Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles

Federal RegisterNov 30, 2010

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 85, 86, 1036, 1037, 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-9219-4]

RIN 2060-AP61; RIN 2127-AK74

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles

AGENCIES:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION:

Proposed rules.

SUMMARY:

EPA and NHTSA, on behalf of the Department of Transportation, are each proposing rules to establish a comprehensive Heavy-Duty National Program that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase fuel efficiency 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 proposed fuel consumption standards and EPA's proposed carbon dioxide (CO

) emissions standards would be tailored to each of three regulatory categories of heavy-duty vehicles: Combination Tractors; Heavy-Duty Pickup Trucks and Vans; and Vocational Vehicles, as well as gasoline and diesel heavy-duty engines. EPA's proposed hydrofluorocarbon emissions standards would apply to air conditioning systems in tractors, pickup trucks, and vans, and EPA's proposed nitrous oxide (N

O) and methane (CH

) emissions standards would apply to all heavy-duty engines, pickup trucks, and vans. EPA is also requesting comment on possible alternative CO

-equivalent approaches for model year 2012-14 light-duty vehicles.

EPA's proposed greenhouse gas emission standards under the Clean Air Act would begin with model year 2014. NHTSA's proposed fuel consumption standards under the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 would be voluntary in model years 2014 and 2015, becoming mandatory with model year 2016 for most regulatory categories. Commercial trailers would not be regulated in this phase of the Heavy-Duty National Program, although there is a discussion of the possibility of future action for trailers.

DATES:

Comments:

Comments on all aspects of this proposal must be received on or before January 31, 2011. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on the information collection provisions must be received by the Office of Management and Budget on or before December 30, 2010.

See

the

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section on “Public Participation” for more information about written comments.

Public Hearings:

NHTSA and EPA will jointly hold two public hearings on the following dates: November 15, 2010 in Chicago, IL; and November 18, 2010 in Cambridge, MA, as announced at 75 FR 67059, November 1, 2010. The hearing in Chicago will start at 11 a.m. local time and continue until 5 p.m. or until everyone has had a chance to speak. The hearing in Cambridge will begin at 10 a.m. and continue until 5 p.m. or until everyone has had a chance to speak.

See

“How Do I Participate in the Public Hearings?” below at B. (7) under the

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section on “Public Participation” for more information about the public hearings.

ADDRESSES:

Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. NHTSA-2010-0079 and/or EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162, by one of the following methods:

•

http://www.regulations.gov:

Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.

•

E-mail: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov.

•

Fax: NHTSA:

(202) 493-2251;

EPA:

(202) 566-9744.

•

Mail:

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.

EPA:

Air Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center, Mailcode: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. In addition, please mail a copy of your comments on the information collection provisions to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th St., NW., Washington, DC 20503.

•

Hand Delivery:

NHTSA:

West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.

EPA:

EPA Docket Center, (Air Docket), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA West Building, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Room: 3334, Mail Code 2822T, Washington, DC. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

Instructions:

Direct your comments to Docket ID No. NHTSA-2010-0079 and/or EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162.

See

the

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section on “Public Participation” for additional instructions on submitting written comments.

Docket:

All documents in the docket are listed in the

http://www.regulations.gov

index. 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, will be publicly available only in hard copy in EPA's docket, but may be available electronically in NHTSA's docket at regulations.gov. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in

http://www.regulations.gov

or in hard copy at the following locations:

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.

EPA:

EPA Docket Center, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., 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 Air Docket is (202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

NHTSA:

Rebecca Yoon, 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:

steele.lauren@epa.gov,

or Assessment and Standards Division Hotline; telephone number; (734) 214-4636; e-mail

asdinfo@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Does this action apply to me?

This action would affect 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 standards and corporate average fuel economy standards issued for light-duty model year 2012-2016 vehicles. This action also includes a discussion of the possible future regulation of commercial trailers and is requesting comment on possible alternative CO

-equivalent approaches for model year 2012-14 light-duty vehicles. Potentially affected categories and entities include the following:

For purposes of NHTSA's fuel consumption regulations, non-commercial recreational vehicles will not be covered, even if they would otherwise fall under these categories.

See

49 U.S.C. 32901(a)(7).

EP30NO10.000

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this proposal. This table lists the types of entities that the agencies are now aware could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether your activities may be regulated by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR parts 1036 and 1037, 49 CFR parts 523, 534, and 535, and 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.

B. Public Participation

NHTSA and EPA request comment on all aspects of these joint proposed rules. This section describes how you can participate in this process.

(1) How do I prepare and submit comments?

In this joint proposal, there are many aspects of the program common to both EPA and NHTSA. For the convenience of all parties, comments submitted to the EPA docket (whether hard copy or electronic) will be considered comments submitted to the NHTSA docket, and vice versa. An exception is that comments submitted to the NHTSA docket on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement will not be considered submitted to the EPA docket. Therefore, the public only needs to submit comments to either one of the two agency dockets. Comments that are submitted for consideration by one agency should be identified as such, and comments that are submitted for consideration by both agencies should be identified as such. Absent such identification, each agency will exercise its best judgment to determine whether a comment is submitted on its proposal.

Further instructions for submitting comments to either the EPA or NHTSA docket are described below.

NHTSA:

Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the Docket I.D No. NHTSA-2010-0079 in your comments. By regulation, your comments must not be more than 15 pages long (49 CFR 553.21). NHTSA established this limit to encourage you to write your primary comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the lenght of the attachments. If you are submitting comments electronically as a PDF (Adobe) file, we ask that the documents submitted be scanned using the Optical Character Recognition (OCR) process, thus allowing the agencies to search and copy certain portions of your submissions.

Please note that pursuant to the Data Quality Act, in order for the substantive data to be relied upon and used by the agencies, it must meet the information quality standards set forth in the OMB and Department of Transportation (DOT) Data Quality Act quidelines. Accordingly, we encourage you to consult the guidelines in preparing your comments. OMB's guidelines may be accessed at

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/reproducible.html

. DOT's guidelines may be access at

http://regs.dot.gov

Optical character recognition (OCR) is the process of converting an image of text, such as a scanned paper document or electronic fax file, into computer-editable text.

EPA:

Direct your comments to Docket ID No EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at

http://www.regulations.gov,

including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through

http://www.regulations.gov

or e-mail. The

http://www.regulations.gov

Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through

http://www.regulations.gov

your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at

http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

(2) Tips for Preparing Your Comments

When submitting comments, remember to:

• Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading,

Federal Register

date and page number).

• Follow directions—The agencies may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a part or section number from the Code of Federal Regulations.

• Explain why you agree or disagree, suggest alternatives, and substitute language for your requested changes.

• Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.

• If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.

• Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives.

• Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.

• Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified in the

DATES

section above.

(3) How can I be sure that my comments were received?

NHTSA:

If you submit your comments by mail and wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket Management will return the postcard by mail.

(4) How do I submit confidential business information?

Any CBI submitted to one of the agencies will also be available to the other agency.

However, as with all public comments, any CBI information only needs to be submitted to either one of the agencies' dockets and it will be available to the other. Following are specific instructions for submitting CBI to either agency.

This statement constitutes notice to commenters pursuant to 40 CFR 2.209(c) that EPA will share confidential business information received with NHTSA unless commenters expressly specify that they wish to submit their CBI only to EPA and not to both agencies.

NHTSA:

If you wish to submit any information under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim to be CBI, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given above under

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

. When you send a comment containing CBI, you should include a cover letter setting forth the information specified in our CBI regulation. In addition, you should submit a copy from which you have deleted the claimed CBI to the Docket by one of the methods set forth above.

EPA:

Do not submit CBI to EPA through

http://www.regulations.gov

or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

(5) Will the agencies consider late comments?

NHTSA and EPA will consider all comments received before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated above under

DATES

. To the extent practicable, we will also consider comments received after that date. If interested persons believe that any new information the agency places in the docket affects their comments, they may submit comments after the closing date concerning how the agency should consider that information for the final rules. However, the agencies' ability to consider any such late comments in this rulemaking will be limited due to the time frame for issuing the final rules.

If a comment is received too late for us to practicably consider in developing the final rules, we will consider that comment as an informal suggestion for future rulemaking action.

How can I read the comments submitted by other people?

You may read the materials placed in the dockets for this document (e.g., the comments submitted in response to this document by other interested persons) at any time by going to

http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the online instructions for accessing the dockets. You may also read the materials at the NHTSA Docket Management Facility or the EPA Docket Center by going to the street addresses given above under

ADDRESSES.

How do I participate in the public hearings?

EPA and NHTSA will jointly host two public hearings. The November 15 hearing will be held at the Millennium Knickerbocker Hotel Chicago, 163 East Walton Place (at N. Michigan Ave.), Chicago, Illinois 60611. The November 18, 2010 hearing will be held at the Hyatt Regency Cambridge, 575 Memorial Drive, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139-4896. If you would like to present oral testimony at a public hearing, we ask that you notify both the NHTSA and EPA contact persons listed under

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

at least ten days before the hearing. Once the agencies learn how many people have registered to speak at the public hearings, we will allocate an appropriate amount of time to each participant, allowing time for necessary breaks. For planning purposes, each speaker should anticipate speaking for approximately ten minutes, although we may need to shorten that time if there is a large turnout. We request that you bring three copies of your statement or other material for the agencies' panels. To accommodate as many speakers as possible, we prefer that speakers not use technological aids (e.g., audio-visuals, computer slideshows). In addition, we will reserve a block of time for anyone else in the audience who wants to give testimony.

Each hearing will be held at a site accessible to individuals with disabilities. Individuals who require accommodations such as sign language interpreters should contact the persons listed under

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section above no later than ten days before the date of the hearing.

EPA and NHTSA will conduct the hearings informally, and technical rules of evidence will not apply. We will arrange for a written transcript of each hearing and keep the official records of the hearings open for 30 days to allow you to submit supplementary information. You may make arrangements for copies of a transcript directly with the court reporter.

C. Additional Information About This Rulemaking

EPA's Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for regulating greenhouse gases under the CAA (see 73 FR 44353, July 30, 2008) included a discussion of possible rulemaking paths for the heavy-duty transportation sector. This notice of proposed rulemaking relies in part on information that was obtained from that notice, which can be found in Public Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0318. That docket is incorporated into the docket for this action, EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162.

Table of Contents

A. Does this action apply to me?

B. Public Participation

C. Additional Information About This Rulemaking

I. Overview

A. Introduction

B. Building Blocks of the Heavy-Duty National Program

C. Summary of the Proposed 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. Proposed GHG and Fuel Consumption Standards for Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles

A. What vehicles would 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 Provisions

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. Proposed Regulatory Flexibility Provisions

A. Averaging, Banking, and Trading Program

B. Additional Proposed Flexibility Provisions

V. NHTSA and EPA Proposed 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 would this proposed 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 CO

Concentrations, Global Mean Temperature, Sea Level Rise, and Ocean pH Associated With the Proposal's GHG Emissions Reductions

VII. How would this proposal 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 proposed program?

A. Conceptual Framework for Evaluating Impacts

B. Costs Associated With the Proposed 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 CO

Emissions

H. Non-GHG Health and Environmental Impacts

I. Energy Security Impacts

J. Other Impacts

K. Summary of Costs and Benefits From the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Perspective

L. Summary of Costs and Benefits From the Fuel Efficiency Perspective

IX. Analysis of Alternatives

A. What are the alternatives that the agencies considered?

B. How do these alternatives compare in overall GHG emissions reductions, fuel efficiency and cost?

C. How would the agencies include commercial trailers, as described in alternative 7?

X. Recommendations From the 2010 NAS Report

A. Overview

B. What were the major findings and recommendations of the 2010 NAS report, and how is the proposed HD national program consistent with them?

XI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

XII. 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 improve fuel efficiency 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, after light-duty passenger cars and trucks.

In a recent 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.”

Earlier this year, EPA and NHTSA established for the first time a national program to sharply reduce GHG emissions and fuel consumption from passenger cars and light trucks. Now, each agency is proposing rules that together would create a strong and comprehensive Heavy-Duty National Program (“HD National Program”) designed to address the urgent and closely intertwined challenges of dependence on oil, energy security, and global climate change. At the same time, the proposed program would enhance American competitiveness and job creation, benefit consumers and businesses by reducing costs for transporting goods, and spur growth in the clean energy sector.

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.

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 a HD National Program based on a common set of principles. In the letters, the stakeholders commit 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 proposed HD National Program builds on many years of heavy-duty engine and vehicle technology development to achieve what the agencies believe would be the greatest degree of GHG emission and fuel consumption reduction appropriate, feasible, and cost-effective for the model years in question. Still, by proposing to take 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 GHG emissions and fuel consumption. For example, NHTSA and EPA have stopped short of proposing fuel consumption and GHG emissions standards for trucks based on use of hybrid powertrain technology. Similarly, we expect that 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 such opportunities emerge in the coming years, we expect that we will propose a second phase of provisions in the future to reinforce these developments and maximize the achieved reductions in GHG emissions and fuel consumption reduction for the mid- and longer-term time frame.

In the May 21 memorandum, the President 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 vehicles beginning with the 2014 model year (MY), with the aim of issuing a final rule by July 30, 2011.” This proposed rulemaking is consistent with this Presidential Memorandum, with each agency proposing rules under its respective authority that together comprise a coordinated and comprehensive HD National 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. Heavy-duty trucks

have always 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.

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.

It also does not include motorcycles. Thus, in this notice, 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.

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.”

NHTSA interprets this to include all segments of the heavy-duty category described above, except for recreational vehicles, such as motor homes, since recreational vehicles are not commercial.

Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards; Final Rule 75 FR 25323,(May 7, 2010).

The CAA defines heavy-duty as a truck, bus or other motor vehicle 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.

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).

Setting GHG emissions standards for the heavy-duty sector will help to address climate change, which is widely viewed as a significant long-term threat to the global environment. 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.

The primary GHGs of concern are carbon dioxide (CO

), methane (CH

), nitrous oxide (N

O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF

). 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.

Mobile sources addressed in the recent 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.

Heavy-duty vehicles emit CO

, CH

, N

O, and HFCs and are responsible for nearly 19 percent of all mobile source GHGs (nearly 6% of all U.S. GHGs) and about 25 percent of section 202(a) mobile source GHGs. For heavy-duty vehicles in 2007, CO

emissions represented more than 99 percent of all GHG emissions (including HFCs).

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.

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

See

Endangerment TSD, Note 9, above, at pp. 180-194.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2009. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks:

See

Note 10, above.

Setting fuel consumption standards for the heavy-duty sector, pursuant to NHTSA's EISA authority, will also improve our energy 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 60 percent of U.S. petroleum consumption. World crude oil production is highly concentrated, exacerbating the risks of supply disruptions and price shocks. Tight global oil markets led to prices over $100 per barrel in 2008, with gasoline reaching as high as $4 per gallon in many parts of the United States, causing financial hardship for many families and businesses. The export of U.S. assets 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.

In 2009 Source: EIA Annual Energy Outlook 2010 released May 11, 2010.

In developing this joint proposal, 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.

While our discussions covered a wide range of issues and viewpoints, one widespread recommendation was that the two agencies should develop a common Federal program with consistent standards of performance regarding fuel consumption and GHG emissions. The HD National Program we are proposing in this notice is consistent with that goal. Further it is our expectation based on our ongoing work with the State of California that the California ARB will 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 are committed to continuing to work with California ARB throughout this rulemaking process to help ensure our final rules can lead to that outcome.

Pursuant to DOT Order 2100.2, NHTSA will place a memorandum recording those meetings that it attended and documents submitted by stakeholders which formed a basis for this proposal 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 proposing 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 proposed fuel consumption standards and EPA's proposed GHG standards would apply to manufacturers of the following types of heavy-duty vehicles and their engines; the proposed 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 recent light-duty vehicle rule establishing CAFE and GHG standards for MYs 2012-2016 light-duty vehicles, EPA's and NHTSA's proposed 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 CO

tailpipe emissions. For all vehicles that consume carbon-based fuels, the amount of CO

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 CO

emitted into the air. The technologies available for improving fuel efficiency, and therefore for reducing both CO

emissions and fuel consumption, are one and the same.

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 proposing under our separate legal authorities.

However, as discussed below, in addition to addressing CO

, the EPA's proposed standards also include provisions to address other GHGs (nitrous oxide, methane, and air conditioning refrigerant emissions), as required by the Endangerment Finding under the CAA.

See

Section II.

The timelines for the implementation of the proposed NHTSA and EPA standards are also closely coordinated. EPA's proposed GHG emission standards would 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 I.B.(5) below, NHTSA's proposed fuel consumption standards would be voluntary in model years 2014 and 2015, becoming mandatory in model year 2016, except for diesel engine standards which would be voluntary in model years 2014, 2015 and 2016, becoming mandatory in model year 2017. Both agencies are also allowing early compliance in model year 2013. A detailed discussion of how the proposed standards are consistent with each agency's respective statutory requirements and authorities is found later in this notice.

Neither EPA nor NHTSA is proposing 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. However, the agencies are considering proposing such standards in a future rulemaking, and request comment on such an action later in this preamble.

B. Building Blocks of the Heavy-Duty National Program

The standards that are being proposed in this notice represent the first time

that NHTSA and EPA would regulate the heavy-duty sector for fuel consumption and GHG emissions, respectively. The proposed HD National Program is rooted in EPA's prior regulatory history, the SmartWay® 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 (NO

). 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% less NO

and 99% 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 are projected to provide greater than $70 billion in health and welfare benefits annually in 2030 alone (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 highways. 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 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 proposed program incorporates the existing engine-based approach used for criteria emissions 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 economy of commercial medium-duty and heavy-duty on-highway vehicles and work trucks in three steps: A study by NAS, a study by NHTSA, and a rulemaking to develop the regulations themselves.

The NAS study is described below, and the NHTSA study accompanies this NPRM.

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;

and

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 proposing 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)

that have long governed NHTSA's setting of fuel economy standards for passenger cars and light trucks, although many of the same factors are considered under each of these provisions.

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

As mandated by Congress in EISA, the National Research Council (NRC) under NAS recently 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.”

This study covers the same universe of heavy-duty vehicles that is the focus of this proposed 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. NHTSA's and EPA's detailed assessments of each of the relevant recommendations of the NAS

report are discussed in Section X of this preamble and in the NHTSA HD study accompanying this notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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 Web site at

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12845

(last accessed September 10, 2010).

(4) The Recent NHTSA and EPA Light-Duty National GHG Program

On April 1, 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. The agencies have used the light-duty National Program as a model for this proposed 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 proposed standards and compliance structures, although in this proposal each agency proposes 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 to meet a closely coordinated Federal 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 CO

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 draft 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 proposed 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 proposed standards. These include such approaches as improved logistics and driver training, as discussed in the draft 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, liberalizing 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 proposed standards and also provide benefits for the existing truck fleet, furthering the public policy objectives of addressing energy security and climate change.

(6.) Canada's Department of the Environment

The Government of Canada's Department of the Environment (Environment Canada) assisted EPA's development of this proposed rulemaking, by conducting emissions testing of heavy-duty vehicles at Environment Canada test facilities to gather data on a range of possible test cycles.

We expect the technical collaboration with Environment Canada to continue as we address issues raised by stakeholders in response to this NPRM, and as we continue to develop details of certain testing and compliance verification procedures. We may also be able to 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.

C. Summary of the Proposed 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).

This 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.

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 proposed regulations refer simply to g/hp-hr. This is consistent with our 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 that the engine needs to do per mile traveled. This thus requires a focus on the entire vehicle. 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. The 2010 NAS Report recognized this need and recommended a complete-vehicle approach to regulation. As described elsewhere in this preamble, the proposed standards that make up the HD National Program aim to address the complete vehicle, to the extent practicable and appropriate under the agencies' respective statutory authorities, through complementary engine and vehicle standards, in order to reduce the complexity of the regulatory system and achieve the greatest gains as soon as possible.

(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.

Table I-1 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.

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.

EP30NO10.001

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.

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. Commercial “vocational” vehicles, which may span Classes 2b through 8, vary widely in size, including smaller and larger van trucks, utility “bucket” trucks, tank 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.

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 proposed standards in careful consideration of the diversity and complexity of the heavy-duty truck industry, as discussed next.

(2) Summary of Proposed 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 proposing to divide 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 proposing related but distinct program approaches reflecting the specific challenges that we see for manufacturers in these segments. In the following paragraphs, we discuss EPA's proposed GHG emission standards and NHTSA's proposed fuel consumption standards for the three regulatory categories of heavy-duty vehicles and their engines.

The agencies are proposing 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 alternatively consider fuel consumption as the basis for its standards. As a result, for heavy-duty

pickup trucks and vans, EPA and NHTSA are proposing standards on a per-mile basis (g/mile for the EPA standards, gallons/100 miles for the NHTSA standards), as explained in Section I.C.(2)(b) below. For heavy-duty trucks, both combination and vocational, the agencies are proposing standards expressed in terms of the key measure of freight movement, tons of payload miles or, more simply, ton-miles. Hence, for EPA the proposed 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 proposed 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 proposing 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 proposing 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 proposed 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.

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 would involve improvements such as aerodynamics and tires and reduction in idle operation, as well as engine-based efficiency improvements.

The vast majority of combination tractor-trailers are used in highway applications, and these vehicles are the focus of this proposed program. A small fraction of combination tractors are used in off-road applications and are treated 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 separate from each other. 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 proposing standards for the tractors and their engines in this rulemaking, but are not proposing standards for trailers in this rulemaking. The agencies are requesting comment on potential standards for trailers, but will address standards for trailers in a separate rulemaking.

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 proposing 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, 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 proposed standards to result in the application of improved technologies for lower GHG emissions and fuel consumption for both the cab and the engine.

EP30NO10.002

Accordingly,

for Class 7 and 8 combination tractors, the agencies are each proposing two sets of standards. For vehicle-related emissions and fuel consumption, the agencies are proposing that tractor manufacturers meet respective vehicle-based standards. Compliance with the vehicle standard would 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 proposal. 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 would also assume the use of a representative typical engine, rather than a vehicle-specific engine, because engines are regulated separately and include an averaging, banking, and trading program separate from the vehicle program. The model and appropriate inputs would be used to quantify the overall performance of the vehicle in terms of CO

emissions and fuel consumption. The model's development and design, as well as the sources for inputs and the evaluation of the model's accuracy, are discussed in detail in Section II below and in Chapter 4 of the draft RIA.

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.

EPA and NHTSA also considered developing respective alternative standards based on the direct testing of the emissions and fuel consumption of the entire vehicle for this category of vehicles, as measured using a chassis test procedure. This would be similar to the proposed approach for standards for HD pickups and vans discussed below. The agencies believe that such an approach warrants continued consideration. However, the agencies are not prepared to propose chassis-test-based standards at this time, primarily because of the very small number of chassis-test facilities that currently exist, but rather are proposing only the tractor standards and the engine-based standards discussed above. The agencies seek comment on the potential benefits and trade-offs of chassis-test-based standards for combination tractors.

(1) Proposed Standards for Class 7 and 8 Combination Tractors

The vehicle standards that EPA and NHTSA are proposing 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 among these vehicles. The proposed 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.

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. Table I-2 presents the agencies' respective proposed standards for combination tractor manufacturers for the 2017 model year for illustration.

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

EP30NO10.003

In addition, the agencies are proposing separate performance standards for the engines manufactured for use in these trucks. EPA's proposed engine-based CO

O and CH

standards for manufacturers of the engines used in combination tractors. EPA is proposing separate engine-based standards for these GHGs because the agency believes that N

O and CH

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. However, NHTSA is not incorporating standards related to these GHGs due to their lack of influence on fuel consumption. EPA expects that manufacturers of current engine technologies would be able to comply with the proposed “cap” standards with little or no technological improvements; the value of the standards would be to prevent significant increases in these emissions as alternative technologies are developed and introduced in the future. Compliance with the proposed EPA engine-based CO

standards and the proposed NHTSA fuel consumption standards, as well as the proposed EPA N

O and CH

standards, would be determined using the appropriate EPA engine test procedure, as discussed in Section II below.

As with the other categories of heavy-duty vehicles, EPA and NHTSA are proposing respective standards that would apply to Class 7 and 8 trucks at the time of production (as in Table I-2, above). In addition, EPA is proposing separate standards that would apply for a specified period of time in use. All of the proposed standards for these trucks, as well as details about the proposed provisions for certification and implementation of these standards, are discussed in more detail in Sections II, III, IV, and V below and in the draft RIA.

(ii) EPA Proposed Air Conditioning Leakage Standard for Class 7 and 8 Combination Tractors

In addition to the proposed EPA tractor- and engine-based standards for CO

and engine-based standards for N

O, and CH

emissions, EPA is also proposing a separate standard to reduce leakage of HFC refrigerant from cabin air conditioning systems from combination tractors, to apply to the tractor manufacturer. This standard would be independent of the CO

tractor standard, as discussed below. Because the current refrigerant used widely in all these systems has a very high global warming potential, EPA is concerned about leakage of refrigerant over time.

The global warming potential for HFC-134a refrigerant of 1430 used in this proposal is consistent with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report.

Because the interior volume to be cooled for most of these truck cabins is similar to that of light-duty trucks, the size and design of current truck A/C systems is also very similar. The proposed compliance approach for Class 7 and 8 tractors is therefore similar to that in the light-duty rule in that these proposed standards are design-based. Manufacturers would 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 proposed 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 generate credits towards the CO

g/mi standard, and EPA took into account the expected use of such credits in establishing the CO

emissions standards. In this rule, EPA is proposing that manufacturers actually meet a standard—as opposed to having the opportunity to earn a credit—for A/C refrigerant leakage. Thus, for this rule, refrigerant leakage is not accounted for in the development of the proposed CO

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 CO

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 the expression of the leakage rate. The light-duty A/C leakage standard is expressed in terms of grams per year. For this heavy-duty rule, however, because of the wide variety of system designs and arrangements, a one-size-fits-all gram per year standard would likely be much less relevant, so EPA believes it is more appropriate to propose a standard in terms of percent of total refrigerant leakage per year. This requires the total refrigerant capacity of

the A/C system to be taken into account in determining compliance. EPA believes that this proposed approach—a standard instead of a credit, and basing the standard on percent 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 would be determined through a showing by the tractor manufacturer that its A/C system incorporated a combination of low-leak technologies sufficient to meet the percent leakage of the standard. This proposed “menu” of technologies is very similar to that established in the light-duty GHG rule.

At this time, EPA is considering approval of an alternative refrigerant, HFO-1234yf, which has a very low GWP. The proposed A/C leakage standard is designed to account for use of an alternative, low-GWP refrigerant. If in the future this refrigerant is approved and if it becomes widespread as a substitute for HFC-134a in mobile A/C systems, EPA may propose to revise or eliminate the leakage standard.

Finally, EPA is not proposing 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 CO

from a heavy-duty tractor as compared to those from a light-duty vehicle mean that the relative amount of CO

that could be reduced through A/C efficiency improvements is very small. We request comment on this decision and whether EPA should reflect A/C system efficiency in the final program either as a credit or a stand-alone standard based on the same technologies and performance levels as the light-duty program.

A more detailed discussion of A/C related issues is found in Section II 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 program, and the agencies are not considering 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 this proposal as “HD pickups and vans”) together emit about 20 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 pick-up 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 propose 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 propose corresponding gallons per 100 mile fuel consumption standards that are likewise based on the whole vehicle. This complete vehicle approach being proposed 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 proposing, as detailed in Section II.C. These proposed 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 would 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).

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).

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 weight-based metric provides a better attribute than the footprint attribute utilized in the light-duty vehicle rulemaking. Weight-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 pick-up or van. EPA and NHTSA are therefore proposing standards for HD pickups and vans based on a “work factor” that combines their payload and towing capabilities, with an added adjustment for 4-wheel drive vehicles.

EISA requires CAFE standards for passenger cars and light trucks to be attribute-based;

see

49 U.S.C. 32902(b)(3)(A).

The agencies are proposing that each manufacturer's fleet average standard would be based on production volume-weighting of target standards for each vehicle that in turn are based on the vehicle's work factor. These target standards would be taken from a set of curves (mathematical functions), presented in Section II.C. EPA is also proposing that the CO

standards be phased in gradually starting in the 2014 model year, at 15-20-40-60-100 percent in model years 2014-2015-2016-2017-2018, respectively. The phase-in would take the form of a set of target standard curves, with increasing stringency in each model year, as detailed in Section II.C. The EPA standards proposed 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. Section II.C also discusses the rationale behind the proposal of separate targets for diesel and gasoline vehicle standards. EPA is also proposing a manufacturer's alternative implementation schedule for

model years 2016-2018 that parallels and is equivalent to NHTSA's first alternative described below.

NHTSA is proposing to allow manufacturers to select one of two fuel consumption standards alternatives for model years 2016 and later. To meet the EISA statutory requirement for three year regulatory stability, the first alternative would define individual gasoline vehicle and diesel vehicle fuel consumption target curves that would not change for model years 2016 and later. The proposed target curves for this alternative are presented in Section II.C. The second alternative would use target curves that are equivalent to the EPA program in each model year 2016 to 2018. 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 proposing, to rely on the same product plans to satisfy either of these two alternatives, and also EPA requirements. NHTSA is also proposing that manufacturers may 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 proposed EPA and NHTSA standard 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 would 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

• Gasoline engine coupled cam phasing

• 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 CO

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 device or container attached. We are proposing that these vehicles generally be regulated as Class 2b through 8 vocational vehicles, as described in Section I.C(2)(c), because, like other vocational vehicles, we have little information on baseline aerodynamic performance and expectations for improvement. However, 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 proposing that these vehicles be included in the chassis-based HD pickup and van program. These proposed provisions are described in Section V.B.

In addition to proposed EPA CO

emission standards and the proposed NHTSA fuel consumption standards for HD pickups and vans, EPA is also proposing standards for two additional GHGs, N

O and CH

, as well as standards for air conditioning-related HFC emissions. These standards are discussed in more detail in Section II.E. Finally, EPA is proposing standards that would apply to HD pickups and vans in use. All of the proposed standards for these HD pickups and vans, as well as details about the proposed provisions for certification and implementation of these standards, are discussed in Section II.C.

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,

tow trucks, among others. These vehicles and their engines contribute approximately 15 percent of today's heavy-duty truck sector GHG emissions.

Again, we note that NHTSA's proposed fuel consumption standards would not apply to non-commercial vehicles like motor homes.

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 are proposing that in this vocational vehicle category the chassis manufacturers be the focus of the proposed GHG and fuel consumption standards. They play a central role in the manufacturing process, and the product they produce—the chassis with engine and transmissions—includes the primary technologies that affect emissions and fuel consumption. They also constitute a much more limited group of manufacturers for purposes of developing a regulatory program. In contrast, a focus on the body manufacturers would be much less practical, since they represent a much more diverse set of manufacturers, and the part of the vehicle that they add has a very limited impact on opportunities to reduce GHG emissions and fuel consumption (given the limited role that aerodynamics plays in the types of lower speed operation typically found with vocational vehicles). Therefore, the proposed 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 request comment on our proposed focus on chassis manufacturers.

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 proposing two sets of standards for Class 2b-8 vocational vehicles. For vehicle-related emissions and fuel consumption, the agencies are proposing standards for chassis manufacturers: EPA CO

(g/ton-mile) standards and NHTSA fuel consumption (gal/1,000 ton-mile) standards). Also as in the case of Class 7 and 8 tractors, we propose to use GEM, a customized vehicle simulation model, to determine compliance with the vocational vehicle standards. The primary manufacturer-generated input

into the proposed compliance model for this category of trucks would 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. The model would also assume the use of a typical representative engine in the simulation, resulting in an overall value for CO

emissions and one for fuel consumption. As is the case for combination tractors, the manufacturers of the engines intended for vocational vehicles would be subject to separate engine-based standards.

(i) Proposed Standards for Class 2b-8 Vocational Vehicles

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, as proposed for combination tractors, EPA and NHTSA are proposing separate standards for the manufacturers of engines used in Class 2b-8 vocational vehicles. EPA's proposed engine-based CO

standards and NHTSA's proposed engine-based fuel consumption standards would vary based on the expected weight class and usage of the truck into which the engine would be installed. The agencies propose to use the groupings EPA currently uses for other heavy-duty engine standards—light heavy-duty, medium heavy-duty, and heavy heavy-duty, as discussed in Section II below.

Tire rolling resistance is closely related to the weight of the vehicle. Therefore, we propose that the vehicle-based standards for these trucks vary according to one key attribute, GVWR. For this initial HD rulemaking, we propose that these standards be 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 proposed vehicle-based standards because they parallel the general divisions among key engine characteristics, as discussed in Section II.

The agencies intend to monitor the development of and production feasibility of new vehicle-related GHG and fuel consumption reduction improving technologies and consider including these technologies in future rulemakings. As discussed below, 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. We also are proposing a mechanism whereby credits can be generated by use of other technologies not included in the compliance model. (

See

Sections I.E and IV below.)

Table I-3 presents EPA's proposed CO

standards and NHTSA's proposed fuel consumption standards for chassis manufacturers of Class 2b through Class 8 vocational vehicles for the 2017 model year for illustrative purposes.

EP30NO10.004

At this time, NHTSA and EPA are not prepared to propose alternative standards based on a whole-vehicle chassis test for vocational vehicles in this initial heavy-duty rulemaking. As discussed above for combination tractors, the primary reason is the very small number of chassis-test facilities that currently exist. Thus, the agencies are proposing only the compliance-model based standards and engine standards discussed above, and seek comment on the appropriateness of chassis-test-based standards for the vocational vehicle category.

For vocational vehicles using hybrid technology, the agencies are proposing two specialized approaches to allow manufacturers to gain credit for the emissions and fuel consumption reductions associated with hybrid technology. One option to account for the reductions associated with vocational vehicles using hybrid technology would compare vehicle-based chassis tests with and without the hybrid technology. The other option would allow a manufacturer to simulate the operation of the hybrid system in an engine-based test. The options are further discussed in Section IV.

The proposed program also provides for opportunities to generate credits for technologies not measured by the GEM, again described more fully in Section IV.

As mentioned above for Class 7 and 8 combination tractors, EPA believes that N

O and CH

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 is not proposing separate vehicle-based standards for these GHGs, but is proposing engine-based N

O and CH

standards for manufacturers of the engines to be used in vocational vehicles. EPA expects that

manufacturers of current engine technologies would be able to comply with the proposed “cap” standards with little or no technological improvements; the value of the standards would be in that they would prevent significant increases in these emissions as alternative technologies are developed and introduced in the future. Compliance with the proposed EPA engine-based CO

standards and the proposed NHTSA fuel consumption standards, as well as the proposed EPA N

O and CH

standards, would 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 proposing standards that would apply to Class 2b-8 vocational vehicles at the time of production, and EPA is proposing standards for a specified period of time in use. All of the proposed standards for these trucks, as well as details about the proposed provisions for certification and implementation of these standards, are discussed in more detail later in this notice and in the draft RIA.

EPA is not proposing A/C refrigerant leakage standards for Class 2b-8 vocational vehicles at this time, 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. EPA requests comment on how A/C standards might practically be applied to manufacturers of vocational vehicles.

(d) What Manufacturers Are Not Covered by the Proposed Standards?

EPA and NHTSA are proposing to temporarily defer the proposed 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. We are not aware of any manufacturers of HD pickups and vans that meet these criteria. For each of the other categories and for engines, we have identified a small number of manufacturers that would appear to qualify as small businesses. The production of these companies is small, and we believe 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. We request comment on our assumption that the impact of these exemptions for small businesses will be small and further whether it will be possible to circumvent the regulations by creating new small businesses to displace existing manufacturers. We discuss the specific deferral provisions 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.

D. Summary of Costs and Benefits of the HD National Program

This section summarizes the projected costs and benefits of the proposed NHTSA fuel consumption and EPA GHG emissions standards. These projections help to inform the agencies' choices among the alternatives considered and provide further confirmation that the proposed 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 and benefits of the proposed GHG and fuel consumption standards. Table I-4 shows estimated lifetime discounted costs, benefits and net benefits for all heavy-duty vehicles projected to be sold in model years 2014-2018. These figures depend on estimated values for the social cost of carbon (SCC), as described in Section VIII.G.

EP30NO10.005

Table I-5 shows the estimated lifetime reductions in CO

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-5 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-5 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.

EP30NO10.007

Table I-6 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 CO

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 CO

, in 2008 dollars and 2010 emissions. Table I-6 presents benefits based on the $22 value. Section VIII.F presents the four marginal values used to estimate monetized benefits of CO

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 fuel savings, energy security, and other externalities such as reduced accidents, congestion and noise. However, the analysis supporting the proposal omits other impacts such as benefits related to non-GHG emission reductions. The lifetime discounted benefits are shown for one of four different SCC values considered by EPA and NHTSA. The values in Table I-6 do not include costs associated with new technology required to meet the GHG and fuel consumption standards.

EP30NO10.008

Table I-7 shows the agencies' estimated lifetime fuel savings, lifetime CO

emission reductions, and the monetized net present values of those fuel savings and CO

emission reductions. The gallons of fuel and CO

emission reductions are projected lifetime values for all vehicles sold in the model years 2014-2018. The estimated fuel savings in billions of barrels and the GHG reductions in million metric tons of CO

shown in Table I-7 are totals for the five model years throughout their projected lifetime and are not discounted. The monetized values shown in Table I-7 are the summed values of the discounted monetized-fuel consumption and

monetized-CO

reductions for the five model years 2014-2018 throughout their lifetimes. The monetized values in Table I-7 reflect both a 3 percent and a 7 percent discount rate as noted.

EP30NO10.009

Table I-8 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-8 are for the industry as a whole and do not account for fuel savings associated with the program.

EP30NO10.010

Table I-9 shows EPA's estimated incremental cost increase of the average new heavy-duty vehicles for each model year 2014-2018. The values shown are incremental to a baseline vehicle and are not cumulative.

EP30NO10.011

BILLING CODE 6560-50-C

E. Program Flexibilities

For each of the heavy-duty vehicle and heavy-duty engine categories for which we are proposing respective standards, EPA and NHTSA are also proposing provisions designed to give manufacturers a degree of flexibility in complying with the standards. These proposed provisions have enabled the agencies to consider overall standards that are more stringent and that would 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.

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.

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 proposed flexibility provisions are essentially identical to each other in structure and function. For combination tractor and vocational vehicle categories and for heavy-duty engines, we are proposing 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 proposed ABT provisions are patterned on existing EPA ABT programs and would allow a vehicle manufacturer to reduce CO

emission and fuel consumption levels

further than the level of the standard for one or more vehicles to generate ABT credits. The manufacturer could then use those credits to offset higher emission or fuel consumption levels in other similar vehicles, “bank” the credits for later use, or “trade” the credits to another manufacturer. We are proposing similar ABT provisions for manufacturers of heavy-duty engines. For HD pickups and vans, we are proposing a fleet averaging system very similar to the light-duty GHG and CAFE fleet averaging system.

To best ensure that the overall emission and fuel consumption reductions of the program would be achieved and to minimize any effect on the ability of the market to respond to consumer needs, the agencies propose to restrict the use of averaging to limited sets of vehicles and engines expected to have similar emission or fuel consumption characteristics. For example, averaging would be allowed among Class 7 low-roof day cab vehicles, but not among those vehicles and Class 8 sleeper cabs or vocational vehicles. Also, we propose that credits generated by vehicles not be applicable to engine compliance, and vice versa. For HD pickups and vans, we propose that fleet averaging be allowed with minimum restriction within the HD pickup and van category.

In addition to ABT, the agencies are proposing that a manufacturer that reduces CO

emissions and fuel consumption below required levels prior to the beginning of the program be allowed to generate the same number of credits (“early credits”) that they would after the program begins.

The agencies are also proposing that manufacturers that show improvements in CO

emissions and fuel consumption and incorporate certain technologies (including hybrid powertrains, Rankine engines, or electric vehicles) be eligible for special “advanced technology” credits. Unlike other credits in this proposal, the advanced technology credits could be applied to any heavy-duty vehicle or engine, and not be limited to the vehicle category generating the credit.

The technologies eligible for advanced technology credits above lend themselves to straightforward methodologies for quantifying the emission or fuel consumption reductions. For other technologies which can reduce CO

and fuel consumption, but for which there do not yet exist established methods for quantifying reductions, the agencies still seek to encourage the development of such innovative technologies, and are therefore proposing special “innovative technology” credits. These innovative technology credits would 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. Manufacturers would need to quantify the reductions in fuel consumption and CO

emissions that the technology could achieve, above and beyond those achieved on the existing test procedures. As with ABT, we propose that the use of innovative technology credits be only allowed among vehicles and engines expected to have similar emissions and fuel consumption characteristics (

e.g.,

within each of the nine Class 7 & 8 combination tractor subcategories, or within each of the three Class 2b-8 vocational vehicle subcategories).

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 proposal implements a specific provision from Title II, section 202(a).

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 for greenhouse gases, section 202(a) authorizes EPA to issue standards applicable to emissions of those pollutants from new motor vehicles.

See

42 U.S.C. 7521(a).

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);

see also Hercules Inc.

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

Conway Corp.,

426 U.S. 271, 278 (1976) (same);

Exxon Mobil Gas Marketing Co.

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)).

(b) 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 CO

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

EISA authorizes NHTSA to create a fuel efficiency improvement program for “commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicles and work trucks”

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.

“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).

Since this is the first rulemaking that NHTSA has conducted under 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(2), the agency must interpret these elements and factors in the context of setting standards, choosing metrics, and determining test methods and compliance/enforcement mechanisms. 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. section 32902(k).

See

49 U.S.C. section 32902(b)(1). We note that 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. section 32902(b)(3)(B). For purposes of the fuel efficiency standards that the agency is proposing for HD vehicles and engines, NHTSA believes that one permissible reading of the statute is that Congress did not intend for the 5-year maximum limit to apply to standards promulgated in accordance with 49 U.S.C. section 32902(k), given the language in

32902(b)(1). Based on this interpretation, NHTSA proposes 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 seeks comment on this interpretation of EISA.

(a) NHTSA Testing Authority

49 U.S.C. 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.

(b) NHTSA Enforcement Authority

49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(2) also states that NHTSA must adopt and implement appropriate, cost-effective, and technologically feasible compliance and enforcement protocols for the fuel efficiency improvement program.

In 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(2), Congress did not speak directly to the “compliance and enforcement protocols” it envisioned. Instead, it left the matter generally to the Secretary. Congress' approach is unlike CAFE enforcement for passenger cars and light trucks, where Congress specified a program where a manufacturer either complies with standards or pays civil penalties. But Congress did not specify in 49 U.S.C. 32902(k) what it precisely meant in directing NHTSA to develop “compliance and enforcement protocols.” It appears, therefore, that Congress has assigned this matter to the agency's discretion.

The statute is silent with respect to how “protocol” should be interpreted. The term “protocol” is imprecise. 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.

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).

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.

State of Ohio

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 interprets “protocol” in the context of EISA as authorizing the agency to determine both whether manufacturers have complied with the standards, and to establish the enforcement mechanisms and decision criteria for non-compliance. NHTSA seeks comment on its interpretation of this statutory requirement.

G. Future HD GHG and Fuel Consumption Rulemakings

This proposal 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 propose 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 timeframe, our proposal is very aggressive—with limited lead time compared to historic heavy-duty regulations—but pragmatic in the context of technologies that are available.

While we are now only proposing this first step, it is worthwhile to consider how future regulations that may follow this step may be constructed. 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 would not be necessary to meet the proposed standards, which are premised on the use of existing technologies. When we begin our future 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 proposing 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 criteria and GHG emissions. However, we believe the important issues and technical work related to setting new criteria emissions standards appropriate for the World Harmonized Duty Cycle are significant and beyond the scope of this rulemaking. Therefore, the agencies are not proposing to adopt these test procedures in this proposal, but we are ready to work with interested stakeholders to adopt these procedures in a future action.

As with this proposal, 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. Proposed GHG and Fuel Consumption Standards for Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles

This section describes the standards and implementation dates that the agencies are proposing for the three categories of heavy-duty vehicles. The agencies have performed a technology analysis to determine the level of standards that we believe would be appropriate, cost-effective, and feasible during the rulemaking timeframe. This analysis, described in Section III and in more detail in the draft RIA Chapter 2, considered:

• The level of technology that is incorporated in current new trucks,

• The available data on corresponding CO

emissions and fuel consumption for these vehicles,

• Technologies that would reduce CO

emissions and fuel consumption and that are judged to be feasible and appropriate for these vehicles through 2018 model year,

• The effectiveness and cost of these technologies,

• Projections of future U.S. sales for trucks, and

• Forecasts of manufacturers' product redesign schedules.

A. What vehicles would be affected?

EPA and NHTSA are proposing standards for heavy-duty engines and also for what we refer to generally as “heavy-duty trucks.” As noted in Section I, for purposes of this preamble, the term “heavy-duty” or “HD” is used to apply 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 proposed 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.

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.

Therefore, the term “heavy-duty trucks” in this proposal refers to both work trucks and commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicles as defined by EISA. Heavy-duty engines affected by the proposed standards are those that are installed in commercial medium- and heavy-duty trucks, 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. EPA is proposing to include recreational on-highway vehicles within their rulemaking, while NHTSA is limiting their scope to commercial trucks which would not include these vehicles.

Codified at 49 U.S.C. 32901(a)(7).

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.,

pick-up box or bed) of six feet or more in interior length. (

See

the Tier 2 final rulemaking, 65 FR 6698, February 10, 2000.)

EPA and NHTSA are proposing 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, the agencies are proposing to set separate engine and vehicle standards for the combination tractors and the Class 2b through 8 vocational vehicles and the engines installed in them. The engine standards and test procedures for engines installed in the tractors and vocational vehicles are discussed within the applicable vehicle sections.

Both agencies have authority to develop separate standards for vehicle and engine categories, as appropriate.

See

CAA section 202(a)(1) (authority to establish standards for “any class or classes of new motor vehicles or engines” and 49 U.S.C 32902(k)(2) (authority to establish standards for HD vehicles that are “appropriate, cost-effective, and technologically feasible” that are designed to achieve the “maximum feasible improvement” in fuel efficiency; authority to establish “separate standards for different classes of vehicles under this subsection.” NHTSA interprets 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(2) to include a grant of authority to establish engines standards pursuant to the broader statement of authority to establish standards that achieve the maximum feasible improvement in fuel efficiency.

• Class 7 and 8 Combination Tractors.

• Heavy-Duty Pickup Trucks and Vans.

• Class 2b through 8 Vocational Vehicles.

As discussed in Section IX, the agencies are not proposing GHG emission and fuel consumption standards for trailers at this time. In addition, the agencies are proposing to not set standards at this time for engine, chassis, and vehicle manufacturers which are small businesses (as defined). More detailed discussion of each regulatory category is included in the subsequent sections below.

B. Class 7 and 8 Combination Tractors

EPA is proposing CO

standards and NHTSA is proposing fuel consumption standards for new Class 7 and 8 combination tractors. The standards are for the tractor cab, with a separate standard for the engines that are installed in the tractor. Together these standards would achieve reductions up to 20 percent from tractors. As discussed below, EPA is proposing to adopt the existing useful life definitions for heavy-duty engines for the Class 7 and 8 tractors. NHTSA is proposing fuel consumption standards for tractors, and engine standards for heavy-duty engines for Class 7 and 8 tractors. The agencies' analyses, as discussed briefly below and in more detail later in this preamble and in the draft RIA Chapter 2, show that these standards are appropriate and feasible under each agency's respective statutory authorities.

EPA is also proposing standards to control N

O, CH

, and HFC emissions from Class 7 and 8 combination tractors. The proposed heavy-duty engine standards for both N

O and CH

and details of the standard are included in the discussion in Section II. The proposed air conditioning leakage standards applying to tractor manufacturers to address HFC emissions are included in Section II.

The agencies are proposing CO

emissions and fuel consumption standards for the combination tractors that will focus on reductions that can be achieved through improvements in the tractor (such as aerodynamics), tires, and other vehicle systems. The agencies are also proposing heavy-duty engine standards for CO

emissions and fuel consumption that would focus on potential technological improvements in fuel combustion and overall engine efficiency.

The agencies have analyzed the feasibility of achieving the CO

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

standards in Section III. In developing the proposed 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 CO

and fuel savings that may be achieved.

EPA and NHTSA are proposing attribute-based standards for the Class 7 and 8 combination tractors, or, put another way, we are proposing to set 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 CO

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 recent light-duty vehicle fuel economy and GHG rule, in which the standards are based on the attribute of vehicle “footprint,” the existing heavy-duty highway engine criteria pollutant emission standards for many years have been based on a vehicle weight attribute (Light Heavy, Medium Heavy, Heavy Heavy) with different useful life periods, which is the same approach proposed for the engine GHG and fuel consumption standards discussed below.

Heavy-duty combination tractors are built to move freight. The ability of a truck 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 combined 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 80,000 pound GCWR. Consistent with the recommendation in the National Academy of Sciences 2010 Report to NHTSA,

the agencies are proposing 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 trucks have better specific fuel consumption and GHG emissions than lower payload capacity trucks. Therefore, since the amount of payload that a Class 7 truck can carry is less than the Class 8 truck'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 proposing separate standards for Class 7 and Class 8 tractors.

See

2010 NAS Report, Note 19, Recommendation 2-1.

The agencies are not proposing to set 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 is 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 vehicle 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 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 proposing that the roof height of the tractor determine the trailer type required to be used to demonstrate compliance of a truck with the fuel consumption and CO

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 customarily tied 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.

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 proposing to create separate standards for sleeper cabs and day cabs.

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).

To account for the relevant combinations of these attributes, the agencies therefore propose to segment 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

The agencies have not identified any Class 7 or Class 8 day cabs with mid roof heights in the market today but welcome comments with regard to this market characterization.

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. The agencies propose to treat tractors with adjustable roof fairings as low roof tractors and test with the fairing down. The agencies welcome comments on this approach and data to support whether to allow additional credits for their use.

The agencies are proposing to classify all vehicles with sleeper cabs as tractors. The proposed rules would not allow vehicles with sleeper cabs to be classified as vocational vehicles. This provision is intended prevent the initial manufacture of straight truck vocational vehicles with sleeper cabs that, soon after introduction into commerce, would be converted to combination tractors, as a means to circumvent the Class 8 sleeper cab regulations. The agencies welcome comments on the likelihood of manufacturers using such an approach to circumvent the regulations and the appropriate regulatory provisions the agencies should consider to prevent such actions.

(1) What are the proposed Class 7 and 8 tractor and engine CO

emissions and fuel consumption standards and their timing?

In developing the proposed tractor and engine standards, 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 engines, the associated lead time, the associated costs for the industry, fuel savings for the consumer, and the magnitude of the CO

and fuel savings that may be achieved. The technologies that the agencies considered while setting the proposed tractor standards include improvements in aerodynamic design, lower rolling resistance tires, extended idle reduction technologies, and vehicle empty weight reduction. The technologies that the agencies considered while setting the engine standards include engine friction reduction, aftertreatment optimization, and turbocompounding, among others. The agencies' evaluation indicates that these technologies are available today, but have very low application rates in the market. The agencies have analyzed the technical feasibility of achieving the proposed CO

and fuel consumption standards for tractors and engines, based on projections of what actions manufacturers would be expected to take to reduce emissions and fuel consumption to achieve the standards. 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 draft RIA Chapter 2.

(a) Tractor Standards

The agencies are proposing the following standards for Class 7 and 8 combination tractors in Table II-1, using the subcategorization approach just explained. As noted, the agencies are not aware of any mid roof day cab tractors at this time, but are proposing that any Class 7 and 8 day cabs with a mid roof would meet the respective low roof standards, based on the similarity in baseline performance and similarity in expected improvement of mid roof sleeper cabs relative to low roof sleeper cabs.

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 proposing standards starting for that model year predicated on performance of those technologies. EPA is proposing more stringent tractor standards for the 2017 model year which reflect the CO

emissions reductions required through the 2017 model year engine standards. (As explained in Section II.B.(2)(h)(v) below, engine performance is one of the inputs into the proposed 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 proposed standards apply throughout the useful life period as described in Section V. Similar to EPA's non-GHG standards approach, manufacturers may generate and use credits from Class 7 and 8 combination tractors to show compliance with the standards.

NHTSA is proposing 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 and stability requirement within EISA. NHTSA is also proposing new standards for the 2017 model year which reflect additional improvements in only the heavy-duty engines. While NHTSA proposes to 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 currently anticipated there will be notable deterioration of fuel consumption over the useful life. NHTSA believes that the vehicle and engine standards proposed for combination tractors are appropriate, cost-effective, and technologically feasible in the rulemaking timeframe based on our analysis detailed below in Section III and in the Chapter 2 of the draft RIA.

EPA and NHTSA are not proposing to make the 2017 vehicle standards more stringent based on the application of additional truck technologies because projected application rates of truck technologies used in setting the 2014 model year truck standard already reflect the maximum application rates we believe appropriate for these vehicles given their specific use patterns as described in Section III. We considered setting more stringent standards for Class 7 and 8 tractors based on the application of more advanced aerodynamic systems, such as self-compensating side extenders or other advanced aerodynamic technologies, but concluded that those

technologies would not be fully developed in the necessary lead time. We request comment on this decision, supported by data as appropriate.

EP30NO10.012

Based on

our analysis, the 2017 model year standards represent up to a 20 percent reduction in CO

emissions and fuel consumption over a 2010 model year baseline, as detailed in Section III.A.2.

Manufacturers may voluntarily opt-in to the NHTSA fuel consumption program in 2014 or 2015. If a manufacturer opts-in, the program becomes mandatory.

See

Section [add cross reference] below for more information about NHTSA's voluntary opt-in program for MYs 2014 and 2015.

(i) Off-Road Tractor Standards

In developing the proposal EPA and NHTSA received comment from manufacturers and owners that tractors sometimes have very limited on-road usage. These trucks are defined to be motor vehicles under 40 CFR 85.1703, but they will spend the majority of their operations off-road. Tractors, such as those used in oil fields, will experience little benefit from improved aerodynamics and low rolling resistance tires. The agencies are therefore proposing to allow a narrow range of these de facto off-road trucks to be excluded from the proposed tractor standards because the trucks do not travel at speeds high enough to realize aerodynamic improvements and require special off-road tires such as lug tires. The trucks must still use a certified engine, which will provide fuel consumption and CO

emission reductions to the truck in all applications. To ensure the limited use of these trucks, the agencies are proposing requirements that the vehicles have off-road tires, have limited high speed operation, and are designed for specific off-road applications.

The agencies are proposing that a truck must meet the following requirements to qualify for an exemption from the vehicle standards for Class 7 and 8 tractors:

For purposes of compliance with NHTSA's safety regulations, such as FMVSS Nos. 119 and 121, a manufacturer wishing for their vehicle to classify as “off-road” would still need to work with the relevant NHTSA office to declare its vehicle as “off-road” if it uses public roads at any point in its service.

• Installed tires which are lug tires or contain a speed rating of less than or equal to 60 mph; and

• Include a vehicle speed limiter governed to 55 mph, and

• Contain Power Take-Off controls, or have axle configurations other than 4x2, 6x2, or 6x4 and has GVWR greater than 57,000 pounds; and

• Has a frame Resisting Bending Moment greater than 2,000,000 lb-in.

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.

EPA and NHTSA have concluded that the onroad performance losses and additional costs to develop a truck which meets these specifications will limit the exemption to trucks built for

the desired purposes.

The agencies welcome comment on the proposed requirements and exemptions.

The estimated cost for a lift axle is approximately $10,000. Axles with weight ratings greater than a typical on-road axle cost an additional $3,000.

(b) Engine Standards

EPA is proposing GHG standards and NHTSA is proposing fuel consumption standards for new heavy-duty engines. The standards will vary depending on the type of vehicle in which they are used, as well as whether the engines are diesel or gasoline powered. This section discusses the standards for engines used in Class 7 and 8 combination tractors and also provides some overall background information. More information is also provided in the discussion of the standards for engines used in vocational vehicles.

EPA's existing criteria pollutant emissions regulations for heavy-duty highway engines establish four regulatory categories that represent the engine's intended and primary truck application.

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 regulatory subcategory. The engines in these four regulatory subcategories range in size between approximately five liters and sixteen liters. The agencies welcome comments on updating the definitions of each subcategory, such as the typical horsepower levels, as described in 40 CFR 1036.140.

See

40 CFR 1036.140.

For the purposes of the GHG engine emissions and engine fuel consumption standards that EPA and NHTSA are proposing, the agencies intend to maintain these same four regulatory subcategories. This class structure would enable the agencies to set standards that appropriately reflect the technology available for engines for use in each type of vehicle, and that are therefore technologically feasible for these engines. This section discusses the MHD and HHD diesel engines used in Class 7 and 8 combination tractors. Additional details regarding the other heavy-duty engine standards are included in Section II.D.1.b.

EPA's proposed heavy-duty CO

emission standards for diesel engines installed in combination tractors are presented in Table II-2. We should note that this does not cover gasoline or LHDD engines as they are not used in Class 7 and 8 combination tractors. Similar to EPA's non-GHG standards approach, manufacturers may generate and use credits to show compliance with the standards. EPA is proposing to adopt the existing useful life definitions for heavy-duty engines. The EPA standards would become effective in the 2014 model year, with more stringent standards becoming effective in model year 2017. Recently, EPA's heavy-duty highway engine program for criteria pollutants provided new emissions standards for the industry in three year increments. Largely, the heavy-duty engine and truck manufacturer product plans have fallen into three year cycles to reflect this regulatory environment. The proposed two-step CO

emission standards recognize the opportunity for technology improvements over this timeframe while reflecting the typical diesel truck manufacturers' product plan cycles.

With respect to the lead time and cost of incorporating technology improvements that reduce GHG emissions and fuel consumption, EPA and NHTSA place important weight on the fact that during MYs 2014-2017 engine manufacturers are expected to redesign and upgrade their products. 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 proposed GHG and fuel consumption reductions, and to do this as part of the normal engine redesign process. This is an important aspect of the proposed 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. 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.

NHTSA's fuel consumption standards, also presented in Table II-2, would contain voluntary engine standards starting in 2014 model year, with mandatory engine standards starting in 2017 model year, harmonized with EPA's 2017 model year standards. A manufacturer may opt-in to NHTSA's voluntary standards in 2014, 2015 or 2016. Once a manufacturer opts-in, the standards become mandatory for the opt-in and subsequent model years, and the manufacturer may not reverse its decision. To opt into the program, a manufacturer must declare its intent to opt in to the program at the same time it submits the Pre-Certification Compliance Report. See 49 CFR 535.8 for information related to the Pre-Certification Compliance Report. A manufacturer opting into the program would begin tracking credits and debits beginning in the model year in which they opt into the program.

EP30NO10.013

Combination 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 would be required to meet the standard based on the steady-state SET test cycle, as discussed further in Section II.B(2)(i).

The baseline HHD diesel engine performance in 2010 model year on the SET is 490 g CO

/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. Similarly, the baseline MHD diesel engine performance on the SET cycle is 518 g CO

/bhp-hr (5.09 gallon/100-bhp-hr) in the 2010 model year. Further discussion of the derivation of the baseline can be found in Section III The diesel engine standards that EPA is proposing and the voluntary standards being proposed by NHTSA for the 2014 model year would require diesel engine manufacturers to achieve on average a three percent reduction in fuel consumption and CO

emissions over the baseline 2010 model year performance for the engines. The agencies' assessment of the findings of the 2010 NAS Report and other literature sources indicates that there are technologies available to reduce fuel consumption by this

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.