4) Describe any necessary steps for installing any diagnostic
system required under 40 CFR part 86.
(5) Describe how your certification is limited for any type of
application. For example, if you certify heavy heavy-duty engines to
the CO2 standards using only steady-state testing, you must
make clear that the engine may be installed only in tractors.
(6) Describe any other instructions to make sure the installed
engine will operate according to design specifications in your
application for certification. This may include, for example,
instructions for installing aftertreatment devices when installing the
engines.
(7) State: ``If you install the engine in a way that makes the
engine's emission control information label hard to read during normal
engine maintenance, you must place a duplicate label on the vehicle, as
described in 40 CFR 1068.105.''
(c) You do not need installation instructions for engines that you
install in your own vehicles.
(d) Provide instructions in writing or in an equivalent format. For
example, you may post instructions on a publicly available Web site for
downloading or printing. If you do not provide the instructions in
writing, explain in your application for certification how you will
ensure that each installer is informed of the installation
requirements.
Sec. 1036.135 Labeling.
Label your engines as described in 40 CFR 86.007-35(a)(3), with the
following additional information:
(a) [Reserved]
(b) Identify the emission control system. Use terms and
abbreviations as described in 40 CFR 1068.45 or other applicable
conventions.
(c) Identify any limitations on your certification. For example, if
you certify heavy heavy-duty engines to the CO2 standards
using only transient cycle testing, include the statement ``VOCATIONAL
VEHICLES ONLY''.
(d) You may ask us to approve modified labeling requirements in
this part 1036 if you show that it is necessary or appropriate. We will
approve your request if your alternate label is consistent with the
requirements of this part. We may also specify modified labeling
requirement to be consistent with the intent of 40 CFR part 1037.
Sec. 1036.140 Primary intended service class.
You must identify a single primary intended service class for each
compression-ignition engine family. Select the class that best
describes vehicles for which you design and market the engine. The
three primary intended service classes are light heavy-duty, medium
heavy-duty, and heavy heavy-duty. Note that provisions that apply based
on primary intended service class often treat spark-ignition engines as
if they were a separate service class.
(a) Light heavy-duty engines usually are not designed for rebuild
and do not have cylinder liners. Vehicle body types in this group might
include any heavy-duty vehicle built for a light-duty truck chassis,
van trucks, multi-stop vans, motor homes and other recreational
vehicles, and some straight trucks with a single rear axle. Typical
applications would include personal transportation, light-load
commercial delivery, passenger service, agriculture, and construction.
The GVWR of these vehicles is normally below 19,500 pounds.
(b) Medium heavy-duty engines may be designed for rebuild and may
have cylinder liners. Vehicle body types in this group would typically
include school buses, straight trucks with dual
[[Page 57384]]
rear axles, city tractors, and a variety of special purpose vehicles
such as small dump trucks, and refuse trucks. Typical applications
would include commercial short haul and intra-city delivery and pickup.
Engines in this group are normally used in vehicles whose GVWR ranges
from 19,500 to 33,000 pounds.
(c) Heavy heavy-duty engines are designed for multiple rebuilds and
have cylinder liners. Vehicles in this group are normally tractors,
trucks, and buses used in inter-city, long-haul applications. These
vehicles normally exceed 33,000 pounds GVWR.
Sec. 1036.150 Interim provisions.
The provisions in this section apply instead of other provisions in
this part.
(a) Early banking of greenhouse gas emissions. You may generate
CO2 emission credits for engines you certify in model year
2013 (2015 for spark-ignition engines) to the standards of Sec.
1036.108.
(1) Except as specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, to
generate early credits, you must certify your entire U.S.-directed
production volume within that averaging set to these standards. This
means that you may not generate early credits while you produce engines
in the averaging set that are certified to the criteria pollutant
standards but not to the greenhouse gas standards. Calculate emission
credits as described in subpart H of this part relative to the standard
that would apply for model year 2014 (2016 for spark-ignition engines).
(2) You may generate early credits for an individual compression-
ignition engine family where you demonstrate that you have improved a
model year 2013 engine model's CO2 emissions relative to its
2012 baseline level and certify it to an FCL below the applicable
standard. Calculate emission credits as described in subpart H of this
part relative to the lesser of the standard that would apply for model
year 2014 engines or the baseline engine's CO2 emission
rate. Use the smaller U.S.-directed production volume of the 2013
engine family or the 2012 baseline engine family. We will not allow you
to generate emission credits under this paragraph (a)(2) unless we
determine that your 2013 engine is the same engine as the 2012 baseline
or that it replaces it.
(3) You may bank credits equal to the surplus credits you generate
under this paragraph (a) multiplied by 1.50. For example, if you have
10 Mg of surplus credits for model year 2013, you may bank 15 Mg of
credits. Credit deficits for an averaging set prior to model year 2014
(2016 for spark-ignition engines) do not carry over to model year 2014
(2016 for spark-ignition engines). We recommend that you notify us of
your intent to use this provision before submitting your applications.
(b) Model year 2014 N2O standards. In model year 2014
and earlier, manufacturers may show compliance with the N2O
standards using an engineering analysis. This allowance also applies
for later families certified using carryover CO2 data from
model 2014 consistent with Sec. 1036.235(d).
(c) Engine cycle classification. Engines meeting the definition of
spark-ignition, but regulated as diesel engines under 40 CFR part 86,
must be certified to the requirements applicable to compression-
ignition engines under this part. Such engines are deemed to be
compression-ignition engines for purposes of this part. Similarly,
engines meeting the definition of compression-ignition, but regulated
as Otto-cycle under 40 CFR part 86 must be certified to the
requirements applicable to spark-ignition engines under this part. Such
engines are deemed to be spark-ignition engines for purposes of this
part.
(d) Small manufacturers. Manufacturers meeting the small business
criteria specified for ``Gasoline Engine and Engine Parts
Manufacturing'' or ``Other Engine Equipment Manufacturers'' in 13 CFR
121.201 are not subject to the greenhouse gas emission standards in
Sec. 1036.108. Qualifying manufacturers must notify the Designated
Compliance Officer before importing or introducing into U.S. commerce
excluded engines. This notification must include a description of the
manufacturer's qualification as a small business under 13 CFR 121.201.
You must label your excluded vehicles with the statement: ``THIS ENGINE
IS EXCLUDED UNDER 40 CFR 1037.150(c).''
(e) Alternate phase-in standards. Where a manufacturer certifies
all of its model year 2013 compression-ignition engines within a given
primary intended service class to the applicable alternate standards of
this paragraph (e), its compression-ignition engines within that
primary intended service class are subject to the standards of this
paragraph (e) for model years 2013 through 2016. This means that once a
manufacturer chooses to certify a primary intended service class to the
standards of this paragraph (e), it is not allowed to opt out of these
standards. Engines certified to these standards are not eligible for
early credits under paragraph (a) of this section.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tractors LHD Engines MHD Engines HHD Engines
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model Years 2013-2015................ NA..................... 512 g/hp-hr............ 485 g/hp-hr.
Model Years 2016 and later \a\....... NA..................... 487 g/hp-hr............ 460 g/hp-hr.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vocational LHD Engines MHD Engines HHD Engines
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model Years 2013-2015................ 618 g/hp-hr............ 618 g/hp-hr............ 577 g/hp-hr.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model Years 2016 and later \a\....... 576 g/hp-hr............ 576 g/hp-hr............ 555 g/hp-hr.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Note: These alternate standards for 2016 and later are the same as the otherwise applicable standards for
2017 and later.
(f) Separate OBD families. This paragraph (f) applies where you
separately certify engines for the purpose of applying OBD requirements
(for engines used in vehicles under 14,000 pounds GVWR) from non-OBD
engines that could be certified as a single engine family. You may
treat the two engine families as a single engine family in certain
respects for the purpose of this part, as follows:
(1) This paragraph applies only where the two families are
identical in all respects except for the engine ratings offered and the
inclusion of OBD.
(2) For purposes of this part and 40 CFR part 86, the two families
remain two separate families except for the following:
(i) Specify the testable configurations of the non-OBD engine
family as the testable configurations for the OBD family.
(ii) Submit the same CO2, N2O, and
CH4 emission data for both engine families.
(g) Assigned deterioration factors. You may use assigned
deterioration factors (DFs) without performing your own durability
emission tests or engineering analysis as follows:
(1) You may use an assigned additive DF of 0.0 g/hp-hr for
CO2 emissions from engines that do not use advanced or
innovative technologies. If we determine it to be consistent with good
engineering judgment, we may allow you to use an assigned additive DF
of 0.0 g/hp-hr for CO2 emissions from your engines with
advanced or innovative technologies.
(2) You may use an assigned additive DF of 0.02 g/hp-hr for
N2O emissions from any engine.
(3) You may use an assigned additive DF of 0.02 g/hp-hr for
CH4 emissions from any engine.
(h) Advanced technology credits. If you generate credits from
engines
[[Page 57385]]
certified for advanced technology you may multiply these credits by
1.5, except that you may not apply this multiplier and the early-credit
multiplier of paragraph (a) of this section.
(i) CO2 credits for low N2O emissions. If you
certify your model year 2014, 2015, or 2016 engines to an
N2O FEL less than 0.04 g/hp-hr (provided you measure
N2O emissions from your emission-data engines), you may
generate additional CO2 credits under this paragraph (i).
Calculate the additional CO2 credits from the following
equation instead of the equation in Sec. 1036.705:
CO2 Credits (Mg) = (0.04 - FELN2O) [middot] (CF)
[middot] (Volume) [middot] (UL) [middot] (10-6) [middot]
(298)
Subpart C--Certifying Engine Families
Sec. 1036.205 What must I include in my application?
Submit an application for certification as described in 40 CFR
86.007-21, with the following additional information:
(a) Describe the engine family's specifications and other basic
parameters of the engine's design and emission controls with respect to
compliance with the requirements of this part. Describe in detail all
system components for controlling greenhouse gas emissions, including
all auxiliary emission control devices (AECDs) and all fuel-system
components you will install on any production or test engine. Identify
the part number of each component you describe. For this paragraph (a),
treat as separate AECDs any devices that modulate or activate
differently from each other.
(b) Describe any test equipment and procedures that you used if you
performed any tests that did not also involve measurement of criteria
pollutants. Describe any special or alternate test procedures you used
(see 40 CFR 1065.10(c)).
(c) Include the emission-related installation instructions you will
provide if someone else installs your engines in their vehicles (see
Sec. 1036.130).
(d) Describe the label information specified in Sec. 1036.135. We
may require you to include a copy of the label.
(e) Identify the FCLs with which you are certifying engines in the
engine family. The actual U.S.-directed production volume of
configurations that have emission rates at or below the FCL must be at
least one percent of your total actual (not projected) U.S.-directed
production volume for the engine family. Identify configurations within
the family that have emission rates at or below the FCL and meet the
one percent requirement. For example, if your total U.S.-directed
production volume for the engine family is 10,583, and the U.S.-
directed production volume for the tested rating is 75 engines, then
you can comply with this provision by setting your FCL so that one more
rating with a U.S.-directed production volume of at least 31 engines
meets the FCL. Where applicable, also identify other testable
configurations required under Sec. 1036.230(b)(2).
(f) Identify the engine family's deterioration factors and describe
how you developed them (see Sec. 1036.241). Present any test data you
used for this.
(g) Present emission data to show that you meet emission standards,
as follows:
(1) Present exhaust emission data for CO2,
CH4, and N2O on an emission-data engine to show
that your engines meet the applicable emission standards we specify in
Sec. 1036.108. Show emission figures before and after applying
deterioration factors for each engine. In addition to the composite
results, show individual measurements for cold-start testing and hot-
start testing over the transient test cycle.
(2) Note that Sec. 1036.235 allows you to submit an application in
certain cases without new emission data.
(h) State whether your certification is limited for certain
engines. For example, if you certify heavy heavy-duty engines to the
CO2 standards using only transient testing, the engines may
be installed only in vocational vehicles.
(i) Unconditionally certify that all the engines in the engine
family comply with the requirements of this part, other referenced
parts of the CFR, and the Clean Air Act. Note that Sec. 1036.235
specifies which engines to test to show that engines in the entire
family comply with the requirements of this part.
(j) Include the information required by other subparts of this
part. For example, include the information required by Sec. 1036.725
if you participate in the ABT program.
(k) Include the warranty statement and maintenance instructions if
we request them.
(l) Include other applicable information, such as information
specified in this part or 40 CFR part 1068 related to requests for
exemptions.
(m) For imported engines or equipment, identify the following:
(1) Describe your normal practice for importing engines. For
example, this may include identifying the names and addresses of any
agents you have authorized to import your engines. Engines imported by
nonauthorized agents are not covered by your certificate.
(2) The location of a test facility in the United States where you
can test your engines if we select them for testing under a selective
enforcement audit, as specified in 40 CFR part 1068, subpart E.
Sec. 1036.210 Preliminary approval before certification.
If you send us information before you finish the application, we
may review it and make any appropriate determinations, especially for
questions related to engine family definitions, auxiliary emission
control devices, adjustable parameters, deterioration factors, testing
for service accumulation, and maintenance. Decisions made under this
section are considered to be preliminary approval, subject to final
review and approval. We will generally not reverse a decision where we
have given you preliminary approval, unless we find new information
supporting a different decision. If you request preliminary approval
related to the upcoming model year or the model year after that, we
will make best-efforts to make the appropriate determinations as soon
as practicable. We will generally not provide preliminary approval
related to a future model year more than two years ahead of time.
Sec. 1036.225 Amending my application for certification.
Before we issue you a certificate of conformity, you may amend your
application to include new or modified engine configurations, subject
to the provisions of this section. After we have issued your
certificate of conformity, but before the end of the model year, you
may send us an amended application requesting that we include new or
modified engine configurations within the scope of the certificate,
subject to the provisions of this section. You must amend your
application if any changes occur with respect to any information that
is included or should be included in your application.
(a) You must amend your application before you take any of the
following actions:
(1) Add an engine configuration to an engine family. In this case,
the engine configuration added must be consistent with other engine
configurations in the engine family with respect to the criteria listed
in Sec. 1036.230.
(2) Change an engine configuration already included in an engine
family in a way that may affect emissions, or change any of the
components you described in your application for certification. This
includes production
[[Page 57386]]
and design changes that may affect emissions any time during the
engine's lifetime.
(3) Modify an FEL and FCL for an engine family as described in
paragraph (f) of this section.
(b) To amend your application for certification, send the relevant
information to the Designated Compliance Officer.
(1) Describe in detail the addition or change in the engine model
or configuration you intend to make.
(2) Include engineering evaluations or data showing that the
amended engine family complies with all applicable requirements. You
may do this by showing that the original emission-data engine is still
appropriate for showing that the amended family complies with all
applicable requirements.
(3) If the original emission-data engine for the engine family is
not appropriate to show compliance for the new or modified engine
configuration, include new test data showing that the new or modified
engine configuration meets the requirements of this part.
(c) We may ask for more test data or engineering evaluations. You
must give us these within 30 days after we request them.
(d) For engine families already covered by a certificate of
conformity, we will determine whether the existing certificate of
conformity covers your newly added or modified engine. You may ask for
a hearing if we deny your request (see Sec. 1036.820).
(e) For engine families already covered by a certificate of
conformity, you may start producing the new or modified engine
configuration anytime after you send us your amended application and
before we make a decision under paragraph (d) of this section. However,
if we determine that the affected engines do not meet applicable
requirements, we will notify you to cease production of the engines and
may require you to recall the engines at no expense to the owner.
Choosing to produce engines under this paragraph (e) is deemed to be
consent to recall all engines that we determine do not meet applicable
emission standards or other requirements and to remedy the
nonconformity at no expense to the owner. If you do not provide
information required under paragraph (c) of this section within 30 days
after we request it, you must stop producing the new or modified
engines.
(f) You may ask us to approve a change to your FEL in certain cases
after the start of production, but before the end of the model year. If
you change an FEL for CO2, your FCL for CO2 is
automatically set to your new FEL divided by 1.03. The changed FEL may
not apply to engines you have already introduced into U.S. commerce,
except as described in this paragraph (f). If we approve a changed FEL
after the start of production, you must include the new FEL on the
emission control information label for all engines produced after the
change. You may ask us to approve a change to your FEL in the following
cases:
(1) You may ask to raise your FEL for your engine family at any
time. In your request, you must show that you will still be able to
meet the emission standards as specified in subparts B and H of this
part. Use the appropriate FELs/FCLs with corresponding production
volumes to calculate emission credits for the model year, as described
in subpart H of this part.
(2) You may ask to lower the FEL for your engine family only if you
have test data from production engines showing that emissions are below
the proposed lower FEL (or below the proposed FCL for CO2).
The lower FEL/FCL applies only to engines you produce after we approve
the new FEL/FCL. Use the appropriate FELs/FCLs with corresponding
production volumes to calculate emission credits for the model year, as
described in subpart H of this part.
Sec. 1036.230 Selecting engine families.
See 40 CFR 86.001-24 for instructions on how to divide your product
line into families of engines that are expected to have similar
emission characteristics throughout the useful life. You must certify
your engines to the standards of Sec. 1036.108 using the same engine
families you use for criteria pollutants under 40 CFR part 86. The
following provisions also apply:
(a) Engines certified as hybrid engines or power packs may not be
included in an engine family with engines with conventional
powertrains. Note that this does not prevent you from including engines
in a conventional family if they are used in hybrid vehicles, as long
as you certify them conventionally.
(b) If you certify engines in the family for use as both vocational
and tractor engines, you must split your family into two separate
subfamilies. Indicate in the application for certification that the
engine family is to be split.
(1) Calculate emission credits relative to the vocational engine
standard for the number of engines sold into vocational applications
and relative to the tractor engine standard for the number of engines
sold into non-vocational tractor applications. You may assign the
numbers and configurations of engines within the respective subfamilies
at any time before submitting the end-of-year report required by Sec.
1036.730. If the family participates in averaging, banking, or trading,
you must identify the type of vehicle in which each engine is
installed; we may alternatively allow you to use statistical methods to
determine this for a fraction of your engines. Keep records to document
this determination.
(2) If you restrict use of the test configuration for your split
family to only tractors, or only vocational vehicles, you must identify
a second testable configuration for the other type of vehicle (or an
unrestricted configuration). Identify this configuration in your
application for certification. The FCL for the engine family applies
for this configuration as well as the primary test configuration.
(c) If you certify in separate engine families engines that could
have been certified in vocational and tractor engine subfamilies in the
same engine family, count the two families as one family for purposes
of determining your obligations with respect to the OBD requirements
and in-use testing requirements of 40 CFR part 86. Indicate in the
applications for certification that the two engine families are covered
by this paragraph (c).
(d) Engine configurations within an engine family must use
equivalent greenhouse gas emission controls. Unless we approve it, you
may not produce nontested configurations without the same emission
control hardware included on the tested configuration. We will only
approve it if you demonstrate that the exclusion of the hardware does
not increase greenhouse gas emissions.
Sec. 1036.235 Testing requirements for certification.
This section describes the emission testing you must perform to
show compliance with the greenhouse gas emission standards in Sec.
1036.108.
(a) Select a single emission-data engine from each engine family as
specified in 40 CFR part 86. The standards of this part apply only with
respect to emissions measured from this tested configuration and other
configurations identified in Sec. 1036.205(e). Note that
configurations identified in Sec. 1036.205(e) are considered to be
``tested configurations'' whether or not you actually tested them for
certification. However, you must apply the same (or equivalent)
emission controls to all other engine configurations in the engine
family.
(b) Test your emission-data engines using the procedures and
equipment specified in subpart F of this part. In the
[[Page 57387]]
case of dual-fuel and flexible-fuel engines, measure emissions when
operating with each type of fuel for which you intend to certify the
engine. Measure CO2, CH4, and N2O
emissions using the specified duty cycle(s), including cold-start and
hot-start testing as specified in 40 CFR part 86, subpart N. If you are
certifying the engine for use in tractors, you must measure
CO2 emissions using the SET cycle and measure
CH4, and N2O emissions using the transient cycle.
If you are certifying the engine for use in vocational applications,
you must measure CO2, CH4, and N2O
emissions using the specified transient duty cycle, including cold-
start and hot-start testing as specified in 40 CFR part 86, subpart N.
Engines certified for use in tractors may also be used in vocational
vehicles; however, you may not knowingly circumvent the intent of this
part (to reduce in-use emissions of CO2) by certifying
engines designed for vocational vehicles (and rarely used in tractors)
to the SET and not the transient cycle. For example, we would generally
not allow you to certify all your engines to the SET without certifying
any to the transient cycle. You may certify your engine family for both
tractor and vocational use by submitting CO2 emission data
from both SET and transient cycle testing and specifying FCLs for both.
(c) We may measure emissions from any of your emission-data
engines.
(1) We may decide to do the testing at your plant or any other
facility. If we do this, you must deliver the engine to a test facility
we designate. The engine you provide must include appropriate
manifolds, aftertreatment devices, electronic control units, and other
emission-related components not normally attached directly to the
engine block. If we do the testing at your plant, you must schedule it
as soon as possible and make available the instruments, personnel, and
equipment we need.
(2) If we measure emissions on your engine, the results of that
testing become the official emission results for the engine. Unless we
later invalidate these data, we may decide not to consider your data in
determining if your engine family meets applicable requirements.
(3) Before we test one of your engines, we may set its adjustable
parameters to any point within the physically adjustable ranges.
(4) Before we test one of your engines, we may calibrate it within
normal production tolerances for anything we do not consider an
adjustable parameter. For example, this would apply for an engine
parameter that is subject to production variability because it is
adjustable during production, but is not considered an adjustable
parameter (as defined in Sec. 1036.801) because it is permanently
sealed.
(d) You may ask to use carryover emission data from a previous
model year instead of doing new tests, but only if all the following
are true:
(1) The engine family from the previous model year differs from the
current engine family only with respect to model year or other
characteristics unrelated to emissions.
(2) The emission-data engine from the previous model year remains
the appropriate emission-data engine under paragraph (b) of this
section.
(3) The data show that the emission-data engine would meet all the
requirements that apply to the engine family covered by the application
for certification.
(e) We may require you to test a second engine of the same
configuration in addition to the engine tested under paragraph (a) of
this section.
(f) If you use an alternate test procedure under 40 CFR 1065.10 and
later testing shows that such testing does not produce results that are
equivalent to the procedures specified in subpart F of this part, we
may reject data you generated using the alternate procedure.
Sec. 1036.241 Demonstrating compliance with greenhouse gas pollutant
standards.
(a) For purposes of certification, your engine family is considered
in compliance with the emission standards in Sec. 1036.108 if all
emission-data engines representing the tested configuration of that
engine family have test results showing official emission results and
deteriorated emission levels at or below the standards. Note that your
FCLs are considered to be the applicable emission standards with which
you must comply for certification.
(b) Your engine family is deemed not to comply if any emission-data
engine representing the tested configuration of that engine family has
test results showing an official emission result or a deteriorated
emission level for any pollutant that is above an applicable emission
standard (generally the FCL). Note that you may increase your FCL if
any certification test results exceed your initial FCL.
(c) Apply deterioration factors to the measured emission levels for
each pollutant to show compliance with the applicable emission
standards. Your deterioration factors must take into account any
available data from in-use testing with similar engines. Apply
deterioration factors as follows:
(1) Additive deterioration factor for greenhouse gas emissions.
Except as specified in paragraph (c)(2) of this section, use an
additive deterioration factor for exhaust emissions. An additive
deterioration factor is the difference between exhaust emissions at the
end of the useful life and exhaust emissions at the low-hour test
point. In these cases, adjust the official emission results for each
tested engine at the selected test point by adding the factor to the
measured emissions. If the factor is less than zero, use zero. Additive
deterioration factors must be specified to one more decimal place than
the applicable standard.
(2) Multiplicative deterioration factor for greenhouse gas
emissions. Use a multiplicative deterioration factor for a pollutant if
good engineering judgment calls for the deterioration factor for that
pollutant to be the ratio of exhaust emissions at the end of the useful
life to exhaust emissions at the low-hour test point. Adjust the
official emission results for each tested engine at the selected test
point by multiplying the measured emissions by the deterioration
factor. If the factor is less than one, use one. A multiplicative
deterioration factor may not be appropriate in cases where testing
variability is significantly greater than engine-to-engine variability.
Multiplicative deterioration factors must be specified to one more
significant figure than the applicable standard.
(3) Sawtooth deterioration patterns. The deterioration factors
described in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section assume that the
highest useful life emissions occur either at the end of useful life or
at the low-hour test point. The provisions of this paragraph (c)(3)
apply where good engineering judgment indicates that the highest useful
life emissions will occur between these two points. For example,
emissions may increase with service accumulation until a certain
maintenance step is performed, then return to the low-hour emission
levels and begin increasing again. Such a pattern may occur with
battery-based electric hybrid engines. Base deterioration factors for
engines with such emission patterns on the difference between (or ratio
of) the point at which the highest emissions occur and the low-hour
test point. Note that this applies for maintenance-related
deterioration only where we allow such critical emission-related
maintenance.
(d) Collect emission data using measurements to one more decimal
place than the applicable standard. Apply the deterioration factor to
the official emission result, as described in
[[Page 57388]]
paragraph (c) of this section, then round the adjusted figure to the
same number of decimal places as the emission standard. Compare the
rounded emission levels to the emission standard for each emission-data
engine.
(e) If you identify more than one configuration in Sec.
1036.205(e), we may test (or require you to test) any of the identified
configurations. We may also require you to provide an engineering
analysis that demonstrates that untested configurations listed in Sec.
1036.205(e) comply with their FCL.
Sec. 1036.250 Reporting and recordkeeping for certification.
(a) Within 90 days after the end of the model year, send the
Designated Compliance Officer a report including the total U.S.-
directed production volume of engines you produced in each engine
family during the model year (based on information available at the
time of the report). Report the production by serial number and engine
configuration. Small manufacturers may omit this requirement. You may
combine this report with reports required under subpart H of this part.
(b) Organize and maintain the following records:
(1) A copy of all applications and any summary information you send
us.
(2) Any of the information we specify in Sec. 1036.205 that you
were not required to include in your application.
(c) Keep routine data from emission tests required by this part
(such as test cell temperatures and relative humidity readings) for one
year after we issue the associated certificate of conformity. Keep all
other information specified in this section for eight years after we
issue your certificate.
(d) Store these records in any format and on any media, as long as
you can promptly send us organized, written records in English if we
ask for them. You must keep these records readily available. We may
review them at any time.
Sec. 1036.255 What decisions may EPA make regarding my certificate of
conformity?
(a) If we determine your application is complete and shows that the
engine family meets all the requirements of this part and the Act, we
will issue a certificate of conformity for your engine family for that
model year. We may make the approval subject to additional conditions.
(b) We may deny your application for certification if we determine
that your engine family fails to comply with emission standards or
other requirements of this part or the Clean Air Act. We will base our
decision on all available information. If we deny your application, we
will explain why in writing.
(c) In addition, we may deny your application or suspend or revoke
your certificate if you do any of the following:
(1) Refuse to comply with any testing or reporting requirements.
(2) Submit false or incomplete information (paragraph (e) of this
section applies if this is fraudulent). This includes doing anything
after submission of your application to render any of the submitted
information false or incomplete.
(3) Render inaccurate any test data.
(4) Deny us from completing authorized activities despite our
presenting a warrant or court order (see 40 CFR 1068.20). This includes
a failure to provide reasonable assistance. However, you may ask us to
reconsider our decision by showing that your failure under this
paragraph (c)(4) did not involve engines related to the certificate or
application in question to a degree that would justify our decision.
(5) Produce engines for importation into the United States at a
location where local law prohibits us from carrying out authorized
activities.
(6) Fail to supply requested information or amend your application
to include all engines being produced.
(7) Take any action that otherwise circumvents the intent of the
Act or this part, with respect to your engine family.
(d) We may void the certificate of conformity for an engine family
if you fail to keep records, send reports, or give us information as
required under this part or the Act. Note that these are also
violations of 40 CFR 1068.101(a)(2).
(e) We may void your certificate if we find that you intentionally
submitted false or incomplete information. This includes rendering
submitted information false or incomplete after submission.
(f) If we deny your application or suspend, revoke, or void your
certificate, you may ask for a hearing (see Sec. 1036.820).
Subpart D--[Reserved]
Subpart E--In-use Testing
Sec. 1036.401 In-use testing.
We may perform in-use testing of any engine family subject to the
standards of this part, consistent with the provisions of Sec.
1036.235. Note that this provisions does not affect your obligation to
test your in-use engines as described in 40 CFR part 86, subpart T.
Subpart F--Test Procedures
Sec. 1036.501 How do I run a valid emission test?
(a) Use the equipment and procedures specified in 40 CFR 86.1305 to
determine whether engines meet the emission standards in Sec.
1036.108.
(b) You may use special or alternate procedures to the extent we
allow them under 40 CFR 1065.10.
(c) This subpart is addressed to you as a manufacturer, but it
applies equally to anyone who does testing for you, and to us when we
perform testing to determine if your engines meet emission standards.
(d) For engines that use aftertreatment technology with infrequent
regeneration events, invalidate any test interval in which such a
regeneration event occurs with respect to CO2,
N2O, and CH4 measurements.
(e) Test hybrid engines as described in 40 CFR part 1065 and Sec.
1036.525.
(f) [Reserved]
(g) If your engine requires special components for proper testing,
you must provide any such components to us if we ask for them.
Sec. 1036.525 Hybrid engines.
(a) If your engine system includes features that recover and store
energy during engine motoring operation test the engine as described in
paragraph (d) of this section. See Sec. 1036.615(a)(2) for engine
systems intended to include features that recover and store energy from
braking unrelated to engine motoring operation. For purposes of this
section, features that recover energy between the engine and
transmission are considered ``related to engine motoring''.
(b) If you produce a hybrid engine designed with power take-off
capability and sell the engine coupled with a transmission, you may
calculate a reduction in CO2 emissions resulting from the
power take-off operation as described in 40 CFR 1037.525. Use good
engineering judgment to use the vehicle-based procedures to quantify
the CO2 reduction for your engines.
(c) The hardware that must be included in these tests is the
engine, the hybrid electric motor, the rechargeable energy storage
system (RESS) and the power electronics between the hybrid electric
motor and the RESS. You may ask us to modify the provisions of this
section to allow testing non-electric hybrid vehicles, consistent with
good engineering judgment.
(d) Measure emissions using the same procedures that apply for
testing non-hybrid engines under this part, except as specified
otherwise in this part and/
[[Page 57389]]
or 40 CFR part 1065. If you test hybrid engines using the SET,
deactivate the hybrid features unless we have specified otherwise. The
five differences that apply under this section are related to engine
mapping, engine shutdown during the test cycle, calculating work,
limits on braking energy, and state of charge constraints.
(1) Map the engine as specified in 40 CFR 1065.510. This requires
separate torque maps for the engine with and without the hybrid
features active. For transient testing, denormalize the test cycle
using the map generated with the hybrid feature active. For steady-
state testing, denormalize the test cycle using the map generated with
the hybrid feature inactive.
(2) If the engine will be configured in actual use to shut down
automatically during idle operation, you may let the engine shut down
during the idle portions of the test cycle.
(3) Follow 40 CFR 1065.650(d) to calculate the work done over the
cycle except as specified in this paragraph (d)(3). For the positive
work over the cycle set negative power from hybrid to zero. For the
negative work over the cycle set the positive power to zero and set the
non-hybrid power to zero.
(4)(i) Calculate brake energy fraction, xb, as the
integrated negative work over the cycle divided by the integrated
positive work over the cycle according to Equation 1036.525-1.
Calculate the brake energy limit for the engine, xbl,
according to Equation 1036.525-2. If xb is less than
xbl, use the integrated positive work for your emission
calculations. If the xb is greater than xbl use
Equation 1036.525-3 to calculate the positive work done over the cycle.
Use Wcycle as the integrated positive work when calculating
brake-specific emissions. To avoid the need to delete extra brake work
from positive work you may set an instantaneous brake target that will
prevent xb from being larger than xbl.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15SE11.007
(ii) The following definitions of terms apply for this paragraph
(d)(4):
xb = the brake energy fraction.
Wneg = the negative work over the cycle.
Wpos = the positive work over the cycle.
xbl = the brake energy fraction limit.
Pmax = the maximum power of the engine with the hybrid
system engaged (kW).
Wcycle = the work over the cycle when xb is
greater than xbl.
(iii) Note that these calculations are specified with SI units
(such as kW), consistent with 40 CFR part 1065. Emission results are
converted to g/hp-hr at the end of the calculations.
(5) Correct for the net energy change of the energy storage device
as described in 40 CFR 1066.501.
Sec. 1036.530 Calculating greenhouse gas emission rates.
This section describes how to calculate official emission results
for CO2, CH4, and N2O.
(a) Calculate brake-specific emission rates for each applicable
duty cycle as specified in 40 CFR 1065.650. Do not apply infrequent
regeneration adjustment factors to your results.
(b) Adjust CO2 emission rates calculated under paragraph
(a) of this section for measured test fuel properties as specified in
this paragraph (b) to obtain the official emission results. You are not
required to apply this adjustment for fuels containing at least 75
percent pure alcohol, such as E85. The purpose of this adjustment is to
make official emission results independent of differences in test fuels
within a fuel type. Use good engineering judgment to develop and apply
testing protocols to minimize the impact of variations in test fuels.
(1) For liquid fuels, determine the net energy content (Btu per
pound of fuel) according to ASTM D4809 or ASTM D240 (both incorporated
by reference in Sec. 1036.810) and carbon weight fraction
(dimensionless) of your test fuel according to ASTM D5291 (incorporated
by reference in Sec. 1036.810). (Note that we recommend using ASTM
D4809.) For gaseous fuels, use good engineering judgment to determine
the fuel's net energy content and carbon weight fraction. (Note: Net
energy content is also sometimes known as lower heating value.)
Calculate the test fuel's carbon-specific net energy content (Btu/lbC)
by dividing the net energy content by the carbon fraction, expressed to
at least five significant figures. You may perform these calculations
using SI units with the following conversion factors: one Btu equals
1055.06 Joules and one Btu/lb equals 0.0023260 MJ/kg.
(2) If you control test fuel properties so that variations in the
actual carbon-specific energy content are the same as or smaller than
the repeatability of measuring carbon-specific energy content, you may
use a constant value equal to the average carbon-specific energy
content of your test fuel. Otherwise, use the measured value for the
specific test fuel used for a given test. If you use a constant value,
you must update or verify the value at least once per year, or after
changes in test fuel suppliers or specifications.
(3) Calculate the adjustment factor for carbon-specific net energy
content by dividing the carbon-specific net energy content of your test
fuel by the reference level in the following table, expressed to at
least five decimal places. Note that as used in this section, the unit
lbC means pound of carbon and kgC means kilogram of carbon.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference Reference
carbon- carbon-
Fuel type specific net specific net
energy content energy content
(Btu/lbC) (MJ/kgC)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diesel fuel............................. 21,200 49.3112
Gasoline................................ 21,700 50.4742
Natural Gas............................. 28,500 66.2910
LPG..................................... 24,300 56.5218
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 57390]]
(4) Your official emission result equals your calculated brake-
specific emission rate multiplied by the adjustment factor specified in
paragraph (b)(2) of this section. For example, if the net energy
content and carbon fraction of your diesel test fuel are 18,400 Btu/lb
and 0.870, the carbon-specific net energy content of the test fuel
would be 21,149 Btu/lbC. The adjustment factor in the example above
would be 0.99759 (21,149/21,200). If your brake-specific CO2
emission rate was 630.0 g/hp-hr, your official emission result would be
628.5 g/hp-hr.
Subpart G--Special Compliance Provisions
Sec. 1036.601 What compliance provisions apply to these engines?
(a) Engine and equipment manufacturers, as well as owners,
operators, and rebuilders of engines subject to the requirements of
this part, and all other persons, must observe the provisions of this
part, the provisions of the Clean Air Act, and the following provisions
of 40 CFR part 1068:
(1) The exemption and importation provisions of 40 CFR part 1068,
subparts C and D, apply for engines subject to this part 1036, except
that the hardship exemption provisions of 40 CFR 1068.245, 1068.250,
and 1068.255 do not apply for motor vehicle engines.
(2) Manufacturers may comply with the defect reporting requirements
of 40 CFR 1068.501 instead of the defect reporting requirements of 40
CFR part 85.
(b) Engines exempted from the applicable standards of 40 CFR part
86 are exempt from the standards of this part without request.
Sec. 1036.610 Innovative technology credits and adjustments for
reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
(a) You may ask us to apply the provisions of this section for
CO2 emission reductions resulting from powertrain
technologies that were not in common use with heavy-duty vehicles
before model year 2010 that are not reflected in the specified test
procedure. We will apply these provisions only for technologies that
will result in a measurable, demonstrable, and verifiable real-world
CO2 reduction.
(b) The provisions of this section may be applied as either an
improvement factor (used to adjust emission results) or as a separate
credit, consistent with good engineering judgment. We recommend that
you base your credit/adjustment on A to B testing of pairs of engines/
vehicles differing only with respect to the technology in question.
(1) Calculate improvement factors as the ratio of in-use emissions
with the technology divided by the in-use emissions without the
technology. Adjust the emission results by multiplying by the
improvement factor. Use the improvement-factor approach where good
engineering judgment indicates that the actual benefit will be
proportional to emissions measured over the test procedures specified
in this part. For example, the benefits from technologies that reduce
engine operation would generally be proportional to the engine's
emission rate.
(2) Calculate separate credits based on the difference between the
in-use emission rate (g/ton-mile) with the technology and the in-use
emission rate without the technology. Multiply this difference by the
number of engines, standard payload, and useful life. We may also allow
you to calculate the credits based on g/hp-hr emission rates. Use the
separate-credit approach where good engineering judgment indicates that
the actual benefit will not be proportional to emissions measured over
the test procedures specified in this part.
(3) We may require you to discount or otherwise adjust your
improvement factor or credit to account for uncertainty or other
relevant factors.
(c) Send your request to the Designated Compliance Officer. Include
a detailed description of the technology and a recommended test plan.
Also state whether you recommend applying these provisions using the
improvement-factor method or the separate-credit method. We recommend
that you do not begin collecting test data (for submission to EPA)
before contacting us. For technologies for which the vehicle
manufacturer could also claim credits (such as transmissions in certain
circumstances), we may require you to include a letter from the vehicle
manufacturer stating that it will not seek credits for the same
technology.
(d) We may seek public comment on your request, consistent with the
provisions of 40 CFR 86.1866-12(d)(3). However, we will generally not
seek public comment on credits/adjustments based on A to B engine
dynamometer testing, chassis testing, or in-use testing.
Sec. 1036.615 Engines with Rankine cycle waste heat recovery and
hybrid powertrains.
This section specifies how to generate advanced technology-specific
emission credits for hybrid powertrains that include energy storage
systems and regenerative braking (including regenerative engine
braking) and for engines that include Rankine-cycle (or other bottoming
cycle) exhaust energy recovery systems.
(a) Hybrid powertrains. The following provisions apply for pre-
transmission and post-transmission hybrid powertrains:
(1) Pre-transmission hybrid powertrains are those engine systems
that include features that recover and store energy during engine
motoring operation but not from the vehicle wheels. These powertrains
are tested using the hybrid engine test procedures of 40 CFR part 1065
or using the post-transmission test procedures in 40 CFR 1037.550.
(2) Post-transmission hybrid powertrains are those powertrains that
include features that recover and store energy from braking but that
cannot function as hybrids without the transmission. These powertrains
must have a single output shaft to the final drive and are tested by
simulating the chassis test procedure applicable for hybrid vehicles
under 40 CFR 1037.550. You need our approval before you begin testing.
(b) Rankine engines. Test engines that include Rankine-cycle
exhaust energy recovery systems according to the test procedures
specified in subpart F of this part unless we approve alternate
procedures.
(c) Calculating credits. Calculate credits as specified in subpart
H of this part. Credits generated from engines and powertrains
certified under this section may be used in other averaging sets as
described in Sec. 1036.740(d). Credits may not be generated under this
section and 40 CFR 1037.615 for the same technology on the same
vehicle.
(d) Innovative technologies. You may certify using both provisions
of this section and the innovative technology provisions of Sec.
1036.610, provided you do not double count emission benefits.
Sec. 1036.620 Alternate CO2 standards based on model year 2011
compression-ignition engines.
For model years 2014 through 2016, you may certify your
compression-ignition engines to the CO2 standards of this
section instead of the CO2 standards in Sec. 1036.108.
However, you may not certify engines to these alternate standards if
they are part of an averaging set in which you carry a balance of
banked credits. You may submit applications for certifications before
using up banked credits in the averaging set, but such certificates
will not become effective until you have used up (or retired) your
banked credits in the averaging set. For purposes of this section, you
are deemed to carry credits
[[Page 57391]]
in an averaging set if you carry credits from advanced technology that
are allowed to be used in that averaging set.
(a) The standards of this section are determined from the measured
emission rate of the test engine of the applicable baseline 2011 engine
family(ies) as described in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.
Calculate the CO2 emission rate of the baseline test engine
using the same equations used for showing compliance with the otherwise
applicable standard. The alternate CO2 standard for light
and medium heavy-duty vocational-certified engines (certified for
CO2 using the transient cycle) is equal to the baseline
emission rate multiplied by 0.975. The alternate CO2
standard for tractor-certified engines (certified for CO2
using the SET cycle) and all other heavy heavy-duty engines is equal to
the baseline emission rate multiplied by 0.970. The in-use FEL for
these engines is equal to the alternate standard multiplied by 1.03.
(b) This paragraph (b) applies if you do not certify all your
engine families in the averaging set to the alternate standards of this
section. Identify separate baseline engine families for each engine
family that you are certifying to the alternate standards of this
section. For an engine family to be considered the baseline engine
family, it must meet the following criteria:
(1) It must have been certified to all applicable emission
standards in model year 2011. If the baseline engine was certified to a
NOX FEL above the standard and incorporated the same
emission control technologies as the new engine family, you may adjust
the baseline CO2 emission rate to be equivalent to an engine
meeting the 0.20 g/hp-hr NOX standard (or your higher FEL as
specified in this paragraph (b)(1)), using certification results from
model years 2009 through 2011, consistent with good engineering
judgment.
(i) Use the following equation to relate model year 2009-2011
NOX and CO2 emission rates (g/hp-hr):
CO2 = a x log(NOX)+b.
(ii) For model year 2014-2016 engines certified to NOX
FELs above 0.20 g/hp-hr, correct the baseline CO2 emissions
to the actual NOX FELs of the 2014-2016 engines.
(iii) Calculate separate adjustments for transient and SET
emissions.
(2) The baseline configuration tested for certification must have
the same engine displacement as the engines in the engine family being
certified to the alternate standards, and its rated power must be
within five percent of the highest rated power in the engine family
being certified to the alternate standards.
(3) The model year 2011 U.S.-directed production volume of the
configuration tested must be at least one percent of the total 2011
U.S.-directed production volume for the engine family.
(4) The tested configuration must have cycle-weighted BSFC
equivalent to or better than all other configurations in the engine
family.
(c) This paragraph (c) applies if you certify all your engine
families in the primary intended service class to the alternate
standards of this section. For purposes of this section, you may
combine light heavy-duty and medium heavy-duty engines into a single
averaging set. Determine your baseline CO2 emission rate as
the production-weighted emission rate of the certified engine families
you produced in the 2011 model year. If you produce engines for both
tractors and vocational vehicles, treat them as separate averaging
sets. Adjust the CO2 emission rates to be equivalent to an
engine meeting the average NOX FEL of new engines (assuming
engines certified to the 0.20 g/hp-hr NOX standard have a
NOX FEL equal to 0.20 g/hp-hr), as described in paragraph
(b)(1) of this section.
(d) Include the following statement on the emission control
information label: ``THIS ENGINE WAS CERTIFIED TO AN ALTERNATE
CO2 STANDARD UNDER Sec. 1036.620.''
(e) You may not bank CO2 emission credits for any engine
family in the same averaging set and model year in which you certify
engines to the standards of this section. You may not bank any advanced
technology credits in any averaging set for the model year you certify
under this section (since such credits would be available for use in
this averaging set). Note that the provisions of Sec. 1036.745 apply
for deficits generated with respect to the standards of this section.
(f) You need our approval before you may certify engines under this
section, especially with respect to the numerical value of the
alternate standards. We will not approve your request if we determine
that you manipulated your engine families or test engine configurations
to certify to less stringent standards, or that you otherwise have not
acted in good faith. You must keep and provide to us any information we
need to determine that your engine families meet the requirements of
this section. Keep these records for at least five years after you stop
producing engines certified under this section.
Sec. 1036.625 In-use compliance with family emission limits (FELs).
You may ask us to apply a higher in-use FEL for certain in-use
engines, subject to the provisions of this section. Note that Sec.
1036.225 contains provisions related to changing FELs during a model
year.
(a) Purpose. This section is intended to address circumstances in
which it is in the public interest to apply a higher in-use FEL based
on forfeiting an appropriate number of emission credits.
(b) FELs. When applying higher in-use FELs to your engines, we
would intend to accurately reflect the actual in-use performance of
your engines, consistent with the specified testing provisions of this
part.
(c) Equivalent families. We may apply the higher FELs to other
families in other model years if they used equivalent emission
controls.
(d) Credit forfeiture. Where we specify higher in-use FELs under
this section, you must forfeit CO2 emission credits based on
the difference between the in-use FEL and the otherwise applicable FEL.
Calculate the amount of credits to be forfeited using the applicable
equation in Sec. 1036.705, by substituting the otherwise applicable
FEL for the standard and the in-use FEL for the otherwise applicable
FEL.
(e) Requests. Submit your request to the Designated Compliance
Officer. Include the following in your request:
(1) The engine family name and model year of the engines affected.
(2) A list of other engine families/model years that may be
affected.
(3) The otherwise applicable FEL for the engine families along with
your recommendations for higher in-use FELs.
(4) Your source of credits for forfeiture.
(f) Relation to recall. You may not request higher in-use FELs for
any engine families for which we have made a determination of
nonconformance and ordered a recall. You may, however, make such
requests for engine families for which you are performing a voluntary
emission recall.
(g) Approval. We may approve your request if we determine that you
meet the requirements of this section and such approval is in the
public interest. We may include appropriate conditions with our
approval or we may approve your request with modifications.
Subpart H--Averaging, Banking, and Trading for Certification
Sec. 1036.701 General provisions.
(a) You may average, bank, and trade (ABT) emission credits for
purposes of
[[Page 57392]]
certification as described in this subpart and in subpart B of this
part to show compliance with the standards of Sec. 1036.108.
Participation in this program is voluntary. (Note: As described in
subpart B of this part, you must assign an FCL to all engine families,
whether or not they participate in the ABT provisions of this subpart.)
(b) [Reserved]
(c) The definitions of subpart I of this part apply to this
subpart. The following definitions also apply:
(1) Actual emission credits means emission credits you have
generated that we have verified by reviewing your final report.
(2) Averaging set means a set of engines in which emission credits
may be exchanged. Credits generated by one engine may only be used by
other engines in the same averaging set. See Sec. 1036.740.
(3) Broker means any entity that facilitates a trade of emission
credits between a buyer and seller.
(4) Buyer means the entity that receives emission credits as a
result of a trade.
(5) Reserved emission credits means emission credits you have
generated that we have not yet verified by reviewing your final report.
(6) Seller means the entity that provides emission credits during a
trade.
(7) Standard means the emission standard that applies under subpart
B of this part for engines not participating in the ABT program of this
subpart.
(8) Trade means to exchange emission credits, either as a buyer or
seller.
(d) Emission credits may be exchanged only within an averaging set
as specified in Sec. 1036.740.
(e) You may not use emission credits generated under this subpart
to offset any emissions that exceed an FCL or standard. This applies
for all testing, including certification testing, in-use testing,
selective enforcement audits, and other production-line testing.
However, if emissions from an engine exceed an FCL or standard (for
example, during a selective enforcement audit), you may use emission
credits to recertify the engine family with a higher FCL that applies
only to future production.
(f) Emission credits may be used in the model year they are
generated. Surplus emission credits may be banked for future model
years. Surplus emission credits may sometimes be used for past model
years, as described in Sec. 1036.745.
(g) You may increase or decrease an FCL during the model year by
amending your application for certification under Sec. 1036.225. The
new FCL may apply only to engines you have not already introduced into
commerce.
(h) You may trade emission credits generated from any number of
your engines to the engine purchasers or other parties to retire the
credits. Identify any such credits in the reports described in Sec.
1036.730. Engines must comply with the applicable FELs even if you
donate or sell the corresponding emission credits under this paragraph
(h). Those credits may no longer be used by anyone to demonstrate
compliance with any EPA emission standards.
(i) See Sec. 1036.740 for special credit provisions that apply for
credits generated under Sec. 1036.615 or 40 CFR 1037.104(d)(7) or
1037.615.
(j) Unless the regulations explicitly allow it, you may not
calculate credits more than once for any emission reduction. For
example, if you generate CO2 emission credits for a hybrid
engine under this part for a given vehicle, no one may generate
CO2 emission credits for that same hybrid engine and vehicle
under 40 CFR part 1037. However, credits could be generated for
identical vehicles using engines that did not generate credits under
this part.
Sec. 1036.705 Generating and calculating emission credits.
(a) The provisions of this section apply separately for calculating
emission credits for each pollutant.
(b) For each participating family, calculate positive or negative
emission credits relative to the otherwise applicable emission standard
based on the engine family's FCL for greenhouse gases. If your engine
family is certified to both the vocational and tractor engine
standards, calculate credits separately for the vocational engines and
the tractor engines (as specified in paragraph (b)(3) of this section).
Calculate positive emission credits for a family that has an FCL below
the standard. Calculate negative emission credits for a family that has
an FCL above the standard.
Sum your positive and negative credits for the model year before
rounding. Round the sum of emission credits to the nearest megagram
(Mg), using consistent units throughout the following equations:
(1) For vocational engines:
Emission credits (Mg) = (Std-FCL) [middot] (CF) [middot] (Volume)
[middot] (UL) [middot] (10-6)
Where:
Std = the emission standard, in g/hp-hr, that applies under
subpart B of this part for engines not participating in the ABT
program of this subpart (the ``otherwise applicable standard'').
FCL = the Family Certification Level for the engine family, in
g/hp-hr, measured over the transient duty cycle, rounded to the same
number of decimal places as the emission standard.
CF = a transient cycle conversion factor (hp-hr/mile),
calculated by dividing the total (integrated) horsepower-hour over
the duty cycle (average of vocational engine configurations weighted
by their production volumes) by 6.3 miles for spark-ignition engines
and 6.5 miles for compression-ignition engines. This represents the
average work performed by vocational engines in the family over the
mileage represented by operation over the duty cycle.
Volume = the number of vocational engines eligible to
participate in the averaging, banking, and trading program within
the given engine family during the model year, as described in
paragraph (c) of this section.
UL = the useful life for the given engine family, in miles.
(2) For tractor engines:
Emission credits (Mg) = (Std-FCL) [middot] (CF) [middot] (Volume)
[middot] (UL) [middot] (10-6)
Where:
Std = the emission standard, in g/hp-hr, that applies under
subpart B of this part for engines not participating in the ABT
program of this subpart (the ``otherwise applicable standard'').
FCL = the Family Certification Level for the engine family, in
g/hp-hr, measured over the SET duty cycle rounded to the same number
of decimal places as the emission standard.
CF = a transient cycle conversion factor (hp-hr/mile),
calculated by dividing the total (integrated) horsepower-hour over
the duty cycle (average of tractor-engine configurations weighted by
their production volumes) by 6.3 miles for spark-ignition engines
and 6.5 miles for compression-ignition engines. This represents the
average work performed by tractor engines in the family over the
mileage represented by operation over the duty cycle. Note that this
calculation requires you to use the transient cycle conversion
factor even for engines certified to SET-based standards. Volume =
the number of tractor engines eligible to participate in the
averaging, banking, and trading program within the given engine
family during the model year, as described in paragraph (c) of this
section.
UL = the useful life for the given engine family, in miles.
(3) For engine families certified to both the vocational and
tractor engine standards, we may allow you to use statistical methods
to estimate the total production volumes where a small fraction of the
engines cannot be tracked precisely.
(4) You may not generate emission credits for tractor engines
(i.e., engines not certified to the transient cycle for CO2)
installed in vocational vehicles (including vocational tractors
certified pursuant to 40 CFR 1037.630 or exempted pursuant to 40 CFR
1037.631). We will waive this requirement where you demonstrate
[[Page 57393]]
that less than five percent of the engines in your tractor family were
installed in vocational vehicles. For example, if you know that 96
percent of your tractor engines were installed in non-vocational
tractors, but cannot determine the vehicle type for the remaining four
percent, you may generate credits for all the engines in the family.
(c) As described in Sec. 1036.730, compliance with the
requirements of this subpart is determined at the end of the model year
based on actual U.S.-directed production volumes. Keep appropriate
records to document these production volumes. Do not include any of the
following engines to calculate emission credits:
(1) Engines that you do not certify to the CO2 standards
of this part because they are permanently exempted under subpart G of
this part or under 40 CFR part 1068.
(2) Exported engines.
(3) Engines not subject to the requirements of this part, such as
those excluded under Sec. 1036.5. For example, do not include engines
used in vehicles certified to the greenhouse gas standards of 40 CFR
1037.104.
(4) [Reserved]
(5) Any other engines if we indicate elsewhere in this part 1036
that they are not to be included in the calculations of this subpart.
(d) You may use CO2 emission credits to show compliance
with CH4 and/or N2O FELs instead of the otherwise
applicable emission standards. To do this, calculate the CH4
and/or N2O emission credits needed (negative credits) using
the equation in paragraph (b) of this section, using the FEL(s) you
specify for your engines during certification instead of the FCL. You
must use 25 Mg of positive CO2 credits to offset 1 Mg of
negative CH4 credits. You must use 298 Mg of positive
CO2 credits to offset 1 Mg of negative N2O
credits.
Sec. 1036.710 Averaging.
(a) Averaging is the exchange of emission credits among your engine
families. You may average emission credits only within the same
averaging set.
(b) You may certify one or more engine families to an FCL above the
applicable standard, subject to any applicable FEL caps and other the
provisions in subpart B of this part, if you show in your application
for certification that your projected balance of all emission-credit
transactions in that model year is greater than or equal to zero, or
that a negative balance is allowed under Sec. 1036.745.
(c) If you certify an engine family to an FCL that exceeds the
otherwise applicable standard, you must obtain enough emission credits
to offset the engine family's deficit by the due date for the final
report required in Sec. 1036.730. The emission credits used to address
the deficit may come from your other engine families that generate
emission credits in the same model year (or from later model years as
specified in Sec. 1036.745), from emission credits you have banked, or
from emission credits you obtain through trading.
Sec. 1036.715 Banking.
(a) Banking is the retention of surplus emission credits by the
manufacturer generating the emission credits for use in future model
years for averaging or trading.
(b) You may designate any emission credits you plan to bank in the
reports you submit under Sec. 1036.730 as reserved credits. During the
model year and before the due date for the final report, you may
designate your reserved emission credits for averaging or trading.
(c) Reserved credits become actual emission credits when you submit
your final report. However, we may revoke these emission credits if we
are unable to verify them after reviewing your reports or auditing your
records.
(d) Banked credits retain the designation of the averaging set in
which they were generated.
Sec. 1036.720 Trading.
(a) Trading is the exchange of emission credits between
manufacturers, or the transfer of credits to another party to retire
them. You may use traded emission credits for averaging, banking, or
further trading transactions. Traded emission credits remain subject to
the averaging-set restrictions based on the averaging set in which they
were generated.
(b) You may trade actual emission credits as described in this
subpart. You may also trade reserved emission credits, but we may
revoke these emission credits based on our review of your records or
reports or those of the company with which you traded emission credits.
You may trade banked credits within an averaging set to any certifying
manufacturer.
(c) If a negative emission credit balance results from a
transaction, both the buyer and seller are liable, except in cases we
deem to involve fraud. See Sec. 1036.255(e) for cases involving fraud.
We may void the certificates of all engine families participating in a
trade that results in a manufacturer having a negative balance of
emission credits. See Sec. 1036.745.
Sec. 1036.725 What must I include in my application for
certification?
(a) You must declare in your application for certification your
intent to use the provisions of this subpart for each engine family
that will be certified using the ABT program. You must also declare the
FELs/FCL you select for the engine family for each pollutant for which
you are using the ABT program. Your FELs must comply with the
specifications of subpart B of this part, including the FEL caps. FELs/
FCL must be expressed to the same number of decimal places as the
applicable standards.
(b) Include the following in your application for certification:
(1) A statement that, to the best of your belief, you will not have
a negative balance of emission credits for any averaging set when all
emission credits are calculated at the end of the year; or a statement
that you will have a negative balance of emission credits for one or
more averaging sets, but that it is allowed under Sec. 1036.745.
(2) Detailed calculations of projected emission credits (positive
or negative) based on projected U.S.-directed production volumes. We
may require you to include similar calculations from your other engine
families to project your net credit balances for the model year. If you
project negative emission credits for a family, state the source of
positive emission credits you expect to use to offset the negative
emission credits.
Sec. 1036.730 ABT reports.
(a) If any of your engine families are certified using the ABT
provisions of this subpart, you must send an end-of-year report within
90 days after the end of the model year and a final report within 270
days after the end of the model year.
(b) Your end-of-year and final reports must include the following
information for each engine family participating in the ABT program:
(1) Engine-family designation and averaging set.
(2) The emission standards that would otherwise apply to the engine
family.
(3) The FCL for each pollutant. If you change the FCL after the
start of production, identify the date that you started using the new
FCL and/or give the engine identification number for the first engine
covered by the new FCL. In this case, identify each applicable FCL and
calculate the positive or negative emission credits as specified in
Sec. 1036.225.
[[Page 57394]]
(4) The projected and actual U.S.-directed production volumes for
the model year. If you changed an FCL during the model year, identify
the actual production volume associated with each FCL.
(5) The transient cycle conversion factor for each engine
configuration as described in Sec. 1036.705.
(6) Useful life.
(7) Calculated positive or negative emission credits for the whole
engine family. Identify any emission credits that you traded, as
described in paragraph (d)(1) of this section.
(c) Your end-of-year and final reports must include the following
additional information:
(1) Show that your net balance of emission credits from all your
participating engine families in each averaging set in the applicable
model year is not negative, except as allowed under Sec. 1036.745.
(2) State whether you will reserve any emission credits for
banking.
(3) State that the report's contents are accurate.
(d) If you trade emission credits, you must send us a report within
90 days after the transaction, as follows:
(1) As the seller, you must include the following information in
your report:
(i) The corporate names of the buyer and any brokers.
(ii) A copy of any contracts related to the trade.
(iii) The engine families that generated emission credits for the
trade, including the number of emission credits from each family.
(2) As the buyer, you must include the following information in
your report:
(i) The corporate names of the seller and any brokers.
(ii) A copy of any contracts related to the trade.
(iii) How you intend to use the emission credits, including the
number of emission credits you intend to apply to each engine family
(if known).
(e) Send your reports electronically to the Designated Compliance
Officer using an approved information format. If you want to use a
different format, send us a written request with justification for a
waiver.
(f) Correct errors in your end-of-year report or final report as
follows:
(1) You may correct any errors in your end-of-year report when you
prepare the final report, as long as you send us the final report by
the time it is due.
(2) If you or we determine within 270 days after the end of the
model year that errors mistakenly decreased your balance of emission
credits, you may correct the errors and recalculate the balance of
emission credits. You may not make these corrections for errors that
are determined more than 270 days after the end of the model year. If
you report a negative balance of emission credits, we may disallow
corrections under this paragraph (f)(2).
(3) If you or we determine anytime that errors mistakenly increased
your balance of emission credits, you must correct the errors and
recalculate the balance of emission credits.
Sec. 1036.735 Recordkeeping.
(a) You must organize and maintain your records as described in
this section. We may review your records at any time.
(b) Keep the records required by this section for at least eight
years after the due date for the end-of-year report. You may not use
emission credits for any engines if you do not keep all the records
required under this section. You must therefore keep these records to
continue to bank valid credits. Store these records in any format and
on any media, as long as you can promptly send us organized, written
records in English if we ask for them. You must keep these records
readily available. We may review them at any time.
(c) Keep a copy of the reports we require in Sec. Sec. 1036.725
and 1036.730.
(d) Keep records of the engine identification number (usually the
serial number) for each engine you produce that generates or uses
emission credits under the ABT program. You may identify these numbers
as a range. If you change the FEL after the start of production,
identify the date you started using each FCL and the range of engine
identification numbers associated with each FCL. You must also identify
the purchaser and destination for each engine you produce to the extent
this information is available.
(e) We may require you to keep additional records or to send us
relevant information not required by this section in accordance with
the Clean Air Act.
Sec. 1036.740 Restrictions for using emission credits.
The following restrictions apply for using emission credits:
(a) Averaging sets. Except as specified in paragraph (c) of this
section, emission credits may be exchanged only within an following
averaging sets There are four principal averaging sets for engines
subject to this subpart:
(1) Spark-ignition engines.
(2) Compression-ignition light heavy-duty engines.
(3) Compression-ignition medium heavy-duty engines.
(4) Compression-ignition heavy heavy-duty engines.
(b) Applying credits to prior year deficits. Where your credit
balance for the previous year is negative, you may apply credits to
that credit deficit only after meeting your credit obligations for the
current year.
(c) Credits from hybrid engines and other advanced technologies.
The averaging set restrictions of paragraph (a) of this section do not
apply for credits generated under Sec. 1036.615 or 40 CFR
1037.104(d)(7) or 1037.615 from hybrid power systems with regenerative
braking, or from other advanced technologies. Such credits may also be
used under 40 CFR part 1037.
(1) The maximum amount of credits you may bring into the following
service class groups is 60,000 Mg per model year:
(i) Spark-ignition engines, light heavy-duty compression-ignition
engines, and light heavy-duty vehicles. This group comprises the
averaging sets listed in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section and
the averaging set listed in 40 CFR 1037.740(a)(1).
(ii) Medium heavy-duty compression-ignition engines and medium
heavy-duty vehicles. This group comprises the averaging sets listed in
paragraph (a)(3) of this section and 40 CFR 1037.740(a)(2).
(iii) Heavy heavy-duty compression-ignition engines and heavy
heavy-duty vehicles. This group comprises the averaging sets listed in
paragraph (a)(4) of this section and 40 CFR 1037.740(a)(3).
(2) The limit specified in paragraph (c)(1) of this section does
not limit the amount of advanced technology credits that can be used
within a service class group if they were generated in that same
service class group.
(d) Credit life. Credits expire after five years.
(e) Other restrictions. Other sections of this part specify
additional restrictions for using emission credits under certain
special provisions.
Sec. 1036.745 End-of-year CO2 credit deficits.
Except as allowed by this section, we may void the certificate of
any engine family certified to an FCL above the applicable standard for
which you do not have sufficient credits by the deadline for submitting
the final report.
(a) Your certificate for an engine family for which you do not have
sufficient CO2 credits will not be void if you remedy the
deficit with surplus credits within three model years. For example, if
you have a credit deficit of 500 Mg for an engine family at the end of
model year 2015, you must generate (or otherwise obtain) a surplus of
at
[[Page 57395]]
least 500 Mg in that same averaging set by the end of model year 2018.
(b) You may not bank or trade away CO2 credits in the
averaging set in any model year in which you have a deficit.
(c) You may apply only surplus credits to your deficit. You may not
apply credits to a deficit from an earlier model year if they were
generated in a model year for which any of your engine families for
that averaging set had an end-of-year credit deficit.
(d) If you do not remedy the deficit with surplus credits within
three model years, we may void your certificate for that engine family.
We may void the certificate based on your end-of-year report. Note that
voiding a certificate applies ab initio. Where the net deficit is less
than the total amount of negative credits originally generated by the
family, we will void the certificate only with respect to the number of
engines needed to reach the amount of the net deficit. For example, if
the original engine family generated 500 Mg of negative credits, and
the manufacturer's net deficit after three years was 250 Mg, we would
void the certificate with respect to half of the engines in the family.
Sec. 1036.750 What can happen if I do not comply with the provisions
of this subpart?
(a) For each engine family participating in the ABT program, the
certificate of conformity is conditioned upon full compliance with the
provisions of this subpart during and after the model year. You are
responsible to establish to our satisfaction that you fully comply with
applicable requirements. We may void the certificate of conformity for
an engine family if you fail to comply with any provisions of this
subpart.
(b) You may certify your engine family to an FCL above an
applicable standard based on a projection that you will have enough
emission credits to offset the deficit for the engine family. See Sec.
1036.745 for provisions specifying what happens if you cannot show in
your final report that you have enough actual emission credits to
offset a deficit for any pollutant in an engine family.
(c) We may void the certificate of conformity for an engine family
if you fail to keep records, send reports, or give us information we
request. Note that failing to keep records, send reports, or give us
information we request is also a violation of 42 U.S.C. 7522(a)(2).
(d) You may ask for a hearing if we void your certificate under
this section (see Sec. 1036.820).
Sec. 1036.755 Information provided to the Department of
Transportation.
After receipt of each manufacturer's final report as specified in
Sec. 1036.730 and completion of any verification testing required to
validate the manufacturer's submitted final data, we will issue a
report to the Department of Transportation with CO2 emission
information and will verify the accuracy of each manufacturer's
equivalent fuel consumption data that required by NHTSA under 49 CFR
535.8. We will send a report to DOT for each engine manufacturer based
on each regulatory category and subcategory, including sufficient
information for NHTSA to determine fuel consumption and associated
credit values. See 49 CFR 535.8 to determine if NHTSA deems submission
of this information to EPA to also be a submission to NHTSA.
Subpart I--Definitions and Other Reference Information
Sec. 1036.801 Definitions.
The following definitions apply to this part. The definitions apply
to all subparts unless we note otherwise. All undefined terms have the
meaning the Act gives to them. The definitions follow:
Act means the Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Adjustable parameter has the meaning given in 40 CFR part 86.
Advanced technology means technology certified under Sec.
1036.615, 40 CFR 1037.104(d)(7) or 1037.615.
Aftertreatment means relating to a catalytic converter, particulate
filter, or any other system, component, or technology mounted
downstream of the exhaust valve (or exhaust port) whose design function
is to decrease emissions in the engine exhaust before it is exhausted
to the environment. Exhaust-gas recirculation (EGR) and turbochargers
are not aftertreatment.
Aircraft means any vehicle capable of sustained air travel above
treetop heights.
Alcohol-fueled engine mean an engine that is designed to run using
an alcohol fuel. For purposes of this definition, alcohol fuels do not
include fuels with a nominal alcohol content below 25 percent by
volume.
Auxiliary emission control device means any element of design that
senses temperature, motive speed, engine RPM, transmission gear, or any
other parameter for the purpose of activating, modulating, delaying, or
deactivating the operation of any part of the emission control system.
Averaging set has the meaning given in Sec. 1036.740.
Calibration means the set of specifications and tolerances specific
to a particular design, version, or application of a component or
assembly capable of functionally describing its operation over its
working range.
Carryover means relating to certification based on emission data
generated from an earlier model year as described in Sec. 1036.235(d).
Certification means relating to the process of obtaining a
certificate of conformity for an engine family that complies with the
emission standards and requirements in this part.
Certified emission level means the highest deteriorated emission
level in an engine family for a given pollutant from the applicable
transient and/or steady-state testing, rounded to the same number of
decimal places as the applicable standard. Note that you may have two
certified emission levels for CO2 if you certify a family
for both vocational and tractor use.
Complete vehicle means a vehicle meeting the definition of complete
vehicle in 40 CFR 1037.801 when it is first sold as a vehicle. For
example, where a vehicle manufacturer sells an incomplete vehicle to a
secondary manufacturer, the vehicle is not a complete vehicle under
this part, even after its final assembly.
Compression-ignition means relating to a type of reciprocating,
internal-combustion engine that is not a spark-ignition engine.
Crankcase emissions means airborne substances emitted to the
atmosphere from any part of the engine crankcase's ventilation or
lubrication systems. The crankcase is the housing for the crankshaft
and other related internal parts.
Criteria pollutants means emissions of NOX, HC, PM, and
CO. Note that these pollutants are also sometimes described
collectively as ``non-greenhouse gas pollutants'', although they do not
necessarily have negligible global warming potentials.
Designated Compliance Officer means the Manager, Heavy-Duty and
Nonroad Engine Group (6405-J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
Designated Enforcement Officer means the Director, Air Enforcement
Division (2242A), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
Deteriorated emission level means the emission level that results
from applying the appropriate deterioration factor to the official
emission result of the emission-data engine. Note that where no
deterioration factor applies,
[[Page 57396]]
references in this part to the deteriorated emission level mean the
official emission result.
Deterioration factor means the relationship between emissions at
the end of useful life (or point of highest emissions if it occurs
before the end of useful life) and emissions at the low-hour/low-
mileage test point, expressed in one of the following ways:
(1) For multiplicative deterioration factors, the ratio of
emissions at the end of useful life (or point of highest emissions) to
emissions at the low-hour test point.
(2) For additive deterioration factors, the difference between
emissions at the end of useful life (or point of highest emissions) and
emissions at the low-hour test point.
Dual-fuel means relating to an engine designed for operation on two
different types of fuel but not on a continuous mixture of those fuels.
Emission control system means any device, system, or element of
design that controls or reduces the emissions of regulated pollutants
from an engine.
Emission-data engine means an engine that is tested for
certification. This includes engines tested to establish deterioration
factors.
Emission-related maintenance means maintenance that substantially
affects emissions or is likely to substantially affect emission
deterioration.
Engine configuration means a unique combination of engine hardware
and calibration (related to the emission standards) within an engine
family. Engines within a single engine configuration differ only with
respect to normal production variability or factors unrelated to
compliance with emission standards.
Engine family has the meaning given in Sec. 1036.230.
Excluded means relating to engines that are not subject to some or
all of the requirements of this part as follows:
(1) An engine that has been determined not to be a heavy-duty
engine is excluded from this part.
(2) Certain heavy-duty engines are excluded from the requirements
of this part under Sec. 1036.5.
(3) Specific regulatory provisions of this part may exclude a
heavy-duty engine generally subject to this part from one or more
specific standards or requirements of this part.
Exempted has the meaning given in 40 CFR 1068.30.
Exhaust-gas recirculation means a technology that reduces emissions
by routing exhaust gases that had been exhausted from the combustion
chamber(s) back into the engine to be mixed with incoming air before or
during combustion. The use of valve timing to increase the amount of
residual exhaust gas in the combustion chamber(s) that is mixed with
incoming air before or during combustion is not considered exhaust-gas
recirculation for the purposes of this part.
Family certification level (FCL) means a CO2 emission
level declared by the manufacturer that is at or above emission test
results for all emission-data engines. The FCL serves as the emission
standard for the engine family with respect to certification testing if
it is different than the otherwise applicable standard. The FCL must be
expressed to the same number of decimal places as the emission standard
it replaces.
Family emission limit (FEL) means an emission level declared by the
manufacturer to serve in place of an otherwise applicable emission
standard (other than CO2 standards) under the ABT program in
subpart H of this part. The FEL must be expressed to the same number of
decimal places as the emission standard it replaces. The FEL serves as
the emission standard for the engine family with respect to all
required testing except certification testing for CO2. The
CO2 FEL is equal to the CO2 FCL multiplied by
1.03 and rounded to the same number of decimal places as the standard
(e.g., the nearest whole g/hp-hr for the 2016 CO2
standards).
Flexible-fuel means relating to an engine designed for operation on
any mixture of two or more different types of fuels.
Fuel type means a general category of fuels such as diesel fuel,
gasoline, or natural gas. There can be multiple grades within a single
fuel type, such as premium gasoline, regular gasoline, or gasoline with
10 percent ethanol.
Good engineering judgment has the meaning given in 40 CFR 1068.30.
See 40 CFR 1068.5 for the administrative process we use to evaluate
good engineering judgment.
Greenhouse gas pollutants and greenhouse gases means compounds
regulated under this part based primarily on their impact on the
climate. This includes CO2, CH4, and
N2O.
Gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) means the value specified by the
vehicle manufacturer as the maximum design loaded weight of a single
vehicle, consistent with good engineering judgment.
Heavy-duty engine means any engine which the engine manufacturer
could reasonably expect to be used for motive power in a heavy-duty
vehicle. For purposes of this definition in this part, the term
``engine'' includes internal combustion engines and other devices that
convert chemical fuel into motive power. For example, a fuel cell used
in a heavy-duty vehicle is a heavy-duty engine.
Heavy-duty vehicle means any motor vehicle above 8,500 pounds GVWR
or that has a vehicle curb weight above 6,000 pounds or that has a
basic vehicle frontal area greater than 45 square feet. Curb weight has
the meaning given in 40 CFR 86.1803, consistent with the provisions of
40 CFR 1037.140. Basic vehicle frontal area has the meaning given in 40
CFR 86.1803.
Hybrid engine or hybrid powertrain means an engine or powertrain
that includes energy storage features other than a conventional battery
system or conventional flywheel. Supplemental electrical batteries and
hydraulic accumulators are examples of hybrid energy storage systems.
Note that certain provisions in this part treat hybrid engines and
powertrains intended for vehicles that include regenerative braking
differently than those intended for vehicles that do not include
regenerative braking.
Hydrocarbon (HC) means the hydrocarbon group on which the emission
standards are based for each fuel type. For alcohol-fueled engines, HC
means nonmethane hydrocarbon equivalent (NMHCE). For all other engines,
HC means nonmethane hydrocarbon (NMHC).
Identification number means a unique specification (for example, a
model number/serial number combination) that allows someone to
distinguish a particular engine from other similar engines.
Incomplete vehicle means a vehicle meeting the definition of
incomplete vehicle in 40 CFR 1037.801 when it is first sold as a
vehicle.
Innovative technology means technology certified under Sec.
1036.610.
Liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) means a liquid hydrocarbon fuel that
is stored under pressure and is composed primarily of nonmethane
compounds that are gases at atmospheric conditions.
Low-hour means relating to an engine that has stabilized emissions
and represents the undeteriorated emission level. This would generally
involve less than 125 hours of operation.
Manufacture means the physical and engineering process of
designing, constructing, and/or assembling a heavy-duty engine or a
heavy-duty vehicle.
Manufacturer has the meaning given in section 216(1) of the Act. In
general, this term includes any person who manufactures an engine,
vehicle, or
[[Page 57397]]
piece of equipment for sale in the United States or otherwise
introduces a new engine into commerce in the United States. This
includes importers who import engines or vehicles for resale.
Medium-duty passenger vehicle has the meaning given in 40 CFR
86.1803.
Model year means the manufacturer's annual new model production
period, except as restricted under this definition. It must include
January 1 of the calendar year for which the model year is named, may
not begin before January 2 of the previous calendar year, and it must
end by December 31 of the named calendar year. Manufacturers may not
adjust model years to circumvent or delay compliance with emission
standards or to avoid the obligation to certify annually.
Motor vehicle has the meaning given in 40 CFR 85.1703.
Natural gas means a fuel whose primary constituent is methane.
New motor vehicle engine means a motor vehicle engine meeting the
criteria of either paragraph (1) or (2) of this definition.
(1) A motor vehicle engine for which the ultimate purchaser has
never received the equitable or legal title is a new motor vehicle
engine. This kind of engine might commonly be thought of as ``brand
new'' although a new motor vehicle engine may include previously used
parts. Under this definition, the engine is new from the time it is
produced until the ultimate purchaser receives the title or places it
into service, whichever comes first.
(2) An imported motor vehicle engine is a new motor vehicle engine
if it was originally built on or after January 1, 1970.
Noncompliant engine means an engine that was originally covered by
a certificate of conformity, but is not in the certified configuration
or otherwise does not comply with the conditions of the certificate.
Nonconforming engine means an engine not covered by a certificate
of conformity that would otherwise be subject to emission standards.
Nonmethane hydrocarbons (NMHC) means the sum of all hydrocarbon
species except methane, as measured according to 40 CFR part 1065.
Official emission result means the measured emission rate for an
emission-data engine on a given duty cycle before the application of
any deterioration factor, but after the applicability of any required
regeneration adjustment factors.
Owner's manual means a document or collection of documents prepared
by the engine or vehicle manufacturer for the owner or operator to
describe appropriate engine maintenance, applicable warranties, and any
other information related to operating or keeping the engine. The
owner's manual is typically provided to the ultimate purchaser at the
time of sale.
Oxides of nitrogen has the meaning given in 40 CFR 1065.1001.
Percent has the meaning given in 40 CFR 1065.1001. Note that this
means percentages identified in this part are assumed to be infinitely
precise without regard to the number of significant figures. For
example, one percent of 1,493 is 14.93.
Petroleum means gasoline or diesel fuel or other fuels normally
derived from crude oil. This does not include methane or LPG.
Placed into service means put into initial use for its intended
purpose.
Primary intended service class has the meaning given in Sec.
1036.140.
Rated power has the meaning given in 40 CFR part 86.
Rechargeable Energy Storage System (RESS) means the component(s) of
a hybrid engine or vehicle that store recovered energy for later use,
such as the battery system in an electric hybrid vehicle.
Revoke has the meaning given in 40 CFR 1068.30.
Round has the meaning given in 40 CFR 1065.1001.
Scheduled maintenance means adjusting, repairing, removing,
disassembling, cleaning, or replacing components or systems
periodically to keep a part or system from failing, malfunctioning, or
wearing prematurely. It also may mean actions you expect are necessary
to correct an overt indication of failure or malfunction for which
periodic maintenance is not appropriate.
Small manufacturer means a manufacturer meeting the criteria
specified in 13 CFR 121.201. For manufacturers owned by a parent
company, the employee and revenue limits apply to the total number of
employees and total revenue of the parent company and all its
subsidiaries.
Spark-ignition means relating to a gasoline-fueled engine or any
other type of engine with a spark plug (or other sparking device) and
with operating characteristics significantly similar to the theoretical
Otto combustion cycle. Spark-ignition engines usually use a throttle to
regulate intake air flow to control power during normal operation.
Steady-state has the meaning given in 40 CFR 1065.1001.
Suspend has the meaning given in 40 CFR 1068.30.
Test engine means an engine in a test sample.
Test sample means the collection of engines selected from the
population of an engine family for emission testing. This may include
testing for certification, production-line testing, or in-use testing.
Tractor means a vehicle meeting the definition of ``tractor'' in 40
CFR 1037.801, but not classified as a ``vocational tractor'' under 40
CFR 1037.630, or relating to such a vehicle.
Tractor engine means an engine certified for use in tractors. Where
an engine family is certified for use in both tractors and vocational
vehicles, ``tractor engine'' means an engine that the engine
manufacturer reasonably believes will be (or has been) installed in a
tractor. Note that the provisions of this part may require a
manufacturer to document how it determines that an engine is a tractor
engine.
Ultimate purchaser means, with respect to any new engine or
vehicle, the first person who in good faith purchases such new engine
or vehicle for purposes other than resale.
United States has the meaning given in 40 CFR 1068.30.
Upcoming model year means for an engine family the model year after
the one currently in production.
U.S.-directed production volume means the number of engines,
subject to the requirements of this part, produced by a manufacturer
for which the manufacturer has a reasonable assurance that sale was or
will be made to ultimate purchasers in the United States. This does not
include engines certified to state emission standards that are
different than the emission standards in this part.
Vehicle has the meaning given in 40 CFR 1037.801.
Vocational engine means an engine certified for use in vocational
vehicles. Where an engine family is certified for use in both tractors
and vocational vehicles, ``vocational engine'' means an engine that the
engine manufacturer reasonably believes will be (or has been) installed
in a vocational vehicle. Note that the provisions of this part may
require a manufacturer to document how it determines that an engine is
a vocational engine.
Vocational vehicle means a vehicle meeting the definition of
``vocational'' vehicle in 40 CFR 1037.801.
Void has the meaning given in 40 CFR 1068.30.
We (us, our) means the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency and any authorized representatives.
[[Page 57398]]
Sec. 1036.805 Symbols, acronyms, and abbreviations.
The following symbols, acronyms, and abbreviations apply to this
part:
ABT averaging, banking, and trading.
AECD auxiliary emission control device.
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials.
BTU British thermal units.
CFR Code of Federal Regulations.
CH4 methane.
CO carbon monoxide.
CO2 carbon dioxide.
DF deterioration factor.
DOT Department of Transportation.
E85 gasoline blend including nominally 85 percent ethanol.
EPA Environmental Protection Agency.
FCL Family Certification Level.
FEL Family Emission Limit.
g/hp-hr grams per brake horsepower-hour.
GVWR gross vehicle weight rating.
HC hydrocarbon.
kg kilogram.
kgC kilogram carbon.
kW kilowatts.
lb pound.
lbC pound carbon.
LPG liquefied petroleum gas.
Mg megagrams (10 \6\ grams, or one metric ton).
MJ megajoules.
N2O nitrous oxide.
NARA National Archives and Records Administration.
NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
NOx oxides of nitrogen (NO and NO2).
NTE not-to-exceed.
PM particulate matter.
RESS rechargeable energy storage system.
RPM revolutions per minute.
SET Supplemental Emission Test (see 40 CFR 86.1362).
U.S. United States.
U.S.C. United States Code.
Sec. 1036.810 Incorporation by reference.
(a) Certain material is incorporated by reference into this part
with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce any edition other than that
specified in this section, the Environmental Protection Agency must
publish a notice of the change in the Federal Register and the material
must be available to the public. All approved material is available for
inspection at U.S. EPA, Air and Radiation Docket and Information
Center, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Room B102, EPA West Building,
Washington, DC 20460, (202) 202-1744, and is available from the sources
listed below. It is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to
http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
(b) American Society for Testing and Materials, 100 Barr Harbor
Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA, 19428-2959, (610) 832-
9585, http://www.astm.org/.
(1) ASTM D 240-09 Standard Test Method for Heat of Combustion of
Liquid Hydrocarbon Fuels by Bomb Calorimeter, approved July 1, 2009,
IBR approved for Sec. 1036.530(b).
(2) ASTM D4809-09a Standard Test Method for Heat of Combustion of
Liquid Hydrocarbon Fuels by Bomb Calorimeter (Precision Method),
approved September 1, 2009, IBR approved for Sec. 1036.530(b).
(3) ASTM D5291-10 Standard Test Methods for Instrumental
Determination of Carbon, Hydrogen, and Nitrogen in Petroleum Products
and Lubricants, approved May 1, 2010, IBR approved for Sec.
1036.530(b).
Sec. 1036.815 Confidential information.
The provisions of 40 CFR 1068.10 apply for information you consider
confidential.
Sec. 1036.820 Requesting a hearing.
(a) You may request a hearing under certain circumstances, as
described elsewhere in this part. To do this, you must file a written
request, including a description of your objection and any supporting
data, within 30 days after we make a decision.
(b) For a hearing you request under the provisions of this part, we
will approve your request if we find that your request raises a
substantial factual issue.
(c) If we agree to hold a hearing, we will use the procedures
specified in 40 CFR part 1068, subpart G.
Sec. 1036.825 Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
(a) This part includes various requirements to submit and record
data or other information. Unless we specify otherwise, store required
records in any format and on any media and keep them readily available
for eight years after you send an associated application for
certification, or eight years after you generate the data if they do
not support an application for certification. You may not rely on
anyone else to meet recordkeeping requirements on your behalf unless we
specifically authorize it. We may review these records at any time. You
must promptly send us organized, written records in English if we ask
for them. We may require you to submit written records in an electronic
format.
(b) The regulations in Sec. 1036.255 and 40 CFR 1068.25 and
1068.101 describe your obligation to report truthful and complete
information. This includes information not related to certification.
Failing to properly report information and keep the records we specify
violates 40 CFR 1068.101(a)(2), which may involve civil or criminal
penalties.
(c) Send all reports and requests for approval to the Designated
Compliance Officer (see Sec. 1036.801).
(d) Any written information we require you to send to or receive
from another company is deemed to be a required record under this
section. Such records are also deemed to be submissions to EPA. Keep
these records for eight years unless the regulations specify a
different period. We may require you to send us these records whether
or not you are a certificate holder.
(e) Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the
Office of Management and Budget approves the reporting and
recordkeeping specified in the applicable regulations. The following
items illustrate the kind of reporting and recordkeeping we require for
engines and equipment regulated under this part:
(1) We specify the following requirements related to engine
certification in this part 1036:
(i) In Sec. 1036.135 we require engine manufacturers to keep
certain records related to duplicate labels sent to equipment
manufacturers.
(ii) In subpart C of this part we identify a wide range of
information required to certify engines.
(iii) In subpart G of this part we identify several reporting and
recordkeeping items for making demonstrations and getting approval
related to various special compliance provisions.
(iv) In Sec. Sec. 1036.725, 1036.730, and 1036.735 we specify
certain records related to averaging, banking, and trading.
(2) We specify the following requirements related to testing in 40
CFR part 1066:
(i) In 40 CFR 1066.2 we give an overview of principles for
reporting information.
(ii) [Reserved]
0
34. A new part 1037 is added to subchapter U to read as follows:
[[Page 57399]]
PART 1037--CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM NEW HEAVY-DUTY MOTOR VEHICLES
Subpart A--Overview and Applicability
Sec.
1037.1 Applicability
1037.5 Excluded vehicles.
1037.10 How is this part organized?
1037.15 Do any other regulation parts apply to me?
1037.30 Submission of information.
Subpart B--Emission Standards and Related Requirements
1037.101 Overview of emission standards for heavy-duty vehicles.
1037.102 Exhaust emission standards for NOX, HC, PM, and
CO.
1037.104 Exhaust emission standards for CO2,
CH4, and N2O for heavy-duty vehicles at or
below 14,000 pounds GVWR.
1037.105 Exhaust emission standards for CO2 for
vocational vehicles.
1037.106 Exhaust emission standards for CO2 for tractors
above 26,000 pounds GVWR.
1037.115 Other requirements.
1037.120 Emission-related warranty requirements.
1037.125 Maintenance instructions and allowable maintenance.
1037.135 Labeling.
1037.140 Curb weight and roof height.
1037.150 Interim provisions.
Subpart C--Certifying Vehicle families
1037.201 General requirements for obtaining a certificate of
conformity.
1037.205 What must I include in my application?
1037.210 Preliminary approval before certification.
1037.220 Amending maintenance instructions.
1037.225 Amending applications for certification.
1037.230 Vehicle families, sub-families, and configurations.
1037.241 Demonstrating compliance with exhaust emission standards
for greenhouse gas pollutants.
1037.250 Reporting and recordkeeping.
1037.255 What decisions may EPA make regarding my certificate of
conformity?
Subpart D--[Reserved]
Subpart E--In-Use Testing
1037.401 General provisions.
Subpart F--Test and Modeling Procedures
1037.501 General testing and modeling provisions.
1037.510 Duty-cycle exhaust testing.
1037.520 Modeling CO2 emissions to show compliance.
1037.521 Aerodynamic measurements.
1037.525 Special procedures for testing hybrid vehicles with power
take-off.
1037.550 Special procedures for testing post-transmission hybrid
systems.
Subpart G--Special Compliance Provisions
1037.601 What compliance provisions apply to these vehicles?
1037.610 Vehicles with innovative technologies.
1037.615 Hybrid vehicles and other advanced technologies.
1037.620 Shipment of incomplete vehicles to secondary vehicle
manufacturers.
1037.630 Special purpose tractors.
1037.631 Exemption for vocational vehicles intended for off-road
use.
1037.640 Variable vehicle speed limiters.
1037.645 In-use compliance with family emission limits (FELs).
1037.650 Tire manufacturers.
1037.655 Post-useful life vehicle modifications.
1037.660 Automatic engine shutdown systems.
Subpart H--Averaging, Banking, and Trading for Certification
1037.701 General provisions.
1037.705 Generating and calculating emission credits.
1037.710 Averaging.
1037.715 Banking.
1037.720 Trading.
1037.725 What must I include in my application for certification?
1037.730 ABT reports.
1037.735 Recordkeeping.
1037.740 Restrictions for using emission credits.
1037.745 End-of-year CO2 credit deficits.
1037.750 What can happen if I do not comply with the provisions of
this subpart?
1037.755 Information provided to the Department of Transportation.
Subpart I--Definitions and Other Reference Information
1037.801 Definitions.
1037.805 Symbols, acronyms, and abbreviations.
1037.810 Incorporation by reference.
1037.815 Confidential information.
1037.820 Requesting a hearing.
1037.825 Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Appendix I to Part 1037--Heavy-duty Transient Chassis Test Cycle
Appendix II to Part 1037--Power Take-Off Test Cycle
Appendix III to Part 1037--Emission Control Identifiers
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401--7671q.
Subpart A--Overview and Applicability
Sec. 1037.1 Applicability
This part 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, perflurocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. The
regulations in this part 1037 apply for all new heavy-duty vehicles,
except as provided in Sec. 1037.5. This includes electric vehicles and
vehicles fueled by conventional and alternative fuels.
Sec. 1037.5 Excluded vehicles.
Except for the definitions specified in Sec. 1037.801, this part
does not apply to the following vehicles:
(a) Vehicles not meeting the definition of ``motor vehicle''.
(b) Vehicles excluded from the definition of ``heavy-duty vehicle''
in Sec. 1037.801 because of vehicle weight, weight rating, and frontal
area (such as light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks).
(c) Medium-duty passenger vehicles.
(d) Vehicles produced in model years before 2014, unless they are
certified under Sec. 1037.150.
(e) Vehicles subject to the light-duty greenhouse gas standards of
40 CFR part 86. See 40 CFR 86.1818 for greenhouse gas standards that
apply for these vehicles. An example of such a vehicle would be a
vehicle meeting the definition of ``heavy-duty vehicle'' in Sec.
1037.801 and 40 CFR 86.1803, but also meeting the definition of ``light
truck'' in 40 CFR 86.1818-12(b)(2).
Sec. 1037.10 How is this part organized?
This part 1037 is divided into subparts as described in this
section. Note that only subparts A, B, and I of this part apply for
vehicles subject to the standards of Sec. 1037.104, as described in
that section.
(a) Subpart A of this part defines the applicability of part 1037
and gives an overview of regulatory requirements.
(b) Subpart B of this part describes the emission standards and
other requirements that must be met to certify vehicles under this
part. Note that Sec. 1037.150 discusses certain interim requirements
and compliance provisions that apply only for a limited time.
(c) Subpart C of this part describes how to apply for a certificate
of conformity for vehicles subject to the standards of Sec. 1037.105
or Sec. 1037.106.
(d) [Reserved]
(e) Subpart E of this part addresses testing of in-use vehicles.
(f) Subpart F of this part describes how to test your vehicles and
perform emission modeling (including references to other parts of the
Code of Federal Regulations) for vehicles subject to the standards of
Sec. 1037.105 or Sec. 1037.106.
(g) Subpart G of this part and 40 CFR part 1068 describe
requirements, prohibitions, and other provisions that apply to
manufacturers, owners, operators, rebuilders, and all others. Section
1037.601 describes how 40 CFR part 1068 applies for heavy-duty
vehicles.
(h) Subpart H of this part describes how you may generate and use
emission
[[Page 57400]]
credits to certify vehicles that are subject to the standards of Sec.
1037.105 or Sec. 1037.106.
(i) Subpart I of this part contains definitions and other reference
information.
Sec. 1037.15 Do any other regulation parts apply to me?
(a) Parts 1065 and 1066 of this chapter describe procedures and
equipment specifications for testing engines and vehicles to measure
exhaust emissions. Subpart F of this part 1037 describes how to apply
the provisions of part 1065 and part 1066 of this chapter to determine
whether vehicles meet the exhaust emission standards in this part.
(b) As described in Sec. 1037.601, certain requirements and
prohibitions of part 1068 of this chapter apply to everyone, including
anyone who manufactures, imports, installs, owns, operates, or rebuilds
any of the vehicles subject to this part 1037. Part 1068 of this
chapter describes general provisions that apply broadly, but do not
necessarily apply for all vehicles or all persons. The issues addressed
by these provisions include these seven areas:
(1) Prohibited acts and penalties for manufacturers and others.
(2) Rebuilding and other aftermarket changes.
(3) Exclusions and exemptions for certain vehicles.
(4) Importing vehicles.
(5) Selective enforcement audits of your production.
(6) Recall.
(7) Procedures for hearings.
(c) Part 86 of this chapter applies for certain vehicles as
specified in this part. For example, the test procedures and most of
part 86, subpart S, applies for vehicles subject to Sec. 1037.104.
(d) Other parts of this chapter apply if referenced in this part.
Sec. 1037.30 Submission of information.
Send all reports and requests for approval to the Designated
Compliance Officer (see Sec. 1037.801). See Sec. 1037.825 for
additional reporting and recordkeeping provisions.
Subpart B--Emission Standards and Related Requirements
Sec. 1037.101 Overview of emission standards for heavy-duty vehicles.
(a) This part specifies emission standards for certain vehicles and
for certain pollutants. It also summarizes other standards that apply
under 40 CFR part 86. This part 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, perflurocarbons, and sulfur
hexafluoride.
(b) The regulated emissions are addressed in four groups:
(1) Exhaust emissions of NOX, HC, PM, and CO. 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 pollutant ozone. These
pollutants are also sometimes described collectively as ``non-
greenhouse gas pollutants'', although they do not necessarily have
negligible global warming potential. As described in Sec. 1037.102,
standards for these pollutants are provided in 40 CFR part 86.
(2) Exhaust emissions of CO2, CH4, and
N2O. These pollutants are described collectively in this
part as ``greenhouse gas pollutants'' because they are regulated
primarily based on their impact on the climate. These standards are
provided in Sec. Sec. 1037.104 through 1037.106.
(3) Hydrofluorocarbons. These pollutants are also ``greenhouse gas
pollutants'' but are treated separately from exhaust greenhouse gas
pollutants listed in paragraph (b)(2) of this section. These standards
are provided in Sec. 1037.115.
(4) Fuel evaporative emissions. These requirements are described in
40 CFR part 86.
(c) The regulated heavy-duty vehicles are addressed in different
groups as follows:
(1) For criteria pollutants, vehicles are regulated based on gross
vehicle weight rating (GVWR), whether they are considered ``spark-
ignition'' or ``compression-ignition,'' and whether they are first sold
as complete or incomplete vehicles. These groupings apply as described
in 40 CFR part 86.
(2) For greenhouse gas pollutants, vehicles are regulated in the
following groups:
(i) Complete and certain incomplete vehicles at or below 14,000
pounds GVWR (see Sec. 1037.104 for further specification). Certain
provisions of 40 CFR part 86 apply for these vehicles; see Sec.
1037.104(h) for a list of provisions in this part 1037 that also apply
for these vehicles. These provisions may also be optionally applied to
certain other vehicles, as described in Sec. 1037.104.
(ii) Tractors above 26,000 pounds GVWR.
(iii) All other vehicles subject to standards under this part.
These other vehicles are referred to as ``vocational'' vehicles.
Sec. 1037.102 Exhaust emission standards for NOX, HC, PM, and CO.
See 40 CFR part 86 for the exhaust emission standards for
NOX, HC, PM, and CO that apply for heavy-duty vehicles.
Sec. 1037.104 Exhaust emission standards for CO2,
CH4, and N2O for heavy-duty vehicles at or below
14,000 pounds GVWR.
This section applies for heavy-duty vehicles at or below 14,000
pounds GVWR. See paragraph (f) of this section and Sec. 1037.150 of
this section for provisions excluding certain vehicles from this
section, and allowing other vehicles to be certified under this
section.
(a) Fleet-average CO2 emission standards. Fleet-average
CO2 emission standards apply for each manufacturer as
follows:
(1) Calculate a work factor, WF, for each vehicle subconfiguration
(or group of subconfigurations 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.
(2) Using the appropriate work factor, calculate a target value for
each vehicle subconfiguration (or group of subconfigurations allowed
under paragraph (a)(4) of this section) you produce using one of the
following equations, rounding to the nearest 0.1 g/mile:
(i) For spark-ignition vehicles: CO2 Target (g/mile) =
0.0440 x WF + 339
(ii) For compression-ignition vehicles and vehicles that operate
without engines (such as electric vehicles and fuel cell vehicles):
CO2 Target (g/mile) = 0.0416 x WF + 320
(3) Calculate a production-weighted average of the target values
and round it to the nearest 0.1 g/mile. This is your fleet-average
standard. All vehicles subject to the standards of this section form a
single averaging set. Use the following equation to calculate your
fleet-average standard from the target value for each vehicle
subconfiguration (Targeti) and U.S.-directed production
volume of each vehicle subconfiguration for the given model year
(Volumei):
[[Page 57401]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15SE11.008
(4) You may group subconfigurations within a configuration together
for purposes of calculating your fleet-average standard as follows:
(i) You may group together subconfigurations that have the same
equivalent test weight (ETW), GVWR, and GCWR. Calculate your work
factor and target value assuming a curb weight equal to two times ETW
minus GVWR.
(ii) You may group together other subconfigurations if you use the
lowest target value calculated for any of the subconfigurations.
(b) Production and in-use CO2 standards. Each vehicle you produce
that is subject to the standards of this section has an ``in-use''
CO2 standard that is calculated from your test result and
that applies for selective enforcement audits and in-use testing. This
in-use CO2 standard for each vehicle is equal to the
applicable deteriorated emission level multiplied by 1.10 and rounded
to the nearest 0.1 g/mile.
(c) N2O and CH4 standards. Except as allowed under this paragraph
(c), all vehicles subject to the standards of this section must comply
with an N2O standard of 0.05 g/mile and a CH4
standard of 0.05 g/mile. You may specify CH4 and/or
N2O alternate standards using CO2 emission
credits instead of these otherwise applicable emission standards for
one or more test groups, consistent with the provisions of 40 CFR
86.1818. To do this, calculate the CH4 and/or N2O
emission credits needed (negative credits) using the equation in this
paragraph (c) based on the FEL(s) you specify for your vehicles during
certification. You must adjust the calculated emissions by the global
warming potential (GWP): GWP equals 25 for CH4 and 298 for
N2O. This means you must use 25 Mg of positive
CO2 credits to offset 1 Mg of negative CH4
credits and 298 Mg of positive CO2 credits to offset 1 Mg of
negative N2O credits. Note that 40 CFR 86.1818-12(f) does
not apply for vehicles subject to the standards of this section.
Calculate credits using the following equation:
CO2 Credits Needed (Mg) = [(FEL--Std) x (U.S.-directed
production volume) x (Useful Life)] x (GWP) / 1,000,000
(d) Compliance provisions. Except as specified in this paragraph
(d) or elsewhere in this section, the provisions of 40 CFR part 86,
describing compliance with the greenhouse gas standards of 40 CFR part
86, subpart S, apply with respect to the standards of paragraphs (a)
through (c) of this section.
(1) The CO2 standards of this section apply with respect
to CO2 emissions, not with respect to carbon-related exhaust
emissions (CREE).
(2) Vehicles subject to the standards of this section are included
in a single greenhouse gas averaging set separate from any averaging
sets otherwise included in 40 CFR part 86.
(3) Special credit and incentive provisions related to flexible
fuel vehicles and air conditioning in 40 CFR part 86 do not apply for
vehicles subject to the standards of this section.
(4) The CO2, N2O, and CH4
standards apply for a weighted average of the city (55%) and highway
(45%) test cycle results as specified for light-duty vehicles in 40 CFR
part 86, subpart S. Note that this differs from the way the criteria
pollutant standards apply for heavy-duty vehicles.
(5) Apply an additive deterioration factor of zero to measured
CO2 emissions unless good engineering judgment indicates
that emissions are likely to deteriorate in use. Use good engineering
judgment to develop separate deterioration factors for N2O
and CH4.
(6) Credits are calculated using the useful life value (in miles)
in place of the ``vehicle lifetime miles'' specified in 40 CFR part 86,
subpart S.
(7) Credits generated from hybrid vehicles with regenerative
braking or from vehicles with other advanced technologies may be used
to show compliance with any standards of this part or 40 CFR part 1036,
subject to the service class restrictions in Sec. 1037.740. Include
these vehicles in a separate fleet-average calculation (and exclude
them from your conventional fleet-average calculation). You must first
apply these advanced technology vehicle credits to any deficits for
other vehicles in the averaging set before applying them to other
averaging sets.
(8) The provisions of 40 CFR 86.1818 do not apply.
(9) Calculate your fleet-average emission rate consistent with good
engineering judgment and the provisions of 40 CFR 86.1865. The
following additional provisions apply:
(i) Unless we approve a lower number, you must test at least ten
subconfigurations. If you produce more than 100 subconfigurations in a
given model year, you must test at least ten percent of your
subconfigurations. For purposes of this paragraph (d)(9)(i), count
carryover tests, but do not include analytically derived CO2
emission rates, data substitutions, or other untested allowances. We
may approve a lower number of tests for manufacturers that have limited
product offerings, or low sales volumes. Note that good engineering
judgment and other provisions of this part may require you to test more
subconfigurations than these minimum values.
(ii) The provisions of paragraph (g) of this section specify how
you may use analytically derived CO2 emission rates.
(iii) At least 90 percent of final production volume at the
configuration level must be represented by test data (real, data
substituted, or analytical).
(10) For dual fuel, multi-fuel, and flexible fuel vehicles, perform
exhaust testing on each fuel type (for example, gasoline and E85).
(i) For your fleet-average calculations, 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.
(ii) If you certify to an alternate standard for N2O or
CH4 emissions, you may not exceed the alternate standard
when tested on either fuel.
(11) Test your vehicles with an equivalent test weight based on its
Adjusted Loaded Vehicle Weight (ALVW). Determine equivalent test weight
from the ALVW as specified in 40 CFR 86.129, except that you may round
values to the nearest 500 pound increment for ALVW above 14,000
pounds).
(12) The following definitions apply for purposes of this section:
(i) Configuration means a subclassification within a test group
which is based on engine code, transmission type and gear ratios, final
drive ratio, and other parameters which we designate. Note that this
differs from the definition in 40 CFR 86.1803 because it excludes
inertia weight class as a criterion.
(ii) Subconfiguration means a unique combination within a vehicle
configuration (as defined in this paragraph (d)(12)) of equivalent test
weight, road-load horsepower, and any other operational characteristics
or parameters that we determine may significantly affect CO2
emissions within a vehicle configuration.
[[Page 57402]]
(iii) The terms ``complete vehicle'' and ``incomplete vehicle''
have the meanings given for ``complete heavy-duty vehicle'' and
``incomplete heavy-duty vehicle'' in 40 CFR 86.1803.
(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. We may allow
you to generate emission credits consistent with the provisions of 40
CFR 86.1866-12(d). You do not need to provide justification for not
using the 5-cycle methodology option.
(14) You must submit pre-model year reports before you submit your
applications for certification for a given model year. Unless we
specify otherwise, include the information specified for pre-model year
reports in 49 CFR 535.8.
(e) Useful life. Your vehicles must meet the exhaust emission
standards of this section throughout their full useful life, expressed
in service miles or calendar years, whichever comes first. The useful
life values for the standards of this section are those that apply for
criteria pollutants under 40 CFR part 86.
(f) Exclusion of vehicles not certified as complete vehicles. The
standards of this section apply for each vehicle that is chassis-
certified with respect to criteria pollutants under 40 CFR part 86,
subpart S. The standards of this section do not apply for other
vehicles, except as noted in Sec. 1037.150. Note that vehicles
excluded under this paragraph (f) are not considered to be ``subject to
the standards of this section.'' The vehicle standards and requirements
of Sec. 1037.105 apply for the excluded vehicles. The GHG standards of
40 CFR part 1036 also apply for engines used in these excluded
vehicles. If you are not the engine manufacturer, you must notify the
engine manufacturer that its engines are subject to 40 CFR part 1036
because you intend to use their engines in your excluded vehicles.
(g) Analytically derived CO2 emission rates (ADCs). This
paragraph (g) describes an allowance to use estimated (i.e.,
analytically derived) CO2 emission rates based on baseline
test data instead of measured emission rates for calculating fleet-
average emissions. Note that these ADCs are similar to ADFEs used for
light-duty vehicles. Note also that F terms used in this paragraph (g)
represent coefficients from the following road load equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15SE11.009
(1) Except as specified in paragraph (g)(2) of this section, use
the following equation to calculate the ADC of a new vehicle from road
load force coefficients (F0, F1, F2), axle ratio, and test weight:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15SE11.010
Where:
ADC = Analytically derived combined city/highway CO2
emission rate (g/mile) for a new vehicle.
CO2base = Combined city/highway CO2 emission
rate (g/mile) of a baseline vehicle.
[Delta]F0 = F0 of the new vehicle--F0 of the baseline vehicle.
[Delta]F1 = F1 of the new vehicle--F1 of the baseline vehicle.
[Delta]F2 = F2 of the new vehicle--F2 of the baseline vehicle.
[Delta]AR = Axle ratio of the new vehicle--axle ratio of the
baseline vehicle.
[Delta]ETW = ETW of the new vehicle--ETW of the baseline vehicle.
(2) The purpose of this section is to accurately estimate
CO2 emission rates. You must apply the provisions of this
section consistent with good engineering judgment. For example, do not
use the equation in paragraph (g)(1) of this section where good
engineering judgment indicates that it will not accurately estimate
emissions. You may ask us to approve alternate equations that allow you
to estimate emissions more accurately.
(3) You may select, without our prior approval, baseline test data
that meet all the following criteria:
(i) Vehicles considered for selection for the baseline test must
comply with all applicable emission standards in the model year
associated with the ADC.
(ii) You must include in the pool of tests which will be considered
for baseline selection all official tests of the same or equivalent
basic engine, transmission class, engine code, transmission code,
engine horsepower, dynamometer drive wheels, and compression ratio as
the ADC subconfiguration. Do not include tests in which emissions
exceed any applicable standards.
(iii) Where necessary to minimize the CO2 adjustment,
you may supplement the pool with tests associated with worst-case
engine or transmission codes and carryover or carry-across engine
families. If you do, all the data that qualify for inclusion using the
elected worst-case substitution (or carryover or carry-across) must be
included in the pool as supplemental data (i.e., individual test
vehicles may not be selected for inclusion). You must also include the
supplemental data in all subsequent pools, where applicable.
(iv) Tests previously used during the subject model year as
baseline tests in ten other ADC subconfigurations must be eliminated
from the pool. (v) Select the tested subconfiguration with the smallest
absolute difference between the ADC and the test CO2
emission rate for combined emissions. Use this as the baseline test for
the target ADC subconfiguration.
(4) You may ask us to allow you use baseline test data not fully
meeting the provisions of paragraph (g)(3) of this section.
(5) Calculate the ADC rounded to the nearest 0.1 g/mile. The
downward adjustment of ADC from the baseline is limited to ADC values
20 percent below the baseline emission rate (i.e., baseline emission
rate x 0.80). The upward adjustment is not limited.
(6) You may not submit an ADC if an actual test has been run on the
target subconfiguration during the certification process or on a
development vehicle that is eligible to be declared as an emission-data
vehicle.
(7) No more than 40 percent of the subconfigurations tested in your
final CO2 submission may be represented by ADCs.
(8) You must retain for five years the pool of tests, the vehicle
description and tests chosen as the baseline and the basis for its
selection, the target ADC subconfiguration, and the calculated emission
rates. We may ask to see these records at any time.
(9) We may perform or order a confirmatory test of any
subconfiguration covered by an ADC.
[[Page 57403]]
(10) Where we determine that you did not fully comply with the
provisions of this paragraph (g), we may rescind the use of ADC data,
require generation of actual test data, and require recalculation of
your fleet-average emission rate.
(h) Applicability of part 1037 provisions. Except as specified in
this section, the requirements of this part do not apply to vehicles
certified to the standards of this section. The following provisions
are the only provisions of this part that apply to vehicles certified
under this section:
(1) The provisions of this section.
(2) [Reserved]
(3) The air conditioning standards in Sec. 1037.115.
(4) The interim provisions of Sec. 1037.150(a), (b), (c), (e)-(i),
(l), and (m).
(5) The definitions of Sec. 1037.801, to the extent such terms are
used relative to vehicles subject to standards under this section.
Sec. 1037.105 Exhaust emission standards for CO2 for
vocational vehicles.
(a) The standards of this section apply for the following vehicles:
(1) Vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR and at or below 26,000 pounds
GVWR, but not certified to the vehicle standards Sec. 1037.104.
(2) Vehicles above 26,000 pounds GVWR that are not tractors.
(3) Vocational tractors.
(4) Vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR that are excluded from
the standards in Sec. 1037.104 under Sec. 1037.104 (f) or use engines
certified under Sec. 1037.150(m).
(b) The CO2 standards of this section are given in Table
1 to this section. The provisions of Sec. 1037.241 specify how to
comply with these standards.
Table 1 to Sec. 1037.105--CO2 Standards for Vocational Vehicles
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 standard
(g/ton-mile) CO2 standard
GVWR (pounds) for model (g/ton-mile)
years 2014- for model year
2016 2017 and later
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GVWR <= 19,500.......................... 388 373
19,500 < GVWR <= 33,000................. 234 225
33,000 < GVWR........................... 226 222
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) No CH4 or N2O standards apply under this
section. See 40 CFR part 1036 for CH4 or N2O
standards that apply to engines used in these vehicles.
(d) You may generate or use emission credits under the ABT program
as described in subpart H of this part. This requires that you specify
a Family Emission Limit (FEL) for CO2 for each vehicle
subfamily. The FEL may not be less than the result of emission modeling
from Sec. 1037.520. These FELs serve as the emission standards for the
vehicle subfamily instead of the standards specified in paragraph (b)
of this section.
(e) Your vehicles must meet the exhaust emission standards of this
section throughout their full useful life, expressed in service miles
or calendar years, whichever comes first. The following useful life
values apply for the standards of this section:
(1) 110,000 miles or 10 years, whichever comes first, for vehicles
at or below 19,500 pounds GVWR.
(2) 185,000 miles or 10 years, whichever comes first, for vehicles
above 19,500 pounds GVWR and at or below 33,000 pounds GVWR.
(3) 435,000 miles or 10 years, whichever comes first, for vehicles
above 33,000 pounds GVWR.
(f) See Sec. 1037.631 for provisions that exempt certain vehicles
used in off-road operation from the standards of this section.
(g) You may optionally certify a vocational vehicle to the
standards and useful life applicable to a higher vehicle service class
(such as medium heavy-duty instead of light heavy-duty), provided you
do not generate credits with the vehicle. If you include smaller
vehicles in a credit-generating subfamily (with an FEL below the
standard), exclude its production volume from the credit calculation.
Sec. 1037.106 Exhaust emission standards for CO2 for
tractors above 26,000 pounds GVWR.
(a) The CO2 standards of this section apply for tractors
above 26,000 pounds GVWR. Note that the standards of this section do
not apply for vehicles classified as ``vocational tractors'' under
Sec. 1037.630,
(b) The CO2 standards for tractors above 26,000 pounds
GVWR are given in Table 1 to this section. The provisions of Sec.
1037.241 specify how to comply with these standards.
Table 1 to Sec. 1037.106--CO2 Standards for Tractors Above 26,000 Pounds GVWR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 standard
(g/ton-mile) CO2 standard
GVWR (pounds) Sub-category for model (g/ton-mile)
years 2014- for model year
2016 2017 and later
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
26,000 < GVWR <= 33,000....................... Low-Roof (all cab styles)....... 107 104
Mid-Roof (all cab styles)....... 119 115
High-Roof (all cab styles)...... 124 120
GVWR > 33,000................................. Low-Roof Day Cab................ 81 80
Low-Roof Sleeper Cab............ 68 66
Mid-Roof Day Cab................ 88 86
Mid-Roof Sleeper Cab............ 76 73
High-Roof Day Cab............... 92 89
High-Roof Sleeper Cab........... 75 72
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) No CH4 or N2O standards apply under this
section. See 40 CFR part 1036 for CH4 or N2O
standards that apply to engines used in these vehicles.
(d) You may generate or use emission credits under the ABT program,
as
[[Page 57404]]
described in subpart H of this part. This requires that you specify a
Family Emission Limit (FEL) for each pollutant you include in the ABT
program for each vehicle subfamily. The FEL may not be less than the
result of emission modeling from Sec. 1037.520. These FELs serve as
the emission standards for the specific vehicle subfamily instead of
the standards specified in paragraph (a) of this section.
(e) Your vehicles must meet the exhaust emission standards of this
section throughout their full useful life, expressed in service miles
or calendar years, whichever comes first. The following useful life
values apply for the standards of this section:
(1) 185,000 miles or 10 years, whichever comes first, for vehicles
at or below 33,000 pounds GVWR.
(2) 435,000 miles or 10 years, whichever comes first, for vehicles
above 33,000 pounds GVWR.
(f) You may optionally certify a tractor to the standards and
useful life applicable to a higher vehicle service class (such as heavy
heavy-duty instead of medium heavy-duty), provided you do not generate
credits with the vehicle. If you include smaller vehicles in a credit-
generating subfamily (with an FEL below the standard), exclude its
production volume from the credit calculation.
Sec. 1037.115 Other requirements.
Vehicles required to meet the emission standards of this part must
meet the following additional requirements, except as noted elsewhere
in this part:
(a) Adjustable parameters. Vehicles that have adjustable parameters
must meet all the requirements of this part for any adjustment in the
physically adjustable range. We may require that you set adjustable
parameters to any specification within the adjustable range during any
testing. See 40 CFR part 86 for information related to determining
whether or not an operating parameter is considered adjustable. You
must ensure safe vehicle operation throughout the physically adjustable
range of each adjustable parameter, including consideration of
production tolerances. Note that adjustable roof fairings are deemed
not to be adjustable parameters.
(b) Prohibited controls. You may not design your vehicles with
emission control devices, systems, or elements of design that cause or
contribute to an unreasonable risk to public health, welfare, or safety
while operating. For example, this would apply if the vehicle emits a
noxious or toxic substance it would otherwise not emit that contributes
to such an unreasonable risk.
(c) Air conditioning leakage. Loss of refrigerant from your air
conditioning systems may not exceed 1.50 percent per year, except as
allowed by paragraphs (c)(2) and (3) of this section. Calculate the
total leakage rate in g/year as specified in 40 CFR 86.166. Calculate
the percent leakage rate as: [total leakage rate (g/yr)] / [total
refrigerant capacity (g)] x 100. Round your leakage rate to the nearest
one-hundredth of a percent. See Sec. 1037.150 for vocational vehicles.
(1) 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.
(2) If your system uses a refrigerant other than HFC-134a, adjust
your leakage rate by multiplying it by the global warming potential of
your refrigerant and dividing the product by 1430 (which is the global
warming potential of HFC-134a). Apply this adjustment before comparing
your leakage rate to the standard. Determine global warming potentials
consistent with 40 CFR 86.1866. Note that global warming potentials
represent the equivalent grams of CO2 that would have the
same global warming impact (over 100 years) as one gram of the
refrigerant.
(3) If your total refrigerant capacity is less than 734 grams, your
leakage rate may exceed 1.50 percent, as long as the total leakage rate
does not exceed 11.0 g/yr. If your system uses a refrigerant other than
HFC-134a, you may adjust your leakage rate as specified in paragraph
(c)(2) of this section.
Sec. 1037.120 Emission-related warranty requirements.
(a) General requirements. You must warrant to the ultimate
purchaser and each subsequent purchaser that the new vehicle, including
all parts of its emission control system, meets two conditions:
(1) It is designed, built, and equipped so it conforms at the time
of sale to the ultimate purchaser with the requirements of this part.
(2) It is free from defects in materials and workmanship that cause
the vehicle to fail to conform to the requirements of this part during
the applicable warranty period.
(b) Warranty period. (1) Your emission-related warranty must be
valid for at least:
(i) 5 years or 50,000 miles for spark-ignition vehicles and light
heavy-duty vehicles.
(ii) 5 years or 100,000 miles for medium and heavy heavy-duty
vehicles.
(iii) 2 years or 24,000 miles for tires.
(2) You may offer an emission-related warranty more generous than
we require. The emission-related warranty for the vehicle may not be
shorter than any basic mechanical warranty you provide to that owner
without charge for the vehicle. Similarly, the emission-related
warranty for any component may not be shorter than any warranty you
provide to that owner without charge for that component. This means
that your warranty for a given vehicle may not treat emission-related
and non-emission-related defects differently for any component. The
warranty period begins when the vehicle is placed into service.
(c) Components covered. The emission-related warranty covers
vehicle speed limiters, idle shutdown systems, fairings, and hybrid
system components, to the extent such emission-related components are
included in the certified emission controls. The emission-related
warranty covers all components whose failure would increase a vehicle's
emissions of air conditioning refrigerants for vehicles subject to air
conditioning leakage standards. The emission-related warranty covers
tires and all components whose failure would increase a vehicle's
evaporative emissions (for vehicles subject to evaporative emission
standards). The emission-related warranty covers these components even
if another company produces the component. Your emission-related
warranty does not need to cover components whose failure would not
increase a vehicle's emissions of any regulated pollutant.
(d) Limited applicability. You may deny warranty claims under this
section if the operator caused the problem through improper maintenance
or use, as described in 40 CFR 1068.115.
(e) Owner's manual. Describe in the owners manual the emission-
related warranty provisions from this section that apply to the
vehicle.
Sec. 1037.125 Maintenance instructions and allowable maintenance.
Give the ultimate purchaser of each new vehicle written
instructions for properly maintaining and using the vehicle, including
the emission control system. The maintenance instructions also apply to
service accumulation on any of your emission-data vehicles. See
paragraph (i) of this section for
[[Page 57405]]
requirements related to tire replacement.
(a) Critical emission-related maintenance. Critical emission-
related maintenance includes any adjustment, cleaning, repair, or
replacement of critical emission-related components. This may also
include additional emission-related maintenance that you determine is
critical if we approve it in advance. You may schedule critical
emission-related maintenance on these components if you demonstrate
that the maintenance is reasonably likely to be done at the recommended
intervals on in-use vehicles. We will accept scheduled maintenance as
reasonably likely to occur if you satisfy any of the following
conditions:
(1) You present data showing that, if a lack of maintenance
increases emissions, it also unacceptably degrades the vehicle's
performance.
(2) You present survey data showing that at least 80 percent of
vehicles in the field get the maintenance you specify at the
recommended intervals.
(3) You provide the maintenance free of charge and clearly say so
in your maintenance instructions.
(4) You otherwise show us that the maintenance is reasonably likely
to be done at the recommended intervals.
(b) Recommended additional maintenance. You may recommend any
additional amount of maintenance on the components listed in paragraph
(a) of this section, as long as you state clearly that these
maintenance steps are not necessary to keep the emission-related
warranty valid. If operators do the maintenance specified in paragraph
(a) of this section, but not the recommended additional maintenance,
this does not allow you to disqualify those vehicles from in-use
testing or deny a warranty claim. Do not take these maintenance steps
during service accumulation on your emission-data vehicles.
(c) Special maintenance. You may specify more frequent maintenance
to address problems related to special situations, such as atypical
vehicle operation. You must clearly state that this additional
maintenance is associated with the special situation you are
addressing. We may disapprove your maintenance instructions if we
determine that you have specified special maintenance steps to address
vehicle operation that is not atypical, or that the maintenance is
unlikely to occur in use. If we determine that certain maintenance
items do not qualify as special maintenance under this paragraph (c),
you may identify this as recommended additional maintenance under
paragraph (b) of this section.
(d) Noncritical emission-related maintenance. Subject to the
provisions of this paragraph (d), you may schedule any amount of
emission-related inspection or maintenance that is not covered by
paragraph (a) of this section (that is, maintenance that is neither
explicitly identified as critical emission-related maintenance, nor
that we approve as critical emission-related maintenance). Noncritical
emission-related maintenance generally includes maintenance on the
components we specify in 40 CFR part 1068, Appendix I, that is not
covered in paragraph (a) of this section. You must state in the owners
manual that these steps are not necessary to keep the emission-related
warranty valid. If operators fail to do this maintenance, this does not
allow you to disqualify those vehicles from in-use testing or deny a
warranty claim. Do not take these inspection or maintenance steps
during service accumulation on your emission-data vehicles.
(e) Maintenance that is not emission-related. For maintenance
unrelated to emission controls, you may schedule any amount of
inspection or maintenance. You may also take these inspection or
maintenance steps during service accumulation on your emission-data
vehicles, as long as they are reasonable and technologically necessary.
You may perform this non-emission-related maintenance on emission-data
vehicles at the least frequent intervals that you recommend to the
ultimate purchaser (but not the intervals recommended for severe
service).
(f) Source of parts and repairs. State clearly on the first page of
your written maintenance instructions that a repair shop or person of
the owner's choosing may maintain, replace, or repair emission control
devices and systems. Your instructions may not require components or
service identified by brand, trade, or corporate name. Also, do not
directly or indirectly condition your warranty on a requirement that
the vehicle be serviced by your franchised dealers or any other service
establishments with which you have a commercial relationship. You may
disregard the requirements in this paragraph (f) if you do one of two
things:
(1) Provide a component or service without charge under the
purchase agreement.
(2) Get us to waive this prohibition in the public's interest by
convincing us the vehicle will work properly only with the identified
component or service.
(g) [Reserved]
(h) Owner's manual. Explain the owner's responsibility for proper
maintenance in the owner's manual.
(i) Tire maintenance and replacement. Include instructions that
will enable the owner to replace tires so that the vehicle conforms to
the original certified vehicle configuration.
Sec. 1037.135 Labeling.
(a) Assign each vehicle a unique identification number and
permanently affix, engrave, or stamp it on the vehicle in a legible
way. The vehicle identification number (VIN) serves this purpose.
(b) At the time of manufacture, affix a permanent and legible label
identifying each vehicle. The label must be--
(1) Attached in one piece so it is not removable without being
destroyed or defaced.
(2) Secured to a part of the vehicle needed for normal operation
and not normally requiring replacement.
(3) Durable and readable for the vehicle's entire life.
(4) Written in English.
(c) The label must--
(1) Include the heading ``VEHICLE EMISSION CONTROL INFORMATION''.
(2) Include your full corporate name and trademark. You may
identify another company and use its trademark instead of yours if you
comply with the branding provisions of 40 CFR 1068.45.
(3) Include EPA's standardized designation for the vehicle family.
(4) State the regulatory sub-category that determines the
applicable emission standards for the vehicle family (see definition in
Sec. 1037.801).
(5) State the date of manufacture [DAY (optional), MONTH, and
YEAR]. You may omit this from the label if you stamp, engrave, or
otherwise permanently identify it elsewhere on the engine, in which
case you must also describe in your application for certification where
you will identify the date on the engine.
(6) Identify the emission control system. Use terms and
abbreviations as described in Appendix III to this part or other
applicable conventions.
(7) Identify any requirements for fuel and lubricants that do not
involve fuel-sulfur levels.
(8) State: ``THIS VEHICLE COMPLIES WITH U.S. EPA REGULATIONS FOR
[MODEL YEAR] HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES.''
(9) Include the following statement, if applicable: ``THIS VEHICLE
IS
[[Page 57406]]
DESIGNED TO COMPLY WITH EVAPORATIVE EMISSION STANDARDS WITH UP TO x
GALLONS OF FUEL TANK CAPACITY.'' Complete this statement by identifying
the maximum specified fuel tank capacity associated with your
certification.
(d) You may add information to the emission control information
label to identify other emission standards that the vehicle meets or
does not meet (such as European standards). You may also add other
information to ensure that the vehicle will be properly maintained and
used.
(e) You may ask us to approve modified labeling requirements in
this part 1037 if you show that it is necessary or appropriate. We will
approve your request if your alternate label is consistent with the
requirements of this part.
Sec. 1037.140 Curb weight and roof height.
(a) Where applicable, a vehicle's curb weight and roof height are
determined from nominal design specifications, as provided in this
section. Round the weight to the nearest pound and height to the
nearest inch. Base roof height on fully inflated tires having a static
loaded radius equal to the arithmetic mean of the largest and smallest
static loaded radius of tires you offer or a standard tire we approve.
(b) The nominal design specifications must be within the range of
the actual weights and roof heights of production vehicles considering
normal production variability. If after production begins it is
determined that your nominal design specifications do not represent
production vehicles, we may require you to amend your application for
certification under Sec. 1037.225.
(c) If your vehicle is equipped with an adjustable roof fairing,
measure the roof height with the fairing in its lowest setting.
Sec. 1037.150 Interim provisions.
The provisions in this section apply instead of other provisions in
this part.
(a) Incentives for early introduction. The provisions of this
paragraph (a) apply with respect to vehicles produced in model years
before 2014. Manufacturers may voluntarily certify in model year 2013
(or earlier model years for electric vehicles) to the greenhouse gas
standards of this part.
(1) This paragraph (a)(1) applies for regulatory sub-categories
subject to the standards of Sec. 1037.105 or Sec. 1037.106. Except as
specified in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, to generate early
credits under this paragraph for any vehicles other than electric
vehicles, you must certify your entire U.S.-directed production volume
within the regulatory sub-category to these standards. Except as
specified in paragraph (a)(4) of this section, if some vehicle families
within a regulatory sub-category are certified after the start of the
model year, you may generate credits only for production that occurs
after all families are certified. For example, if you produce three
vehicle families in an averaging set and you receive your certificates
for those families on January 4, 2013, March 15, 2013, and April 24,
2013, you may not generate credits for model year 2013 production in
any of the families that occurs before April 24, 2013. Calculate
credits relative to the standard that would apply in model year 2014
using the equations in subpart H of this part. You may bank credits
equal to the surplus credits you generate under this paragraph (a)
multiplied by 1.50. For example, if you have 1.0 Mg of surplus credits
for model year 2013, you may bank 1.5 Mg of credits. Credit deficits
for an averaging set prior to model year 2014 do not carry over to
model year 2014. These credits may be used to show compliance with the
standards of this part for 2014 and later model years. We recommend
that you notify EPA of your intent to use this provision before
submitting your applications.
(2) This paragraph (a)(2) applies for regulatory sub-categories
subject to the standards of Sec. 1037.104. To generate early credits
under this paragraph (a)(2) for any vehicles other than electric
vehicles, you must certify your entire U.S.-directed production volume
within the regulatory sub-category to these standards. If you calculate
a separate fleet average for advanced-technology vehicles under Sec.
1037.104(c)(7), you must certify your entire U.S.-directed production
volume of both advanced and conventional vehicles within the regulatory
sub-category. Except as specified in paragraph (a)(4) of this section,
if some test groups are certified after the start of the model year,
you may generate credits only for production that occurs after all test
groups are certified. For example, if you produce three test groups in
an averaging set and you receive your certificates for those test
groups on January 4, 2013, March 15, 2013, and April 24, 2013, you may
not generate credits for model year 2013 production in any of the test
groups that occurs before April 24, 2013. Calculate credits relative to
the standard that would apply in model year 2014 using the applicable
equations in 40 CFR part 86 and your model year 2013 U.S.-directed
production volumes. These credits may be used to show compliance with
the standards of this part for 2014 and later model years. We recommend
that you notify EPA of your intent to use this provision before
submitting your applications.
(3) You may generate emission credits for the number of additional
SmartWay designated tractors (relative to your 2012 production),
provided you do not generate credits for those vehicles under paragraph
(a)(1) of this section. Calculate credits for each regulatory sub-
category relative to the standard that would apply in model year 2014
using the equations in subpart H of this part. Use a production volume
equal to the number of designated model year 2013 SmartWay tractors
minus the number of designated model year 2012 SmartWay tractors. You
may bank credits equal to the surplus credits you generate under this
paragraph (a)(3) multiplied by 1.50. Your 2012 and 2013 model years
must be equivalent in length.
(4) This paragraph (a)(4) applies where you do not receive your
final certificate in a regulatory sub-category within 30 days of
submitting your final application for that sub-category. Calculate your
credits for all production that occurs 30 days or more after you submit
your final application for the sub-category.
(b) Phase-in provisions. Each manufacturer must choose one of the
following options for phasing in the standards of Sec. 1037.104:
(1) To implement the phase-in under this paragraph (b)(1), the
standards in Sec. 1037.104 apply as specified for model year 2018,
with compliance for vehicles in model years 2014 through 2017 based on
the CO2 target values specified in the following table:
Table 1 to Sec. 1037.150
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model year and engine cycle Alternate CO2 target (g/mile)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014 Spark-Ignition................ [0.0482 x (WF)] + 371
2015 Spark-Ignition................ [0.0479 x (WF)] + 369
[[Page 57407]]
2016 Spark-Ignition................ [0.0469 x (WF)] + 362
2017 Spark-Ignition................ [0.0460 x (WF)] + 354
2014 Compression-Ignition.......... [0.0478 x (WF)] + 368
2015 Compression-Ignition.......... [0.0474 x (WF)] + 366
2016 Compression-Ignition.......... [0.0460 x (WF)] + 354
2017 Compression-Ignition.......... [0.0445 x (WF)] + 343
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) To implement the phase-in under this paragraph (b)(2), the
standards in Sec. 1037.104 apply as specified for model year 2019,
with compliance for vehicles in model years 2014 through 2018 based on
the CO2 target values specified in the following table:
Table 2 to Sec. 1037.150
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model year and engine cycle Alternate CO2 target (g/mile)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014 Spark-Ignition................ [0.0482 x (WF)] + 371
2015 Spark-Ignition................ [0.0479 x (WF)] + 369
2016-2018 Spark-Ignition........... [0.0456 x (WF)] + 352
2014 Compression-Ignition.......... [0.0478 x (WF)] + 368
2015 Compression-Ignition.......... [0.0474 x (WF)] + 366
2016-2018 Compression-Ignition..... [0.0440 x (WF)] + 339
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) Provisions for small manufacturers. Manufacturers meeting the
small business criteria specified in 13 CFR 121.201 for ``Heavy Duty
Truck Manufacturing'' are not subject to the greenhouse gas standards
of Sec. Sec. 1037.104 through 1037.106, as specified in this paragraph
(c). Qualifying manufacturers must notify the Designated Compliance
Officer each model year before introducing these excluded vehicles into
U.S. commerce. This notification must include a description of the
manufacturer's qualification as a small business under 13 CFR 121.201.
You must label your excluded vehicles with the following statement:
``THIS VEHICLE IS EXCLUDED UNDER 40 CFR 1037.150(c).''.
(d) Air conditioning leakage for vocational vehicles. The air
conditioning leakage standard of Sec. 1037.115 does not apply for
vocational vehicles.
(e) Model year 2014 N2O standards. In model year 2014
and earlier, manufacturers may show compliance with the N2O
standards using an engineering analysis. This allowance also applies
for later test groups families carried over from model 2014 consistent
with the provisions of 40 CFR 86.1839. You may not certify to an
N2O FEL different than the standard without measuring
N2O emissions.
(f) Electric vehicles. All electric vehicles are deemed to have
zero emissions of CO2, CH4, and N2O.
No emission testing is required for electric vehicles.
(g) Compliance date. Compliance with the standards of this part is
optional prior to January 1, 2014. This means that if your 2014 model
year begins before January 1, 2014, you may certify for a partial model
year that begins on January 1, 2014 and ends on the day your model year
would normally end. You must label model year 2014 vehicles excluded
under this paragraph (g) with the following statement: ``THIS VEHICLE
IS EXCLUDED UNDER 40 CFR 1037.150(g).''
(h) Off-road vehicle exemption. In unusual circumstances, vehicle
manufacturers may ask us to exempt vehicles under Sec. 1037.631 based
on other criteria that are equivalent to those specified in Sec.
1037.631(a). For example, we would normally not grant relief in cases
where the vehicle manufacturer had credits or other compliant tires
were available.
(i) Credit multiplier for advanced technology. If you generate
credits from vehicles certified with advanced technology, you may
multiply these credits by 1.50, except that you may not apply this
multiplier in addition to the early-credit multiplier of paragraph (a)
of this section.
(j) Limited prohibition related to early model year engines. The
prohibition in Sec. 1037.601 against introducing into U.S. commerce a
vehicle containing an engine not certified to the standards of this
part does not apply for vehicles using model year 2014 or 2015 spark-
ignition engines, or any model year 2013 or earlier engines.
(k) Verifying drag areas from in-use vehicles. We may measure the
drag area of your vehicles after they have been placed into service.
Your vehicle conforms to the regulations of this part with respect to
aerodynamic performance if we measure its drag area to be at or below
the maximum drag area allowed for the bin to which that configuration
was certified. To account for measurement variability, your vehicle is
also deemed to conform to the regulations of this part with respect to
aerodynamic performance if we measure its drag area to at or below the
maximum drag area allowed for the bin above the bin to which you
certified (for example, Bin II if you certified the vehicle to Bin
III), unless we determine that you knowingly produced the vehicle to
have a higher drag area than is allowed for the bin to which it was
certified.
(l) Optional certification under Sec. 1037.104. You may certify
certain complete or cab-complete vehicles to the standards of Sec.
1037.104. All vehicles optionally certified under this paragraph (l)
are deemed to be subject to the standards of Sec. 1037.104. Note that
certification under this paragraph (l) does not affect how you may or
may not certify with respect to criteria pollutants. For example,
certifying a Class 4 vehicle under this paragraph does not allow you to
chassis-certify these vehicles with respect to criteria emissions.
(1) You may certify complete or cab-complete spark-ignition
vehicles to the standards of Sec. 1037.104.
(2) You may apply the provisions of Sec. 1037.104 to cab-complete
vehicles based on a complete sister vehicle. In unusual circumstances,
you may ask us to apply these provisions to Class 2b or
[[Page 57408]]
3 incomplete vehicles that do not meet the definition of cab-complete.
Except as specified in paragraph (l)(3) of this section, for purposes
of Sec. 1037.104, a complete sister vehicle is a complete vehicle of
the same vehicle configuration (as defined in Sec. 1037.104) as the
cab-complete vehicle. Calculate the target value under Sec.
1037.104(a) based on the same work factor value that applies for the
complete sister vehicle. Test these cab-complete vehicles using the
same equivalent test weight and other dynamometer settings that apply
for the complete vehicle from which you used the work factor value. For
certification, you may submit the test data from that complete sister
vehicle instead of performing the test on the cab-complete vehicle. You
are not required to produce the complete sister vehicle for sale to use
the provisions of this paragraph (l)(2). This means the complete sister
vehicle may be a carryover vehicle from a prior model year or a vehicle
created solely for the purpose of testing.
(3) You may use as complete sister vehicle a complete vehicle that
is not of the same vehicle configuration as the cab-complete vehicle as
specified in this paragraph (l)(3). This allowance applies where the
complete vehicle is not of the same vehicle configuration as the cab-
complete vehicle only because of factors unrelated to coastdown
performance. If your complete sister vehicle is covered by this
paragraph (l)(3), you may not submit the test data from that complete
sister vehicle and must perform the test on the cab-complete vehicle.
(m) Loose engine sales. This paragraph (m) applies for spark-
ignition engines identical to engines used in vehicles certified to the
standards of Sec. 1037.104, where you sell such engines as loose
engines or as engines installed in incomplete vehicles that are not
cab-complete vehicles. For purposes of this paragraph (m), engines
would not be considered to be identical if they used different engine
hardware. You may include such engines in a test group certified to the
standards of Sec. 1037.104, subject to the following provisions:
(1) Engines certified under this paragraph (m) are deemed to be
certified to the standards of 40 CFR 1036.108 as specified in 40 CFR
1036.108(a)(4).
(2) The U.S.-directed production volume of engines you sell as
loose engines or installed in incomplete heavy-duty vehicles that are
not cab-complete vehicles in any given model year may not exceed ten
percent of the total U.S.-directed production volume of engines of that
design that you produce for heavy-duty applications for that model
year, including engines you produce for complete vehicles, cab-complete
vehicles, and other incomplete vehicles. The total number of engines
you may certify under this paragraph (m), of all engine designs, may
not exceed 15,000 in any model year. Engines produced in excess of
either of these limits are not covered by your certificate. For
example, if you produce 80,000 complete model year 2017 Class 2b pickup
trucks with a certain engine and 10,000 incomplete model year 2017
Class 3 vehicles with that same engine, and you do not apply the
provisions of this paragraph (m) to any other engine designs, you may
produce up to 10,000 engines of that design for sale as loose engines
under this paragraph (m). If you produced 11,000 engines of that design
for sale as loose engines, the last 1,000 of them that you produced in
that model year 2017 would be considered uncertified.
(3) This paragraph (m) does not apply for engines certified to the
standards of 40 CFR 1036.108(a)(1).
(4) Label the engines as specified in 40 CFR 1036.135 including the
following compliance statement: ``THIS ENGINE WAS CERTIFIED TO THE
ALTERNATE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION STANDARDS OF 40 CFR 1036.108(a)(4).''
List the test group name instead of an engine family name.
(5) Vehicles using engines certified under this paragraph (m) are
subject to the emission standards of Sec. 1037.105.
(6) For certification purposes, your engines are deemed to have a
CO2 target value and test result equal to the CO2
target value and test result for the complete vehicle in the applicable
test group with the highest equivalent test weight, except as specified
in paragraph (m)(6)(ii) of this section. Use these values to calculate
your target value, fleet-average emission rate, and in-use emission
standard. Where there are multiple complete vehicles with the same
highest equivalent test weight, select the CO2 target value
and test result as specified in paragraphs (m)(6)(i) and (ii) of this
section:
(i) If one or more of the CO2 test results exceed the
applicable target value, use the CO2 target value and test
result of the vehicle that exceeds its target value by the greatest
amount.
(ii) If none of the CO2 test results exceed the
applicable target value, select the highest target value and set the
test result equal to it. This means that you may not generate emission
credits from vehicles certified under this paragraph (m).
(7) State in your applications for certification that your test
group and engine family will include engines certified under this
paragraph (m). This applies for your greenhouse gas vehicle test group
and your criteria pollutant engine family. List in each application the
name of the corresponding test group/engine family.
Subpart C--Certifying Vehicle families
Sec. 1037.201 General requirements for obtaining a certificate of
conformity.
(a) You must send us a separate application for a certificate of
conformity for each vehicle family. A certificate of conformity is
valid from the indicated effective date until the end of the model year
for which it is issued, which may not extend beyond December 31 of that
year. You must renew your certification annually for any vehicles you
continue to produce.
(b) The application must contain all the information required by
this part and must not include false or incomplete statements or
information (see Sec. 1037.255).
(c) We may ask you to include less information than we specify in
this subpart, as long as you maintain all the information required by
Sec. 1037.250.
(d) You must use good engineering judgment for all decisions
related to your application (see 40 CFR 1068.5).
(e) An authorized representative of your company must approve and
sign the application.
(f) See Sec. 1037.255 for provisions describing how we will
process your application.
(g) We may perform confirmatory testing on your vehicles; for
example, we may test vehicles to verify drag areas or other GEM inputs.
We may require you to deliver your test vehicles to a facility we
designate for our testing. Alternatively, you may choose to deliver
another vehicle that is identical in all material respects to the test
vehicle. Where certification is based on testing components such as
tires, we may require you to deliver test components to a facility we
designate for our testing.
Sec. 1037.205 What must I include in my application?
This section specifies the information that must be in your
application, unless we ask you to include less information under Sec.
1037.201(c). We may require you to provide additional information to
evaluate your application. Note that references to testing and
emission-data vehicles refer to testing vehicles to measure aerodynamic
drag, assess hybrid vehicle performance, and/or measure evaporative
emissions.
(a) Describe the vehicle family's specifications and other basic
parameters of the vehicle's design and emission controls. List the fuel
type on
[[Page 57409]]
which your vehicles are designed to operate (for example, ultra low-
sulfur diesel fuel).
(b) Explain how the emission control system operates. As
applicable, describe in detail all system components for controlling
greenhouse gas and evaporative emissions, including all auxiliary
emission control devices (AECDs) and all fuel-system components you
will install on any production vehicle. Identify the part number of
each component you describe. For this paragraph (b), treat as separate
AECDs any devices that modulate or activate differently from each
other.
(c) For vehicles subject to air conditioning standards, include:
(1) The refrigerant leakage rates (leak scores).
(2) The refrigerant capacity of the air conditioning systems.
(3) The corporate name of the final installer of the air
conditioning system.
(d) Describe any vehicles you selected for testing and the reasons
for selecting them.
(e) Describe any test equipment and procedures that you used,
including any special or alternate test procedures you used (see Sec.
1037.501).
(f) Describe how you operated any emission-data vehicle before
testing, including the duty cycle and the number of vehicle operating
miles used to stabilize emission levels. Explain why you selected the
method of service accumulation. Describe any scheduled maintenance you
did.
(g) List the specifications of any test fuel to show that it falls
within the required ranges we specify in 40 CFR part 1065.
(h) Identify the vehicle family's useful life.
(i) Include the maintenance instructions and warranty statement you
will give to the ultimate purchaser of each new vehicle (see Sec. Sec.
1037.120 and 1037.125).
(j) Describe your emission control information label (see Sec.
1037.135).
(k) Identify the emission standards or FELs to which you are
certifying vehicles in the vehicle family. For families containing
multiple subfamilies, this means that you must identify multiple
CO2 FELs. For example, you may identify the highest and
lowest FELs to which any of your subfamilies will be certified and also
list all possible FELs in between (which will be in 1 g/ton-mile
increments).
(l) Where applicable, identify the vehicle family's deterioration
factors and describe how you developed them. Present any emission test
data you used for this (see Sec. 1037.241(c)).
(m) Where applicable, state that you operated your emission-data
vehicles as described in the application (including the test
procedures, test parameters, and test fuels) to show you meet the
requirements of this part.
(n) Present evaporative test data to show your vehicles meet the
evaporative emission standards we specify in subpart B of this part, if
applicable. Report all valid test results from emission-data vehicles
and indicate whether there are test results from invalid tests or from
any other tests of the emission-data vehicle, whether or not they were
conducted according to the test procedures of subpart F of this part.
We may require you to report these additional test results. We may ask
you to send other information to confirm that your tests were valid
under the requirements of this part and 40 CFR part 86.
(o) Report modeling results for ten configurations. Include
modeling inputs and detailed descriptions of how they were derived.
Unless we specify otherwise, include the configuration with the highest
modeling result, the lowest modeling result, and the configurations
with the highest projected sales.
(p) Describe all adjustable operating parameters (see Sec.
1037.115), including production tolerances. You do not need to include
parameters that do not affect emissions covered by your application.
Include the following in your description of each parameter:
(1) The nominal or recommended setting.
(2) The intended physically adjustable range.
(3) The limits or stops used to establish adjustable ranges.
(4) Information showing why the limits, stops, or other means of
inhibiting adjustment are effective in preventing adjustment of
parameters on in-use vehicles to settings outside your intended
physically adjustable ranges.
(q) [Reserved]
(r) Unconditionally certify that all the vehicles in the vehicle
family comply with the requirements of this part, other referenced
parts of the CFR, and the Clean Air Act.
(s) Include good-faith estimates of U.S.-directed production
volumes by subfamily. We may require you to describe the basis of your
estimates.
(t) Include the information required by other subparts of this
part. For example, include the information required by Sec. 1037.725
if you participate in the ABT program.
(u) Include other applicable information, such as information
specified in this part or 40 CFR part 1068 related to requests for
exemptions.
(v) Name an agent for service located in the United States. Service
on this agent constitutes service on you or any of your officers or
employees for any action by EPA or otherwise by the United States
related to the requirements of this part.
Sec. 1037.210 Preliminary approval before certification.
If you send us information before you finish the application, we
may review it and make any appropriate determinations. Decisions made
under this section are considered to be preliminary approval, subject
to final review and approval. We will generally not reverse a decision
where we have given you preliminary approval, unless we find new
information supporting a different decision. If you request preliminary
approval related to the upcoming model year or the model year after
that, we will make best-efforts to make the appropriate determinations
as soon as practicable. We will generally not provide preliminary
approval related to a future model year more than two years ahead of
time.
Sec. 1037.220 Amending maintenance instructions.
You may amend your emission-related maintenance instructions after
you submit your application for certification as long as the amended
instructions remain consistent with the provisions of Sec. 1037.125.
You must send the Designated Compliance Officer a written request to
amend your application for certification for a vehicle family if you
want to change the emission-related maintenance instructions in a way
that could affect emissions. In your request, describe the proposed
changes to the maintenance instructions. If operators follow the
original maintenance instructions rather than the newly specified
maintenance, this does not allow you to disqualify those vehicles from
in-use testing or deny a warranty claim.
(a) If you are decreasing or eliminating any specified maintenance,
you may distribute the new maintenance instructions to your customers
30 days after we receive your request, unless we disapprove your
request. This would generally include replacing one maintenance step
with another. We may approve a shorter time or waive this requirement.
(b) If your requested change would not decrease the specified
maintenance, you may distribute the new maintenance instructions
anytime after you send your request. For example,
[[Page 57410]]
this paragraph (b) would cover adding instructions to increase the
frequency of filter changes for vehicles in severe-duty applications.
(c) You need not request approval if you are making only minor
corrections (such as correcting typographical mistakes), clarifying
your maintenance instructions, or changing instructions for maintenance
unrelated to emission control. We may ask you to send us copies of
maintenance instructions revised under this paragraph (c).
Sec. 1037.225 Amending applications for certification.
Before we issue you a certificate of conformity, you may amend your
application to include new or modified vehicle configurations, subject
to the provisions of this section. After we have issued your
certificate of conformity, you may send us an amended application
requesting that we include new or modified vehicle configurations
within the scope of the certificate, subject to the provisions of this
section. You must amend your application if any changes occur with
respect to any information that is included or should be included in
your application.
(a) You must amend your application before you take any of the
following actions:
(1) Add a vehicle configuration to a vehicle family. In this case,
the vehicle configuration added must be consistent with other vehicle
configurations in the vehicle family with respect to the criteria
listed in Sec. 1037.230.
(2) Change a vehicle configuration already included in a vehicle
family in a way that may affect emissions, or change any of the
components you described in your application for certification. This
includes production and design changes that may affect emissions any
time during the vehicle's lifetime.
(3) Modify an FEL for a vehicle family as described in paragraph
(f) of this section.
(b) To amend your application for certification, send the relevant
information to the Designated Compliance Officer.
(1) Describe in detail the addition or change in the vehicle model
or configuration you intend to make.
(2) Include engineering evaluations or data showing that the
amended vehicle family complies with all applicable requirements. You
may do this by showing that the original emission-data vehicle is still
appropriate for showing that the amended family complies with all
applicable requirements.
(3) If the original emission-data vehicle or emission modeling for
the vehicle family is not appropriate to show compliance for the new or
modified vehicle configuration, include new test data or emission
modeling showing that the new or modified vehicle configuration meets
the requirements of this part.
(c) We may ask for more test data or engineering evaluations. You
must give us these within 30 days after we request them.
(d) For vehicle families already covered by a certificate of
conformity, we will determine whether the existing certificate of
conformity covers your newly added or modified vehicle. You may ask for
a hearing if we deny your request (see Sec. 1037.820).
(e) For vehicle families already covered by a certificate of
conformity, you may start producing the new or modified vehicle
configuration anytime after you send us your amended application and
before we make a decision under paragraph (d) of this section. However,
if we determine that the affected vehicles do not meet applicable
requirements, we will notify you to cease production of the vehicles
and may require you to recall the vehicles at no expense to the owner.
Choosing to produce vehicles under this paragraph (e) is deemed to be
consent to recall all vehicles that we determine do not meet applicable
emission standards or other requirements and to remedy the
nonconformity at no expense to the owner. If you do not provide
information required under paragraph (c) of this section within 30 days
after we request it, you must stop producing the new or modified
vehicles.
(f) You may ask us to approve a change to your FEL in certain cases
after the start of production. The changed FEL may not apply to
vehicles you have already introduced into U.S. commerce, except as
described in this paragraph (f). You may ask us to approve a change to
your FEL in the following cases:
(1) You may ask to raise your FEL for your vehicle subfamily at any
time. In your request, you must show that you will still be able to
meet the emission standards as specified in subparts B and H of this
part. Use the appropriate FELs with corresponding production volumes to
calculate emission credits for the model year, as described in subpart
H of this part.
(2) Where testing applies, you may ask to lower the FEL for your
vehicle subfamily only if you have test data from production vehicles
showing that emissions are below the proposed lower FEL. Otherwise, you
may ask to lower your FEL for your vehicle subfamily at any time. The
lower FEL applies only to vehicles you produce after we approve the new
FEL. Use the appropriate FELs with corresponding production volumes to
calculate emission credits for the model year, as described in subpart
H of this part.
(3) You may ask to add an FEL for your vehicle family at any time.
Sec. 1037.230 Vehicle families, sub-families, and configurations.
(a) For purposes of certifying your vehicles to greenhouse gas
standards, divide your product line into families of vehicles as
specified in this section. Your vehicle family is limited to a single
model year. Group vehicles in the same vehicle family if they are the
same in all the following aspects:
(1) The regulatory sub-category (or equivalent in the case of
vocational tractors), as follows:
(i) Vocational vehicles at or below 19,500 pounds GVWR.
(ii) Vocational vehicles (other than vocational tractors) above
19,500 pounds GVWR and at or below 33,000 pounds GVWR.
(iii) Vocational vehicles (other than vocational tractors) above
33,000 pounds GVWR.
(iv) Low-roof tractors above 26,000 pounds GVWR and at or below
33,000 pounds GVWR.
(v) Mid-roof tractors above 26,000 pounds GVWR and at or below
33,000 pounds GVWR.
(vi) High-roof tractors above 26,000 pounds GVWR and at or below
33,000 pounds GVWR.
(vii) Low-roof day cab tractors above 33,000 pounds GVWR.
(viii) Low-roof sleeper cab tractors above 33,000 pounds GVWR.
(ix) Mid-roof day cab tractors above 33,000 pounds GVWR.
(x) Mid-roof sleeper cab tractors above 33,000 pounds GVWR.
(xi) High-roof day cab tractors above 33,000 pounds GVWR.
(xii) High-roof sleeper cab tractors above 33,000 pounds GVWR.
(xiii) Vocational tractors.
(2) Vehicle technology as follows:
(i) Group together vehicles that do not contain advanced or
innovative technologies.
(ii) Group together vehicles that contain the same advanced/
innovative technologies.
(b) If the vehicles in your family are being certified to more than
one FEL, subdivide your greenhouse gas vehicle families into
subfamilies that include vehicles with identical FELs. Note that you
may add subfamilies at any time during the model year.
(c) Group vehicles into configurations consistent with the
definition of ``vehicle configuration'' in Sec. 1037.801.
[[Page 57411]]
Note that vehicles with hardware or software differences that are
related to measured or modeled emissions are considered to be different
vehicle configurations even if they have the same GEM inputs and FEL.
Note also, that you are not required to separately identify all
configurations for certification. See paragraph (g) of this section for
provisions allowing you to group certain hardware differences into the
same configuration. Note that you are not required to identify all
possible configurations for certification; also, you are required to
include in your end-of year report only those configurations you
produced.
(d) For a vehicle model that straddles a roof-height, cab type, or
GVWR division, you may include all the vehicles in the same vehicle
family if you certify the vehicle family to the more stringent
standards. For roof height, this means you must certify to the taller
roof standards. For cab-type and GVWR, this means you must certify to
the numerically lower standards.
(e) [Reserved]
(f) You may divide your families into more families than specified
in this section.
(g) You may ask us to allow you to group into the same
configuration vehicles that have very small body hardware differences
that do not significantly affect drag areas. Note that this allowance
does not apply for substantial differences, even if the vehicles have
the same measured drag areas.
Sec. 1037.241 Demonstrating compliance with exhaust emission
standards for greenhouse gas pollutants.
(a) For purposes of certification, your vehicle family is
considered in compliance with the emission standards in Sec. 1037.105
or Sec. 1037.106 if all vehicle configurations in that family have
modeled CO2 emission rates (as specified in subpart F of
this part) at or below the applicable standards. See 40 CFR part 86,
subpart S, for showing compliance with the standards of Sec. 1037.104.
Note that your FELs are considered to be the applicable emission
standards with which you must comply if you participate in the ABT
program in subpart H of this part.
(b) Your vehicle family is deemed not to comply if any vehicle
configuration in that family has a modeled CO2 emission rate
that is above its FEL.
(c) We may require you to provide an engineering analysis showing
that the performance of your emission controls will not deteriorate
during the useful life with proper maintenance. If we determine that
your emission controls are likely to deteriorate during the useful
life, we may require you to develop and apply deterioration factors
consistent with good engineering judgment. For example, you may need to
apply a deterioration factor to address deterioration of battery
performance for an electric hybrid vehicle. Where the highest useful
life emissions occur between the end of useful life and at the low-hour
test point, base deterioration factors for the vehicles on the
difference between (or ratio of) the point at which the highest
emissions occur and the low-hour test point.
Sec. 1037.250 Reporting and recordkeeping.
(a) Within 90 days after the end of the model year, send the
Designated Compliance Officer a report including the total U.S.-
directed production volume of vehicles you produced in each vehicle
family during the model year(based on information available at the time
of the report). Report by vehicle identification number and vehicle
configuration and identify the subfamily identifier. Report uncertified
vehicles sold to secondary vehicle manufacturers. Small manufacturers
may omit the reporting requirements of this paragraph (a).
(b) Organize and maintain the following records:
(1) A copy of all applications and any summary information you send
us.
(2) Any of the information we specify in Sec. 1037.205 that you
were not required to include in your application.
(3) A detailed history of each emission-data vehicle, if
applicable.
(4) Production figures for each vehicle family divided by assembly
plant.
(5) Keep a list of vehicle identification numbers for all the
vehicles you produce under each certificate of conformity.
(c) Keep routine data from emission tests required by this part
(such as test cell temperatures and relative humidity readings) for one
year after we issue the associated certificate of conformity. Keep all
other information specified in this section for eight years after we
issue your certificate.
(d) Store these records in any format and on any media, as long as
you can promptly send us organized, written records in English if we
ask for them. You must keep these records readily available. We may
review them at any time.
Sec. 1037.255 What decisions may EPA make regarding my certificate of
conformity?
(a) If we determine your application is complete and shows that the
vehicle family meets all the requirements of this part and the Act, we
will issue a certificate of conformity for your vehicle family for that
model year. We may make the approval subject to additional conditions.
(b) We may deny your application for certification if we determine
that your vehicle family fails to comply with emission standards or
other requirements of this part or the Clean Air Act. We will base our
decision on all available information. If we deny your application, we
will explain why in writing.
(c) In addition, we may deny your application or suspend or revoke
your certificate if you do any of the following:
(1) Refuse to comply with any testing or reporting requirements.
(2) Submit false or incomplete information (paragraph (e) of this
section applies if this is fraudulent). This includes doing anything
after submission of your application to render any of the submitted
information false or incomplete.
(3) Render any test data inaccurate.
(4) Deny us from completing authorized activities despite our
presenting a warrant or court order (see 40 CFR 1068.20). This includes
a failure to provide reasonable assistance.
(5) Produce vehicles for importation into the United States at a
location where local law prohibits us from carrying out authorized
activities.
(6) Fail to supply requested information or amend your application
to include all vehicles being produced.
(7) Take any action that otherwise circumvents the intent of the
Act or this part, with respect to your engine family.
(d) We may void the certificate of conformity for a vehicle family
if you fail to keep records, send reports, or give us information as
required under this part or the Act. Note that these are also
violations of 40 CFR 1068.101(a)(2).
(e) We may void your certificate if we find that you intentionally
submitted false or incomplete information. This includes rendering
submitted information false or incomplete after submission.
(f) If we deny your application or suspend, revoke, or void your
certificate, you may ask for a hearing (see Sec. 1037.820).
Subpart D--[Reserved]
Subpart E--In-Use Testing
Sec. 1037.401 General provisions.
We may perform in-use testing of any vehicle subject to the
standards of this part. For example, we may test vehicles to verify
drag areas or other GEM inputs.
[[Page 57412]]
Subpart F--Test and Modeling Procedures
Sec. 1037.501 General testing and modeling provisions.
This subpart specifies how to perform emission testing and emission
modeling required elsewhere in this part.
(a) [Reserved]
(b) Where exhaust emission testing is required, use the equipment
and procedures in 40 CFR part 1066 to determine whether your vehicles
meet the duty-cycle emission standards in subpart B of this part.
Measure the emissions of all the exhaust constituents subject to
emission standards as specified in 40 CFR part 1066. Use the applicable
duty cycles specified in Sec. 1037.510.
(c) [Reserved]
(d) Use the applicable fuels specified 40 CFR part 1065 to perform
valid tests.
(1) For service accumulation, use the test fuel or any commercially
available fuel that is representative of the fuel that in-use vehicles
will use.
(2) For diesel-fueled vehicles, use the appropriate diesel fuel
specified for emission testing. Unless we specify otherwise, the
appropriate diesel test fuel is ultra low-sulfur diesel fuel.
(3) For gasoline-fueled vehicles, use the gasoline specified for
``General Testing''.
(e) You may use special or alternate procedures as specified in 40
CFR 1065.10.
(f) This subpart is addressed to you as a manufacturer, but it
applies equally to anyone who does testing for you, and to us when we
perform testing to determine if your vehicles meet emission standards.
(g) Apply this paragraph (g) whenever we specify use of standard
trailers. Unless otherwise specified, a tolerance of 2
inches applies for all nominal trailer dimensions.
(1) The standard trailer for high-roof tractors must meet the
following criteria:
(i) It is an unloaded two-axle dry van box trailer 53.0 feet long,
102 inches wide, and 162 inches high (measured from the ground with the
trailer level).
(ii) It has a king pin located with its center 360.5
inches from the front of the trailer and a minimized trailer gap (no
greater than 45 inches).
(iii) It has a smooth surface with nominally flush rivets and does
not include any aerodynamic features such as side fairings, boat tails,
or gap reducers. It may have a scuff band of no more than 0.13 inches
in thickness.
(iv) It includes dual 22.5 inch wheels, standard mudflaps, and
standard landing gear. The centerline of the rear-most axle must be 146
inches from the rear of the trailer.
(2) The standard trailer for mid-roof tractors is an empty two-axle
tanker trailer 421 feet long by 140 inches high.
(i) It has a 401 feet long cylindrical tank with a
70007 gallon capacity, smooth surface, and rounded ends.
(ii) The standard tanker trailer does not include any aerodynamic
features such as side fairings, but does include a centered 20 inch
manhole, side-centered ladder, and lengthwise walkway. It includes dual
24.5 inch wheels.
(3) The standard trailer for low-roof tractors is an unloaded two-
axle flat bed trailer 531 feet long and 102 inches wide.
(i) The deck height is 60.00.5 inches in the front and
55.00.5 inches in the rear. The standard trailer does not
include any aerodynamic features such as side fairings.
(ii) It includes an air suspension and dual 22.5 inch wheels on
tandem axles spread up to 122 inches apart between axle centerlines,
measured along the length of the trailer.
Sec. 1037.510 Duty-cycle exhaust testing.
This section applies where exhaust emission testing is required,
such as when applying the provisions of Sec. 1037.615. Note that for
most vehicles, testing under this section is not required.
(a) Where applicable, measure emissions by testing the vehicle on a
chassis dynamometer with the applicable test cycles. Each test cycle
consists of a series of speed commands over time: variable speeds for
the transient test and constant speeds for the cruise tests. None of
these cycles include vehicle starting or warmup; each test cycle begins
with a running, warmed-up vehicle. Start sampling emissions at the
start of each cycle. The transient cycle is specified in Appendix I to
this part. For the 55 mph and 65 mph cruise cycles, sample emissions
for 300 second cycles with constant vehicle speeds of 55.0 mph and 65.0
mph, respectively. The tolerance around these speed setpoints is 1.0 mph.
(b) Calculate the official emission result from the following
equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15SE11.011
Where:
payload = the standard payload, in tons, as specified in Sec.
1037.705.
w = weighting factor for the appropriate test cycle, as described in
paragraph (c) of this section.
m = grams of CO2 emitted over the appropriate test cycle.
D = miles driven over the appropriate test cycle.
(c) Apply weighting factors specific to each type of vehicle and
for each duty cycle as described in the following table:
Table 1 to Sec. 1037.510--Weighting Factors for Duty Cycles
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
55 mph cruise 65 mph cruise
Transient (%) (%) (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vocational................................................ 42 21 37
Vocational Hybrid Vehicles................................ 75 9 16
Day Cabs.................................................. 19 17 64
Sleeper Cabs.............................................. 5 9 86
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 57413]]
(d) For transient testing, compare actual second-by-second vehicle
speed with the speed specified in the test cycle and ensure any
differences are consistent with the criteria as specified in 40 CFR
part 1066. If the speeds do not conform to these criteria, the test is
not valid and must be repeated.
(e) Run test cycles as specified in 40 CFR part 86. For cruise
cycle testing of vehicles equipped with cruise control, use the
vehicle's cruise control to control the vehicle speed. For vehicles
equipped with adjustable VSLs, test the vehicle with the VSL at its
highest setting.
(f) Test the vehicle using its adjusted loaded vehicle weight,
unless we determine this would be unrepresentative of in-use operation
as specified in 40 CFR 1065.10(c)(1).
(g) For hybrid vehicles, correct for the net energy change of the
energy storage device as described in 40 CFR 1066.501.
Sec. 1037.520 Modeling CO2 emissions to show compliance.
This section describes how to use the GEM simulation tool
(incorporated by reference in Sec. 1037.810) to show compliance with
the CO2 standards of Sec. Sec. 1037.105 and 1037.106. Use
good engineering judgment when demonstrating compliance using the GEM.
(a) General modeling provisions. To run the GEM, enter all
applicable inputs as specified by the model. All seven of the following
inputs apply for sleeper cab tractors, while some do not apply for
other regulatory subcategories:
(1) Regulatory subcategory (such as ``Class 8 Combination--Sleeper
Cab--High Roof'').
(2) Coefficient of aerodynamic drag, as described in paragraph (b)
of this section. Leave this field blank for vocational vehicles.
(3) Steer tire rolling resistance, as described in paragraph (c) of
this section.
(4) Drive tire rolling resistance, as described in paragraph (c) of
this section.
(5) Vehicle speed limit, as described in paragraph (d) of this
section. Leave this field blank for vocational vehicles.
(6) Vehicle weight reduction, as described in paragraph (e) of this
section. Leave this field blank for vocational vehicles.
(7) Extended idle reduction credit, as described in paragraph (f)
of this section. Leave this field blank for vehicles other than Class 8
sleeper cabs.
(b) Coefficient of aerodynamic drag and drag area. Determine the
appropriate drag area as follows:
(1) Use the recommended method or an alternate method to establish
a value for the vehicle's drag area, expressed in m\2\ and rounded to
two decimal places. Where we allow you to group multiple configurations
together, measure the drag area of the worst-case configuration.
Measure drag areas specified in Sec. 1037.521.
(2) Determine the bin level for your vehicle based on the drag area
from paragraph (b)(1) of this section as shown in the following tables:
Table 1 to Sec. 1037.520--High-Roof Day and Sleeper Cabs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If your measured CDA Then your CD input is . .
Bin level (m\2\) is . . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
High-Roof Day Cabs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bin I..................................................... >= 8.0 0.79
Bin II.................................................... 7.1-7.9 0.72
Bin III................................................... 6.2-7.0 0.63
Bin IV.................................................... 5.6-6.1 0.56
Bin V..................................................... <= 5.5 0.51
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
High-Roof Sleeper Cabs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bin I..................................................... >= 7.6 0.75
Bin II.................................................... 6.7-7.5 0.68
Bin III................................................... 5.8-6.6 0.60
Bin IV.................................................... 5.2-5.7 0.52
Bin V..................................................... <= 5.1 0.47
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2 to Sec. 1037.520-- Low-Roof Day and Sleeper Cabs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If your measured CDA Then your CD input is . .
Bin level (m\2\) is . . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-Roof Day and Sleeper Cabs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bin I..................................................... >= 5.1 0.77
Bin II.................................................... <= 5.0 0.71
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mid-Roof Day and Sleeper Cabs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bin I..................................................... >= 5.6 0.87
Bin II.................................................... <= 5.5 0.82
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) For low- and mid-roof tractors, you may determine your drag
area bin based on the drag area bin of an equivalent high-roof tractor.
If the high-roof tractor is in Bin I or Bin II, then you may assume
your equivalent low- and mid-roof tractors are in Bin I. If the high-
roof tractor is in Bin III, Bin IV, or Bin V, then you may assume your
equivalent low- and mid-roof tractors are in Bin II.
(c) Steer and drive tire rolling resistance. You must have a tire
rolling resistance level (TRRL) for each tire
[[Page 57414]]
configuration. For purposes of this section, you may consider tires
with the same SKU number to be the same configuration.
(1) Measure tire rolling resistance in kg per metric ton as
specified in ISO 28580 (incorporated by reference in Sec. 1037.810),
except as specified in this paragraph (c). Use good engineering
judgment to ensure that your test results are not biased low. You may
ask us to identify a reference test laboratory to which you may
correlate your test results. Prior to beginning the test procedure in
Section 7 of ISO 28580 for a new bias-ply tire, perform a break-in
procedure by running the tire at the specified test speed, load, and
pressure for 602 minutes.
(2) For each tire design tested, measure rolling resistance of at
least three different tires of that specific design and size. Perform
the test at least once for each tire. Use the arithmetic mean of these
results as your test result. You may use this value as your GEM input
or select a higher TRRL. You must test at least one tire size for each
tire model, and may use engineering analysis to determine the rolling
resistance of other tire sizes of that model. Note that for tire sizes
that you do not test, we will treat your analytically derived rolling
resistances the same as test results, and we may perform our own
testing to verify your values. We may require you to test a small sub-
sample of untested tire sizes that we select.
(3) If you obtain your test results from the tire manufacturer or
another third party, you must obtain a signed statement from them
verifying the tests were conducted according to the requirements of
this part. Such statements are deemed to be submissions to EPA.
(4) For tires marketed as light truck tires and that have load
ranges C, D, or E, use as the GEM input TRRL at or above the measured
rolling resistance multiplied by 0.87.
(d) Vehicle speed limit. If the vehicles will be equipped with a
vehicle speed limiter, input the maximum vehicle speed to which the
vehicle will be limited (in miles per hour rounded to the nearest 0.1
mile per hour) as specified in Sec. 1037.640. Otherwise leave this
field blank. Use good engineering judgment to ensure the limiter is
tamper resistant. We may require you to obtain preliminary approval for
your designs.
(e) Vehicle weight reduction. For purposes of this paragraph (e),
high-strength steel is steel with tensile strength at or above 350 MPa.
(1) Vehicle weight reduction inputs for wheels are specified
relative to dual-wide tires with conventional steel wheels. For
purposes of this paragraph (e)(1), a light-weight aluminum wheel is one
that weighs at least 21 lb less than a comparable conventional steel
wheel. The inputs are listed in Table 4 to this section. For example, a
tractor with aluminum steel wheels and eight (4x2) dual-wide aluminum
drive wheels would have an input of 210 lb (2x21 + 8x21).
Table 3 to Sec. 1037.520--Wheel-Related Weight Reductions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weight
reduction (lb
Weight reduction technology per tire or
wheel)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Single-Wide Drive Tire with
Steel Wheel......................................... 84
Aluminum Wheel...................................... 139
Light-Weight Aluminum Wheel......................... 147
Steer Tire or Dual-wide Drive Tire with . . .
High-Strength Steel Wheel........................... 8
Aluminum Wheel...................................... 21
Light-Weight Aluminum Wheel......................... 30
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Vehicle weight reduction inputs for components other than
wheels are specified relative to mild steel components as specified in
the following table:
Table 4 to Sec. 1037.520--Nonwheel-Related Weight Reductions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
High-strength
Weight reduction technologies Aluminum weight steel weight
reduction (lb) reduction (lb)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Door............................ 20 6
Roof............................ 60 18
Cab rear wall................... 49 16
Cab floor....................... 56 18
Hood Support Structure System... 15 3
Fairing Support Structure System 35 6
Instrument Panel Support 5 1
Structure......................
Brake Drums--Drive (4).......... 140 11
Brake Drums--Non Drive (2)...... 60 8
Frame Rails..................... 440 87
Crossmember--Cab................ 15 5
Crossmember--Suspension......... 25 6
Crossmember--Non Suspension (3). 15 5
Fifth Wheel..................... 100 25
Radiator Support................ 20 6
Fuel Tank Support Structure..... 40 12
Steps........................... 35 6
Bumper.......................... 33 10
Shackles........................ 10 3
Front Axle...................... 60 15
Suspension Brackets, Hangers.... 100 30
Transmission Case............... 50 12
Clutch Housing.................. 40 10
Drive Axle Hubs (8)............. 160 4
Non Drive Front Hubs (2)........ 40 5
Driveshaft...................... 20 5
Transmission/Clutch Shift Levers 20 4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 57415]]
(3) You may ask to apply the innovative technology provisions of
Sec. 1037.610 for weight reductions not covered by this paragraph (e).
(f) Extended idle reduction credit. If your tractor is equipped
with idle reduction technology meeting the requirements of Sec.
1037.660 that will automatically shut off the main engine after 300
seconds or less, use 5.0 g/ton-mile as the input (or a lesser value
specified in Sec. 1037.660). Otherwise leave this field blank.
Sec. 1037.521 Aerodynamic measurements.
This section describes how to determine the aerodynamic drag area
(CDA) of your vehicle using the coastdown procedure in 40
CFR part 1066 or an alternative method correlated to it.
(a) General. The primary method for measuring the aerodynamic drag
area of vehicles is specified in paragraph (b) of this section. You may
determine the drag area using an alternate method, consistent with the
provisions of this section and good engineering judgment, based on wind
tunnel testing, computational fluid dynamic modeling, or constant-speed
road load testing. See 40 CFR 1068.5 for provisions describing how we
may evaluate your engineering judgment. All drag areas measured using
an alternative method (CDAalt) must be adjusted
to be equivalent to the corresponding drag areas that would have been
measured using the coastdown procedure as follows:
(1) Unless good engineering judgment requires otherwise, assume
that coastdown drag areas are proportional to drag areas measured using
alternative methods. This means you may apply a single constant
adjustment factor (Falt-aero) for a given alternate drag
area method using the following equation:
CDA = CDAalt x Falt-aero
(2) Determine Falt-aero by performing coastdown testing
and applying your alternate method on the same vehicle. Unless we
approve another vehicle, the vehicle must be a Class 8, high-roof,
sleeper cab with a full aerodynamics package, pulling a standards
trailer. Where you have more than one model meeting these criteria, use
the model with the highest projected sales. If you do not have such a
model you may use your most comparable model with prior approval. If
good engineering judgment allows the use of a single, constant value of
Falt-aero, calculate it from this coastdown drag area
(CDAcoast) divided by alternative drag area
(CDAalt):
Falt-aero = CDAcoast /
CDAalt
(3) Calculate Falt-aero to at least three decimal
places. For example, if your coastdown testing results in a drag area
of 6.430, but your wind tunnel method results in a drag area of 6.200,
Falt-aero would be 1.037.
(b) Recommended method. Perform coastdown testing as described in
40 CFR part 1066, subpart D, subject to the following additional
provisions:
(1) The specifications of this paragraph (b)(1) apply when
measuring drag areas for tractors. Test high-roof tractors with a
standard box trailer. Test low- and mid-roof tractors without a trailer
(sometimes referred to as in a ``bobtail configuration''). You may test
low- and mid-roof tractors with a trailer to evaluate innovative
technologies.
(2) The specifications of this paragraph (b)(2) apply for tractors
and standard trailers. Use tires mounted on steel rims in a dual
configuration (except for steer tires). The tires must--
(i) Be SmartWay-Verified tires or have a rolling resistance below
5.1 kg/ton.
(ii) Have accumulated at least 2,175 miles of prior use but have no
less than 50 percent of their original tread depth (as specified for
truck cabs in SAE J1263).
(iii) Not be retreads or have any apparent signs of chunking or
uneven wear.
(iv) Be size 295/75R22.5 or 275/80R22.5.
(3) Calculate the drag area (CDA) in m\2\ from the
coastdown procedure specified in 40 CFR part 1066.
(c) Approval. You must obtain preliminary approval before using any
methods other than coastdown testing to determine drag coefficients.
Send your request for approval to the Designated Compliance Officer.
Keep records of the information specified in this paragraph (c). Unless
we specify otherwise, include this information with your request. You
must provide any information we require to evaluate whether you are
apply the provisions of this section consistent with good engineering
judgment.
(1) Include all of the following for your coastdown results:
(i) The name, location, and description of your test facilities,
including background/history, equipment and capability, and track and
facility elevation, along with the grade and size/length of the track.
(ii) Test conditions for each test result, including date and time,
wind speed and direction, ambient temperature and humidity, vehicle
speed, driving distance, manufacturer name, test vehicle/model type,
model year, applicable model engine family, tire type and rolling
resistance, weight of tractor-trailer (as tested), and driver
identifier(s).
(iii) Average drag area result as calculated in 40 CFR 1066,
subpart D) and all of the individual run results (including voided or
invalid runs).
(2) Identify the name and location of the test facilities for your
wind tunnel method (if applicable). Also include the following things
to describe the test facility:
(i) Background/history.
(ii) The layout (with diagram), type, and construction (structural
and material) of the wind tunnel.
(iii) Wind tunnel design details: corner turning vane type and
material, air settling, mesh screen specification, air straightening
method, tunnel volume, surface area, average duct area, and circuit
length.
(iv) Wind tunnel flow quality: temperature control and uniformity,
airflow quality, minimum airflow velocity, flow uniformity, angularity
and stability, static pressure variation, turbulence intensity, airflow
acceleration and deceleration times, test duration flow quality, and
overall airflow quality achievement.
(v) Test/working section information: test section type (e.g.,
open, closed, adaptive wall) and shape (e.g., circular, square, oval),
length, contraction ratio, maximum air velocity, maximum dynamic
pressure, nozzle width and height, plenum dimensions and net volume,
maximum allowed model scale, maximum model height above road, strut
movement rate (if applicable), model support, primary boundary layer
slot, boundary layer elimination method, and photos and diagrams of the
test section.
(vi) Fan section description: fan type, diameter, power, maximum
rotational speed, maximum top speed, support type, mechanical drive,
and sectional total weight.
(vii) Data acquisition and control (where applicable): acquisition
type, motor control, tunnel control, model balance, model pressure
measurement, wheel drag balances, wing/body panel balances, and model
exhaust simulation.
(viii) Moving ground plane or rolling road (if applicable):
construction and material, yaw table and range, moving ground length
and width, belt type, maximum belt speed, belt suction mechanism,
platen instrumentation, temperature control, and steering.
(ix) Facility correction factors and purpose.
(3) Include all of the following for your computational fluid
dynamics (CFD) method (if applicable):
(i) Official name/title of the software product.
[[Page 57416]]
(ii) Date and version number for the software product.
(iii) Manufacturer/company name, address, phone number and Web
address for software product.
(iv) Identify if the software code is Navier-Stokes or Lattice-
Boltzmann based.
(4) Include all of the following for any other method (if
applicable):
(i) Official name/title of the procedure(s).
(ii) Description of the procedure.
(iii) Cited sources for any standardized procedures that the method
is based on.
(iv) Modifications/deviations from the standardized procedures for
the method and rational for modifications/deviations.
(v) Data comparing this requested procedure to the coastdown
reference procedure.
(vi) Information above from the other methods as applicable to this
method (e.g., source location/address, background/history).
(d) Wind tunnel methods. (1) You may measure drag areas consistent
with the modified SAE procedures described in this paragraph (d) using
any wind tunnel recognized by the Subsonic Aerodynamic Testing
Association. If your wind tunnel is not capable of testing in
accordance with these modified SAE procedures, you may ask us to
approve your alternate test procedures if you demonstrate that your
procedures produce equivalent data. For purposes of this paragraph (d),
data are equivalent if they are the same or better with respect to
repeatability and unbiased correlation with coastdown testing. Note
that, for wind tunnels not capable of these modified SAE procedures,
good engineering judgment may require you to base your alternate method
adjustment factor on more than one vehicle. You may not develop your
correction factor until we have approved your alternate method. The
applicable SAE procedures are SAE J1252, SAE J1594, and SAE J2071
(incorporated by reference in Sec. 1037.810). The following
modifications apply for SAE J1252:
(i) The minimum Reynold's number (Remin) is 1.0 x 10\6\
instead of the value specified in section 5.2 of the SAE procedure.
Your model frontal area at zero yaw angle may exceed the recommended 5
percent of the active test section area, provided it does not exceed 25
percent.
(ii) For full-scale wind tunnel testing, use good engineering
judgment to select a test article (tractor and trailer) that is a
reasonable representation of the test article used for the reference
method testing. For example, where your wind tunnel is not long enough
to test the tractor with a standard 53 foot trailer, it may be
appropriate to use shorter box trailer. In such a case, the correlation
developed using the shorter trailer would only be valid for testing
with the shorter trailer.
(iii) For reduced-scale wind tunnel testing, a one-eighth (1/8th)
or larger scale model of a heavy-duty tractor and trailer must be used,
and the model must be of sufficient design to simulate airflow through
the radiator inlet grill and across an engine geometry representative
of those commonly used in your test vehicle.
(2) You must perform wind tunnel testing and the coastdown
procedure on the same tractor model and provide the results for both
methods. Conduct the wind tunnel tests at a zero yaw angle and, if so
equipped, utilizing the moving/rolling floor (i.e., the moving/rolling
floor should be on during the test, as opposed to static) for
comparison to the coastdown procedure, which corrects to a zero yaw
angle for the oncoming wind.
(e) Computational fluid dynamics (CFD). You may determine drag
areas using a CFD method, consistent with good engineering judgment and
the requirements of this paragraph (e) using commercially available CFD
software code. Conduct the analysis assuming zero yaw angle, and
ambient conditions consistent with coastdown procedures. For simulating
a wind tunnel test, the analysis should accurately model the particular
wind tunnel and assume a wind tunnel blockage ratio consistent with SAE
J1252 (incorporated by reference in Sec. 1037.810) or one that matches
the selected wind tunnel, whichever is lower. For simulation of open
road conditions similar to that experienced during coastdown test
procedures, the CFD analysis should assume a blockage ratio at or below
0.2 percent.
(1) Take the following steps for CFD code with a Navier-Stokes
formula solver:
(i) Perform an unstructured, time-accurate, analysis using a mesh
grid size with total volume element count of at least 50 million cells
of hexahedral and/or polyhedral mesh cell shape, surface elements
representing the geometry consisting of no less than 6 million
elements, and a near-wall cell size corresponding to a y+ value of less
than 300, with the smallest cell sizes applied to local regions of the
tractor and trailer in areas of high flow gradients and smaller
geometry features.
(ii) Perform the analysis with a turbulence model and mesh
deformation enabled (if applicable) with boundary layer resolution of
95 percent. Once result convergence is achieved,
demonstrate the convergence by supplying multiple, successive
convergence values for the analysis. The turbulence model may use k-
epsilon (k-[egr]), shear stress transport k-omega (SST k-[omega]), or
other commercially accepted methods.
(2) For Lattice-Boltzman based CFD code, perform an unstructured,
time-accurate analysis using a mesh grid size with total surface
elements of at least 50 million cells using cubic volume elements and
triangular and/or quadrilateral surface elements with a near wall cell
size of no greater than 6 mm on local regions of the tractor and
trailer in areas of high flow gradients and smaller geometry features,
with cell sizes in other areas of the mesh grid starting at twelve
millimeters and increasing in size from this value as the distance from
the tractor-trailer model increases.
(3) All CFD analysis should be conducted using the following
conditions:
(i) A tractor-trailer combination using the manufacturer's tractor
and the standard trailer, as applicable.
(ii) An environment with a blockage ratio at or below 0.2 percent
to simulate open road conditions, a zero degree yaw angle between the
oncoming wind and the tractor-trailer combination.
(iii) Ambient conditions consistent with the coastdown test
procedures specified in this part.
(iv) Open grill with representative back pressures based on data
from the tractor model,
(v) Turbulence model and mesh deformation enabled (if applicable).
(vi) Tires and ground plane in motion consistent with and
simulating a vehicle moving in the forward direction of travel.
(vii) The smallest cell size should be applied to local regions on
the tractor and trailer in areas of high flow gradients and smaller
geometry features (e.g., the a-pillar, mirror, visor, grille and
accessories, trailer leading and trailing edges, rear bogey, tires, and
tractor-trailer gap).
(viii) Simulate a speed of 55 mph.
(4) You may ask us to allow you to perform CFD analysis using
parameters and criteria other than those specified in this paragraph
(e), consistent with good engineering judgment, if you can demonstrate
that the specified conditions are not feasible (e.g., insufficient
computing power to conduct such analysis, inordinate length of time to
conduct analysis, equivalent flow characteristics with more feasible
[[Page 57417]]
criteria/parameters) or improved criteria may yield better results
(e.g., different mesh cell shape and size). To support this request, we
may require that you supply data demonstrating that your selected
parameters/criteria will provide a sufficient level of detail to yield
an accurate analysis, including comparison of key characteristics
between your criteria/parameters and the criteria specified in
paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of this section (e.g., pressure profiles,
drag build-up, and/or turbulent/laminar flow at key points on the front
of the tractor and/or over the length of the tractor-trailer
combination).
(f) Yaw sweep corrections. You may optionally apply this paragraph
(f) for vehicles with aerodynamic features that are more effective at
reducing wind-averaged drag than is predicted by zero-yaw drag. You may
correct your zero-yaw drag area as follows if the ratio of the zero-yaw
drag area divided by yaw sweep drag area for your vehicle is greater
than 0.8065 (which represents the ratio expected for a typical
aerodynamic Class 8 high-roof sleeper cab tractor):
(1) Determine the zero-yaw drag area and the yaw sweep drag area
for your vehicle using the same alternate method as specified in this
subpart. Measure drag area for 0[deg], -6[deg], and +6[deg]. Use the
arithmetic mean of the -6[deg] and +6[deg] drag areas as the 6[deg] drag area.
(2) Calculate your yaw sweep correction factor (CFys)
using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15SE11.012
(3) Calculate your corrected drag area for determining the
aerodynamic bin by multiplying the measured zero-yaw drag area by
CFys. The correction factor may be applied to drag areas
measured using other procedures. For example, we would apply
CFys to drag areas measured using the recommended coastdown
method. If you use an alternative method, you would also need to apply
an alternative correction (Falt-aero) and calculate the
final drag area using the following equation:
CDA = Falt-aero [middot] CFys
[middot] (CDA)zero-alt
(4) You may ask us to apply CFys to similar vehicles
incorporating the same design features.
(5) As an alternative, you may choose to calculate the wind-
averaged drag area according to SAE J1252 (incorporated by reference in
Sec. 1037.810) and substitute this value into the equation in
paragraph (f)(2) of this section for the 6[deg] yaw-
averaged drag area.
Sec. 1037.525 Special procedures for testing hybrid vehicles with
power take-off.
This section describes the procedure for quantifying the reduction
in greenhouse gas emissions as a result of running power take-off (PTO)
devices with a hybrid powertrain. The procedures are written to test
the PTO so that all the energy is produced with the engine. The full
test for the hybrid vehicle is from a fully charged renewable energy
storage system (RESS) to a depleted RESS and then back to a fully
charged RESS. These procedures may be used for whole vehicles or with a
post-transmission hybrid system. When testing just the post-
transmission hybrid system, you must include all hardware for the PTO
system. You may ask us to modify the provisions of this section to
allow testing hybrid vehicles other than electric-battery hybrids,
consistent with good engineering judgment.
(a) Select two vehicles for testing as follows:
(1) Select a vehicle with a hybrid powertrain to represent the
vehicle family. If your vehicle family includes more than one vehicle
model, use good engineering judgment to select the vehicle type with
the maximum number of PTO circuits that has the smallest potential
reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.
(2) Select an equivalent conventional vehicle as specified in Sec.
1037.615.
(b) Measure PTO emissions from the fully warmed-up conventional
vehicle as follows:
(1) Without adding any additional restrictions, instrument the
vehicle with pressure transducers at the outlet of the hydraulic pump
for each circuit.
(2) Operate the PTO system with no load for at least 15 seconds.
Measure the pressure and record the average value over the last 10
seconds (pmin). Apply maximum operator demand to the PTO
system until the pressure relief valve opens and pressure stabilizes;
measure the pressure and record the average value over the last 10
seconds (pmax).
(3) Denormalize the PTO duty cycle in Appendix II of this part
using the following equation:
prefi = NPi [middot] (pmax-
min) + pmin
Where:
prefi = the reference pressure at each point i in the
PTO cycle.
NPi= the normalized pressure at each point i in the
PTO cycle.
pmax= the maximum pressure measured in paragraph
(b)(2) of this section.
pmin= the minimum pressure measured in paragraph
(b)(2) of this section.
(4) If the PTO system has two circuits, repeat paragraph (b)(2) and
(3) of this section for the second PTO circuit.
(5) Install a system to control pressures in the PTO system during
the cycle.
(6) Start the engine.
(7) Operate the vehicle over one or both of the denormalized PTO
duty cycles, as applicable. Collect CO2 emissions during
operation over each duty cycle.
(8) Use the provisions of 40 CFR part 1066 to collect and measure
emissions. Calculate emission rates in grams per test without rounding.
(9) For each test, validate the pressure in each circuit with the
pressure specified from the cycle according to 40 CFR 1065.514.
Measured pressures must meet the specifications in the following table
for a valid test:
Table 1 of Sec. 1037.525--Statistical Criteria for Validating Duty Cycles
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parameter Pressure
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Slope, [verbar]a1[verbar]................... 0.950 <= a1 <= 1.030.
Absolute value of intercept, [bond]a0[bond]. <= 2.0% of maximum mapped pressure.
Standard error of estimate, SEE............. <= 10% of maximum mapped pressure.
Coefficient of determination, r\2\......... >= 0.970.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 57418]]
(10) Continue testing over the three vehicle drive cycles, as
otherwise required by this part.
(11) Calculate combined cycle-weighted emissions of the four cycles
as specified in paragraph (d) of this section.
(c) Measure PTO emissions from the fully warmed-up hybrid vehicle
as follows:
(1) Perform the steps in paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this
section.
(2) Prepare the vehicle for testing by operating it as needed to
stabilize the battery at a full state of charge. For electric hybrid
vehicles, we recommend running back-to-back PTO tests until engine
operation is initiated to charge the battery. The battery should be
fully charged once engine operation stops. The ignition should remain
in the ``on'' position.
(3) Turn the vehicle and PTO system off while the sampling system
is being prepared.
(4) Turn the vehicle and PTO system on such that the PTO system is
functional, whether it draws power from the engine or a battery.
(5) Operate the vehicle over the PTO cycle(s) without turning the
vehicle off, until the engine starts and then shuts down. The test
cycle is completed once the engine shuts down. Measure emissions as
described in paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) of this section. Use good
engineering judgment to minimize the variability in testing between the
two types of vehicles.
(6) Refer to paragraph (b)(9) of this section for cycle validation.
(7) Continue testing over the three vehicle drive cycles, as
otherwise required by this part.
(8) Calculate combined cycle-weighted emissions of the four cycles
as specified in paragraph (d) of this section.
(d) Calculate combined cycle-weighted emissions of the four cycles
for vocational vehicles as follows:
(1) Calculate the g/ton-mile emission rate for the driving portion
of the test specified in Sec. 1037.510.
(2) Calculate the g/hr emission rate for the PTO portion of the
test by dividing the total mass emitted over the cycle (grams) by the
time of the test (hours). For testing where fractions of a cycle were
run (for example, where three cycles are completed and the halfway
point of a fourth PTO cycle is reached before the engine starts and
shuts down again), use the following procedures to calculate the time
of the test:
(i) Add up the time run for all complete tests.
(ii) For fractions of a test, use the following equation to
calculate the time:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15SE11.013
Where:
ttest = time of the incomplete test.
i = the number of each measurement interval.
N = the total number of measurement intervals.
NPcircuit--1 = Normalized pressure command from circuit 1
of the PTO cycle.
NPcircuit--2 = Normalized pressure command from circuit 2
of the PTO cycle. Let NPcircuit--2 = 1 if there is only
one circuit.
tcycle = time of a complete cycle.
(iii) Sum the time from complete cycles (paragraph (d)(2)(i) of
this section) and from partial cycles (paragraph (d)(2)(ii) of this
section).
(3) Convert the g/hr PTO result to an equivalent g/mi value based
on the assumed fraction of engine operating time during which the PTO
is operating (28 percent) and an assumed average vehicle speed while
driving (27.1 mph). The conversion factor is: Factor = (0.280)/(1.000-
0.280)/(27.1 mph) = 0.0144 hr/mi. Multiply the g/hr emission rate by
0.0144 hr/mi.
(4) Divide the g/mi PTO emission rate by the standard payload and
add this value to the g/ton-mile emission rate for the driving portion
of the test.
(e) Follow the provisions of Sec. 1037.615 to calculate
improvement factors and benefits for advanced technologies.
Sec. 1037.550 Special procedures for testing post-transmission hybrid
systems.
This section describes the procedure for simulating a chassis test
with a post-transmission hybrid system for A to B testing. The hardware
that must be included in these tests is the engine, the transmission,
the hybrid electric motor, the power electronics between the hybrid
electric motor and the RESS, and the RESS. You may ask us to modify the
provisions of this section to allow testing non-electric hybrid
vehicles, consistent with good engineering judgment.
(a) Set up the engine according to 40 CFR 1065.110 to account for
work inputs and outputs and accessory work.
(b) Collect CO2 emissions while operating the system
over the test cycles specified in Sec. 1037.510.
(c) Collect and measure emissions as described in 40 CFR part 1066.
Calculate emission rates in grams per ton-mile without rounding.
Determine values for A, B, C, and M for the vehicle being simulated as
specified in 40 CFR part 1066. If you will apply an improvement factor
or test results to multiple vehicle configurations, use values of A, B,
C, M, kd, and r that represent the vehicle configuration
with the smallest potential reduction in greenhouse gas emissions as a
result of the hybrid capability.
(d) Calculate the transmission output shaft's angular speed target
for the driver model, fnref,driver, from the linear speed
associated with the vehicle cycle using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15SE11.014
Where:
Scyclei = vehicle speed of the test cycle for each point
i.
kd = final drive ratio (the angular speed of the
transmission output shaft divided by the angular speed of the drive
axle), as declared by the manufacturer.
r = radius of the loaded tires, as declared by the manufacturer.
(e) Use either speed control or torque control to program the
dynamometer to follow the test cycle, as follows:
(1) Speed control. Program dynamometers using speed control as
described in this paragraph (e)(1). We recommend speed control for
automated manual transmissions or other designs where there is a power
interrupt during shifts. Calculate the transmission output shaft's
angular speed target for the dynamometer, fnref,dyno, from
the measured linear speed at the dynamometer rolls using the following
equation:
[[Page 57419]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15SE11.015
Where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15SE11.016
t = elapsed time in the driving schedule as measured by the
dynamometer, in seconds.
Let ti-1 = 0.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15SE11.017
Where:
Ti = instantaneous measured torque at the transmission
output shaft.
fn,i = instantaneous measured angular speed of the
transmission output shaft.
(2) Torque control. Program dynamometers using torque control as
described in this paragraph (e)(2).
(i) Calculate the transmission output shaft's torque target,
Trefi, using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15SE11.018
Where:
FRi = total road load force at the surface of the roll,
calculated using the equation in 40 CFR 1066.210(d)(4), as specified
in paragraph (e)(2)(ii) of this section.
(ii) Calculate the total road load force based on instantaneous
speed values, Si, calculated from the equation in paragraph
(e)(1) of this section.
(3) For each test, validate the measured transmission output
shaft's speed or torque with the corresponding reference values
according to 40 CFR 1065.514(e). You may delete points when the vehicle
is braking or stopped. Perform the validation based on speed and torque
values at the transmission output shaft. For steady-state tests (55 mph
and 65 mph cruise), apply cycle-validation criteria by treating the
sampling periods from the two tests as a continuous sampling period.
Perform this validation based on the following parameters for either
speed-control or torque-control, as applicable:
Table 1 of Sec. 1037.550--Statistical Criteria for Validating Duty
Cycles
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parameter Speed control Torque control
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Slope, a1................... 0.950 <= a1 <= 1.030 0.950 <= a1 <=
1.030.
Absolute value of intercept, <=2.0% of maximum <=2.0% of maximum
a0. test speed. torque.
Standard error of estimate, <=5% of maximum test <=10% of maximum
SEE. speed. torque.
Coefficient of =0.970... =0.850.
determination, r \2\.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(f) Send a brake signal when throttle position is equal to zero
and vehicle speed is greater than the reference vehicle speed from the
test cycle. The brake signal should be turned off when the torque
measured at the transmission output shaft is less than the reference
torque. Set a delay before changing the brake state using good
engineering judgment to prevent the brake signal from dithering.
(g) The driver model should be designed to follow the cycle as
closely as possible and must meet the requirements of 40 CFR
1066.430(e) for transient testing and Sec. 1037.510 for steady-state
testing.
(h) Correct for the net energy change of the energy storage device
as described in 40 CFR 1066.501.
(i) Follow the provisions of Sec. 1037.510 to weight the cycle
results and Sec. 1037.615 to calculate improvement factors and
benefits for advanced technologies.
Subpart G--Special Compliance Provisions
Sec. 1037.601 What compliance provisions apply to these vehicles?
(a) Engine and vehicle manufacturers, as well as owners and
operators of vehicles subject to the requirements of this part, and all
other persons, must observe the provisions of this part, the provisions
of the Clean Air Act, and the following provisions of 40 CFR part 1068:
(1) The exemption and importation provisions of 40 CFR part 1068,
subparts C and D, apply for vehicles subject to this part 1037, except
that the hardship exemption provisions of 40 CFR 1068.245, 1068.250,
and 1068.255 do not apply for motor vehicles.
(2) Manufacturers may comply with the defect reporting requirements
of 40 CFR 1068.501 instead of the defect reporting requirements of 40
CFR part 85.
(b) Vehicles exempted from the applicable standards of 40 CFR part
86 are exempt from the standards of this part without request.
Similarly, vehicles are exempt without request if the installed engine
is exempted from the applicable standards in 40 CFR part 86.
(c) The prohibitions of 40 CFR 86.1854 apply for vehicles subject
to the requirements of this part. The actions prohibited under this
provision include the introduction into U.S. commerce of a complete or
incomplete vehicle subject to the standards of this part where the
vehicle is not covered by a valid certificate of conformity or
exemption.
(d) Except as specifically allowed by this part, it is a violation
of section 203(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7522(a)(1)) to
introduce into U.S. commerce a tractor containing an engine not
certified for use in tractors; or to introduce into U.S. commerce a
vocational vehicle containing a light heavy-duty or medium heavy-duty
engine not certified for use in vocational vehicles. This prohibition
applies especially to the vehicle manufacturer.
(e) A vehicle manufacturer that completes assembly of a vehicle at
two or more facilities may ask to use as the date of manufacture for
that vehicle the date on which manufacturing is completed at the place
of main assembly, consistent with provisions of
[[Page 57420]]
49 CFR 567.4. Note that such staged assembly is subject to the
provisions of 40 CFR 1068.260(c). Include your request in your
application for certification, along with a summary of your staged-
assembly process. You may ask to apply this allowance to some or all of
the vehicles in your vehicle family. Our approval is effective when we
grant your certificate. We will not approve your request if we
determine that you intend to use this allowance to circumvent the
intent of this part.
Sec. 1037.610 Vehicles with innovative technologies.
(a) You may ask us to apply the provisions of this section for
CO2 emission reductions resulting from vehicle technologies
that were not in common use with heavy-duty vehicles before model year
2010 that are not reflected in the GEM simulation tool. These
provisions may be applied for CO2 emission reductions
reflected using the specified test procedures, provided they are not
reflected in the GEM. We will apply these provisions only for
technologies that will result in measurable, demonstrable, and
verifiable real-world CO2 emission reductions.
(b) The provisions of this section may be applied as either an
improvement factor or as a separate credit, consistent with good
engineering judgment. We recommend that you base your credit/adjustment
on A to B testing of pairs of vehicles differing only with respect to
the technology in question.
(1) Calculate improvement factors as the ratio of in-use emissions
with the technology divided by the in-use emissions without the
technology. Use the improvement-factor approach where good engineering
judgment indicates that the actual benefit will be proportional to
emissions measured over the test procedures specified in this part.
(2) Calculate separate credits (g/ton-mile) based on the difference
between the in-use emission rate with the technology and the in-use
emission rate without the technology. Multiply this difference by the
number of vehicles, standard payload, and useful life. Use the
separate-credit approach where good engineering judgment indicates that
the actual benefit will be not be proportional to emissions measured
over the test procedures specified in this part.
(3) We may require you to discount or otherwise adjust your
improvement factor or credit to account for uncertainty or other
relevant factors.
(c) You may perform A to B testing by measuring emissions from the
vehicles during chassis testing or from in-use on-road testing. We
recommend that you perform on-road testing according to SAE J1321 Joint
TMC/SAE Fuel Consumption Test Procedure Type II Reaffirmed 1986-10 or
SAE J1526 Joint TMC/SAE Fuel Consumption In-Service Test Procedure Type
III Issued 1987-06 (see Sec. 1037.810 for information availability of
SAE standards), subject to the following provisions:
(1) The minimum route distance is 100 miles.
(2) The route selected must be representative in terms of grade. We
will take into account published and relevant research in determining
whether the grade is representative.
(3) The vehicle speed over the route must be representative of the
drive-cycle weighting adopted for each regulatory subcategory. For
example, if the route selected for an evaluation of a combination
tractor with a sleeper cab contains only interstate driving, the
improvement factor would apply only to 86 percent of the weighted
result.
(4) The ambient air temperature must be between 5 and 35[deg]C,
unless the technology requires other temperatures for demonstration.
(5) We may allow you to use a Portable Emissions Measurement System
(PEMS) device for measuring CO2 emissions during the on-road
testing.
(d) Send your request to the Designated Compliance Officer. Include
a detailed description of the technology and a recommended test plan.
Also state whether you recommend applying these provisions using the
improvement-factor method or the separate-credit method. We recommend
that you do not begin collecting test data (for submission to EPA)
before contacting us. For technologies for which the engine
manufacturer could also claim credits (such as transmissions in certain
circumstances), we may require you to include a letter from the engine
manufacturer stating that it will not seek credits for the same
technology.
(e) We may seek public comment on your request, consistent with the
provisions of 40 CFR 86.1866. However, we will generally not seek
public comment on credits or adjustments based on A to B chassis
testing performed according to the duty-cycle testing requirements of
this part or in-use testing performed according to paragraph (c) of
this section.
Sec. 1037.615 Hybrid vehicles and other advanced technologies.
(a) This section applies for hybrid vehicles with regenerative
braking, vehicles equipped with Rankine-cycle engines, electric
vehicles, and fuel cell vehicles. You may not generate credits for
engine features for which the engines generate credits under 40 CFR
part 1036.
(b) Generate advanced technology emission credits for hybrid
vehicles that include regenerative braking (or the equivalent) and
energy storage systems, fuel cell vehicles, and vehicles equipped with
Rankine-cycle engines as follows:
(1) Measure the effectiveness of the advanced system by chassis
testing a vehicle equipped with the advanced system and an equivalent
conventional vehicle. Test the vehicles as specified in subpart F of
this part. For purposes of this paragraph (b), a conventional vehicle
is considered to be equivalent if it has the same footprint (as defined
in 40 CFR 86.1803), vehicle service class, aerodynamic drag, and other
relevant factors not directly related to the hybrid powertrain. If you
use Sec. 1037.525 to quantify the benefits of a hybrid system for PTO
operation, the conventional vehicle must have same number of PTO
circuits and have equivalent PTO power. If you do not produce an
equivalent vehicle, you may create and test a prototype equivalent
vehicle. The conventional vehicle is considered Vehicle A and the
advanced vehicle is considered Vehicle B. We may specify an alternate
cycle if your vehicle includes a power take-off.
(2) Calculate an improvement factor and g/ton-mile benefit using
the following equations and parameters:
(i) Improvement Factor = [(Emission Rate A)--(Emission Rate B)]/
(Emission Rate A)
(ii) g/ton-mile benefit = Improvement Factor x (GEM Result B)
(iii) Emission Rates A and B are the g/ton-mile CO2
emission rates of the conventional and advanced vehicles, respectively,
as measured under the test procedures specified in this section. GEM
Result B is the g/ton-mile CO2 emission rate resulting from
emission modeling of the advanced vehicle as specified in Sec.
1037.520.
(3) Use the equations of Sec. 1037.705 to convert the g/ton-mile
benefit to emission credits (in Mg). Use the g/ton-mile benefit in
place of the (Std-FEL) term.
(c) See Sec. 1037.525 for special testing provisions related to
hybrid vehicles equipped with power take-off units.
(d) You may use an engineering analysis to calculate an improvement
factor for fuel cell vehicles based on measured emissions from the fuel
cell vehicle.
(e) For electric vehicles, calculate CO2 credits using
an FEL of 0 g/ton-mile.
[[Page 57421]]
(f) As specified in subpart H of this part, credits generated under
this section may be used under this part 1037 outside of the averaging
set in which they were generated or used under 40 CFR part 1036.
(g) You may certify using both provisions of this section and the
innovative technology provisions of Sec. 1037.610, provided you do not
double count emission benefits.
Sec. 1037.620 Shipment of incomplete vehicles to secondary vehicle
manufacturers.
This section specifies how manufacturers may introduce partially
complete vehicles into U.S. commerce.
(a) The provisions of this section allow manufacturers to ship
partially complete vehicles to secondary vehicle manufacturers or
otherwise introduce them into U.S. commerce in the following
circumstances:
(1) Tractors. Manufacturers may introduce partially complete
tractors into U.S. commerce if they are covered by a certificate of
conformity for tractors and will be in their certified tractor
configuration before they reach the ultimate purchasers. For example,
this would apply for sleepers initially shipped without the sleeper
compartments attached. Note that delegated assembly provisions may
apply (see 40 CFR 1068.261).
(2) Vocational vehicles. Manufacturers may introduce partially
complete vocational vehicles into U.S. commerce if they are covered by
a certificate of conformity for vocational vehicles and will be in
their certified vocational configuration before they reach the ultimate
purchasers. Note that delegated assembly provisions may apply (see 40
CFR 1068.261).
(3) Uncertified vehicles that will be certified by secondary
vehicle manufacturers. Manufacturers may introduce into U.S. commerce
partially complete vehicles for which they do not hold a certificate of
conformity only as allowed by paragraph (b) of this section.
(b) The provisions of this paragraph (b) generally apply where the
secondary vehicle manufacturer has substantial control over the design
and assembly of emission controls. In determining whether a
manufacturer has substantial control over the design and assembly of
emission controls, we would consider the degree to which the secondary
manufacturer would be able to ensure that the engine and vehicle will
conform to the regulations in their final configurations.
(1) A secondary manufacturer may finish assembly of partially
complete vehicles in the following cases:
(i) It obtains a vehicle that is not fully assembled with the
intent to manufacture a complete vehicle in a certified configuration.
(ii) It obtains a vehicle with the intent to modify it to a
certified configuration before it reaches the ultimate purchaser. For
example, this may apply for converting a gasoline-fueled vehicle to
operate on natural gas under the terms of a valid certificate.
(2) Manufacturers may introduce partially complete vehicles into
U.S. commerce as described in this paragraph (b) if they have a written
request for such vehicles from a secondary vehicle manufacturer that
will finish the vehicle assembly and has certified the vehicle (or the
vehicle has been exempted or excluded from the requirements of this
part). The written request must include a statement that the secondary
manufacturer has a certificate of conformity (or exemption/exclusion)
for the vehicle and identify a valid vehicle family name associated
with each vehicle model ordered (or the basis for an exemption/
exclusion). The original vehicle manufacturer must apply a removable
label meeting the requirements of 40 CFR 1068.45 that identifies the
corporate name of the original manufacturer and states that the vehicle
is exempt under the provisions of Sec. 1037.620. The name of the
certifying manufacturer must also be on the label or, alternatively, on
the bill of lading that accompanies the vehicles during shipment. The
original manufacturer may not apply a permanent emission control
information label identifying the vehicle's eventual status as a
certified vehicle.
(3) If you are the secondary manufacturer and you will hold the
certificate, you must include the following information in your
application for certification:
(i) Identify the original manufacturer of the partially complete
vehicle or of the complete vehicle you will modify.
(ii) Describe briefly how and where final assembly will be
completed. Specify how you have the ability to ensure that the vehicles
will conform to the regulations in their final configuration. (Note:
This section prohibits using the provisions of this paragraph (b)
unless you have substantial control over the design and assembly of
emission controls.)
(iii) State unconditionally that you will not distribute the
vehicles without conforming to all applicable regulations.
(4) If you are a secondary manufacturer and you are already a
certificate holder for other families, you may receive shipment of
partially complete vehicles after you apply for a certificate of
conformity but before the certificate's effective date. This exemption
allows the original manufacturer to ship vehicles after you have
applied for a certificate of conformity. Manufacturers may introduce
partially complete vehicles into U.S. commerce as described in this
paragraph (b)(4) if they have a written request for such vehicles from
a secondary manufacturer stating that the application for certification
has been submitted (instead of the information we specify in paragraph
(b)(2) of this section). We may set additional conditions under this
paragraph (b)(4) to prevent circumvention of regulatory requirements.
(5) Both original and secondary manufacturers must keep the records
described in this section for at least five years, including the
written request for exempted vehicles and the bill of lading for each
shipment (if applicable). The written request is deemed to be a
submission to EPA.
(6) These provisions are intended only to allow secondary
manufacturers to obtain or transport vehicles in the specific
circumstances identified in this section so any exemption under this
section expires when the vehicle reaches the point of final assembly
identified in paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of this section.
(7) For purposes of this section, an allowance to introduce
partially complete vehicles into U.S. commerce includes a conditional
allowance to sell, introduce, or deliver such vehicles into commerce in
the United States or import them into the United States. It does not
include a general allowance to offer such vehicles for sale because
this exemption is intended to apply only for cases in which the
certificate holder already has an arrangement to purchase the vehicles
from the original manufacturer. This exemption does not allow the
original manufacturer to subsequently offer the vehicles for sale to a
different manufacturer who will hold the certificate unless that second
manufacturer has also complied with the requirements of this part. The
exemption does not apply for any individual vehicles that are not
labeled as specified in this section or which are shipped to someone
who is not a certificate holder.
(8) We may suspend, revoke, or void an exemption under this
section, as follows:
(i) We may suspend or revoke your exemption if you fail to meet the
requirements of this section. We may suspend or revoke an exemption
related to a specific secondary manufacturer if that manufacturer sells
vehicles that are
[[Page 57422]]
in not in a certified configuration in violation of the regulations. We
may disallow this exemption for future shipments to the affected
secondary manufacturer or set additional conditions to ensure that
vehicles will be assembled in the certified configuration.
(ii) We may void an exemption for all the affected vehicles if you
intentionally submit false or incomplete information or fail to keep
and provide to EPA the records required by this section.
(iii) The exemption is void for a vehicle that is shipped to a
company that is not a certificate holder or for a vehicle that is
shipped to a secondary manufacturer that is not in compliance with the
requirements of this section.
(iv) The secondary manufacturer may be liable for penalties for
causing a prohibited act where the exemption is voided due to actions
on the part of the secondary manufacturer.
(c) Provide instructions along with partially complete vehicles
including all information necessary to ensure that an engine will be
installed in its certified configuration.
Sec. 1037.630 Special purpose tractors.
(a) General provisions. This section allows a vehicle manufacturer
to reclassify certain tractors as vocational tractors. Vocational
tractors are treated as vocational vehicles and are exempt from the
standards of Sec. 1037.106. Note that references to ``tractors''
outside of this section mean non-vocational tractors.
(1) This allowance is intended only for vehicles that do not
typically operate at highway speeds, or would otherwise not benefit
from efficiency improvements designed for line-haul tractors. This
allowance is limited to the following vehicle and application types:
(i) Low-roof tractors intended for intra-city pickup and delivery,
such as those that deliver bottled beverages to retail stores.
(ii) Tractors intended for off-road operation (including mixed
service operation), such as those with reinforced frames and increased
ground clearance.
(iii) Tractors with a GCWR over 120,000 pounds.
(2) Where we determine that a manufacturer is not applying this
allowance in good faith, we may require the manufacturer to obtain
preliminary approval before using this allowance.
(b) Requirements. The following requirements apply with respect to
tractors reclassified under this section:
(1) The vehicle must fully conform to all requirements applicable
to vocational vehicles under this part.
(2) Vehicles reclassified under this section must be certified as a
separate vehicle family. However, they remain part of the vocational
regulatory sub-category and averaging set that applies for their weight
class.
(3) You must include the following additional statement on the
vehicle's emission control information label under Sec. 1037.135:
``THIS VEHICLE WAS CERTIFIED AS A VOCATIONAL TRACTOR UNDER 40 CFR
1037.630.''.
(4) You must keep records for three years to document your basis
for believing the vehicles will be used as described in paragraph
(a)(1) of this section. Include in your application for certification a
brief description of your basis.
(c) Production limit. No manufacturer may produce more than 21,000
vehicles under this section in any consecutive three model year period.
This means you may not exceed 6,000 in a given model year if the
combined total for the previous two years was 15,000. The production
limit applies with respect to all Class 7 and Class 8 tractors
certified or exempted as vocational tractors. Note that in most cases,
the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section will limit the
allowable number of vehicles to be a number lower than the production
limit of this paragraph (c).
(d) Off-road exemption. All the provisions of this section apply
for vocational tractors exempted under Sec. 1037.631, except as
follows:
(1) The vehicles are required to comply with the requirements of
Sec. 1037.631 instead of the requirements that would otherwise apply
to vocational vehicles. Vehicles complying with the requirements of
Sec. 1037.631 and using an engine certified to the standards of 40 CFR
part 1036 are deemed to fully conform to all requirements applicable to
vocational vehicles under this part.
(2) The vehicles must be labeled as specified under Sec. 1037.631
instead of as specified in paragraph (b)(3) of this section.
Sec. 1037.631 Exemption for vocational vehicles intended for off-road
use.
This section provides an exemption from the greenhouse gas
standards of this part for certain vocational vehicles intended to be
used extensively in off-road environments such as forests, oil fields,
and construction sites. This section does not exempt the engine used in
the vehicle from the standards of 40 CFR part 86 or part 1036. Note
that you may not include these exempted vehicles in any credit
calculations under this part.
(a) Qualifying criteria. Vocational vehicles intended for off-road
use meeting either the criteria of paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this
section are exempt without request, subject to the provisions of this
section.
(1) Vehicles are exempt if the tires installed on the vehicle have
a maximum speed rating at or below 55 mph.
(2) Vehicles are exempt if they were primarily designed to perform
work off-road (such as in oil fields, forests, or construction sites),
and they meet at least one of the criteria of paragraph (a)(2)(i) of
this section and at least one of the criteria of paragraph (a)(2)(ii)
of this section.
(i) The vehicle must have affixed components designed to work in an
off-road environment (i.e., hazardous material equipment or off-road
drill equipment) or be designed to operate at low speeds such that it
is unsuitable for normal highway operation.
(ii) The vehicle must meet one of the following criteria:
(A) Have an axle that has a gross axle weight rating (GAWR) of
29,000 pounds.
(B) Have a speed attainable in 2 miles of not more than 33 mph.
(C) Have a speed attainable in 2 miles of not more than 45 mph, an
unloaded vehicle weight that is not less than 95 percent of its gross
vehicle weight rating (GVWR), and no capacity to carry occupants other
than the driver and operating crew.
(b) Tractors. The provisions of this section may apply for tractors
only if each tractor qualifies as a vocational tractor under Sec.
1037.630.
(c) Recordkeeping and reporting. (1) You must keep records to
document that your exempted vehicle configurations meet all applicable
requirements of this section. Keep these records for at least eight
years after you stop producing the exempted vehicle model. We may
review these records at any time.
(2) You must also keep records of the individual exempted vehicles
you produce, including the vehicle identification number and a
description of the vehicle configuration.
(3) Within 90 days after the end of each model year, you must send
to the Designated Compliance Officer a report with the following
information:
(i) A description of each exempted vehicle configuration, including
an explanation of why it qualifies for this exemption.
(ii) The number of vehicles exempted for each vehicle
configuration.
(d) Labeling. You must include the following additional statement
on the vehicle's emission control information label under Sec.
1037.135: ``THIS VEHICLE
[[Page 57423]]
WAS EXEMPTED UNDER 40 CFR 1037.631.''.
Sec. 1037.640 Variable vehicle speed limiters.
This section specifies provisions that apply for vehicle speed
limiters (VSLs) that you model under Sec. 1037.520. This does not
apply for VSLs that you do not model under Sec. 1037.520.
(a) General. The regulations of this part do not constrain how you
may design VSLs for your vehicles. For example, you may design your VSL
to have a single fixed speed limit or a soft-top speed limit. You may
also design your VSL to expire after accumulation of a predetermined
number of miles. However, designs with soft tops or expiration features
are subject to proration provisions under this section that do not
apply to fixed VSLs that do not expire.
(b) Definitions. The following definitions apply for purposes of
this section:
(1) Default speed limit means the speed limit that normally applies
for the vehicle, except as follows:
(i) The default speed limit for adjustable VSLs must represent the
speed limit that applies when the VSL is adjusted to its highest
setting under paragraph (c) of this section.
(ii) For VSLs with soft tops, the default speed does not include
speeds possible only during soft-top operation.
(iii) For expiring VSLs, the default does not include speeds that
are possible only after expiration.
(2) Soft-top speed limit means the highest speed limit that applies
during soft-top operation.
(3) Maximum soft-top duration means the maximum amount of time that
a vehicle could operate above the default speed limit.
(4) Certified VSL means a VSL configuration that applies when a
vehicle is new and until it expires.
(5) Expiration point means the mileage at which a vehicle's
certified VSL expires (or the point at which tamper protections
expire).
(6) Effective speed limit has the meaning given in paragraph (d) of
this section.
(c) Adjustments. You may design your VSL to be adjustable; however,
this may affect the value you use in the GEM.
(1) Except as specified in paragraph (c)(2) of this section, any
adjustments that can be made to the engine, vehicle, or their controls
that change the VSL's actual speed limit are considered to be
adjustable operating parameters. Compliance is based on the vehicle
being adjusted to the highest speed limit within this range.
(2) The following adjustments are not adjustable parameters:
(i) Adjustments made only to account for changing tire size or
final drive ratio.
(ii) Adjustments protected by encrypted controls or passwords.
(iii) Adjustments possible only after the VSL's expiration point.
(d) Effective speed limit. (1) For VSLs without soft tops or
expiration points that expire before 1,259,000 miles, the effective
speed limit is the highest speed limit that results by adjusting the
VSL or other vehicle parameters consistent with the provisions of
paragraph (c) of this section.
(2) For VSLs with soft tops and/or expiration points, the effective
speed limit is calculated as specified in this paragraph (d)(2), which
is based on 10 hours of operation per day (394 miles per day for day
cabs and 551 miles per day for sleeper cabs). Note that this
calculation assumes that a fraction of this operation is speed limited
(3.9 hours and 252 miles for day cabs, and 7.3 hours and 474 miles for
sleeper cabs). Use the following equation to calculate the effective
speed limit, rounded to the nearest 0.1 mph:
Effective speed = ExF * [STF* STSL + (1-STF) * DSL] + (1-ExF)*65 mph
Where:
ExF = expiration point miles/1,259,000 miles
STF = maximum number of allowable soft top operation hours per day/
3.9 hours for day cabs (or maximum miles per day/252)
STF = maximum number of allowable soft top operation hours per day/
7.3 hours for sleeper cabs (or maximum miles per day/474)
STSL = the soft top speed limit
DSL = the default speed limit
Sec. 1037.645 In-use compliance with family emission limits (FELs).
You may ask us to apply a higher in-use FEL for certain in-use
vehicles, subject to the provisions of this section. Note that Sec.
1037.225 contains provisions related to changing FELs during a model
year.
(a) Purpose. This section is intended to address circumstances in
which it is in the public interest to apply a higher in-use FEL based
on forfeiting an appropriate number of emission credits.
(b) FELs. We may apply higher in-use FELs to your vehicles as
follows:
(1) Where your vehicle family includes more than one sub-family
with different FELs, we may apply a higher FEL within the family than
was applied to the vehicle's configuration in your final ABT report.
For example, if your vehicle family included three sub-families with
FELs of 200 g/ton-mile, 210 g/ton-mile, and 220 g/ton-mile, we may
apply a 220 g/ton-mile in-use FEL to vehicles that were originally
designated as part of the 200 g/ton-mile or 210 g/ton-mile sub-
families.
(2) Without regard to the number of sub-families in your certified
vehicle family, we may specify new sub-families with higher FELs than
were included in your final ABT report. We may apply these higher FELs
as in-use FELs for your vehicles. For example, if your vehicle family
included three sub-families with FELs of 200 g/ton-mile, 210 g/ton-
mile, and 220 g/ton-mile, we may specify a new 230 g/ton-mile sub-
family.
(3) In specifying sub-families and in-use FELs, we would intend to
accurately reflect the actual in-use performance of your vehicles,
consistent with the specified testing and modeling provisions of this
part.
(c) Equivalent families. We may apply the higher FELs to other
families in other model years if they used equivalent emission
controls.
(d) Credit forfeiture. Where we specify higher in-use FELs under
this section, you must forfeit CO2 emission credits based on
the difference between the in-use FEL and the otherwise applicable FEL.
Calculate the amount of credits to be forfeited using the applicable
equation in Sec. 1037.705, by substituting the otherwise applicable
FEL for the standard and the in-use FEL for the otherwise applicable
FEL.
(e) Requests. Submit your request to the Designated Compliance
Officer. Include the following in your request:
(1) The vehicle family name, model year, and name/description of
the configuration(s) affected.
(2) A list of other vehicle families/configurations/model years
that may be affected.
(3) The otherwise applicable FEL for each configuration along with
your recommendations for higher in-use FELs.
(4) Your source of credits for forfeiture.
(f) Relation to recall. You may not request higher in-use FELs for
any vehicle families for which we have made a determination of
nonconformance and ordered a recall. You may, however, make such
requests for vehicle families for which you are performing a voluntary
emission recall.
(g) Approval. We may approve your request if we determine that you
meet the requirements of this section and such approval is in the
public interest. We may include appropriate conditions with our
approval or we may approve your request with modifications.
Sec. 1037.650 Tire manufacturers.
This section describes how the requirements of this part apply with
[[Page 57424]]
respect to tire manufacturers that choose to provide test data or
emission warranties for purposes of this part.
(a) Testing. You are responsible as follows for test tires and
emission test results that you provide to vehicle manufacturers for the
purpose of the manufacturer submitting them to EPA for certification
under this part:
(1) Such test results are deemed under Sec. 1037.825 to be
submissions to EPA. This means that you may be subject to criminal
penalties under 18 U.S.C. 1001 if you knowingly submit false test
results to the manufacturer.
(2) You may not cause a vehicle manufacturer to violate the
regulations by rendering inaccurate emission test results you provide
(or emission test results from testing of test tires you provide) to
the vehicle manufacturer.
(3) Your provision of test tires and emission test results to
vehicle manufacturers for the purpose of certifying under this part is
deemed to be an agreement to provide tires to EPA for confirmatory
testing under Sec. 1037.201.
(b) Warranty. You may contractually agree to process emission
warranty claims on behalf of the manufacturer certifying the vehicle
with respect to tires you produce.
(1) Your fulfillment of the warranty requirements of this part is
deemed to fulfill the vehicle manufacturer's warranty obligations under
this part with respect to tires you warrant.
(2) You may not cause a vehicle manufacturer to violate the
regulations by failing to fulfill the emission warranty requirements
that you contractually agreed to fulfill.
Sec. 1037.655 Post-useful life vehicle modifications.
This section specifies vehicle modifications that may occur after a
vehicle reaches the end of its regulatory useful life. It does not
apply with respect to modifications that occur within the useful life
period. It also does not apply with respect to engine modifications or
recalibrations. Note that many such modifications to the vehicle during
the useful life and to the engine at any time are presumed to violate
42 U.S.C. 7522(a)(3)(A).
(a) General. Except as allowed by this section, it is prohibited
for any person to remove or render inoperative any emission control
device installed to comply with the requirements of this part 1037.
(b) Allowable modifications. You may modify a vehicle for the
purpose of reducing emissions, provided you have a reasonable technical
basis for knowing that such modification will not increase emissions of
any other pollutant. Reasonable technical basis has the meaning given
in 40 CFR 1068.30. This generally requires you to have information that
would lead an engineer or other person familiar with engine and vehicle
design and function to reasonably believe that the modifications will
not increase emissions of any regulated pollutant.
(c) Examples of allowable modifications. The following are examples
of allowable modifications:
(1) It is generally allowable to remove tractor roof fairings after
the end of the vehicle's useful life if the vehicle will no longer be
used primarily to pull box trailers.
(2) Other fairings may be removed after the end of the vehicle's
useful life if the vehicle will no longer be used significantly on
highways with vehicle speed of 55 miles per hour or higher.
(d) Examples of prohibited modifications. The following are
examples of modifications that are not allowable:
(1) No person may disable a vehicle speed limiter prior to its
expiration point.
(2) No person may remove aerodynamic fairings from tractors that
are used primarily to pull box trailers on highways.
Sec. 1037.660 Automatic engine shutdown systems.
This section specifies requirements that apply for certified
automatic engine shutdown systems (AES) that are modeled under Sec.
1037.520. It does not apply for AES systems that you do not model under
Sec. 1037.520.
(a) Minimum requirements. Your AES system must meet all of the
requirements of this paragraph (a) to be modeled under Sec. 1037.520.
The system must shut down the engine within 300 seconds when all the
following conditions are met:
(1) The transmission is set in neutral with the parking brake
engaged (or the transmission is set to park if so equipped).
(2) The operator has not reset the system timer within the 300
seconds by changing the position of the accelerator, brake, or clutch
pedal; or by some other mechanism we approve.
(3) None of the override conditions of paragraph (b) of this
section are met.
(b) Override conditions. The system may delay shutting the engine
down while any of the conditions of this paragraph (b) apply. Engines
equipped with auto restart may restart during override conditions. Note
that these conditions allow the system to delay shutdown or restart,
but do not allow it to reset the timer. The system may delay shutdown--
(1) While an exhaust emission control device is regenerating. The
period considered to be regeneration for purposes of this allowance
must be consistent with good engineering judgment and may differ in
length from the period considered to be regeneration for other
purposes. For example, in some cases it may be appropriate to include a
cool down period for this purpose but not for infrequent regeneration
adjustment factors.
(2) If necessary while servicing the vehicle, provided the
deactivation of the AES system is accomplished using a diagnostic scan
tool. The system must be automatically reactivated when the engine is
shutdown for more than 60 minutes.
(3) If the vehicle's main battery state-of-charge is not sufficient
to allow the main engine to be restarted.
(4) If the external ambient temperature reaches a level below which
or above which the cabin temperature cannot be maintained within
reasonable heat or cold exposure threshold limit values for the health
and safety of the operator (not merely comfort).
(5) If the vehicle's engine coolant temperature is too low
according to the manufacturer's engine protection guidance. This may
also apply for fuel or oil temperatures. This allows the engine to
continue operating until it reaches a predefined temperature at which
the shutdown sequence of paragraph (a) of this section would resume.
(6) The system may delay shutdown while the vehicle's main engine
is operating in power take-off (PTO) mode. For purposes of this
paragraph (b)(6), an engine is considered to be in PTO mode when a
switch or setting designating PTO mode is enabled.
(c) Expiration of AES systems. The AES system may include an
expiration point (in miles) after which the AES system may be disabled.
If your vehicle is equipped with an expiring AES system that expires
before 1,259,000 miles adjust the model input as follows:
Input = 5 g CO2/ton-mile x (miles at expiration/1,259,000
miles)
(d) Adjustable parameters. Provisions that apply generally with
respect to adjustable parameters also apply to the AES system operating
parameters, except the following are not considered to be adjustable
parameters:
(1) Accelerator, brake, and clutch pedals, with respect to
resetting the idle timer. Parameters associated with other timer reset
mechanisms we approve are also not adjustable parameters.
[[Page 57425]]
(2) Bypass parameters allowed for vehicle service under paragraph
(b)(2) of this section.
(3) Parameters that are adjustable only after the expiration point.
Subpart H--Averaging, Banking, and Trading for Certification
Sec. 1037.701 General provisions.
(a) You may average, bank, and trade (ABT) emission credits for
purposes of certification as described in this subpart and in subpart B
of this part to show compliance with the standards of Sec. Sec.
1037.105 and 1037.106. Participation in this program is voluntary.
(b) The definitions of Subpart I of this part apply to this
subpart. The following definitions also apply:
(1) Actual emission credits means emission credits you have
generated that we have verified by reviewing your final report.
(2) Averaging set means a set of vehicles in which emission credits
may be exchanged. Credits generated by one vehicle may only be used by
other vehicles in the same averaging set. Note that an averaging set
may comprise more than one regulatory subcategory. See Sec. 1037.740.
(3) Broker means any entity that facilitates a trade of emission
credits between a buyer and seller.
(4) Buyer means the entity that receives emission credits as a
result of a trade.
(5) Reserved emission credits means emission credits you have
generated that we have not yet verified by reviewing your final report.
(6) Seller means `the entity that provides emission credits during
a trade.
(7) Standard means the emission standard that applies under subpart
B of this part for vehicles not participating in the ABT program of
this subpart.
(8) Trade means to exchange emission credits, either as a buyer or
seller.
(c) Emission credits may be exchanged only within an averaging set
as specified in Sec. 1037.740.
(d) You may not use emission credits generated under this subpart
to offset any emissions that exceed an FEL or standard, except as
allowed by Sec. 1037.645.
(e) You may trade emission credits generated from any number of
your vehicles to the vehicle purchasers or other parties to retire the
credits. Identify any such credits in the reports described in Sec.
1037.730. Vehicles must comply with the applicable FELs even if you
donate or sell the corresponding emission credits under this paragraph
(e). Those credits may no longer be used by anyone to demonstrate
compliance with any EPA emission standards.
(f) Emission credits may be used in the model year they are
generated. Surplus emission credits may be banked for future model
years. Surplus emission credits may sometimes be used for past model
years, as described in Sec. 1037.745.
(g) You may increase or decrease an FEL during the model year by
amending your application for certification under Sec. 1037.225. The
new FEL may apply only to vehicles you have not already introduced into
commerce.
(h) See Sec. 1037.740 for special credit provisions that apply for
credits generated under Sec. 1037.104(d)(7), Sec. 1037.615 or 40 CFR
1036.615.
(i) Unless the regulations explicitly allow it, you may not
calculate credits more than once for any emission reduction. For
example, if you generate CO2 emission credits for a given
hybrid vehicle under this part, no one may generate CO2
emission credits for the hybrid engine under 40 CFR part 1036. However,
credits could be generated for identical engine used in vehicles that
did not generate credits under this part.
Sec. 1037.705 Generating and calculating emission credits.
(a) The provisions of this section apply separately for calculating
emission credits for each pollutant.
(b) For each participating family or subfamily, calculate positive
or negative emission credits relative to the otherwise applicable
emission standard. Calculate positive emission credits for a family or
subfamily that has an FEL below the standard. Calculate negative
emission credits for a family or subfamily that has an FEL above the
standard. Sum your positive and negative credits for the model year
before rounding. Round the sum of emission credits to the nearest
megagram (Mg), using consistent units throughout the following
equations:
(1) For vocational vehicles:
Emission credits (Mg) = (Std-FEL) x (Payload Tons) x (Volume) x (UL) x
(10-6)
Where:
Std = the emission standard associated with the specific tractor
regulatory subcategory (g/ton-mile).
FEL = the family emission limit for the vehicle subfamily (g/ton-
mile).
Payload tons = the prescribed payload for each class in tons (2.85
tons for light heavy-duty vehicles, 5.6 tons for medium heavy-duty
vehicles, and 7.5 tons for heavy heavy-duty vehicles).
Volume = U.S.-directed production volume of the vehicle subfamily.
For example, if you produce three configurations with the same FEL,
the subfamily production volume would be the sum of the production
volumes for these three configurations.
UL = useful life of the vehicle (110,000 miles for light heavy-duty
vehicles, 185,000 miles for medium heavy-duty vehicles, and 435,000
miles for heavy heavy-duty vehicles).
(2) For tractors:
Emission credits (Mg) = (Std-FEL) x (Payload tons) x (Volume) x (UL) x
(10-6)
Where:
Std = the emission standard associated with the specific tractor
regulatory subcategory (g/ton-mile).
FEL = the family emission limit for the vehicle subfamily (g/ton-
mile).
Payload tons = the prescribed payload for each class in tons (12.5
tons for Class 7 and 19 tons for Class 8).
Volume = U.S.-directed production volume of the vehicle subfamily.
UL = useful life of the tractor (435,000 miles for Class 8 and
185,000 miles for Class 7).
(c) As described in Sec. 1037.730, compliance with the
requirements of this subpart is determined at the end of the model year
based on actual U.S.-directed production volumes. Keep appropriate
records to document these production volumes. Do not include any of the
following vehicles to calculate emission credits:
(1) Vehicles that you do not certify to the CO2
standards of this part because they are permanently exempted under
subpart G of this part or under 40 CFR part 1068.
(2) Exported vehicles.
(3) Vehicles not subject to the requirements of this part, such as
those excluded under Sec. 1037.5.
(4) Any other vehicles, where we indicate elsewhere in this part
1037 that they are not to be included in the calculations of this
subpart.
Sec. 1037.710 Averaging.
(a) Averaging is the exchange of emission credits among your
vehicle families. You may average emission credits only within the same
averaging set.
(b) You may certify one or more vehicle families (or subfamilies)
to an FEL above the applicable standard, subject to any applicable FEL
caps and other provisions in subpart B of this part, if you show in
your application for certification that your projected balance of all
emission-credit transactions in that model year is greater than or
equal to zero or that a negative balance is allowed under Sec.
1037.745.
(c) If you certify a vehicle family to an FEL that exceeds the
otherwise applicable standard, you must obtain
[[Page 57426]]
enough emission credits to offset the vehicle family's deficit by the
due date for the final report required in Sec. 1037.730. The emission
credits used to address the deficit may come from your other vehicle
families that generate emission credits in the same model year (or from
later model years as specified in Sec. 1037.745), from emission
credits you have banked, or from emission credits you obtain through
trading.
Sec. 1037.715 Banking.
(a) Banking is the retention of surplus emission credits by the
manufacturer generating the emission credits for use in future model
years for averaging or trading.
(b) You may designate any emission credits you plan to bank in the
reports you submit under Sec. 1037.730 as reserved credits. During the
model year and before the due date for the final report, you may
designate your reserved emission credits for averaging or trading.
(c) Reserved credits become actual emission credits when you submit
your final report. However, we may revoke these emission credits if we
are unable to verify them after reviewing your reports or auditing your
records.
(d) Banked credits retain the designation of the averaging set in
which they were generated.
Sec. 1037.720 Trading.
(a) Trading is the exchange of emission credits between
manufacturers, or the transfer of credits to another party to retire
them. You may use traded emission credits for averaging, banking, or
further trading transactions. Traded emission credits remain subject to
the averaging-set restrictions based on the averaging set in which they
were generated.
(b) You may trade actual emission credits as described in this
subpart. You may also trade reserved emission credits, but we may
revoke these emission credits based on our review of your records or
reports or those of the company with which you traded emission credits.
You may trade banked credits within an averaging set to any certifying
manufacturer.
(c) If a negative emission credit balance results from a
transaction, both the buyer and seller are liable, except in cases we
deem to involve fraud. See Sec. 1037.255(e) for cases involving fraud.
We may void the certificates of all vehicle families participating in a
trade that results in a manufacturer having a negative balance of
emission credits. See Sec. 1037.745.
Sec. 1037.725 What must I include in my application for
certification?
(a) You must declare in your application for certification your
intent to use the provisions of this subpart for each vehicle family
that will be certified using the ABT program. You must also declare the
FELs you select for the vehicle family or subfamily for each pollutant
for which you are using the ABT program. Your FELs must comply with the
specifications of subpart B of this part, including the FEL caps. FELs
must be expressed to the same number of decimal places as the
applicable standards.
(b) Include the following in your application for certification:
(1) A statement that, to the best of your belief, you will not have
a negative balance of emission credits for any averaging set when all
emission credits are calculated at the end of the year; or a statement
that you will have a negative balance of emission credits for one or
more averaging sets but that it is allowed under Sec. 1037.745.
(2) Calculations of projected emission credits (positive or
negative) based on projected U.S.-directed production volumes. We may
require you to include similar calculations from your other vehicle
families to project your net credit balances for the model year. If you
project negative emission credits for a family or subfamily, state the
source of positive emission credits you expect to use to offset the
negative emission credits.
Sec. 1037.730 ABT reports.
(a) If any of your vehicle families are certified using the ABT
provisions of this subpart, you must send an end-of-year report within
90 days after the end of the model year and a final report within 270
days after the end of the model year.
(b) Your end-of-year and final reports must include the following
information for each vehicle family participating in the ABT program:
(1) Vehicle-family and subfamily designations.
(2) The regulatory subcategory and emission standards that would
otherwise apply to the vehicle family.
(3) The FEL for each pollutant. If you change the FEL after the
start of production, identify the date that you started using the new
FEL and/or give the vehicle identification number for the first vehicle
covered by the new FEL. In this case, identify each applicable FEL and
calculate the positive or negative emission credits as specified in
Sec. 1037.225.
(4) The projected and actual U.S.-directed production volumes for
the model year. If you changed an FEL during the model year, identify
the actual production volume associated with each FEL.
(5) Useful life.
(6) Calculated positive or negative emission credits for the whole
vehicle family. Identify any emission credits that you traded, as
described in paragraph (d)(1) of this section.
(7) If you have a negative credit balance for the averaging set in
the given model year, specify whether the vehicle family (or certain
subfamilies with the vehicle family) have a credit deficit for the
year. Consider for example, a manufacturer with three vehicle families
(``A'', ``B'', and ``C'') in a given averaging set. If family A
generates enough credits to offset the negative credits of family B but
not enough to also offset the negative credits of family C (and the
manufacturer has no banked credits in the averaging set), the
manufacturer may designate families A and B as having no deficit for
the model year, provided it designates family C as having a deficit for
the model year.
(c) Your end-of-year and final reports must include the following
additional information:
(1) Show that your net balance of emission credits from all your
participating vehicle families in each averaging set in the applicable
model year is not negative, except as allowed under Sec. 1037.745.
(2) State whether you will reserve any emission credits for
banking.
(3) State that the report's contents are accurate.
(d) If you trade emission credits, you must send us a report within
90 days after the transaction, as follows:
(1) As the seller, you must include the following information in
your report:
(i) The corporate names of the buyer and any brokers.
(ii) A copy of any contracts related to the trade.
(iii) The vehicle families that generated emission credits for the
trade, including the number of emission credits from each family.
(2) As the buyer, you must include the following information in
your report:
(i) The corporate names of the seller and any brokers.
(ii) A copy of any contracts related to the trade.
(iii) How you intend to use the emission credits, including the
number of emission credits you intend to apply to each vehicle family
(if known).
(e) Send your reports electronically to the Designated Compliance
Officer using an approved information format. If you want to use a
different format,
[[Page 57427]]
send us a written request with justification for a waiver.
(f) Correct errors in your end-of-year report or final report as
follows:
(1) You may correct any errors in your end-of-year report when you
prepare the final report, as long as you send us the final report by
the time it is due.
(2) If you or we determine within 270 days after the end of the
model year that errors mistakenly decreased your balance of emission
credits, you may correct the errors and recalculate the balance of
emission credits. You may not make these corrections for errors that
are determined more than 270 days after the end of the model year. If
you report a negative balance of emission credits, we may disallow
corrections under this paragraph (f)(2).
(3) If you or we determine anytime that errors mistakenly increased
your balance of emission credits, you must correct the errors and
recalculate the balance of emission credits.
Sec. 1037.735 Recordkeeping.
(a) You must organize and maintain your records as described in
this section. We may review your records at any time.
(b) Keep the records required by this section for at least eight
years after the due date for the end-of-year report. You may not use
emission credits for any vehicles if you do not keep all the records
required under this section. You must therefore keep these records to
continue to bank valid credits. Store these records in any format and
on any media, as long as you can promptly send us organized, written
records in English if we ask for them. You must keep these records
readily available. We may review them at any time.
(c) Keep a copy of the reports we require in Sec. Sec. 1037.725
and 1037.730.
(d) Keep records of the vehicle identification number for each
vehicle you produce that generates or uses emission credits under the
ABT program. You may identify these numbers as a range. If you change
the FEL after the start of production, identify the date you started
using each FEL and the range of vehicle identification numbers
associated with each FEL. You must also identify the purchaser and
destination for each vehicle you produce to the extent this information
is available.
(e) We may require you to keep additional records or to send us
relevant information not required by this section in accordance with
the Clean Air Act.
Sec. 1037.740 Restrictions for using emission credits.
The following restrictions apply for using emission credits:
(a) Averaging sets. Except as specified in paragraph (b) of this
section, emission credits may be exchanged only within an averaging
set. There are three principal averaging sets for vehicles subject to
this subpart.
(1) Vehicles at or below 19,500 pounds GVWR that are subject to the
standards of Sec. 1037.105.
(2) Vehicles above 19,500 pounds GVWR but at or below 33,000 pounds
GVWR.
(3) Vehicles over 33,000 pounds GVWR.
(4) Note that other separate averaging sets also apply for emission
credits not related to this subpart. For example, under Sec. 1037.104,
an additional averaging set comprises all vehicles subject to the
standards of that section. Separate averaging sets also apply for
engines under 40 CFR part 1036, including engines used in vehicles
subject to this subpart.
(b) Credits from hybrid vehicles and other advanced technologies.
The averaging set restrictions of paragraph (a) of this section do not
apply for credits generated under Sec. 1037.104(d)(7), Sec. 1037.615
or 40 CFR 1036.615 from hybrid vehicles with regenerative braking, or
from other advanced technologies.
(1) The maximum amount of credits you may bring into the following
service class groups is 60,000 Mg per model year:
(i) Spark-ignition engines, light heavy-duty compression-ignition
engines, and light heavy-duty vehicles. This group comprises the
averaging set listed in paragraphs (a)(1) of this section and the
averaging set listed in 40 CFR 1036.740(a)(1) and (2).
(ii) Medium heavy-duty compression-ignition engines and medium
heavy-duty vehicles. This group comprises the averaging sets listed in
paragraph (a)(2) of this section and 40 CFR 1036.740(a)(3).
(iii) Heavy heavy-duty compression-ignition engines and heavy
heavy-duty vehicles. This group comprises the averaging sets listed in
paragraph (a)(3) of this section and 40 CFR 1036.740(a)(4).
(2) The limit specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section does
not limit the amount of advanced technology credits that can be used
within a service class group if they were generated in that same
service class group.
(c) Credit life. Credits expire after five years.
(d) Other restrictions. Other sections of this part specify
additional restrictions for using emission credits under certain
special provisions.
Sec. 1037.745 End-of-year CO2 credit deficits.
Except as allowed by this section, we may void the certificate of
any vehicle family certified to an FEL above the applicable standard
for which you do not have sufficient credits by the deadline for
submitting the final report.
(a) Your certificate for a vehicle family for which you do not have
sufficient CO2 credits will not be void if you remedy the
deficit with surplus credits within three model years. For example, if
you have a credit deficit of 500 Mg for a vehicle family at the end of
model year 2015, you must generate (or otherwise obtain) a surplus of
at least 500 Mg in that same averaging set by the end of model year
2018.
(b) You may apply only surplus credits to your deficit. You may not
apply credits to a deficit from an earlier model year if they were
generated in a model year for which any of your vehicle families for
that averaging set had an end-of-year credit deficit.
(c) If you do not remedy the deficit with surplus credits within
three model years, we may void your certificate for that vehicle
family. Note that voiding a certificate applies ab initio. Where the
net deficit is less than the total amount of negative credits
originally generated by the family, we will void the certificate only
with respect to the number of vehicles needed to reach the amount of
the net deficit. For example, if the original vehicle family generated
500 Mg of negative credits, and the manufacturer's net deficit after
three years was 250 Mg, we would void the certificate with respect to
half of the vehicles in the family.
Sec. 1037.750 What can happen if I do not comply with the provisions
of this subpart?
(a) For each vehicle family participating in the ABT program, the
certificate of conformity is conditioned upon full compliance with the
provisions of this subpart during and after the model year. You are
responsible to establish to our satisfaction that you fully comply with
applicable requirements. We may void the certificate of conformity for
a vehicle family if you fail to comply with any provisions of this
subpart.
(b) You may certify your vehicle family or subfamily to an FEL
above an applicable standard based on a projection that you will have
enough emission credits to offset the deficit for the vehicle family.
See Sec. 1037.745 for provisions specifying what happens if you cannot
show in your final report that you have enough actual emission credits
to offset a deficit for any pollutant in a vehicle family.
[[Page 57428]]
(c) We may void the certificate of conformity for a vehicle family
if you fail to keep records, send reports, or give us information we
request. Note that failing to keep records, send reports, or give us
information we request is also a violation of 42 U.S.C. 7522(a)(2).
(d) You may ask for a hearing if we void your certificate under
this section (see Sec. 1037.820).
Sec. 1037.755 Information provided to the Department of
Transportation.
After receipt of each manufacturer's final report as specified in
Sec. 1037.730 and completion of any verification testing required to
validate the manufacturer's submitted final data, we will issue a
report to the Department of Transportation with CO2 emission
information and will verify the accuracy of each manufacturer's
equivalent fuel consumption data required by NHTSA under 49 CFR 535.8.
We will send a report to DOT for each vehicle manufacturer based on
each regulatory category and subcategory, including sufficient
information for NHTSA to determine fuel consumption and associated
credit values. See 49 CFR 535.8 to determine if NHTSA deems submission
of this information to EPA to also be a submission to NHTSA.
Subpart I--Definitions and Other Reference Information
Sec. 1037.801 Definitions.
The following definitions apply to this part. The definitions apply
to all subparts unless we note otherwise. All undefined terms have the
meaning the Act gives to them. The definitions follow:
A to B testing means testing performed in pairs to allow comparison
of vehicle A to vehicle B.
Act means the Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Adjustable parameter means any device, system, or element of design
that someone can adjust (including those which are difficult to access)
and that, if adjusted, may affect measured or modeled emissions (as
applicable). You may ask us to exclude a parameter that is difficult to
access if it cannot be adjusted to affect emissions without
significantly degrading vehicle performance, or if you otherwise show
us that it will not be adjusted in a way that affects emissions during
in-use operation.
Adjusted Loaded Vehicle Weight means the numerical average of
vehicle curb weight and GVWR.
Advanced technology means vehicle technology certified under Sec.
1037.615, Sec. 1037.104(d)(7), or 40 CFR 1036.615.
Aftertreatment means relating to a catalytic converter, particulate
filter, or any other system, component, or technology mounted
downstream of the exhaust valve (or exhaust port) whose design function
is to decrease emissions in the vehicle exhaust before it is exhausted
to the environment. Exhaust-gas recirculation (EGR) and turbochargers
are not aftertreatment.
Alcohol-fueled vehicle means a vehicle that is designed to run
using an alcohol fuel. For purposes of this definition, alcohol fuels
do not include fuels with a nominal alcohol content below 25 percent by
volume.
Auxiliary emission control device means any element of design that
senses temperature, motive speed, engine RPM, transmission gear, or any
other parameter for the purpose of activating, modulating, delaying, or
deactivating the operation of any part of the emission control system.
Averaging set has the meaning given in Sec. 1037.701.
Cab-complete vehicle means a vehicle that is first sold as an
incomplete vehicle that substantially includes its cab. Vehicles known
commercially as chassis-cabs, cab-chassis, box-deletes, bed-deletes,
cut-away vans are considered cab-complete vehicles. For purposes of
this definition, a cab includes a steering column and passenger
compartment. Note a vehicle lacking some components of the cab is a
cab-complete vehicle if it substantially includes the cab.
Calibration means the set of specifications and tolerances specific
to a particular design, version, or application of a component or
assembly capable of functionally describing its operation over its
working range.
Carbon-related exhaust emissions (CREE) has the meaning given in 40
CFR 600.002. Note that CREE represents the combined mass of carbon
emitted as HC, CO, and CO2, expressed as having a molecular
weight equal to that of CO2.
Carryover means relating to certification based on emission data
generated from an earlier model year.
Certification means relating to the process of obtaining a
certificate of conformity for a vehicle family that complies with the
emission standards and requirements in this part.
Certified emission level means the highest deteriorated emission
level in a vehicle family for a given pollutant from either transient
or steady-state testing.
Class means relating to GVWR classes, as follows:
(1) Class 2b means heavy-duty motor vehicles at or below 10,000
pounds GVWR.
(2) Class 3 means heavy-duty motor vehicles above 10,000 pounds
GVWR but at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR.
(3) Class 4 means heavy-duty motor vehicles above 14,000 pounds
GVWR but at or below 16,000 pounds GVWR.
(4) Class 5 means heavy-duty motor vehicles above 16,000 pounds
GVWR but at or below 19,500 pounds GVWR.
(5) Class 6 means heavy-duty motor vehicles above 19,500 pounds
GVWR but at or below 26,000 pounds GVWR.
(6) Class 7 means heavy-duty motor vehicles above 26,000 pounds
GVWR but at or below 33,000 pounds GVWR.
(7) Class 8 means heavy-duty motor vehicles above 33,000 pounds
GVWR.
Complete vehicle has the meaning given in the definition of vehicle
in this section.
Compression-ignition means relating to a type of reciprocating,
internal-combustion engine that is not a spark-ignition engine.
Curb weight has the meaning given in 40 CFR 86.1803, consistent
with the provisions of Sec. 1037.140.
Date of manufacture means the date on which the certifying vehicle
manufacturer completes its manufacturing operations, except as follows:
(1) Where the certificate holder is an engine manufacturer that
does not manufacture the chassis, the date of manufacture of the
vehicle is based on the date assembly of the vehicle is completed.
(2) We may approve an alternate date of manufacture based on the
date on which the certifying (or primary) manufacturer completes
assembly at the place of main assembly, consistent with the provisions
of Sec. 1037.601 and 49 CFR 567.4.
Day cab means a type of tractor cab that is not a sleeper cab.
Designated Compliance Officer means the Manager, Heavy-Duty and
Nonroad Engine Group (6405-J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
Designated Enforcement Officer means the Director, Air Enforcement
Division (2242A), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
Deteriorated emission level means the emission level that results
from applying the appropriate deterioration factor to the official
emission result of the emission-data vehicle. Note that where no
deterioration factor applies, references in this part to the
deteriorated emission level mean the official emission result.
Deterioration factor means the relationship between emissions at
the
[[Page 57429]]
end of useful life and emissions at the low-hour test point, expressed
in one of the following ways:
(1) For multiplicative deterioration factors, the ratio of
emissions at the end of useful life to emissions at the low-hour test
point.
(2) For additive deterioration factors, the difference between
emissions at the end of useful life and emissions at the low-hour test
point.
Driver model means an automated controller that simulates a person
driving a vehicle.
Electric vehicle means a vehicle that does not include an engine,
and is powered solely by an external source of electricity and/or solar
power. Note that this does not include electric hybrid or fuel-cell
vehicles that use a chemical fuel such as gasoline, diesel fuel, or
hydrogen. Electric vehicles may also be referred to as all-electric
vehicles to distinguish them from hybrid vehicles.
Emission control system means any device, system, or element of
design that controls or reduces the emissions of regulated pollutants
from a vehicle.
Emission-data vehicle means a vehicle that is tested for
certification. This includes vehicle tested to establish deterioration
factors.
Emission-related maintenance means maintenance that substantially
affects emissions or is likely to substantially affect emission
deterioration.
Excluded means relating to vehicles that are not subject to some or
all of the requirements of this part as follows:
(1) A vehicle that has been determined not to be a motor vehicle is
excluded from this part.
(2) Certain vehicles are excluded from the requirements of this
part under Sec. 1037.5.
(3) Specific regulatory provisions of this part may exclude a
vehicle generally subject to this part from one or more specific
standards or requirements of this part.
Exempted has the meaning given in 40 CFR 1068.30.
Family emission limit (FEL) means an emission level declared by the
manufacturer to serve in place of an otherwise applicable emission
standard under the ABT program in subpart H of this part. The family
emission limit must be expressed to the same number of decimal places
as the emission standard it replaces. Note that an FEL may apply as a
``subfamily'' emission limit.
Fuel system means all components involved in transporting,
metering, and mixing the fuel from the fuel tank to the combustion
chamber(s), including the fuel tank, fuel pump, fuel filters, fuel
lines, carburetor or fuel-injection components, and all fuel-system
vents. It also includes components for controlling evaporative
emissions, such as fuel caps, purge valves, and carbon canisters.
Fuel type means a general category of fuels such as diesel fuel or
natural gas. There can be multiple grades within a single fuel type,
such as high-sulfur or low-sulfur diesel fuel.
Good engineering judgment has the meaning given in 40 CFR 1068.30.
See 40 CFR 1068.5 for the administrative process we use to evaluate
good engineering judgment.
Gross combination weight rating (GCWR) means the value specified by
the vehicle manufacturer as the maximum weight of a loaded vehicle and
trailer, consistent with good engineering judgment. For example,
compliance with SAE J2807 is generally considered to be consistent with
good engineering judgment, especially for Class 3 and smaller vehicles.
Gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) means the value specified by the
vehicle manufacturer as the maximum design loaded weight of a single
vehicle, consistent with good engineering judgment.
Heavy-duty engine means any engine used for (or for which the
engine manufacturer could reasonably expect to be used for) motive
power in a heavy-duty vehicle.
Heavy-duty vehicle means any motor vehicle above 8,500 pounds GVWR
or that has a vehicle curb weight above 6,000 pounds or that has a
basic vehicle frontal area greater than 45 square feet.
Hybrid engine or hybrid powertrain means an engine or powertrain
that includes energy storage features other than a conventional battery
system or conventional flywheel. Supplemental electrical batteries and
hydraulic accumulators are examples of hybrid energy storage systems.
Note that certain provisions in this part treat hybrid engines and
powertrains intended for vehicles that include regenerative braking
different than those intended for vehicles that do not include
regenerative braking.
Hybrid vehicle means a vehicle that includes energy storage
features (other than a conventional battery system or conventional
flywheel) in addition to an internal combustion engine or other engine
using consumable chemical fuel. Supplemental electrical batteries and
hydraulic accumulators are examples of hybrid energy storage systems.
Note that certain provisions in this part treat hybrid vehicles that
include regenerative braking different than those that do not include
regenerative braking.
Hydrocarbon (HC) means the hydrocarbon group on which the emission
standards are based for each fuel type. For alcohol-fueled vehicles, HC
means nonmethane hydrocarbon equivalent (NMHCE) for exhaust emissions
and total hydrocarbon equivalent (THCE) for evaporative emissions. For
all other vehicles, HC means nonmethane hydrocarbon (NMHC) for exhaust
emissions and total hydrocarbon (THC) for evaporative emissions.
Identification number means a unique specification (for example, a
model number/serial number combination) that allows someone to
distinguish a particular vehicle from other similar vehicles.
Incomplete vehicle has the meaning given in the definition of
vehicle in this section.
Innovative technology means technology certified under Sec.
1037.610.
Light-duty truck means any motor vehicle rated at or below 8,500
pounds GVWR with a curb weight at or below 6,000 pounds and basic
vehicle frontal area at or below 45 square feet, which is:
(1) Designed primarily for purposes of transportation of property
or is a derivation of such a vehicle; or
(2) Designed primarily for transportation of persons and has a
capacity of more than 12 persons; or
(3) Available with special features enabling off-street or off-
highway operation and use.
Light-duty vehicle means a passenger car or passenger car
derivative capable of seating 12 or fewer passengers.
Low-mileage means relating to a vehicle with stabilized emissions
and represents the undeteriorated emission level. This would generally
involve approximately 4000 miles of operation.
Low rolling resistance tire means a tire on a vocational vehicle
with a TRRL at or below of 7.7 kg/metric ton, a steer tire on a tractor
with a TRRL at or below 7.7 kg/metric ton, or a drive tire on a tractor
with a TRRL at or below 8.1 kg/metric ton.
Manufacture means the physical and engineering process of
designing, constructing, and/or assembling a vehicle.
Manufacturer has the meaning given in section 216(1) of the Act. In
general, this term includes any person who manufactures a vehicle or
vehicle for sale in the United States or otherwise introduces a new
motor vehicle into commerce in the United States. This includes
importers who import vehicles or vehicles for resale.
[[Page 57430]]
Medium-duty passenger vehicle (MDPV) has the meaning given in 40
CFR 86.1803.
Model year means the manufacturer's annual new model production
period, except as restricted under this definition and 40 CFR part 85,
subpart X. It must include January 1 of the calendar year for which the
model year is named, may not begin before January 2 of the previous
calendar year, and it must end by December 31 of the named calendar
year.
(1) The manufacturer who holds the certificate of conformity for
the vehicle must assign the model year based on the date when its
manufacturing operations are completed relative to its annual model
year period. In unusual circumstances where completion of your assembly
is delayed, we may allow you to assign a model year one year earlier,
provided it does not affect which regulatory requirements will apply.
(2) Unless a vehicle is being shipped to a secondary manufacturer
that will hold the certificate of conformity, the model year must be
assigned prior to introduction of the vehicle into U.S. commerce. The
certifying manufacturer must redesignate the model year if it does not
complete its manufacturing operations within the originally identified
model year. A vehicle introduced into U.S. commerce without a model
year is deemed to have a model year equal to the calendar year of its
introduction into U.S. commerce unless the certifying manufacturer
assigns a later date.
Motor vehicle has the meaning given in 40 CFR 85.1703.
New motor vehicle means a motor vehicle meeting the criteria of
either paragraph (1) or (2) of this definition. New motor vehicles may
be complete or incomplete.
(1) A motor vehicle for which the ultimate purchaser has never
received the equitable or legal title is a new motor vehicle. This kind
of vehicle might commonly be thought of as ``brand new'' although a new
motor vehicle may include previously used parts. Under this definition,
the vehicle is new from the time it is produced until the ultimate
purchaser receives the title or places it into service, whichever comes
first.
(2) An imported heavy-duty motor vehicle originally produced after
the 1969 model year is a new motor vehicle.
Noncompliant vehicle means a vehicle that was originally covered by
a certificate of conformity, but is not in the certified configuration
or otherwise does not comply with the conditions of the certificate.
Nonconforming vehicle means a vehicle not covered by a certificate
of conformity that would otherwise be subject to emission standards.
Nonmethane hydrocarbons (NMHC) means the sum of all hydrocarbon
species except methane, as measured according to 40 CFR part 1065.
Official emission result means the measured emission rate for an
emission-data vehicle on a given duty cycle before the application of
any required deterioration factor, but after the applicability of
regeneration adjustment factors.
Owners manual means a document or collection of documents prepared
by the vehicle manufacturer for the owners or operators to describe
appropriate vehicle maintenance, applicable warranties, and any other
information related to operating or keeping the vehicle. The owners
manual is typically provided to the ultimate purchaser at the time of
sale.
Oxides of nitrogen has the meaning given in 40 CFR 1065.1001.
Particulate trap means a filtering device that is designed to
physically trap all particulate matter above a certain size.
Percent has the meaning given in 40 CFR 1065.1001. Note that this
means percentages identified in this part are assumed to be infinitely
precise without regard to the number of significant figures. For
example, one percent of 1,493 is 14.93.
Placed into service means put into initial use for its intended
purpose.
Power take-off (PTO) means a secondary engine shaft (or equivalent)
that provides substantial auxiliary power for purposes unrelated to
vehicle propulsion or normal vehicle accessories such as air
conditioning, power steering, and basic electrical accessories. A
typical PTO uses a secondary shaft on the engine to transmit power to a
hydraulic pump that powers auxiliary equipment, such as a boom on a
bucket truck. You may ask us to consider other equivalent auxiliary
power configurations (such as those with hybrid vehicles) as power
take-off systems.
Rechargeable Energy Storage System (RESS) means the component(s) of
a hybrid engine or vehicle that store recovered energy for later use,
such as the battery system in an electric hybrid vehicle.
Regulatory sub-category means one of following groups:
(1) Spark-ignition vehicles subject to the standards of Sec.
1037.104. Note that this category includes most gasoline-fueled heavy-
duty pickup trucks and vans.
(2) All other vehicles subject to the standards of Sec. 1037.104.
Note that this category includes most diesel-fueled heavy-duty pickup
trucks and van.
(3) Vocational vehicles at or below 19,500 pounds GVWR.
(4) Vocational vehicles at or above 19,500 pounds GVWR but below
33,000 pounds GVWR.
(5) Vocational vehicles over 33,000 pounds GVWR.
(6) Low-roof tractors at or above 26,000 pounds GVWR but below
33,000 pounds GVWR.
(7) Mid-roof tractors at or above 26,000 pounds GVWR but below
33,000 pounds GVWR.
(8) High-roof tractors at or above 26,000 pounds GVWR but below
33,000 pounds GVWR.
(9) Low-roof day cab tractors at or above 33,000 pounds GVWR.
(10) Low-roof sleeper cab tractors at or above 33,000 pounds GVWR.
(11) Mid-roof day cab tractors at or above 33,000 pounds GVWR.
(12) Mid-roof sleeper cab tractors at or above 33,000 pounds GVWR.
(13) High-roof day cab tractors at or above 33,000 pounds GVWR.
(14) High-roof sleeper cab tractors at or above 33,000 pounds GVWR.
Relating to as used in this section means relating to something in
a specific, direct manner. This expression is used in this section only
to define terms as adjectives and not to broaden the meaning of the
terms.
Revoke has the meaning given in 40 CFR 1068.30.
Roof height means the maximum height of a vehicle (rounded to the
nearest inch), excluding narrow accessories such as exhaust pipes and
antennas, but including any wide accessories such as roof fairings.
Measure roof height of the vehicle configured to have its maximum
height that will occur during actual use, with properly inflated tires
and no driver, passengers, or cargo onboard. Roof height may also refer
to the following categories:
(1) Low-roof means relating to a vehicle with a roof height of 120
inches or less.
(2) Mid-roof means relating to a vehicle with a roof height of 121
to 147 inches.
(3) High-roof means relating to a vehicle with a roof height of 148
inches or more.
Round has the meaning given in 40 CFR 1065.1001.
Scheduled maintenance means adjusting, repairing, removing,
disassembling, cleaning, or replacing components or systems
periodically to keep a part or system from failing,
[[Page 57431]]
malfunctioning, or wearing prematurely. It also may mean actions you
expect are necessary to correct an overt indication of failure or
malfunction for which periodic maintenance is not appropriate.
Sleeper cab means a type of tractor cab that has a compartment
behind the driver's seat intended to be used by the driver for
sleeping. This includes cabs accessible from the driver's compartment
and those accessible from outside the vehicle.
Small manufacturer means a manufacturer meeting the criteria
specified in 13 CFR 121.201. For manufacturers owned by a parent
company, the employee and revenue limits apply to the total number
employees and total revenue of the parent company and all its
subsidiaries.
Spark-ignition means relating to a gasoline-fueled engine or any
other type of engine with a spark plug (or other sparking device) and
with operating characteristics significantly similar to the theoretical
Otto combustion cycle. Spark-ignition engines usually use a throttle to
regulate intake air flow to control power during normal operation.
Standard payload means the vehicle payload assumed for each class
in tons for modeling and calculating emission credits. There are three
standard payloads:
(1) 2.85 tons for light heavy-duty vehicles.
(2) 5.6 tons for medium heavy-duty vehicles.
(3) 7.5 tons for heavy heavy-duty vehicles.
Standard trailer has the meaning given in Sec. 1037.501.
Suspend has the meaning given in 40 CFR 1068.30.
Test sample means the collection of vehicles selected from the
population of a vehicle family for emission testing. This may include
testing for certification, production-line testing, or in-use testing.
Test vehicle means a vehicle in a test sample.
Test weight means the vehicle weight used or represented during
testing.
Tire rolling resistance level (TRRL) means a value with units of
kg/metric ton that represents that rolling resistance of a tire
configuration. TRRLs are used as inputs to the GEM model under Sec.
1037.520. Note that a manufacturer may assign a value higher than the
measured rolling resistance of a tire configuration.
Total hydrocarbon has the meaning given in 40 CFR 1065.1001. This
generally means the combined mass of organic compounds measured by the
specified procedure for measuring total hydrocarbon, expressed as a
hydrocarbon with an atomic hydrogen-to-carbon ratio of 1.85:1.
Total hydrocarbon equivalent has the meaning given in 40 CFR
1065.1001. This generally means the sum of the carbon mass
contributions of non-oxygenated hydrocarbons, alcohols and aldehydes,
or other organic compounds that are measured separately as contained in
a gas sample, expressed as exhaust hydrocarbon from petroleum-fueled
vehicles. The atomic hydrogen-to-carbon ratio of the equivalent
hydrocarbon is 1.85:1.
Tractor has the meaning given for ``truck tractor'' in 49 CFR
571.3. This includes most heavy-duty vehicles specifically designed for
the primary purpose of pulling trailers, but does not include vehicles
designed to carry other loads. For purposes of this definition ``other
loads'' would not include loads carried in the cab, sleeper
compartment, or toolboxes. Examples of vehicles that are similar to
tractors but that are not tractors under this part include dromedary
tractors, automobile haulers, straight trucks with trailers hitches,
and tow trucks. Note that the provisions of this part that apply for
tractors do not apply for tractors that are classified as vocational
tractors under Sec. 1037.630.
Ultimate purchaser means, with respect to any new vehicle, the
first person who in good faith purchases such new vehicle for purposes
other than resale.
United States has the meaning given in 40 CFR 1068.30.
Upcoming model year means for a vehicle family the model year after
the one currently in production.
U.S.-directed production volume means the number of vehicle units,
subject to the requirements of this part, produced by a manufacturer
for which the manufacturer has a reasonable assurance that sale was or
will be made to ultimate purchasers in the United States. This does not
include vehicles certified to state emission standards that are
different than the emission standards in this part.
Useful life means the period during which a vehicle is required to
comply with all applicable emission standards.
Vehicle means equipment intended for use on highways that meets the
criteria of paragraph (1)(i) or (1)(ii) of this definition, as follows:
(1) The following equipment are vehicles:
(i) A piece of equipment that is intended for self-propelled use on
highways becomes a vehicle when it includes at least an engine, a
transmission, and a frame. (Note: For purposes of this definition, any
electrical, mechanical, and/or hydraulic devices attached to engines
for the purpose of powering wheels are considered to be transmissions.)
(ii) A piece of equipment that is intended for self-propelled use
on highways becomes a vehicle when it includes a passenger compartment
attached to a frame with axles.
(2) Vehicles may be complete or incomplete vehicles as follows:
(i) A complete vehicle is a functioning vehicle that has the
primary load carrying device or container (or equivalent equipment)
attached. Examples of equivalent equipment would include fifth wheel
trailer hitches, firefighting equipment, and utility booms.
(ii) An incomplete vehicle is a vehicle that is not a complete
vehicle. Incomplete vehicles may also be cab-complete vehicles. This
may include vehicles sold to secondary vehicle manufacturers.
(iii) The primary use of the terms ``complete vehicle'' and
``incomplete vehicle'' are to distinguish whether a vehicle is complete
when it is first sold as a vehicle.
(iv) You may ask us to allow you to certify a vehicle as incomplete
if you manufacture the engines and sell the unassembled chassis
components, as long as you do not produce and sell the body components
necessary to complete the vehicle.
(3) Equipment such as trailers that are not self-propelled are not
``vehicles'' under this part 1037.
Vehicle configuration means a unique combination of vehicle
hardware and calibration (related to measured or modeled emissions)
within a vehicle family. Vehicles with hardware or software
differences, but that have no hardware or software differences related
to measured or modeled emissions may be included in the same vehicle
configuration. Note that vehicles with hardware or software differences
related to measured or modeled emissions are considered to be different
configurations even if they have the same GEM inputs and FEL. Vehicles
within a vehicle configuration differ only with respect to normal
production variability or factors unrelated to measured or modeled
emissions.
Vehicle family has the meaning given in Sec. 1037.230.
Vehicle service class means a vehicle's weight class as specified
in this definition. Note that, while vehicle service class is similar
to primary intended service class for engines, they are not necessarily
the same. For example, a medium heavy-duty vehicle may include a light
heavy-duty engine.
[[Page 57432]]
Note also that while spark-ignition engines do not have a primary
intended service class, vehicles using spark-ignition engines have a
vehicle service class.
(1) Light heavy-duty vehicles are those vehicles with GVWR below
19,500 pounds.
Vehicles In this class include heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans,
motor homes and other recreational vehicles, and some straight trucks
with a single rear axle. Typical applications would include personal
transportation, light-load commercial delivery, passenger service,
agriculture, and construction.
(2) Medium heavy-duty vehicles are those vehicles with GVWR from
19,500 to 33,000 pounds. Vehicles in this class include school buses,
straight trucks with a single rear axle, city tractors, and a variety
of special purpose vehicles such as small dump trucks, and refuse
trucks. Typical applications would include commercial short haul and
intra-city delivery and pickup.
(3) Heavy heavy-duty vehicles are those vehicles with GVWR above
33,000 pounds. Vehicles in this class include tractors, urban buses,
and other heavy trucks.
Vehicle subfamily or subfamily means a subset of a vehicle family
including vehicles subject to the same FEL(s).
Vocational tractor means a vehicle classified as a vocational
tractor under Sec. 1037.630.
Vocational vehicle means relating to a vehicle subject to the
standards of Sec. 1037.105 (including vocational tractors).
Void has the meaning given in 40 CFR 1068.30.
Volatile liquid fuel means any fuel other than diesel or biodiesel
that is a liquid at atmospheric pressure and has a Reid Vapor Pressure
higher than 2.0 pounds per square inch.
We (us, our) means the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency and any authorized representatives.
Sec. 1037.805 Symbols, acronyms, and abbreviations.
The following symbols, acronyms, and abbreviations apply to this
part:
ABT Averaging, banking, and trading.
AECD auxiliary emission control device.
CD drag coefficient.
CDA drag area.
CFD computational fluid dynamics.
CFR Code of Federal Regulations.
CH4 methane.
CO carbon monoxide.
CO2 carbon dioxide.
CREE carbon-related exhaust emissions.
DOT Department of Transportation.
EPA Environmental Protection Agency.
ETW equivalent test weight.
FEL Family Emission Limit.
g grams.
GAWR gross axle weight rating.
GCWR gross combination weight rating.
GVWR gross vehicle weight rating.
GWP global-warming potential.
HC hydrocarbon.
ISO International Organization for Standardization.
kg kilograms.
m meter.
mm millimeter
mph miles per hour.
N2O nitrous oxide.
NARA National Archives and Records Administration.
NHTSA National Highway Transportation Safety Administration.
NOX oxides of nitrogen (NO and NO2).
PM particulate matter.
PTO power take-off.
RESS rechargeable energy storage system.
RPM revolutions per minute.
SAE Society of Automotive Engineers.
SKU Stock-keeping unit.
TRRL Tire rolling resistance level.
U.S.C. United States Code.
VSL vehicle speed limiter.
WF work factor.
Sec. 1037.810 Incorporation by reference.
(a) Certain material is incorporated by reference into this part
with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce any edition other than that
specified in this section, the Environmental Protection Agency must
publish a notice of the change in the Federal Register and the material
must be available to the public. All approved material is available for
inspection at U.S. EPA, Air and Radiation Docket and Information
Center, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Room B102, EPA West Building,
Washington, DC 20460, (202) 202-1744, and is available from the sources
listed below. It is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to
http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
(b) International Organization for Standardization, Case Postale
56, CH-1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland, (41) 22749 0111, http://www.iso.org, or [email protected].
(1) ISO 28580:2009(E) ``Passenger car, truck and bus tyres--Methods
of measuring rolling resistance--Single point test and correlation of
measurement results'', First Edition, July 1, 2009; IBR approved for
Sec. 1037.520(c).
(2) [Reserved]
(c) U.S. EPA, Office of Air and Radiation, 2565 Plymouth Road, Ann
Arbor, MI 48105, http://www.epa.gov:
(1) GEM simulation tool, Version 2.0, August 2011; IBR approved for
Sec. 1037.520. The computer code for this model is available as noted
in paragraph (a) of this section. A working version of this software is
also available for download at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/gem.htm.
(2) [Reserved]
(d) Society of Automotive Engineers, 400 Commonwealth Dr.,
Warrendale, PA 15096-0001, (877) 606-7323 (U.S. and Canada) or (724)
776-4970 (outside the U.S. and Canada), http://www.sae.org.
(1) SAE J1252, SAE Wind Tunnel Test Procedure for Trucks and Buses,
Revised July 1981, IBR approved for Sec. 1037.521(d), (e), and (f).
(2) SAE J1594, Vehicle Aerodynamics Terminology, Revised July 2010,
IBR approved for Sec. 1037.521(d).
(3) SAE J2071, Aerodynamic Testing of Road Vehicles--Open Throat
Wind Tunnel Adjustment, Revised June 1994, IBR approved for Sec.
1037.521(d).
Sec. 1037.815 Confidential information.
The provisions of 40 CFR 1068.10 apply for information you consider
confidential.
Sec. 1037.820 Requesting a hearing.
(a) You may request a hearing under certain circumstances, as
described elsewhere in this part. To do this, you must file a written
request, including a description of your objection and any supporting
data, within 30 days after we make a decision.
(b) For a hearing you request under the provisions of this part, we
will approve your request if we find that your request raises a
substantial factual issue.
(c) If we agree to hold a hearing, we will use the procedures
specified in 40 CFR part 1068, subpart G.
Sec. 1037.825 Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
(a) This part includes various requirements to submit and record
data or other information. Unless we specify otherwise, store required
records in any format and on any media and keep them readily available
for eight years after you send an associated application for
certification, or eight years after you generate the data if they do
not support an application for certification. You may not rely on
anyone else to meet recordkeeping requirements on your behalf unless we
specifically authorize it. We may review these records at any time. You
must promptly send us organized, written records in English if we ask
for them. We may require you to submit written records in an electronic
format.
[[Page 57433]]
(b) The regulations in Sec. 1037.255 and 40 CFR 1068.25 and
1068.101 describe your obligation to report truthful and complete
information. This includes information not related to certification.
Failing to properly report information and keep the records we specify
violates 40 CFR 1068.101(a)(2), which may involve civil or criminal
penalties.
(c) Send all reports and requests for approval to the Designated
Compliance Officer (see Sec. 1037.801).
(d) Any written information we require you to send to or receive
from another company is deemed to be a required record under this
section. Such records are also deemed to be submissions to EPA. Keep
these records for eight years unless the regulations specify a
different period. We may require you to send us these records whether
or not you are a certificate holder.
(e) Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq), the
Office of Management and Budget approves the reporting and
recordkeeping specified in the applicable regulations. The following
items illustrate the kind of reporting and recordkeeping we require for
vehicles regulated under this part:
(1) We specify the following requirements related to vehicle
certification in this part 1037:
(i) In subpart C of this part we identify a wide range of
information required to certify vehicles.
(ii) In subpart G of this part we identify several reporting and
recordkeeping items for making demonstrations and getting approval
related to various special compliance provisions.
(iii) In Sec. 1037.725, 1037.730, and 1037.735 we specify certain
records related to averaging, banking, and trading.
(2) We specify the following requirements related to testing in 40
CFR part 1066:
(i) In 40 CFR 1065.2 we give an overview of principles for
reporting information.
(ii) In 40 CFR 1065.10 and 1065.12 we specify information needs for
establishing various changes to published test procedures.
(iii) In 40 CFR 1065.25 we establish basic guidelines for storing
test information.
(iv) In 40 CFR 1065.695 we identify data that may be appropriate
for collecting during testing of in-use vehicles using portable
analyzers.
Appendix I to Part 1037--Heavy-Duty Transient Chassis Test Cycle
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speed Speed
Time sec. mph m/s
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1....................................................... 0.00 0.00
2....................................................... 0.00 0.00
3....................................................... 0.00 0.00
4....................................................... 0.00 0.00
5....................................................... 0.00 0.00
6....................................................... 0.00 0.00
7....................................................... 0.41 0.18
8....................................................... 1.18 0.53
9....................................................... 2.26 1.01
10...................................................... 3.19 1.43
11...................................................... 3.97 1.77
12...................................................... 4.66 2.08
13...................................................... 5.32 2.38
14...................................................... 5.94 2.66
15...................................................... 6.48 2.90
16...................................................... 6.91 3.09
17...................................................... 7.28 3.25
18...................................................... 7.64 3.42
19...................................................... 8.02 3.59
20...................................................... 8.36 3.74
21...................................................... 8.60 3.84
22...................................................... 8.74 3.91
23...................................................... 8.82 3.94
24...................................................... 8.82 3.94
25...................................................... 8.76 3.92
26...................................................... 8.66 3.87
27...................................................... 8.58 3.84
28...................................................... 8.52 3.81
29...................................................... 8.46 3.78
30...................................................... 8.38 3.75
31...................................................... 8.31 3.71
32...................................................... 8.21 3.67
33...................................................... 8.11 3.63
34...................................................... 8.00 3.58
35...................................................... 7.94 3.55
36...................................................... 7.94 3.55
37...................................................... 7.80 3.49
38...................................................... 7.43 3.32
39...................................................... 6.79 3.04
40...................................................... 5.81 2.60
41...................................................... 4.65 2.08
42...................................................... 3.03 1.35
43...................................................... 1.88 0.84
44...................................................... 1.15 0.51
45...................................................... 1.14 0.51
46...................................................... 1.12 0.50
47...................................................... 1.11 0.50
48...................................................... 1.19 0.53
49...................................................... 1.57 0.70
50...................................................... 2.31 1.03
51...................................................... 3.37 1.51
52...................................................... 4.51 2.02
53...................................................... 5.56 2.49
54...................................................... 6.41 2.87
55...................................................... 7.09 3.17
56...................................................... 7.59 3.39
57...................................................... 7.99 3.57
58...................................................... 8.32 3.72
59...................................................... 8.64 3.86
60...................................................... 8.91 3.98
61...................................................... 9.13 4.08
62...................................................... 9.29 4.15
63...................................................... 9.40 4.20
64...................................................... 9.39 4.20
65...................................................... 9.20 4.11
66...................................................... 8.84 3.95
67...................................................... 8.35 3.73
68...................................................... 7.81 3.49
69...................................................... 7.22 3.23
70...................................................... 6.65 2.97
71...................................................... 6.13 2.74
72...................................................... 5.75 2.57
73...................................................... 5.61 2.51
74...................................................... 5.65 2.53
75...................................................... 5.80 2.59
76...................................................... 5.95 2.66
77...................................................... 6.09 2.72
78...................................................... 6.21 2.78
79...................................................... 6.31 2.82
80...................................................... 6.34 2.83
81...................................................... 6.47 2.89
82...................................................... 6.65 2.97
83...................................................... 6.88 3.08
84...................................................... 7.04 3.15
85...................................................... 7.05 3.15
86...................................................... 7.01 3.13
87...................................................... 6.90 3.08
88...................................................... 6.88 3.08
89...................................................... 6.89 3.08
90...................................................... 6.96 3.11
91...................................................... 7.04 3.15
92...................................................... 7.17 3.21
93...................................................... 7.29 3.26
94...................................................... 7.39 3.30
95...................................................... 7.48 3.34
96...................................................... 7.57 3.38
97...................................................... 7.61 3.40
98...................................................... 7.59 3.39
99...................................................... 7.53 3.37
100..................................................... 7.46 3.33
101..................................................... 7.40 3.31
102..................................................... 7.39 3.30
103..................................................... 7.38 3.30
104..................................................... 7.37 3.29
105..................................................... 7.37 3.29
106..................................................... 7.39 3.30
107..................................................... 7.42 3.32
108..................................................... 7.43 3.32
109..................................................... 7.40 3.31
110..................................................... 7.39 3.30
111..................................................... 7.42 3.32
112..................................................... 7.50 3.35
113..................................................... 7.57 3.38
114..................................................... 7.60 3.40
115..................................................... 7.60 3.40
116..................................................... 7.61 3.40
117..................................................... 7.64 3.42
118..................................................... 7.68 3.43
119..................................................... 7.74 3.46
120..................................................... 7.82 3.50
121..................................................... 7.90 3.53
122..................................................... 7.96 3.56
123..................................................... 7.99 3.57
124..................................................... 8.02 3.59
125..................................................... 8.01 3.58
126..................................................... 7.87 3.52
127..................................................... 7.59 3.39
128..................................................... 7.20 3.22
129..................................................... 6.52 2.91
130..................................................... 5.53 2.47
131..................................................... 4.36 1.95
132..................................................... 3.30 1.48
133..................................................... 2.50 1.12
134..................................................... 1.94 0.87
135..................................................... 1.56 0.70
136..................................................... 0.95 0.42
137..................................................... 0.42 0.19
138..................................................... 0.00 0.00
[[Page 57434]]
139..................................................... 0.00 0.00
140..................................................... 0.00 0.00
141..................................................... 0.00 0.00
142..................................................... 0.00 0.00
143..................................................... 0.00 0.00
144..................................................... 0.00 0.00
145..................................................... 0.00 0.00
146..................................................... 0.00 0.00
147..................................................... 0.00 0.00
148..................................................... 0.00 0.00
149..................................................... 0.00 0.00
150..................................................... 0.00 0.00
151..................................................... 0.00 0.00
152..................................................... 0.00 0.00
153..................................................... 0.00 0.00
154..................................................... 0.00 0.00
155..................................................... 0.00 0.00
156..................................................... 0.00 0.00
157..................................................... 0.00 0.00
158..................................................... 0.00 0.00
159..................................................... 0.00 0.00
160..................................................... 0.00 0.00
161..................................................... 0.00 0.00
162..................................................... 0.00 0.00
163..................................................... 0.00 0.00
164..................................................... 0.00 0.00
165..................................................... 0.00 0.00
166..................................................... 0.00 0.00
167..................................................... 0.00 0.00
168..................................................... 0.00 0.00
169..................................................... 0.00 0.00
170..................................................... 0.00 0.00
171..................................................... 0.00 0.00
172..................................................... 1.11 0.50
173..................................................... 2.65 1.18
174..................................................... 4.45 1.99
175..................................................... 5.68 2.54
176..................................................... 6.75 3.02
177..................................................... 7.59 3.39
178..................................................... 7.75 3.46
179..................................................... 7.63 3.41
180..................................................... 7.67 3.43
181..................................................... 8.70 3.89
182..................................................... 10.20 4.56
183..................................................... 11.92 5.33
184..................................................... 12.84 5.74
185..................................................... 13.27 5.93
186..................................................... 13.38 5.98
187..................................................... 13.61 6.08
188..................................................... 14.15 6.33
189..................................................... 14.84 6.63
190..................................................... 16.49 7.37
191..................................................... 18.33 8.19
192..................................................... 20.36 9.10
193..................................................... 21.47 9.60
194..................................................... 22.35 9.99
195..................................................... 22.96 10.26
196..................................................... 23.46 10.49
197..................................................... 23.92 10.69
198..................................................... 24.42 10.92
199..................................................... 24.99 11.17
200..................................................... 25.91 11.58
201..................................................... 26.26 11.74
202..................................................... 26.38 11.79
203..................................................... 26.26 11.74
204..................................................... 26.49 11.84
205..................................................... 26.76 11.96
206..................................................... 27.07 12.10
207..................................................... 26.64 11.91
208..................................................... 25.99 11.62
209..................................................... 24.77 11.07
210..................................................... 24.04 10.75
211..................................................... 23.39 10.46
212..................................................... 22.73 10.16
213..................................................... 22.16 9.91
214..................................................... 21.66 9.68
215..................................................... 21.39 9.56
216..................................................... 21.43 9.58
217..................................................... 20.67 9.24
218..................................................... 17.98 8.04
219..................................................... 13.15 5.88
220..................................................... 7.71 3.45
221..................................................... 3.30 1.48
222..................................................... 0.88 0.39
223..................................................... 0.00 0.00
224..................................................... 0.00 0.00
225..................................................... 0.00 0.00
226..................................................... 0.00 0.00
227..................................................... 0.00 0.00
228..................................................... 0.00 0.00
229..................................................... 0.00 0.00
230..................................................... 0.00 0.00
231..................................................... 0.00 0.00
232..................................................... 0.00 0.00
233..................................................... 0.00 0.00
234..................................................... 0.00 0.00
235..................................................... 0.00 0.00
236..................................................... 0.00 0.00
237..................................................... 0.00 0.00
238..................................................... 0.00 0.00
239..................................................... 0.00 0.00
240..................................................... 0.00 0.00
241..................................................... 0.00 0.00
242..................................................... 0.00 0.00
243..................................................... 0.00 0.00
244..................................................... 0.00 0.00
245..................................................... 0.00 0.00
246..................................................... 0.00 0.00
247..................................................... 0.00 0.00
248..................................................... 0.00 0.00
249..................................................... 0.00 0.00
250..................................................... 0.00 0.00
251..................................................... 0.00 0.00
252..................................................... 0.00 0.00
253..................................................... 0.00 0.00
254..................................................... 0.00 0.00
255..................................................... 0.00 0.00
256..................................................... 0.00 0.00
257..................................................... 0.00 0.00
258..................................................... 0.00 0.00
259..................................................... 0.50 0.22
260..................................................... 1.57 0.70
261..................................................... 3.07 1.37
262..................................................... 4.57 2.04
263..................................................... 5.65 2.53
264..................................................... 6.95 3.11
265..................................................... 8.05 3.60
266..................................................... 9.13 4.08
267..................................................... 10.05 4.49
268..................................................... 11.62 5.19
269..................................................... 12.92 5.78
270..................................................... 13.84 6.19
271..................................................... 14.38 6.43
272..................................................... 15.64 6.99
273..................................................... 17.14 7.66
274..................................................... 18.21 8.14
275..................................................... 18.90 8.45
276..................................................... 19.44 8.69
277..................................................... 20.09 8.98
278..................................................... 21.89 9.79
279..................................................... 24.15 10.80
280..................................................... 26.26 11.74
281..................................................... 26.95 12.05
282..................................................... 27.03 12.08
283..................................................... 27.30 12.20
284..................................................... 28.10 12.56
285..................................................... 29.44 13.16
286..................................................... 30.78 13.76
287..................................................... 32.09 14.35
288..................................................... 33.24 14.86
289..................................................... 34.46 15.40
290..................................................... 35.42 15.83
291..................................................... 35.88 16.04
292..................................................... 36.03 16.11
293..................................................... 35.84 16.02
294..................................................... 35.65 15.94
295..................................................... 35.31 15.78
296..................................................... 35.19 15.73
297..................................................... 35.12 15.70
298..................................................... 35.12 15.70
299..................................................... 35.04 15.66
300..................................................... 35.08 15.68
301..................................................... 35.04 15.66
302..................................................... 35.34 15.80
303..................................................... 35.50 15.87
304..................................................... 35.77 15.99
305..................................................... 35.81 16.01
306..................................................... 35.92 16.06
307..................................................... 36.23 16.20
308..................................................... 36.42 16.28
309..................................................... 36.65 16.38
310..................................................... 36.26 16.21
311..................................................... 36.07 16.12
312..................................................... 35.84 16.02
313..................................................... 35.96 16.08
314..................................................... 36.00 16.09
315..................................................... 35.57 15.90
316..................................................... 35.00 15.65
317..................................................... 34.08 15.24
318..................................................... 33.39 14.93
319..................................................... 32.20 14.39
320..................................................... 30.32 13.55
321..................................................... 28.48 12.73
322..................................................... 26.95 12.05
323..................................................... 26.18 11.70
324..................................................... 25.38 11.35
325..................................................... 24.77 11.07
326..................................................... 23.46 10.49
327..................................................... 22.39 10.01
328..................................................... 20.97 9.37
329..................................................... 20.09 8.98
330..................................................... 18.90 8.45
331..................................................... 18.17 8.12
332..................................................... 16.48 7.37
333..................................................... 15.07 6.74
334..................................................... 12.23 5.47
335..................................................... 10.08 4.51
336..................................................... 7.71 3.45
337..................................................... 7.32 3.27
338..................................................... 8.63 3.86
339..................................................... 10.77 4.81
340..................................................... 12.65 5.66
341..................................................... 13.88 6.20
342..................................................... 15.03 6.72
343..................................................... 15.64 6.99
344..................................................... 16.99 7.60
345..................................................... 17.98 8.04
[[Page 57435]]
346..................................................... 19.13 8.55
347..................................................... 18.67 8.35
348..................................................... 18.25 8.16
349..................................................... 18.17 8.12
350..................................................... 18.40 8.23
351..................................................... 19.63 8.78
352..................................................... 20.32 9.08
353..................................................... 21.43 9.58
354..................................................... 21.47 9.60
355..................................................... 21.97 9.82
356..................................................... 22.27 9.96
357..................................................... 22.69 10.14
358..................................................... 23.15 10.35
359..................................................... 23.69 10.59
360..................................................... 23.96 10.71
361..................................................... 24.27 10.85
362..................................................... 24.34 10.88
363..................................................... 24.50 10.95
364..................................................... 24.42 10.92
365..................................................... 24.38 10.90
366..................................................... 24.31 10.87
367..................................................... 24.23 10.83
368..................................................... 24.69 11.04
369..................................................... 25.11 11.23
370..................................................... 25.53 11.41
371..................................................... 25.38 11.35
372..................................................... 24.58 10.99
373..................................................... 23.77 10.63
374..................................................... 23.54 10.52
375..................................................... 23.50 10.51
376..................................................... 24.15 10.80
377..................................................... 24.30 10.86
378..................................................... 24.15 10.80
379..................................................... 23.19 10.37
380..................................................... 22.50 10.06
381..................................................... 21.93 9.80
382..................................................... 21.85 9.77
383..................................................... 21.55 9.63
384..................................................... 21.89 9.79
385..................................................... 21.97 9.82
386..................................................... 21.97 9.82
387..................................................... 22.01 9.84
388..................................................... 21.85 9.77
389..................................................... 21.62 9.67
390..................................................... 21.62 9.67
391..................................................... 22.01 9.84
392..................................................... 22.81 10.20
393..................................................... 23.54 10.52
394..................................................... 24.38 10.90
395..................................................... 24.80 11.09
396..................................................... 24.61 11.00
397..................................................... 23.12 10.34
398..................................................... 21.62 9.67
399..................................................... 19.90 8.90
400..................................................... 18.86 8.43
401..................................................... 17.79 7.95
402..................................................... 17.25 7.71
403..................................................... 16.91 7.56
404..................................................... 16.75 7.49
405..................................................... 16.75 7.49
406..................................................... 16.87 7.54
407..................................................... 16.37 7.32
408..................................................... 16.37 7.32
409..................................................... 16.49 7.37
410..................................................... 17.21 7.69
411..................................................... 17.41 7.78
412..................................................... 17.37 7.77
413..................................................... 16.87 7.54
414..................................................... 16.72 7.47
415..................................................... 16.22 7.25
416..................................................... 15.76 7.05
417..................................................... 14.72 6.58
418..................................................... 13.69 6.12
419..................................................... 12.00 5.36
420..................................................... 10.43 4.66
421..................................................... 8.71 3.89
422..................................................... 7.44 3.33
423..................................................... 5.71 2.55
424..................................................... 4.22 1.89
425..................................................... 2.30 1.03
426..................................................... 1.00 0.45
427..................................................... 0.00 0.00
428..................................................... 0.61 0.27
429..................................................... 1.19 0.53
430..................................................... 1.61 0.72
431..................................................... 1.53 0.68
432..................................................... 2.34 1.05
433..................................................... 4.29 1.92
434..................................................... 7.25 3.24
435..................................................... 10.20 4.56
436..................................................... 12.46 5.57
437..................................................... 14.53 6.50
438..................................................... 16.22 7.25
439..................................................... 17.87 7.99
440..................................................... 19.74 8.82
441..................................................... 21.01 9.39
442..................................................... 22.23 9.94
443..................................................... 22.62 10.11
444..................................................... 23.61 10.55
445..................................................... 24.88 11.12
446..................................................... 26.15 11.69
447..................................................... 26.99 12.07
448..................................................... 27.56 12.32
449..................................................... 28.18 12.60
450..................................................... 28.94 12.94
451..................................................... 29.83 13.34
452..................................................... 30.78 13.76
453..................................................... 31.82 14.22
454..................................................... 32.78 14.65
455..................................................... 33.24 14.86
456..................................................... 33.47 14.96
457..................................................... 33.31 14.89
458..................................................... 33.08 14.79
459..................................................... 32.78 14.65
460..................................................... 32.39 14.48
461..................................................... 32.13 14.36
462..................................................... 31.82 14.22
463..................................................... 31.55 14.10
464..................................................... 31.25 13.97
465..................................................... 30.94 13.83
466..................................................... 30.71 13.73
467..................................................... 30.56 13.66
468..................................................... 30.79 13.76
469..................................................... 31.13 13.92
470..................................................... 31.55 14.10
471..................................................... 31.51 14.09
472..................................................... 31.47 14.07
473..................................................... 31.44 14.05
474..................................................... 31.51 14.09
475..................................................... 31.59 14.12
476..................................................... 31.67 14.16
477..................................................... 32.01 14.31
478..................................................... 32.63 14.59
479..................................................... 33.39 14.93
480..................................................... 34.31 15.34
481..................................................... 34.81 15.56
482..................................................... 34.20 15.29
483..................................................... 32.39 14.48
484..................................................... 30.29 13.54
485..................................................... 28.56 12.77
486..................................................... 26.45 11.82
487..................................................... 24.79 11.08
488..................................................... 23.12 10.34
489..................................................... 20.73 9.27
490..................................................... 18.33 8.19
491..................................................... 15.72 7.03
492..................................................... 13.11 5.86
493..................................................... 10.47 4.68
494..................................................... 7.82 3.50
495..................................................... 5.70 2.55
496..................................................... 3.57 1.60
497..................................................... 0.92 0.41
498..................................................... 0.00 0.00
499..................................................... 0.00 0.00
500..................................................... 0.00 0.00
501..................................................... 0.00 0.00
502..................................................... 0.00 0.00
503..................................................... 0.00 0.00
504..................................................... 0.00 0.00
505..................................................... 0.00 0.00
506..................................................... 0.00 0.00
507..................................................... 0.00 0.00
508..................................................... 0.00 0.00
509..................................................... 0.00 0.00
510..................................................... 0.00 0.00
511..................................................... 0.00 0.00
512..................................................... 0.00 0.00
513..................................................... 0.00 0.00
514..................................................... 0.00 0.00
515..................................................... 0.00 0.00
516..................................................... 0.00 0.00
517..................................................... 0.00 0.00
518..................................................... 0.00 0.00
519..................................................... 0.00 0.00
520..................................................... 0.00 0.00
521..................................................... 0.00 0.00
522..................................................... 0.50 0.22
523..................................................... 1.50 0.67
524..................................................... 3.00 1.34
525..................................................... 4.50 2.01
526..................................................... 5.80 2.59
527..................................................... 6.52 2.91
528..................................................... 6.75 3.02
529..................................................... 6.44 2.88
530..................................................... 6.17 2.76
531..................................................... 6.33 2.83
532..................................................... 6.71 3.00
533..................................................... 7.40 3.31
534..................................................... 7.67 3.43
535..................................................... 7.33 3.28
536..................................................... 6.71 3.00
537..................................................... 6.41 2.87
538..................................................... 6.60 2.95
539..................................................... 6.56 2.93
540..................................................... 5.94 2.66
541..................................................... 5.45 2.44
542..................................................... 5.87 2.62
543..................................................... 6.71 3.00
544..................................................... 7.56 3.38
545..................................................... 7.59 3.39
546..................................................... 7.63 3.41
547..................................................... 7.67 3.43
548..................................................... 7.67 3.43
549..................................................... 7.48 3.34
550..................................................... 7.29 3.26
551..................................................... 7.29 3.26
552..................................................... 7.40 3.31
[[Page 57436]]
553..................................................... 7.48 3.34
554..................................................... 7.52 3.36
555..................................................... 7.52 3.36
556..................................................... 7.48 3.34
557..................................................... 7.44 3.33
558..................................................... 7.28 3.25
559..................................................... 7.21 3.22
560..................................................... 7.09 3.17
561..................................................... 7.06 3.16
562..................................................... 7.29 3.26
563..................................................... 7.75 3.46
564..................................................... 8.55 3.82
565..................................................... 9.09 4.06
566..................................................... 10.04 4.49
567..................................................... 11.12 4.97
568..................................................... 12.46 5.57
569..................................................... 13.00 5.81
570..................................................... 14.26 6.37
571..................................................... 15.37 6.87
572..................................................... 17.02 7.61
573..................................................... 18.17 8.12
574..................................................... 19.21 8.59
575..................................................... 20.17 9.02
576..................................................... 20.66 9.24
577..................................................... 21.12 9.44
578..................................................... 21.43 9.58
579..................................................... 22.66 10.13
580..................................................... 23.92 10.69
581..................................................... 25.42 11.36
582..................................................... 25.53 11.41
583..................................................... 26.68 11.93
584..................................................... 28.14 12.58
585..................................................... 30.06 13.44
586..................................................... 30.94 13.83
587..................................................... 31.63 14.14
588..................................................... 32.36 14.47
589..................................................... 33.24 14.86
590..................................................... 33.66 15.05
591..................................................... 34.12 15.25
592..................................................... 35.92 16.06
593..................................................... 37.72 16.86
594..................................................... 39.26 17.55
595..................................................... 39.45 17.64
596..................................................... 39.83 17.81
597..................................................... 40.18 17.96
598..................................................... 40.48 18.10
599..................................................... 40.75 18.22
600..................................................... 41.02 18.34
601..................................................... 41.36 18.49
602..................................................... 41.79 18.68
603..................................................... 42.40 18.95
604..................................................... 42.82 19.14
605..................................................... 43.05 19.25
606..................................................... 43.09 19.26
607..................................................... 43.24 19.33
608..................................................... 43.59 19.49
609..................................................... 44.01 19.67
610..................................................... 44.35 19.83
611..................................................... 44.55 19.92
612..................................................... 44.82 20.04
613..................................................... 45.05 20.14
614..................................................... 45.31 20.26
615..................................................... 45.58 20.38
616..................................................... 46.00 20.56
617..................................................... 46.31 20.70
618..................................................... 46.54 20.81
619..................................................... 46.61 20.84
620..................................................... 46.92 20.98
621..................................................... 47.19 21.10
622..................................................... 47.46 21.22
623..................................................... 47.54 21.25
624..................................................... 47.54 21.25
625..................................................... 47.54 21.25
626..................................................... 47.50 21.23
627..................................................... 47.50 21.23
628..................................................... 47.50 21.23
629..................................................... 47.31 21.15
630..................................................... 47.04 21.03
631..................................................... 46.77 20.91
632..................................................... 45.54 20.36
633..................................................... 43.24 19.33
634..................................................... 41.52 18.56
635..................................................... 39.79 17.79
636..................................................... 38.07 17.02
637..................................................... 36.34 16.25
638..................................................... 34.04 15.22
639..................................................... 32.45 14.51
640..................................................... 30.86 13.80
641..................................................... 28.83 12.89
642..................................................... 26.45 11.82
643..................................................... 24.27 10.85
644..................................................... 22.04 9.85
645..................................................... 19.82 8.86
646..................................................... 17.04 7.62
647..................................................... 14.26 6.37
648..................................................... 11.52 5.15
649..................................................... 8.78 3.93
650..................................................... 7.17 3.21
651..................................................... 5.56 2.49
652..................................................... 3.72 1.66
653..................................................... 3.38 1.51
654..................................................... 3.11 1.39
655..................................................... 2.58 1.15
656..................................................... 1.66 0.74
657..................................................... 0.67 0.30
658..................................................... 0.00 0.00
659..................................................... 0.00 0.00
660..................................................... 0.00 0.00
661..................................................... 0.00 0.00
662..................................................... 0.00 0.00
663..................................................... 0.00 0.00
664..................................................... 0.00 0.00
665..................................................... 0.00 0.00
666..................................................... 0.00 0.00
667..................................................... 0.00 0.00
668..................................................... 0.00 0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix II to Part 1037--Power Take-Off Test Cycle
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Start Normalized Normalized
Cycle simulation Mode time of pressure, pressure,
mode circuit 1 (%) circuit 2 (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Utility....................................................... 0 0 0.0 0.0
Utility....................................................... 1 33 80.5 0.0
Utility....................................................... 2 40 0.0 0.0
Utility....................................................... 3 145 83.5 0.0
Utility....................................................... 4 289 0.0 0.0
Refuse........................................................ 5 361 0.0 13.0
Refuse........................................................ 6 363 0.0 38.0
Refuse........................................................ 7 373 0.0 53.0
Refuse........................................................ 8 384 0.0 73.0
Refuse........................................................ 9 388 0.0 0.0
Refuse........................................................ 10 401 0.0 13.0
Refuse........................................................ 11 403 0.0 38.0
Refuse........................................................ 12 413 0.0 53.0
Refuse........................................................ 13 424 0.0 73.0
Refuse........................................................ 14 442 11.2 0.0
Refuse........................................................ 15 468 29.3 0.0
Refuse........................................................ 16 473 0.0 0.0
Refuse........................................................ 17 486 11.2 0.0
Refuse........................................................ 18 512 29.3 0.0
Refuse........................................................ 19 517 0.0 0.0
Refuse........................................................ 20 530 12.8 11.1
Refuse........................................................ 21 532 12.8 38.2
[[Page 57437]]
Refuse........................................................ 22 541 12.8 53.4
Refuse........................................................ 23 550 12.8 73.5
Refuse........................................................ 24 553 0.0 0.0
Refuse........................................................ 25 566 12.8 11.1
Refuse........................................................ 26 568 12.8 38.2
Refuse........................................................ 27 577 12.8 53.4
Refuse........................................................ 28 586 12.8 73.5
Refuse........................................................ 29 589 0.0 0.0
Refuse........................................................ 30 600 0.0 0.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix III to Part 1037--Emission Control Identifiers
This appendix identifies abbreviations for emission control
information labels, as required under Sec. 1037.135.
Vehicle Speed Limiters
-VSL--Vehicle speed limiter
-VSLS--``Soft-top'' vehicle speed limiter
-VSLE--Expiring vehicle speed limiter
-VSLD--Vehicle speed limiter with both ``soft-top'' and expiration
Idle Reduction Technology
-IRT5--Engine shutoff after 5 minutes or less of idling
-IRTE--Expiring engine shutoff
Tires
-LRRA--Low rolling resistance tires (all)
-LRRD--Low rolling resistance tires (drive)
-LRRS--Low rolling resistance tires (steer)
Aerodynamic Components
-ATS--Aerodynamic side skirt and/or fuel tank fairing
-ARF--Aerodynamic roof fairing
-ARFR--Adjustable height aerodynamic roof fairing
-TGR--Gap reducing fairing (tractor to trailer gap)
Other Components
-ADVH--Vehicle includes advanced hybrid technology components
-ADVO--Vehicle includes other advanced technology components (i.e.,
non-hybrid system)
-INV--Vehicle includes innovative technology components
PART 1039--CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM NEW AND IN-USE NONROAD
COMPRESSION-IGNITION ENGINES
0
35. The authority citation for part 1039 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Subpart F--[Amended]
0
36. Section 1039.510 is amended by revising paragraph (b) introductory
text to read as follows:
Sec. 1039.510 Which duty cycles do I use for transient testing?
* * * * *
(b) The transient test sequence consists of an initial run through
the transient duty cycle from a cold start, 20 minutes with no engine
operation, then a final run through the same transient duty cycle.
Calculate the official transient emission result from the following
equation:
* * * * *
PART 1065--ENGINE-TESTING PROCEDURES
0
37. The authority citation for part 1065 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Subpart A--[Amended]
0
38. Section 1065.1 is amended by adding paragraph (h) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1065.1 Applicability.
* * * * *
(h) 40 CFR part 1066 describes how to measure emissions from
vehicles that are subject to standards in g/mile or g/kilometer. Those
vehicle testing provisions extensively reference portions of this part
1065. See 40 CFR part 1066 and the standard-setting part for additional
information.
0
39. Section 1065.15 is amended by revising paragraph (e) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1065.15 Overview of procedures for laboratory and field testing.
* * * * *
(e) The following figure illustrates the allowed measurement
configurations described in this part 1065:
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
[[Page 57438]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15SE11.019
BILLING CODE 4910-59-C
* * * * *
0
40. Section 1065.20 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) introductory
text, (a)(1), and (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 1065.20 Units of measure and overview of calculations.
(a) System of units. The procedures in this part generally follow
the
[[Page 57439]]
International System of Units (SI), as detailed in NIST Special
Publication 811, which we incorporate by reference in Sec. 1065.1010.
The following exceptions apply:
(1) We designate angular speed, fn, of an engine's
crankshaft in revolutions per minute (r/min), rather than the SI unit
of radians per second (rad/s). This is based on the commonplace use of
r/min in many engine dynamometer laboratories.
* * * * *
(e) Rounding. You are required to round certain final values, such
as final emission values. You may round intermediate values when
transferring data as long as you maintain at least six significant
digits (which requires more than six decimal places for values less
than 0.1), or all significant digits if fewer than six digits are
available. Unless the standard-setting part specifies otherwise, do not
round other intermediate values. Round values to the number of
significant digits necessary to match the number of decimal places of
the applicable standard or specification as described in this paragraph
(e). Note that specifications expressed as percentages have infinite
precision (as described in paragraph (e)(7) of this section). Use the
following rounding convention, which is consistent with ASTM E29 and
NIST SP 811:
(1) If the first (left-most) digit to be removed is less than five,
remove all the appropriate digits without changing the digits that
remain. For example, 3.141593 rounded to the second decimal place is
3.14.
(2) If the first digit to be removed is greater than five, remove
all the appropriate digits and increase the lowest-value remaining
digit by one. For example, 3.141593 rounded to the fourth decimal place
is 3.1416.
(3) If the first digit to be removed is five with at least one
additional non-zero digit following the five, remove all the
appropriate digits and increase the lowest-value remaining digit by
one. For example, 3.141593 rounded to the third decimal place is 3.142.
(4) If the first digit to be removed is five with no additional
non-zero digits following the five, remove all the appropriate digits,
increase the lowest-value remaining digit by one if it is odd and leave
it unchanged if it is even. For example, 1.75 and 1.750 rounded to the
first decimal place are 1.8; while 1.85 and 1.850 rounded to the first
decimal place are also 1.8. Note that this rounding procedure will
always result in an even number for the lowest-value digit.
(5) This paragraph (e)(5) applies if the regulation specifies
rounding to an increment other than decimal places or powers of ten (to
the nearest 0.01, 0.1, 1, 10, 100, etc.). To round numbers for these
special cases, divide the quantity by the specified rounding increment.
Round the result to the nearest whole number as described in paragraphs
(e)(1) through (4) of this section. Multiply the rounded number by the
specified rounding increment. This value is the desired result. For
example, to round 0.90 to the nearest 0.2, divide 0.90 by 0.2 to get a
result of 4.5, which rounds to 4. Multiplying 4 by 0.2 gives 0.8, which
is the result of rounding 0.90 to the nearest 0.2.
(6) The following tables further illustrate the rounding procedures
specified in this paragraph (e):
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rounding increment
Quantity ---------------------------------------------------------------
10 1 0.1 0.01
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.141593........................................ 0 3 3.1 3.14
123,456.789..................................... 123,460 123,457 123,456.8 123,456.79
5.500........................................... 10 6 5.5 5.50
4.500........................................... 0 4 4.5 4.50
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rounding increment
Quantity ---------------------------------------------------------------
25 3 0.5 0.02
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
229.267......................................... 225 228 229.5 229.26
62.500.......................................... 50 63 62.5 62.50
87.500.......................................... 100 87 87.5 87.50
7.500........................................... 0 6 7.5 7.50
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(7) This paragraph (e)(7) applies where we specify a limit or
tolerance as some percentage of another value (such as 2%
of a maximum concentration). You may show compliance with such
specifications either by applying the percentage to the total value to
calculate an absolute limit, or by converting the absolute value to a
percentage by dividing it by the total value.
(i) Do not round either value (the absolute limit or the calculated
percentage), except as specified in paragraph (e)(7)(ii) of this
section. For example, assume we specify that an analyzer must have a
repeatability of 1% of the maximum concentration or better,
the maximum concentration is 1059 ppm, and you determine repeatability
to be 6.3 ppm. In this example, you could calculate an
absolute limit of 10.59 ppm (1059 ppm x 0.01) or calculate
that the 6.3 ppm repeatability is equivalent to a repeatability of
0.5949008498584%.
(ii) Prior to July 1, 2013, you may treat tolerances (and
equivalent specifications) specified in percentages as having fixed
rather than infinite precision. For example, 2% would be equivalent to
1.51% to 2.50% and 2.0% would be equivalent to 1.951% to 2.050%. Note
that this allowance applies whether or not the percentage is explicitly
specified as a percentage of another value.
(8) You may use measurement devices that incorporate internal
rounding, consistent with the provisions of this paragraph (e)(8). You
may use devices that use any rounding convention if they report six or
more significant digits. You may use devices that report fewer than six
digits, consistent with good engineering judgment and the accuracy,
repeatability, and noise specifications of this part. Note that this
provision does not necessarily require
[[Page 57440]]
you to perform engineering analysis or keep records.
* * * * *
Subpart B--[Amended]
0
41. Section 1065.125 is amended by revising paragraph (e)(1)
introductory text to read as follows:
Sec. 1065.125 Engine intake air.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(1) Use a charge-air cooling system with a total intake-air
capacity that represents production engines' in-use installation.
Design any laboratory charge-air cooling system to minimize
accumulation of condensate. Drain any accumulated condensate. Before
starting a duty cycle (or preconditioning for a duty cycle), completely
close all drains that would normally be closed during in-use operation.
Keep those drains closed during the emission test. Maintain coolant
conditions as follows:
* * * * *
0
42. Section 1065.140 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)(6)(ii)(C)
and (D) to read as follows:
Sec. 1065.140 Dilution for gaseous and PM constituents.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(6) * * *
(ii) * * *
(C) Identify the maximum potential mole fraction of dilute exhaust
lost on a continuous basis during the entire test interval. This value
must be less than or equal to 0.02. Calculate on a continuous basis the
mole fraction of water that would be in equilibrium with liquid water
at the measured minimum surface temperature. Subtract this mole
fraction from the mole fraction of water that would be in the exhaust
without condensation (either measured or from the chemical balance),
and set any negative values to zero. This difference is the potential
mole fraction of the dilute exhaust that would be lost due to water
condensation on a continuous basis.
(D) Integrate the product of the molar flow rate of the dilute
exhaust and the potential mole fraction of dilute exhaust lost, and
divide by the totalized dilute exhaust molar flow over the test
interval. This is the potential mole fraction of the dilute exhaust
that would be lost due to water condensation over the entire test
interval. Note that this assumes no re-evaporation. This value must be
less than or equal to 0.005.
* * * * *
0
43. Section 1065.170 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(1)(vi) to
read as follows:
Sec. 1065.170 Batch sampling for gaseous and PM constituents.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(vi) Maintain a filter face velocity near 100 cm/s with less than
5% of the recorded flow values exceeding 100 cm/s, unless you expect
the net PM mass on the filter to exceed 400 [micro]g, assuming a 38 mm
diameter filter stain area. Measure face velocity as the volumetric
flow rate of the sample at the pressure upstream of the filter and
temperature of the filter face as measured in Sec. 1065.140(e),
divided by the filter's exposed area. You may use the exhaust stack or
CVS tunnel pressure for the upstream pressure if the pressure drop
through the PM sampler up to the filter is less than 2 kPa.
* * * * *
0
44. Section 1065.190 is amended by revising Table 1 in paragraph (d)(3)
to read as follows:
Sec. 1065.190 PM-stabilization and weighing environments for
gravimetric analysis.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(3) * * *
Table 1 of Sec. 1065.190--Dewpoint Tolerance as a Function of % PM Change and % Sulfuric Acid PM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Expected sulfuric acid fraction of 0.5% PM mass 1% PM mass 2% PM mass
PM change change change
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5%.................................. 3 [deg]C.... 6 [deg]C... 12 [deg]C
50%................................. 0.3 [deg]C.. 0.6 [deg]C. 1.2 [deg]C
100%................................ 0.15 [deg]C. 0.3 [deg]C. 0.6 [deg]C
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Subpart C--[Amended]
0
45. Section 1065.205 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 1065.205 Performance specifications for measurement instruments.
Your test system as a whole must meet all the applicable
calibrations, verifications, and test-validation criteria specified in
subparts D and F of this part or subpart J of this part for using PEMS
and for performing field testing. We recommend that your instruments
meet the specifications in Table 1 of this section for all ranges you
use for testing. We also recommend that you keep any documentation you
receive from instrument manufacturers showing that your instruments
meet the specifications in Table 1 of this section.
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
[[Page 57441]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15SE11.020
BILLING CODE 4910-59-C
0
46. Section 1065.220 is amended by revising paragraph (a) introductory
text and adding paragraph (a)(1)(iii) to read as follows:
[[Page 57442]]
Sec. 1065.220 Fuel flow meter.
(a) Application. You may use fuel flow in combination with a
chemical balance of fuel, inlet air, and raw exhaust to calculate raw
exhaust flow as described in Sec. 1065.655(e), as follows:
(1) * * *
(iii) For calculating the dilution air flow for background
correction as described in Sec. 1065.667.
* * * * *
0
47. Section 1065.225 is amended by revising paragraph (a) introductory
text and adding paragraphs (a)(1)(iii) and (a)(1)(iv) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1065.225 Intake-air flow meter.
* * * * *
(a) Application. You may use an intake-air flow meter in
combination with a chemical balance of fuel, inlet air, and raw exhaust
to calculate raw exhaust flow as described in Sec. 1065.655(e) and
(f), as follows:
(1) * * *
(iii) For validating minimum dilution ratio for PM batch sampling
as described in Sec. 1065.546.
(iv) For calculating the dilution air flow for background
correction as described in Sec. 1065.667.
* * * * *
0
48. Section 1065.250 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 1065.250 Nondispersive infrared analyzer.
(a) Application. Use a nondispersive infrared (NDIR) analyzer to
measure CO and CO2 concentrations in raw or diluted exhaust
for either batch or continuous sampling.
(b) Component requirements. We recommend that you use an NDIR
analyzer that meets the specifications in Table 1 of Sec. 1065.205.
Note that your NDIR-based system must meet the calibration and
verifications in Sec. Sec. 1065.350 and 1065.355 and it must also meet
the linearity verification in Sec. 1065.307. You may use an NDIR
analyzer that has compensation algorithms that are functions of other
gaseous measurements and the engine's known or assumed fuel properties.
The target value for any compensation algorithm is 0% (that is, no bias
high and no bias low), regardless of the uncompensated signal's bias.
0
49. Section 1065.260 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 1065.260 Flame-ionization detector.
(a) Application. Use a flame-ionization detector (FID) analyzer to
measure hydrocarbon concentrations in raw or diluted exhaust for either
batch or continuous sampling. Determine hydrocarbon concentrations on a
carbon number basis of one, C1. For measuring THC or THCE
you must use a FID analyzer. For measuring CH4 you must meet
the requirements of paragraph (f) of this section. See subpart I of
this part for special provisions that apply to measuring hydrocarbons
when testing with oxygenated fuels.
(b) Component requirements. We recommend that you use a FID
analyzer that meets the specifications in Table 1 of Sec. 1065.205.
Note that your FID-based system for measuring THC, THCE, or
CH4 must meet all the verifications for hydrocarbon
measurement in subpart D of this part, and it must also meet the
linearity verification in Sec. 1065.307. You may use a FID analyzer
that has compensation algorithms that are functions of other gaseous
measurements and the engine's known or assumed fuel properties. The
target value for any compensation algorithm is 0% (that is, no bias
high and no bias low), regardless of the uncompensated signal's bias.
(c) Heated FID analyzers. For measuring THC or THCE from
compression-ignition engines, two-stroke spark-ignition engines, and
four-stroke spark-ignition engines below 19 kW, you must use heated FID
analyzers that maintain all surfaces that are exposed to emissions at a
temperature of (191 11) [deg]C.
(d) FID fuel and burner air. Use FID fuel and burner air that meet
the specifications of Sec. 1065.750. Do not allow the FID fuel and
burner air to mix before entering the FID analyzer to ensure that the
FID analyzer operates with a diffusion flame and not a premixed flame.
(e) NMHC. For demonstrating compliance with NMHC standards, you may
either measure THC and CH4 and determine NMHC as described
in Sec. 1065.660(b)(2) or (3), or you may measure THC and determine
NMHC as described in Sec. 1065.660(b)(1).
(f) CH4. For reporting CH4 or for demonstrating
compliance with CH4 standards, you may use a FID analyzer
with a nonmethane cutter as described in Sec. 1065.265 or you may use
a GC-FID as described in Sec. 1065.267. Determine CH4 as
described in Sec. 1065.660(c).
0
50. Section 1065.265 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1065.265 Nonmethane cutter.
* * * * *
(b) System performance. Determine nonmethane-cutter performance as
described in Sec. 1065.365 and use the results to calculate
CH4 or NMHC emissions in Sec. 1065.660.
* * * * *
0
51. Section 1065.267 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 1065.267 Gas chromatograph with a flame ionization detector.
(a) Application. You may use a gas chromatograph with a flame
ionization detector (GC-FID) to measure CH4 concentrations
of diluted exhaust for batch sampling. While you may also use a
nonmethane cutter to measure CH4, as described in Sec.
1065.265, use a reference procedure based on a gas chromatograph for
comparison with any proposed alternate measurement procedure under
Sec. 1065.10.
(b) Component requirements. We recommend that you use a GC-FID that
meets the specifications in Table 1 of Sec. 1065.205, and it must also
meet the linearity verification in Sec. 1065.307.
0
52. Section 1065.270 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1065.270 Chemiluminescent detector.
* * * * *
(b) Component requirements. We recommend that you use a CLD that
meets the specifications in Table 1 of Sec. 1065.205. Note that your
CLD-based system must meet the quench verification in Sec. 1065.370
and it must also meet the linearity verification in Sec. 1065.307. You
may use a heated or unheated CLD, and you may use a CLD that operates
at atmospheric pressure or under a vacuum. You may use a CLD that has
compensation algorithms that are functions of other gaseous
measurements and the engine's known or assumed fuel properties. The
target value for any compensation algorithm is 0% (that is, no bias
high and no bias low), regardless of the uncompensated signal's bias.
* * * * *
0
53. Section 1065.272 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1065.272 N2O measurement devices.
* * * * *
(b) Component requirements. We recommend that you use an NDUV
analyzer that meets the specifications in Table 1 of Sec. 1065.205.
Note that your NDUV-based system must meet the verifications in Sec.
1065.372 and it must also meet the linearity verification in Sec.
1065.307. You may use a NDUV analyzer that has compensation algorithms
that are functions of other gaseous measurements and the engine's known
or assumed fuel properties. The target value for any compensation
algorithm is 0% (that is, no bias high and no bias low), regardless of
the uncompensated signal's bias.
* * * * *
[[Page 57443]]
0
54. Section 1065.275 is amended by revising paragraphs (b) and (c) to
read as follows:
Sec. 1065.275 N2O measurement devices.
* * * * *
(b) Instrument types. You may use any of the following analyzers to
measure N2O:
(1) Nondispersive infrared (NDIR) analyzer. You may use an NDIR
analyzer that has compensation algorithms that are functions of other
gaseous measurements and the engine's known or assumed fuel properties.
The target value for any compensation algorithm is 0% (that is, no bias
high and no bias low), regardless of the uncompensated signal's bias.
(2) Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) analyzer. You may use an FTIR
analyzer that has compensation algorithms that are functions of other
gaseous measurements and the engine's known or assumed fuel properties.
The target value for any compensation algorithm is 0% (that is, no bias
high and no bias low), regardless of the uncompensated signal's bias.
Use appropriate analytical procedures for interpretation of infrared
spectra. For example, EPA Test Method 320 is considered a valid method
for spectral interpretation (see http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/methods/method320.html).
(3) Laser infrared analyzer. You may use a laser infrared analyzer
that has compensation algorithms that are functions of other gaseous
measurements and the engine's known or assumed fuel properties. The
target value for any compensation algorithm is 0% (that is, no bias
high and no bias low), regardless of the uncompensated signal's bias.
Examples of laser infrared analyzers are pulsed-mode high-resolution
narrow band mid-infrared analyzers, and modulated continuous wave high-
resolution narrow band mid-infrared analyzers.
(4) Photoacoustic analyzer. You may use a photoacoustic analyzer
that has compensation algorithms that are functions of other gaseous
measurements. The target value for any compensation algorithm is 0%
(that is, no bias high and no bias low), regardless of the
uncompensated signal's bias. Use an optical wheel configuration that
gives analytical priority to measurement of the least stable components
in the sample. Select a sample integration time of at least 5 seconds.
Take into account sample chamber and sample line volumes when
determining flush times for your instrument.
(5) Gas chromatograph analyzer. You may use a gas chromatograph
with an electron-capture detector (GC-ECD) to measure N2O
concentrations of diluted exhaust for batch sampling.
(i) You may use a packed or porous layer open tubular (PLOT) column
phase of suitable polarity and length to achieve adequate resolution of
the N2O peak for analysis. Examples of acceptable columns
are a PLOT column consisting of bonded polystyrene-divinylbenzene or a
Porapack Q packed column. Take the column temperature profile and
carrier gas selection into consideration when setting up your method to
achieve adequate N2O peak resolution.
(ii) Use good engineering judgment to zero your instrument and
correct for drift. You do not need to follow the specific procedures in
Sec. Sec. 1065.530 and 1065.550(b) that would otherwise apply. For
example, you may perform a span gas measurement before and after sample
analysis without zeroing and use the average area counts of the pre-
span and post-span measurements to generate a response factor (area
counts/span gas concentration), which you then multiply by the area
counts from your sample to generate the sample concentration.
(c) Interference verification. Perform interference verification
for NDIR, FTIR, laser infrared analyzers, and photoacoustic analyzers
using the procedures of Sec. 1065.375. Interference verification is
not required for GC-ECD. Certain interference gases can positively
interfere with NDIR, FTIR, and photoacoustic analyzers by causing a
response similar to N2O. When running the interference
verification for these analyzers, use interference gases as follows:
(1) The interference gases for NDIR analyzers are CO,
CO2, H2O, CH4, and SO2.
Note that interference species, with the exception of H2O,
are dependent on the N2O infrared absorption band chosen by
the instrument manufacturer. For each analyzer determine the
N2O infrared absorption band. For each N2O
infrared absorption band, use good engineering judgment to determine
which interference gases to use in the verification.
(2) Use good engineering judgment to determine interference gases
for FTIR, and laser infrared analyzers. Note that interference species,
with the exception of H2O, are dependent on the
N2O infrared absorption band chosen by the instrument
manufacturer. For each analyzer determine the N2O infrared
absorption band. For each N2O infrared absorption band, use
good engineering judgment to determine interference gases to use in the
verification.
(3) The interference gases for photoacoustic analyzers are CO,
CO2, and H2O.
0
55. Section 1065.280 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1065.280 Paramagnetic and magnetopneumatic O2 detection
analyzers.
* * * * *
(b) Component requirements. We recommend that you use a PMD or MPD
analyzer that meets the specifications in Table 1 of Sec. 1065.205.
Note that it must meet the linearity verification in Sec. 1065.307.
You may use a PMD or MPD that has compensation algorithms that are
functions of other gaseous measurements and the engine's known or
assumed fuel properties. The target value for any compensation
algorithm is 0% (that is, no bias high and no bias low), regardless of
the uncompensated signal's bias.
0
56. Section 1065.284 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1065.284 Zirconia (ZrO2) analyzer.
* * * * *
(b) Component requirements. We recommend that you use a
ZrO2 analyzer that meets the specifications in Table 1 of
Sec. 1065.205. Note that your ZrO2-based system must meet
the linearity verification in Sec. 1065.307. You may use a Zirconia
analyzer that has compensation algorithms that are functions of other
gaseous measurements and the engine's known or assumed fuel properties.
The target value for any compensation algorithm is 0% (that is, no bias
high and no bias low), regardless of the uncompensated signal's bias.
0
57. Section 1065.295 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1065.295 PM inertial balance for field-testing analysis.
* * * * *
(b) Component requirements. We recommend that you use a balance
that meets the specifications in Table 1 of Sec. 1065.205. Note that
your balance-based system must meet the linearity verification in Sec.
1065.307. If the balance uses an internal calibration process for
routine spanning and linearity verifications, the process must be NIST-
traceable. You may use an inertial PM balance that has compensation
algorithms that are functions of other gaseous measurements and the
engine's known or assumed fuel properties. The target value for any
compensation algorithm is 0% (that is, no bias high and no bias low),
regardless of the uncompensated signal's bias.
* * * * *
[[Page 57444]]
Subpart D--[Amended]
0
58. Section 1065.303 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 1065.303 Summary of required calibration and verifications.
The following table summarizes the required and recommended
calibrations and verifications described in this subpart and indicates
when these have to be performed:
Table 1 of Sec. 1065.303--Summary of Required Calibration and
Verifications
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type of calibration or
verification Minimum frequency \a\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 1065.305: Accuracy, Accuracy: Not required, but recommended
repeatability and noise. for initial installation.
Repeatability: Not required, but
recommended for initial installation.
Noise: Not required, but recommended for
initial installation.
Sec. 1065.307: Linearity Speed: Upon initial installation, within
verification. 370 days before testing and after major
maintenance.
Torque: Upon initial installation, within
370 days before testing and after major
maintenance.
Electrical power: Upon initial
installation, within 370 days before
testing and after major maintenance.
Fuel flow rate: Upon initial
installation, within 370 days before
testing, and after major maintenance.
Intake-air, dilution air, diluted
exhaust, and batch sampler flow rates:
Upon initial installation, within 370
days before testing and after major
maintenance, unless flow is verified by
propane check or by carbon or oxygen
balance.
Raw exhaust flow rate: Upon initial
installation, within 185 days before
testing and after major maintenance,
unless flow is verified by propane check
or by carbon or oxygen balance.
Gas dividers: Upon initial installation,
within 370 days before testing, and
after major maintenance.
Gas analyzers (unless otherwise noted):
Upon initial installation, within 35
days before testing and after major
maintenance.
FTIR and photoacoustic analyzers: Upon
initial installation, within 370 days
before testing and after major
maintenance.
GC-ECD: Upon initial installation and
after major maintenance.
PM balance: Upon initial installation,
within 370 days before testing and after
major maintenance.
Pressure, temperature, and dewpoint: Upon
initial installation, within 370 days
before testing and after major
maintenance.
Sec. 1065.308: Continuous Upon initial installation or after system
gas analyzer system response modification that would affect response.
and updating-recording
verification--for gas
analyzers not continuously
compensated for other gas
species.
Sec. 1065.309: Continuous Upon initial installation or after system
gas analyzer system-response modification that would affect response.
and updating-recording
verification--for gas
analyzers continuously
compensated for other gas
species.
Sec. 1065.310: Torque...... Upon initial installation and after major
maintenance.
Sec. 1065.315: Pressure, Upon initial installation and after major
temperature, dewpoint. maintenance.
Sec. 1065.320: Fuel flow... Upon initial installation and after major
maintenance.
Sec. 1065.325: Intake flow. Upon initial installation and after major
maintenance.
Sec. 1065.330: Exhaust flow Upon initial installation and after major
maintenance.
Sec. 1065.340: Diluted Upon initial installation and after major
exhaust flow (CVS). maintenance.
Sec. 1065.341: CVS and Upon initial installation, within 35 days
batch sampler verification before testing, and after major
\b\. maintenance.
Sec. 1065.342 Sample dryer For thermal chillers: upon installation
verification. and after major maintenance.
For osmotic membranes; upon installation,
within 35 days of testing, and after
major maintenance.
Sec. 1065.345: Vacuum leak. For laboratory testing: upon initial
installation of the sampling system,
within 8 hours before the start of the
first test interval of each duty-cycle
sequence, and after maintenance such as
pre-filter changes.
For field testing: after each
installation of the sampling system on
the vehicle, prior to the start of the
field test, and after maintenance such
as pre-filter changes.
Sec. 1065.350: CO2 NDIR H2O Upon initial installation and after major
interference. maintenance.
Sec. 1065.355: CO NDIR CO2 Upon initial installation and after major
and H2O interference. maintenance.
Sec. 1065.360: FID Calibrate all FID analyzers: upon initial
calibrationn. installation and after major
maintenance.
THC FID optimization, and THC Optimize and determine CH4 response for
FID verification. THC FID analyzers: upon initial
installation and after major
maintenance.
Verify CH4 response for THC FID
analyzers: upon initial installation,
within 185 days before testing, and
after major maintenance.
Sec. 1065.362: Raw exhaust For all FID analyzers: upon initial
FID O2 interference. installation, and after major
maintenance.
For THC FID analyzers: upon initial
installation, after major maintenance,
and after FID optimization according to
Sec. 1065.360.
Sec. 1065.365: Nonmethane Upon initial installation, within 185
cutter penetration. days before testing, and after major
maintenance.
Sec. 1065.370: CLD CO2 and Upon initial installation and after major
H2O quench. maintenance.
Sec. 1065.372: NDUV HC and Upon initial installation and after major
H2O interference. maintenance.
Sec. 1065.375: N2O analyzer Upon initial installation and after major
interference. maintenance.
Sec. 1065.376: Chiller NO2 Upon initial installation and after major
penetration. maintenance.
Sec. 1065.378: NO2-to-NO Upon initial installation, within 35 days
converter conversion. before testing, and after major
maintenance.
[[Page 57445]]
Sec. 1065.390: PM balance Independent verification: upon initial
and weighing. installation, within 370 days before
testing, and after major maintenance.
Zero, span, and reference sample
verifications: within 12 hours of
weighing, and after major maintenance.
Sec. 1065.395: Inertial PM Independent verification: upon initial
balance and weighing. installation, within 370 days before
testing, and after major maintenance.
Other verifications: upon initial
installation and after major
maintenance.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Perform calibrations and verifications more frequently, according to
measurement system manufacturer instructions and good engineering
judgment.
\b\ The CVS verification described in Sec. 1065.341 is not required
for systems that agree within 2% based on a chemical
balance of carbon or oxygen of the intake air, fuel, and diluted
exhaust.
0
59. Section 1065.307 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and Table 1
at the end of the section to read as follows:
Sec. 1065.307 Linearity verification.
(a) Scope and frequency. Perform a linearity verification on each
measurement system listed in Table 1 of this section at least as
frequently as indicated in Table 1 of Sec. 1065.303, consistent with
measurement system manufacturer recommendations and good engineering
judgment. Note that this linearity verification may replace
requirements we previously referred to as ``calibrations''. The intent
of a linearity verification is to determine that a measurement system
responds proportionally over the measurement range of interest. A
linearity verification generally consists of introducing a series of at
least 10 reference values to a measurement system. The measurement
system quantifies each reference value. The measured values are then
collectively compared to the reference values by using a least squares
linear regression and the linearity criteria specified in Table 1 of
this section.
* * * * *
Table 1 of Sec. 1065.307--Measurement Systems That Require Linearity Verifications
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linearity criteria
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Measurement system Quantity [verbarlm]
xmin(a1-1)+a0 a1 SEE r\2\
[verbarlm]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speed........................... [fnof]n <= 0.05% [middot] 0.98-1.02 <= 2% [middot] >= 0.990
[fnof]nmax [fnof]nmax
Torque.......................... T <= 1% [middot] 0.98-1.02 <= 2% [middot] >= 0.990
Tmax. Tmax.
Electrical power................ P <= 1% [middot] 0.98-1.02 <= 2% [middot] >= 0.990
Pmax. Pmax.
Fuel flow rate.................. mb <= 1% [middot] 0.98-1.02 <= 2% [middot] >= 0.990
mbmax. mbmax
Intake-air flow rate............ nb <= 1% [middot] 0.98-1.02 <= 2% [middot] >= 0.990
nbmax. nbmax.
Dilution air flow rate.......... nb <= 1% [middot] 0.98-1.02 <= 2% [middot] >= 0.990
nbmax. nbmax.
Diluted exhaust flow rate....... nb <= 1% [middot] 0.98-1.02 <= 2% [middot] >= 0.990
nbmax. nbmax.
Raw exhaust flow rate........... nb <= 1% [middot] 0.98-1.02 <= 2% [middot] >= 0.990
nbmax. nbmax.
Batch sampler flow rates........ nb <= 1% [middot] 0.98-1.02 <= 2% [middot] >= 0.990
nbmax. nbmax.
Gas dividers.................... x/xspan <= 0.5% [middot] 0.98-1.02 <= 2% [middot] >= 0.990
xmax/xspan xmax/xspan
Gas analyzers for laboratory x <= 0.5% [middot] 0.99-1.01 <= 1% [middot] >= 0.998
testing. xbmax. xbmax.
Gas analyzers for field testing. x <= 1% [middot] 0.99-1.01 <= 1% [middot] >= 0.998
xbmax. xbmax.
PM balance...................... m <= 1% [middot] 0.99-1.01 <= 1% [middot] >= 0.998
mmax. mbmax.
Pressures....................... p <= 1% [middot] 0.99-1.01 <= 1% [middot] >= 0.998
pbmax. pbmax.
Dewpoint for intake air, PM- Tdew <= 0.5% [middot] 0.99-1.01 <= 0.5% [middot] >= 0.998
stabilization and balance Tdewmax Tdewmax
environments.
Other dewpoint measurements..... Tdew <= 1% [middot] 0.99-1.01 <= 1% [middot] >= 0.998
Tdewmax Tdewmax
Analog-to-digital conversion of T <= 1% [middot] 0.99-1.01 <= 1% [middot] >= 0.998
temperature signals. Tbmax Tmax
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
60. Section 1065.340 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) through (g),
adding paragraph (h), and adding and reserving paragraph (i) before
Figure 1 to read as follows:
Sec. 1065.340 Diluted exhaust flow (CVS) calibration.
(a) Overview. This section describes how to calibrate flow meters
for diluted exhaust constant-volume sampling (CVS) systems.
(b) Scope and frequency. Perform this calibration while the flow
meter is installed in its permanent position, except as allowed in
paragraph (c) of this section. Perform this calibration after you
change any part of the flow configuration upstream or downstream of the
flow meter that may affect the flow-meter calibration. Perform this
calibration upon initial CVS installation and whenever corrective
action does not resolve a failure to meet the diluted exhaust flow
verification (i.e., propane check) in Sec. 1065.341.
(c) Ex-situ CFV and SSV calibration. You may remove a CFV or SSV
from its permanent position for calibration as long as it meets the
following requirements when installed in the CVS:
(1) Upon installation of the CFV or SSV into the CVS, use good
engineering judgment to verify that you have not introduced any leaks
between the CVS inlet and the venturi.
(2) After ex-situ venturi calibration, you must verify all venturi
flow combinations for CFVs or at minimum of 10 flow points for an SSV
using the propane check as described in Sec. 1065.341. Your propane
check result for each venturi flow point may not exceed the tolerance
in Sec. 1065.341(f)(5).
(3) To verify your ex-situ calibration for a CVS with more than a
single CFV, perform the following check to verify that there are no
flow meter entrance effects that can prevent you from passing this
verification.
[[Page 57446]]
(i) Use a constant flow device like a CFO kit to deliver a constant
flow of propane to the dilution tunnel.
(ii) Measure hydrocarbon concentrations at a minimum of 10 separate
flow rates for an SSV flow meter, or at all possible flow combinations
for a CFV flow meter, while keeping the flow of propane constant. We
recommend selecting CVS flow rates in a random order.
(iii) Measure the concentration of hydrocarbon background in the
dilution air at the beginning and end of this test. Subtract the
average background concentration from each measurement at each flow
point before performing the regression analysis in paragraph (c)(3)(iv)
of this section.
(iv) Perform a power regression using all the paired values of flow
rate and corrected concentration to obtain a relationship in the form
of y = a [middot] x \b\. Use concentration as the independent variable
and flow rate as the dependent variable. For each data point, calculate
the difference between the measured flow rate and the value represented
by the curve fit. The difference at each point must be less than 1% of the appropriate regression value. The value of b must be
between -1.005 and -0.995. If your results do not meet these limits,
take corrective action consistent with Sec. 1065.341(a).
(d) Reference flow meter. Calibrate a CVS flow meter using a
reference flow meter such as a subsonic venturi flow meter, a long-
radius ASME/NIST flow nozzle, a smooth approach orifice, a laminar flow
element, a set of critical flow venturis, or an ultrasonic flow meter.
Use a reference flow meter that reports quantities that are NIST-
traceable within 1% uncertainty. Use this reference flow
meter's response to flow as the reference value for CVS flow-meter
calibration.
(e) Configuration. Do not use an upstream screen or other
restriction that could affect the flow ahead of the reference flow
meter, unless the flow meter has been calibrated with such a
restriction.
(f) PDP calibration. Calibrate a positive-displacement pump (PDP)
to determine a flow-versus-PDP speed equation that accounts for flow
leakage across sealing surfaces in the PDP as a function of PDP inlet
pressure. Determine unique equation coefficients for each speed at
which you operate the PDP. Calibrate a PDP flow meter as follows:
(1) Connect the system as shown in Figure 1 of this section.
(2) Leaks between the calibration flow meter and the PDP must be
less than 0.3% of the total flow at the lowest calibrated flow point;
for example, at the highest restriction and lowest PDP-speed point.
(3) While the PDP operates, maintain a constant temperature at the
PDP inlet within 2% of the mean absolute inlet temperature,
Tin.
(4) Set the PDP speed to the first speed point at which you intend
to calibrate.
(5) Set the variable restrictor to its wide-open position.
(6) Operate the PDP for at least 3 min to stabilize the system.
Continue operating the PDP and record the mean values of at least 30
seconds of sampled data of each of the following quantities:
(i) The mean flow rate of the reference flow meter,
nref. This may include several measurements of different
quantities, such as reference meter pressures and temperatures, for
calculating nref.
(ii) The mean temperature at the PDP inlet, Tin.
(iii) The mean static absolute pressure at the PDP inlet,
pin.
(iv) The mean static absolute pressure at the PDP outlet,
pout.
HERE
(v) The mean PDP speed, fnPDP.
HERE
(7) Incrementally close the restrictor valve to decrease the
absolute pressure at the inlet to the PDP, pin.
(8) Repeat the steps in paragraphs (e)(6) and (7) of this section
to record data at a minimum of six restrictor positions ranging from
the wide open restrictor position to the minimum expected pressure at
the PDP inlet.
(9) Calibrate the PDP by using the collected data and the equations
in Sec. 1065.640.
(10) Repeat the steps in paragraphs (e)(6) through (9) of this
section for each speed at which you operate the PDP.
(11) Use the equations in Sec. 1065.642 to determine the PDP flow
equation for emission testing.
(12) Verify the calibration by performing a CVS verification (i.e.,
propane check) as described in Sec. 1065.341.
(13) Do not use the PDP below the lowest inlet pressure tested
during calibration.
(g) CFV calibration. Calibrate a critical-flow venturi (CFV) to
verify its discharge coefficient, Cd, at the lowest expected
static differential pressure between the CFV inlet and outlet.
Calibrate a CFV flow meter as follows:
(1) Connect the system as shown in Figure 1 of this section.
(2) Verify that any leaks between the calibration flow meter and
the CFV are less than 0.3% of the total flow at the highest
restriction.
(3) Start the blower downstream of the CFV.
(4) While the CFV operates, maintain a constant temperature at the
CFV inlet within 2% of the mean absolute inlet temperature,
Tin.
(5) Set the variable restrictor to its wide-open position. Instead
of a variable restrictor, you may alternately vary the pressure
downstream of the CFV by varying blower speed or by introducing a
controlled leak. Note that some blowers have limitations on nonloaded
conditions.
(6) Operate the CFV for at least 3 min to stabilize the system.
Continue operating the CFV and record the mean values of at least 30
seconds of sampled data of each of the following quantities:
(i) The mean flow rate of the reference flow meter,
nref. This may include several measurements of different
quantities, such as reference meter pressures and temperatures, for
calculating nref.
(ii) The mean dewpoint of the calibration air, Tdew. See
Sec. 1065.640 for permissible assumptions during emission
measurements.
(iii) The mean temperature at the venturi inlet, Tin.
(iv) The mean static absolute pressure at the venturi inlet,
pin.
(v) The mean static differential pressure between the CFV inlet and
the CFV outlet, [Delta]pCFV.
(7) Incrementally close the restrictor valve or decrease the
downstream pressure to decrease the differential pressure across the
CFV, [Delta]pCFV.
(8) Repeat the steps in paragraphs (f)(6) and (7) of this section
to record mean data at a minimum of ten restrictor positions, such that
you test the fullest practical range of [Delta]pCFV expected
during testing. We do not require that you remove calibration
components or CVS components to calibrate at the lowest possible
restrictions.
(9) Determine Cd and the lowest allowable pressure
ratio, r, according to Sec. 1065.640.
(10) Use Cd to determine CFV flow during an emission
test. Do not use the CFV below the lowest allowed r, as determined in
Sec. 1065.640.
(11) Verify the calibration by performing a CVS verification (i.e.,
propane check) as described in Sec. 1065.341.
(12) If your CVS is configured to operate more than one CFV at a
time in parallel, calibrate your CVS by one of the following:
(i) Calibrate every combination of CFVs according to this section
and Sec. 1065.640. Refer to Sec. 1065.642 for
[[Page 57447]]
instructions on calculating flow rates for this option.
(ii) Calibrate each CFV according to this section and Sec.
1065.640. Refer to Sec. 1065.642 for instructions on calculating flow
rates for this option.
(h) SSV calibration. Calibrate a subsonic venturi (SSV) to
determine its calibration coefficient, Cd, for the expected
range of inlet pressures. Calibrate an SSV flow meter as follows:
(1) Connect the system as shown in Figure 1 of this section.
(2) Verify that any leaks between the calibration flow meter and
the SSV are less than 0.3% of the total flow at the highest
restriction.
(3) Start the blower downstream of the SSV.
(4) While the SSV operates, maintain a constant temperature at the
SSV inlet within 2% of the mean absolute inlet temperature,
Tin.
(5) Set the variable restrictor or variable-speed blower to a flow
rate greater than the greatest flow rate expected during testing. You
may not extrapolate flow rates beyond calibrated values, so we
recommend that you make sure the Reynolds number, Re#, at the SSV
throat at the greatest calibrated flow rate is greater than the maximum
Re# expected during testing.
(6) Operate the SSV for at least 3 min to stabilize the system.
Continue operating the SSV and record the mean of at least 30 seconds
of sampled data of each of the following quantities:
(i) The mean flow rate of the reference flow meter nref.
This may include several measurements of different quantities, such as
reference meter pressures and temperatures, for calculating
nref.
(ii) Optionally, the mean dewpoint of the calibration air,
Tdew. See Sec. 1065.640 for permissible assumptions.
(iii) The mean temperature at the venturi inlet, Tin.
(iv) The mean static absolute pressure at the venturi inlet,
pin.
(v) Static differential pressure between the static pressure at the
venturi inlet and the static pressure at the venturi throat,
[Delta]pssv.
(7) Incrementally close the restrictor valve or decrease the blower
speed to decrease the flow rate.
(8) Repeat the steps in paragraphs (g)(6) and (7) of this section
to record data at a minimum of ten flow rates.
(9) Determine a functional form of Cd versus Re# by
using the collected data and the equations in Sec. 1065.640.
(10) Verify the calibration by performing a CVS verification (i.e.,
propane check) as described in Sec. 1065.341 using the new
Cd versus Re# equation.
(11) Use the SSV only between the minimum and maximum calibrated
flow rates.
(12) Use the equations in Sec. 1065.642 to determine SSV flow
during a test.
(i) Ultrasonic flow meter calibration. [Reserved]
* * * * *
0
61. Section 1065.341 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(5), (a)(6),
and (f)(5) and adding paragraph (a)(7) to read as follows:
Sec. 1065.341 CVS and batch sampler verification (propane check).
(a) * * *
(5) Change in CVS calibration. Perform a calibration of the CVS
flow meter as described in Sec. 1065.340.
(6) Flow meter entrance effects. Inspect the CVS tunnel to
determine whether the entrance effects from the piping configuration
upstream of the flow meter adversely affect the flow measurement.
(7) Other problems with the CVS or sampling verification hardware
or software. Inspect the CVS system, CVS verification hardware, and
software for discrepancies.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(5) Subtract the reference C3H8 mass from the
calculated mass. If this difference is within 2% of the
reference mass, the CVS passes this verification. If not, take
corrective action as described in paragraph (a) of this section.
* * * * *
0
62. Section 1065.350 is amended by revising paragraph (d)(7) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1065.350 H2O interference verification for CO2 NDIR analyzers.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(7) While the analyzer measures the sample's concentration, record
30 seconds of sampled data. Calculate the arithmetic mean of this data.
The analyzer meets the interference verification if this value is
within (0.0 0.4) mmol/mol.
* * * * *
0
63. Section 1065.360 is amended by revising paragraph (e) introductory
text to read as follows:
Sec. 1065.360 FID optimization and verification.
* * * * *
(e) THC FID methane (CH4) response verification. This procedure is
only for FID analyzers that measure THC. If the value of
RFCH4[THC-FID] from paragraph (d) of this section is within
5% of its most recent previously determined value, the THC
FID passes the methane response verification. For example, if the most
recent previous value for RFCH4[THC-FID] was 1.05 and it
changed by 0.05 to become 1.10 or it changed by -0.05 to
become 1.00, either case would be acceptable because 4.8%
is less than 5%. Verify RFCH4[THC-FID] as
follows:
* * * * *
0
64. Section 1065.370 is amended by revising paragraph (g)(1) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1065.370 CLD CO2 and H2O quench verification.
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(1) You may omit this verification if you can show by engineering
analysis that for your NOX sampling system and your emission
calculation procedures, the combined CO2 and H2O
interference for your NOX CLD analyzer always affects your
brake-specific NOX emission results within no more than
1% of the applicable NOX standard. If you
certify to a combined emission standard (such as a NOX +
NMHC standard), scale your NOX results to the combined
standard based on the measured results (after incorporating
deterioration factors, if applicable). For example, if your final
NOX + NMHC value is half of the emission standard, double
the NOX result to estimate the level of NOX
emissions corresponding to the applicable standard.
* * * * *
0
65. Section 1065.372 is amended by revising paragraph (e)(1) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1065.372 NDUV analyzer HC and H2O interference verification.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(1) You may omit this verification if you can show by engineering
analysis that for your NOX sampling system and your emission
calculation procedures, the combined HC and H2O interference
for your NOX NDUV analyzer always affects your brake-
specific NOX emission results by less than 0.5% of the
applicable NOX standard.
* * * * *
0
66. Section 1065.378 is amended by revising paragraph (d)(3)(iv) to
read as follows:
Sec. 1065.378 NO2-to-NO converter conversion verification.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(3) * * *
(iv) Switch the ozonator on and adjust the ozone generation rate so
the NO
[[Page 57448]]
measured by the analyzer is 20 percent of xNOref or a value
which would simulate the maximum concentration of NO2
expected during testing, while maintaining at least 10 percent
unreacted NO. This ensures that the ozonator is generating
NO2 at the maximum concentration expected during testing.
Record the concentration of NO by calculating the mean of 30 seconds of
sampled data from the analyzer and record this value as
xNOmeas.
* * * * *
Subpart F--[Amended]
0
67. Section 1065.510 is amended as follows:
0
a. By revising paragraphs (a) introductory text, (b)(5)(i), and (b)(6).
0
b. By adding paragraph (b)(7).
0
c. By revising paragraphs (c)(2), (d)(5), (f)(3), (f)(5), and (g).
0
d. By adding paragraphs (c)(4) and (h) to read as follows:
Sec. 1065.510 Engine mapping.
(a) Applicability, scope, and frequency. An engine map is a data
set that consists of a series of paired data points that represent the
maximum brake torque versus engine speed, measured at the engine's
primary output shaft. Map your engine if the standard-setting part
requires engine mapping to generate a duty cycle for your engine
configuration. Map your engine while it is connected to a dynamometer
or other device that can absorb work output from the engine's primary
output shaft according to Sec. 1065.110. To establish speed and torque
values for mapping, we generally recommend that you stabilize an engine
for at least 15 seconds at each setpoint and record the mean feedback
speed and torque of the last (4 to 6) seconds. Configure any auxiliary
work inputs and outputs such as hybrid, turbo-compounding, or
thermoelectric systems to represent their in-use configurations, and
use the same configuration for emission testing. See Figure 1 of Sec.
1065.210. This may involve configuring initial states of charge and
rates and times of auxiliary-work inputs and outputs. We recommend that
you contact the Designated Compliance Officer before testing to
determine how you should configure any auxiliary-work inputs and
outputs. Use the most recent engine map to transform a normalized duty
cycle from the standard-setting part to a reference duty cycle specific
to your engine. Normalized duty cycles are specified in the standard-
setting part. You may update an engine map at any time by repeating the
engine-mapping procedure. You must map or re-map an engine before a
test if any of the following apply:
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(5) * * *
(i) For any engine subject only to steady-state duty cycles, you
may perform an engine map by using discrete speeds. Select at least 20
evenly spaced setpoints from 95% of warm idle speed to the highest
speed above maximum power at which 50% of maximum power occurs. We
refer to this 50% speed as the check point speed as described in
paragraph (b)(5)(iii) of this section. At each setpoint, stabilize
speed and allow torque to stabilize. Record the mean speed and torque
at each setpoint. Use linear interpolation to determine intermediate
speeds and torques. Use this series of speeds and torques to generate
the power map as described in paragraph (e) of this section.
* * * * *
(6) Use one of the following methods to determine warm high-idle
speed for engines with a high-speed governor if they are subject to
transient testing with a duty cycle that includes reference speed
values above 100%:
(i) You may use a manufacturer-declared warm high-idle speed if the
engine is electronically governed. For engines with a high-speed
governor that shuts off torque output at a manufacturer-specified speed
and reactivates at a lower manufacturer-specified speed (such as
engines that use ignition cut-off for governing), declare the middle of
the specified speed range as the warm high-idle speed.
(ii) Measure the warm high-idle speed using the following
procedure:
(A) Set operator demand to maximum and use the dynamometer to
target zero torque on the engine's primary output shaft. If the mean
feedback torque is within 1% of Tmax mapped, you
may use the observed mean feedback speed at that point as the measured
warm high-idle speed.
(B) If the engine is unstable as a result of in-use production
components (such as engines that use ignition cut-off for governing, as
opposed to unstable dynamometer operation), you must use the mean
feedback speed from paragraph (b)(6)(ii)(A) of this section as the
measured warm high-idle speed. The engine is considered unstable if any
of the 1 Hz speed feedback values are not within 2% of the
calculated mean feedback speed. We recommend that you determine the
mean as the value representing the midpoint between the observed
maximum and minimum recorded feedback speed.
(C) If your dynamometer is not capable of achieving a mean feedback
torque within 1% of Tmax mapped, operate the
engine at a second point with operator demand set to maximum with the
dynamometer set to target a torque equal to the recorded mean feedback
torque on the previous point plus 20% of Tmax mapped. Use
this data point and the data point from paragraph (b)(6)(ii)(A) of this
section to extrapolate the engine speed where torque is equal to zero.
(D) You may use a manufacturer-declared Tmax instead of
the measured Tmax mapped. If you do this, or if you are able
to determine mean feedback speed as described in paragraphs
(b)(6)(ii)(A) and (B) of this section, you may measure the warm high-
idle speed before running the speed sweep specified in paragraph (b)(5)
of this section.
(7) For engines with a low-speed governor, if a nonzero idle torque
is representative of in-use operation, operate the engine at warm idle
with the manufacturer-declared idle torque. Set the operator demand to
minimum, use the dynamometer to target the declared idle torque, and
allow the engine to govern the speed. Measure this speed and use it as
the warm idle speed for cycle generation in Sec. 1065.512. We
recommend recording at least 30 values of speed and using the mean of
those values. If you identify multiple warm idle torques under
paragraph (f)(4)(i) of this section, measure the warm idle speed at
each torque. You may map the idle governor at multiple load levels and
use this map to determine the measured warm idle speed at the declared
idle torque(s).
(c) * * *
(2) Map the amount of negative torque required to motor the engine
by repeating paragraph (b) of this section with minimum operator
demand. You may start the negative torque map at either the minimum or
maximum speed from paragraph (b) of this section.
* * * * *
(4) For engines with an electric hybrid system, you may create a
negative torque map that would include the full negative torque of the
electric hybrid system, so operator demand will be at a minimum when
the reference duty cycle specifies negative torque values.
(d) * * *
(5) Perform one of the following:
(i) For constant-speed engines subject only to steady-state
testing, you may perform an engine map by using a series of discrete
torques. Select at least five evenly spaced torque setpoints from no-
[[Page 57449]]
load to 80% of the manufacturer-declared test torque or to a torque
derived from your published maximum power level if the declared test
torque is unavailable. Starting at the 80% torque point, select
setpoints in 2.5% intervals, stopping at the endpoint torque. The
endpoint torque is defined as the first discrete mapped torque value
greater than the torque at maximum observed power where the engine
outputs 90% of the maximum observed power; or the torque when engine
stall has been determined using good engineering judgment (i.e. sudden
deceleration of engine speed while adding torque). You may continue
mapping at higher torque setpoints. At each setpoint, allow torque and
speed to stabilize. Record the mean feedback speed and torque at each
setpoint. From this series of mean feedback speed and torque values,
use linear interpolation to determine intermediate values. Use this
series of mean feedback speeds and torques to generate the power map as
described in paragraph (e) of this section.
(ii) For any constant-speed engine, you may perform an engine map
with a continuous torque sweep by continuing to record the mean
feedback speed and torque at 1 Hz or more frequently. Use the
dynamometer to increase torque. Increase the reference torque at a
constant rate from no-load to the endpoint torque as defined in
paragraph (d)(5)(i) of this section. You may continue mapping at higher
torque setpoints. Unless the standard-setting part specifies otherwise,
target a torque sweep rate equal to the manufacturer-declared test
torque (or a torque derived from your published power level if the
declared test torque is not known) divided by 180 s. Stop recording
after you complete the sweep. Verify that the average torque sweep rate
over the entire map is within 7% of the target torque sweep
rate. Use linear interpolation to determine intermediate values from
this series of mean feedback speed and torque values. Use this series
of mean feedback speeds and torques to generate the power map as
described in paragraph (e) of this section.
(iii) For electric power generation applications in which normal
engine operation is limited to a specific speed range, map the engine
with two points as described in this paragraph (d)(5)(iii). After
stabilizing at the no-load governed speed in paragraph (d)(4) of this
section, record the mean feedback speed and torque. Continue to operate
the engine with the governor or simulated governor controlling engine
speed using operator demand, and control the dynamometer to target a
speed of 97.5% of the recorded mean no-load governed speed. If the in-
use performance class of the electric power generation application is
known, you may use those values in place of 97.5% (e.g., for ISO 8528-5
G3 Performance Class, the steady-state frequency band is less than or
equal to 0.5%, so use 99.75% instead of 97.5%). Allow speed and torque
to stabilize. Record the mean feedback speed and torque. Record the
target speed. The absolute value of the speed error (the mean feedback
speed minus the target speed) must be no greater than 20% of the
difference between the recorded mean no-load governed speed and the
target speed. From this series of two mean feedback speed and torque
values, use linear interpolation to determine intermediate values. Use
this series of two mean feedback speeds and torques to generate a power
map as described in paragraph (e) of this section. Note that the
measured maximum test torque determined in Sec. 1065.610(b)(1), will
be the mean feedback torque recorded on the second point.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(3) Optional declared speeds. You may use declared speeds instead
of measured speeds as follows:
(i) You may use a declared value for maximum test speed for
variable-speed engines if it is within (97.5 to 102.5) % of the
corresponding measured value. You may use a higher declared speed if
the length of the ``vector'' at the declared speed is within 2% of the
length of the ``vector'' at the measured value. The term vector refers
to the square root of the sum of normalized engine speed squared and
the normalized full-load power (at that speed) squared, consistent with
the calculations in Sec. 1065.610.
(ii) You may use a declared value for intermediate, ``A'', ``B'',
or ``C'' speeds for steady-state tests if the declared value is within
(97.5 to 102.5)% of the corresponding measured value.
(iii) For electronically governed engines, you may use a declared
warm high-idle speed for calculating the alternate maximum test speed
as specified in Sec. 1065.610.
* * * * *
(5) Optional declared torques. (i) For variable-speed engines you
may declare a maximum torque over the engine operating range. You may
use the declared value for measuring warm high-idle speed as specified
in this section.
(ii) For constant-speed engines you may declare a maximum test
torque. You may use the declared value for cycle generation if it is
within (95 to 100) % of the measured value.
(g) Mapping variable-speed engines with an electric hybrid system.
Map variable-speed engines that include electric hybrid systems as
described in this paragraph (g). You may ask to apply these provisions
to other types of hybrid engines, consistent with good engineering
judgment. However, do not use this procedure for engines used in hybrid
vehicles where the hybrid system is certified as part of the vehicle
rather than the engine. Follow the steps for mapping a variable-speed
engine as given in paragraph (b)(5) of this section except as noted in
this paragraph (g). You must generate one engine map with the hybrid
system inactive as described in paragraph (g)(1) of this section, and a
separate map with the hybrid system active as described in paragraph
(g)(2) of this section. See the standard-setting part to determine how
to use these maps. The map with the system inactive is typically used
to generate steady-state duty cycles, but may also be used to generate
transient cycles, such as those that do not involve engine motoring.
This hybrid-inactive map is also used for generating the hybrid-active
map. The hybrid-active map is typically used to generate transient duty
cycles that involve engine motoring.
(1) Prepare the engine for mapping by either deactivating the
hybrid system or by operating the engine as specified in paragraph
(b)(4) of this section and remaining at this condition until the
rechargeable energy storage system (RESS) is depleted. Once the hybrid
has been disabled or the RESS is depleted, perform an engine map as
specified in paragraph (b)(5) of this section. If the RESS was depleted
instead of deactivated, ensure that instantaneous power from the RESS
remains less than 2% of the instantaneous measured power from the
engine (or engine-hybrid system) at all engine speeds.
(2) The purpose of the mapping procedure in this paragraph (g) is
to determine the maximum torque available at each speed, such as what
might occur during transient operation with a fully charged RESS. Use
one of the following methods to generate a hybrid-active map:
(i) Perform an engine map by using a series of continuous sweeps to
cover the engine's full range of operating speeds. Prepare the engine
for hybrid-active mapping by ensuring that the RESS state of charge is
representative of normal operation. Perform the sweep as specified in
paragraph (b)(5)(ii) of this section, but stop the sweep to charge the
RESS when the power measured from the RESS drops below the expected
[[Page 57450]]
maximum power from the RESS by more than 2% of total system power
(including engine and RESS power). Unless good engineering judgment
indicates otherwise, assume that the expected maximum power from the
RESS is equal to the measured RESS power at the start of the sweep
segment. For example, if the 3-second rolling average of total engine-
RESS power is 200 kW and the power from the RESS at the beginning of
the sweep segment is 50 kW, once the power from the RESS reaches 46 kW,
stop the sweep to charge the RESS. Note that this assumption is not
valid where the hybrid motor is torque-limited. Calculate total system
power as a 3-second rolling average of instantaneous total system
power. After each charging event, stabilize the engine for 15 seconds
at the speed at which you ended the previous segment with operator
demand set to maximum before continuing the sweep from that speed.
Repeat the cycle of charging, mapping, and recharging until you have
completed the engine map. You may shut down the system or include other
operation between segments to be consistent with the intent of this
paragraph (g)(2)(i). For example, for systems in which continuous
charging and discharging can overheat batteries to an extent that
affects performance, you may operate the engine at zero power from the
RESS for enough time after the system is recharged to allow the
batteries to cool. Use good engineering judgment to smooth the torque
curve to eliminate discontinuities between map intervals.
(ii) Perform an engine map by using discrete speeds. Select map
setpoints at intervals defined by the ranges of engine speed being
mapped. From 95% of warm idle speed to 90% of the expected maximum test
speed, select setpoints that result in a minimum of 13 equally spaced
speed setpoints. From 90% to 110% of expected maximum test speed,
select setpoints in equally spaced intervals that are nominally 2% of
expected maximum test speed. Above 110% of expected maximum test speed,
select setpoints based on the same speed intervals used for mapping
from 95% warm idle speed to 90% maximum test speed. You may stop
mapping at the highest speed above maximum power at which 50% of
maximum power occurs. We refer to the speed at 50% power as the check
point speed as described in paragraph (b)(5)(iii) of this section.
Stabilize engine speed at each setpoint, targeting a torque value at
70% of peak torque at that speed without hybrid-assist. Make sure the
engine is fully warmed up and the RESS state of charge is within the
normal operating range. Snap the operator demand to maximum, operate
the engine there for at least 10 seconds, and record the 3-second
rolling average feedback speed and torque at 1 Hz or higher. Record the
peak 3-second average torque and 3-second average speed at that point.
Use linear interpolation to determine intermediate speeds and torques.
Follow Sec. 1065.610(a) to calculate the maximum test speed. Verify
that the measured maximum test speed falls in the range from 92 to 108%
of the estimated maximum test speed. If the measured maximum test speed
does not fall in this range, rerun the map using the measured value of
maximum test speed.
(h) Other mapping procedures. You may use other mapping procedures
if you believe the procedures specified in this section are unsafe or
unrepresentative for your engine. Any alternate techniques you use must
satisfy the intent of the specified mapping procedures, which is to
determine the maximum available torque at all engine speeds that occur
during a duty cycle. Identify any deviations from this section's
mapping procedures when you submit data to us.
0
68. Section 1065.514 is amended by revising paragraph (f)(3) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1065.514 Cycle-validation criteria for operation over specified
duty cycles.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(3) For discrete-mode steady-state testing, apply cycle-validation
criteria by treating the sampling periods from the series of test modes
as a continuous sampling period, analogous to ramped-modal testing and
apply statistical criteria as described in paragraph (f)(1) or (f)(2)
of this section. Note that if the gaseous and particulate test
intervals are different periods of time, separate validations are
required for the gaseous and particulate test intervals. Table 2
follows:
Table 2 of Sec. 1065.514--Default Statistical Criteria for Validating Duty Cycles
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parameter Speed Torque Power
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Slope, a1............................ 0.950 <= a1 <= 1.030... 0.830 <= a1 <= 1.030... 0.830 <= a1 <= 1.030.
Absolute value of intercept, <= 10% of warm idle.... <= 2% of maximum mapped <= 2% of maximum mapped
[verbar]a0[verbar]. torque. power.
Standard error of estimate, SEE...... <= 5% of maximum test <= 10% of maximum <= 10% of maximum
speed. mapped torque. mapped power.
Coefficient of determination, r2..... >= 0.970............... >= 0.850............... >= 0.910.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
69. Section 1065.520 is amended by revising paragraph (g) introductory
text, (g)(5)(i), (g)(7), and (g)(8) and adding paragraph (g)(9) to read
as follows:
Sec. 1065.520 Pre-test verification procedures and pre-test data
collection.
* * * * *
(g) Verify the amount of nonmethane hydrocarbon contamination in
the exhaust and background HC sampling systems within 8 hours before
the start of the first test interval of each duty-cycle sequence for
laboratory tests. You may verify the contamination of a background HC
sampling system by reading the last bag fill and purge using zero gas.
For any NMHC measurement system that involves separately measuring
methane and subtracting it from a THC measurement or for any
CH4 measurement system that uses an NMC, verify the amount
of THC contamination using only the THC analyzer response. There is no
need to operate any separate methane analyzer for this verification;
however, you may measure and correct for THC contamination in the
CH4 sample train for the cases where NMHC is determined by
subtracting CH4 from THC or, where CH4 is
determined, using an NMC as configured in Sec. 1065.365(d), (e), and
(f); and using the calculations in Sec. 1065.660(b)(2). Perform this
verification as follows:
* * * * *
(5) * * *
(i) For continuous sampling, record the mean THC concentration as
overflow zero gas flows.
* * * * *
(7) You may correct the measured initial THC concentration for
drift as follows:
(i) For batch and continuous HC analyzers, after determining the
initial THC concentration, flow zero gas to the analyzer zero or sample
port. When the
[[Page 57451]]
analyzer reading is stable, record the mean analyzer value.
(ii) Flow span gas to the analyzer span or sample port. When the
analyzer reading is stable, record the mean analyzer value.
(iii) Use mean analyzer values from paragraphs (g)(2), (g)(3),
(g)(7)(i), and (g)(7)(ii) of this section to correct the initial THC
concentration recorded in paragraph (g)(6) of this section for drift,
as described in Sec. 1065.550.
(8) If any of the xTHC[THC-FID]init values exceed the
greatest of the following values, determine the source of the
contamination and take corrective action, such as purging the system
during an additional preconditioning cycle or replacing contaminated
portions:
(i) 2% of the flow-weighted mean wet, net concentration expected at
the HC (THC or NMHC) standard.
(ii) 2% of the flow-weighted mean wet, net concentration of HC (THC
or NMHC) measured during testing.
(iii) 2 [mu]mol/mol.
(9) If corrective action does not resolve the deficiency, you may
request to use the contaminated system as an alternate procedure under
Sec. 1065.10.
* * * * *
0
70. Section 1065.525 is amended by removing paragraph (c)(4) and
revising paragraph (a) to read as follows.
Sec. 1065.525 Engine starting, restarting, and shutdown.
(a) For test intervals that require emission sampling during engine
starting, start the engine using one of the following methods:
(1) Start the engine as recommended in the owners manual using a
production starter motor or air-start system and either an adequately
charged battery, a suitable power supply, or a suitable compressed air
source.
(2) Use the dynamometer to start the engine. To do this, motor the
engine within 25% of its typical in-use cranking speed.
Stop cranking within 1 second of starting the engine.
(3) In the case of hybrid engines, activate the system such that
the engine will start when its control algorithms determine that the
engine should provide power instead of or in addition to power from the
RESS. Unless we specify otherwise, engine starting throughout this part
generally refers to this step of activating the system on hybrid
engines, whether or not that causes the engine to start running.
* * * * *
0
71. Section 1065.530 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(13) to read
as follows:
Sec. 1065.530 Emission test sequence.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(13) Drain any accumulated condensate from the intake air system
before starting a duty cycle, as described in Sec. 1065.125(e)(1). If
engine and aftertreatment preconditioning cycles are run before the
duty cycle, treat the preconditioning cycles and any associated soak
period as part of the duty cycle for the purpose of opening drains and
draining condensate. Note that you must close any intake air condensate
drains that are not representative of those normally open during in-use
operation.
* * * * *
0
72. Section 1065.546 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1065.546 Validation of minimum dilution ratio for PM batch
sampling, and drift correction.
* * * * *
(a) Determine minimum dilution ratio based on molar flow data. This
involves determination of at least two of the following three
quantities: Raw exhaust flow (or previously diluted flow), dilution air
flow, and dilute exhaust flow. You may determine the raw exhaust flow
rate based on the measured intake air or fuel flow rate and the raw
exhaust chemical balance terms as given in Sec. 1065.655(e). You may
determine the raw exhaust flow rate based on the measured intake air
and dilute exhaust molar flow rates and the dilute exhaust chemical
balance terms as given in Sec. 1065.655(f). You may alternatively
estimate the molar raw exhaust flow rate based on intake air, fuel rate
measurements, and fuel properties, consistent with good engineering
judgment.
* * * * *
0
73. Section 1065.550 is amended by revising the section heading and
paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 1065.550 Gas analyzer range validation and drift validation.
* * * * *
(b) Drift validation and drift correction. Gas analyzer drift
validation is required for all gaseous exhaust constituents for which
an emission standard applies. It is also required for CO2
even if there is no CO2 emission standard. It is not
required for other gaseous exhaust constituents for which only a
reporting requirement applies (such as CH4 and
N2O).
(1) Validate drift using one of the following methods:
(i) For regulated exhaust constituents determined from the mass of
a single component, perform drift validation based on the regulated
constituent. For example, when NOX mass is determined with a
dry sample measured with a CLD and the removed water is corrected based
on measured CO2, CO, THC, and NOX concentrations,
you must validate the calculated NOX value.
(ii) For regulated exhaust constituents determined from the masses
of multiple subcomponents, perform the drift validation based on either
the regulated constituent or all the mass subcomponents. For example,
when NOX is measured with separate NO and NO2
analyzers, you must validate either the NOX value or both
the NO and NO2 values.
(iii) For regulated exhaust constituents determined from the
concentrations of multiple gaseous emission subcomponents prior to
performing mass calculations, perform drift validation on the regulated
constituent. You may not validate the concentration subcomponents
(e.g., THC and CH4 for NMHC) separately. For example, for
NMHC measurements, perform drift validation on NMHC; do not validate
THC and CH4 separately.
(2) Drift validation requires two sets of emission calculations.
For each set of calculations, include all the constituents in the drift
validation. Calculate one set using the data before drift correction
and calculate the other set after correcting all the data for drift
according to Sec. 1065.672. Note that for purposes of drift
validation, you must leave unaltered any negative emission results over
a given test interval (i.e., do not set them to zero). These unaltered
results are used when validating either test interval results or
composite brake-specific emissions over the entire duty cycle for
drift. For each constituent to be validated, both sets of calculations
must include the following:
(i) Calculated mass (or mass rate) emission values over each test
interval.
(ii) If you are validating each test interval based on brake-
specific values, calculate brake-specific emission values over each
test interval.
(iii) If you are validating over the entire duty cycle, calculate
composite brake-specific emission values.
(3) The duty cycle is validated for drift if you satisfy the
following criteria:
(i) For each regulated gaseous exhaust constituent, you must
satisfy one of the following:
(A) For each test interval of the duty cycle, the difference
between the uncorrected and the corrected brake-specific emission
values of the regulated constituent must be within 4% of
the uncorrected value or the applicable emissions standard, whichever
is
[[Page 57452]]
greater. Alternatively, the difference between the uncorrected and the
corrected emission mass (or mass rate) values of the regulated
constituent must be within 4% of the uncorrected value or
the composite work (or power) multiplied by the applicable emissions
standard, whichever is greater. For purposes of validating each test
interval, you may use either the reference or actual composite work (or
power).
(B) For each test interval of the duty cycle and for each
subcomponent of the regulated constituent, the difference between the
uncorrected and the corrected brake-specific emission values must be
within 4% of the uncorrected value. Alternatively, the
difference between the uncorrected and the corrected emissions mass (or
mass rate) values must be within 4% of the uncorrected
value.
(C) For the entire duty cycle, the difference between the
uncorrected and the corrected composite brake-specific emission values
of the regulated constituent must be within