# Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2010-28120 ## Record - **Collection:** Federal Register - **Document type:** Proposed Rule - **Published:** November 30, 2010 - **Citation:** 75 FR 74152 ## 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 2 ) 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 2 O) and methane (CH 4 ) emissions standards would apply to all heavy-duty engines, pickup trucks, and vans. EPA is also requesting comment on possible alternative CO 2 -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. 1 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 2 -equivalent approaches for model year 2012-14 light-duty vehicles. Potentially affected categories and entities include the following: 1 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. 2 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 . 2 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. 3 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. 3 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 2 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 2 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.” 4 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. 4 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 5 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. 5 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. 6 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. 7 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.” 8 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. 6 Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards; Final Rule 75 FR 25323,(May 7, 2010). 7 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. 8 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. 9 The primary GHGs of concern are carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), methane (CH 4 ), nitrous oxide (N 2 O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF 6 ). 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. 10 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. 11 Heavy-duty vehicles emit CO 2 , CH 4 , N 2 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 2 emissions represented more than 99 percent of all GHG emissions (including HFCs). 12 9 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. 10 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 . 11 See Endangerment TSD, Note 9, above, at pp. 180-194. 12 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. 13 13 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. 14 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. 14 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 2 tailpipe emissions. For all vehicles that consume carbon-based fuels, the amount of CO 2 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 2 emitted into the air. The technologies available for improving fuel efficiency, and therefore for reducing both CO 2 emissions and fuel consumption, are one and the same. 15 Because of this close technical relationship, NHTSA and EPA have been able to rely on jointly-developed assumptions, analyses, and analytical conclusions to support the standards and other provisions that NHTSA and EPA are proposing under our separate legal authorities. 15 However, as discussed below, in addition to addressing CO 2 , 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 X ). 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 X 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. 16 16 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; 17 and 17 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) 18 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. 18 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.” 19 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). 19 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 2 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). 20 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. 20 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. 21 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. 21 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. 22 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. 22 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. 23 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. 23 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 2 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. 24 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 2 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. EPA is also proposing engine-based N 2 O and CH 4 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 2 O and CH 4 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 2 standards and the proposed NHTSA fuel consumption standards, as well as the proposed EPA N 2 O and CH 4 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 2 and engine-based standards for N 2 O, and CH 4 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 2 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. 25 25 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 2 g/mi standard, and EPA took into account the expected use of such credits in establishing the CO 2 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 2 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 2 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. 25 25 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 2 from a heavy-duty tractor as compared to those from a light-duty vehicle mean that the relative amount of CO 2 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). 27 27 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). 28 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. 28 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 2 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 2 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 2 emission standards and the proposed NHTSA fuel consumption standards for HD pickups and vans, EPA is also proposing standards for two additional GHGs, N 2 O and CH 4 , 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. (c) Class 2b-8 Vocational Vehicles Class 2b-8 vocational vehicles consist of a wide variety of vehicle types. Some of the primary applications for vehicles in this segment include delivery, refuse, utility, dump, and cement trucks; transit, shuttle, and school buses; emergency vehicles, motor homes, 29 tow trucks, among others. These vehicles and their engines contribute approximately 15 percent of today's heavy-duty truck sector GHG emissions. 29 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 2 (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 2 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 2 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 2 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 2 O and CH 4 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 2 O and CH 4 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 2 standards and the proposed NHTSA fuel consumption standards, as well as the proposed EPA N 2 O and CH 4 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 2 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 2 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 2 , 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 2 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 2 emission reductions, and the monetized net present values of those fuel savings and CO 2 emission reductions. The gallons of fuel and CO 2 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 2 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 2 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. 30 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. 30 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 2 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 2 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 2 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 2 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 2 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). 31 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. 31 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 NRDC v. EPA , 655 F.2d 318, 322 (DC Cir. 1981)). EPA is afforded considerable discretion under section 202(a) when assessing issues of technical feasibility and availability of lead time to implement new technology. Such determinations are “subject to the restraints of reasonableness”, which “does not open the door to `crystal ball' inquiry.” NRDC , 655 F.2d at 328, quoting International Harvester Co . v. Ruckelshaus , 478 F.2d 615, 629 (DC Cir. 1973). However, “EPA is not obliged to provide detailed solutions to every engineering problem posed in the perfection of the trap-oxidizer. In the absence of theoretical objections to the technology, the agency need only identify the major steps necessary for development of the device, and give plausible reasons for its belief that the industry will be able to solve those problems in the time remaining. The EPA is not required to rebut all speculation that unspecified factors may hinder `real world' emission control.” NRDC, 655 F.2d at 333-34. In developing such technology-based standards, EPA has the discretion to consider different standards for appropriate groupings of vehicles (“class or classes of new motor vehicles”), or a single standard for a larger grouping of motor vehicles ( NRDC, 655 F.2d at 338). Although standards under CAA section 202(a)(1) are technology-based, they are not based exclusively on technological capability. EPA has the discretion to consider and weigh various factors along with technological feasibility, such as the cost of compliance ( see section 202(a)(2)), lead time necessary for compliance (section 202(a)(2)), safety ( see NRDC, 655 F.2d at 336 n. 31) and other impacts on consumers, and energy impacts associated with use of the technology. See George E. Warren Corp. v. EPA , 159 F.3d 616, 623-624 (DC Cir. 1998) (ordinarily permissible for EPA to consider factors not specifically enumerated in the CAA). See also Entergy Corp . v. Riverkeeper, Inc. , 129 S.Ct. 1498, 1508-09 (2009) (congressional silence did not bar EPA from employing cost-benefit analysis under the Clean Water Act absent some other clear indication that such analysis was prohibited; rather, silence indicated discretion to use or not use such an approach as the agency deems appropriate). In addition, EPA has clear authority to set standards under CAA section 202(a) that are technology forcing when EPA considers that to be appropriate, but is not required to do so (as compared to standards set under provisions such as section 202(a)(3) and section 213(a)(3)). EPA has interpreted a similar statutory provision, CAA section 231, as follows: While the statutory language of section 231 is not identical to other provisions in title II of the CAA that direct EPA to establish technology-based standards for various types of engines, EPA interprets its authority under section 231 to be somewhat similar to those provisions that require us to identify a reasonable balance of specified emissions reduction, cost, safety, noise, and other factors. See, e.g., Husqvarna AB v. EPA, 254 F.3d 195 (DC Cir. 2001) (upholding EPA's promulgation of technology-based standards for small non-road engines under section 213(a)(3) of the CAA). However, EPA is not compelled under section 231 to obtain the “greatest degree of emission reduction achievable” as per sections 213 and 202 of the CAA, and so EPA does not interpret the Act as requiring the agency to give subordinate status to factors such as cost, safety, and noise in determining what standards are reasonable for aircraft engines. Rather, EPA has greater flexibility under section 231 in determining what standard is most reasonable for aircraft engines, and is not required to achieve a “technology forcing” result (70 FR 69664 and 69676, November 17, 2005). This interpretation was upheld as reasonable in NACAA v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1221, 1230 (DC Cir. 2007). CAA section 202(a) does not specify the degree of weight to apply to each factor, and EPA accordingly has discretion in choosing an appropriate balance among factors. See Sierra Club v. EPA, 325 F.3d 374, 378 (DC Cir. 2003) (even where a provision is technology-forcing, the provision “does not resolve how the Administrator should weigh all [the statutory] factors in the process of finding the `greatest emission reduction achievable’ ”). Also see Husqvarna AB v. EPA, 254 F.3d 195, 200 (DC Cir. 2001) (great discretion to balance statutory factors in considering level of technology-based standard, and statutory requirement “to [give appropriate] consideration to the cost of applying * * * technology” does not mandate a specific method of cost analysis); see also Hercules Inc. v. EPA, 598 F.2d 91, 106 (DC Cir. 1978) (“In reviewing a numerical standard the agencies must ask whether the agency's numbers are within a zone of reasonableness, not whether its numbers are precisely right”); Permian Basin Area Rate Cases, 390 U.S. 747, 797 (1968) (same); Federal Power Commission v. Conway Corp., 426 U.S. 271, 278 (1976) (same); Exxon Mobil Gas Marketing Co. v. FERC, 297 F.3d 1071, 1084 (DC Cir. 2002) (same). (a) EPA Testing Authority Under section 203 of the CAA, sales of vehicles are prohibited unless the vehicle is covered by a certificate of conformity. EPA issues certificates of conformity pursuant to section 206 of the Act, based on (necessarily) pre-sale testing conducted either by EPA or by the manufacturer. The Heavy-duty Federal Test Procedure (Heavy-duty FTP) and the Supplemental Engine Test (SET) are used for this purpose. Compliance with standards is required not only at certification but throughout a vehicle's useful life, so that testing requirements may continue post-certification. Useful life standards may apply an adjustment factor to account for vehicle emission control deterioration or variability in use (section 206(a)). (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 2 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” 32 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. 31 “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. Kenn [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2010-28120. Public record. Not legal advice.